Commons Chamber

Monday 14th July 2025

(began 6 months, 3 weeks ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:34
14:34
None Portrait Q1. What steps she is taking to reform the leasehold system. (905164)
-

Order, order, we communities and local government,
14:34
14:35
14:36
14:36
14:37
14:37
14:38
14:38
14:39
14:39
14:40
14:40
14:41
14:41
14:42
14:42
14:43
14:43
Alex Norris Portrait Alex Norris MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Nottingham North and Kimberley, Labour )
-
-
First of all, I say how sorry I am to hear that the honourable members constituent has been living in those conditions for so long. We have published draft guidance for social landlords to make sure they understand the law, and as she would expect, we are working very closely to support their operational readiness for it is why we took the phased approach we did, we are encouraging social landlords to act now, raise any concerns with us now, so we can consider how best to support them, and of course, in the meantime, they must meet their existing obligations.

existing obligations. existing obligations. To the law and the importance of it being in force, there are homes in my constituency that I damp and mouldy and are publicly owned, but mouldy and are publicly owned, but not by housing associations, but by the Hospitals Trust, nursing accommodation for nurses and their families. Can he clarify to me and families. Can he clarify to me and then, the remit of this law and the power, and control in this area, and will he urge all public sector landlords to make sure they comply with the law, so our nurses can bring their families up in places that are safe and clean and decent? that are safe and clean and decent? I do not think it is any secret that me and the right honourable member, the Deputy Prime Minister, the housing minister, are right on all of our partners, but it is on all secretaries to make sure they do their job, he has raised a good concern, the housing minister will write to him.
14:45
14:45
14:46
14:46
14:47
14:47
14:48
14:48
14:49
14:49
14:50
14:50
14:51
14:52
14:52
14:52
14:53
14:54
14:54
14:54
14:55
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:57
14:58
14:58
None Portrait Q6. What steps she plans to take to help increase participation in UK elections. (905169)
-

Question six.
14:59
14:59
15:00
15:00
15:01
15:02
15:02
15:03
15:03
15:04
15:04
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:13
None Portrait Q14. What steps she is taking to support high streets. (905177)
-

Question 14, Mr Speaker.
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:15
None Portrait Q15. What steps she is taking to build more social and affordable homes. (905178)
-

Question 15, Mr Speaker.
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:21
15:21
15:21
15:22
15:22
15:23
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:28
15:28
15:29
15:29
15:29
15:30
15:30
15:31
15:31
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:32
15:33
15:33
15:33
15:34
15:35
15:35
15:35
15:36
15:37
15:37
15:37
15:38
15:38
15:39
15:39
15:40
15:40
15:40
15:40
15:41
15:41
15:41
15:42
15:42
15:42
15:44
15:44
15:45
15:45
15:45
15:45
15:46
None Portrait Ministerial statement: State of Climate and Nature
-

15:46
15:58
15:58
15:58
15:59
None Portrait Mr Speaker
-

15:59
None Portrait
-

16:03
16:06
16:06
16:06
16:07
16:08
16:11
16:13
16:14
16:15
16:15
16:16
None Portrait Mr Speaker
-

16:17
16:17
16:18
16:18
16:19
16:19
16:19
16:20
None Portrait Mr Speaker
-

16:20
16:20
16:21
16:22
16:23
16:23
16:24
16:24
16:25
16:26
16:28
16:28
16:29
16:29
16:30
16:30
16:31
16:32
16:33
16:34
16:35
16:36
16:36
16:36
16:37
16:37
16:37
16:39
16:40
16:40
16:40
16:40
16:42
16:42
16:43
16:43
16:44
16:44
16:45
16:45
16:46
16:46
16:47
16:47
16:48
16:48
16:49
16:50
16:50
16:51
16:51
16:52
16:52
16:53
16:53
16:54
16:54
16:55
16:55
16:56
16:56
16:57
16:57
16:58
16:58
Yvette Cooper Portrait Rt Hon Yvette Cooper MP, The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley, Labour)
-
-
Thank you. With permission, I will make a statement to update the house on the new joint action between the UK and France to tackle dangerous small boat crossings, crossings which undermine UK and French border security, which put lives at risk in the Channel, which few organised crime in which cause disorder and damage, both here in the UK and in France. The new agreement reaches of the summit means stronger partnership, working with transit countries to prevent transit countries to prevent illegal migration, action against criminal and trafficking gangs who profit from this.

Actions to strengthen the coast. The groundbreaking new returns agreement so that for the first time people are arriving on small boats can be sent back to France. And stronger action here in the UK to stop illegal working and tackle long-term system failures, which are exploited by criminal gangs to encourage people to travel to the UK. I hope the whole house will steps. Global instability continues to drive irregular and illegal migration towards Europe and towards the UK, and it is exploited and encouraged by criminal gangs who seek to make maximum profit from human misery and insecurity.

France faces challenges as well with over 150,000 people claiming asylum there in 2024. The most serious aspect we face as their dangerous small boat crossings that undermine our border security and put lives at risk. For 2018, I barely saw anyone trying to cross by boat. In the years that followed, a major criminal industry was allowed to grow and take route along our border. The number of crossings increase d 100 fold, from less than 400 in 2018 to over 40,000 x 20 23.

This has badly damaged public trust in the state to damage border control. Criminal gangs have been allowed to get away with it, leaving the asylum system in chaos. Coordinated work across Europe has been far too big, and so has been the work between the UK and our nearest neighbour for too long. As we have said before, smuggle and trafficking gangs make their money by operating across borders so governments need to cooperate across borders All the All the work All the work done All the work done by All the work done by the All the work done by the National Crime Agency this year.

And crucially you to specialist intelligent and judicial police unit in Dunkirk to speed up the arrest and prosecution of smugglers in France. Third strengthening the border. French action has presented 330 but crossings this year but an 85 have crossed. Criminal gangs are operating new tactics, increasing overcrowding of boats to more people arrived and leading them in shallow waters exploiting the French rules that mean that authorities have not been able to intervene in the water. Those tactics have driven the appalling scenes with people clambering onto crowded boat in shallow waters, disgraceful violence from gang members towards the French police and towards migrants, and people crushed to death in the middle of overcrowded boats.

We cannot stand for this. That is why the new action agreed with France includes establishing a new French company of enforcement officers with stronger public order powers to address increases in violence on French beaches and prevent boat launches before the megawatt hour. Providing training for additional drone pilots to intercept those launches, and crucially, supporting the maritime review, the new review instigated by the French Interior Minister, so they can intervene more effectively, pursuing what last week's declaration describes as a novel and innovative approach to interceptor boats and enhance maritime cooperation to ensure we adapt as a criminal gangs change their approach.

Meanwhile we are changing our domestic law to criminalise those who endanger people's lives at sea, so we can more easily prosecute those who crowd onto overcrowded boats and put other people's lives at risk. Action in both French and UK waters. The innovative approach to returns, we have increased international returns for those with no right to be in the UK. Until now, we have not been able to return people who have travelled by these dangerous and illegal boat crossings to other safe countries that they have travelled through.

Previous government tried to achieve this, indeed they promised it. But never secured an agreement to do so. Under the groundbreaking agreement announced by the prime minister and President Macron last week, individuals who arrive in the UK by small boat can for the first time be readmitted to France. This is the right thing to do. It is also an important step towards undermining the business model of the organised crime groups in the crossings. We have agreed to establish a safe reciprocal exchange mechanism for individuals in France who apply with appropriate documentation, to be transferred to the UK subject to clear eligibility criteria and stringent security checks.

Transfers to the UK under the new route will match the number admitted to France on a one-for-one basis. Further details of the scheme will be set out in the immigration once final arrangements are in place. This innovative agreement means people who undertake illegal dangerous journeys to the UK, putting their own and other people's lives at risk and paying money to fuel an entire criminal industry, being returned to France where the boats set off from. In return, we will take people who apply lawfully who passed security checks, with priority given to those who have a connection with the UK.

Those who are most likely to be refugees or are most honourable to smuggler gangs. Yes this is the right thing to do, establishing a principal that whilst the UK will always be ready to play its part alongside other countries in helping those fleeing persecution and conflict, we believe this should be done through controlled and managed legal way, not through dangerous illegal or uncontrolled criminal routes. It is also the first step to undermining the promises made by current organic they tell people if they travel to the UK, they cannot be returned to the continent.

Now they can be. We will develop the pilot step-by-step and trial different approaches as part of its varying numbers and seeking the most effective ways to undermine the gangs, to reduce boat crossings, and to help France deal the problems that they face in the Calais region. The Prime Minister and French President set out the expectation that this will be operationalised in the coming weeks. Fifth, we will take strong action on illegal working and asylum failures here in the UK because for far too long it has been too easy for people to work illegally in the UK, and for employers to exploit them undercutting responsible businesses.

Already we have increased illegal working raids and arrests by 50% since the election. Already we have more than tripled the value of employer penalties issued to over £89 million. We have launched a new surge in enforcement links to the gig economy with changes in the Borders bill to compel companies to conduct proper checks on the right to work. We will also bring forward further reforms to the asylum system to prevent its operation being exploited either by gangs to encourage travel to the UK, or for people here illegally to find unfair ways to stay.

So we need to be part of the global response to irregular and illegal migration are not separate from it. Working in partnership, not just shouting and pointing at the sea. Everyone knows that there is no single silver bullet to tackle illegal migration and dangerous boat crossings. It takes time to unpick the deep roots that gangs have put down. And to build the foundations of a new cross-border approach. But that is what we are determined to do. Stronger borders, stronger law- enforcement in France and the UK, creasing returns, and building the foundations of a new long-term approach where countries cooperate to prevent illegal migration, and to ensure that there is sanctuary for genuine refugees.

No one should be making these dangerous boat journeys which undermine our border security and put lives at risk. That is why this cooperation between the UK and France is so important, and I commend this statement to the house.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp. Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker
17:10
Chris Philp Portrait Rt Hon Chris Philp MP (Croydon South, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker sub thank Home Secretary advanced sight of the statement. The Home Secretary comes here today sounding Secretary comes here today sounding rather pleased with herself. I'm afraid she has no reason to. One year ago she promised to slash the gangs. She said again and again, that was her plan. Indeed it was her only plan. Yet today there is no mention of what was once her favourite catchphrase. That is because her claim to smash the gangs has become a joke, an embarrassment to her and to the government.

We warned law enforcement alone would not be enough. So did the National crime agency. But she did not listen, and what then happened? The 12 months following July 5 last year have been the worst such period in history for small boat crossings, 44,359, up 40% year-on-year. The first 13 days of this month have also been the worst in history. 2510 in less than two weeks, up 213% year-on-year. This calendar year so far has been the worst in history as well, up 57% on last year.

She is setting records, just all the wrong ones. These boat crossings are the worst ever. Does she accept that she has lost control of the borders and she is failing in her most basic

**** Possible New Speaker ****

duty to protect the United Kingdom? She says she has a new deal with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

She says she has a new deal with France. Yet President Macron says this needs EU agreement. Is this this needs EU agreement. Is this true? Does it need EU agreement? And if so, have they provided it? The if so, have they provided it? The deal must of course involve an agreed number. Yet when the Home Secretary was asked, she is unable Secretary was asked, she is unable to say what numbers are involved. Will she now come clean and tell Parliament what number, if any, has been agreed? If there is no agreement with the EU, and no agreed number as part of this deal, then there is no deal at all, just there is no deal at all, just vacuous spin.

The only number we have seen reported is just 50 have seen reported is just 50 illegal immigrants a week. This was put to the Prime Minister last Thursday and he did not deny it. 50 Thursday and he did not deny it. 50 each week represents only 6% of each week represents only 6% of illegal arrivals, meaning 94% could stay. Dr Shi seriously think that stay. Dr Shi seriously think that allowing 94% of illegal immigrants to stay will be any kind of to stay will be any kind of deterrent? Her claim to smash the gangs was a gimmick, and so is her 6% returns deal.

The truth is this, the only way to fix this is to remove every single illegal arrival as sooner they get here, without judicial process, either to their country of origin, or to 1/3 country. That would be a real deterrent. We saw this approach work in Australia about 10 years ago. I'm glad your gentleman mentions that, such a scheme for the UK was ready to start in July of last year. The previous government had done all of the legal and just call work needed.

All she has to do was press Go. But she and the Prime Minister are cancelled it just days before it was due to start. As a result, we now see record numbers crossing. Will she now admit she made a terrible mistake? Will she now start a proper 100% removals deterrent? The damage done by illegal immigration on this scale is immense. Far from closing asylum hotels as they promised, there are now nearly 3000 more people in asylum hotels than at the time of the last election.

I have personally witnessed rampant illegal working from the very hotels that she runs. I saw Deliveroo, who breeds, and just e-bikes in the compound of an asylum hotel where residents have no right to work. Would she commit to ending illegal working from the very hotels that she runs? And we see reports of migrants based on hotels being charged with serious crimes, including rape and sexual assault on women and children. Louise Casey has won a significant proportion of sexual offences are committed by those seeking asylum cases.

Like the 29 year old Afghan was convicted of raping a 15-year-old girl. His defence counsel claimed he did not understand this was wrong due to cultural differences. This madness has to stop. The Home Secretary cancelled a proper deterrent plan just days before it was due to start. Her claim to smash the gangs lies in tatters. She has presided over the highest number of illegal small boat crossings in history. Would she now apologised to the House and to the country for her appalling failure?
17:15
Yvette Cooper Portrait Rt Hon Yvette Cooper MP, The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley, Labour)
-
-
Home Secretary. Home Secretary just wants to pretend that the last eight years never happened. He knows that this crisis, the small boat scales went on for 340 weeks under the Tories. A period in which when he was Immigration Minister, overall migration near travelled. An small boat crossings increased tenfold when he was the Hundred and 28,000 people across the channel. How many were returned to France? How many were sent to Rwanda? He set himself it was zero because he didn't even want to count before volunteers.

He keeps saying that somehow... If they were ready to start, they wouldn't have called an election. The scheme had already an election. The scheme had already been running at the cost of £700 million. Since election, this government has returned over 35,000 people who have no right to be here and that is a 24% increase in enforced returns compared to the last year that his party was in charge. It is a 28% increase in failed asylum returns, compared to the last year that his party was in charge.

As for an agreement with France which he doesn't seem to want to talk about very much, I asked him about exactly this when I was home affairs committee -- Home Affairs Select Committee Chair, and I asked him what chance do we have of a bilateral agreement with France to take people who arrived here from He said five years ago that's what he was working on. In fact, he told the committee, overcoat one of our agreements will be to reach those agreement and I think it is strongly in the French national interest to agree with such a return agreement.

Those goods well, it turns out he should have been optimistic about a Labour government reaching an agreement where he failed. He also said " We plan to return as many illegal immigrants as possible. We will return these individuals back to France and we are looking to ramp up that activity." That was five years ago. The fights never went. The activity was never ramped up. The shadow justice secretary try to return people to France. The shadow justice secretary called for the UK to " Take one asylum seeker from France in return for everyone, illegal migrant, that we returned to them." Indeed, he even said more than one.

He said when he was immigration Minister, " Some boats that are just 250 yards away from the French coast have not been stopped by the authorities. This must change." I agree but that was five years ago and he did not change a thing. They never understood that you don't change things by jumping up and down and shouting about them. It needs partnership working and hard graft. That's what this government has done.
17:19
17:20
17:20
Lisa Smart Portrait Lisa Smart MP (Hazel Grove, Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much. I'm grateful for the statement. We want to stop for the statement. We want to stop these dangerous channel crossings that first ballooned under the former Conservative government. Cross-border cooperation will be key to achieving this and it is clearly -- there is clearly a lot of work needed after the Conservatives ripped up the returns agreement that allowed us to send illegal migrants back to Europe. I was very interested to hear the shadow home secretary quote President Macron.

