Live Debate: Commons Chamber

Urgent Question: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on asylum hotels and illegal channel crossings.

Right, Right, the Right, the urgent Right, the urgent question, Right, the urgent question, Chris Mills.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement on asylum hotels and

12:44

Rt Hon Maria Eagle MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Liverpool Garston, Labour)

- -

a statement on asylum hotels and illegal immigrants crossing the Channel. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. As the right honourable member is aware, the Home Office discharges its statutory duties to provide accommodation and support and to guide asylum seekers through the seven asylum seekers contracts which were permitted by the previous government, commencing in 2019. They are split between three providers including Serco. Significant elements of one of the subcontractors fell short of what we would expect from a government supplier and that is why the Home Office has informed Clear Springs Ready Homes it must exit the arrangement with Belvedere hotels' subcontractor.

We will not hesitate to take further action with respect to Clear Springs and the wider supply chain if necessary. We are conducting a full audit and expect the highest standards from those contracted to provide essential services and the government will always hold them to account for delivery, performance, value for money. Where there are concerns about how contractors or subcontractors are discharging contractual obligations, we will not hesitate to take quick and decisive actions. I will not give a running commentary but I want to assure the House that whatever the position, the Home Office remains focused on retaining continuity of service and ensuring statutory obligations are met at all times and that there are contingency plans in this regard.

None of this takes away from our commitment to reduce and cut the huge cost of asylum hotels which remains our priority. In relation to Channel crossings, the government has put forward a serious and credible plan to restore order to the asylum system including tougher enforcement powers, ramping up returns to the highest level for more than five years and a major crackdown on illegal working to end the false promise of jobs used by gangs to sell species on boats. Increased law enforcement action and disruption is already showing some indication of the pressure on business models of gangs and we are introducing new powers for law enforcement to use against the vile trade on people smuggling and trade on people smuggling and

12:46

Rt Hon Chris Philp MP (Croydon South, Conservative)

- -

Thank you Mr Speaker. Last summer the government was elected on a promise to end the use of asylum hotels. It has now been nine months. Let's see how they are getting on. The use of asylum hotels has gone up in fact by 8000 since the general election. 38,000 mainly illegal immigrants are now in those hotels, costing hard-working taxpayers around £2 billion each year. It is completely unacceptable for taxpayers footing the bill this size. The people living in those hotels broke our laws by coming here from France.

France is a manifestly safe country. No one needs to leave France. I have a very simple question for the Minister. When will they end the use of asylum hotels? The government also promised last summer the election and subsequently to smash the gangs. That promise now lies in tatters. In the nine months since the election, 29,162 people have illegally crossed the English Channel. That is a 31% increase on the same period 12 months before. This year, 2025, is even worse.

Since 1 January, more people have crossed the English Channel illegally than in any year in history. It is 38% worse than the previous worst year. Things are getting worse not better. They have not smashed the gangs, they have capitulated to them. She mentions returns. Most of these returns do not relate to people who arrive by small boats. In fact those people being returned who did come by small boats amounts to only about 4% of small boat arrivals. Quite how letting 96% of people arrive stay here is any deterrent, I don't know.

We saw press briefings at the weekend made to the press not to Parliament, that the government is now considering some kind of offshore removal scheme. Sounds vaguely familiar. It seems at last they have realised some kind of removals deterrent is needed. Will the Minister now apologised for cancelling the Rwanda deterrent before it even started? As a consequence, losing control of our borders.

12:49

Rt Hon Maria Eagle MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Liverpool Garston, Labour)

- -

Thank you Mr Speaker. I am not going to take any lessons from the Minister who in his last three months as Immigration Minister saw nearly 10,000 people across the channel in small boats. And is complaining that half of that level has happened in the last three months. I won't either take any lessons from the Minister who was in a government that presided over 56,000 people being in hotels in over 400 hotels. We are getting a grip of this problem.

By starting asylum processing once more. We inherited a huge backlog because there was a 70% fall in asylum processing in the run-up to the general election. They left us with a huge backlog with over 100,000 people stuck without being processed in the asylum system. We are getting a grip of that. By definition, because of the backlog and chaos that they left us, this is taking time. time.

12:50

Chris Murray MP (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh, Labour)

- -

Thank you Mr Speaker. Does the Minister share my astonishment at the shadow home secretary's argument, given that they wasted tens of millions of pounds on accommodation that could be used, and billions on hotels, it is an unbelievable state of the asylum system that we inherited. Will the Minister commit to reforming that seriously dysfunctional system and scrutinising the asylum contracts with providers when they come up for their break clause next year? their break clause next year?

12:51

Rt Hon Maria Eagle MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Liverpool Garston, Labour)

- -

Mr Deputy Speaker, Mr Speaker, we did inherit a system in chaos. And we inherited a series of asylum contracts that were 10 years along with billions of pounds with a break clause coming up in 2026. So we are looking seriously at what we can do to get better value for public money in these contracts that we inherited. I have to say, the action of Belvedere Hotels Ltd is an example of the work we are doing to drive better value in the contracts we have inherited.

We won't tolerate the behaviour of subcontractors or contractors who don't provide good value for money. That is why we insisted that Belvedere Hotels were removed from the supply chain. removed from the supply chain.

12:52

Lisa Smart MP (Hazel Grove, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Thaci Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to be back in the chamber. And to hear the shadow Home Secretary's greatest hits of conservative failures from the last Parliament. Whether that is cut to neighbourhood policing all the woeful handling of the asylum system under the previous government in which she was a Home Office minister. Of course the Home Office should ensure asylum accommodation providers deliver value for money, safety, and security. But tinkering with contracts won't change the fact that asylum hotels are the loose lips that eat up taxpayers money and leave councils and communities to sort out the mess.

Picking dates at random, the share of asylum applications that received an initial decision in six months fell from 83% in the second quarter of 2015 to just 6% towards the end of the last government's time in office. When does the Minister think the processing of applications will speed up so that the backlog will come down, so communities like my will get you to their hotels back and those granted refugee status will integrate and contribute to our economy?

12:53

Rt Hon Maria Eagle MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Liverpool Garston, Labour)

- -

I agree with the honourable lady that the shadow Home Secretary sounds like a broken record. We are well used to him running that argument in this place. I agree with her also that key to dealing with hotels is to get the system back up and running from the chaos that it was in. I tell her that asylum processing has ramped up considerably. We are getting through the backlog that we inherited. There is also by definition a huge backlog in the appeals system, partly caused in the appeals system, partly caused by the legacy appeal, the dash two Enda legacy appeal head of the fantasy Rwanda scheme beginning for top this has led to a big backlog and we are looking to see what we can do.

It is important we get a fast and fair system from end-to- end. And that includes appeals. end. And that includes appeals.

12:54

Mr Paul Foster MP (South Ribble, Labour)

- -

Because the previous government lost complete control of our borders, the Leyland hotel in my constituency was closed down three years ago. And used for asylum seekers. There is a chronic undersupply of hotels in central Lancashire. Care Minister's piece provides an indication as to when it will cease to be used as an asylum hotel? I ask this question everything a week. everything a week.

12:54

Rt Hon Maria Eagle MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Liverpool Garston, Labour)

- -

I want to get out of hotels as quickly as is feasible. I'm not going to name particular dates because that is a pointless thing to do. The thing is we have to get through the appeals system, and the first asylum processing system so we can move people through the system more quickly. We also need to continue our work on returns. We have ramped those up. So that there has been a huge increase in people returns, the highest figures for the last five years, and we intend to continue with that process.

12:55

Rt Hon Dame Karen Bradley MP (Staffordshire Moorlands, Conservative)

- -

Chair of the Select Committee. reporting that the earliest a contract can actually be broken in September next year. Could the Minister confirm whether that is the case and what liability does the taxpayer have for a contract ending today that we can't get out of until September next year?

12:56

Rt Hon Maria Eagle MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Liverpool Garston, Labour)

- -

Mr Speaker, the right honourable lady is talking about the prime contractor which in this case is there, but with the other two clauses, break clauses, we have approval for sub-prime contractors. State Belvedere Hotels, we have withdrawn to be in the supply chain.

12:56

Ms Stella Creasy MP (Walthamstow, Labour )

- -

The shadow Home Secretary has a nerve coming to this house when those of us in communities who saw the damage for the contract that he managed done to the public purse. Shall we revisit some of those greatest hits? His contract put councils against each other, pushing up prices making it impossible for local communities to help those house. He caused absolute chaos, I have my hands on one of the lessons that his government was presenting to people who are refugees, doing them less than five days notice when they were being moved full stop school places had to be hastily reorganised, children had to be hastily reclosable because a decision to make your public funds.

There were no savings to be made in the way in which he managed the contract. Will my right honourable friend make a commitment and pledged all of us who had to deal with ClearSprings and their chaotic management that when she has the opportunity to renegotiate contracts, possibly regular good, she will put public value for money first and not repeat the chaos of the shadow Home Secretary?

12:57

Rt Hon Maria Eagle MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Liverpool Garston, Labour)

- -

Thank you Mr Speaker. We are doing all we can with the existing contract to drive value for money. We are also looking to pilot some other potential alternatives.

12:57

Rt Hon Sir Edward Leigh MP (Gainsborough, Conservative)

- -

Father of the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Under the Refugee Convention, you can automatically deport illegal migrants who come here. But under the Convention on Human Rights you cannot. I had 25th Amendment moved cannot. I had 25th Amendment moved on my behalf in committee on the subject and I hope with your permission that it will get to permission that it will get to report stage. I know the Minister can't answer absolutely now that we

12:58

Rt Hon Maria Eagle MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Liverpool Garston, Labour)

- -

can't answer absolutely now that we look at this amendment in a constructive spirit, surely we can all agree we don't want criminals entering this country illegally?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I certainly agree with that Father of the House on that subject. Father of the House on that subject. We had a small but perfectly formed

12:58

Rt Hon John McDonnell MP (Hayes and Harlington, Independent)

- -

debate, albeit in his absence, on his new clause. I look forward to debating that with him when he gets to report stage of the border

**** Possible New Speaker ****

security bill. I think I've still got the largest number of asylum seekers in largest number of asylum seekers in my constituency, over 2000. And I have expects of States Belvedere and have expects of States Belvedere and ClearSprings. It would be helpful if new contractual arrangements would have full consultation with have full consultation with organisations that are working and supporting asylum seekers so lessons

12:58

Rt Hon Maria Eagle MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Liverpool Garston, Labour)

- -

can be learnt about past performance and to encourage future performance.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Mr Speaker. I am more than happy to meet with the than happy to meet with the honourable gentleman to talk about his experience on the ground with his experience on the ground with respect both to State Belvedere

12:59

Tim Farron MP (Westmorland and Lonsdale, Liberal Democrat)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hotels and ClearSprings. Hope I'm not any person here was utterly depressed by the lack of compassion shown by the shadow Home compassion shown by the shadow Home Secretary. Recognising that the people we are talking about are people who are faced horrors we can barely imagine. Could this not be barely imagine. Could this not be faced in a more thoughtful way. Would it be a wise thing to reduce cost to the taxpayer and to help cost to the taxpayer and to help those successful asylum seekers to integrate, to allow people who are

12:59

Rt Hon Maria Eagle MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Liverpool Garston, Labour)

- -

asylum seekers to work after a year?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr Speaker, those asylum seekers who have not had their claims processed within the year are allowed, through no fault of their allowed, through no fault of their own, are allowed access to. I'm unconvinced that allowing Access to unconvinced that allowing Access to Work earlier would do anything but create more of a demand for people

13:00

Mike Tapp MP (Dover and Deal, Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to come here. It is widely accepted across the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is widely accepted across the whole country and in my constituency that the Conservatives left us with that the Conservatives left us with open borders. 150,000 crossings on their watch. And an opening of 400 asylum hotels costing our taxpayers £9 million per day. This government has already established the Border Security Command. We have deported 19,000, record numbers, up 24% from what the opposition could achieve. We are bringing in counterterror powers to take on smuggling gangs. Does the Minister agree that the opposition needs to get behind our bill so that those powers can empower the National Crime Agency to take out smuggling gangs?

13:01

Rt Hon Maria Eagle MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Liverpool Garston, Labour)

- -

Thaci Mr Speaker. My honourable friend is correct that the border security bill before the house, and through its committee stage, will create a counterterrorism style powers which will help us to prevent some of these crossings to disrupt the sophisticated criminal smuggling gangs that were allowed to take hold across the channel unabated by the party opposite. So we can tackle this problem at source by working across borders with other colleagues in other countries and tackling the people smuggling route as well as people smuggling route as well as people smuggling route as well as

13:01

Rt Hon James Cleverly MP (Braintree, Conservative)

- -

The party opposite in opposition talked about what they would do when they entered government but as my right honourable friend has said, small boat arrivals are alpine hotel juice is up and asylum seekers are being waved through the system to make sure numbers are good. This all wreaks of complacency and in my They talked it up before the election but took things off the books before replacing them with anything else. When will she actually come to the House with serious proposals to reduce the number of small boat arrivals that number of small boat arrivals that have gone up by over 30% on her government's watch?

13:02

Rt Hon Maria Eagle MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Liverpool Garston, Labour)

- -

The right honourable gentleman says that they are now getting more people but whether this -- it is still not holding the numbers that were planned by his government and I thought he would have wanted to support the Paris India border support the Paris India border security bill if he was serious about reducing the problems in the about reducing the problems in the bodice. -- The powers in the Border Security Bill. Security Bill.

13:03

Sally Jameson MP (Doncaster Central, Labour )

- -

While the increase of one 30 is welcome, we all know that there is a long way to go. Can the Minister confirm we will continue at pace on the trajectory to send a clear the trajectory to send a clear message the UK will not tolerate people abusing the asylum system or illegal activity in any form?

13:03

Rt Hon Maria Eagle MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Liverpool Garston, Labour)

- -

Of course we have to crack down on abuse of the asylum system but also on the exploitation of vulnerable people by the gangs.

13:04

Pete Wishart MP (Perth and Kinross-shire, Scottish National Party)

- -

During the asylum committee proceedings, I said to the Minister it is only a matter of time before there has to be some kind of deportation scheme but even I did not think it becomes so quick leave. Can she say that the reports are totally not true and will she now rule out ever implementing a third deportation scheme like the Conservatives did?

13:04

Tony Vaughan KC MP (Folkestone and Hythe, Labour)

- -

I am not going to comment on that. that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I welcome the decision to close Napier Barracks in my constituency where there have been long-standing concerns about conditions, alongside other issues. What assurances can the Minister give to my constituents

13:04

Rt Hon Maria Eagle MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Liverpool Garston, Labour)

- -

the Minister give to my constituents that this will be operated properly until it closes in December?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If my honourable friend wants to talk to me about any of the details, talk to me about any of the details, I would be happy to listen but clearly we want to operate the site properly and appropriately until be handed back to the MoD.

13:05

Rt Hon Esther McVey MP (Tatton, Conservative)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

handed back to the MoD. Given the government does not believe in sending illegal immigrants to third countries like Rwanda, can the Minister explain how the government plans to deport people who have destroyed their documents as they have come to this country so that we do not know the country of origin? What is the solution to keep them here forever in hotels or one of the 1.5 million homes that Labour plans to build?

13:05

Rt Hon Maria Eagle MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Liverpool Garston, Labour)

- -

I do not know why I am calling you Mr Deputy Speaker today. Going back a long time to when you are but that is so long ago, I can scarcely remember. My apologies, Mr Speaker. I think the right honourable lady should remember that the Rwanda scheme was about deporting people for good and not dealing with asylum claims. That is not in any way what this government would ever consider doing which is why it was cancelled.

13:06

Jo White MP (Bassetlaw, Labour)

- -

The Shadow Home Secretary can complain all that he wants but while he was in the Home Office, 75,000 people crossed the channel with thousands housed in hotels across thousands housed in hotels across the country. I failed Rwanda scheme and a complete freeze on asylum making was the reason the costs rose to £9 million a day on hotels. Everything stop just to send four volunteers to Rwanda and he is responsible for the chaos. Does my honourable friend, my honourable friend, agree that the only party in this House that voted for the asylum bill will be the one that increases the chaos?

13:07

I agree with my right honourable friend.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We all want to stop the Channel crossings which are perilous and crossings which are perilous and costing lives. What steps the government taking to boost cooperation with Europe to smash the

13:07

Rt Hon Maria Eagle MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Liverpool Garston, Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

cooperation with Europe to smash the gangs profiting on the back of misfortune? We have put more resources into

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We have put more resources into Europol to cooperate with partners across borders and we are across borders and we are operationally working across Europe and we have a new agreement with the German government and an agreement on sanctions and illicit finance with the Italian government. We have had the Calais group meet in London and we are doing a lot of work with source countries in areas such as Vietnam, not only on returns but on countering some of the adverts which tell lies about the kind of lives that await those who get on perilous small boats.

Across the piece, both diplomatically and operationally, we are working with international colleagues to try to put pressure on international criminal gangs and start beginning to close down this evil trade. evil trade.

13:08

Joe Powell MP (Kensington and Bayswater, Labour)

- -

Under the party opposite, the budget on asylum balloons to over £4 billion, taking 28% of overseas development assistance for in- country refugee costs, against an OECD average of 13.8%, making us a big outlier internationally. I welcome the is on speeding up processing and reducing hotel juice. With the aid budget reducing to 0.3% from 2027, can the Minister reassure me that the ever- increasing chunk will not be spent on poverty rather will not be spent on poverty rather than supporting vital work to alleviate it internationally?

13:09

Rt Hon Maria Eagle MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Liverpool Garston, Labour)

- -

It is important that overseas development monies are used to try to prevent the kind of flows of people we have seen with the collapse of various countries. We will be doing all we can to minimise the spend that is currently being taken from the overseas development budget. budget.

13:09

Rt Hon Sir Roger Gale MP (Herne Bay and Sandwich, Conservative)

- -

You will know that most of the illegal cross-channel migrants come through my constituency, at the processing centre. I take a particular interest in the subject. I had to say that it will certainly not be popular on this side of the House or that, but neither is it going to be populist. The Home Secretary and I got together, both visited the Calais area recently. We saw the over hundreds, if not saw the over hundreds, if not thousands, of very determined and people and the much vaunted Smash the Gangs will not solve that and there is no quick fix and the only solution will be long-term and international.

In that context, does the right honourable that he believed that cutting overseas aid is going to do anything other than worsen the problem? worsen the problem?

13:11

Rt Hon Maria Eagle MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Liverpool Garston, Labour)

- -

Mr Speaker, I suggest the honourable gentleman raises that

13:11

Amanda Martin MP (Portsmouth North, Labour)

- -

issue with the Chancellor. issue with the Chancellor. That the party opposite have the gall to question the actions we have gall to question the actions we have taken as a government in cleaning up the mess they left behind because they simply stop doing anything other than wasting £9 million of taxpayer money. We have returned taxpayer money. We have returned 19,000 people with the right to be here with increased Border Force, increased working with European allies and intelligence services but allies and intelligence services but there is more to do.

It was a mess. People in our country feel let down and the deep mistrust of politicians and this is causing the rumour mill to develop and faster in communities. What are we doing as a government to rebuild public trust and community participation and does she agree this should start in this House? House?

13:12

Rt Hon Maria Eagle MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Liverpool Garston, Labour)

- -

I believe that people need to think about the language that they use and the impressions of human beings that they give when they talk about this very emotive issue which raises huge concern. As a government, we have got to do all that we can to try to reassure people be can get the system back under control after finding this? under control after finding this?

13:12

Mr Paul Kohler MP (Wimbledon, Liberal Democrat)

- -

I recently discussed the savings expected from the closure of more hotels. The report does not report on the number of them occupied. Accommodating people in shared rooms encourage different cost to one with individuals occupying separate rooms. This distinction is often overlooked. Given effective policy decisions must be based on clear evidence, will be Minister commit to publishing data to ensure accountability?

13:13

Rachael Maskell MP (York Central, Labour )

- -

I will write to the honourable gentleman.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I can assure asylum seekers will be treated with compassion and be treated with compassion and kindness in my city of York but kindness in my city of York but tragically at a hotel, a full-term mother lost her baby. I am asking mother lost her baby. I am asking the Minister if she will give a guarantee that pregnant women will not be moved from hotel to hotel so that they can have continuity of

13:13

Rt Hon Maria Eagle MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Liverpool Garston, Labour)

- -

that they can have continuity of services and safe pregnancy.

