Commons Chamber

Monday 6th July 2026

(began 3 weeks ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:33
14:34
14:34
None Portrait Q1. What assessment he has made of the level of threat from Russia. (900805)
-

missed. Mr. speaker, can I also congratulate the England men's team on what was one of the great nights
14:34
14:35
14:36
14:36
14:37
14:37
14:38
14:39
14:39
14:40
14:40
14:40
14:41
14:41
14:42
14:43
14:43
14:44
14:44
14:45
14:45
14:46
14:47
14:47
14:48
14:49
14:49
14:50
14:50
14:51
14:52
14:52
14:52
14:53
14:53
14:54
14:54
14:55
14:55
14:55
14:56
14:57
14:57
14:58
14:58
14:59
14:59
15:00
15:00
15:01
15:01
15:01
15:02
15:02
15:03
15:03
15:03
15:04
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:20
15:20
15:21
15:21
15:22
15:22
15:23
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:25
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:29
15:29
15:29
15:30
15:30
15:31
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:32
15:33
15:33
15:34
15:34
15:35
15:35
15:35
15:36
15:36
15:37
15:37
15:37
15:38
15:38
15:38
15:39
15:39
15:40
15:40
15:40
15:41
15:41
15:41
15:42
15:42
15:43
15:43
15:43
Alex Norris Portrait Alex Norris MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Nottingham North and Kimberley, Labour )
-
-
abused by vile predators and woefully let down by the agencies charged with protecting them. And I know the House will join me in know the House will join me in saying they are in our thoughts today and always. The grooming gang scandal was and will forever be one scandal was and will forever be one of the darkest moments in our nation's history. And I know for those affected, it will have been unbelievably painful to learn that unbelievably painful to learn that one of the perpetrators was due for release from prison, having been convicted in 2012.

Shabbir Ahmed convicted in 2012. Shabbir Ahmed has served the custodial element of his sentence. He is on the Sex Offenders register for life, ordered to stay away from his victims and banned from contacting any child or young person, as well as facing strict curfews and restriction zones, his every movement will be tracked. He will be required to wear an electronic tag. Should he breach these conditions, he can be immediately returned to prison. Shabbir Ahmed held British citizenship at the time of these offences.

An action was taken to deprive him of that right, reflecting the seriousness of his offences. Having arrived in the UK before 1971, he is exempt from deportation due to section seven of the Immigration Act. This act preserved the rights of Commonwealth and Irish citizens who were already in the UK when the act took effect on 1st January 1973. This is not a loophole. Mr. speaker, the provisions of section seven were put in place to protect existing rights for an identified cadre of Commonwealth citizens, most notably the Windrush generation.

But, Mr. Speaker, as you know, when a foreign national breaks the laws of this land, our first priority will always be to get them out of the UK. Under this government, removals of foreign national offenders are up 36%, with nearly 10,000 returned since we entered office. The fact that this has not so far been possible with an individual responsible for such heinous crimes as Shabbir Ahmed is unacceptable. I can assure the House that we have not given up and we will not.

While the original intentions of the legislation in question mean we ought to proceed with care, the nature of this of the offending in this case demands that we explore all options and that is what we are doing. And in the meantime, we will, of course, do everything in our power to keep the public safe.
15:46
Katie Lam Portrait Katie Lam MP (Weald of Kent, Conservative)
-
-
Katie Lam thank you, Mr. Speaker. Shabbir Ahmed has committed some of the most despicable crimes the most despicable crimes imaginable. As the ringleader of Rochdale grooming gang, he was responsible for grooming, trafficking and raping children as trafficking and raping children as young as 12 years old. He was jailed in 2012 for 30 counts of jailed in 2012 for 30 counts of child rape. His victims were promised that when he got out of prison, he would be deported back to Pakistan. He has been released from prison, but now we are told that he will not be deported because of a provision in the 1971 Immigration Act.

The idea that he might be allowed to stay in this country because of a clause in a decades old law designed for a completely different time and context, is not just absurd, but sickening. As recently as 2023, parole officers concluded that Ahmed poses, and I quote, a very high risk of serious harm to children. How can he possibly be allowed to walk the streets again when the law produces an outcome which is so clearly so wrong? The law must be changed, and the government must now change this law to make sure that we can remove Ahmed.

Members on this side of the House, including the Leader of the Opposition, have made clear that if the Home Secretary puts forward changes to the law which would allow us to deport Shabbir Ahmed, we will support them. The shadow Home Secretary has already drafted an amendment that the government could adopt. The argument for deporting Ahmed is clear and the mechanism has already been created. All that remains in question is whether the government has the will to act. If so, then we will be happy to support them.