He did not quite mention the section of President Macron's remarks that have attributed this problem to the Brexit deal the last Conservative government could do. This deal is a step in the right direction and I sincerely hope it works. But people will be understandably sceptical that such a small scheme act at this stage as an effective deterrent. Questions still need to be answered around how and when the UK and French governments will decide to scale up the pilot so I would welcome more details from the Home Secretary of this.

Feels like this are only part of the solution. The Home Secretary mentioned among other things placing officers within Europe. Will she facilitate creating a stronger UK leadership role in Europe to make it easier to crackdown on the trafficking gangs between these crossings? Does she acknowledge we will be able to fully take the power out of these gangs until we provide regulated entry for refugees to the UK question at one of the best deterrents for putting people off is for applications to be processed quickly so that those were granted status can integrate and contribute to our community and for those with no right to be here to be sent back swiftly? Could the secretary update the house and the average time it takes to process an asylum application after arrival in Britain shows -- shores and how has that changed since last year? I fear the government risks repeating the Conservatives mistakes and getting to grips with this problem, something we all want them to do.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the honourable member for her questions. The Prime Minister
17:23
Yvette Cooper Portrait Rt Hon Yvette Cooper MP, The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley, Labour)
-
-
her questions. The Prime Minister and French President set out the expectation that we will be able to operationalise this to begin the pilot in the coming weeks. The numbers will vary and it is a pilot that will need to be developed. We mean to try different approaches as part of it. I think that is the right and sensible approach. The principle underpinning this is the right one. This is that we should be returning people who have paid money to criminal gangs to come on this dangerous journey that puts other people's lives as well as their own at risk on small boats.

It also undermines our border security. In exchange for taking people who apply legally who are more likely to be genuine refugees, who have been through security checks, or have prioritising people who have a connection with the UK. It is also a way to help undermine the business model of criminal gangs who tell people that there is no way to be returned to France or to any other country if they get on one of these dangerous, small boats and the use that as part of the advertising, and that is something we should be seeking to undermine.

She is right, it has to be alongside stronger law enforcement and that is alongside stronger cooperation we have been building including the new prosecution and investigation unit in Dunkirk to work with our national crime agency and also our Border Security Command as well. We are also significantly speeding up asylum decision-making, bringing the backlog down. We are also taking action to speed up the appeals system because that is an area that is causing delays as a result of the broken system that we inherited.
17:24
17:25
17:26
17:27
17:29
17:30
17:31
17:32
17:33
17:33
17:34
17:35
17:36
17:37
17:38
17:39
17:40
17:41
17:42
17:42
17:43
17:44
17:45
Yvette Cooper Portrait Rt Hon Yvette Cooper MP, The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley, Labour)
-
-
disagree with him on the issue around a communal gangs because I around a communal gangs because I think whatever you do you have to have much stronger enforcement of the current organza. I was whatever the current organza. I was whatever arrangements are put in place, if the gangs are given free reign to do whatever they want, they will find whatever they want, they will find other ways around any arrangement, and they will find other ways to make money. It is crucial that as make money.

It is crucial that as part of any action we take, we need stronger enforcement against German stronger enforcement against German gangs. National Crime Agency has delivered a 36% increase in high- delivered a 36% increase in high- impact disruptions in the last 12 months compared to the year before. months compared to the year before. And building the partnership with other European countries in order to other European countries in order to be able to go further. I do recognise, your woman has argued for recognise, your woman has argued for one-for-one returns before and he has done so when other people were not doing so.

I recognise the way he has argued for this, and argued for innovative approaches. And I agree innovative approaches. And I agree that we need to start with a pilot arrangement that will allow both the UK and France to trial things in a UK and France to trial things in a way that we have never done before. The previous government have a was made grand claims that somehow everything is going to be solved in the next three days. And they repeatedly failed because they did not build up the credibility and the plans and build up the systematic approach working in partnership or approach working in partnership or
17:46
17:47
17:48
17:48
17:49
17:50
17:50
17:51
17:52
17:53
17:53
17:54
17:54
17:55
17:56
17:56
17:57
17:58
17:58
17:59
18:00
18:00
Gareth Thomas Portrait Gareth Thomas MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Harrow West, Labour )
-
-
With your permission, I wish to make a statement on the green paper that we are publishing today on the future of the couple's Office. Post offices have stood as a cornerstone of British life for generations. Serving constituents in every part of the UK. They are more than just places to send letters collect personal. There hubs of economic and social activity. They are a lifeline to small businesses. They provide access to essential services, including banking services. There are a critical part of our high streets.

They have a unique role in rural areas, particularly permanent branches. They act as the beating heart of communities. In recent years, the need for change has become clear. 12 months ago, we inherit -- we inherited a post office in crisis. And stable leadership network struggling to maintain services, reputation shattered by the Horizon scandal and its appalling treatment of This government is determined to strengthen the post office. Today's Green Paper begins a National Dialogue on the future of the Post Office.

So we can create a modern resilient and financially sustainable organisation. We recognise that the post office, just like other postal services around the world, faces significant challenges. Challenges driven in no small part by changing consumer habits, fuelled by the digital transition, by changing high street and a changing economy. We want a post office that the public uses, values, and above all trusts. We want branches to be visible on the high street and in all communities. In rural and urban areas. Offering a wide range of in-person services.

I do not believe people are ideologically wedded to a smaller or bigger post office. They just want a post office that works. For them, for the businesses, and their communities. Our preferred approach is for the overall size and shape of the post office to remain the same, so we minimise the impact on communities. We want to strengthen post office branches. To modernise them and to expand what they do. There are though a range of strong views on the post office. So we will carefully consider all the views put to us about the network's future.

We need a post office that not only preserves its role in providing vital services to communities, but also embraces the needs of modern Britain. Challenges are significant. Many branches are not profitable for the postmasters running them. Average weekly customer sessions declined by 34% in 2007. In the shift to online services continues. While some services such as parcel drop-offs and banking transactions are growing, others like government services have seen significant decline. We are also seeing innovation across the network.

Drop and collect branches are being rolled out meet the growing demand for parcel services. Over 160 banking hubs and operational with a commitment to 350 by the end of the Parliament. As the banks continue to close branches, we are keen to support the post office to develop the banking services it provides. Working with our Treasury colleagues we will be hosting joint discussions on this issue with Post Offices in the banking sector in the coming months. Above all else, we know the post office need stability, which we are committed to providing.

We are backing that commitment with over £500 million of investment during this Parliament. Including this financial year up to £136 million to invest in new technology and to replace Horizon. Horizon should have gone long ago. Instead it will be many months yet before it is replaced. Fujitsu should have been part of the Post Offices Green Pass, not its current and immediate future. We are determined to end the use of Horizon and to draw a line under Fujitsu's involvement with the post office.

The task of replacing Horizon is hugely complex. It has been embedded within the post office that for more than two decades. It remains critical to the delivery of essential services that many of our constituents depend on for the post office. Never again must we allow the post office to put blind faith in its technology. We will support the implementation of the post office transformation plan which aims to make the company more efficient, enabling it to continue offering cash and banking services in the coming years.

We will also fund innovative equipment for postmasters to help customers beat the queues. This plan aims to achieve operational and financial stability by 2030. It includes a commitment to boost annual Postmaster incomes by children £50 million by the end of the decade. Already a £20 million uplift has been delivered in 2024/25, with £66 million plan for this financial year. After all the post office has put its people through, it is now essential that it reorientate its culture towards postmasters.

Involving them in central decision- making. The first steps have been taken the creation of a consultative council and the election of Postmaster non-execs. I am acutely aware there are those who say that more is needed. Indeed that is why in this Green Paper, we are exploring options for further strengthening these structures. Longer term we are open to more fundamental reforms. Two ideas that have been put to us include the potential neutralisation of the post office, being postmasters and communities a much greater stake in the organisation.

And a charter model that separates the government's role from the board's role in running the business. We will assess other suggestions people have for the Post Offices long-term future including suggestions on the post office future commercial direction such as closer working between Royal mail and the post office. These are not conversations perhaps for the moment. But we want to begin the debate and conversation now so we are ready to act when the time is right. The Green Paper is an important step towards rebuilding trust in the post office, and embedding a culture of transparency and accountability and compassion.

It is important to stress that no decisions on changes to governance arrangements will be made until after the inquiries report to allow us all to consider Sir Wyn Williams's recommendations together with Green Paper responses. This is a once in a generation opportunity to reimagine the post office. Green Paper is ambitious but grounded in reality. It asks difficult questions about how we ensure long-term sustainability whilst also protecting essential services. We want to hear from everyone with a stake in the post office future.

The post office must be modern, resilient, and trusted. I hope the Green Paper is the first step towards delivering that vision. I commend this statement to the House.
18:08
Harriett Baldwin Portrait Dame Harriett Baldwin MP (West Worcestershire, Conservative)
-
-
Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I thank the Minister for advanced sight of his statement. And note that the post office is really the Heineken of government services. It reaches parts of the UK that other arms of government do not reach. The post office is very much more than a business. It is a vital part of the U.K.'s social and economic fabric. It connects communities, supports local economies and shows access to essential services across the country.

From rural villages in constituencies like mine to inner cities, postmasters are trusted figures who provide a lifeline for people who rely on face-to-face services particularly the elderly, digitally excluded, and small businesses. It is a network that plays an increasingly important role delivering banking services and banking hubs as a traditional bank network continues to close. The number of letters sent has declined, and more government services are online or direct to bank accounts, there are areas where the post office has seen strong growth.

Bank deposits to Post Offices are up by 68%. Parcels are up by 68%, and track priority mail has risen by 72%. The government had promised to Green Paper on the post office will be published in the first half of 2025, I will give him that. The government doesn't want to get this consultation out for recess, leading to a period over the summer but there is arguably less parliamentary scrutiny. So would like to take this opportunity to encourage the wider public to respond to the consultation over the summer.

It is a Green Paper that seeks to reduce the taxpayer subsidy over time. Of course with 50,000 workers throughout Britain, the post office itself faces a £45 million hike in its bill from the national insurance jobs tax. The Post Offices that are eligible for retail hospitality and leisure business rates relief have seen a 140% increase in their business rates. And the Employment Rights Bill will cost the post office and other £8 billion. No wonder the chairman of the post office blames the Autumn Budget for increasing costs and said this was why the post office needs a fresh start.

The Minister told this House on 8 April " Access criteria have already been published that commits the government to provide 11,500 Post Offices. " The Minister said the Green Paper that his preference is to maintain the size of this network. Can the minister commits today to there being 11,500 post office outlets at the end of this Parliament? Did the government consider in this Green Paper reducing the branch requirements? If so, why did it change its mind? Was he advised by his officials that it would take a closure of one in five Post Offices to end the network subsidy.

If that is not what they were told, what was he told? What was the cut-off point? The Minister said they will consult on a change to access requirements as well saying it could be argued that they are too stringent. But for rural areas they are not too stringent. For approximately 14% of the post office branches, many in my constituency, they are the last shop in their village. Can the Minister confirm that rural branches will not be closed just for them to be replaced by city centres? Does he not realise that for many the post office is the only shop for miles around to the only place where you can access free cash.

How much did the post office get from the framework agreement with the banks? Getting a better and longer term agreement? How much will the government ask Fujitsu to pay towards that £2 billion estimated cost of compensating the wrongly accused postmasters over the Horizon system? The Minister appears to have kicked post office mutual into the long grass. I can see why he would not want to do it during the time of the inquiry but could there be a pilot during the life of this Parliament? Post Offices and postmasters who run them are the backbone of our local communities.

Can I urge the public to take this opportunity to champion their local

**** Possible New Speaker ****

post office over this summer, and reply to this summer consultation? Lister.
18:13
Gareth Thomas Portrait Gareth Thomas MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Harrow West, Labour )
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to the honourable Lady for her encouragement to sub- Lady for her encouragement to sub- postmasters and indeed to anyone who is interested in the future of the post office to contribute their views to the Green Paper. She rightly sets out, as I hope I have underlined in my opening statement, the Green Paper is very clear on this, we think that post office branches up and down the country are a vital part of our country's economic and social fabric.

We are determined to strengthen the post office network in order that they can play a continuing and more effective role in our economic and social lives. She rightly underlined the significance of banking services going forward. Perhaps as an aside, she mentioned some of the other parts of Post Offices traditional roles which have been in decline. Letter volumes have halved since 2011. It helps to underline the significance of banking to the future of the post office.

We are very clear that we think there is more that the post office could offer if the banks are willing to work with the post office. The successful completion of the banking framework negotiations was a very encouraging sign that regard. As I set out my opening remarks, we are determined along with Treasury colleagues, to sit down with the post office and with the banks to see what more we can do to get there. There is a commitment to 50 banking hubs over the lifetime of this Parliament.

If we could improve the way in which the banks work with the post office, perhaps we would see a much more significant role for the post office in terms of provision of banking services on a far more high street up and down the UK. On National Insurance contributions, I gently say to her, difficult decisions had to be made in the budget because of that financial situation that we inherited. We have taken a range of decisions to extend the network.

I'm sure she is grateful to the Chancellor of Exchequer for the additional finances that have been put aside to invest in the future of the post office. In terms of Fujitsu, she quite rightly says that Fujitsu has a moral obligation to contribute towards the cost of the scandal. As I have said previously, we do need to wait for the final report from Sir Wyn Williams, to understand the full sense of the On neutralisation, as she alluded to, we do think it is right we concentrate in the short term on how to prioritise financial and operational stability of the post office.

-- on mutualisation. I have an open mind on that question and will look carefully at what we received back in terms of views on that question from the green paper.
18:16
Clive Efford Portrait Clive Efford MP (Eltham and Chislehurst, Labour)
-
-
I welcome my honourable friend's statement and also the consultation in the green paper. Does he agree with me that we should see the withdrawal of banks on a high streets as an opportunity for the Post-Office to expand what it can offer. Particularly not just to individuals but small businesses in the local communities. We should see this as an opportunity rather than a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

burden on the Post Office. I agree very much with my honourable friend about the honourable friend about the potential role the banks can play, even more so on a high street through working with the post through working with the post office. And it is one of the areas office. And it is one of the areas office. And it is one of the areas that the. Office -- Post Office management have identified as a key area going forward.

It's also why we have set aside significant sums of have set aside significant sums of money to invest in new technology to make it easier to work with the banks to do even more going forward. banks to do even more going forward. I hope that banks and the financial services community will recognise that they have a considerable that they have a considerable opportunity to do more in terms of providing services to all of our providing services to all of our constituents. By actually working constituents.

By actually working with the Post-Office. We are seeing whether we can take advantage of that opportunity.
18:18
Sarah Olney Portrait Sarah Olney MP (Richmond Park, Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

that opportunity. Liberal Democrat spokesperson. Can I thank the Minister for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I thank the Minister for the statement? The Liberal Democrats welcome to the's statement to put local post offices on a more sustainable footing. Post offices sustainable footing. Post offices are such an important part of our local communities, providing a number of critical services on local high streets, from community, high streets, from community, banking, for exchange, DeMolay -- banking, for exchange, DeMolay -- DVLA services. Currently, 99.7% of DVLA services. Currently, 99.7% of the population live within 3 miles of the post office.