13:13

Dr Caroline Johnson MP (Sleaford and North Hykeham, Conservative)

- -

Madam Deputy Speaker, that should not be happening and if she wants to talk to me about that, I will try to see what happens.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A directive from the Treasury

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A directive from the Treasury appears to suggest that housebuilding by the government will be able to help asylum seekers staying in hotels. Does the Minister believe that individuals who have

13:14

Rt Hon Maria Eagle MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Liverpool Garston, Labour)

- -

believe that individuals who have arrived in the UK illegally should be given access to social housing ahead of British citizenship?

13:14

Chris Webb MP (Blackpool South, Labour)

- -

No, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Back in 2021, when the party opposite government, they told opposite government, they told Blackpool they would only be using the hotel as an asylum hotel for three months and they lost control three months and they lost control of the borders, cause chaos with the asylum system, and we are paying the asylum system, and we are paying the price in one of the most deprived divinities in the country. The Minister agree with me that we need to close these hotels as soon as

13:14

Rt Hon Maria Eagle MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Liverpool Garston, Labour)

- -

to close these hotels as soon as possible and give prime real estate, especially in coastal communities like Blackpool, the ability to help the sector thrive? Three we do not believe this is terrible to keep hotel juice -- it is sustainable to hotel juice -- it is sustainable to keep hotel use open indefinitely.

13:14

Lewis Cocking MP (Broxbourne, Conservative)

- -

Small boat crossings are up by 30% by the general election and a number of illegal asylum seekers in my constituency is growing. They are being prioritised for GP appointments and school places which is at register me and my hard- working constituents. Can the Minister tell the House when she will meet the manifesto commitment of closing the hotel and my constituency? constituency?

13:15

Rt Hon Maria Eagle MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Liverpool Garston, Labour)

- -

Are in is to close asylum hotels and get out of an unsustainable situation as quickly as possible. situation as quickly as possible.

13:15

Alex Sobel MP (Leeds Central and Headingley, Labour )

- -

I should be Minister agrees with me that the root cause of the crisis was the vertically motivated slowing down and freezing of asylum applications. Asylum seekers are waiting 10 or more years for a decision. As the Minister considered, because the British Government want to see a contribution by asylum seekers, since it is increasing the burden on taxpayers, lifting the right of people waiting more than six months for a decision before the decision is made so they can contribute to the tax system.

13:16

Rt Hon Maria Eagle MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Liverpool Garston, Labour)

- -

Asylum seekers waiting more than one year are allowed to work, as long as the weight has not been caused by them, so no through fault of their own. We have that system and I'm not considering shortening the length of time that must elapse the length of time that must elapse

13:16

Rt Hon Jeremy Corbyn MP (Islington North, Independent)

- -

Like the member for Herne Bay, I visited Calais on a number of occasions. I have met people there who are desperate. Victims of war, human rights abuse, environmental degradation and sheer poverty and desperation. They don't cross the channel without some reason to do it. What conversations is she having with European countries, North Africa, the Middle East about the root causes of the huge numbers of people locally who are seeking asylum at the present time? Inhumanity deportation is not going to work.

13:17

Rt Hon Maria Eagle MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Liverpool Garston, Labour)

- -

I don't apologise for deporting people who have no right to be here. Who have been through the system and are discovered to be neither asylum seekers nor to have any rights in the country. I accept the point he makes about the desperate situation that people are in. They could claim asylum in the country they are in. asylum in the country they are in. We need to look and work with our counterparts in the European Union and long all of the roots to see what we can do to divert those people who are seeking a better life in our country, and see if we cannot look after them closer to home.

13:17

Steve Yemm MP (Mansfield, Labour)

- -

Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker. Under this Labour government, illegal working raids and arrests are up by one third. I wonder if the Minister would agree with me that it sends a clear message that the UK will not and should not tolerate those who abuse our immigration system, and will crack down on illegal activity. illegal activity.

13:18

Rt Hon Maria Eagle MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Liverpool Garston, Labour)

- -

Yes, illegal working visits have increased by 38% of the people have been arrested and fined. We are seeking to get those who abuse illegal workers are often underpaying them and treating them like modern slaves, banned from running companies. And the fines are now £60,000 per illegal worker. There is no reason why legitimate small businesses should be undermined by illegal working and illegal practices.

13:18

Lincoln Jopp MP (Spelthorne, Conservative)

- -

Is the government considering sending failed asylum seekers to overseas return hubs? overseas return hubs?

13:19

Tom Hayes MP (Bournemouth East, Labour)

- -

I'm not going to comment on leaks.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker. It is was a pleasure to see the shadow Home Secretary shoot himself shadow Home Secretary shoot himself in the foot particularly when he brings his own shot gun to do the job. On this issue of asylum hotels, job. On this issue of asylum hotels, the government really is getting a grip of it and the Conservatives ought to be appalled. We heard in the Bill Committee about how children are being targeted for children are being targeted for sexual abuse and going missing into the system.

The Conservatives put the system. The Conservatives put builds onto the statute book which they never implemented. I'm pleased this government has committed to closing asylum hotels. They have given reassurance that they won't be adding hotels will stop would my honourable friend agree with me that when the Conservatives in the Bill when the Conservatives in the Bill Committee defined a deterrent and said it was about detaining and deporting, they neither detained or deported. So we should stop deterrence like Rwanda. deterrence like Rwanda.

13:20

Rt Hon Maria Eagle MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Liverpool Garston, Labour)

- -

I agree. 85,000 people came across in small boats from the time the Rwanda scheme was first announced until it was actually ended. ended.

13:20

Richard Foord MP (Honiton and Sidmouth, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Last month we learnt that Overseas Development Assistance would be cut from 0.5% to 0.3% of global national income. Some of us assumed the saving would be found in the so-called asylum hotels but now we learn government will be continuing to hire hotels for many years to come despite of the contract. The Minister said she wants to minimise the effect on the ODA but how much of the ODA budget will remain?

13:20

Rt Hon Maria Eagle MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Liverpool Garston, Labour)

- -

We are currently ahead of the reductions that were announced. My understanding was that 20% is currently spent on housing asylum seekers in this country. Clearly if we can get the system running faster from start to finish, if we can get people through the system faster, we can reduce those costs.

13:21

Shaun Davies MP (Telford, Labour)

- -

This government inherited a chaotic and broken system and disorder at the border. Under the last Conservative government, someone in my constituency was deprived for asylum hotel use. Can the Minister confirm it is the hard yards mission of this governance to close those hotels and give them back to communities?

13:21

Ben Obese-Jecty MP (Huntingdon, Conservative)

- -

Yes, that is our aim.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I appreciate the Minister's curt responses suggest she is struggling somewhat with a brief. Does the Minister know how many gangs have Minister know how many gangs have been smashed? She doesn't, and I suspect she doesn't, then why doesn't she? If she does, can she

13:21

Rt Hon Maria Eagle MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Liverpool Garston, Labour)

- -

doesn't she? If she does, can she inform the house, less of course the answer is that no gangs have yet been smashed?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for his belief in my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for his belief in my ability to get on top of my brief. The National Crime Agency has The National Crime Agency has wittily arrested three men in the UK wanted in Belgium and been convicted wanted in Belgium and been convicted for being part of an Afghan OCG. And for being part of an Afghan OCG. And supplying boats and engines to gangs. A joint operation involving the Dutch police. Convictions of two men in south Wales who ran people smuggling ring involving moving migrants from Iran, Iraq, and Syria.

And a major national operation involving the NCA targeted a Syrian crime group considered one of Europe's most significant people smuggling gangs and sought 20 people arrested in a series of raids including one in the UK. This is just what has been happening recently. There is a lot more work going on. Many investigations, the fruit of which will be born we will talk about when it is delivered.

13:23

John Slinger MP (Rugby, Labour)

- -

Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker. Can I commend the work that the government has undertaken with European countries and others to smash the criminal gangs such as the French deployment of specialist units on the beaches, and German raids on small boat warehouses. And indeed the efforts of the Home Secretary in Iraq and in the Kurdish region of Vorukh. Keller Mr confirm that although we will not smash the gangs overnight, the government remains committed to working with our international partners to secure our borders?

13:23

Rt Hon Maria Eagle MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Liverpool Garston, Labour)

- -

We are doing the work day in day out. If the party opposite had not let smuggling gangs take hold across the channel for six years, then we would not be having difficulties we are having now to deal with them. This takes time. There is no simple easy solution, and chuntering about it from the opposition Front Benches which let's face it is where they belong, is not going to make any difference. difference.

13:24

Carla Lockhart MP (Upper Bann, Democratic Unionist Party)

- -

In the first nine months of the government we have witnessed the cruel impact of the government's decision-making on farmers, pensioners, Waspi women, people who have worked all their lives. Taxpayers money continues to fund hotel accommodation for those economic migrants who come here illegally on the channel. My constituents want to see this government put British citizens first rather than prioritising spend on those who are arriving illegally. What can she say to them today? What can she say to them today?

13:24

Rt Hon Maria Eagle MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Liverpool Garston, Labour)

- -

It is important to deal with the chaos that we inherited that to create a system that is faster, fairer, and much easier to get through than the one we inherited. Unless the honourable Lady wants people to be destitute on the streets, we have to look after them while we are processing their asylum claims. Speed is important here as well as making sure we do that.

13:25

Jonathan Hinder MP (Pendle and Clitheroe, Labour)

- -

I thank the Minister and ministerial colleagues in the Department for the work they are doing to tackle illegal immigration. Especially the enforcement against the gangs who put vulnerable lives at risk. My constituents want illegal immigration stopped. And the chaotic huffing and puffing from the Conservatives is one of the reasons they were booted out on this issue at the general election. It is so important for restoring faith in politics that we deliver on this. Does the Minister believe the existing legal framework on asylum and returns will allow us to do this?

13:25

Rt Hon Maria Eagle MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Liverpool Garston, Labour)

- -

The prime minister has made it clear that the answer to this is not going to be to ignore international law. Therefore we have to ensure can create a system that is fast, fair, effective, and does the job much more effectively than the one that we inherited. We are looking to see how we can make the changes to ensure that is the case. ensure that is the case.

13:26

Shockat Adam MP (Leicester South, Independent)

- -

I agrees we must have a sensible immigration policy but does the list agree with me that terms like stop the boats and smashed against a just populist slogans and dehumanise the most vulnerable in our society, and most vulnerable in our society, and serve to scapegoat successive short governance shortcomings including the money wasted on Rwanda, and a lack of investment in the NHS. That is the reason people don't get appointments with their GPs not people arriving on about. Would the Minister agree that we need to take a holistic approach and one way to look at opening up safe routes and efficient processes so that as soon as people arrive they can start working from day one?

13:26

Rt Hon Maria Eagle MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Liverpool Garston, Labour)

- -

I don't think that safe routes would stop people trying to get into this country. It is important that this country. It is important that we can assert control of the border so we decide who comes into our country and not the people smuggling gangs.

13:27

Luke Myer MP (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland, Labour)

- -

When I speak to my constituents except that the previous government overspent by billions on the asylum system, and it fell to this government to take difficult decisions to settler bill. What they cannot accept is how it is fair that the taxpayers continue to be expected to pay money every day on asylum hotel. It was a mark of shame for the last government. What steps will the Minister take to speed up processing, increase returns, and end the use of hotels for good?

13:27

Rt Hon Maria Eagle MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Liverpool Garston, Labour)

- -

I have restarted asylum processing, we are looking to see what we can do to speed up the appeals backlog that we inherited. We will create a system that is faster, firmer, and fairer. So we can get out of asylum hotels which is not a sustainable model for the future.

13:28

Jim Shannon MP (Strangford, Democratic Unionist Party)

- -

Final question.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I thank the Minister very much for her answers to the questions which others have posed. There is a clear differential between asylum seekers and those between asylum seekers and those fleeing persecution, and those who are economic migrants. Can the minister please outline how governments can get control of accommodation for those who are economic migrants, and taking into account there are families of migrants sleeping on floors of migrants sleeping on floors of family members homes. The demand cannot be coped with.

How will the government ensure that families and children are housed whether they are asylum seekers or British citizens? Thank you. Thank you.

13:28

Rt Hon Maria Eagle MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Liverpool Garston, Labour)

- -

My honourable Friend the dirty prime minister has made some announcements recently about the capacity to increase housebuilding in this country to deal with some of the pressure on demand. It is very important from an asylum system point of view that we get the system working better so we can get people through the system, deport those who have no right to be here and integrate those who are accepted as asylum seekers.

13:29

Rt Hon Victoria Atkins MP (Louth and Horncastle, Conservative)

- -

That is the end of the Urgent Question. I will give the Front Benches a few minutes. Victoria Atkins.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Onay point of order, the head of the Dover Port Health Authority has the Dover Port Health Authority has told the house that if funding is not secured for the new financial year, food security checks at the year, food security checks at the border will be stopped. On 6 February I asked the Secretary of State for DEFRA to confirm this State for DEFRA to confirm this funding. He did not answer and has not responded to my two written not responded to my two written Parliamentary Questions on this.

We Parliamentary Questions on this. We are now more than two weeks past the deadline for a response, and stays away from the new financial year. With no answer on whether these important checks at our border will continue. May I please have your guides and Madam Deputy Speaker how to ensure a prompt and accurate response from the Secretary of State before the cheques for diseased meats in particular stop?

13:30

Ms Nusrat Ghani MP (Sussex Weald, Conservative)

- -

I'm not sure whether that point of order you were alerted to earlier on, it is always good to give prior notice for the exact language. The right honourable Member will know it is not a matter for the chair but she has put a point on record and no doubt the Front Benches will have heard it. We are now going to go on to the Presentation of Bills. So to the Presentation of Bills. So to the Presentation of Bills.

So

13:30

Presentation of Bill

Arm's-length bodies accountability to Parliament Bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friday 28th of March.

13:31

Ten Minute Rule Motion: Regulators (Growth Objective)

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friday 28th of March. Friday 20th March. We now go on to the 10 minute rule motion, Luke

13:31

Luke Murphy MP (Basingstoke, Labour)

- -

13:42

Consideration of Lords amendments: If necessary

to the fact that Financial Privilege is engaged by Lords amendments 1B, 5B, and 8B. If any of those Lords amendments are agreed to, I will amendments are agreed to, I will cause the entry waving Financial Privilege to be entered in the Privilege to be entered in the journal. Will begin with government journal. Will begin with government motion to disagree with Lords amendment 1B which we will consider together with emotions to disagree with Lords amendments 5B, 8B, and 20 with Lords amendments 5B, 8B, and 20 1B as on the selection paper.

I called the Minister to move the motion to disagree with Lords amendment one I called the Minister to move the motion to disagree with Lords amendment 1B. Minister.

13:42

James Murray MP, The Exchequer Secretary (Ealing North, Labour )

- -

Thank you. And I welcome the opportunity to consider the Lord's new amendments to the National Insurance contributions secondary class contributions bill. I would like to start by repeating my thanks to members of both houses for their careful scrutiny and consideration of this bill. During this bill is consideration in the other place, for new amendments have been made which will seek to address here today. As a reminded honourable members last week, when we entered government, we inherited a fiscal situation that was complete unsustainable.

We have had to take difficult but necessary decisions to repair the public finances and rebuild our public services. The measures in this bill represent some of the toughest of those decisions. They and other measures in the budget have enabled us to restore fiscal responsibly and get services back on their feet. Yet amendments from the other place before yesterday put at risk the funding this bill seeks to raise. Salome be clear again, to support these amendments is also to support higher borrowing, lower spending or other tax rises, and it's with that in mind that I will now turn to the first group of amendments, specifically Lords amendments 1B, 5B and 8B.

These amendments seek to create powers as part of this bill which would exempt certain groups from the changes to employer National Insurance rates and threshold in the future. This includes exemptions for care providers, NHS GP practices, NHS commission dentist, NHS commission pharmacists, charitable providers and healthcare and those providing hospice care from the changes to the employer National Insurance rate and threshold. It also includes powers to exempt businesses or organisations with fewer than 25 full-time employees from the changes to the employer National Insurance

**** Possible New Speaker ****

threshold. I thank him, but just want understand very clearly why the understand very clearly why the government thinks that rightly in my government thinks that rightly in my opinion, the NHS and the banner of NHS England should be exempt from national insurance contributions but other parts of the NHS such as GP surgeries, dentist, hospice care shouldn't?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

shouldn't? Well as I set out during consideration of Lords amendments last week and indeed in pretty much every other stage of consideration out of this bill, the response to the changes in employer national insurance contributions that we are undertaking as government is in line with what is government did in relation to the Health and Social Care levy in the last Parliament, which is namely to provide a direct support for public employers. That means central government, local government and public corporations.

That is the standard way in which a support for employer National Insurance contribution changes is responded to. So as I set out, the revenue raised from the measures in this bill will play a critical role in -- repairing the public finances and rebuilding our public services. Clearly any future changes which would exempt certain groups from pay national insurance would have cost indications. And is a clear cupboard necessity higher borrowing, lower spending or alternative revenue raising measures, and it's for that reason I ask the House to support the governments position by disagreeing to amendments 1B, 5B and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Commons this agreement says that the amendment interferes with the public revenue and the Commons the public revenue and the Commons do not offer further reason. Does the honourable gentleman not think that perhaps those that we represent would prefer to see their taxed would prefer to see their taxed income generously donated, spent on children's hospices, rather than a children's hospices, rather than a deal to spend millions of pounds on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Chagos islands. The honourable gentleman... Right honourable gentleman, races the question of hospices during the debate last week. As I made clear at the time, although hospices do not receive support to meet the changes in National Insurance Contribution, we value the work that they do. I pointed to the wider support which the government is giving to the hospice sector. £100 million boost to ensure they have the best physical environment for care and £26 million to support children and your people hospices.

He refers to people giving to hospices which are established as charities, the government provides support for charities including hospices through the tax regime, one of the most generous in the world. Tax relief is just over £6 billion for the tax year up to April 2024. Turning to amendment 21, B, which requires the government to conduct assessments on this. As we have discussed, the government has already published an assessment of the policy in the tax information and impact note.

That set out that as a result of measures in this Bill, around 250,000 employees will seek their secondary class I liability decrease, around 820,000 employers will see no change. The fiscal outlook set out the expected impact of the changes. The government and the OBR have already set out the impact of this policy change. The information provided is in line with other changes in the government does not intend to publish further assessment but we will continue to monitor the impact of these policies in the usual way.

I hope that members will understand why we are not supporting these amendments from the other place, the measures in this Bill play a crucial role in fixing public finances and cutting public services on their feet. Amendments from the other place I that require information that has to be provided or do not recognise other policies that the government had in place or they seek to undermine the funding that this Bill will secure. I propose that this House disagrees with these amendments and I urge members to support the government in making that so.

13:49

Gareth Davies MP (Grantham and Bourne, Conservative)

- -

14:01

Daisy Cooper MP (St Albans, Liberal Democrat)

- -

thinking of introducing a national insurance contribution hike. And we Liberal Democrats issued a stark warning to the government, challenge them PMQs and Deputy PM cues that if they went ahead and introduced these changes, and social care providers up and down the land would be hit incredibly hard. So the government cannot say that they were not warned. We did warn them. Even before they made that announcement. But in these long debates and these many debates we've had in this chamber since the budget, we have consistently made the case the healthcare providers should be healthcare providers should be exempted.

The fact is that the government says they want to make the National Health Service a neighbourhood health service. We had just an hour ago from the secretary of state Health and Social Care. They also said they want to take services out of hospitals and onto the High Street. But this particular tax hammers those very providers that provide the neighbourhood community services upon which the NHS relies. GPs and dentists and pharmacists and hospices and care providers, they are the providers that hold our community care up.

And the prop up our NHS so it doesn't fall over. Government ministers have said on many occasions they have increased funding to social care, but we know that the additional funding announced in the budget is dwarfed by the rise in National Insurance contribution height. Similarly, as other members are piloted, the government says it has given more funding to hospices, but that funding is the capital projects and there is no point in having another hospice building or another hospice bed if there are no staff to look after the people who were lying in them.

We know we have to fix the front door to the NHS with our GPs and dentists. We have to fix the back.our NHS with social care too. But on the point of hospices, we know that there is nowhere else for these people to go. People are looking for support from hospices so they can die in dignity with independence in a setting of their choosing, surrounded by the loved ones. Not in the sterile environment of a hospital ward. Or worse, a corridor that is busy or an ambulance parked outside.