If it does not. People across this country will rightly ask, as they already are, whether this is a government that can really keep the British people safe.
15:47
15:48
15:49
15:50
15:50
15:51
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:53
15:54
15:54
15:55
15:55
15:56
15:56
15:57
15:57
15:58
15:58
15:59
15:59
15:59
16:00
16:01
16:01
16:02
16:02
16:03
16:04
16:04
16:04
16:05
16:06
16:06
16:07
None Portrait Ministerial statement: Government Response to the report from the Independent Review into Countering Foreign Financial Influence and Interference in UK Politics
-

Genuinely free and fair elections are the bedrock of our sovereignty. They are how our people in this country choose their government and hold power to account. But we have seen our democracy under attack, whether it's foreign actors trying
16:07
Samantha Dixon Portrait Samantha Dixon MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Chester North and Neston, Labour)
-
-
whether it's foreign actors trying to find ways to divide us from each other and rip communities apart, funding divisive political actors here in the UK, all through mis and disinformation, online or public disinformation, online or public figures refusing to play by the rules, eroding trust by being either unwilling or incapable of being honest and transparent about the support they receive. No Labour government will allow our democratic process to be distorted by foreign interference, hostile states or malign actors here in the UK from seeking to distort our politics.

That's why, to complement the stringent steps we're already taking in the Representation of the People Bill to protect our democracy. The Secretary of State commissioned Philip Rycroft to conduct an independent review of risks posed by foreign financial influence in UK politics. In March, we welcomed Mr. Rycroft's comprehensive assessment. Today, I'm pleased to be publishing the government's full response, accepting all of Mr. Rycroft's recommendations. The UK already has a strong framework to detect, deter and disrupt foreign interference, but hostile actors adapt.

So must we. We will now take forward a programme of reform to strengthen our defences and restore public confidence. In response to Mr. Rycroft's recommendations, we will strengthen our political finance rules through amendments to the Representation of the People Bill. As the House was previously told, we will introduce an annual 100 zero zero £0 cap on donations and regulated transactions from overseas electors. A cap recognises legitimate participation while ending the risk of unlimited overseas money entering our politics.

Recognising that risk continues when British citizens return to the UK, I'm now announcing we will also introduce a minimum residency period where an overseas elector returning to the UK must be here for a full calendar year before that cap is lifted, to ensure there is no opportunity for individuals to circumvent the new regime once the measures come into force, that minimum residency period will apply retrospectively. From the date of our original announcement on the 25th of March, we recognise similar risks exist with other electors who have recently lived abroad but were not registered as overseas electors.

We will apply the same cap and minimum residency period to anyone who moves to the UK after today, and was not previously an overseas elector. To ensure these individuals can't circumvent the rules before a commencement, a modified cap will be applied retrospectively. An annual cap of 100 zero zero £0 per recipient will apply to donations they make between today and the date of commencement of the measures, including any regulated transactions they enter into from today on commencement, the cap and the minimum residency period will apply in the same way as for those who were formerly overseas electors.

As previously announced, we will introduce a moratorium on all political donations of any amount made via cryptocurrency until the regulatory environment is robust enough, donations in cryptocurrency should not be a route for money to be channelled into British politics. Mr. Rycroft outlined clearly the ways in which he believes the corporate donations, provisions and the Representation of the People Bill can be tightened. Having carefully considered his reasoning, we will amend the corporate donation test so that it is based on post-tax profits rather than revenue measured over five years.

No corporate donor should be able to put more into UK politics than it's made in post tax profits. This makes clear that corporate political donations must be rooted in genuine UK based economic activity, closing a potential loophole

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Our adversaries might exploit to ensure our reforms to the political finance framework are robust and enforceable. Will introduce a new donor declaration to be made by anyone donating above a specified anyone donating above a specified threshold, will engage with the Electoral Commission and political parties as we develop the parties as we develop the declaration, including an threshold. Mr. Roycroft sets out the positive impact the new Know your donor rules will have in helping to ensure that parties act in the public interest.

He also sets out his concerns about the rigour of those rules. We will strengthen the know your donor requirements in the bill, adding location as a risk factor in parties due diligence around donations. We will also strengthen rules and transparency on donations to candidates. Mr. Rycroft highlights significant risks in the current rules around these donations, and a lack of transparency around what is spent, or around the donations being used to fund this spending. We will therefore require candidates to declare that donations used to fund campaigning prior to formally becoming a candidate from permissible sources.

Donations made during that period above £2,230 will need to be declared. Secondly, we will give the Electoral Commission stronger tools to do its job. Mr. Rycroft reports that basic transparency requirements are essential to sustaining public trust, and that there is currently unnecessary inhibition on the enforcement powers of the commission. We agree. We will therefore provide a clear statutory basis for standardised political finance reporting that will make the data easier to compare, scrutinise and enforce. We will create a broad, reciprocal information sharing gateway, allowing the Commission to work more effectively with relevant public authorities, and we will extend the Commission's powers to require information outside a formal investigation, which means earlier scrutiny, faster action and stronger enforcement where risks emerge.