4000 of these of the post office. 4000 of these benches are open seven days a week. In the past three years, nearly 2000 high street bank branches have high street bank branches have closed across the UK, resulting in local post offices of them being the local post offices of them being the only place committees can access banking services. As the government brings forward its necessary reforms, it is vital that central local services and post office jobs will be presented. Can the Minister assure me that no pulses of the Post Office will be closed? Are we welcome increased digitisation of welcome increased digitisation of services because they boost services because they boost accessibility for those who don't have access to face-to-face services and also productivity across our public sector -- while we welcome, public sector -- while we welcome, can I ask the Minister how we make sure that post offices remain viable by two
18:20
Gareth Thomas Portrait Gareth Thomas MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Harrow West, Labour )
-
-
I thank her for her welcome to the green paper. She rightly underlines the significance of the post office, particularly to the digitally excluded, to the elderly, to people in local areas. Rural areas. I recognise how important the post office is for small businesses up and down the UK. She also underlined in her comments the significance of banking services for the post office. I hope I have made very clear today that we think there is an opportunity to go even further in terms of bringing more banking services to all of our communities through the post office.

She asks about what happens when individual post office changes are being contemplated. There is a set of consultation arrangements that have been in place for some time that we are not seeking to change, and whenever there is an individual post office change, I realise that can be unsettling for local communities. It is important for that brand to be put back into place as soon as possible. It is important that whenever such changes contemplated, that the post office moves quickly to engage with local communities, including the honourable member of the house that represents that together community.

In terms of the finance of the couple's Office, we have set aside at least £500 million over this Parliament to invest in the Post-Office. In terms of the the Post-Office. In terms of the network, have of that work is loss- making and not enough was being provided to the post office to find that network. That's why we increase the funding to cover that last year and have done so again this year. We will continue to do so.
18:22
18:22
18:23
18:24
18:25
18:26
18:26
18:27
18:28
18:28
18:29
18:29
18:30
18:31
18:32
18:33
18:34
18:35
18:36
18:37
18:38
18:38
18:39
18:40
18:42
18:43
18:44
18:45
18:45
None Portrait Points of Order
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

future of post offices. Point of order. Madam Deputy Speaker, we
18:45
18:46
18:47
None Portrait Motion: Privilege
-

Thank you. May I first of all
18:47
Simon Hoare Portrait Simon Hoare MP (North Dorset, Conservative)
-
-
thank you for allowing this motion to be heard today. I rise to beg to to be heard today. I rise to beg to move the motion that stands in my name and that of the honourable name and that of the honourable member of the Gower. I raise this member is a former chair of the Northern Ireland affairs Select Committee. The current member of Committee. The current member of that committee and the current share of the committee which, by dint of of the committee which, by dint of shadowing the Cabinet Office, overlooks the inquiries act.

I have overlooks the inquiries act. I have worked closely with the current chair, the member for the Gower on chair, the member for the Gower on this motion. This is the procedural step needed to enable the important work on respecting the rights of work on respecting the rights of this house. On Wednesday last week, my honourable friend, and she is a my honourable friend, and she is a friend, presented a petition to the friend, presented a petition to the secretary of the enquiry asking for access to unpublished committee access to unpublished committee evidence.

We must not forget what evidence. We must not forget what lies behind this motion. Let me quote from the 2008 report of the Northern Ireland affairs committee into the Omagh bombing. On Saturday On Saturday, 15 August 1990, a £500 bomb killed 25 people and two unborn children. The bombing caused more death than any other single atrocity committed during or since the troubles in Northern Ireland. More than 250 people were treated in hospital and hundreds more were also injured.

The IRA claimed responsibility a few days later. No one was convicted of causing the bombing. Like colleagues across the house, I think it is important that we remember and honour those innocent people who were killed and injured on that day. Questions still remain and the enquiry seeks to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

answer, but let's hope that it does so. I was born in Omagh along time

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I was born in Omagh along time ago, 70 years ago, and I don't ago, 70 years ago, and I don't remember much about it, but the event took place and I remember the people that day and the tears we all shared, so we do seek that justice. Families have suffered too long. Does the honourable member agree that we should be at the forefront that we should be at the forefront of all right honourable members

**** Possible New Speaker ****

during this process? Justice. I agree with the honourable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I agree with the honourable gentleman. This place is not a champion of justice and its pursuit champion of justice and its pursuit as a High Court in Parliament. If not, then what are we?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not, then what are we? I am very grateful, and I have the privilege of sharing the Northern Ireland affairs committee with the honourable gentleman and with the honourable gentleman and the honourable lady in whom this has been led. It is crucially important been led. It is crucially important that the enquiry gets the information it requires and it has been raising issues about the Irish been raising issues about the Irish government in their reluctance. I think it would be useful for the privilege committee to hear from me that it would be entirely incongruous if an enquiry setup on the inquiries act passed by this Parliament to seek the answers for these families and the Oma bomb families, and the inquiries have been constrained in their name, that information is available and could assist the enquiry but was assumed because of privilege, that will be an intolerable situation, and I hope he too would agree that having gone through this process, the information will indeed be made

**** Possible New Speaker ****

available. I'm very grateful to the right honourable gentleman for that honourable gentleman for that information, and I injuries it. The information, and I injuries it. The member decides to pass the motion, he and his committee will look at that, and I echo what the right that, and I echo what the right honourable gentleman has said, which honourable gentleman has said, which is that I do hope that, if the house has a pivot of the committee which has a pivot of the committee which will not only pay but will do so in a timely manner.

The enquiry was a timely manner. The enquiry was established in February of last year by the then Secretary of State for by the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Its task is to investigate the bombing in the town of Omagh on August 1998, which could reasonably have been prevented by UK reasonably have been prevented by UK state authorities. As part of its state authorities. As part of its terms of references, the enquiry terms of references, the enquiry were given questions.

We had to look were given questions. We had to look into an investigation in the bombing to the Select Committee on 11 November. Police investigators looked into previous attacks. They did not have access to intelligent materials which may reasonably have enabled them to disrupt the activity of Republican territory. The enquiry has established that some of the evidence taken has not been reported to the house, and this is effectively the permanent motion. But it has not been reported to the house but remains unpublished and inaccessible.

The petition asks for access to that evidence. We find ourselves in a strange position whereby in setting up the enquiry, specific references made to that piece of evidence submitted, just because there are procedural problems here, it was not published and is therefore not on the public record. That is why the enquiry had asked for the evidence. At this stage, I wish to express my gratitude to both Mr Baxter and the enquiry team. They immediately realised that the evidence had not been published, and that it belonged to this house.

They sought advice from the house authorities that they have received it. They have been careful to make sure they have acted properly throughout. And there are two issues for that. Firstly, the committee wants to publish evidence and it must report it to the house and obtain an order to publish that evidence. If it wants material to be available to members and no one else, it can simply report the evidence to the house. Evidence which is reported but not published is available to members in subsequent Parliament, we reported evidence which is accessible only to the committee to which it belongs, and only accessible in the Parliament in which it was taken.

Once that Parliament is over, which clearly it is, no one has access to unreported evidence until the archives are open. There is no wiggle room here, hence, and I'm sorry to detain the house, hence the reason for this motion and the detailed explanation. If committee wants to see evidence to its counterpart in the previous parliament, the house itself must refer itself to that committee. If anyone outside the house once that evidence, they must petition for it as the secretary of enquiry has now done and which this motion seeks to advance.

It is very hard for the house to decide to release evidence it hasn't seen before the decision is made. It is particularly difficult in this case is that evidence may contain sensitive information. Accordingly, the motion invites the house to refer the evidence to the committee of privileges which can consider the matter and partly take advice. If they are advised for a reason, they might simply decide to publish it. And I hope that they can and do.

Otherwise they can look at a recommendation of what would be appropriate and the house can then take an informed decision, subsequent to the work from the committee. The second issue is that article 9 of the Bill of Rights says that, and I quote, that the freedom of speech and debate of proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of government. That means that courts should not evaluate what is said in this place.

It is not simply a matter of us being free to speak freely in Parliament but extends to all of those who participate in the proceedings, including witnesses. It is clearly important that people should be free to give evidence to the house, and to its committees without fear of legal consequences. It is also a matter of the constitutional separation of powers between Parliament and the courts. This does not mean anywhere outside Parliament. It has been taken to mean something with powers like that on the court, and the ban on impeaching the question doesn't mean that no use can be made of Parliamentary material, but that the use must be careful.

Now, the statutory enquiry is like a court. It has power to take evidence on oath, and its chair may direct people to attend as witnesses and to produce documents if requested to do so. The house authorities consider it that place out of Parliament. For that reason, the house authorities regularly contact enquiries to draw their attention to the important provisions of article 9. I am delighted to note that the petition is clear that the enquiry has taken advice from article 9 of the Bill of Rights which will be mindful of the privileges of the house.

I am confident that the Lord and his team recognise the issues their behaviour demonstrates. I expected the privilege committee says that this should be granted, the key issues will be informed by the evidence without impeaching questions. I trust it will be possible for us to insist the enquiry in its work. I hope I have made the genesis of this motion, the importance of this motion, the lacunar that this seeks to fill and the requirements of this house guards for a long, long time have evidence admitted to it and that will be treated.

I hope I have made it clear and impressed upon the house the importance of this motion, and I would urge it to do so, and I do hope, in answer to the right honourable gentleman that there is a timeline set in the motion to the privilege committee. I know they will attempt these expositions, and I hope they will agree to this motion which is an informed expiration of the issues to bring clarity to justice as we have discussed which is looking into that terrible crime which has ended the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

lives of so many prematurely. Including those to unborn children. The questionnaires is on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The questionnaires is on the order paper.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

order paper. Thank you. My comments will be necessarily short, given the role necessarily short, given the role that I play as chair of the committee of privileges. And I thank
19:00
Alberto Costa Portrait Alberto Costa MP (South Leicestershire, Conservative)
-
-
committee of privileges. And I thank my honourable friend, the member for North Dorset for the comments that he has made and the respect with which he is conveying this motion to the committee of privileges. The committee stands ready to deal with this matter should the house decide shortly to defend it to us. I note that the motion asks us to draw conclusions back to the house by the And the committee stands radio consider carefully any issues arising from the release of the unreported evidence from the Northern Ireland committee's 2009 inquiry.

We should also wish to consider issues arising from the inclusion in the terms of reference of a public inquiry, a document which is, and that has been acknowledged, rightfully the property of the House. The principle established in the Bill Of Rights 1689, the proceedings of Parliament ought not to be questioned or impeached in any place after Parliament, is potentially infringed by such a provision. I am mindful, however, that the solicitor to the Omagh Bombing Inquiry has likely included in his provision to the House a respectful recognition of the constitutional principle involved.

And is mindful of the privileges of the House. And I would like to put on record, Madame Deputy Speaker, my gratitude to him a consideration. -- For that consideration. Finally, whatever the constitutional principles involved, and the committee will take advice, it must be the case that all of us would wish the Omagh Bombing Inquiry would wish the Omagh Bombing Inquiry well in its endeavour. To establish anything that could have been done to prevent a despicable terrorist act that killed 29 people.

Including, as my honourable friend said, a woman pregnant with twins. And which are remarkably affected the lives of any more. -- Irrevocably affected. Our thoughts must be with the living and dead victims. I am certain my committee would wish nothing other than to do so. Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I now come to the front benches. I am just checking if there is or isn't a Liberal Democrat
19:03
Alex Burghart Portrait Alex Burghart MP (Brentwood and Ongar, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

isn't a Liberal Democrat spokesperson on this. No. I company shadow minister. Thank you very much, Madame

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much, Madame Deputy Speaker. I would like to put on record my gratitude to the Minister for reaching out to me Minister for reaching out to me earlier to explain her position. The clerk of the journals for briefing me this afternoon. And my honourable friend from North Dorset for talking me through this issue at the weekend. I will be unusually brief, Madame Deputy Speaker, because I wish to return to the debate on Westminster Hall, where I know a lot of honourable are currently, who would otherwise be here, are engaged another debate on Northern Ireland.

This House we strongly support the positions worded on the Order Paper. The Omagh Bombing Inquiry was set up by my honourable friend in 2023, to deal with one of the very worst atrocities of the troubles, in which the real IRA attempted to derail the peace process and in doing so, peace process and in doing so, killed many innocent civilians. Their critical importance is, of course, as I right honourable friend understand when he set up the inquiry, is to have a process which could compel witnesses and take evidence under oath, and need to get to the bottom of executive happened.

And consequently, it is of acute importance that that inquiry has access to all available information, in order to reach its conclusion. And anything else, as the honourable gentleman from East Belfast made clear his remarks, would make a mockery of that process. On that note, the note he made, it is essential that the Republic cooperates fully with this inquiry. We have had encouraging signs that it will, but the proof will undoubtedly, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. So, I was reassured to hear the remarks made by my honourable friend on the Privileges Committee, I look forward to hearing their conclusions, but they should be no doubt the Conservative party wishes to see that information handed over to the Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker.

I am grateful to the honourable member for North Dorset and my honourable for North Dorset and my honourable member, the member for Gower, for bringing fault this matter to the House, -- For bringing this matter House, -- For bringing this matter to the House, and for the careful explanation of this procedure. I explanation of this procedure. I would like to thank everyone who has worked together to enable this procedure to this House, with nothing but a desire to want to support the Omagh Bombing Inquiry.

The government is very supportive of The government is very supportive of this motion that has been created this motion that has been created today. Should the motion be agreed, the government will await the work of the Committee of Privileges with interest.
19:06
19:07
19:08
Kit Malthouse Portrait Rt Hon Kit Malthouse MP (North West Hampshire, Conservative)
-
-
thank you very much and I'm pleased to be opening this debate. Although I accept, given the presence in the chamber, this seems to be a minority interest for members of parliament, notwithstanding the fact that this legislation, I'm afraid, affect some of our very basic freedoms and rights. And before I move on to address my amendment wanted the bill. I hope you will forgive me, Madam Chair, if I indulge slightly in a preamble. There are some issues I want to press upon the Minister, in the hope that when he responds, he will do so favourably.

And possibly, if not, accept my amendment, agreed you consider the principles it raises in the other place, where this legislation will have to go through some pretty stringent legalise, compared to what it has to do here, compared to senior lawyers on those benches. We established at second reading, this bill is highly discriminatory. The truisms we always alter in this House as we all stand equal before the law, but I'm afraid where this legislation is concerned, that is just not true.

The Minister is unable, I am afraid, to wield his powers under the legislation here seeking to amend. He cannot wield that power against me. It does not affect me, it would not even be countenance that he could try and revoke citizenship, as I have no right to citizenship elsewhere. However, there are members of this House against whom he could wield that power. And in fact, although he couldn't wield it against me, he could wield it against two of my children.

Although not against the other one. I have three. He could wield it against the former Prime Ministers children. The Member for Richmond. He could wield it against the former Chancellor of the Exchequer's children. The Member for Surrey. He could wield it against the former deputy priming a comedy member for... Where is in Hertfordshire? -- Former Deputy Prime Minister, and I'm saying this is highly discriminatory and unusually so. When he is tampering with some of the basic tenants of British justice in this bill, a principle having been established in the Supreme Court, which is attempting to reverse, I just want to have in his mind this notion that he is trying to, I guess, embed the discrimination which I hope and believe it's not the primary motivation but I think Unisa copperhead before he take this step.

The second thing I would say to him -- That he needs to comprehend before he takes this step. The other thing I would say, in the record of service in this country, he will know that terrorists, and let's face it, much of this legislation is focused on those accused of committing terrorism either here or overseas, terrorists win in two ways. They win, first of all, by the physical injuries they inflict, the fear of that physical injury that they are likely to inflict by exploding bombs killing people, all the horrors we have seen over the last 30-40 years, during my lifetime, if not longer.

But they also win by a long, slow undermining of our way of life. And by sowing division within our society. Their long game is to force us to twist ourselves in knots around freedoms that make us different, which they despise and slowly to a -- Slowly to erode our standard of living and the way in which we live. We have seen that in this country. He is old enough, I am afraid, to remember the evolution of the Diplock courts in Northern Ireland.