We need our GPs and dentist and hospices and pharmacists and care providers to survive and thrive if we are to end the crisis in our NHS. The Lords and the other place in their wisdom have not sent back the same amendment ask for an exemption. In fact they put a very clever tweaking this amendment. It is simply asking the government adopts a power, Henry VIII power, which is not something we Liberal Democrats normally support, but on this occasion it gives, would give the Minister the power to choose if and when they wanted to exempt these healthcare providers, so when we get enormous growth in our economy, and when we see the success at some point in the future, which we all hope to see, when there is growth moving in our economy, at that point, a minister could choose at any point to decide to exempt healthcare providers, to give them the cash injection that they need.

And so I urge ministers and I urge the government to support it. Amendment 8B would provide an exemption, a power to exempt small businesses. We never small businesses are the engine of our economy, the engine of growth. They are the very organisations that prop up our high streets and they are the glue that hold our communities together. The government has raised the employment allowance for micro- businesses, but they have not done so... Other provisions in place to support small businesses.

In our small businesses can be the engine of growth but they are screaming out about the amount of obligations put on them right now with the NIC changes, business rates bills going up and the new obligations from the other bill. They say is all happening at once and they are overwhelmed. This particular amendment would give the power to exempt those small businesses. And I also speak in favour of Lords amendment 21B which is that impact assessment. We know as the government ministers remind us that there is a tax and spend announcement, but looking at the impact of these provisions is more about tax and spend, the overwhelming impact on small businesses who are really struggling right now, many still have their COVID loans, many struggle with access to finance, many mortgaging their homes to prop up a new business, and this has come out of the blue.

They have not been able to plan ahead for this change, and many of them really fear what's going to happen, and I fear that if this goes ahead in a matter of days we will start to see shopfronts boarded up on our high streets up and down the land.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I was going to call Sir Roger, but he is no longer Bobby. Sir Roger Gale. I naively assumed having been

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I naively assumed having been called ready twice today I had to called ready twice today I had to take my place in the pecking order. I do want to come back very briefly I do want to come back very briefly to the issue of hospices. This is a very very serious issue, and I don't think the Minister or the government actually understand the deleterious effect this is going to have upon effect this is going to have upon care, both in adult hospices and in children's hospices.

For some of the sickest people in the land. I've listened very carefully twice now to the Minister's responses about giving this, giving that. The point about this as they are giving with one hand and taking away more with the other. And the net result is

14:08

Rt Hon Sir Roger Gale MP (Herne Bay and Sandwich, Conservative)

- -

going to be a reduction in staff. Because this is a tax, a straightforward tax on jobs. And straightforward tax on jobs. And without the people, the dedicated caring staff that do the jobs that caring staff that do the jobs that frankly most of us wouldn't begin to know how to do, the service will not know how to do, the service will not function, and the children in the madhouse and serviced by -- demands a House and shooting star and the other children's hospices, and the other children's hospices, and the pilgrims hospices in Venice and in Canterbury will not be able to recruit to afford to pay the staff they need.

This is part an integral part of the health service. And the point has been made by the father of the House and by others over and over again, that because this is the part of the health service, it should be treated as part of the health service in precisely the same manner as the NHS. For these manner as the NHS. For these purposes. And my honourable friend says, right honourable friend says from a sedentary position where the Labour MPs? And the answer of course as they will be there in the voting lobby voting against these measures, but they are not here listening to the debate.

It saddens me I have to say, podiatry believe that in this sense, their absence speaks volumes. Quite simply, they don't care.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. These Lords amendments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. These Lords amendments seek to address a clear present and insurmountable financial challenge insurmountable financial challenge significant elements of social health care delivery in all of our health care delivery in all of our communities. Social care providers, GPs, dentists and pharmacies, the GPs, dentists and pharmacies, the government says in the most spurious government says in the most spurious and disingenuous way as though they don't understand the role they fulfil within the health service

14:10

Dave Doogan MP (Angus and Perthshire Glens, Scottish National Party)

- -

that these are contractors. while their basis and HMRC is irrelevant. It's the role they fulfil in society It's the role they fulfil in society and the delivery of care, host -- and the delivery of care, host -- Health and Social Care. Their market is exclusively within the NHS and within Health and Social Care. Up within Health and Social Care. Up and down these islands. So the idea that they like some other business and many properly commercial and many properly commercial businesses won't manage to pivot their way out of this one, but GP practices, pharmacies and care practices, pharmacies and care providers and nurseries and hospices certainly won't manage to pivot their way out of this attack from Labour.

I want to mention hospices in particular. When Macmillan Cancer care speak, it doesn't matter what care speak, it doesn't matter what rosette colour yours is, you should listen. And I think to myself over the last 15 years of chaos in the United Kingdom, most of economic, if I think of the last decade of Brexit and the catastrophic effect on the U.K.'s economy and the material welfare of people up and down these islands, and I think who can we blame? Who is culpable? Who has got their fingerprints all over it? Well I will tell you something.

It's not terminally ill children in hospices. Who will suffer a debilitating effect on the care they are provided with as a result of this bill. And the Minister and his government could do a very simple thing to give them a derogation from the grasping hand of this bill and protect children in the worst of all imaginable circumstances. If you look at what the government has done, the fiscal misadventure from the outset has been met with opprobrium from all manner of sections of the economy and society, but they've held firm and I pay tribute to the Minister, he fronts appear every time with a smile and he does his best to defend what he's got to defend.

That's his job, and I don't judge him for that. But the bottom line is the government has yielded, not to children and hospitals, not people trying to deliver social care to get hospital beds free from delayed discharge, they have yielded to the bankers to restore their bonuses and they have yielded to the non-dom's who want all the benefits of living in this country but don't want to pay for it. And think that speaks volumes about what a Labour government in this day and age is all about.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I hope that I can have this intervention without... And I apologise to you for not having... We accept that not only our services We accept that not only our services likely to be affected by this as his outline, but also the aim that the government has in raising additional revenue is going to be affected as well. They've given in as he's pointed out to the bank as a non-dom pointed out to the bank as a non-dom is because of the fear of losing revenue but we no anecdotally, whether it's businesses and the national health service or small businesses are going to cut back on the amount of staff that they can employ because they can't falter do it, and therefore there will be a loss of national insurance contributions and tax contributions.

So this could be aimed own goal --

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In that they put pain businesses but don't get any revenue from it. I agree entirely for that this is a £24 billion fiscal drag intended a £24 billion fiscal drag intended to create growth. Work that one out if you can because it's beyond me. The £24 billion track as the honourable member points out on the honourable member points out on the economy is already after compensations down to 10 billion. If compensations down to 10 billion. If they compensate people that they definition, such as GPs, pharmacies, care providers and hospices, would take them down to somewhere around take them down to somewhere around about seven or 8 billion.

What type of Chancellor, what type of Treasury orthodoxy says replace a £24 billion burden on the economy in exchange for an £8 billion return for the Treasury? It's absolutely catastrophic. It's misadventure writ large and it's got Labour as its logo. change and if you were to agree to this exception, it could be only a billion. The sea agree with me there are much fairer ways of raising the revenue, for example by raising the digital services tax and the big

**** Possible New Speaker ****

online media giants in the big game companies as well? She raises two excellent examples of what can be done in a just way. of what can be done in a just way. To raise the funding that they need. And don't let's forget they knew fine well what they were walking into when they won the election. We tell them, the Lib Dems told them, the media told them, the Tories were the media told them, the Tories were bit quiet on the issue right enough, but we told them there was an £18 billion black hole if they stuck to Tory spending policies, so this is on them.

She mentions two principal on them. She mentions two principal examples which are an excellent and just way to raise funding. They could similarly introduce Scottish income tax thresholds to the whole of the UK, giving most people a paper and raising 16 billion at the bargain and they could raise 14 billion from a 1% on assets over 10 million wealth tax. And there are a range of others as well for the 30 billion by rejoining the single market, not many people in here talk about that.

And they persist in their references to additional funding, all of which is capital, none of which can soften the blow of the measures contained within the the measures contained within the They would rather continue to cloak the effect that this will have on care services and contracted elements of the NHS up and down the silence. And the effect it will have on the real economy which Labour are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

strangers too. I am flummoxed by the approach of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am flummoxed by the approach of the government, we know that clause

14:16

Jerome Mayhew MP (Broadland and Fakenham, Conservative)

- -

the government, we know that clause 1 races national insurance from 13.8% up to 15%, and clause 2 raises the threshold at which you start paying that, from £9100, down to just £5000. It knows how damages the measure is for healthcare, they have taken action to exempt the NHS, it will cost billions of pounds. Healthcare providers can't just diversify as other sections of the economy can, if they can. They can't raise prices if you are a GP, your customer the state, that is fixed by the Treasury.

The government knows, as a result, exactly what the impact of this proposal is on hospices as well. Without an exemption, we have heard they are going to have to face an additional £13 million of cost every year as a result of the changes. I have to say, when the Bill was first announced, I assumed there had been an oversight by the Treasury and, during the course of the procedure of the bill, that would be addressed. But the Lord, last week and this week, have moved to fix what was originally considered to be an oversight, but the decision today seeking to reverse Lords Amendments 1B and 5B in particular, demonstrates beyond doubt that this is not an oversight, this is a deliberate decision, taken by Labour, the care of the dying, to do what without money? We may be in the obscene position in a few weeks time of funding for state assisted dying being taken from taxing palliative care.

This is madness. Absolute madness. If you wanted any other reason why you should not be supporting the government, that is an overwhelming one. I make one last reference. To the emptiness of the benches opposite. There are now two members of the government benches who are not required to be sitting there. One, in fact, I take it back, only one. That indicates, to me, that Labour members do not want to be associated with this. They will scurry through the lobbies later but they are not brave enough to stand up and defend the decision of the government.

14:19

Gregory Stafford MP (Farnham and Bordon, Conservative)

- -

14:26

James Murray MP, The Exchequer Secretary (Ealing North, Labour )

- -

that she seems to support the funding in terms of GPs, where they are commissioned although she won't agree I think we got the motion that in terms of ligament spokesperson, the shadow Minister claimed that businesses -- small businesses will feel the greatest impact. They will have seen we are doubling the employment allowance, giving a £10.5 thousand allowance meaning the smallest businesses will not employ at all. Wisely, the shadow Minister and so many of his colleagues on the opposition benches seem to refuse to take any responsible tea whatsoever for the state of the public finances or the Public Services after 14 years of the party opposite.

But years of the party opposite. But they also seemed to resist the opportunity, compensating in the public sector, are the same as previous government took in terms of the Health and Social Care Levy. This came up time and again, even when the shadow Minister was intervened on by another member, he seemed to miss that opportunity to acknowledge that it is the direction that he took in government. The amendments we have been debating today require information that has already been provided, they do not recognise other policies the government has in place, most seriously, they seek to undermine the funding that this bill has to go.

Let me be clear, to support the amendments, the amendment here, create exemptions, is also to support higher borrowing, lower spending or other tax rises and I ask the House to support the position by disagreeing to Lords Amendments 1B, 5B, 8B and 20 1B.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in disagrees with the Lords in amendment 1B. As many are of that opinion say, "Aye", and of the contrary, "No". Division, clear the

14:28

Division

15:18

Consideration of Lords amendments: Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill

contributions bill. We now move to the non-domestic rating multipliers bill program number two motion to be moved formally. The question is as on the Order Paper. As many are of that opinion say, "Aye", and of the contrary, "No". The Ayes have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Consideration of Lords amendment. I must draw attention to the fact

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I must draw attention to the fact that Financial Privilege is engaged by Lords Amendments one to 12 and 14 by Lords Amendments one to 12 and 14 to 17. If any of those amendments are agreed to, I will call the customary comments to be injured in customary comments to be injured in the journal. We will begin with Lords amendment one, which we will consider together with emotions to this group with Lords Amendments on

15:19

Jim McMahon MP, Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton, Labour )

- -

15:32

Kevin Hollinrake MP (Thirsk and Malton, Conservative)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment one. I call the shadow Secretary of State. Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker. Can I thank the Minister for his Can I thank the Minister for his explanation of commitments. We won't agree and I will explain why in response to his comments. I also thank the Lord for their careful consideration of the bill in particular my colleagues Lord Jamieson and Baroness Scott for their scrutiny and the amendments they have laid. The measures in this legislation come at a particularly critical time for businesses.

The withdrawal of retail hospitality and leisure relief, the partial withdrawal, a policy choice for this government, sitting businesses hard. The average pub is over £5000 worse off as a result of his choices. This together with their trash talking of the economy, and that £25 billion annual tax rise to businesses by means of the rise in employers National Insurance, and the prospect of the job destroying Employment Rights Bill all have had and directly led to the massive reduction in business confidence.

According to the Institute of directors, as this confidence stood at a high of +5 in July of last year. It has collapsed to a COVID

**** Possible New Speaker ****

level low of -65. My right honourable friend is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My right honourable friend is making a good speech. What would be his advice to the many businesses in his advice to the many businesses in my constituency who are telling me my constituency who are telling me they fear whether they will survive the next two is because particularly the rise to National Insurance contributions from employers, the Employment Rights Bill, and the Employment Rights Bill, and the antibusiness rhetoric. Hiring is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

down and prices are up, and many businesses are beginning to about whether it is all worth it. She makes a very good point.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

She makes a very good point.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

She makes a very good point. These are very difficult times. I was in business for 30 years and go through difficult times, and through difficult times, and particularly at times like this confidence is so low and consumer confidence has also dropped which confidence has also dropped which means people are not coming through the door. My advice would be batten down the hatches, get through the down the hatches, get through the week and inevitably the consequences of these choices will be less employment, lower salary increases employment, lower salary increases and higher prices.

For shops, public houses and other places was that is the consequence of the choices the government is making. The real-world effect of the drop in confidence, the historic drop in confidence is a 20 year high in business closures. Over 220,000 businesses closed their doors in the last three months of 2024. In considering the Lords Amendments today, it is important to remember the party opposite also promised to abolish business rates. This is another broken promise. The Minister says, a man I have a great deal of time for, but he talks about the art of the possible.

What he is saying is that this is a broken promise and what he promised the electorate, and even in their manifesto they promised to replace the business rates system so he can raise the same revenue but in a fairer way. This new system will level the playing field between high street and online giants. This is not what this legislation does. That is also a broken promise. I just do not understand, and that is why I challenge the Minister on a couple of occasions in his remarks, how this can both be a first step and a permanent change? It makes no sense.

If I was one of those business people we are all responsible for the rude health of, I would want to know exactly what the government has planned beyond these changes. It is not clear. First can I turn to Lords Amendment 14. This amendment will require the Secretary of state to review the merits of a separate use clause, and a multiplier for retail services provided by fulfilment warehouses. Those that do not have a material present on local high streets.

In other words, online giants. It is worth noting the proposed rates regime as set out by this bill will mean only around 10% of businesses paying the higher rate will be warehouses of online giants. In reality, shops, restaurants, cafe's, pubs, cinemas, music venues, gyms and hotels will all see their business rates rise as a result of the higher multiplier. We are supporting other rates regime that would genuinely level the playing field between online retailers and the high street.

But this bill does not deliver that. We therefore support amendment 14's requirements for the Secretary of State to conduct a review into a potential higher multiplier for fulfilment warehouses. This would mean important high streets are not punished. It takes me to Lords Amendment 158 and 11. We all know from constituencies how important these stores are. Supermarkets and department stores, for attracting footfall and supporting local economies. People come into the town centre and user store they might stop for lunch in a cafe or pop into an independent business.

Some key anchor stores in the Secretary of State own constituency I hit by this. Sainsburys in Ashton-under- Lyne has a value of one £9 million. M&S next door. These are real-world effects. And these are not online giants. We have seen that when anchor stores leave a town, the impact that it has on our communities. For many, anchor stores have been dragged into the higher multiplier by this bill could be the straw that breaks the camel's back. All this coming at a time when these shops have already been hit with a jobs tax, and will be tied up an even more red tape through the Employment Rights Bill.

In fact the British Retail Consortium has warned the government that the sheer scale of new costs and the speed with which they occur create a community of burden that will make job losses inevitable and higher prices a certainty. What a contrast with my parties proud record of supporting businesses on the high street by cutting business rates. To support small businesses as well with billions of pounds of support through the pandemic. While we are talking about high street businesses, can I once again pushed the Minister on a very important point on the retention of Small Business Rates Relief.

Will he say at the Dispatch Box that that relief will be continued because many businesses depend on that. I have not have clarity and clearly are not going to get clarity today. Maybe at the Chancellor's emergency budget tomorrow, let's see what will happen. We may get clear answers. The lastgasp attempt for growth tomorrow will come at a time when GDP fell by 0.1% in January which was largely attributed to a 1.1% fall in manufacturing output. It brings me briefly to Lords Amendment three, four, nine, and 10.

These amendments would include manufacturing changes for the lower multiplies in respect of lower multiplies in respect of lower lists. This comes at a time that is difficult for a manufacturing sector, a crucial part of our economy within the automotive and aerospace and engineering. As we now boost capital defence expenditure, it is important we have a strong and resilient manufacturing base that can supply our brave armed forces. I urge the government to reflect carefully on the impact of manufacturing through the new rates system.

And will be listening carefully to the Minister's responses on this issue. In turning to amendments one, six, seven, and 12, at the time of the government is raising taxes to invest in the NHS, it seems perverse that they are going to levy higher business rates on the very hospitals, GP practices, that provide the services so many of our constituents rely on. This of course comes weeks after they shamefully voted to impose the jobs tax on hospices, pharmacies, and GP practices. Another double by me.

Maybe giving with one hand and taking with the other. Before we get to the real problem with this bill I will talk to amendments 13 and 16. Like members of the other house we have concerns about the cliff edge the Minister refers to, and the problems of the business rates system. The business crossing the £500,000 threshold even by 1 pound will see a 20% increase in the rates payable. For example a business with £495,000 invested in property, just enough to be pushed over the property would potentially see an increase in rates from around £175,000 up to £325,000 as a result of this bill.

It will stifle investment and growth even further. Finally turning to Labour's education tax. Despiteful and ideologically driven decision to remove the charitable relief for private schools that are charities. This sits alongside the utterly wrongheaded policy of charging VAT on private school fees. Regardless of your views on private schools, it is the view of this side of the house that you should never tax education. We are already seeing the gates of independent schools being locked indefinitely, pushing more children into state education, increasing class sizes and putting more pressure on the public purse.

More pressure on councils trying to find placements for students with EHCPs. Lords Amendment 17 would retain rates relief for private schools in England are sparing them from a part of a punitive burden that would otherwise send them beyond the brink. It is not only education. We have learned that the government also will add business rates to nursery schools, and sports facilities on the site of a primary school use by the general public for top this is a regressive decision that will jack up the costs of swimming lessons, the cost of Sunday league clubs, and cadet units.

During our time in government, England became one of the top performing countries for education in the Western world. A record this government seems determined to trash. In years down the line members opposite will regret having voted for this bill, as they walked down the high street passing boarded-up shops, the school gates shut, and the local that called last orders years ago for the last time. I urge the government to consider and agree to the amendments from the Lords to safeguard businesses, schools, and communities across the country from more damaging business and job destroying tax measures.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker.

15:44

Mark Sewards MP (Leeds South West and Morley, Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker. The bill in its current form is absolutely necessary to support our high streets. It strikes a fairer balance between small businesses and large. I'm pleased to have contributed to most of the progress. I rise today to address some of the amendments brought forward by the other place which I think would reduce the effectiveness of the bill in achieving its stated purpose. Amendments to, five, eight, and 11 seek to exempt stores from the higher multipliers, thus reducing the overall revenue raised by this bill.

By reducing that revenue, the amendments actually reduce the support available to smaller retail hospitality and leisure businesses, the entire purpose of this legislation. I also have some concerns that, as well as reducing the overall revenue, defining what an anchor store is good create problems for our high streets and town centres. During the debate in the other place it was said that the Treasury could decide what an anchor store is. But it was also admitted that this would still a difficult term to define.