These reforms will give the regulator the powers needed to protect the integrity of political finance. Thirdly, we will strengthen enforcement. The most serious breaches of electoral law, especially involving foreign interference, must be met with the right expertise and capacity. Mr. Rycroft concludes that the robustness of the current enforcement arrangements require the police apparatus to hold the requisite expertise, and to be adequately resourced to deal with the complex instances of criminal breach of electoral law. We will therefore work across government and with policing partners to strengthen and formalise national capability in this area.

We will also. We also accept that criminal thresholds and sentencing must provide a credible deterrent. We will work at pace with law enforcement. The Electoral Commission, prosecuting authorities, devolved governments and political parties to develop proposals. We will also strengthen our response to the wider influencing environment, including hostile state activity, online. Mr. Rycroft makes important points concerning the dramatic change in context in recent years, within which our democratic process functions, and how this has created new opportunities for malign foreign influence, regardless of whether money is changing hands in the UK.

We will not ever stop working to counter interference in our democracy as information threats continue to evolve. We are taking robust action to tackle mis and disinformation, improving transparency in online political campaigning, building resilience to information manipulation and supporting those at the very heart of our democratic system to identify and respond to emerging threats. And we will also consider further reforms to online political advertising. Digital imprints, lobbying, transparency and other routes through which foreign money may seek to influence our politics, including looking at the adequacy of the current regulated period, and to take forward work on AI and algorithms.

Finally, we accept the need for clear leadership and stronger coordination across Whitehall. Following Mr. Wyckoff's recommendation, the Cabinet Secretary has appointed the Permanent Secretary of the Home Office to lead responsibility for sustaining our democracy. Mr. speaker, this is a serious and substantial package of reform. It will bring more transparency to political finance. It will tighten donation rules. It will strengthen enforcement. This response shows the government acting now where action is needed. A government prepared to do the long term work to keep our systems secure.

I thank Philip Rycroft for his important work. The government will now move swiftly to implement his recommendations. The people of the UK must know there are. Their elections are free, fair and protected from foreign interference. I commend this statement to the House.
16:17
Paul Holmes Portrait Paul Holmes MP (Hamble Valley, Conservative)
-
-
Mr. Paul Holmes. >> Much. >> Mr. Speaker. Can I thank the Minister firstly for advance sight of her statement and thank Philip of her statement and thank Philip Rycroft for his review at Second Reading of the Representation of the People Bill. Conservatives the People Bill. Conservatives reaffirmed our support for measures to tackle foreign interference in light of growing threats from China and other hostile actors. But we have expressed our concerns that the lack of proper consultation on the detail of the proposed measures and the lack of engagement with political parties on changes to the law affecting political parties.

The Bill should have been introduced after the government's response to the Rycroft report, rather than being hastily amended halfway through. The integrity of our democratic system is fundamental to public trust in politics. Every political party represented here will almost has a shared interest in ensuring that foreign interference, illicit finance and attempts to undermine our democratic processes are prevented. I thought they'd like that. However, while we support the objective of protecting British democracy from foreign interference, we have significant concerns about both the process the government has adopted and several of the specific proposals emerging from the review.

First, the government immediately accepted with retrospective effect a moratorium on cryptocurrency donations and a £100,000 annual cap on donations from overseas electors. Yet these decisions were announced without any meaningful consultation or engagement with political parties. That is particularly disappointing because questions of party funding have traditionally been approached through dialogue and cross-party discussion. Such conventions exist for good reason. Rules governing political competition should command broad confidence and should not be changed unilaterally by whatever party happens to be in government.

The breakdown of these long standing conventions should concern all parties, regardless of their political political perspective. If governments begin introducing retrospective and highly partisan changes to the rules of political finance without consultation, we risk creating a precedent that future administrations may follow. Parliamentary questions have also shown that there has been no engagement with the House of Commons. Madam Deputy Speaker, be it the Standards Committee, the registrar of the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner, despite changes that directly relate to the registration of donations by hon.

Members and this House's code of conduct. Yet again, the government is making announcements such as changing the policy on a cap on donations and changing the rules on candidate donations with zero consultation and without stepping into matters which are the remit of the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner. I would note it is already the case that newly elected MPs are supposed to declare gifts and donations they received in the last 12 months. There also appears to be uncertainty over the scope of the new requirements relating to candidate donations.