These were courts where hearings were held without juries, dispensed with juries in Northern Ireland for a while. Largely because of accusations of violence towards juries. And as I say, the basic freedom, which is the right to a jury trial, was dispensed with. It was proven later that this was part of a known strategy by the IRA to make the six counties ungovernable, other than by military colonial means. And was seen by them as a triumph. And what terrorists wanted the long term it is, as I say, a twisting of an actual freedoms.

The compromises we baked our legislation, to undermine our own sense of long nation and created a vision, not just between governed and the government but also create divisions within society. This legislation, I am afraid, starts to do exactly that. At second reading, I pointed out, as I have done already, possibly, I hate to be repetitive, but I pointed out this legislation, the power, creates new classes of citizenship in the UK. There is those that can have it removed, and those that can.

-- And those that never can have it removed. It means the power has accelerated in its use, over the past two decades, and we have used it now more than we ever did. I am afraid it creates a feeling of unease amongst those whose citizenship, I am afraid, is conditional. Turning to my amendment one specifically, Madam Chair, I just wanted to explain to the Minister why I put this amendment down. As I said to him at second reading, my view is that in an attempt to do what he is trying to do with this legislation, he is undermining some of the basic tenants of British justice.

What I've attempted to do with this amendment is to swing the pendulum back a little bit. An interest of fairness before the law. As he will know, individuals who are subject to this power have the right to appeal on a number of bases. $$TRANSMIT" Will decide is the -- As to fact, as to whether to allow the appeal or not. Broadly, there are two areas where they can appeal, the first is where the decision is proportional, the second is whether it was procedurally fair, the third is whether the Minister or Home Secretary has made a mistake as to whether the person has a right to citizenship elsewhere, and may in fact be rendered stateless, which, as he notes, is not allowed under the legislation.

Simon individual who has -- If I am an individual who has had my citizenship revoked by a stroke of a pen from the secretary, and I win an appeal, it seems to me unfair, given that I will have appeal on the basis of fact, it seems to me, unfair, that the government can continue to deprive me of my citizenship, pending further appeal by them. Ordinarily, I would have got rid of this legislation, but the Minister seems insistent and one on second reading, that is fine.

So, I am appealing to British fair play, to say, come on, first appeal on the basis of fact. Unless we have some profound reason to dispute that fact, we are not going to appeal, in which case, getting the citizenship back. On the basis of fundamental British value of innocent until proven guilty, that person should get their citizenship back. Particularly, if the three conditions outlined in my amendment are satisfied to the extent that the judge decides so. And I don't understand why, I don't know, I haven't spoken to the Minister about my amendment.

Rather disappointingly, he has approached me to discuss it, but given he is a man who has a strong sense of fair play, he is scoffing slightly, but normal practice when some videos on an amendment is that someone is approached to discuss the nature of that amendment if they think it is going to be spoken to, but this is a small bill with only two amendments, but nevertheless, I am assuming he is going to oppose this. I am trying to appeal to a sense of said

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Fairplay. I know he is a busy man. I think he is being a little unfair, if I may say so he would unfair, if I may say so he would have caused been entirely welcome to come and discuss it with me, and I would have happily sat down with him and discuss the detail of it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and discuss the detail of it. Is a comedy minister is a fair --

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is a comedy minister is a fair -- As I say, the Minister is a man. I'm willing to count on his appeal and give them the benefit of the doubt. give them the benefit of the doubt. That is exactly what I'm asking for That is exactly what I'm asking for He will know that we have inalienable rights as British citizens which this legislation citizens which this legislation contravenes. The first is that we have a right to a fair hearing.

That have a right to a fair hearing. That any action that the government takes must be exercised fairly, and that must be exercised fairly, and that right has been established in common law again and again, most recently law again and again, most recently in 1994 when the court decided that in 1994 when the court decided that ministers must exercise their powers fairly. The second inalienable fairly. The second inalienable rights which is been deciding on the Supreme Court is that we all have a right to access the courts, and that that cannot be unfairly restricted.

That has been decided by the report. It is not about raising fees or making sure that we can't physically get to the court, and as he will know, I have a right to defend myself in person at every stage of legal action, whether it first hearing or subsequent appeal, and all of these powers, these rights that I have a citizens are affected by the legislation that he is tempting to put through, so my amendments essentially say three things, that if the government fails to win an appeal but wishes to continue to deprive citizenship pending a further appeal, it must appeal from the judge and also asked the judge for leave to continue the deprivation of citizenship judge can basically say no in three circumstances.

First, the judge can say no if there is a real and substantial threat of serious harm to that individual if they are denied access to the UK. Some of these people will be living or operating from extremely dangerous places. If the person is likely to be killed pending further appeal and lead deny and of citizenship, it would seem grossly unfair to deny them access to the country. The second ground would be that if their exclusion from the UK and they are continuing denial of citizenship with the deeply prejudicial to the contact or the defence in what the government decides to bring.

It would then be impossible to defend myself and appeal in person, which should be my inalienable right. It would be impossible for me to do that remotely. Some godforsaken part of the world where I don't, I can't zoom in and I don't have communication ability. If unable to communicate with my legal team. I'm sure the Minister can see how it would be unfair to mount a proper defence of themselves. Don't forget the having already won an appeal, by the continuing denial of citizenship, I will just finish the third round if I may.

The third round is something that we cover that second reading which is basically taking its time. The government achieves its objective, merely by dragging its heels and playing for time, hoping that something untoward will turn up, and that a judge should make a judgement about whether the government is being efficient in use of the legal system, rather than gaming it to their own advantage.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My friend knows that I have a huge amount of respect and affection huge amount of respect and affection for him. He is right to be setting for him. He is right to be setting out the inalienable rights at a British citizen has in terms of access to justice. Surely he must access to justice. Surely he must accept that an individual facing those circumstances, the deprivation of citizenship, will have crossed a of citizenship, will have crossed a threshold. Of behaviour or threshold.

Of behaviour or allegiance. So alien to our traditions, so alien to all the traditions, so alien to all the rights and responsibilities of rights and responsibilities of decades, that in essence, in the quarter public opinion, they will quarter public opinion, they will put themselves way beyond the pale when it comes to those issues, so when it comes to those issues, so for those who may seek to undermine our way of life, it would be an our way of life, it would be an extreme hypocrisy to demand all the rights and privileges which they rights and privileges which they have sought to undermine and possibly destroy through their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

actions or foreign agencies. I understand the point the gentleman is making, but I would have more faith or confidence in his view if it applied to me as well. But it doesn't. We are saying is to criticisms who commit the same heinous acts but they get to different kinds of treatment. One is they can have their citizenship removed, another, if I were to do that, cannot, and the point is that this is highly discover nature a, and is tramping over some of the inalienable rights that he has talked about.

We have lots of British citizens in high security prisons who have committed equally as heinous acts as those from whom we have deprived British citizenship. We have decided to deprive with British citizenship because of their privilege and background. Purely because they would be second-generation immigrants. As I have pointed out, this legislation applies to every single Jewish member of the UK citizenry. They all have an inalienable right to Israeli citizenship, and as a result, in my view, they all have second-class citizenship, and I'm afraid I just don't think that is right or fair, and I think it drives a wedge into our society that puts a seed of doubt at the back of everybody's minds, and this is the point I was trying to make the start, that those people who perpetrate those acts should be punished.

And as he will know, I have been at the forefront of making sure criminals and up behind bars whatever the criminality might be, but there is a principle in British law that they are all supposed to be equal. More than that, the government reinforces that breach and attempts to twist and skew fundamental tenants of British government which has been our rights for centuries.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am very grateful to him. All because a remedy isn't available to all doesn't mean that it is not surely a remedy. And one can think, surely a remedy. And one can think, if one wishes to argue the two tier approach, the women's capacity comes approach, the women's capacity comes into play, one can think about that into play, one can think about that with regards to capital offences when we have them. An abstract when we have them. An abstract theory, that was a two tier approach to justice.

Determined on the grounds of mental capacity or lack grounds of mental capacity or lack thereof. We often have that remedies thereof. We often have that remedies don't have to apply universally to be applied fairly in law, surely.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be applied fairly in law, surely. I'm not sure I would set that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm not sure I would set that honourable gentleman's logic. The capacity in the judicial system applies to everybody equally. And I applies to everybody equally. And I would be assessed, if I were being would be assessed, if I were being prosecuted for an offence, the judge the same way. There might be mitigations for his actions or a mitigations for his actions or a requirement for a different disposal if he is not of mental capacity, but if he is not of mental capacity, but that is an external influence upon him.

It may come about due to mental illness or other kinds of disabilities. Who knows. The point about this is that this comes about through no reason. My citizenship my lack of citizenship is conferred upon me by reason of my birth. My parentage, by my heritage. It is not something I can do anything about. I can't be treated for it as I can be for mental illness. It is purely because I may have my parents coming from another country, my skin may be a different colour, the country of the origin of my DNA may offer particular rights of citizenship, it is an arbitrary thing about which I can do nothing.

And you might as well have a piece of legislation that says people with red hair get different treatment under the law. Because there is nothing they can do about that. I don't want to detain

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the house for much longer. Does he agree with me that it is not even an exact science, this not even an exact science, this whole notion of heritage. For example, my first black ancestor to be born in this country was born in be born in this country was born in 1806 in Twyford. I've no idea where it is but I know it is not that far it is but I know it is not that far from here. And he was the son of a formerly enslaved person and a white formerly enslaved person and a white domestic servant living in the house domestic servant living in the house of his former master.

Now, I don't know what that particular ancestry is that it goes quite far back. Someone called Birch was living in Someone called Birch was living in the UK who would be deemed British by this law. Just because he by this law. Just because he travelled as a missionary to Ghana and settled there, and this is where this comes from, I am now treated differently under the law, despite

**** Possible New Speaker ****

having heritage that may be similar to the honourable gentleman's. Should mix a very good point and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Should mix a very good point and I guess that my trouble with this legislation is that it puts a legislation is that it puts a question mark over citizens and makes them ask, consider, not that it is on everybody's lips this legislation, when it is used with increasing frequency, it does put? Over people's status as a citizen of the United Kingdom. And that is something that ought to be of concern. The final point I would

**** Possible New Speaker ****

make. He is making his point in a very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He is making his point in a very considered way. But he is levelling quite serious charges against the quite serious charges against the government. Can I say to him in good faith that our intentions here have faith that our intentions here have nothing to do with somebody's place of birth but everything to do with their behaviour.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their behaviour. I understand what the minister is saying, and as I said, I am not concerned about it falling into his concerned about it falling into his hands as a power, but we don't know who will be in his place in the future. And we are never quite sure future. And we are never quite sure how these powers might develop. Over the years, we have seen an acceleration in this power and it is acceleration in this power and it is a very Draconian power.

We should be taking it extremely seriously. To deprive someone of their citizenship is a profoundly serious thing to do is a profoundly serious thing to do that may well affect their lives. No doubt it will be done on his watch in the face of extremely serious in the face of extremely serious offences, but I'm not sure that is necessarily always going to, and given that the power has been created, that people can be expelled on the basis that their prejudices not conducive to the public good, you can see a situation where it is used with other powers that have been expanded recently.

Just last week, in controversial terms, he has prescribed a particular organisation in this country. And I don't know, I mean, I'm sure the Minister can explain, but the prescription to me with something which he referred to which has been reserved for terrorist organisations. This is also been a power that has been reserved for people who are terrorists. This is a power that could be used against individuals who are convicted of crimes under that prescription? I am asking is a question.

This is the danger I'm trying to illustrate. I'm trying to explain that this is an area of law where I would urge him to tread carefully, to think about the compromises that he is creating against our basic freedoms that we need to maintain, at the same time as he, quite rightly, to protect the LAK in the best way possibly can, and I worried that he is taking a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

made. I rise to speak in favour
19:31
Bell Ribeiro-Addy Portrait Bell Ribeiro-Addy MP (Clapham and Brixton Hill, Labour)
-
-
amendment one in the name of the Member for North West Hampshire, who is definitely on the other side of the House but you I am very much a lightweight, in seeing the clear flaws in this bill. Like the honourable member, I remain uncomfortable about this bill as a whole, which I'm sure will come to no surprise to the Minister. I was clear about my concerns in second reading, which the Minister failed to adequately respond to. Under this bill, someone who successfully repeals against an order taking their British citizenship away would not get their citizenship back until it is no longer possible for the government to challenge that appeal.

At present, this amount of time is indefinite, making this measure, effectively designed to circumvent the judiciary, and I want to understand fully why. During the second reading, I appealed to the Minister to specify what either person must commit to fall into the unique situation, where the government may want to revoke their citizenship, and there is no -- Why there is no existing legislation imprison them someone who is extremely dangerous. I want to give a clear example of one case that sparked this knee-jerk response of whether legislation will be required.

We have to recognise that, once more, it can be used in more than one case. As the honourable member opposite is quite clearly laid out. And also, if the answer is no, if this bill is only being brought about to address that one specific example, yet, potentially has implications for dual nationals, or those with eligibility for citizenship elsewhere, surely the Minister can understand the apprehension that many will have about this particular legislation. I mentioned during the second reading debate certain communities are often wary of legislation that touches on citizenship, because it almost always, whether it is the stated intention or not, this report the impacts them.

And to put it clearly to the Minister, I am talking about people of black, Asian, and minority ethnic communities. Those who have parents who might have been born elsewhere, or grandparents for that matter, they will be particularly alarmed by this legislation. Those of us who have entitlement to citizenship from other countries, for no other reason than where our parents may have been born or where our grandparents may have been born or for because of our ethnic origin, we know we are at higher risk of having our British citizenship revoked.

And when such legislation is passed, it creates two tiers of citizenship, it creates a class citizens. -- It creates second class citizen. And we have known that clearly since the Shamima Begum case. This goes beyond keeping people safe beyond a technical adjustment. It sends a message. A message that certain people in certain communities are forever second class citizens. But no matter how long you contributed to this country, your citizenship is additional, revoke, and disposable. We seem to have learned nothing from the windrush scandal at all.

Because we continue to go in this cycle of creating pieces of legislation that may impact certain communities, noticing it may impact those communities, and passing them anyway. The power to remove someone's citizenship has its roots, as far as I am concerned in colonial logic, where belonging is granted or revoked at the will of Empire, but there is no more empire, that had no logic and democratic society, citizenship should never be a privilege to be granted, or drawn based on the political agenda of the day.

Citizenship is and should be a right. It is the foundation of equality before the law, and even though this may not be intended to do this, this bill undermines the right., while safeguarding it for others. I am against this bill. Not just because of what it does put what it says. So, I would like to ask why the Minister has not seen it fit to conduct equality impact assessment on this bill. No it is an incredibly narrow scope -- I know it is an incredibly narrow scope, but the potential implications, limited to specific communities.

Steps should have been taken to -- To assess the impact this legislation might have. I want to take time to speak to this, and I know these cases are lengthy and can last cases are lengthy and can last several years, and I brought a Shamima Begum case as an example. To leave somebody essentially stateless, as the government exhausts the appeal process, risk their freedom and safety. While the government may wish to watch their hands of the individual for whom they are seeking to deprive of citizenship, the evidence by the very nature of appeal, that person and that safety is, and absolutely ought to be, by law, the responsibility of their government.

If rendering them stateless throughout the appeal, whether that's a few months or a few years, risks are to the individual, then it's only right that a judge can rule the ordered not continue to take effect, until the appeals process is exhausted. Ultimately, I believe this legislation to be reactionary but also born out of frustration or failures of existing legislation, if someone is deemed to have such a severe threat to public safety and existing legislation does not allow the government to deal with the matter appropriately, then we must amend the existing legislation.