It is not uncommon or untrue to state that several shops and high street can indeed lay claim to that title. I foresee difficulties of the amendment was to pass. It is also true that the stores enough to be the largest store in town as we have heard in the debate today. Usually part of a big chain with supermarkets being in office example. Therefore the effect of this amendment would be to exempt these larger businesses from the higher multiplier, again reducing the support available to the smaller It is paid for by the higher multiplier on large businesses.

Unlike the Opposition, we want to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ensure that our numbers add up. Of course I will give way. What will they say to businesses

**** Possible New Speaker ****

What will they say to businesses trying to make numbers add up when trying to make numbers add up when their promises in the manifesto were around levelling the playing field around levelling the playing field between online giants and small businesses? That is not what is happening here - can he see that? It happening here - can he see that? It is large bricks and mortar retailers being hit by the increases. What would he say that when there is no sign of any increase in rates

**** Possible New Speaker ****

because of this bill, that is exactly what we will see? I am grateful for his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful for his intervention. This bill is designed specifically to revive our high specifically to revive our high specifically to revive our high streets. He can remember because the high streets were suffering and struggling under the last government and it is incumbent on the new government to revive them. That is government to revive them. That is why it is so important to pass this legislation today and he makes the point about manufacturing from a sedentary position but I think it is very important that we recognise that this government is also supporting manufacturing, too.

There are other mechanisms to do that. The bill is about supporting the high street and I am proud to support it. I want to briefly talk about Queen Street in my constituency, in Morely, right in the centre, and there is a lot of foot traffic from small businesses and these amendments do not prioritise them amendments do not prioritise them nor the small shops we have locally and they do nothing for the shops and businesses in Robin Hood or Lofthouse and that is why I cannot support these amendments today.

I back the high street along with all the small businesses that I represent in my constituency. Moving on, the only other amendments I will speak today and briefly on amendments 15, 17, 18, 19, which would in effect reintroduce the tax break for private schools. We have had this argument at the general election, in this House, inbuilt committees, and again today and is a committees, and again today and is a former maths teacher, I'm happy to cover old ground to make a point.

The part of the bill that generates revenue, we had to support that for our plans of government. I make no apologies for supporting the 94% of children that attend state schools. We all, and I include everyone, we all want children to have the best opportunities in life with the highest quality teaching in schools to match. It should be a basic function of the state to provide a well funded and excellent state school place for all students, whether parents choose to take advantage or not.

On these benches as we have proven recently, we are prepared to take the necessary action to make sure all children can access the kind of education that they deserve through the state. The £70 million that is raised from this measure in this bill alongside the other revenue raising measures we have taken in the Budget will and do result in a real terms increase in funding per pupil for the 94% that attend state schools and I am very to support that.

We will never make any apologies for properly funding the schools by ending the tax breaks that were previously enjoyed by private institutions and that is why I will not vote for these amendments today. To conclude, I'm pleased to support the bill in the current, unamended form. I will support high streets and give confidence to small businesses and give state schools the funding that they desperately need.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I also begin by putting on record my thanks to the noble Lords in the other place for the work on

15:51

Munira Wilson MP (Twickenham, Liberal Democrat)

- -

16:05

Division

17:24

Consideration of Lords amendments: Great British Energy Bill

Bill. We come to the Great British Energy Bill, motion to be moved Energy Bill, motion to be moved formally. The question is as on the order paper. As many as of that opinion, say, "Aye." The ayes have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it. The ayes have it. Consideration of Lords

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments. I must draw the attention of the House to the fact financial privileges engaged by amendments two and 11. If either of those and 11. If either of those amendments are agreed to, I will cause the customary waving financial cause the customary waving financial privilege to be entered in the journal. We begin with amendment journal. We begin with amendment one, which we consider together with other members on the selection people. I called the Minister to move the emotion to agree with Lords amendment one.

17:25

Michael Shanks MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Rutherglen, Labour)

- -

17:42

Andrew Bowie MP (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, Conservative)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. Thank you. This is a sad and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. This is a sad and quite incredible day that we are quite incredible day that we are seeing in this House. On many occasions in the past few months, we've debated this government's energy policies. Frequently we've debated the merits or lack thereof in Great British Energy. An organisation about which we still know very little. What it's for and what it will do. We are told by the party opposite will bring Brown bills by £300. They've gone up. We returned it would create jobs but nobody could tell us how many or by when.

We were told it would be based in Aberdeen but it's based in Manchester, and likely we will see less than plaque. It doesn't have a licence to generate any energy. We were told to guarantee a positive return on any investment but that's return on any investment but that's impossible. So will of course be asking again what this entity will actually do. Do they know? Will you be seeking an energy generation licence and how will it bring down energy costs in this country? Turning to today, far from the safety of state and the Minister's insistence that Great British Energy were free as from reliance on foreign dictatorships, this headlong rush to Clean Power 2030 will in fact put more light than ever in the People's Republic of China.

He and his ministers are quick to note the reluctance to rely on petrol state dictators. I wonder how he would characterise the People's Republic of China where political opposition is illegal where citizens have more limited political rights than the Russian Federation and where dissent is invariably punished and where the use of forced labour is pro. Just my comments we block Chinese general nuclear from drilling in the sea, prevented Chinese interference in our communication networks. And despite serious concerns, about the national security applications, about the ethical indications, about the high climate emissions this active state ministers are opening the gates to Chinese technology in our North Sea wind farms to solar panels made with slave labour and using coal power.

And it's in the context of our increasing reliance on foreign states that I wish to speak to the Lords amendments, updated to amendment to as brought in the other place, and I'm grateful to him and we all recognise as long-standing dedication to this serious matter. And I said this is a sad day and I feel for those Labour MPs, many of whom have a great deal of respect for. Those numbers you came to this House into politics and specific into the party as they believe in social justice, decency and for whom this is not just a job at a vacation.

-- Vacation. I came in July believing it would be a project of creating a better world, and I do wonder what that proud labour movement would make of this today because it was on this day in 1807 that the abolition of the slave trade act received Royal assent, on this day for top and 218 years on Labour MPs are going to be worked to allow the state to directly fund imports of goods built by slave imports of goods built by slave What will the MP say to their constituents? How will they explain this vote? In the weeks since we marked 10 years since Modern Slavery Act.

How will they explain it to themselves? That act was a land marked piece of legislation. It is right we recognise now that protections against use of public money and supply chains in the use of modern slave Labour need to be more robust. Voting against this incredibly sensible amendment that seeks to protect some of the most oppressed people in the world, seeks to ensure our net zero object, whatever your view on them, won't be built on the back of slave Labour, on the Uighur Muslims of Xinjiang and elsewhere, the vast majority of solar panels are exposed to Yuan Yang silicone where manufacturers have been found to have links to Uighur forced Labour.

Therefore, what we are seeing isn't simply an offshoring of our admissions or energy security, although those are true, today we are seeing the offshoring of the Labour Party's moral compass. We all know why. Clean power by 2030 demands it. The fact is they will not achieve that target that they signed up to without the help of China, without importing from coal powered factories thousands of miles away. They are pursuing a Made in China energy transition, built on the backs of slave Labour and powered by Chinese coal.

It is quite ironic that the Minister is willing to stomach the higher carbon emissions associated with importing LNG from abroad, four times higher emissions rather than drilling at home. He wants to import solar panels, tainted by human rights abuses, rather than giving our domestic supply chains the time to grow. It is an irony which is not lost on us, neither will it be lost on the country. This is, I am afraid, the victory of ideology over sense, zealotry over the national interest, it is bad for Britain, it is bad for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill payers and it is quite bad for the climate. I will give way. On our energy security does he

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On our energy security does he agree with me that if we build more of that infrastructure here in the of that infrastructure here in the UK, that is good for British jobs and good for our energy security. Also, so is issuing new oil and gas licences in Scotland so we can produce more of our energy here at home that will make us safer from

**** Possible New Speaker ****

home that will make us safer from volatile energy markets abroad. He will not be at all surprised

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He will not be at all surprised to learn that I agree with him entirely. It is purely the imposition on this country of arbitrary needless targets like clean power 2030, to generate headlines and have the Secretary of State's name up in lights that is requiring us to become more in line with the People's Republic of China for the goods, for the technology, for the equipment to develop the solar farms, nearly all of which will be tainted by slave Labour in some way given the reliance on that country, on part of that country for that infrastructure and that technology so of course, I agree with him and it would be much better if we were issuing new licences and continuing to support our domestic oil and gas industry.

We have debated that time and time again and I'm sure we will come back to debate in the future. Great British Energy is not great, it's not British, it won't generate any energy. Public funds must not be funding imports tainted by modern slavery, slave Labour. British taxpayers deserve better, a domestic supply chain which creates jobs at home rather than funding abuses abroad and that reason is why we are supporting Lord's amendment to. I urge members opposite to do the thing today -- same today.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to my amendment to the Lord's amendment number two, to the Lord's amendment number two, which I hope might act as a bridge between our two houses. Whilst I between our two houses. Whilst I welcome this bill, from the moment it started his journey through parliament, I have been issuing a parliament, I have been issuing a warning. Without proper safeguarding in place, our transition to net zero

17:50

Sarah Champion MP (Rotherham, Labour)

- -

in place, our transition to net zero will be carried through on the backs of those in slavery. Renewable energy is vital for our transformation to a low carbon economy, but we know human rights abuses are inherent in our green technology. There is evidence of child Labour in DRC cobalt mining and Labour exploitation in nickel processing in Indonesia. Forced Labour is committed at scale in Xinjiang China, with the abuse of Uighurs in the production of steel, material that makes up nearly 80% of our wind turbines and well documented abuse in the production of solar panels.

I was usually grateful it report stage for the commitment to me, " We have been clear that no company in the UK should have forced Labour in its supply chain and we will be working with colleagues across government to tackle the issue of Uighur forced Labour and supply chains." But too often we have accepted warm words at the Dispatch Boxes then failed to materialise. This bill is a serious piece of legislation, not least as the government has committed to capitalising GB Energy with over 8.3 billion pounds.

If companies want to benefit from taxpayers money, they must be able to approve -- proof that their supply chains are free of forced Labour. I have tabled amendment to a to this effect which places the burden of proof on the businesses -- 2A. Cross government working is the only way to put an end to stagnation and our responses to modern slavery. Once slavery is found, we must take action. Including placing road companies at the procurement asked disbarment list, banning them from winning list, banning them from winning other public contracts.

The public deserves a guarantee there money will be used to fund human rights abuses. To quote the Minister for business and trade, no company should have abuses in their supply chains. I admire the ministers resolve to give genuine commitments to root out slavery in areas of responsibility. When it comes to GBE my amendment gives a simple cost- effective method to achieve that. I'm glad Minister agrees. Let me repeat back what I believe he has committed to and push a little further for clarity.

Firstly, and probably primarily, can he confirm that there will be clarity within GB Energy's strategic objectives and framework document that designated companies must not use forced Labour in any part of their supply chains? This need to be mapped down to raw materials. I'm glad there will be across ministerial working group to work across departments to tackle slavery in supply chains, that is what needs to happen. A commitment to leverage to the debarment list, and let us remember that the act includes discretionary grounds that don't require a conviction.

All of this requires a designated leader within GBE to take accountability for this. I Nelly, one more ask if possible -- finally will stop.... Avoid the risk of an all reliance on slave made resources. Of course the issue of modern slavery is bigger than renewals, but we must start somewhere. With a clear path and strong commitments, GB Energy can lead from the front and stop the UK from coming a dumping ground of slave made goods. Based on his word and seeking those clarifications, I withdraw my amendment and I hope it also satisfies the other place that the Minister has listened and acted to stamp out modern slavery in GB Energy's future procurement and I think the Minister for this.

17:54

Pippa Heylings MP (South Cambridgeshire, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Thank you. I am pleased to welcome here today alongside community groups like power for people, community energy England and community groups across the country to welcome the inclusion of community energy and benefit on the front face of the Great British Energy Bill through Lord's amendment one. It was possible after all. I congratulate the government for taking this step. We liberal Democrats have pushed hard for that in this House and the other house, but there has been a lot of cross party working on this as well to achieve it and I am delighted this is now enshrined in law.

This is a victory for community voices, giving them a real stake in the energy transition through full or partial ownership of local power. Communities like mine, where many are off grid and struggling with volatile prices and hikes for oil, they want to generate and sell their own green energy locally. It's absurd that this is impossible. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There are five community energy schemes in my constituency and they schemes in my constituency and they all contribute to local energy all contribute to local energy supplies. An increase in community energy projects would boost the local economy, as she was saying, local economy, as she was saying, create jobs and reduce energy costs, especially in rural areas. Does she agree that we must go further and to agree that we must go further and to create these long term plans to support this type of initiative?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

support this type of initiative? I completely agree. This is the statutory steer within the Great British Energy Bill to help us have those long term plans. I would also say clean energy transition has to be done with communities, not to communities. I also commended the government for committing the additional 5 million pounds to community energy fund, bringing certainty at least two at short-term future. The Lord's amendment one also addresses community benefits, which are critical for taking people with us on this pathway to the energy transition.

If communities are to host energy infrastructure, onshore wind or large-scale solar farm, these benefits have got to go beyond token gestures such as Ruse for scout huts or some apprenticeships. If we take the example from Scotland around 5,000 pounds per megawatt four years -- per year, a large-scale solar project in my constituency, that could provide 2.5 million pounds annually to the local community. This is the kind of scale we have to be talking about and it has to be the community that determines how and where that money is spent.

Lord's amendment 12 is also a vital addition requiring GB Energy to keep its impact on sustainable development under review. Credit is due to Baroness Hayman who fought tirelessly in the other house to ensure sustainability is embedded in our energy transition through that amendment. We welcome the assurances we have received that in the framework agreement that will be updated, not only will the local economies of coastal communities be taken into consideration, but there will also be a climate and nature duty explicit for GB Energy.

GB Energy has to consider the economic environmental and social needs, ensuring future generations can also meet theirs. We also have to discuss the Lord's amendment to. -- Amendment 2. We would like to discuss amendment 2 letter a and 2B. Modern slavery is a barbaric practise that could have been -- should have been eradicated a long time ago. Once we look to the promise of our green energy transformation that cannot take place at the cost of human rights abuses across the world.

Research from Sheffield University as directly linked China's Labour transfer programme to the global supply chain. China produces 40% of the worlds poly silicone and 80% of its solar panels. Right now, 2.7 and 80% of its solar panels. Right now, 2.7 million Uighurs are subjected to state detention and forced Labour. It is incomprehensible that government seeks to vote down this amendment that would withdraw GB Energy investment from supply chains tainted by forced Labour. GB Energy has to set the standard.

Currently, there is nothing sufficiently robust to ensure that would happen. The solar Powell task force -- power task force does not do this. It should not just be the energy sector. The health sector has already included this in the health and social care act. It has shown leadership. This is a key piece of legislation and it should be part of this legislation too.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not just the practicalities of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not just the practicalities of the need to include these measures. Should we also show the public, notwithstanding boards are need to get to net zero in one. The measures were promoted to achieve that are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not tainted, by human rights abuses. Completely agree. That's why Liberal Democrats will continue to Liberal Democrats will continue to call for trade restrictions with regions where abuses take place, including Xinjiang. An advocate for sanctions against individuals and entities involved in Uighur persecution. This is more than about Britain, it's about playing our part conscientiously in a global movement where all human rights abuses are stopped. Thank you.

18:00

Alex Sobel MP (Leeds Central and Headingley, Labour )

- -

I speak in support of my amendment 2B, among the joint committee of human rights which is currently taking an inquiry on forced Labour in UK chip supply chains. This gives a mechanism. The chains. This gives a mechanism. The Lord's moment seeks finances to any company for Great British Energy were there is credible evidence of modern slavery and their supply chains. My moment takes into account some arguments made by the government, seeks to refine the Lord's amendment seeking a mechanism to determine that.

To define what constitutes credible evidence. This allows a bill to be his business family as possible while ensuring As for the creation of GB Energy, governments commitment zero ambitions and clipart by 2030. Must have high standards of our solar industry. The British public doesn't one hour net zero future built on slave labour force to the Uyghur... Multiple UK public sector bodies have found to procure silicon from the region as the U.K.'s capacity sets to double in the future.

Concerns around the cans and other public services when they get locked into long-term contracts with suppliers. We need to ensure that our solar supply chain is free of Uyghur slave labour. Report by the risk Institute estimates of Beijing restrict certain exports will cost UK £4.4 billion, raising hundred £55 bills and stalling past the net zero, leave our ability for net zero. We need to look at the raising tariffs around the world to understand the risks that are there if we rely solely on China polysilicon's and solar panels.

If GB Energy became reliant solely on those solar panels in China, we are those solar panels in China, we are not just complicit in human rights abuse and creating a point of strategic vulnerability in our energy system, give the Chinese state a lever of influencer recruiting structure and undermine our sovereignty. In the words of Laura Murphy, United States Department of Homeland Security until January this year, perhaps the world's leading expert on Xinjiang supply chain said, human rights and climate spectacle are facing green energy on Xinjiang calls, high carbon emissions and on forced labour of oppressed communities is higher and longer term price to pay.

And what are British workers without GB Energy to contract companies that are directly undermining the system. No one can compete with forced labour. In our manifesto we pledge to support well-paid clean jobs and this amendment seeks to ensure the British work is not undercut by Chinese companies that profit from slavery and GB the promotes not only the renewable sector improves human rights for workers at all stages of the supply chain. Is also true that the supply chain. Is also true that the United States have nudged companies to diversify their supply chains and there is a gradual move away from suppliers using forced labour in the United States under the provisions of the week forced labour prevention outcome a number of companies and sanction views of forced labour.

The solo task force while a welcome step is not empowered to assess procurement or equipped for the necessary risks. I know the task force workers come to a conclusion so I'd like to ask the Minister to outline the steps that will follow the work task force to ensure a solid mechanism in the solar supply chain. As my honourable friend the Minister has stated in the past, no UK company should have forced labour in supply chains and this active stave energies security should reaffirm the position.

This active state for business should have no forced labour in supply chains. Sadly the current statue has not been sufficient to prevent slave labour entering the UK so more must Is a way to incentivise a clean supply chains for this bill presents an opportunity as the purchasing power of the government and large business in the right direction. This week marks 10 years since the Modern Slavery Act became law. Once a leader in the fight against modern slavery now in danger fully behind after legislation in the US have outlined now in the EU first of this moment presents a credible mechanism to secure clean and you future.

This is just one way as the Minister outlined of ensuring that we can remove the forced labour supply chains. The Minister raised the prospect of using the procurement act 2023 and I welcome what he said. It requires conviction of the Modern Slavery Act in their own country. In China it means is disguised in coming those conditions would not be met. I'd like to ask if the Minister in very welcome cross department all working groupies announced will be looking at the procurement act and ensure the became an act is fit for purpose and looking at the way the United States has utilised a rebuttal presumption firm goods in Xinjiang or another similar mechanism.

Will the Minister is a matter of urgency with his cross department working group ensure that we have the powers, expertise to prevent forced labour and our service supply chains and will he work with the trade unions, NGOs and the independent antislavery commission on this? Will the Minister meet with me and Professor Laura Murphy as she now works at Sheffield Hallam University to explore the robust decision as she helped Templeman the United States and work with me on ensuring not just for GB Energy the whole of our solar energy.

I agree with the Minister this is not just an issue for GB Energy the whole solar industry. Will the Minister work with me to get a workable department list to ensure the GB Energy is acting on Modern Slavery Act? And commitment that GB Energy's operating framework is committed to tackling forced labour? If I get these reassurances from the Minister, I am happy to withdraw my amendment and work with the government and the Department across working group and others to ensure that we can take the scandal of forced labour out of our solar supply chains.

Thank you. supply chains. Thank you.

18:07

Rt Hon Sir Iain Duncan Smith MP (Chingford and Woodford Green, Conservative)

- -

Grateful to be called. I will be as brief as I can. The Minister is incorrect as I said before in believing them? Gives any protection at all against Modern Slavery Act the supply chain first as a fact of life, we've known about for ages. I was one who brought the Modern Slavery Act into government 10 years ago but at that time we didn't understand how bad it was in China. We know now for a fact that over 90% of the policy looking that is made for the world is made in China.