It is not yet clear which categories of elected officials these provisions will cover, and I'd be grateful if the Minister could clarify what assessment has been made of the new profit test on the ability of all political parties to undertake sponsorship and advertising at their party conferences? Has the government properly considered the interaction with the proposed draft guidance on sponsorship with the Electoral Commission? Does the Minister think that a company sponsoring a lounge or a lanyard is foreign interference? Had the government engaged fully with political parties, electoral administrators, compliance professionals and other stakeholders before announcing its response? Many of these practical difficulties, difficulties and unintended consequences could have been identified and addressed at an earlier stage.

To be clear, we support measures that genuinely strengthen the resilience of our democratic system. We recognise the risks associated with cryptocurrency donations and agree that safeguards are necessary. We also support tighter rules for governing donations in the period immediately before elections. But good policy requires more than good intentions. It requires engagement and a willingness, willingness to listen to those responsible for implementing the rules. The protection of our democracy is too important to be pursued through retrospective legislation and measures, where practical consequences have not been fully thought through.

Unfortunately, this government is a government that talks about defending democracy but try to cancel local elections for two years in a row and amended the electoral system for mayors for partisan advantage. Change the laws on election pilots and complete secrecy and is now gerrymandering local government boundaries. Madam Deputy Speaker, from.
16:22
16:22
Florence Eshalomi Portrait Florence Eshalomi MP (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green, Labour )
-
-
Florence Eshalomi thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank the Minister for this statement the Minister for this statement this afternoon. I join her in paying tribute to Philip for his paying tribute to Philip for his tireless efforts in producing this review. And to the Shadow agree with to make sure all political parties sign up to this. We have to be honest about how political parties are funded, but I agree with him more. If it wasn't for the last government trying to interfere in the work of the Electoral Commission, which this Labour government then cancelled, and the public rightly expects us to ensure that foreign money does not interfere or taint our democratic system in any way.

And it's good to hear the Minister accepting all the recommendations in this in this review. And it's really important that we are looking at where cryptocurrency is coming from. I just wanted a clarity from the Minister. Firstly, the requirement for candidates to prove the source of campaign funding prior to becoming an official candidate. Can the Minister explain the scope of this? So, for example, would it be possible for illegitimate funds to buy or rent a house in a constituency for prospective candidates, with the aim to help them get elected? I would also be grateful if the Minister will confirm that the final recommendation on a standalone permanent Secretary to lead on responsibility for security of our democracy.

Can the Minister confirm that discussions have been ongoing with different departments? We have to get this right. It's a cross-cutting, cross-departmental work, and it will only work if there's one person in Cabinet leading on it.
16:24
16:25
Lisa Smart Portrait Lisa Smart MP (Hazel Grove, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
That spokesperson. >> That spokesperson. >> Lisa Smart Madam Deputy Speaker. >> And I'm grateful to the Minister for advance sight of her statement. Just over five months ago, I stood here and asked the Secretary of State to strengthen the Representation of the People Bill Representation of the People Bill by using post tax profits and not overall revenue. When assessing the eligibility of company donations. He rejected that plea, as did the Minister at Committee stage, but I am delighted that the Minister has now agreed to accept this.

It was a recommendation from Philip Rycroft and from those working in the democracy sector, and is a welcome change. We Liberal Democrats champion a fair and free society. So we also welcome the announcement that candidates will have to declare gifts of over £2,320 in the year prior to their election. This, Madam Deputy Speaker, will hopefully provide further clarity for those who may have been confused by what they do or don't have to declare. So far, we welcome steps towards cracking down on any foreign interference in our democracy, but we still have some way to go, and we urge the Minister to consider banning donations from anyone who has served in a foreign administration, from donating to UK political parties, think tanks or campaign groups, as well as banning donations from those convicted of political violence.

And that would include those funding the likes of Stephen Yaxley-lennon and his ilk, those who hold British values in contempt and act as a mouthpiece for those who want to undermine our democratic institutions, should have no place in our democracy. We need a much more transparent system going forward to ensure the British people have faith in politicians. The minister's announcements today close loopholes, but too many remain. Will she consider exploring the benefits of a cap on donations from UK donors and year round spending caps by political parties and candidates? As that's the way loopholes are truly closed.

And finally, could she provide insights into how this important work will be handled across the multiple ministerial departments and agencies it involves? FCDO, Home Office, DSIT, Mhclg and the Cabinet Office. The minister's really able, but she's the Minister for Building Safety, Fire and democracy. Does she agree with me? A more streamlined portfolio is what our democracy deserves.
16:27
16:28
16:29
16:30
16:30
16:31
16:31
16:32
16:32
16:33
16:33
16:34
16:35
16:36
16:37
16:37
16:38
16:39
16:39
16:40
16:40
16:41
16:42
16:42
16:43
16:43
16:44
16:44
16:45
16:46
16:46
16:47
16:47
16:47
16:48
16:48
16:49
16:49
16:49
16:50
16:50
16:50
16:51
16:51
16:52
16:52
16:53
16:53
16:54
16:54
16:55
16:56
Sarah Jones Portrait Sarah Jones MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Croydon West, Labour)
-
-
a unique and vital role in our society. They enforce our laws, they tackle those who break them they tackle those who break them and they keep the public safe. These are awesome responsibilities and the officers and staff who and the officers and staff who uphold them every day at all levels are owed our respect, our are owed our respect, our admiration and our thanks. At the same time, if forces are to serve their communities effectively, they their communities effectively, they must secure and retain the trust of those communities.