As I said before, I am against this bill. Not just because of what it does, but because of what it says. And what it says about who we are and what it says about whose rights matter. And whether justice in this country is truly blind, or whether it sees skin colour and migration issues, before it sees the individual and its citizens. I genuinely do not believe this knee- jerk approach is the answer in creating second class citizens, they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

surely has to be another way. I call the Liberal Democrat

**** Possible New Speaker ****

spokesperson. I rise to speak in support of a new clause one in my name. As I said new clause one in my name. As I said at second reading, the Liberal Democrats believe there is need for proper reform of the entire citizenship deprivation process. A citizenship deprivation process. A transparent and accountable system for citizenship deprivation will ensure this extraordinary power is used only in the most extreme circumstances, never deployed for circumstances, never deployed for political reasons and consistently subjected to thorough parliamentary scrutiny.

Sadly, the bill before us
19:38
Lisa Smart Portrait Lisa Smart MP (Hazel Grove, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
scrutiny. Sadly, the bill before us fools short of that standard. But I also said at second reading, the description of this bill is Millie closing a legal loophole, it does not mean its provisions should escape robust scrutiny and review. Quite the opposite. Any expansion of powers to deprive individuals of citizenship demands the highest level of oversight. Earlier this year, even before this bill was introduced, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, a cross-party body, concluded the government's current approach to citizenship deprivation.

Of the UK's human rights obligations. They call for significantly greater safeguards, including stronger oversight and enhanced parliamentary scrutiny of these powers. The Liberal Democrats fully echoed the call. New clause 162 embed essential safeguards within the framework of these new powers in the same way. Specifically, the amendment requires the Secretary of State to commission an independent review of the effects of the changes made to section 40, of the changes made to section 40, A, three British to react -- Of the academic must be completed within the act passage.

And it sent to the Secretary of State then it laid before Parliament for one month. This recognises that while the bill may appear narrower in scope, its consequences are substantial. The power to deprive someone of their citizenship is one of the most significant powers the state wheel. Engaging fundamental rights and liberties. It is particularly serious, given that, under common legislation, deprivation can, in some circumstances, even individual stateless. This is especially important in the UK which uses citizenship deprivation orders more frequently than any other country.

Already, the Home Secretary needs only to be satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good, to strip someone of their citizenship. A threshold that is far too low. New clause one simply issue is that any power the Secretary of State is at least balanced by proper oversight and transparency and application. With

**** Possible New Speaker ****

pleasure. The noble Lady are suggesting the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Lady are suggesting the new clause is put forward, I think I new clause is put forward, I think I have some sympathy, if I can be honest. I am concerned when it comes to the security of this country, which the Minister and his government has a responsibility for. If someone should contravene it If someone should contravene it anyway, illegally security on the anyway, illegally security on the rest of its citizens, should they -- Alleviate security for the rest of its citizens, should they forfeit

**** Possible New Speaker ****

citizenship? Grateful for the intervention, he

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Grateful for the intervention, he is absolutely right one of the most serious jobs of any government is to serious jobs of any government is to keep its citizens safe, I completely agree with him on that. There is no, any foreign person scrutiny at the government to have confidence in the legislation it is putting forward. That it has the support of this House, the support of this country. House, the support of this country. It is doing what it says it wants to do and is not accidentally doing something else.

I think the most confident legislators are those who are open, transparent, and welcome are open, transparent, and welcome of scrutiny. So, I am grateful to his comments there. The Liberal Democrats also support amendment Democrats also support amendment one, tabled by the right honourable member for North West Hampshire. This amendment would empower the courts to prevent the Secretary of State from issuing a deprivation order in cases where doing so would raise an individual at risk of harm, undermine their ability to mount an effective defence, or where a public authority has caused unreasonable delays in the appeals process.

This is a measured and sensible proposal. It places essential limits on the powers currently wielded by the Secretary of State, in matters of citizenship deprivation, and we will support it if the right honourable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

gentleman pushes his amendment to a vote. With pleasure. I am grateful to her. I just wanted to, she would be interested, wanted to, she would be interested, referring back to the intervention by the honourable gentleman for Strangford. I wonder if she would be interested to comment, my understanding is under the terms of understanding is under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, every UK citizen who is resident in Northern Ireland has a right to claim Irish citizenship. Under this legislation, that effectively means that every UK citizen who is a resident in Northern Ireland can have their Northern Ireland can have their citizenship deprived, removed by the Home Secretary, if it is conducive Home Secretary, if it is conducive to the public good, and would be another example of a whole group of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

another example of a whole group of people who have a second class of citizenship. Iverson carefully to the honourable gentleman's comments this honourable gentleman's comments this evening and when we discussed this evening and when we discussed this at second reading, I have a great deal of respect for him and the way he lays out his arguments. I am very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

he lays out his arguments. I am very much looking forward to them in a's comments from the Dispatch Box shortly. Just to further the honourable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just to further the honourable members intervention, would he honourable lady be aware that honourable lady be aware that Commonwealth countries in particular allow people to claim citizenship from the butt of their parents or their grandparents, but not just that, there are some countries, notably Ghana and Kenya, who are specifically people to claim citizenship, purely being of African heritage, the reason they may not be able to trace their lineage to comedy to incitement. -- Trace their lineage into enslavement.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

We Liberal Democrats believe the whole deprivation of citizenship regime needs looking at and viewing. And we welcome cooperation across And we welcome cooperation across the House of right honourable members who would want to work with us on that. The Liberal Democrats are absolutely The Liberal Democrats are absolutely clear that deprivation of citizenship must remain an exception, never a routine tool. Amendment one provides accessory guardrails to make sure this is the case, even as further powers are case, even as further powers are placed in the Secretary of State's hands.

Ultimately the integrity of British citizenship and a commitment British citizenship and a commitment to fundamental rights must never be compromised by practicality. Each new clause one of Pozo's principles and ensure such brainpower is --

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and ensure such brainpower is -- Ensures that the principles and such power are wielded carefully. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would also like to thank honourable members for their contributions members for their contributions today. Those members who have made amendments to the bill, and finally to the Minister for his work and
19:45
Katie Lam Portrait Katie Lam MP (Weald of Kent, Conservative)
-
-
approach. As has been set out, the builder for us represents an important step towards tightening the existing rules of tightening a deprivation of citizenship. This is a crucial tool that Home Secretary must be able to exercise as part of their broader efforts to keep our country safe. Membership of a nation country safe. Membership of a nation is not just implied rights, it also infers response abilities. When British citizens engage in terrorism, support for terrorism, organised crime, they clearly disregard those responsibilities, we cannot deprive people of citizenship in all cases, but where we can, we should.

Put simply, the intent of this bill is to make to the Home SecretaryPAT RICHIE:Yusuf deprivation powers is affected. More broadly, it also -- Home Secretary's youth of deprivation powers is effective. More broadly, the Minister must also be responsible for the final decision the amendment before it must be viewed in this light. The fact the honourable member for Hazel Grove for her amendment. She is right to highlight the need to keep the use of deprivation powers under review, particularly when changes are made to the scope of those powers.

We do not believe that needs to be on the face of this bill. Secondly, my right honourable friend, then a North West Hampshire, is absolutely right to point out there is a balance to be struck. It goes without saying deprivation of citizenship has a cost. In some cases, every large one, to those who have their citizenship deprived. Used improperly, it also has a cause for the rule of law, trusting our system a delicate balance is involved when we welcome people to come here and make this their home he is right to counsel us to take this extremely seriously, as I believe the Minister does.

The Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill is similarly rightly point out the question of citizenship deprivation, which I should say, man Chair, is not the principle we are debating today, either in the amendments or the bill more broadly, does go to the heart of who, as a nation, we are and wish to be. However I believe the bill already strikes the right balance, and we should be very cautious about creating a situation in which judges are asked to apply subjective tests about when ministers can and cannot use powers.

I am confident no Home Secretary would use these powers lightly and I am also confident the only sustainable way to ensure these powers are exercised properly is through the political process, including through proper
19:47
Dan Jarvis Portrait Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-
I have listened very carefully to the debate this evening and I would like to begin by thanking all honourable members for the points they have made. As I have said, there is simply no greater priority than the safety of all of those within the UK. And this bill will help ensure the integrity of a vital tool in our ongoing efforts to protect the UK. As ever, I will endeavour to respond to the themes raised and I will start by referencing the bills sole substantive clause.

Clause 1 inserts a new section into section 40 a of 1981. This prevents those who have been deprived of British citizenship for automatically regaining citizenship if their appeal is successful. This will be in effect until onward appeals have been determined. And this extends up to the Supreme Court. This replicates the approach taken on asylum and human right appeals. If all appeals have been determined, and the government proves unsuccessful, then British citizenship would be reinstated with immediate and retrospective effect.

This clause in the bill in its entirety does not change any existing right of appeal or widen the reasons for which a person could be deprived of their citizenship. I would also like to reassure the House that the government has to demonstrate a genuine case for an appeal in order for courts to allow them to proceed. The cats carefully assess whether any repellent has a reason for success, or there exists some other compelling public interest before granting permission. Rules of court exist to prevent superfluous or unfounded appeals being pursued.

Clause 2 is necessary to make the bill operational. The provisions in the bill are retrospective and will come into effect on Royal assent. This is necessary in order to mitigate the risk of cases currently in the system. The bill extends and applies to all of the UK the Crown dependencies and Overseas Territories, and I'm sure members will be glad to know that we have engaged closely with colleagues in the devolved governments Crown dependencies and Overseas Territories.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He has made very clear exactly where this will apply, but will he where this will apply, but will he be clear about exactly who it will apply to? We have asked this apply to? We have asked this question in different ways, talking about who we think will be disadvantaged, but can he be clear disadvantaged, but can he be clear that those who are of British who have no other claim to nationality could not be subject to this order?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

She is right about that specific point, but I will come back to the points that she made just now and earlier. Once I have just responded earlier. Once I have just responded to the right honourable gentleman's amendment. Amendment one was tabled by the right honourable member for by the right honourable member for West Hampshire. I am genuinely grateful, he is looking a bit grateful, he is looking a bit cynical as to the extent of my gratitude, but I am grateful to him for providing an opportunity to for providing an opportunity to address the important issues that he has raised, and the considered, has raised, and the considered, measured and thoughtful way in which he has approached this debate this he has approached this debate this evening and the way in which he approached the second reading debate a couple of weeks ago.

Now, he made a couple of weeks ago. Now, he made a case for his amendment in his own typically considered way, and I did listen very carefully to it and I'm sure other members did as well. He made the claim that this bill will create a two tier citizenship. It is a point that the honourable lady has reinforced as well, and he claimed somewhat unfairly that the government, through these measures, are seeking to undermine fairness. I say to him and two other honourable members that we are not trying to do that.

What we're trying to do very simply is ensure that government has the powers, the tools it needs to keep the country safe. I know that he would acknowledge, and I have made this point to him quite recently, these are powers that existed under all of the previous 14 years at the previous government. What we are seeking to do is ensure that we have those same powers in order to be able to do what we need to do to keep the country safe.

I would say to him in my honourable friend on my own benches that deprivation on conducive grounds is used very sparingly, and against those who would pose a serious threat to the UK. And it is essential that our legal framework protects our national security. He has made an interesting point about some of the fine balances and judgements that have to be made, but I hope that he would accept ultimately that deprivation of citizenship and matters relating to national security are matters for the Home Secretary.

The Supreme Court has been clear that the right to a fair hearing does not trump all other considerations such as the safety of the public, and whilst I understand and respect the motivation behind the right honourable members amendments, it is not take into account the impact of the court's decision on national security. These are decisions that have to be taken by the Home Secretary. The fact that a court may have allowed appeal against a decision does not mean that the person does not pose a threat to the UK.

For example, where the appeal is withheld on procedural issue. Furthermore, it is not controversial to delay the outcome on a civil order while any further appeal is determined. It has nothing to do with being found guilty, and as I mentioned earlier, the approach in this bill is in line with the approach taken on asylum and human rights appeals. Turning to the specific conditions set out in the amendment, I can assure the honourable gentleman that a decision to deprive our taken in accordance with our international obligations.

It is also assessed to expose a real risk of mistreatment which would constitute a breach of articles 2 and three were those articles to apply. Additionally, an appeal can already be paused until a person is in a position to effectively take part. The timings for appeals are agreed by both parties, and the courts can order case management reviews to resolve disagreements between parties. For the reasons outlined, I would respectfully ask the gentleman that the amendment be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdrawn. Just a couple of points if I may,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just a couple of points if I may, while he is quite right that timetables are agreed and they can be case management reviews, there is be case management reviews, there is nothing the court can do to restore someone's citizenship, even if the someone's citizenship, even if the government does drag its heels, so if he could just explain to us in more detail what recourse I would more detail what recourse I would have where I somebody who had won an appeal, was awaiting a further appeal by the government against me but the government was dragging its but the government was dragging its heels and ignoring the kind of case management reviews.

I don't think the judge will dismiss this out of the judge will dismiss this out of hand, the government can take its time. The second question, could he just tell the house whether, in his view, given that it is a subjective judgement by the Home Secretary, judgement by the Home Secretary, membership of a prescribed organisation would be prima facie organisation would be prima facie grounds for the deprivation of citizenship?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

citizenship? The right honourable gentleman undoubtedly makes some important undoubtedly makes some important points, but he makes them from a stance and a point of view which is slightly different from the position of those of us who have to serve in government. He spoke about government seeking to drag its heels. This government and the previous government isn't seeking to drag our heels. We are seeking to keep the country safe. That is what this is about, that it is about ensuring that we have a legal framework which provides the tools that we need to make difficult decisions, yes, but also to keep the country safe.

He will forgive me if I don't seek to move into a slightly different debate about subscription, not least because I want to come back to the honourable ladies point. The honourable member for Clapham and Brixton Hill, she made the point that deprivation raises concern amongst certain communities. And I am grateful to her for making that point, and I'm grateful to the opportunity to respond directly to it. Let me say to her and to other honourable members that the power to deprive a person of citizenship does not target ethnic minorities or people are particular faiths.

It is used sparingly where a person has acquired citizenship fraudulently or where it is conducive to the public good. Deprivation on public grounds is used against those who pose a serious threat to the UK or whose conduct involves high harm. It is solely a person's behaviour which determines if they should be deprived of citizenship, not their ethnicity or faith. My final point to the honourable lady is that she asked about the equalities impact assessment, and I can say to her that the impact on equalities has been assessed at all stages of this been assessed at all stages of this legislation.

I appreciate the intention behind the amendment, specifically to ensure accountability in the use of deprivation powers, and she has been consistent in raising concerns about this. However, I must respectfully submit that it is not necessary for two reasons. Firstly, the role of the independent chief of orders and immigration already provides a well established framework for independent oversight. She may recall that I have mentioned that you have previously. The role set out its statutory function. That includes the exercise of deprivation powers by the Home Secretary and by any person acting on their behalf.

The Independent cheapens has the authority to conduct inspections, publish reports, and make recommendations ensuring that these powers are subject to rigorous external scrutiny. Secondly, the Secretary of State already publishes annual statistics on the deprivation of citizenship. These figures are publicly available and provide transparency around how often these powers are used and the grounds for deprivation. This data enables Parliament and the public to monitor trends and assess the proportionality and fairness of the system. Taken together, the statutory oversight by the Independent cheapens and the routing publication of deprivation statistics already provide a comprehensive framework for accountability.