When a huge amount of that, 97% of all the solar arrays sold here will have polysilicon made from Xinjiang which will be made by slave labour. We know that. There is no dispute at all about that. The question really facing the government is not I wonder if the Minister would listen, would be grateful. The problem facing the government is not think the Modern Slavery Act is good or bad. I don't for one moment accuse him of that. What to say right now is what has gone missing in all of this and what the Noble Lords amendment did was to focus back on the fact that we have no requirement on government or a way in which they can deal with slavery in the supply chain.

America has said earlier on has turned the burden of proof upside down and said we assume you have slave labour in your product. You now prove to us that you do not. That is the only way to deal with it, and they then sanction those companies so we have none of that available to the government under this. In the procurement act does not even begin a whisper of that because it needs a modern day slavery act to have mounted a prosecution which it cannot because a company that is an agent for a Chinese made solar array will not be prosecuted, only the company that makes it under the present laws and that means no prosecution will take place because no company in China is going to be prosecuted by the Chinese government because they are Chinese government because they are the ones that set up this ghastly process in the first place, and why? Because it makes their arrays cheaper than any wordy else in the world.

That's why they pretty much wiped out all other reproduction in the world, so now ask yourselves, where are they going to get those arrays from? The answer is not. And if you had to, you'd pay a lot of money so understand what's going on here is a debate probably in government well if we go down this road, is going to be awfully expensive and the cost will go up. I simply say to the government in conclusion on this, they know what the facts are.

This amendment over here, 2B i.e. Support it and support the honourable member you in the right reasons are brought forward and I support the way in which the honourable lady brought tears forward. But the main thing is you must act. If we do not act, we do not make it illegal, if we do not punish those companies involved in, directly as agents or not, then we will be guilty. Guilty of increasing slavery in China, and that is what this debate tonight is all about.

So I'm sorry the government is going to get rid of this amendment. I think they could have done a deal to enhance it or whatever, but now they will have to commit to coming forward with legislation to increase and improve the act that they have and that's going to take another debate. I say to the government for goodness sake, I had this by the way with my own government when they were in, I voted against them, voted with the Labour Party to put this in the health and social care Bill.

We did that together. So nobody thinks I'm being party political because I'm not. I'm sanctioned by the Chinese government because we raised this originally. So I say to them, I will not stop and many in this House will not stop until the government faces up to one thing and one thing only. Not one life through Modern Slavery Act is worth a lower cost of a solar array, and that should be an epitaph of this ridiculous position

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the government is in. Thank you. As a former energy industry professional before industry professional before entering this place I am very pleased to see that Great British Energy is making impressive strides. Energy is making impressive strides. Securing a landmark partnership with the Crown Estate, we've seen Great British Energy commit to more and British Energy commit to more and more solar power, which is much welcome by my constituents and of course we've seen investment in carbon capture and storage clusters in Deeside and Merseyside, bringing

18:11

James Naish MP (Rushcliffe, Labour)

- -

in Deeside and Merseyside, bringing thousands of jobs to those areas. More broadly I also welcome the government's move to ban... To lift government's move to ban... To lift the ban on offshore wind in England, to promote funding in newer emerging industries, including hydrogen and fusion energy and look forward to the government announcing the winner of the small modular reactor contract at some point over the coming weeks when I hope the government will also be placing a sizeable order.

But as we advance towards a future of clean secure home-grown energy, we must also ensure that this feature is built on principles of justice and respect for human rides, and I therefore also want to talk to Lords amendment to today. Since being elected last year as Member of Parliament for Rushcliffe I have been contacted by constituents voicing their concerns about what is happening in Xinjiang, Uighur autonomous region of China. In 2021 so Geoffrey Nye KC delivered the Uighur tribunal's judgement here in London, deeming that the Chinese government's policies amount to, " A deliberate systematic and concerted policy to bring about long-term reduction of the Uighur and other ethnic minority populations." Forced labour is I'm afraid being used as a key instrument in this campaign of oppression.

Over a million Uighurs have been detained in re-education camps and many are transferred to working in factories, mines and fields under barbaric conditions. As has been mentioned, some of those factories produce poly silicon, a critical component in 95% of the world's solar panels. And on this basis, it is estimated that around 40% of the UK solar industry may be at risk of sourcing materials tainted by the state-sponsored forced labour. That's why I believe that this House has a responsibility to ask hard questions as these amendments today have done.

And if we are to stand as a country that champions both Human Rights Act and climate action, we must ensure that our clean energy future is not built on the backs of exploited peoples. The choices we make on legislation like this on who receives British taxpayers money and what standards we demand in procurement are not abstract. They are ultimately a measure of whether we are willing to trade convenience for complicity. It's right therefore that we always examine how supply chains operate.

It's right that we consider how credible evidence of forced labour should be defined, and he was best placed to determine that. It's right that we reflect on with our current legal frameworks are sufficient. The Modern Slavery Act 2015 as has been mentioned with groundbreaking at the time but currently lacks the teeth to tackle forced labour that's taking place in Xinjiang. And in this context, I believe we should note the steps that have been taken across the Atlantic. In June it will be three years since the Uighur forced labour prevention act was enacted in the United States.

And I believe that similar resolvers needed here in the UK and we should expedite updating and strengthening our moderns legislation in light of Great British Energy's ambitious plans. The Uighur people and others facing slavery around the world deserve to know that Britain will not turn a blind eye. We cannot end all injustice. But we can ensure that our laws, our procurement policies, and our public financing do not sustain atrocities. I therefore implore the government to listen to these benches today and those opposite.

I thank the Minister for the significant steps he has outlined already today. And I ask him to reassure us once more that the relevant steps will be taken to prevent Great British Energy from in any way contributing towards promoting or sustaining known

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will keep my comments short. This amendment and the government This amendment and the government refusing to support it shows the absolutism of their net zero policy. The amendment is not just sensible, but morally correct. Voting against it, this government is signalling

18:16

Harriet Cross MP (Gordon and Buchan, Conservative)

- -

it, this government is signalling that its ambition to reach net zero trumps everything else. Can that really be correct? That is what this amendment is setting up. If we cannot support those suffering from slave Labour, modern slavery, what are we doing and is net zero, the rush to net zero, really worth that? What is net zero for? It is there to prevent us from going down a way that is not livable. Therefore, what are we saving the planet for if it's not for people to be able to work in a safe, secure way? We cannot sacrifice that or condone not -- that.

In order to rush towards net zero for stopped the Uighur Muslims in China do not have a safe, secure place to work. They are oppressed and by not supporting this amendment, the government are supporting the depression. We have rightly condoned slavery in the past. The government has rightly condoned past slavery, but they are now happy to condone forced Labour in China. It is an unbelievable situation we have found ourselves in, but we are getting used to this sort of behaviour from the government.

They are heartless policies that we have seen since they came to power, whether that's a family farm tax, the tax on jobs putting people out of work, taxing children's hospices which we have seen go through this afternoon, and then we have this amendment they are not supporting them by not supporting this amendment they are effectively saying they are happy to turn a blind eye to modern slavery across the world and that is something we on this side of the House cannot possibly support.

Until July last year, the Labour government, the Labour Party seemed happy to promote their morals, but it seems those morals were left at the last door they knocked on in July.

18:18

Michael Shanks MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Rutherglen, Labour)

- -

Thank you. With leave of the House I will sum up the debate. Can I start firstly by saying thank you to all honourable and right honourable members for their contributions in this short debate on the number of different amendments we are discussing today, but particularly of course on the most important issue of all around the question of forced Labour and modern slavery in our economy. I want to just reflect on some of the contributions from both sides of the House.

Let me start by saying first of all I hear the very strong views from members on this issue and it is right that government of whatever party constantly challenges itself to go further in tackling these issues because, as he put it, for even one person to be affected by forced Labour is an absolute disgrace and we should collectively find whatever means we can to tackle this issue. I do want to reiterate very clearly, contrary to some of the contributions we have heard from the party opposite, this particular amendment is around amending the Great British Energy Bill, it is not about the government's wider commitment on tackling modern slavery and it can be repeated as often as members opposite might like, it is simply disingenuous to come to this place and suggest that this party has suddenly decided not to care about this issue.

I really do take issue with that. The right honourable gentleman wasn't in for a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

lot of the debate, but I will give way. I think the Minister will accept

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the Minister will accept this as a modest amendments, it can make a significant difference to people's lives and outcomes in people's lives and outcomes in China. There has been talk of buying off their Back Benches by saying off their Back Benches by saying there's further legislation coming down the line. When is that going to come down the line? Six months time? come down the line? Six months time? One year? Two years? When?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

One year? Two years? When? He care so much about the issue, he is only just turned up to the debate. Second of all, he was a senior member of the government for 14 years, if this was an issue he cared about so much, why is it that we are here debating this issue now? The truth is the previous government could have tackled this much more clearly. I won't follow on that particular point, but let me be very clear as I said in the opening debate which he wasn't here for, we have said very clearly that there should be no modern slavery anywhere in our economy or our supply chains and we have to work right across government and right across the economy to deliver this.

It is not only going to be the investments that Great British Energy makes. I will give way very briefly then I need to finish. need to finish.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Modern Slavery Act does not work, you can't do it, has to meet work, you can't do it, has to meet two criteria to do anything. There only advised about doing things. The only advised about doing things. The organ harvesting was constituted as ethical organ transplant system in the World Health Organisation and we had to prove against that. All these had to prove against that. All these things it is stating poles. You can't get to the supply chains, I urge you to accept and see -- please give a commitment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I do understand the argument she is making, but the crucial detail I am referring to here is that the am referring to here is that the problem she speaks of demonstrate why this is a problem far broader than just Great British Energy. This than just Great British Energy. This is a bill about setting up Great British Energy is a publicly owned British Energy is a publicly owned energy company. The wider issues in the economy that other members have the economy that other members have highlighted, is about the wider economy and investment right across our supply chains.

The reason we are our supply chains. The reason we are setting up Great British Energy in spite of the party opposite is because we want to deliver homegrown supply chains in this country and industrial strategy that the party opposite completely failed to deliver for 14 years. In fact, a complete ignorance of how we build supply chains here. And if we delivered on supply chains in this country, we may not have to import quite so much. Honourable members can shout opposite all they want, they no they failed on this matter and we are picking up the pieces from it.

For members that were in the debate, I want to respond to points that were made, particularly my honourable friend made a powerful speech, particularly picking up the point around how widespread forced Labour is. Looking at legislating individual companies here and there is not the white -- right approach but why we have to work right across government to tackle this. She asked for clarity on some points made. She is right to reiterate the point that I intend to pull together people right across government to look at how we can collectively tackle this issue.

There will be a designated leader in GBE to drive this forward. We will utilise the debarment list and on a broader point, we fully expect GBE to do everything in its power under the relevant legislation to remove any instances of forced Labour from their supply chains and they must not approve the use of products from companies that may be linked to forced Labour. This is an important debate on a bill that was in our manifesto that delivers the first new national publicly owned energy generation company in 75 years, back to the British public, delivering jobs and investment all over the country.

It will deliver the deployment of clean power, we will tackle the supply chains to make sure jobs come to this country and that we tackle the scourge of modern slavery, not just through GBE, but right across the economy. That is our commitment and I urge honourable members to support the government's position today. And in doing so, I do reiterate the point I made earlier that in the 15 seconds left, I am very willing to work with right honourable member's right across the South to tackle this fundamental issue because it is of extreme importance right across the government that we tackle this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I must now put the question as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I must now put the question as necessary to bring to a conclusion proceedings on the Lord's amendments. The question is that this House agrees with the Lord's in their amendment 1. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye", of the contrary, "No". The ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with Lord's amendment 2. I called the Minister to move the motion the Minister to move the motion formally. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lord's in

18:25

Division

their amendment 2. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye", of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is The question is on The question is on the The question is on the order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is on the order paper. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye", of the opinion, say, "Aye", of the contrary, "No". Tellers for the Lock the Lock the doors. Order Order order. Order order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right, 314. The noes to the left, 198.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noes to the left, 198. The ayes were 314, the noes were 198. The ayes have it, the ayes have 198. The ayes have it, the ayes have The question is that this House The question is that this House agrees with the Lords in their amendments three to 12. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. Minister to move that a committee be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

appointed to draw up a reason. I beg to move that a committee be appointed to draw up a reason to be appointed to draw up a reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments. That Michael Shanks, Anna Turley, That Michael Shanks, Anna Turley, Luke Myer, Luke Murphy, Andrew Bowie and Susan Murray the members of the committee, that Michael Shanks be the chair of the committee, that three be the core of the committee three be the core of the committee and that the committee do withdraw

**** Possible New Speaker ****

immediately. The question is that a committee be appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment 2. That Michael Shanks, Anna Turley, Chris McDonald, Luke Myer, Luke Murphy, Andrew Bowie, Susan Murray, be members of the committee, that Michael Shanks be chair of the committee, that three be the core of the committee. That the committee do withdraw immediately. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it.

Black includes consideration of Lords amendments to the Great British Energy Bill. We now come to the terrorism protection of premises bill. Program two motion to be move formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. The question is as on the order paper. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary,

18:40

Consideration of Lords amendments: Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." I think the ayes have it, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ayes have it. Terrorism protection premises bill, consideration of Lords

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments. Now. We will begin with Lords amendment one. Which we were considered together with Lords considered together with Lords amendments to to 13 as the selection amendments to to 13 as the selection paper. I called the Minister to move to agree with Lords amendment one. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

call Dan Jarvis. The terrorism protection of

18:40

Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The terrorism protection of premises bill, Martin's law has returned to this House in good returned to this House in good shape. There have only been a small number of amendments in the other place with all but one made by the government, all of which we will consider this evening. The government has been particular grateful for the collaborative approach to scrutinising the bill across both houses, and I hope this will continue this evening as we take the final steps to passing this important piece of legislation.

I will begin by speaking to Lords amendments one, two, 10, 11, 12, and 13. These amendments require the government in the other place to make mine and technical changes to further clarify the conditions for qualifying premises and qualifying events. Specifically, these amendments clarify the intention that premises and events are not in scope where attendance is in a personal or private capacity. For example, a wedding attended by relations and friends or an office party attended by employees and customers.

These are private events, not publicly accessible and the amendments make even clearer that they should be out of scope. These amendments do not alter the intended policy or the scope of the bill. They are technical changes to provide further clarity on who will be within scope of this legislation. Turning to Lords amendment five, which was tabled by Baroness Suttie on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, this amendment places a statutory duty upon the Secretary of State to consult as appropriate before publication of the guidance under clause 27.

As my Noble Friend Lord Hanson of Flint made clear in the other place, the government is happy to accept this amendment. We are acutely aware of the importance of the guidance that will accompany this bill and it's vital that those responsible for qualifying premises and events have both time and the information needed to ensure that they can plan and prepare for and ultimately implement the requirements. It's also essential that the guidance is informed by proper consideration and engagement.

This had always been the government's intention, and we are content to enshrine the principle of appropriate consultation in statute by virtue of this amendment. I turned finally to Lords amendments three, four, six, seven, eight, and nine, which were brought by the government in light of the clear cross-party support to further strengthen the safeguards on the use of certain Henry VIII powers in the bill. Amendments three, four, six and nine consolidate into clause 32 the powers previously found in clauses 5 and six, which allow the Secretary of State to add, omit or amend the description of public protection procedures or measures.

Amendments seven and eight place conditions on these powers the secretary of state must satisfy. These conditions are also added to the powers in clause 32 that enable the Secretary of State to alter the qualifying threshold is the standard duty premises, enhanced duty premises and qualifying events. These conditions limit the use of the powers to lower the threshold is or to add new procedures or measures where the secretary of state considers it necessary to do so for public protection. Conversely, the thresholds can be raised or procedures or measures omitted or amended only if the Secretary of State considers that the retention is not necessary for public protection.

Additionally, Lords amendment eight will require the secretary of state to consult such persons as they consider appropriate before exercising any of the powers specified in clause 32, including those I have just described. The government considers this approach provides an extra level of assurance if future Secretaries of State are considering using these powers. It strikes we think the right balance between ensuring the bill can be kept up-to-date whilst providing on the face of the bill an important set of further safeguards to ensure that these powers if used are used appropriately and with proper consideration.

I'm grateful to those in the other place for their considered scrutiny of these measures and for continuing the collaborative approach which has flowed through the passage of this bill. I particularly want to thank Lord Anderson of Ipswich for his constructive challenge, and I'm pleased he felt able to add his name to the government amendments. I'm sure this House agrees that these amendments provide further safeguards and ensure that if and when the powers are used, they are used appropriately and with Before I conclude I would like to take the opportunity to recognise the extraordinary campaigning efforts.

Without which we would not be here today. I will have more to say about him later -- her later, but she is always been very clear that the Martyn's Law campaign was a team effort. I particularly want to take the opportunity this evening to recognise the contribution of the whole campaign team, including Brendan, Nick, Nathan and Stewart. With that, I very much hope that right honourable and honourable members will support all of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments before us today. The question is that this House

18:46

Katie Lam MP (Weald of Kent, Conservative)

- -

agrees with Lord's in their amendments 1. I call shadow Minister. Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. On 22 May, and extremist carried out a sickening attack on the Manchester Arena attack on the Manchester Arena following a concert. This barbaric act of terrorism killed 22 people and injured more than a thousand and injured more than a thousand others, many of them children. It was the deadliest act of terrorism in this country since the 77 in this country since the 77 bombings in 2005. What was taken from the victims and those who love from the victims and those who love them can never be given back.

That of course includes Figen Murray whose determination and fortitude we offer -- on her this afternoon and whose son we remember along with all the others who were killed or injured on that horrible day. This bill, inherited from the previous government is an attempt to address an insufficiency on terrorism framework by ensuring that public events are better prepared for any future attacks. This is a noble goal and one which colleagues on both sides of the House undoubtedly support.

When this bill was last in this place, my honourable friend spoke of the concern we all share to get the balance right here. Our safeguard against potential future terrorist attacks must be robust but also proportionate and pragmatic. He spoke of the spirit of support, cooperation and openness in which we suggest a small amendments to the bill and I believe amendments were tabled in the other place on that same spirit. We welcome the change from invitations to tickets and the clarity that provides about private events being out of scope of this legislation.

We are sorry not to see some more of those amendments in this place for debate and would like to urge the Minister who I know is very conscious of the different pressures here and the need for balance to keep the threshold under review as clause 32 of the bill provides for and to continue to assess the impact of this legislation on community institutions. We continue to have some concerns that in its current form, this legislation risks adding to the already enormous burden of regulation and paperwork which small hospitality and community venues including pubs, churches and village halls must navigate on a daily basis.

We also welcome the amendment for consultation. It is right the people of this country should be able to go about their daily lives and to events in the knowledge they are safe. It is also right we take action to ensure that horrific attacks like the one carried out in Manchester in May 2017 do not happen again. As we pursue this noble goal we should remain aware of and sensitive to the potential negative impacts of our good intentions. Small venues across this country are already struggling and we must be very cautious about already adding to that burden, but we are happy to support these amendments from the Lord's today.

18:49

Tim Roca MP (Macclesfield, Labour)

- -

My contribution will be brief. Can I start by thanking the Minister, but also Lord Hanson and the other place for the hard work they've done with others on bringing this bill to fruition today. I also want to thank them for the kindness and courtesy they have shown my Constituents Figen Murray and her husband Stuart. I want to echo what the Minister said earlier and paying tribute to them and the whole campaign team have worked so hard on this.

They have asked me to place on the record their view that the other place did a good job in its scrutiny of this bill that it was cross party, was collaborative and that the considered amendments brought forward from the other place will strengthen the bill. For my part, I am also very glad to see there was no further watering down of the thresholds that have been discussed, but I understand it's important to but I understand it's important to keep these under review.

This will have a deterrent effect, it will also have a protective effect and it will save lives. Thank you. will save lives. Thank you.

18:51

Lisa Smart MP (Hazel Grove, Liberal Democrat)

- -

It is a pleasure to return to this chamber to consider the Lord's amendment to the Terrorism Bill. Over recent months, the bill is been scrutinised in detail at the other end of this building and I want to begin by thanking colleagues in the House of Lords for their collaborative work. The changes brought forward or sensible, proportionate and they reflect the broad cross party consensus of the aims of this legislation. A number the changes were technical in nature but crucial in clarity.

They address several concerns that I and others raised during the second reading in this House around the scope of qualifying events under the bill. The Lord's amended the bill to make clear that private events, weddings, office parties are similar sit outside its scope. This helps to ensure this law is designed for public racing venues -- facing venues without overreaching. A number of important changes were made to strengthen safeguards around delegated powers. The amendments consolidate the key power of the Secretary of State to amend the public protection procedures that must be in place within each tier to a single clause.