But in recent years that trust has come under strain as creaking systems, outdated structures and a lack of central grip from previous governments have meant the police have struggled to consistently hit the high levels of performance we rightly expect of them. Things have to change, Madam Deputy Speaker, which is why earlier this year, the Home Secretary announced the most significant police reforms for 200 years. Our plans will ensure the right policing happens in the right place, building on the progress we've already made on restoring neighbourhood policing and driving down serious threats such as knife crime and creating a new model in which local policing protects our communities and national policing protects us all.

Madam Deputy Speaker, the reform programme provides us with a generational opportunity to address long standing challenges that have hampered the police's ability to provide a consistently world class service to the public. One such challenge centres on the question of how we ensure our forces have the strong, effective leadership they need to meet the significant demands that are placed on them. It is a question that is rightly the subject of considerable parliamentary and public scrutiny, especially when things go wrong as they have in the recent past.

Equally, I want to emphasise that there are a great many outstanding officers and staff across the police service, including those in the highest ranks, when failings occur and the public are let down, they feel it more keenly than anyone, and the reality is that leadership is about more than just individuals. It's also about culture and standards. It's about giving every member of the police workforce the support and skills they need to flourish and become leaders themselves. We are not the first government to grapple with this topic.

Madam Deputy Speaker, various tweaks have been made to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the system over the years, yet the same concerns keep arising. Whether the. Relate to culture conduct or the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Relate to culture conduct or the retention and promotion of talent as we roll out our reform programme. This is clearly an issue requiring This is clearly an issue requiring close examination, and that examination has now taken place in examination has now taken place in the form of an independent review commissioned by the Home Secretary. Last year, the Policing Leadership Commission was established last October and co-chaired by two former members of this House with extensive knowledge of policing, my noble friend Lord Blunkett and the noble Lord, Lord Herbert of South Downs, together with the other members of the Commission, they have carried out the most significant review of police leadership in recent times.

Its findings and recommendations are published today. Can I take this opportunity to thank the noble Lords, Blunkett and Herbert, for the care and skill with which they have approached their task? I am grateful to to the other Commission members and all who have participated. There has been a particular emphasis on giving voice to those on the front line, which is welcome and essential. The Review's report sets out a comprehensive and in places, candid assessment of police leadership in England and Wales.

While the Commission found examples of excellent leadership and delivery, it also identified concerns around consistency, capability and culture and the impact shortcomings in these areas have on the service received by the public. To quote from the report, the policing profession has not consistently had the excellent leadership it needs. It was also clear that those on the front line are not getting the consistent support they deserve. Amid wide variation in approaches to leadership development, the Commission highlights the critical importance of leadership to ensuring policing is prepared for the challenges of the future, while upholding the sacred principle of policing by consent, without fear or favour.

It is also important to emphasise, as the report rightly does, that leadership must not be confined to the senior officer ranks. It can and does exist in all parts of the service. It should be nurtured at every stage of a policing career for both officers and staff. The review's findings are rightly unsparing. Madam Deputy Speaker and I welcome its willingness to engage with difficult issues because, as the report's forward states, fundamentally this is about ensuring that the public receives the quality of policing to which they are entitled.

I will turn now to the review's recommendations, of which there are 27 in total. They are ambitious in breadth and scale, and taken together they make a compelling case for change. While it is right that we now take some time to consider them in full, we welcome the Commission's proposals and the intent behind them. In particular, we are actively looking at the recommendation to create a formal Senior Constable rank and how this could be done. The Commission also recommends a new professional digital passport for every individual in policing and other measures to put stronger supporting structures in place around professional development and performance.

These could, in the future, help build a route to a licence to practice, which is a proposal we included in our police Reform White Paper as one way of raising standards and promoting a stronger culture of professional development. Other recommendations from the review include a new police leadership fast stream, a new targeted direct entry scheme to fill specific gaps in policing, with a focus on leaders from professions with transferable skills and a role for the forthcoming National Police Service in promoting ethical policing at a national level.