This amendment therefore duplicate existing oversight and reporting mechanisms and it would introduce unnecessary bureaucracy without adding meaningful value. I would like again to thank all right honourable and honourable members for their contributions this evening. And I hope for continued support in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ensuring that these important changes can be made. Is at your pleasure that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment one be withdrawn? In the hope that the Minister

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In the hope that the Minister will do the right thing, yes. With the leave of the house, I will put the question on clauses 1 will put the question on clauses 1 and two together. The question is the clause 1 and two stand part of the clause 1 and two stand part of the bell. The aye have it. The question is that I report the belt question is that I report the belt

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of the house. The aye have it. Order, whip to report. I beg to report that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to report that the committee has gone through the bell and directed me to report the same

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and directed me to report the same Third meeting, what day?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Now. I beg to move that the Bill be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move that the Bill be now read 1/3 time. I want to thank everyone across the house was contributed to the debates on this
20:00
20:01
Dan Jarvis Portrait Dan Jarvis MP (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-
those within it, and deprivation of citizenship is an important tool to help us maintain the safety and security of our country and this bill will ensure it retains its bill will ensure it retains its effectiveness. I would like to take the opportunity to thank the Member the opportunity to thank the Member for Weald of Kent, the number four Gordon and Buchan, the member for Hazel Grove, network the opposition front benches, and the collegiate front benches, and the collegiate way works with the government on this bill.

I would like to thank my noble friend, Selby, who has done a great job in whipping this bill through this place. I would also through this place. I would also like to take the opportunity to pass my thanks to those officials who my thanks to those officials who worked very hard in the Home Office and the office of parliamentary counsel, for their work for developing this legislation developing this legislation supporting its passage through Parliament. I would also particularly like to thank those who particularly like to thank those who serve in our police, law enforcement, and intelligence services, who work around the clock to keep us safe.

Finally, I would like to thank the fantastic house staff for their work supporting the logistics of this bill, particularly the goalkeepers and the parliamentary clocks team. This small but vital bill has passed through the House quickly and with cross-party support, as it moves to the other place, I trust the colleagues there will trust

**** Possible New Speaker ****

importance of this bill and work to ensure its passage as smoothly as possible. I commend it to the House. Question is the Bill be now read

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question is the Bill be now read a third time. Do you wish to contribute? I just wanted to ask the Minister if he might publish the assessment. if he might publish the assessment. And also, to go further, and said he continuously says it is fair. I want to impress upon him that it cannot to impress upon him that it cannot possibly be fair, that this order be possibly be fair, that this order be brought about that effect may and not him, should it happen.

And I would like the Minister to address would like the Minister to address the fact that it is not not discriminatory, just because he says it is not, he has to understand that it is not, he has to understand that because some communities may have to supply to get them more than others, even now it is used sparingly, that fact makes it discriminatory. He has to accept that. I would be very grateful if you could address those points. I would also be grateful if points.

I would also be grateful if you could, quite specifically, think about the fact that, no matter how sparingly this legislation is sparingly this legislation is applied, that it is being used more than it has been in the past, that than it has been in the past, that causes people much cause for concern, but not just that, but as the honourable member opposite actually pointed to, himself, the Minister, and Secretary of State, may not always be in this place, there may be others that wish to use it in a way that is not intended.

I would be very grateful if the Minister could address these points

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and see exactly where our concerns remain. Thank you. Frontbench contribution, shadow minister. minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker. I would like to start by thanking
20:04
Katie Lam Portrait Katie Lam MP (Weald of Kent, Conservative)
-
-
I would like to start by thanking the Minister for his work this bill, it is always a pleasure to work across from him in defence of our great country and its people. Keeping our country safe sometimes requires taking difficult decisions, including the decision to deprive a person of their British citizenship. Working frequently against our country's interests, as say, a terrorist does, Kelly demonstrated his regard for the responsibilities of citizenship. These people should not be about to hide behind a passport, and is therefore like the Home Secretary retains the power to deprive the citizenship where it is possible to do so.

It is important the power remains effective, we believe the bill is an important step in ensuring that efficacy and Parliament intention and how these powers can be used. Given our agreement on this absence of the bill itself, would like to briefly make an important point of what the legislation represented terms of our constitution and Parliament's role within it. As I mentioned during the debate on the second reading of this bill, on our system, the main role of the judiciary is to interpret and apply parliaments well, they are not the highest arbiter of our contribution -- Constitution.

In most cases with the exception of some prerogative powers, the only role in reviewing ministerial powers is to ensure they are exercised according to the guidelines set out by Parliament. So, when the judiciary next decision that runs contrary to the will of Parliament, Parliament has perfectly titled to overturn a decision and clarify its overturn a decision and clarify its will. It is a living and breathing institution which should be at the centre our political system, because Parliament is ultimately answerable to the British people themselves.

The bill before us represents one such clarification. At a time when it can seem that many on the government benches are happy to defer to the judiciary as a matter of course, it is heartening to see the Minister take a differing approach, one which recognises that Parliament is the cornerstone of our system, and I thank him. We must never forget that the supreme authority in this country is Parliament, when the legal process produces results that is not in the interest of the British people, not only is this House well within its rights to overturn it, it must do so.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think there are no further contributions. The question is the Bill be now read any third time. As many as are of that opinion, say, many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye". Of the contrary, "No". The "Aye". Of the contrary, "No". The ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now go on to the next bit of business, for the afternoon. KUNHEE business, for the afternoon. KUNHEE PARK: Royal Albert Hall Bill, Lords,
20:06
None Portrait Opposed Private Business: Royal Albert Hall Bill [Lords]: Second Reading
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

PARK: Royal Albert Hall Bill, Lords, -- Royal Albert Hall Bill, Lords, second reading. Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker,
20:07
John Whittingdale Portrait Rt Hon Sir John Whittingdale MP (Maldon, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker, I beg to move Bill be now read a I beg to move Bill be now read a second time. Deputy Speaker, I am delighted to be presenting this bill on behalf of one of our great national institutions, the corporation of the Halls of Arts and Science, which is known to most was a royal Albert Hall. I do so as someone who has enjoyed many performances in Paul, ranging from bands like Muse, Cirque du Soleil, Eric Clapton, even through to, indeed, last night, but many other night, of the promenade concerts.

But I also speak as a previous trustee of the Royal Albert Hall, a position I was appointed to between 2018 and 2020, having stepped down as Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, it was a great pleasure to take on that role and I was disappointed that I then had to give it up, because I was then reappointed to the position now held by my honourable friend who is representing the government on the frontbench. Nevertheless, I have maintained a close interest, and I strongly support the measures being brought forward tonight, because as a trustee, I was able to see in detail how the hall operates and how it pursues its charitable purposes.

It is worth saying the word about the whole, because it is a unique organisation. It was the brainchild of the late King consort -- Prince consort, Prince Albert, before his death at just 42 years of age in 1861. It was established by Royal Charter, not afterwards, in 1867, with the chairmanship of the Prince of Wales, the foundation stone of the whole was laid-back in Victoria. -- Of the Royal Albert Hall was laid by Queen Victoria, as she said it would not be called the Whole Rotten Sciences, but would be known as the Royal Albert Hall of arts and sciences.

Since that time, over 150 years, the whole would be a beacon of the cultural life of our nation is a place of celebration of celebration, enlightenment, and indeed collaborations. It is one of the most recognisable venues in the country and helps to attract thousands, if not tens of hundreds of thousands of tourists every year. Another minister has interest in the Another minister has interest in the industries of arts, and its capacity as the Minister responsible for tourism. However, the building of the whole was not without some difficulty.

Initial funding came from the commissioners great exhibition of 1851, who provided the site, but the actual cost of construction needed to be raised, and the remaining gap, which was not filled, was raised through public subscription. The way in which it was done was to sell seats in the oil Albert Hall, prior to it being -- Royal Albert Hall, prior to it being built, with investors investing their money in the building of the whole, in return for the fact that they would own a seat, for release of 1999 years.

I understand 1,000 seats were sold on that basis, 20 of them being taken up by Queen Victoria herself. That is a unique model, which has sustained the Royal Albert Hall, through the period since that. It is a public-private partnership which is, I think unique, I certainly don't know of any others, and it's worked remarkably well for subject in that time, it has thrived. Despite some extraordinary challenges, including obviously the COVID pandemic. But the way in which it works, the seatholders, the descendants for those that have purchased those seeds from the -- Seats from the original people who possessed their money, they are an integral part of the support for the Royal Albert Hall, they obviously enjoy access to the seats they purchased, but at the same time, they hold it in first, and have shown remarkable generosity in continuing about it.

Of course I will give way to my honourable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

friend. Thank you, I am very grateful. And while I recognise that a lot of And while I recognise that a lot of the seats have been bequeathed down through the generations, I am sure he also recognises that a lot of he also recognises that a lot of them now are sold on the open market for many, many more times than the hundred pounds, if it kept pace with inflation, would fetch in today's inflation, would fetch in today's money.

They are now assets because of the amount of money that can be of the amount of money that can be gained from the resetting of those seats on the open market. Reselling.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

seats on the open market. Reselling. Essentially a seat in the hall is the property asset. In the same way, if's grandfather purchased a property, their descendants then property, their descendants then eventually decide to sell, it is highly likely that they will achieve highly likely that they will achieve an amount of money, way greater than the original investment. And that is the original investment. And that is a very important point. These are property assets essentially. Without property assets essentially. Without which, the Royal Albert Hall could not have been built, it was on an understanding on a 1999 year lease, those who own that lease are of course entitled to do what they wish with it.

But those who do by seats in the hall, I would have to say, in my experience of talking to many of them, during my time as a trustee, was that they didn't regard it as a financial investment to obtain a huge return, actually, a loss of all in the same way that so many people do, they wanted the pride of owning an asset, and at the same time, contributing to the upkeep. Will come on to explain, actually I think that seatholders do contribute far more towards the upkeep and maintenance than they might ever get in return, for selling tickets.

Their rights to use that seat defence where they are able to do so. so.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my honourable friend for giving away one more time. On that basis, would they not therefore return the tickets for the hall to return the tickets for the hall to resell? If it is not about making money off their asset, which they can do. But also, the conflict-of- can do. But also, the conflict-of- interest that there is, if they are also seatholder and on a trustee of also seatholder and on a trustee of the hall. Would it not be better them, which this bill seeks to do, them, which this bill seeks to do, for the ticket to return to the hall for the whole cell, they would still get their money back.

Remarkable a whole to sell.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

whole to sell. I will come back to the point, never the ticket returns? The hall never the ticket returns? The hall itself has put in place but it operates on a basis where the sales operates on a basis where the sales all pull together and distributed among the seatholders. And a lot of seatholders do prefer to use that. seatholders do prefer to use that. Because, they take a slight risk. It may be that not all the seats will be sold, and they may not get perhaps the face value of their perhaps the face value of their seat.

But essentially, there is a matter of principle involved. If you owned a property, then it is certainly my view that you are entitled to do with that as you wish. And we are not talking about, the honourable lady has rightly championed the cause against exploitation of consumers through secondary ticket sales, and I share her concern about bots that buy up all the tickets for an event, 10 Second Sight, they appear on a secondary ticket site. That is not the same thing for what we're talking about this particular instance is tickets which are already there, they are not brought up in a market, they are bought by the seatholders and they can choose how they handle and, and as I say, a large number will choose to use the ticket return scheme, but one should not require them to do so, because actually, I think that would, actually, I think that would, firstly, fly in the face of the principles, and the way in which they support the hall.

I do want to just continue by setting out a little more about why it is such an invaluable institution. It has about 500 employees. Some 400 Events Take Pl there each year -- Some 400 Events Take Pl there each year. And as I said, something like 1.7 as I said, something like 1.7 million visitors each year, the hall also has a range of other organisations, the Imperial College graduation ceremonies, Royal Navy, and to the Teenage Cancer Trust, for Their Fundraising Concerts.

They have an engagement program which reaches out to some 180,000 people, all ages, in local communities and schools, giving opportunities to learn about performing arts experience what music. There are something like 5,500 seats in the hall, and as of the end of last year, 1256, roughly 1/4, were privately owned by 350 seatholders, and as I explain, they are people who have either inherited or who have either inherited or Those, and the constitution, that were drawn at the time of Queen Victoria, they were part of the Victoria, they were part of the whole corporation, so maybe private individuals, and it was a strong and enduring bond between the whole and those members.

Of the Board of Trustees which governs the hall, some 18 out of the 23 which was originally set down, our seat holders which are five external trustees, one of whom I was fortunate to hold this position is appointed by the Secretary of State for culture, media and sport, and then the commissioners of the 1851, a representative of the Imperial College, another from the Royal music, and another from the Natural History Museum. As I sought to explain, those who hold seats actually do put a lot back into the hall, even though they own the seat, they nevertheless contribute on top of that to the maintenance.

The first way they do that is through paying an annual contribution known as the seat rate. This is voluntary, but is paid by members every year. An independent committee recommends the amount. I think I sat on the seat committee for a time. And it is roughly a pro rata proportion of the horse maintenance costs, so this year, the seat rate which members choose to pay is £1880 plus VAT per seat. I mounting to around £1.3 million in VAT.

On top of that, the second way in which members support the hall, and this is the crux of the bill that we are debating this evening, is that they agreed to forego the tickets on over 100 days forego the tickets on over 100 days each year, so originally, when they purchase these seats in 1871, members were sitting in a seat which they had purchased, but over time, in order to support the hall, members have agreed to give up that entitlement, a set number of days each year.

It currently stands at just over 100 members. Given at the right to use their seat, they give it back to the hall, obviously those tickets attract high-quality artists and a negotiation takes place each time with somebody wishing to perform in the hall, no matter how many of the events will be held on an exclusive basis. This means that the seat holders will not have the right to utilise their seat for those particular events. And that is a method of support for the whole, which has evolved over the years, but has been extraordinarily successful.

Now, there was also a review of the constitution governing the whole and a working group has identified a range of potential reforms. The honourable lady referred to the concerns of the commission, that there might be a conflict-of-interest because seat holders owns seats and also sit on the council. There has never been any evidence of seat holders abusing their position, and there is a committee of the hall with a majority of independent review to see if there is any potential conflict, and I was a member of that committee during my time as a trustee.

But the bill does contain reforms to a position which can only be achieved by act of Parliament, and therefore, I would like just to briefly run through the clauses within the bill. The first, because three, removes the six yearly cap that can be levied through the seat rate, and in the interest of equivalence, transfers the threshold of three quarters from the six year To the annual seat rate. If anything, it has prevented seat holders from contributing as much as they might do, particularly during COVID when members were unable to take up their rights because the hall was not available for public performance during the time of the COVID pandemic.

But members choose, nonetheless, to pay for the seat rate in response of the hall. But the second, members can agree to exclusives, performances where they will not take advantage of ownership of seats, in excess or of a different kind to those originally permitted by the act of 1966. There is already statutory provision to allow some performances to be exclusive, and where members have given their rights, but actually, the hall has gone beyond the 1966 act so that now, a number of events above and beyond those under the 1966 act are agreed by members through voting.

And that is a way in which they have increased the way they have supported the hall. That has been agreed through the council and the majority of members, but it is done by majority and it is this question as to whether or not that has legal basis which needs to be clarified. The reason being that three members did commence a challenge in the High Court, and if that challenge were to be successful, it would prevent the hall from having as many exclusive events, which would have a damaging effect on the income, not of seat holders but of damaging effect on the income of the hall itself, and if it were to be successful, it would mean that either the hall would continue in breach of a legal challenge, or that they could decide that it was no longer possible for them to continue the practice, but they with Len lose the benefit.

All that they would no longer be able to contract some of the most attractive and valuable events that were staged at the moment. So the purpose of clause 4, it is to resolve the issue in order to allow the hall to proceed, as is the current position without the risk of legal challenge. And the third clause which I just want to address was added to the want to address was added to the bill in the House of Lords.

It is certainly the view of the hall that the provision continued within that amendment which cover both requirements that extends to a committee not without a majority of seat holders, but also, that they might be required to use the ticket might be required to use the ticket return scheme. But I think that that does all work, and it would be detrimental to the hall itself. It would also potentially mean that seat holders were no longer able to support the bill, which is an essential requirement if it is to be law.