They also require the secretary of state to meet a high bar of necessity to make changes to qualifying thresholds to protective measures and to consult the relevant parties before exercising these powers. These are welcome changes to introduce further transparency and ensure the bills implementation is balanced and accountable. Another key area of discussion throughout the bills passage has been the need for clear and accessible guidance. At second reading, I and others caution the venue operators would struggle to comply with the law without the adequate support.

I am therefore very pleased that the Minister in the Lord's gave a firm commitment that guidance will be published well in advance of changes Coming into force and there will be a time of engagement to ensure it is robust and practical. I want to thank my liberal Democrat colleague for her tireless work on this point and for her amendment which helps secure this assurance will stop her contribution in Lord's has strengthen the bill considerably. It is impossible to consider this legislation without remembering why we are here.

Martyn's Law is born from an unimaginable tragedy, Terrace to track -- terrorist attack. As the MP in Greater Manchester, I witnessed firsthand the resilience and unity that followed the arena attack. I remember joining my community when residents came together in quiet solidarity the evening after. It was an act of remembrance, but also a statement that terrorism will never define us and that we will not be divided by it. Among the 22 lives taken that night was Martyn Hett, and his mother Figen Murray has shown extraordinary resolve in the years since the attack.

Her campaign for Martyn's Law has been defined by compassion, determination and a belief that no other family should ever experience what hers has had to endure. Today we're seeing the fruits of her dedication. This bill is a testament to her courage and her unrelenting hope that something good could emerge from the darkest of circumstances. Thanks to her advocacy, this country will be better prepared to keep people safe in our public spaces. I welcome this bill and the amendments before us today.

Martyn's Law will not bring back those who were taken from us, but it will save lives will stop in doing so it will stand as a lasting tribute to Martyn, to Figen Murray and to the people of Manchester. Liberal Democrats are proud to support it.

18:54

Jim Shannon MP (Strangford, Democratic Unionist Party)

- -

First of all can I think the Minister for his introduction on the bill. -- Thank. We all look to the Minister for his guidance and for his support and for us as individuals on behalf of our constituents it is much appreciated. I wish to put on record my thanks to all of the police forces across Great Britain and Northern Ireland for the work they do. They keep us safe. Without them we could not have an upper here, nor could we have the protection for our constituents that we are duty-bound to represent in this House.

I'm not going to delay the House too long, just wish to ask two questions in relation to the Terrorism Bill. They both relate specifically to Northern Ireland and if the House could bear with me for a couple of minutes. I spoke on this bill a number of times and something which I always sought to ensure is the party of conditions throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. A number of Lord's amendments in clauses 32 through 35 in particular seek to remove the UK-wide imposition of polygraph licence conditions for terrorist offenders.

Can the Minister confirm that the removal of these will not leave the P NSI in Northern Ireland without the means to watch it assess terrorists as closely as can be done on the mainland? And that existing legislation referred to within the amendments is capable of securing protection. Secondly, it's imperative police forces have access to transfer prisoners, Lord's amendments 76 within the Terrorism Bill has been designed to ensure provisions could continue to apply to restricted transfers between Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

For the purposes of determining release. Can the Minister confirm that the government are convinced that there can be transfers between all nations within this good United Kingdom in a seamless matter? I'm very happy if the Minister does not have access to that immediately took him back to me with that. If not, I would appreciate the answers. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Whilst questions may not fall within the scope of this bill, with

18:57

Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

within the scope of this bill, with the leave of the House, Minister Dan Jarvis. With the leave of the House, let

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With the leave of the House, let me begin by saying I'm grateful to the shadow Minister for the constructive way she has approached constructive way she has approached this debate this evening. I can assure her that the government completely understands that there is a balance to strike your and I hope she will acknowledge we have been at pains to consult extensively and work across the House. -- Strike here. I'm happy to discuss this with her further. I'm grateful to the honourable member for Macclesfield.

Not just for his contribution this evening, but also for his support of his very special constituent. I'm very grateful also to the front bench spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats and I join with her and thinking the Baroness for the important contribution she made in the other place. I want to say that I'm always grateful to the Member for Strangford for his contributions, both in terms of quantity and quality. I was thinking about him just the other day because I had the privilege of visiting his part of the world and it is a part of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that I hold in the highest regard and I hold him and that high regard as well.

He raised some important points. I am very grateful for him saying that he would be happy for me to write to him about them and in order to make sure that we address them properly I will do so and I guarantee a good response. To conclude, this bill was a manifesto commitment and I'm very proud to say that this government has delivered it and delivered it early on in this parliamentary session. The public rightly deserve to feel safe when visiting public premises and attending events.

The cross party approach to this bill and getting it right will demonstrate to the public that nothing matters more than security. It is the foundation upon which everything else rests. I hope this will continue and that the House will support these amendments today. I would like to take the opportunity again to thank all of those who have aided in the passage of this bill. I also want to take the opportunity to thank my colleague in the other place, Lord Hanson, his long experience and sound judgment has been much appreciated.

I also want to take the opportunity to thank the excellent team at the home office. I am very grateful for all their hard work, support and dedication. They have been particularly impressive throughout the process of this bill. They have always gone above and beyond. I am very grateful for their service. I also want to restate the government's thanks to the intelligence agencies and all those who serve in law enforcement who worked tirelessly around the clock to keep us safe.

This is the most vital work, they do it every day and we owe them as a country a debt of gratitude. Finally, there is someone above all who we must pay tribute to and that is Figen Murray. Her campaign has been nothing short of extraordinary. To have lost her son, Martyn Hett in the Manchester Arena attack in May 2017 and to have yet still found the strength to drive this campaign forward is remarkable and phenomenal. I know all members right across his house will join me They can had previously said it's time to get this done, and I'm very proud to say this government has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

done just that. The question is that this House agrees with the Lords in their amendment one. As many as are of amendment one. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." I think the ayes contrary, "No." I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. With the have it, the ayes have it. With the leave of the House I called the Minister to me that this House agrees with the Lords in their agrees with the Lords in their amendments to to 13.

The question is that this House agrees with the Lords in their amendments to to 13. Lords in their amendments to to 13. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. That concludes consideration of Lords amendments to the terrorism protection and premises bill. We must now take the motion relating to deferred divisions. Mr to move. The question is that the motion relating to deferred divisions, As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it.

Motion number nine on terms and conditions of employment, minister to move? Minister Justin Madders. Minister Justin Madders.

19:02

Justin Madders MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, Labour)

- -

Thank you. I beg to move that the National Minimum Wage Amendment regulations 2025 be considered by the House. The purpose of these regulations is to increase the National Living Wage rate and the National Minimum Wage rates on 1 April 2025. These regulations were laid in draft for Parliament on 4 February and approved by the other place on 17 March. This government is committed to making work pay. The Plan to Make Work Pay will tackle the low pay and poor working conditions and poor job security that have been holding our economy back for far too long.

Earlier this month this House approved passage of the landmark implement rights Bill which would benefit more than 10 workers in every corner of the country and deliver the biggest upgrade to workers rights in a upgrade to workers rights in a generation. Some aspects of the bill and accompanying legislation and guidance will not come into effect for some time as the government continues to engage with stakeholders, businesses and trade unions on its implementation. But when we took office last year committed to taking immediate action where we could and on the minimum wage we have done so.

One of the proudest achievements of the last Labour government was the creation of the National Minimum Wage which eliminated the extreme low pay that was blighting our country. We are proud to say that one of the first actions taken by this Labour government within a month of last year's general election was to overhaul the remit to the Low Pay Commission. So for the first time, this remit now explicitly includes the cost of living as one of the key factors to be considered when making National Living Wage recommendations.

We have begun the journey towards creating a genuine living wage as well as extending this to all workers aged over 18 by moving towards a single adult rate. Before turning to the precise details of the regulations I would like to extend my thanks to the Low Pay Commission. The commissioners and their officials have worked diligently and efficiently, particularly after giving updates to the remit were made and we were pleased to accept all of their recommendations. This is testament to their social partnership model and expert analysis and engagement which ensures the government can deliver on its ambitious agenda, but without adversely impacting on businesses, the labour market or the wider economy.

So now turning to the detail of the regulations themselves, which after Parliamentary approval will take effect on 1 April. The National Living Wage rates which currently apply to workers aged 21 or a full increase from £11.44 workers aged 21 or a full increase from £11 £44-£12 21. This represents a rise of 77p or 6.7%, well above all measures and projections of inflation and therefore delivers direct real terms pay increases to an estimated 3 million workers. We will also be delivering large increases to the other National Minimum Wage rates.

The 18 to 20-year-old rate for increase by £1.40 from £8.60 an hour to £10 an hour. That is a record 16.3% increase for that age group. So this means a full-time worker on the 18 to 20 minimum wage rate will see the gross annual earnings increase by around £2.5 thousand a year, a well earned pay rise and a significant step towards parity with the headline rate. The National Minimum Wage renovated 20-year-olds will be equal to 82% of the National Living Wage in 2025, compared to 75% in 2024.

The minimum wage rate for workers above school leaving age under 18 years old will increase from £6.40 to £7.55 an hour, a large rise of £1.15 or 18%. The same rise will apply to the apprenticeship minimum wage rate which applies to apprentices aged under 19 or in the first year of their apprenticeship. And finally, the accommodation of separate which is the maximum daily amount that an employer can charge a worker for accommodation without affecting their pay for minimum wage purposes will increase by 6.7% or 67% to £10.66.

I draw members attention to the comprehensive Impact assessment which the Department published alongside this legislation, and as they may have noted, the impact assessment which includes an equalities assessment has received a green fit for purpose rating from the independent regulatory policy committee. And as I've touched on, we estimate that the increases to minimum wage rates will deliver a direct pay increase for over 3 million workers while an additional 4 million could benefit from the positive spillover effects. The minimum wage has greatly reduced pay equality in the UK.

The share of low-paid jobs in hourly terms estimated at 3.4% in 2024, a record low and down from 21.9% in 1999. But the work does not stop there. As we continue to build towards a genuine living wage and the extension of eligibility to workers aged between 18 and 20 by ending the discriminatory age bands. And to that end we will publish in due course a fresh remit to the Low Pay Commission asking them to recommend minimum wage rates to apply from next April. As part of this, the Low Pay Commission will consult about the appropriate trajectory towards a single adult rate as we ensure this is delivered without adverse impact on youth employment as well as participation in training and education.

And like the previously government with the creation of the minimum wage over 1/4 of a century ago, this Labour government will be proud to lead a profound legacy for workers rights because we are making work pay and we are proud to make more progress in this by supporting

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this instrument today so I commend these regulations to the House. The question as in all the your

19:08

Dame Harriett Baldwin MP (West Worcestershire, Conservative)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question as in all the your paper. I call shadow Minister. Thank you. And I rise to say that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. And I rise to say that we will not be opposing the increases to the National Minimum increases to the National Minimum Wage or the National Living Wage. These the National Living Wage being something that my party introduced to Make Work Pay, and we celebrate the fact that the progress was made in ending low pay and that the Minister cited that from the despatch box this evening. But as His Majesty's official opposition, is also our duty to scrutinise the government on all matters, so I will have several questions that the Minister this evening, and in particular I want to highlight that the work that the Low Pay Commission has done, for which I also thank them was done before the Halloween budget of broken promises last October.

After that budget, the increase to the national living and minimum wages but also of course the measures such as the increased national insurance, the Unison assistant general secretary John Richards welcomed the increase to the pay measures but said as it stands, the new legal minimum is more than the current lowest hourly rates in the NHS in our universities and some other public services. This will give employers multiple headaches. So my first question is what will the government do to address the pay implications of this rise on those working in the public sector in such important roles.

The second question is the increase in the National Minimum Wage for workers above school leaving age but not yet 18 is going up by nearly 18%. And on 1 April, this year, the national insurance threshold for employers drops to £5000 per year. And this means that an employer will have to start paying national insurance on any young person if they work for more than 13 or more hours a week. And because of this, businesses have warned that they are cutting back on hiring younger workers or indeed reducing the hours that they give to them.

This risk is not fazed by solely those who are in work but also of course those who are seeking to get into work, so what assessment since the Halloween budget has the Minister made of the impact of the increase on young people's ability to access jobs? And what will the government do to make sure that young people or those looking for a job will not be penalised by this increase? This increase will significantly affect small and medium-sized enterprises as usual it looks to us that they will bear the brunt of the increased labour costs.

It doesn't look that way just to us. According to the government's own impact assessment, small and medium-sized businesses will face 56% of the cost of the increase, despite representing only increase, despite representing only 30%, 37% of the share of employment. So this is another cost increase on smaller businesses that are already having to pay this government's national insurance jobs tax, the hike in business rates, and the impact of the measures from the employment rights Bill. In particular, businesses in the retail hospitality and leisure sector, which are the businesses most likely to be paying the minimum wage.

The government's impact assessment of the Employment Rights Bill just to remind the House states that they expect the policy is covered within the bill to impose a direct cost businesses of up to £5 billion a year. It also notes that on average these costs will be greater for those smaller and micro-businesses. So can the Minister provide the House with a figure for the total cost increase of employing someone full-time on the previous National Living Wage because of these are the changes that have been introduced by his government? This government has created a challenging business environment.

It recognises themselves when in their own impact assessment, they state that there is some evidence of challenging business conditions for small and medium-sized businesses. Around 42.7% and 36.8% respectively reported having less than cash reserves in 2024. So we support the principle of fair pay for workers and for making work pay. However, after listening to businesses we are concerned that the rises could impact workers and businesses in industries that are already facing financial challenges through a range of unintended consequences. It's Mike White told to swivel their pen, but combinations of all these measures have real-life consequences for businesses across the country.

The national insurance jobs tax and employment is right Bill are piling on additional costs onto businesses and hammering the private sector, which we rely on to grow the economy. In summary, has the government considered the full impact of all these increases on businesses happening all at the same time? I fear that tomorrow's emergency budget will be another wake-up call.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. We've heard today how the rise to the National Minimum Wage will deliver direct pay increase for over 3 million workers and for the first history, the minimum wage in this country is minimum wage in this country is being linked to the true cost of living, beginning the journey to make a genuine living wage and we can also take from history a wealth of economic evidence and the of economic evidence and the positive impacts of minimum wages, that they need to overrule rises and that they need to overrule rises and pay with no significant impacts on employment.

And why take the honourable member for West honourable member for West Worcestershire's questions and appreciate her contributions of course as a fellow Treasury Committee member, time and time again, the studies have shown that while similar concerns been echoed throughout the 80s and 90s, the overall outcome of increasing the minimum wage is simply bad. An minimum wage is simply bad. An increase in pay with no significant impact on employment.

19:14

Yuan Yang MP (Earley and Woodley, Labour)

- -

Thank for giving way. Would you agree with me that many of the concerns being shared by the party opposite rules of the same concerns that were introduced that were raised sorry at the introduction of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the minimum wage? Thank you for the intervention

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you for the intervention and yes, that's the case. I think we have heard throughout history these concerns being raised and yet when we look at evidence looking at hindsight at the impact of the economy, no discernible impact, and economy, no discernible impact, and I will whizz through a few different studies. In the US, studies in the 92 increase in minimum wage New 92 increase in minimum wage New Jersey, 98 rise in California's minimum wage and the federal minimum wage increase the following year and the EU, 2017 study from 18 different countries and the UK Christian man stocks 2017 study.

We can go on and on about the evidence, but I think what we can see from the trends is that while these concerns have been raised over time, the actual outcome is increases in minimum wage and as With the honourable member agree that this uplift also benefit women, young and older workers, workers

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with disability and minority ethnic backgrounds more than others, so make a huge boost to equality as well? Absolutely agree. And as the women's budget group oh, the Employment Rights Bill legislation for the minimum wage benefits female workers disproportionally because female workers are disproportionately likely to be paid disproportionately likely to be paid less than men. I've made reference to acre metric studies but these methods to confirm what many of us methods to confirm what many of us can see in our communities first- hand.

Too many people have too long been due a pay rise and we can make the lowest paid better off somebody the lowest paid better off somebody said that spending is back at our high streets and local economies. And of course let's even studies done with better data, starting off with improvements to the labour force survey, an issue I know that the honourable member and I have discussed and the Treasury's committee as semi organisations have committee as semi organisations have Today I would like to focus on one group of workers in my constituency.

Young people. Around 13,000 undergraduates in Redding which sits in my constituency who will be better off with these new laws that raise the minimum wage for 18 to 20-year-olds to 10 pounds an hour. That means the record wage boost for this age group, you can see gross annual earnings raised by two and a half thousand pounds. As well for apprentices who are skilled workers of tomorrow. I support the government you guarantee to ensure all young people are in education employment education or training, the king's trust however has found that one in 10 young people outside of education employment or training turned down a job because I can't afford the cost associated with that job.

For example, travel, clothing or childcare. That means for many young people, a barrier to employment is that employment is not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

pay well enough for young people. She is making an excellent speech, but I wonder whether she shares my concern that I think I heard made by the honourable lady about the rate at which the living about the rate at which the living wages paid to young people. Almost advocating for a reduction in that current rate because of the impact it would have on business and whether she would agree with me that that is a rather aggressive view to that is a rather aggressive view to have when actually what young people need is the ability to pay their bills, live a life they enjoy and build a home for themselves.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

build a home for themselves. I very much agree with the sentiment of my young friend, young people are the future and to ensure they get off to the best start in life possible, they did work that pays. So their living and stability are not concerned about paying bills from day-to-day or month-to-month. Most young people nowadays have to do a mixture of work and educational training to make ends meet. More than half of full-time students are working long hours and pay jobs as of 2024.

That's a rise from three years prior during the pandemic when over two thirds had... This was driven by the ESTA collated cost of living for young people -- ask -- escalation in cost of living. He says working part-time was never optional but rather a necessity. With my wages being so low, I find myself working 20 to 25 hours a week leaving me to miss lectures. I want to make sure young people like Poppy and my constituency are able to study without worrying about whether they're going to pay for their bills.

We also know young people are less unionised and have less bargaining power and less ability to fight against unfair work terms or ask for pay rises so it's even more important we support them in raising the minimum wage. In conclusion, it's essential we make work pay for the sake of our high streets, our living standards and our future, our young people. Poppy said I personally can't wait for the new increase in April as a means I should be able to reduce my hours at work, giving me more time to focus on my studies.

People like Poppy and my constituency and around the UK, the New Deal for working people is transformational and I'm very glad to support today's motion.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Let me begin by thanking the government for laying out this important Statutory Instrument. The important Statutory Instrument. The Liberal Democrats welcome this uplift in the minimum wage. We all have constituents that we know are

19:19

Sarah Gibson MP (Chippenham, Liberal Democrat)

- -

have constituents that we know are struggling to make ends meet. Nobody should be in a position where they cannot pay their bills despite being in employment. I am particularly pleased that apprentices and those under 18 will benefit from increased pay under this instrument. In a few weeks I will join Wilshire college students and businesses across my constituency at a careers fair and I think this will be an important piece of legislation to share with them. My constituency is a rural one and many of the people that I represent our elderly aunt depend on the social care system to stay independent -- and it depend.

Unfortunately they are struggling to get the care they need and deserve, in part because care workers are not being paid properly. If we paid care staff more, we might encourage more people into this usually understaffed sector. In the southwest of England alone there are 13,000 vacant jobs in this area. I can tell you that in a rural constituency like mine, where public transport is expensive and unreliable, care staff are not compensated for the travel time, often end up bringing less than the minimum wage.

Whilst I share the official opposition's concern for small businesses, which my constituency has a huge number, it is important that low-paid workers earn enough to live, especially our young people and women. If the government were to adopt a liberal Democrat proposal for Kerys minimum wage, which would seek errors received two pounds more per hour than their current minimum wage, than a staggering 850,000 care workers across the UK would benefit from this increase in pay -- carers minimum wage.