As I have said, Madam Deputy Speaker, we will consider these and all the report's findings and recommendations carefully. They will, I am certain, be of great assistance as we advance our police reform agenda. A full government response will follow in due course. In the meantime, we are making progress on leadership related measures designed to improve public confidence and police performance, such as the new Senior Appointments Panel and reforms to promotion processes. Alongside the wider work we are doing in restructuring, including the creation of the National Police Service, which will provide a single source of strategic leadership and a stronger set of national standards.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I will finish where I started by paying tribute to the thousands of men and women who work tirelessly every day to protect our communities from harm, from officers and staff on the front line and their colleagues performing essential roles behind the scenes to the chief constables they ultimately report to. I am grateful to them all. While the threats they must tackle are evolving all the time, what will never change is our commitment to the founding principles of British policing, which dictate that we police in this country by consent and assert that the police are the public and the public are the police.

To uphold these traditions. While meeting the demands of modern crime fighting, we must ensure our police forces are fair, open and meritocratic workplaces able to meet the high standards we rightly expect of those entrusted with keeping their fellow citizens safe and driven forward by strong, effective leadership at all levels. Reform of the scale required is no easy task, but working in partnership with policing and aided by the findings of this very important report, I believe we can and we will succeed in making our police service stronger and our society safer.

And I commend this statement to the House. Vickers.
17:04
Matt Vickers Portrait Matt Vickers MP (Stockton West, Conservative)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement and pay tribute to the noble Lords, Herbert and Blunkett, for producing such a timely and thoughtful report. The last year has done real damage to last year has done real damage to public confidence in police leadership. Of course, this report rightly recognises that there are many outstanding officers leading forces across the country, but the headlines people remember tell a different story from the shameful scenes surrounding the Maccabi Tel Aviv match to the heartbreaking murder of Henry Novak.

Alongside too many other incidents, the public have been left asking a simple question who is in charge? Leadership is not about managing decline or issuing guidance. It's about setting a culture. It's about making it unmistakeably clear that the first duty of every police officer is to protect the public and uphold the law without fear, without favour and without distraction. The report gets to the heart of that when it says police leaders must refuse to take sides and remain focussed entirely on preventing crime, catching criminals and bringing offenders to justice.

Culture starts at the top. If we want frontline policing to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

change, leadership must Change first. What struck me most. About this. Report was not simply its

**** Possible New Speaker ****

recommendations, but. The. Evidence behind them. This is not the work of critics looking in not the work of critics looking in from the outside. It reflects what police officers themselves are saying. As the authors acknowledged in their letter to stakeholders. Much of the evidence made for reading. Perhaps the most alarming reading. Perhaps the most alarming finding is that only 13% of constables and just 17% of sergeants surveyed believe they worked in a well led and well-managed organisation. Think about that.

More than 4 in 5 of the officers who put themselves in harm's way to keep our streets safe do not believe they work in a well-led organisation. If that does not ring alarm bells, I do not know what will. Time does not permit me to go through all 27 recommendations, but there is much here that deserves support. In particular, I welcome the emphasis on merit. Our best officers should be recognised, developed and promoted because they're the best, not because they've ticked the right boxes.

But we also have to be honest about the context. The report sits alongside a programme of wider police reform announced by the government. However, reports now suggest that the incoming Prime Minister is already getting cold feet about those reforms. That matters because many of these recommendations assume larger forces and more centralised models. If they do not happen, Ministers need to explain how these recommendations will work in practice rather than simply in principle. There is another contradiction that cannot be ignored.

If we want stronger leadership, we need to give police leaders the tools they need to succeed. That means enough officers on the streets and the technology to help them do their jobs effectively. Instead, officer numbers have fallen by around 1300 across the country. At the same time in London, the Labour mayor chose to pick a public fight with his own commissioner over the use of technology, with the commissioner making clear that the mayor's decision would leave the force able to achieve less. How can we demand better leadership while cutting officer numbers and denying forces the technology they say they need? There is much in this report that members on all sides can support.

Better leadership is not a partisan cause. It is a public necessity. But if we are serious about restoring confidence in policing, we cannot stop at identifying police at what police leaders should do differently. We also have to stop making political decisions that make their job harder. The public deserves better. Our best officers deserve better, and the future of policing depends on us getting both police leadership and political leadership correct.
17:08
Sarah Jones Portrait Sarah Jones MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Croydon West, Labour)
-
-
Thank you. Can I thank the hon. >> Thank you. Can I thank the hon. Member for welcoming this report? And I agree with some of what he And I agree with some of what he has said. I think he's absolutely right to say that this isn't the work of critics looking in from the work of critics looking in from the outside, the evidence base that has been developed through nine months of very forensic work, talking to police from across all levels, within the force, has meant that this is a very honest assessment of the realities that we find ourselves in.