But I know that the hall is very happy to discuss potential ways of addressing concerns that were identified through the passage of the amendment in the course of the Committee stage which I think you will be involved with. So, at this stage, I would ask that the house agrees to a second reading of the bill, and obviously, we can return to address any particular concerns once it has been through its Committee stage.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that it be better

**** Possible New Speaker ****

second time. I am thrilled to be following my
20:26
Sharon Hodgson Portrait Mrs Sharon Hodgson MP (Washington and Gateshead South, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am thrilled to be following my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am thrilled to be following my honourable friend. He was a former leader of the British allegation, leader of the British allegation, another role has passed to me. So, I like to be able to call my honourable friend, and he made a very good opening speech. As members will know, since 2010, I have served as the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on ticket abuse which I also set out in 2010, and they fought tirelessly, as the honourable gentleman highlighted also.

Against types of the inflated prices online. So I was horrified when tickets for events at the Royal Albert Hall, one of our country's most recognisable and cherished institutions, started appearing on sites such as via Gogo and this included Ed Sheeran, tickets being listed online for just under £6000 per ticket. I was even more horrified when I learned that these tickets belongs to those who sit on the Council of Trustees, so as we have heard, the Royal Albert Hall was opened in 1971 by Queen Victoria in dedication to her husband.

And the further meant of arts and sciences. As a thank you, construction were gifted seats on the hall on a 999 year lease to retain as many events as they wish. These seats then passed down through the generations as we have heard. Fast forward to today. Things are very different. They can also sell the tickets for events which they receive are seat holders but which they do not wish to attend personally. They could give them to friends and family to use at no charge as well, and I know some do.

And many choose to return their tickets at the box office through the ticket return scheme, receiving the face value of the ticket minus a small fee goes towards the hall. So that would obviously be the preferential option for the hall because the hall would make a little bit of money for that option. However, increasingly, seat holders are choosing to sell their ticket through third-party websites, such as via Gogo and hurrah tickets, and as via Gogo and hurrah tickets, and some cases, this includes tickets like Roger Daltrey's annual cancer trust fundraising concert, sold for seat holders personal gain.

Now these seats represent a massive investment and the seats themselves have been bought and sold over the years, with some individuals and families now amassing over 50 seats, again, that was not the original intention of how those altruistic benefactors funding the hall intended it to be. Most recently, 110 seat box was listed online for £3 million. The advertisement claimed that there are 12 seats in the box pre-empting the spell, which originally contained proposals to increase the number of seats in a box from 10 to 12 which would boost the portfolio of the box owners but these clauses have fortunately been withdrawn in the other place.

So I understand that the Royal Albert Hall has said that they need this bill to pass to make necessary changes to their constitution and safeguard the future of the hall economically, and the hall holds charitable status and received a £20 million loan as part of the COVID culture recovery fund out of public money, which I'm aware they are Part of this legislation would reasonably allow the hall to reasonably allow the hall to increase and formalise the number of tickets, which seats are excluded and the hall can make that vital profit from all of the seats, rather than the seatholder selling them on the open market, selfishly I support that.

However the main reason I support this bill is the commonsense amendment introduced in the other place by my very good friend and namesake, although no relation, Lord Hodgson Vasily Abbots. Supported by a cross-party majority of Lords. So the Royal Albert Hall is controlled primarily by a council of 25 trustees, as my own gentleman explained. A majority of 19 equivalent to 75% of them to him, including the chairman of the Board of Trustees must by their Hall's governance statues be seatholders.

So the council has a say over which acts are booked and decides how many events and which events will be for the exclusive benefit of the hall. And the seatholder majority of trustees, whether this has happened or not, they could and can therefore prioritise booking and securing tickets to events that will maximise their income. Those in the other place have taken the recent view that charity trustees must not benefit or be seen to benefit from decisions they take as trustees.

And Lord Hodgson's amendment firstly sets out that any power to exclude members from the hall can only be exercised when approved by a subcommittee, of which the independent members of the council form a majority. Secondly, any tickets for seats received from the exercise of the power to alter the number of events from which seatholders are excluded must only be sold by the trustee or relative of the trustee through a ticket return scheme operated or approved by the corporation. So that was a direct quote.

And I believe this is a very moderate change that still gives seatholders a lot of freedom to resell their tickets. However, those who wish to govern the hall will only receive the face value for their tickets. So this is a vital step, I genuinely believe in bringing the hall into line with every other reputable charitable institution. There are obviously those at the hall who oppose this bill, and it would be massively shameful if they take this opportunity to withdraw the bill.

And I, like many others, like the honourable gentleman spoke of so fondly, hold the hall in high esteem and with very many fond memories of times enjoyed there. And I really want it to survive and thrive for future generations. So I hope that this serious conflict-of-interest in the running of this beloved charity comes to an end, and I hope that this bill is given safe passage.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Michael shadow Minister Stuart Andrew.
20:34
Stuart Andrew Portrait Rt Hon Stuart Andrew MP (Daventry, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Andrew. Thank you. Marking its 150th anniversary in 2021, the Royal Albert Hall continues as we heard to host world-class performances, not just that as my right honourable friend mentioned, a tremendous amount of outreach work as well. And does so crucially without drawing on public funding for its operational costs, other than in the COVID situation which of course was exceptional. And I think that is something they should certainly be commended for. And celebrated. This bill, which I have to say seems to have been going around and around sometime.

I know I was having to try and deal with it when we were in government, that has been promoted by the hall as we've heard, the seek to provide legal clarity to an existing arrangement in which members who own the rights to approximately one quarter of the Hall's seats forego their right to attend events, and when not attending make the seats available for sale. As we've heard, the hall argues that without statutory backing, this arrangement remains runnable to legal challenge which could have acute impacts on its financial stability.

Now during its consideration in the other place, the bill attracted extensive scrutiny and was amended as we heard and concerns were raised by a number of members, including Lord Hodgson of Ashley Abbots. Particularly in relation to the governance of the hall and the role of seat holding trustees, and noted that although the hall has held charitable status since 1967, the current arrangements may allow some trustees to benefit financially from the reselling of tickets on the open market, as the honourable lady set sometimes at significant profits.

But in response to those significant concerns, an amendment was introduced and passed that provides that any power to exclude members from the hall under the bill's provisions can only be exercised by a subcommittee with a majority of independent members. And it also requires the tickets made available under those provisions be sold through the Hall's ticket return scheme, thereby seeking to address concerns over potential personal financial gains by trustees. But I also know that Lord Harrington of Watford, a trustee of the hall expressed the Hall's position, stating that the bill's primary objective is to formalise existing practices and mitigate legal uncertainty.

Rather than to reform government structures. And he also raised concerns that the amendment may place undue limitations on members, including financial disadvantages and restrictions on charitable donations of tickets. Now in light of these two elements, it is evident that the bill faces significant challenges in its current form. It also raises a broader issue relevant to many historic charitable institutions, the difficulty of updating foundational documents and governance arrangements under existing legislative mechanisms, which often require the introduction of private bills, and maybe begs a wider question of how many of these great institutions, establishments that were founded in Victorian era can operate in a more modern era, but except these are not easy issues to address.

So I'm keeping my comments short, so in conclusion, while His Majesty supposition support the aim absolutely of securing operational clarity for the Royal Albert Hall, the concerns raised about governance and potential conflicts of interest are of some significance, and therefore we will be abstaining on second reading, but I know that this will be certainly an interesting bill in committee, and I look forward to following it through its committee stage is with great interest and hope that some of the concerns that are legitimately being raised will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be able to be ironed out. Thank you very much. This is a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much. This is a mild affair. One of the recondite moments of parliamentary democracy, moments of parliamentary democracy, I think we can definitely put this
20:38
Chris Bryant Portrait Chris Bryant MP, The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Rhondda and Ogmore, Labour)
-
-
I think we can definitely put this down. The number of people who have asked me what on earth is all this about tonight? Then gone, what it is opposed by the bill, what on earth is all that about? And what is the Chairman of Ways and Means got to do with it and all the rest of it? So yes, it's a strange little moment. It's nice to see the right honourable member for modern, he was met listening I think about 1/50 of all the things he sat on in his time.

And still added up to rather a large number of things he had been on at some point or another, virtually every committee at the Royal Hall, passing the selection of music I think and maybe... Would have been endlessly hard rock I think if it was just to please him. But it's a delight and it's timely this of course because the Proms is about to start. And the Proms is one of the most renowned parts of the British cultural institution in the UK where the BBC meets the public in a more open way than in any other, and the concerts are broadcast all around the world.

And everybody knows about it, not just the last night but the first night and the plot Mr Knight and all the different bits of it that have tradition attached to it. And of course the Royal Hall assembly has referred to is one of the great cultural institutions of the UK. It's a phenomenally versatile space, apart from anything else because people have referred to concerts they have been to, dually per course had a wonderful concert last year. I think my husband has seen Kylie there, nearly everywhere but I've been to Kylie nearly everywhere as well too.

Kylie nearly everywhere as well too. Always nice to live up a stereotype. But what is amazing is of course you can have wrestling there and semi- other different styles of events, Cirque du Soleil as was mentioned by the right honourable member of the modern and so on. So it's a great part of the British culture sector in the UK, and it is a unique thing in itself too because of the way that it is financially structured and constitutionally. And I don't think anybody this evening has really spoken to say that it is precisely how one would probably want to constitute it if one was starting from scratch today.

And I noted that sort of slight garlic shrug from the honourable member there, so I think he's sort of agreeing with me. And I think most of even the people who own the seats of the Royal Albert Hall degree that this isn't quite what anybody would have designed if they were starting again today. Now, it's worth just reminding ourselves precisely what we're doing with a private deal because it is different, and Erskine May doesn't get to private bills until page 1024 or something.

So you can tell that it's unusual. But it states in giving any bill a second reading, the House approves the general principle or expediency of the measure. There is however a distinction between the second reading of a public and private bill, such as we are considering now. A public bill is founded on public policy, and the housing agreeing to it second reading accepts and approves the policy, where is the expediency of a private bill is founded upon allegations of fact, which have not yet been proved.

So that the House in agreeing to it second reading affirms the principle of the bill conditionally, subject to the proof of such allegations before the committee. So is my honourable friend, sorry, yes, as the honourable gentleman said, I'm sure the committee will be interesting because these allegations of fact will have to be proven. And I think this will take us to the several points that have been made by my honourable friend the Washington and Gateshead South he was one of the most redoubtable experts on the issue of ticket sales in this country, and I very much hope we will be able to put the biggest smile on her face later on in this Parliament when we come up with legislation which is going to tackle some of the issues around secondary ticket market.

Which we are determined to do. And I would just take issue one slightly with the right honourable member the modern. He said that private property is private property and we never want to interfere with it. But in one sense I agree with him of course. But I also want to say that when it comes to the sale of tickets, I'm not sure that that quite applies as cleanly as it might do in terms of other forms because the value, if the value returns to the artists or the venue, then I haven't got a problem, but when the value from the secondary ticket market simply disappears into the trousers of online touts and bolts, many of them based not even in this country, then

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think that's a problem. Oh dear. The honourable gentleman and I will undoubtedly debate the government's proposals for secondary government's proposals for secondary ticketing at a future date but I just want to make clear that what we are talking about here is not touts, are talking about here is not touts, not bots, it is people who own a seat and the right to sit in that seat and choose to sell it to somebody else, which is a very different prospect than the one he

**** Possible New Speaker ****

outlines. Of course I was Millie responding to the points made by my honourable to the points made by my honourable friend the Washington and Gateshead South. Which I think if we had a debate in which there was a venue mentioned and you were not to stand mentioned and you were not to stand up and make the speech About ticket touts them bigger things he was wrong, and go and search around all the A&E is in the country to find the A&E is in the country to find out what had happened to her.

But... And indeed she made a point that she And indeed she made a point that she supports, both clauses 4 and five, and I think the right honourable and I think the right honourable member supports clause 4. He is not quite so keen on clause 5 because it was inserted in the House of Lords, but as he knows, we are doing a very simple thing tonight, which is just agreeing whether to give the bill second reading, and it's traditional for the government just like the opposition when it's a private bill not to stand on its way, but not to urge people one way or the other.

I do however just want to say, repeat this point which was made indeed by my Noble Friend Baroness Twycross in the House of Lords, which is we are disappointed that some of the concerns around the potential conflict-of-interest between the hall's charitable objectives and the private financial interests of individuals have yet to be met. And he will know that the Charity Commission has taken a view in this space. I think some of those issues still need to be addressed more fervently, and whether it's through this bill or through other means, I think at some point we will have to address them.

It was interesting that my envelope opponent said earlier that this bill had been hovering around for some time. But it was also interesting to hear the right honourable member say that of course the people of Royal Albert Hall are wondering about what other constitutional changes should be brought about. One would kind of hope that if we're going to have a private bill unavailable, we could just do it once in a Parliamentary Parliament or in a decade or in a lifetime frankly, so it would be good really if we were to be able to address all of these issues in a address all of these issues in a The last time I went to the Royal Albert Hall was for Emeli Sande.

One of her songs might be apposite at this point. What is wrong with her? I think I will make sure that gets in Hansard now, he is taking objection to me personally. There we are. I'm not going to sing, do behave. You're almost as bad as I used to be. The honourable gentleman is almost as bad as I used to be when I was sitting there. The former Minister for common sense has now completely abandoned common sense clearly. Anyway she sang " You have the words to change a nation but you are biting your tongue.

You spent a lifetime stuck in silence, afraid lifetime stuck in silence, afraid you will say something wrong. " Since the government have not got anything to say on this business, that is where I shall end.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the bill be read a second time. As many are of that opinion say, "Aye". And of the contrary, "No". The ayes have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contrary, "No". The ayes have it. The ayes have it. I beg to move this House do no

**** Possible New Speaker ****

adjourn. The question is this House to no adjourn.
20:48
Aphra Brandreth Portrait Aphra Brandreth MP (Chester South and Eddisbury, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

adjourn. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to have secured today's adjournment debate on the issue that adjournment debate on the issue that affects communities across the country, the condition of our roads. While I will focus in this debate on the situation in Cheshire, and my constituency of Chester South and Eddisbury, and what I believe is a failure by local authorities to get to grips with the issue, I want to begin by setting the context and reflecting on the broader systemic problems and how we repair and maintain our road network.

The Public Accounts Committee recently published a report on the condition and maintenance of local roads in England. It showed that this problem is widespread. That the Department of Transport does not have a good grasp of the conditions that local roads in England are really in. And that funding arrangements to local authorities are likely to be pushing them to focus spending on short-term reactive work. In my view, it is this reactive, rather than proactive, approach to road maintenance in Cheshire that urgently needs to change.

Instead of identifying and tackling elected roots, to clearly in rural areas, we see a pattern of piecemeal catch ups on individual potholes rather than long-term cost-effective repairs that offer real value for money. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

First of all can I commend the honourable Lady from bringing this honourable Lady from bringing this forward. I'm reminded of the old rhyme that my mother used to say to rhyme that my mother used to say to me, " A stitch in time saves nine. " Does the honourable lady not agreed Does the honourable lady not agreed that a pothole repaired in time can save actions, save lives, and government must be more proactive in ensuring we deal with small issues

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ensuring we deal with small issues and save money before they cause larger problems? I thank the member for his intervention. That is exactly the intervention. That is exactly the point I am making. He says it very well. As I outlined this issue in well. As I outlined this issue in more detail, I would urge the Minister to consider how local authorities would be encouraged to take a more strategic preventative take a more strategic preventative approach. I have lost count of the number of times frustrated residents number of times frustrated residents have asked me why a white circle of paint has been drawn around a pothole while another has been left untouched because it does not meet the criteria for a pair.