Over 18% of them would be women. We understand that the carers minimum wage is not a silver bullet, but it is a serious proposal that can make a big difference to patients and families across the country. Whilst the Liberal Democrats support increasing the minimum wage, I think it's a shame that the Statutory Instrument does not go further and give way to this proposal.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

First of all may I draw attention to my register of interest is a member of the trade union. At the time that the National Minimum Wage

19:22

Liz Twist MP (Blaydon and Consett, Labour)

- -

time that the National Minimum Wage came into force on 1 April 1999, I was working as a trade union official representing many low-paid members of staff working in social care and other areas in the Northeast. And working with colleagues in the TUC who were on even lower wages in many cases. It was a fantastic achievement that came after 30 years of fighting in the face of huge opposition at that time from the Conservative Party. But I think that we can say after 26 years of the National Minimum Wage that the argument has been definitively won.

So much so that there are members of this House who have never known a time without a statutory minimum wage. On 10 April 1999 I was proud to Don a hive is best and join my colleagues and members on a March across Tyne Bridge from Gateshead to Newcastle. That was part of a campaign for minimum wage to celebrate the introduction as the National Minimum Wage and to argue for it to be improved. We were led by the then General Secretary of Unison.

I remember a photograph in our local newspapers as we prepared for the March with an AAS sign directing traffic saying national campaign for living wage, long delays expected. We continue to campaign for a living wage from that time. I am so glad to speak here today I will again with the Labour government in power making real progress towards the living wage. The changes we are making with this legislation will mean a direct real term pay increase for over 3 million workers.

That includes steps towards a single adult rate with a record increase in minimum wage for 18 to 20-year-olds amounting to two and half thousand pounds per year. And directions to the Lord pay commission to look at the cost of living in their decisions in the future. Back in 1999, when the National Minimum Wage was first introduced, it made such a difference to so many people in the Northeast. Similarly, I know the legislation we're passing today will make a huge difference to my constituents.

Let me be clear, my ambition is for good jobs, well-paid jobs for people in the Northeast. My constituents and people in our region deserve decent pay and secure work and I will continue to work towards that. Meanwhile, those who are on minimum wage, for them this legislation will mean more money in their pay packets. A real Labour achievement. Taken with our Employment Rights Bill, makes a real shift for working people across the country in this region.

19:25

Chris Law MP (Dundee Central, Scottish National Party)

- -

Increases to National Minimum Wage will always be supported by those on SNP bases Back Benches. We've been pushing the government to do this since 2011. We continue to do so is disappointingly the Labour Party failed to take opportunity now they are in government. The changes being introduced today, the S&P's position is clear, we want a real living wage for all workers, not just a politically convenient definition of the living wage that falls short of mating -- meeting the actual cost of living and not just for those 21 and over.

The real living wages set at 12 pounds 60 where is this regulation increases the rate of the National Living Wage for workers who are at least 21 years and over from 11 pounds 44 to 12 pounds 21 per hour. It is evidently still short of where it needs to be. Furthermore, for those aged between 18 and 21, this is 18% lower at 10 pounds per hour. I do wonder, given the Minister said today that through consultation and looking at cost of living, can the Minister tell me if rent is 18% lower for those under 21? 220 -- to 18-year-olds get a special rate on electricity bills, and do supermarkets give them an 18% discount for their shopping? I would like to pursue this point very clearly because I think it's important.

I was going to suggest and welcome ministers to look at that closer. We are not there yet, but we would like to see the government go further on this and I look over to hearing more on that next year. It is worth noting that in Scotland, the SNP scotch government have taken proactive steps to ensure the real living wages implemented by way of control, particularly in a public sector. The Scottish government has paid all staff within their pay scheme including NHS staff real living wage since 2011, that is 14 years.

Scotland has the highest proportion of employees paid a living wage of any nation in the UK, with 25% of the credited real living wage employers in the UK based there. The Scottish government is also providing funding to enable adult social care workers to be paid a living wage, benefiting up to 40,000 care workers and are working to ensure that all staff working in private nurseries delivering a child care pledge have delivered our real living wage two. Labour Party should demonstrate a similar willingness to tackle the scourge of low pay.

To make changes to real living wage and take into account the cost of living in their manifesto and they have field today to do so. They voted for change and haven't done their part to legislate for the introduction of real living wage and if so far chosen not to. They must go further and adopt a real living wage irrespective of age as the SNP have been calling on successive governments for the past 14 years.

19:28

Sally Jameson MP (Doncaster Central, Labour )

- -

Can I also draw members to look at my register of interest in trade union membership. I welcome today's move from the government to bring record pay boost to over 3 million workers of around 1,400 pounds. It will also mean a record wage boost for 18 to 20-year-olds who will see their gross annual full-time earnings rise by 2,500 pounds. For apprentices who are the skilled workers of tomorrow, a boost of 18% as they learn their trade with better financial security.

Why is all of this important? Because when I visited food banks in my constituency, I had been saddened to learn that some of the people accessing those services are in work. They are employed and yet still cannot make ends meet stop for too long in this country, work has not paid. With this legislation today, that will change. We hear a lot about the tough choices this government has had to make after the 14 years of the party opposite.

Whether that's because of their disastrous mini-budget that left mortgages soaring or because of the neglect of our prisons allowing them to fill up to the point of collapse or because of the lack of investment in our NHS, this Labour government has taken a number of very difficult decisions to get our country back on tack -- track. I can tell you that this has not been a tough choice, to give millions of workers a pay rise. It is not been a tough choice to ensure that our apprentices have better financial security and in fact, it has been a choice I have been proud to make.

It shows that this government values workers across the country. It values a working contribution of young adults from the age of 18 and along with our landmark Employment Rights Bill, once again in this country it will pay to work. And secure employment will be the foundation of the British economy, which will be British economy, which will be

19:30

Richard Foord MP (Honiton and Sidmouth, Liberal Democrat)

- -

The increase in the National Minimum Wage in the next fortnight is very welcome, and nobody in work in this what the country of ours should be struggling to make ends meet if they are in work. But while this uplift is a step in the right direction, does not specifically address the challenges we face in social care, both nationally and the area I know Best, in Devon. Devon currently has 28,000 filled social care positions by 2,000 remain unfilled, and I'm very concerned about the shortage in the workforce.

It partly explains why people are going without care and why our hospitals are struggling to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

discharge patients. I take his point about the social care sector. Does he therefore welcome labours Employment Rights Bill which includes a negotiating framework our social care staff to framework our social care staff to ensure they are properly paid and can progress in their jobs?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

can progress in their jobs? Grateful to her. I think a negotiating framework might be helpful, but a lot will depend on those negotiations. I think it would be far better if the government was be far better if the government was to look sector by sector at the minimum wage, and specifically identify that social care is a special case. The turnover rate for social care staff in Devon is 27%, not only is that higher than the national average. It's roughly double that of other sectors.

And explains why I'd like to see a separate higher minimum wage for social care. A striking 16% of social care workers cited low pay as the primary reason why they left the job. Many of them are simply not paid enough, skilled, difficult vital work that they do. And many are earning less, moving to jobs such as stacking supermarket shelves, important though that is, when they are doing the vital work of social care. In a rural county like Devon, people are having to travel long distances between the people for whom they care and this sometimes means that their real income is less than the National Minimum Wage.

We are looking in Devon at a shortage of social care beds. Devon county council projects that by 2027 Devon will face a shortfall of 270 care home beds for older people with complex needs. Looking further ahead, the situation gets worse. In hollowed to the unmet need will be 72 care beds by 2033. In Cullompton, 79 beds by 2033, in Seaton and Ottery St Mary an additional 40 care beds will be required by 2033. So the current shortage of facilities in Middle East Devon makes it plain that even more care workers will be required to meet this growing demand that we see the social care.

That's why the Liberal Democrats are calling for the introduction of the carers minimum wage, paying 2 pounds per hour additional to the minimum wage. And of course this funding cannot come from thin air. According to skills for care, increasing the pay by between one to 2 pounds per hour above the National Minimum Wage for care workers could save up to £947 million in terms of reduced hospital admissions. But of course there would need to be some funding upfront to make this happen.

The remaining funding I suggest should come from levying an additional tax on the gambling industry, which according to public health England costs the UK economy about £1.4 billion annually. Due to the financial physical and mental impacts of gambling, of problem gambling and the resulting crime and loss of productivity. According to the gambling commission, 300,000 adults and 40,000 children in the UK are suffering from problem gambling, and it's not an industry we should be incentivising with low taxation. Doubling the remote gaming duty as recommended by the social market foundation.

It would not only address the harms of problem gambling but also provide a fairer way to fund this 2 pounds per hour increase above the National Minimum Wage. The social care workers. It's time the government acted to ensure that those who profit from gambling are contributing more to the public good. Increasing pay for the lowest paid social care workers is a simple, effective step to attract and retain staff, ensuring people in our communities receive the care they require. I support the National Minimum Wage increases.

We must go further and pay our social care staff more, recognising their vital role in looking after the elderly and the vulnerable.

19:36

Alan Strickland MP (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor, Labour)

- -

Thank you. I strongly welcome the proposed increases to minimum wage rates which will help people of all ages across all communities in our country. Including a particularly welcome boost for apprentices who are the future of our economy. And this will make a real difference not just to people in my constituency but across our great nation. I think the three reasons. Firstly we must Make Work Pay. In fact it is vital for the health of our economy that we do so.

There contributing to our economic growth, delivering services in our communities and manifesting the goods we need is fairly rewarded is crucial. But we know that for too long this hasn't been the case in my constituency and in other areas. Tween 2014 and 2022, salary growth in County Durham was among the lowest in the United Kingdom, increasing at less than half the rate of those of regions like London. So to tackle these issues we need to drive up economic growth in regions like mine but we also need to take clear action to ensure that those on the lowest wages see the growth in their pay they deserve.

The second reason is it's crucial we tackle the cost of living crisis. In the 2.5 years I spent campaigning as a Labour candidate before being elected to this House, the cost of living crisis is one of the issues raised with me time and time again. Family after family hit by rising bills, but flatlining pay. This is an issue. It hit my residence particularly acutely because median weekly pay for those in full-time work in my constituency is £150 less each week than the UK average.

That £600 a month less to pay the bills and make ends meet. That's why it's been so vital that this government has taken the cost of living into account when setting minimum wage levels this time. Thirdly, we must support growth, to grow our economy, grew into work, apprenticeships, entry-level jobs and other routes into starting your career must be attractive. And of course a key part of that is having pay levels that of that is having pay levels that reward those going into work and incentivise participation in the labour market.

And for young people in my constituency, getting a job with decent pay is too often meant moving away from the town they grew up in. That's another reason why this direct action to tackle low pay is so important. And in a constituency with a significant history of manufacturing, and modern history of manufacturing, and modern manufacturing now like the fantastic attached trains factory, I particularly welcome the wage increase for 18 to 20-year-olds and for those in apprenticeships. This ensures that young people going into work in the future of our country's Manufacturing sector are paid properly and a secure future looks possible locally.

So to conclude, I came into politics to make a genuine difference to the people of my hometown in Newton Aycliffe, the wider constituency and our country. Increasing the minimum wage is one way to do that. Putting more money in the pockets of 3 million of our citizens. That is the difference a Labour government makes.

19:39

Rosie Wrighting MP (Kettering, Labour)

- -

This government has made a solid commitment to Make Work Pay and put more money in working people's pockets. In my constituency of Kettering, we have a large amount of distribution jobs and as a result of the action of this government, people encountering on minimum wage will have more money in their pockets to last them through the end of the month. As someone who spent my career in business, I know how important it is for businesses to see a productive, motivated workforce with minimal turnover.

It benefits not only businesses but also workers as well. In Kettering, it means people earning a decent wage will mean people spend it supporting our local economy. It shameful that the party opposite let this country get to a place where people who work full-time are still queueing at food banks to feed their families. The uplift in National families. The uplift in National Minimum Wage is a huge part of the national renewal Labour has part promised this country and will be a pay increase to 3 million people in Kettering and across the UK.

Young people in this country deserve the minimum wage that reflects the work they do. I speak to many 18 to 24- year-olds in Kettering that faced 's the same financial pressures as older people. One of the best parts of my job as visiting schools and colleges across my constituency where young people talk to me about the plans for the future. This uplift will mean a wage growth of 18% for apprenticeships in Kettering. So we can incentivise young people to seek apprenticeships that are financially viable and start to fill the skills gap people across the UK face after 40 difficult years under the Conservatives.

The last Labour government brought in the National Minimum Wage, and it's this Labour government that will be securing Britain's future and making work pay. pay.

19:41

David Pinto-Duschinsky MP (Hendon, Labour)

- -

Thank you. I'd like to start by declaring an interest as a proud member of GMB and Unison unions. member of GMB and Unison unions. This is a debate about four numbers. 3 million, 100,000, 200,000 and 10 million for the 3 million is the number of people that will benefit from the fantastic measures being announced today. £1400 is how much they will benefit, a real life changing amount. 2,500 is how much some 18 to 20 -year-olds will benefit from these changes, and 10 million, 10 million is the transformative impact that our employment rights Bill will have on so many lives.

All of this achieved by a Labour government without Plan for Change delivering security for working people and so much of it opposed by the party opposite. And I think it's really striking that on a day where we are debating giving a pay rise to 3 million people, it speaks volumes that the opposition benches are completely empty. That is the difference between the government and the party opposite, and that's the difference that a Labour government makes. The spokesperson of the party opposite just tried slightly to rewrite history.

But enough to remember the pre-minimum wage era, and am old enough to remember who brought it to an end. It was a Labour government. The introduction of the National Minimum Wage was a radical and transformative step. And it was opposed every step of the way by the party opposite. When Labour included a policy for a minimum wage in our 1992 manifesto, Michael Howard claimed it would destroy up to 2 million jobs and when we brought it to this place for legislation, in 1998, the party opposite fought it tooth and nail every single step of the way.

Now their concerns turned out to be totally unfounded. A pointless opposition to measures which increase the majors of over a million workers immediately in the UK as the evidence from my honourable friend for Earley and Woodley pointed out. And indeed the shadow Chancellor the time now better known for his railway journeys eventually ended Tory opposition to the minimum wage saying, " The minimum wage has caused far less damage to employment than we feared." Well had different the picture looks today.

We have a Leader of the Opposition recently said that the minimum wage was overburdening business and the maternity pay is excessive. In an article for Conservative hope, that shadow Chancellor said our measures to boost implement rights and Make Work Pay will have a negative effect on lower paying sectors like hospitality and retail. Perhaps the shadow Chancellor doesn't realise that the entire point of these measures is to bring these workers, particularly young workers out of low pay, improve retention, keep people in work and boost our economy.

The low-wage, low growth economy that his party and the party opposite presided over for 14 years brought with it stagnation and a growing number of people with the left -- you left employment and never ended in the first place. So even that, I think we all know where we stand. I shall wrap up by saying we stand. I shall wrap up by saying this represents a choice. Today. Our choice is to increase the minimum wage, a choice to put back money in the pockets of working people, a choice to put people first.

A choice that will help thousands of people in Hendon and millions of people across this country, and the choice I'm proud to support.

19:45

Deirdre Costigan MP (Ealing Southall, Labour)

- -

Can I declare an interest as a member of and former employee of Unison? I know that Unison's young members will welcome the unprecedented rise in the minimum wage for 18 to 20-year-olds. As we had a ready, this will mean £2500 extra a year for those on the National Minimum Wage in their gross salary. And this is a record change and it will make a huge difference for young constituents of mine in Ealing Southall. And the Labour government has made clear that this is only the start.

The beginning of a journey. We are working towards bringing the youth rate up so that we eventually come to a single adult Equal pay for equal work has long been a belief of the Labour Party. So it's right that this also extends to younger people. I am delighted it is not only with younger people, but also in terms of disabled workers and black, Asian and minority ethnic workers at this Labour government is going to deliver for. We have started the consultation on bringing in mandatory pay gap reporting for disabled and for black, Asian and minority ethnic workers.

This change today in the youth rate in particular goes hand-in-hand with our youth guarantee and our plan to create pathways to good quality employment for under 22-year-olds with health conditions to the previous government left on the scrapheap with no help at all. Labour will not only ensure these young people get help to find a job, will also ensure that that job is decently paid. We will make work a better choice than benefits for young people. This is the beginning of a journey, this decision that we are making today.

I have heard from the member opposite, the shadow Minister and the Member for West Worcestershire who has said that the Conservative Party won't be voting against this motion tonight, although I must say her speech give a very good impression of someone who was against this. I think of the conservatives do not agree with this, they should actually vote against it. And they should tell us how much they think young people are worth. They should tell us if we should pay them 10 pounds an hour.

They should tell us of 12 pounds 21 is what they would pay the minimum wage. They should let us know how much they would cut people's wages by. In contrast, the Labour government are proud to be putting money back in 3 million working people's pockets. That is money they will spend on local businesses and local high streets. In contrast to 14 years of failure from the conservative party, Labour is making work pay.

19:48

Justin Madders MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, Labour)

- -

Would leave of the House. address the many contributions we have had in the debate. First of all, can I welcome support from the Liberal Democrats and welcome the honourable member back, I know she has been away for a little while, but it is good to see her back in her place. She made important points about the social care sector, in particular we know that travel time is a huge issue in the abuse of that and that is something we are keen to look at as well.

When we get the fair work agency up and running, I'm sure they will be focusing on that as well. Her liberal Democrat colleague also talked about the importance of the social care sector and our impact assessment has established about one in five workers in social care jobs will get a direct pay rise from these increases today. That is one in five of the entire social care workforce. They have consulted widely, including Representative Omar social care workers and we believe social care workers have been undervalued in this country for far too long, which is why we are introducing the first ever fair paid agreement in the adult social care sector so that care professionals are recognised and rewarded for the important work they do.

I appreciate the honourable member's wish to have a separate rate for care workers. We think we are doing the right things to recognise and value social care workers and having different rate brings a whole range of other challenges in terms of enforcement and clarity for employers, which we think is important. There were a number of excellent speeches on these benches tonight. My honourable friend made the positive economic case and referred to the wealth of evidence in support of increases in the minimum wage and that is something we passionately believe on the side of the House that increases protections, it's a good thing, not just for individuals, but also good for the wider economy.

She also mentioned the many young people in her constituency who will benefit from the moves to parity with the 18 to 20 age band with the adult rate. My honourable friend has great knowledge and experience in this area and she said it's the beginning of a journey and that is right, we recognise it will take time to achieve our ambitions that we have for the Low Pay Commission for people in this country, but this is a journey we are determined to finish.

My honourable friend took us finish. My honourable friend took us back into the deck of history. I must declare that I am one of those who can remember what it was like before the minimum wage and I think what I tell my children how much I used to earn in my first jobs, they can't believe it. It was true, that's what the world was like before the minimum wage. She reminded us as well of the warnings we got from the conservative opposition at that time.

I think we heard a small echo of that tonight, but I think history is proved those warnings were wrong. My honourable friend spoke passionately about issues within work poverty and I think that is absolutely one of the key things we have got to see change in this country for too long, people have not had work pay for them, earnings have not kept up with the cost of living and that is one of the reasons why the Low Pay Commission remit has changed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the Minister for giving way. The Low Pay Commission are as previously said something like 300,000 people are not being like 300,000 people are not being paid the minimum wage despite being on it, they are being underpaid. I on it, they are being underpaid. I wonder if you might update the House on this governments progress to make sure all people on minimum wage are being paid the minimum wage.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

being paid the minimum wage. He makes a very important point that these rights are only as good that these rights are only as good as the ability of the government to as the ability of the government to enforce them and HMRC as we know have a very effective system to deliver on minimum wage and we will be shortly releasing our latest round. We hope the fair work agency when it's established will be even more effective in terms of delivering fairness across the country and making sure everyone gets the minimum wage they deserve.

We know there are particular sectors where there are acute challenges. I will turn to the points made by the S&P spokesperson about the bills and costs of an 18 to 20-year-old being the same as an adult. That is something I understand and that is why we have changed the Low Pay Commission or's remit to ensure that eventually we get parity of that age group for the rate. That is also why we have changed the remit of the Low Pay Commission to move towards a real living wage.

We understand that is an important thing for us to deliver on and of course it should be. He may feel that were not quite there yet, we've got to ensure that we take evidence as we go along from businesses about how this impacts on particular sectors and parts of society. 18 to 20-year-olds are getting a two and a half thousand pound pay rise this year as a result of these regulations, that is something I'm sure he will welcome. My honourable friend raised very well the regional impacts of wage increase in his part of the world.