And police leadership has been a problem as as I said in my statement for some time. If you look at the HMRC FIRS inspections of police forces, if you look across 23 to 25, for example, 2023 to 25, not a single force came out as outstanding when it came to leadership. There are there are leadership challenges across all our forces in different ways. And I agree with him that the public need to believe in the police and be confident in policing and the statistics on public confidence and policing has been have been worrying for some years now.

And we we must we must all together look at those. And he made the usual point about officer numbers, and I'll make the usual point back, which is, as he knows, that the party opposite cut 20,000 police. They then recruited 20,000 police, and they put 12,000 of them behind desks. We are taking them away from desks and putting them on the front line, and we are investing in technology, police, AI, for example, where I have put £75 million to transform the bureaucracy that our police officers we know have to spend a lot of their time doing.

So we can take that away so they can focus on the front line. But overall, I welcome his nice comments on on the leadership review. I think it's been incredibly important and that cross-party agreement that we need to improve leadership within policing is very important.
17:10
17:11
17:12
Will Forster Portrait Mr Will Forster MP (Woking, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Liberal Democrat. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to start by first thanking the Honourable Lords, Blunkett and noble Lord Herbert for today's noble Lord Herbert for today's report. It is a shining but welcome light on the challenges facing light on the challenges facing leadership in our police forces. I know first hand in my constituency of Woking that police forces deal in daily and day out with highly sensitive, dangerous and traumatic incidents that keep us safe. It's deeply challenging work and we are greatly indebted to them.

That is why the findings of this report are so concerning. It shows that officers are too often hampered by scarce resources, excessive bureaucracy and conduct processes, leaving them unable to focus on delivering for the public. The Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for a return to the proper community policing and neighbourhood policing that our constituents want. For that to happen. Officers must be properly supported and equipped, equipped to tackle the many issues facing our communities. Please, will the Minister set out what plans the government has to increase the numbers of bobbies out on the beat? Even more concerning are the report's findings on the inconsistent standards of leadership across our police forces.

Numerous instances of leaders falling short of the standards of integrity, honesty and professionalism expected of them, including cases of cronyism, nepotism and abuses of power for sexual purpose, are appalling. It is clear that we need a root and branch reform of the policing system, as the report calls for, to stamp out this bad behaviour, improve and ensure that leadership is improved and that senior officers are held to the highest standard. Will the Minister confirm that this recommendation and others in the report will directly.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Inform the forthcoming police reform Bill? And finally, Madam Deputy Speaker. Poor leadership in Deputy Speaker. Poor leadership in the police has been highlighted by the Police Federation, where they have highlighted an increase in have highlighted an increase in officer suicides, but we don't have the data. Will the Minister commit to introducing the police forces

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have requirement to gather that data? Thank you. Minister Jones.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. If I if I take those points in turn, working backwards, we are working with the Police Federation on data when it comes to police suicide. It is an area where there are some
17:15
17:16
17:17
17:18
17:19
Sarah Jones Portrait Sarah Jones MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Croydon West, Labour)
-
-
Minister James. about the funding for Lincolnshire and of course, join him in praising the Police and Crime Commissioner and indeed all police and Crime Commissioners. We never had a problem with the model in terms of the individuals who held them. It was more the elected model that we don't think is right. And as you will know, Lord Bernard Hogan-howe is doing a review for us currently on what the structures should be in a reformed police force that would sit between a national police service and local police areas, and the local police areas will be absolutely key to this, and he will have some very interesting things to say about that, I know.

And finally, he he he asked for policing not to be woke, not to have courses, all of these things. I think there's a lot to unpick in what we want our police to do. We want them to be able to have the skills to make the common sense, good practical decisions, to catch criminals and keep us all safe. In order to do that, we have to make sure there is good training and that is what has been lacking. There has been very little leadership training at any level in policing.

If you look at the Army after 15 years after leaving Sandhurst, colonel in charge of 1500 people would have had on average 72 weeks of leadership development. A chief super in the met would have had 2 or 3 weeks tops in that time. That cannot be right. We have to teach people to be.
17:21
17:22
17:23
17:24
17:25
17:25
17:26
17:27
17:28
17:29
17:30
17:31
17:33
17:33
17:34
17:35
17:36
17:37
17:38
17:39
17:40
17:41
17:42
17:42
Nick Thomas-Symonds Portrait Rt Hon Nick Thomas-Symonds MP, The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Torfaen, Labour)
-
-
this contract in November of 2023. They had two years of transition to repay to prepare, and their senior repay to prepare, and their senior leadership gave me explicit personal assurances ahead of the. House over that they were fully House over that they were fully capable of managing the workload and indeed that they were ready for successful transition. Indeed, the successful transition. Indeed, the chief executive of capita promised that technological, technological improvements would.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

improvements would. Create a flagship use case for the largest AI enabled pension scheme in the country. It is clear that non-delivery of technology has been a fundamental part of Capita's inability to deliver. The reality is they were completely unprepared, their system was overwhelmed, and it resulted in a backlog that skyrocketed to a staggering 120,000 unresolved cases. Now, in response to this, I intervened immediately and established the Cabinet Office Pensions Recovery Task Force, and capita committed to two critical recovery targets an end of April milestone to clear the inherited arrears and an end of June milestone, by which point they promised a complete return to standard contractually required levels.