Yet we know within a couple of weeks the team

**** Possible New Speaker ****

within a couple of weeks the team will have to return to fix the one that was missed. Can I thank the member and my constituency neighbour for giving way on that point. She talks about residents. Would she agree that it is actually our residents who know their areas best because they live and breathe them every day, like the residents in my constituency who have been consulted widely over road repairs and traffic. All the residents of Stuart Street in Crewe, a key road that has been neglected for ages.

Does she agree residents should listen to?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The honourable member X an important point. This is about important point. This is about voicing the views of residents. Residents have seen the short-term Residents have seen the short-term mindset has consequences. The condition of our roads is worsening. condition of our roads is worsening. And the national repair backlog has grown from estimates of between grown from estimates of between £7,600,000,000.11 £0.8 billion in 2019 to over £15 billion today. The 2019 to over £15 billion today. The backlog in repairs has rightly been called a national embarrassment.

It called a national embarrassment. It is a sign that the system we have in place simply is not working. My honourable friend, the member for Reigate, during her time in the Reigate, during her time in the Public Accounts Committee rightly made the case for a more strategic made the case for a more strategic approach to road repair, maintenance, alongside greater funding certainty and a simplified allocation process. I echo those calls today, both to the Minister calls today, both to the Minister and to the council.

This is not a partisan point. I know there are members across the House who share frustrations with how local authorities manage road repairs. My intention is to offer a constructive intention is to offer a constructive perspective on how we might improve things. In my constituency and across the country. Madam Deputy Speaker, Cheshire is the best county to drive through. We have outstanding countryside, mutable villages, and scenic routes. But what should be a pleasure is often spoiled by potholes. In my constituency, where public transport is minimal, and key amenities like a GP or post office are often too far to reach without a car, this is not just an inconvenience.

It is a real barrier to daily life. Businesses barrier to daily life. Businesses depend on these roads, and crumbling surfaces damage vehicles, endanger road users, and hold back our local economy.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Many thanks to the honourable lady, who's been very collegiate, as lady, who's been very collegiate, as she was his. Would she agree with me that it is incredibly important in our beautiful Cheshire towns that our roads are maintained in good our roads are maintained in good condition? I'm thinking there is a stretch of road that is lovely and stretch of road that is lovely and has a fantastic local cafe on it. It is a major part of the town centre is a major part of the town centre and the degeneration of the road is making it look less attractive than it otherwise could.

Does she agree with me that these are important things? Not simply for the state of things? Not simply for the state of the road itself at the local

**** Possible New Speaker ****

economy? The point is important. It is having an impact not just on the road but on businesses and people road but on businesses and people trying to use that area. That is why we need a better system. One that delivers better roads and better delivers better roads and better value for the taxpayer, and one we must not settle for the status quo must not settle for the status quo piecemeal approach that councils like Cheshire West and Chester East currently seem to take.

Like many currently seem to take. Like many members, potholes are one of the top members, potholes are one of the top issues in my inbox. Yet as members of Parliament, we don't have direct control over local roads. Highways are a devolved responsibility. So when constituents raise concerns and encourage them to report issues to the council, and I work with them to follow-up with officials and draw attention to where repairs are urgently needed. But people are rightly frustrated and, as we have heard, local voices need to be heard.

That is why I have secured today's adjournment debate, to do what I can Parliament to raise this issue, highlight the severity in Cheshire and push for a better approach to tackling both our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

counties and the U.K.'s growing road crisis. Like resident in Cheshire,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Like resident in Cheshire, Doncaster, I hear very often about Doncaster, I hear very often about the problems of potholes. The government has committed recently to £6.7 million in South Yorkshire, of £8 million for North Lincolnshire, £8 million for North Lincolnshire, is a huge step forward. Strategic leadership at local level can see leadership at local level can see significant amount put towards pothole repairs, 144 streets have pothole repairs, 144 streets have been resurfaced. The lowest level of streets needing to be looked at in that area.

Would she agree with me that area. Would she agree with me that the strategic local level is that the strategic local level is vital but we don't only have to focus on potholes and roads but what a pavement looking like as well a pavement looking like as well particularly for those people who have access issues?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the member for his point.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the member for his point. I will be getting onto the fact that it is not just an issue of funding. There are serious issues about how that strategic approach is taken. As I was saying, this is a crisis. I I was saying, this is a crisis. I know whether from knocking on doors or from people contacting my office, I have dealt with hundreds of road maintenance -related cases from potholes to overgrown hedges, poor road signage and other related highway issues.

But to really understand the impact for people locally, I want to take a few moments to share a personal story by those affected by the poor state of the roads in my constituency for sub David Doyle runs a taxi company and he came to see me at one of my mobile advice surgeries to share his growing concern about the state of our roads. As someone who drives across Cheshire all day every day for a living, he sees the problem daily. We all know how frustrating and at times dangerous it is to dodge potholes, or the moment that we wince when we hit one and feel the jolt through the car.

David this is not just about inconvenience or even the rising cost of repairs for new tyres or suspension. It is about lost income. If his car is damaged, he can't work. He may even have to cancel bookings or leave passengers stranded. This is someone's livelihood and it is being put at risk by the failure to maintain our roads properly. It is not just motorists who are affected by poor road conditions. Paul Kirk, a keen cyclist, came to see me recently at a surgery.

He cycles over 1000 km a month across the UK, and he told me that the worst roads he has written are in Cheshire. Potholes are inconvenient and sometimes dangerous for drivers, for cyclists they pose serious safety risk. Issues often made worse because repairs tend to be done with motorists in mind. Potholes know the edge of the carriageway may be ignored or dismissed as too shallow to bother with. Yet for cyclists who are more exposed and ride quota to the verge, even a small defect can be hazardous.

And of course when drivers instinctively swerve to avoid a damaged section of road, they can unintentionally put cyclists at greater risk. We must do more to recognise cyclists, to save well-maintained roads, especially in Cheshire where cycling is not only good for our health and the environment but one of the best ways to enjoy a beautiful countryside. The two examples above come from constituents living in the Cheshire West and Chester part of my constituency for sub but the roads are no better in Cheshire East.

I recently went with an excellent councillor to see the state of the Newcastle road leading up to the roundabout serving the Wychwood Village and Wychwood Park Estates. The counsellor describe the inaction of the council to fix the deteriorating road surface and intermittent potholes, the speed limit on Newcastle Road being 60 miles an hour. Traffic weaving in and out of this pothole area has led to multiple accidents. Despite repeated requests over two is, for the roads to have sections to make the roads safer, the request had been denied with funds being channelled to urban areas elsewhere in Cheshire East.

And herein lies another issue. £53 million has been allocated to Cheshire East highways department this year. And not a penny is being spent in a ward in my constituency.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I completely concur with what not only my honourable friend but neighbour says about Cheshire West and Cheshire. The roads in Cheshire East are a disgrace. As to the East are a disgrace. As to the money, £53 million my honourable friend alludes to, I have tried to friend alludes to, I have tried to get to the bottom of where that money has been spent. In fact I have had to resort to freedom of had to resort to freedom of information requests to find out where Cheshire East is spending money.

Supposedly they don't know money. Supposedly they don't know the location or the area or the the location or the area or the postcode, merely a job number, which I find hard to understand because how do they tell the contractors how do they tell the contractors where to go? Does my honourable friend, does she have the consent that I do that this money is not that I do that this money is not being spent properly? Nor is it being spent fairly across the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

council area. My honourable friend make such an important point. And really hits the important point. And really hits the nail on the head. It is not acceptable that wards in my constituency are consistently neglected with funding being neglected with funding being diverted elsewhere, but where we don't know. Cheshire East Council may forget the rural areas of the borough as its counterpart just a west does but I will not stop speaking up for the area.

If I may briefly share one more example from Cheshire East. An area was renamed by locals to include the name pothole. 650 foot thoroughfare leading into the village and therefore used recently by residents. Frustration with the state of the road ran so high that villagers actually amended their own welcome sign and erected another on the road warning drivers that the condition of this road would, and I quote, " Break a vehicle and your soul. " 650 feet of road, 174 potholes, countless reports to the Council, and campaigns led by Councillor James Pearson and the Parish Council followed, and only after the issue got national coverage did Cheshire East finally coverage did Cheshire East finally So in these examples we see three clear issues emerging with the current approach to road maintenance in Cheshire.

Firstly whilst both councils seek to follow the national well-managed highway infrastructure code of practice, this has resulted in maintenance strategies that are reactive rather than proactive. Leading to ways to council tax and government highway maintenance and pothole allocations. Secondly, there is a failure of the councils to think about the wider impact the rates have an individuals, businesses and communities. And thirdly, there is a failure to fully understand the needs to more effectively prioritise rural roads. After my public transport is not viable or simply non-existent.

Across constituencies such as Cheshire South in Eddisbury, where there is a far greater social, economic dependency on the rural highway network. As I begin to conclude, I want to reflect briefly on the funding allocated to Cheshire West and Cheshire Council and Cheshire East Council. And how it's been used by the respective highways departments. Because frankly, I do not believe a lack of funding justifies the poor performance we have seen. The figures tell their own story. Over the past few years, both councils have significantly increased the number of potholes being filled.

In Cheshire West and Cheshire, the number of potholes being repaired has more than tripled since 2021. That might sound like progress, but I would suggest it points to something else. The repairs are being done not to a lasting standard and the patching up strategy means the wider network is deteriorating at a faster and faster rate. In one case alone, a single pothole on the a 51 at Blakemore had to be repaired nine times in just 18 months. In addition, the focus primarily on urban networks has exacerbated a culture of managed decline on rural carriageways.

Where repairs are too often delayed or overlooked altogether. The specific challenges faced by rural roads are often ignored. The wear and tear caused by heavy vehicles like tractors and HGVs, the lack of alternative transport options and the need to travel greater distances just to access basic amenities. So we urge the Minister to ensure that all councillors are considering not just our urban streets with the needs of the rural route networks too. What makes this even more frustrating is that Conservative councillors in Cheshire West and Chester have repeatedly put forward reasonable fully costed proposals to improve the highways network, proposals that would have made a meaningful difference particularly for rural areas.

If the past two years alone, is included more than 3 million in additional investment for core maintenance, gully clearing, pavement safety and public rights- of-way. And every single one was rejected by the Labour led council. At the same time, the council has steadily reduced its own funding contribution to highways, cutting it from 4.5 million under the previous Conservative administration to just 2.05 million in 2023/24. Had they simply maintained earlier spending levels, they could have invested an additional £14 million in the network by now.

That's not a funding problem from central government. That's a political choice at a local level, and residents are paying the price for it. The situation is made worse by outdated guidance from the Department for transport, which lacks clear direction from local authorities on the use of new technologies for assessing road conditions and repairing potholes as well as on how to adapt to the challenges posed by climate change. And as the condition of our roads has worsened, we've seen large sums paid out in compensation.

Cheshire West and Chester paid out over £200,000 last year alone. Cheshire East meanwhile has faced more than 2,500 legal claims relating to pothole damage since 2021. Yet only a fraction of those claims have been accepted. And astonishingly, tens of thousands of pounds have been spent on legal fees just to review those applications. This is not an efficient use of public money. All of this points to a system that is reactive, wasteful, and deeply frustrating for residents. According to the industry, it cost around £57 to repair a pothole as part of a planned proactive approach.

That's a fraction of the cost of dealing with compensation claims, not to mention the inconvenience for drivers and the damage to vehicles. I'm certain that my constituents would far rather see durable well-maintained roads and have to battle with the council four months to claim compensation for damage that should have never occurred in the first place. I hope I have made clear just how strongly my constituents and I feel about the state of our roads in Cheshire. The answer isn't endless pots of money, but a fundamental change in approach, one that tackles the problem proactively and makes sustainable long-term value for money repairs.

People don't want to see their council tax or government grants wasted on crumbling repairs and short-term fixes. Many here today would have had similar experiences, and so with clarity and constructive intent, my ask of the Minister is the Department recognises the Cheshire's roads are in an unacceptable position. And I ask for his support in advocating for a better approach to road repairs so that all my constituents, whatever their mode of transport, can have confidence in Cheshire's roads. Thank you.
21:08
Simon Lightwood Portrait Simon Lightwood MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport) (Wakefield and Rothwell, Labour )
-
-
Thank you. I congratulate the honourable member Chester South and Eddisbury for securing this debate regarding the condition of roads in Cheshire and for her admirable efforts to highlight the concerns of her constituents. And thank you also to all honourable members who have contributed to this debate. I appreciate along with everyone in this chamber that this country is suffering from a plague of potholes and poor road conditions. These do not only serve as a costly nuisance to drivers, but also a great risk to all road users, including cyclists and motorcyclists who are more vulnerable.

The public are the ones facing the repercussions of our poor roads, and the maintenance backlog that has built up everywhere over the last decade, we are all in complete agreement I believe that this has to stop. This Government. To that challenge. And it's determined to improve conditions for road users. We are already putting our money where our mouth is by providing £500 million of extra funding for higher and this year, taking overall spending through the Highways Maintenance Block to nearly £1.6 billion this year.

That is the largest ever funding amount the local highway maintenance in England in one year and means a huge increase in funding for nearly every local highways authority in England, including in Cheshire. In the honourable members area of Cheshire East Council, will receive an to 5.54 to £5.54 million of highway maintenance funding this year on top of around £15.5 million baseline funding. And Cheshire West and Cheshire Council will receive an additional formally in pounds of highway maintenance funding this year on top of around 11.4 million baseline funding.

The government is determined to transform the condition of the country's highways. The honourable member will also note that 25% of this year's funding uplift is contingent on each local highway authority meeting the requirements announced by the Secretary of State in March this year. We are making sure the road users like the people of Cheshire have full transparency from local authorities of how this investment will be spent in transforming their roads. And so all 154 highway authorities were required by 30 June to publish clear information about the condition of their networks and their plans about how they would use this additional funding.

Now I'm pleased to confirm that both Cheshire highway authorities have returned their reports. The honourable members constituents will be able to see that last year in Cheshire East for example, the council estimated that the number of potholes they filled increased by nearly 50% compared to the year before. And that in Cheshire West and Chester the council is committed to delivering, and the honourable member did talk about continuous patching and the issues without, and they are delivering 12 major resurfacing schemes during this financial year, including a 559 Chester Rd and Norwich, Northwich and the B153 in Kingsley.

Everyone in England should now have access to these reports by logging onto the councils website, and I understand that the Cheshire East Council has an interactive map I was reliably informed, so the member I'm sure as soon as she leaves this chamber will be heading straight to a computer to take a look at that. Where everyone will be able to log onto their local councils website, understand more, but the local highway authorities doing to improve their roads and see firsthand the difference this Government's funding is making.

Crucially, this will also help them challenge their local authority if they are not delivering. However, our funding for local roads doesn't stop there. The honourable member should be aware already of the resort government will be announcing £46 billion of capital funding between 29/30 29/32 improve motorways across the country. This funding will allow National Highways and local authorities to invest significantly in improving long-term conditions of England's road network, delivering faster, safer and more reliable journeys first with -- we will announce individual funding soon but also includes a £1 billion investment for the new structures fund which will inject cash into bridges, decaying flyovers and one-out tunnels across the country.

Further funding of six mini pounds has been granted the active travel schemes for both Cheshire West, Chester and Cheshire East for a total of 13 schemes. I'm also delighted that on 8 July the department confirmed it will provide 48 the department confirmed it will provide £48 million of funding towards Cheshire East Council is important middle eastern bypass scheme, but is intended to help reduce congestion and safety concerns in the town centre. To conclude, this Government is dedicated to supporting local highway authorities, to improve and maintain roads for all users.

And we will continue to prove our dedication through funding, through transparency, and through support for local highway authorities.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is this House do now adjourn. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary,
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page