These regulations will mean hundred and 40,000 workers in that region will benefit from that increase. That is something we should all be delighted about. The Member for Kettering also raised the issue of in work poverty and that is why the remit is being changed and we want to make sure in work poverty is consigned to the history books. The Member for Hendon spoke out in real stark terms, the figures that are associated with these regulations. I may mention them again at some point before I finish, but that is the bold numbers that will go directly into people's pockets and something we can show as tangible proof for the Labour government delivering for working people in this country.

He raised the empty benches opposite, I don't want to equate that to mean that the conservative don't support the increase, I think the shadow Minister said they did. I do put her on notice that her leader has been less than forceful in her support for the minimum wage, so I hope her support today is not damaged her career prospects. It may well be there's another leader in a few months anyway. We do hope the Conservative Party continues to support the minimum wage as we move forward and that they don't change tax now that they have entered opposition.

She raised important questions which I will now try to address. She raised in terms of the impact on public sector work. Pay for most front line workers. They take account of National Living Wage increases as part of their processes. We don't believe there are actually many public sector workers who are going to be directly affected by this, but it's something departments will take into account when they set their budgets. She did also ask about the cumulative impact of changes and of course the impact assessment does show that this year's operating's will represent 0.14% increase in the UK-wide rate, incredibly good value of for what we are delivering into people's pockets.

The implement Wrightsville total impact is at most... She raised questions about burdens on SMEs. The Low Pay Commission take into account the impact of business as part of their operation. They look at competitiveness of individual businesses. They drawn extensive Labour market, when recommending rates and we would expect them to do exactly the same next year. Small businesses have had support from this government. We have increased employment allowance from 5,000 to 10,000 meaning that 865 employers will pay no National Insurance contributions at all.

More than half employers will gain or see no change in this measure with extended illness rates relief for retail hospitality and leisure sectors. In terms of her concerns about the impact on young people, we know the youth guarantee will ensure every young person has access to education or training to help them find a job and transform the apprenticeship levy as well to ensure young people get the opportunities that they deserve. I make the point that in terms of concerns that she raises about the overall Labour market, that the payroll employment is actually higher now than it was this time last year.

In fact, the latest Labour force survey last week showed record numbers of people in work. Perhaps the negative headlines we have been hearing are not the reality of the situation. I would like to deal with facts and the facts are that this will put more money into the pockets of workers around the country. Hundred and 60,000 workers in Northern Ireland and around 150,000 workers in Wales. This is a real difference to people, 1,400 pounds for full-time worker and 2,500 pounds for someone on the 18 to 20 rate.

This is truly a worthwhile exercise and we thank the Low Pay Commission for their work, also HMRC who enforce on the part -- on behalf of the department expertise to ensure workplace disputes can be resolved in workers right can be upheld. This is a meaningful change being delivered by this government, it delivers a powerful message, this government and parliament is committed to making work pay. The real change increase to a living wage will and insecurity at work and I commend these revelations to the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is as on the Order Paper. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye", of the opinion, say, "Aye", of the contrary, "No". The ayes have it. I will now give the House a few

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Motion Motion Number Motion Number Ten Motion Number Ten on Motion Number Ten on payment

20:00

Remaining Orders of the Day

scheme, Minister to move. The scheme, Minister to move. The question is on the order paper. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye", of the contrary, "No". The "Aye", of the contrary, "No". The ayes have it. With leaves, motions ayes have it. With leaves, motions number 11 and 12, Church of England, number 11 and 12, Church of England, General Synod measures. The question is as on the order paper. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye", of are of that opinion, say, "Aye", of the contrary, "No".

The ayes have it. Motion number 13 on financial assistance to industry. The question is as on the order paper. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye", of the contrary, "No". The ayes have the contrary, "No". The ayes have

20:00

Petitions Tim Farron MP (Westmorland and Lonsdale, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Advised to present a petition on behalf of 2447 of my constituents who call upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to urgently give the go- ahead to plans to dual the A66 from Penrith to Scotch Corner. They declare that this would bring huge benefits to the North West region, reducing congestion and providing a big boost to the North economy step further notes that it will limit the number of serious and fatal accidents which tragically are a regular occurrence on this road.

Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the government to give the green light to plans to dual the road which will reduce congestion, boost the economy and save lives. The petitioners and save lives. The petitioners

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Petition, dualling the A66. I beg to move this House do now adjourn. The question is that this House do now adjourn.

20:02

Rachel Gilmour MP (Tiverton and Minehead, Liberal Democrat)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

do now adjourn. I'm delighted to secure my first adjournment debates in the chamber and for it to be about veterinary and for it to be about veterinary products in waterways. Specifically products in waterways. Specifically chemical... For your sake and mine I will refer to these as new lifts. This is a topic I've been extremely keen to secure a debate on for some time now, raised me by a constituent who was a vet before the general election.

It is high time that we gave this topic the scrutiny it so desperately needs. We are a nation of pet lovers. It's estimated there are around 25 million cats and dogs in the UK. I speak as a doting dog and cat owner myself. Had I known that our furry friends are an integral part of millions of British families. And so when fleas and ticks come biting, bringing discomfort and annoyance to our beloved pets, we have cause one to act swiftly and efficiently to alleviate their suffering.

Flea treatment products containing Flipper no are seen as a highly convenient and effective way of dealing with problems caused by fleas and ticks. In the UK Imperial College London believes it is in many different products authorised in some hundred 78 veterinary products but this convenience comes to cost our waterways and associated ecosystems. They are not safe. These two ingredients are extreme toxic. Very powerful killers indeed. And the picture is not pretty. In fact, so powerful are these chemicals that so powerful are these chemicals that just one drop it has the potential to work out 30,000 bees as well as hampering the mobility of thousands upon thousands more.

As well as this according to the extensive research conducted by Imperial College London, one monthly flea treatment for a large dog contains enough chemical to kill a staggering 25 million bees. The decline in pollinator populations in which in part can be attributed the use of the chemical threatens agricultural productivity and has long-term serious implications for our national food security. This is not simply a mere triviality to be neglected. Authorities recognise the toxicity levels and the hideous harm these chemicals can cause on the natural world.

Since 2017, it has been banned in agricultural use. And since 2018, but given the unregulated nature of these chemicals in relation to flea products, we are allowing these products into our environment through the back door and aquatic and nearby ecosystems up playing the -- paying the price for them there is not just one route to our waterways. The most obvious and most direct is simply the contact of pets with water bodies themselves. If a dog goes swimming in a river before receiving their treatment, allowing it to enter into our lakes and rivers and streams and go Rafah border takes it, wreaking havoc as it travels.

Dissemination can also occur because of rainwater run-off with residual product washing off treated into drainage systems and in turn ending up in our waterways. Equally the washing of pet bedding and even the washing of pet owners hands are also thought to be common ways in which these dangerous products enter our waterways. There are some less direct pathways which still pose a problem and at this point I must apologise to those currently eating their supper. These products are generally harmless to our dogs and cats, but they can also be absorbed by our four-legged friends.

Once absorbed, these products can be excreted. And even when responsible owners clear up after their pets, something which is not universal unfortunately, the not universal unfortunately, the trace for panel can be damaging in our waterways. Studies have revealed that amount to cold period is frequently in dogs during, but with the national health finding only 11% is absorbed. The shedding of treating hair or skin can lead to a pathway being created. Once these projects in our waterways, not only are they utterly deadly for the thousands of native aquatic organisms in the UK, but they also are highly toxic to see and freshwater fish.

Even at low concentrations. For Pinar can be destructive to aquatic life cycles. Data gathered by the UK agency over the course of a two-year period between 2016 and 2018 from 20 different waterways in England discovered for panel residue in 98% of freshwater samples and traces of Imidaclopri in 60% of samples. The on the effect on our waterways, other studies have found it to be toxic to birds. It brings me no joy in reporting this is not just an aquatic process for depended through a process of collecting hundred and three different birds nests, researchers found everything one without exception contain Fipronil and an overwhelming majority had significant remnants of Imidaclopri.

The truth is the declines in aquatic insects emanate from the flowing of these products in our waterways affect fish populations that rely on them as a primary food source. This in turn impacts bird species that prey on fish. Producing a dangerous snowball effect that reverberates throughout the ecosystem. This deterioration of biodiversity greatly diminishes the overall resilience of our ecosystems. Exposing a vulnerability to factors of climate change and invasive species. I would say that one of the most troubling aspects of the likes of Fipronil and Imidaclopri are the persistence in the environment for them these chemicals disintegrate slowly and can remain in soils and waterways for intense periods of time.

In the case of Imidaclopri, scientists said there was a Jew affect lasting soil for months. And sometimes even years. And their breakdown product is understood to be even more toxic than the parent compound.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With the honourable member agree that some pet owners may not be aware of how bad this is and that aware of how bad this is and that packaging usage guidance and may be point-of-sale advice for these pet treatments should give some warning that that could be affecting the that that could be affecting the danger to the aquatic life if there's products to enter watercourses?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

watercourses? I thank her. I'm coming onto that later, but she's absolutely right. Also important to note the economic costs of mitigating the aroma to health impacts of these chemicals are substantial.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I commend her in bringing this forward? The honourable lady is this forward? The honourable lady is very rightly outlining the problems with the chemicals and what they can do to water. There are many other things that can affect water as well and the water substance. I know Northern Ireland is an example, and Northern Ireland is an example, and I wonder they go around all of the I wonder they go around all of the farms and makes free herbicide and insecticide sprays, fungicide insecticide sprays, fungicide sprays, veterinary medicines, take all those things out over the waterways and you make your water cleaner.

So is not just this issue she is bringing forward. There are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

many other things that need to be removed as well. Does she agree? Thank you for your interesting

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you for your interesting intervention, and of course I agree. I will be coming to talk about farmers particularly in just a farmers particularly in just a moment. So as I was saying, it's also important to note that the economic costs mitigating the environment health impacts of these chemicals are substantial. We do know that water bills are set to rise this year, causing pain to the rise this year, causing pain to the average consumer and in my constituency we've seen phrases of that 20 and 30% announced by the two water companies.

Purifying contaminated water and ecosystems blighted by these chemicals require significant financial resources placing a bet on communities and straining local government purses. How much of this financial impact has been reflected in these bill rises? Our consumers face price rises in their water bills because we are not effectively regulating properly.... Products stop we know there is an issue with our water quality. The issues at the beach and get my constituency spring to mind. That's what the government has introduced the water and one my party leader fell into Windermere several times in a general election campaign to raise awareness.

When will be clear up our act and put in place the firmest restrictions on these polluting water companies but will also look at what we can do to stop these other pollutants getting anywhere near our waterways in the first place. I be very interested to hear from the Minister as to whether this cost has been factored into the government's thinking on this issue and if there could be some answer to the questions I have posed. On a broader note, I'd like to touch on how we can help our farmers and those in our rural communities with these environmental challenges.

Our waterways make a key part of our natural biodiversity, but each part relies on the other. This makes the recent decision to act on sustainable for scheme all the more damaging to our communities and worrying. If there is no money for Sustainable Farming Incentive practices will naturally follow economic sense if not perhaps careful environ mental custodianship which all farmers pride themselves on. Farmers are suffering at the hands of this government, and with them so suffers our environment. Will the Minister take this opportunity to reassure the House that her colleagues in DEFRA are doing everything they can to support our farmers as the balance the agricultural environment needs of the land? She also ensure that you consideration is given to the restoration of the SRO scheme so we can keep making progress on our environment and goals, hand-in-hand with farmers and not be distracted from the harms of damaging products such as the chemicals I've been talking about in this speech so far.

By losing our much-needed local and rural allies. I'm aware the speech has been slightly doom and gloom, but I'd like to turn to what we can do as an alternative. Research has shown that the likes of Coconut oil, good old lavender and eucalyptus provide a very good natural and most importantly, non-toxic alternatives for flea and tick repellents. The market is awash with collars for cats and dogs, infused with these essential oils, both practical and natural. There's been very little emphasis on the solutions. We should be doing much more to promote the benefits of these chemical free remedies.

As seen with recent developments in Switzerland where the government there is carrying out water testing, I believe there is clear need for environmental assessment impacts on the use of Fipronil and Imidaclopri. Should be launched as a matter of urgency and would welcome the Minister's reflections on this point. We as Liberal Democrats have called for any emergency authorisations of the chemicals to be revoked and for the introduction of tighter restrictions on the use of them. I'd invite the Minister to provide comment on the state of play here and whether there is in fact serious appetite from the government to address this issue.

What's clear is that we have a serious challenge on our hands. These products advertised to my friends point widely and sold ubiquitously. While not blind to the fact that these products have brought undeniable benefits to pest control, their unintended consequences serve as a stark reminder of the need for sustainable and nature friendly practices. I genuinely believe that there is a desire to do more to regulate these highly toxic chemicals. Lawmakers were right to impose a blanket ban on Fipronil and Imidaclopri in agricultural settings in 2017 and 2018.

The well should now be there to ensure that these products cannot be allowed to continue damaging our freshwater ecosystems. Further regulation is the only way forward to remove contaminants and addressed the contamination of our waterways. The governor also needs to go further and further in regulating our waterways and the water companies damage overall. Whilst the water bill is a good first step, it can and must do more. OfWAT is failing in its duties, and the time has come for a new clean water authority to replace it as we up our game in protecting our precious waterways.

I see no reason why reforms designed to keep these chemicals out of our waterways can't come hand-in-hand with our push to keep sewage and other contaminants and pollutants out of our waterways. In the short-term, restrictions should be placed on the trade-off of Fipronil and Imidaclopri. The only exception to their continued use should come under strict conditions for prescription only via veterinary medical professionals and for a We know it can lead to the propagation of these products in our natural environment, so restrictions would make some sense.

When the time allows, a band for all other usage should be in the government scope. It is clear decisive action must be taken on this matter. Could the Minister shed light on whether the government would be willing to make an assessment of the potential merits of moving in that direction? From all I have seen, it appears imprudent and perhaps the only direction to take. direction to take.

20:16

Emma Hardy MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice, Labour)

- -

Thank you. As always, it is a pleasure to see you in the chair. Can I congratulate the honourable member for securing this debate. And especially congratulate her for her first turn -- adjournment debates in first turn -- adjournment debates in this House. I'm sure the first of many, and probably the first of many involving water. We can't miss the opportunity to congratulate the honourable member for Strangford on his birthday, happy birthday. I'm sure I speak for the entire house when I say that.

I hope you've had a wonderful day and an adjournment debate would not be in adjournment debates without the honourable member here. I know the government is carrying out monitoring of the honourable member's area to deliver programs such as updating the water framework, natural ecosystem assessment and catchment sensitive farming. As we know the quality of our rivers, lakes and seas is essential for providing clean water and producing our food. Our beautiful rivers, lakes, seas and beaches are a source of pride for our communities and we want to restore them to that.

I totally agree on the notion of... I am again going to have to mention my wonderful three I have, which are... Megatron, Lily and Serena. Serena named because she is a beautiful serene lady and Megatron because he is a crazy little boy. She is quite right, the concerns around fleas and ticks is one felt by many pet owners I'm sure up and down the country. On the wider works, just three days ago we released a written ministerial statement looking at our plan for reducing pesticide.

That had three objectives, to encourage the take-up of integrated pest management, to establish a timeline and targets for the use of pesticides and to strengthen compliance to ensure safety and better environmental outcome. This map document that we produced just last Friday and put the statement on a Monday, can you believe that that had been waiting over a decade under the previous government? And we managed to get it out in eight months, so I'm quite proud of that. Before Christmas on our wider works, we did a written ministerial statement talking about how we wanted to make sure there was a complete ban in the use of emergency authorization.

The honourable lady will know that I declined this year's emergency authorization for the use of pesticides. I think demonstrating this government's commitment to tackling some of the concerns that are widely held him and the quality of our water is essential for supporting ecosystems providing clean drinking water and producing our food. Maintaining healthy and clean water sources is vital to achieving this government's mission for sustainable economic growth. The public are also concerned about chemicals used for the treatment and prevention of fleas and ticks for pets in UK waterways and this government is committed to understanding the impacts of veterinary medicines entering our environment.

Speaking more widely about water quality, the water system which this government inherited is discharging record levels of sewage into our rivers, lakes and seas. This is not just an environmental failure, it is also a public health crisis demanding our immediate and decisive action to rectify decades of neglect and mismanagement. We need a systematic approach to tackling it to impact whole of the drainage and waste water systems, stopping the unnecessary pressure from rain water and sewage issues entering the system to the point at which it is discharged into the environment.

The Water (Special Measures) Bill act gained Royal assent on 24 February 2025 boosting the power of water sector regulators to tackle pollution. This major legislation delivers on this government process -- promised to clean up the water sector and is the most significant increase in enforcement powers for water regulators in a decade. This will give regulators new powers to make tougher action to crackdown on water companies damaging the environment and failing their customers. But we don't just want to give you that, we want to do so much more.

Further legislation aimed at fundamentally transforming how our entire water system operates will be guided by the findings of the independent water commission led by Sir John which is currently conducting the largest review of the industry since privatisation. Can I also mention what a wonderful start to the day I had today because earlier on this morning at 9 o'clock I met with Sir Steve and lots of young rowers from the University of Reading to discuss ways in which we could improve our water quality that we all love.

It was a pleasure to have a cup of coffee with him this morning and talk about our shared ambition to clean up our rivers. Having spoken about the importance of water quality I will turn in detail to the topic of veterinary medicines and waterways. The government recognises the present in a wider environment is a significant concern and we are actively gathering evidence on this complex multifactorial issue. All veterinary medicines undergo a rigorous scientific assessment before approval. As a regulator for veterinary medicines, the veterinary medicines director balances the benefits of that medicine for animal health and where far as well as human protection against the associated risk and this includes environmental risk -- welfare.

Medicines are only authorised if the benefit outweighs the whisk. -- Risk. The VMD follows recognise guidelines for veterinary medicines for all animals including pets. Fleas and ticks can lead to discomfort and distress impacts. These parasites can host micros that cause disease and pets and pet owners set encounter. Topical ointments play a crucial role in protecting animal and human health from fleas, ticks and disease, therefore it's essential we take a balanced approach to the benefits of these treatments and their potential environmental impact when considering the issue.

Whilst there is an issue of the presence of these medications and fresh waters, it is well-established that as insecticides these substances are inherently toxic to invertebrates and we do not understand the effects current levels are having on an ecosystem level. We are understanding the effects of veterinary medicines entering the environment. The VMD has flooded... To develop a coordinated strategy to reduce the impact of these substances in the environment. This government includes key government bodies, including the environment agency, the medicines and healthcare products regulatory agency, the Health and Safety Executive and representatives from the devolved governments.

Whilst they are prioritising the development of an evidence-based working to resolve this issue will require involvement by all key stakeholders including the pharmaceutical industry and vet professionals. This does not come without challenge, stakeholders remain divided on the way forward. Some advocate for the benefits for humans and animal health, others emphasise the need for more cautious emphasise the need for more cautious use while some push for a more complete ban.... Restrictions could impact animal welfare, animal health and public health.

There is still a critical evidence In understanding the full impact of these options in both animal and human health as well as the environment and this must be explored further before any regulatory action is taken. 's weaker Mac I thank her for giving way. I wonder if she could clarify whether that particular group is going to consider the benefits of using a natural remedies and making sure people are aware fully of the benefits of that and that will be quantified as my honourable friend mentioned during her speech.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the... Being a responsible government,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Being a responsible government, it is my job to look at all of the evidence and find a balanced way

**** Possible New Speaker ****

forward. I thank her for giving way. My question is whether there is some question is whether there is some kind of rough timeline for that group to come back with a report.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank her for her question and her intervention earlier. She is dedicated to issues all defecated -- Defra related. Let me check and see As underresearched policies can fail, any changes must be evidence- based and measurable to achieve success. So this government will not turn the other way and continue to allow our rivers, lakes and seas to be polluted through the water special measures act, the independent water commission, future legislation and many other actions, we are demonstrating our commitment to a conference every set of the water industry and will drive long- term transformation change.

We remain dedicated to addressing the environment impact on veterinary medicines and will continue working with relevant stakeholders to find solutions that protect both animal health and the environment. So in conclusion, I want to again congratulate the honourable member on securing this debate. The public want clean water, and we are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

determined to deliver it. The question is that this House do now adjourn. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." The ayes have it.

This debate has concluded

Return to start of debate - Return to top of page