Capita missed their own April milestone, and indeed the end of June deadline has arrived, and I regret to inform the House that they have failed to meet this milestone as well. So seven months on from taking over operations to many pension scheme members still face unacceptable delays after years of dedicated public service. Now, since my last statement on this, thousands of quotations have been issued and pensions put into payment. Capita had committed to clearing the backlog by today.

But I'm afraid the reality remains very different. As of the end of June, there are still over 6700 quotations outstanding for past retirement dates and over 4100 bereavement cases where capita could take action. These are the most harrowing stories, Madam Deputy Speaker, affecting devastated scheme members and grieving families. So my officials have forcefully escalated these systemic back office failures directly to capita senior leadership demanding immediate investigation and resolution. I have to be frank with the House as well.

What progress has been achieved is because of the significant additional capability provided by the Cabinet Office Pensions Recovery Task Force, over 140 officials that I have surged into this. But let me also say to the House, public money will not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

fund Capita's failings. Yes. We will recover every single penny of these surge costs directly penny of these surge costs directly from capita, and I will not remove a single member of this team until this service is permanently fixed this service is permanently fixed and fully restored. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, across core areas of pension payments, quotations and complaints, the operational reality remains deeply concerning. And whilst the speed of quote issuance has accelerated over the past month, it still leaves over 6700 outstanding quotes to be processed as of the end of June for past retirement dates.

Turning to parliamentary correspondents, the volume of MP complaints remains too high. At over 1900 outstanding constituent cases. I do understand capita resolved almost 700 last week, but another 500 or so complaints were raised. So this remains, I'm afraid, all too current, an issue. When I last reported to the House, the figures stood at 1500. And to see that backlog having grown is, frankly, completely unacceptable. Capita has clearly failed to effectively manage the correspondence to the extent. Again, I have had to ask the Cabinet Office Pensions Recovery Task Force to step in.

Indeed, the situation has been so faltering that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has written to Mr. Speaker about the matter. So, because of Capita's persistent failures, alongside a wider, completely unacceptable failure in the overall MP engagement, which is demonstrated, I have to say, and it was reported to me by members across the House. Even a poorly coordinated MP drop in session back at the end of May, which again meant that I had to intervene again and I ordered the Cabinet Office Pensions Recovery Task Force to take direct operational control and establish virtual surgeries for MPs and caseworkers running every weekday, and I hope that has provided at least a direct route for parliamentary offices to at least try to secure updates.

Now, since I launched that initiative in May, we have delivered over 250 virtual surgeries, supporting over 150 members across the House. I turn now, Madam Deputy Speaker, to steps I am taking to protect scheme members. I have no doubt that members across the House will agree with me that the service capita has provided has been dreadful, so we need to take further robust measures. First of all, I will continue to apply the most stringent commercial levers I. We are executing robust, continuous action with immediate financial consequences.

We have already hit their bottom line by withholding £9.9 million in payments, because the government will only ever pay for what is successfully delivered, I find I have to say this failure remarkable, given the personal assurances provided to me by the Chief executive ahead of the transfer. The assurances have not been met. Court outputs are deficient and in my opinion, they are failing to even make basic functionality work. Now, I know many across the House are calling for the immediate termination of this contract and to be insourced.

And let me just say to the House for me to just terminate it right now would obviously cause severe disruption to the payroll. So I have to manage this. So the payroll is being operated effectively. What I can't do is create an immediate catastrophic operational vacuum. I cannot instantly replace a complex pension scheme overnight. However, I say this to the House. I have instructed my officials to bring together a broad range of stakeholders and experts to consider, in line with this government's strategy, how scheme members can be best served in a long term, durable delivery of this scheme.

So let nobody think across the House that I am or the government is accepting the status quo. This episode highlights the severe limitations of outsourcing the Civil Service Pension Scheme, and I say openly to the House, if I could insource this operation today, I would. But it is government policy nonetheless. To insource in line with our manifesto commitment to deliver the biggest wave of insourcing of public services in a generation, and this pension scheme could be a prime candidate for insourcing in the future.

And that future is being actively shaped by the government's announcement on the 17th of June of a new public interest test to end outsourcing by default. From April 2027, all contracts over £1 million in value must be assessed for in-house viability before renewal, and departments exceeding 100 million in annual spend must develop five year insourcing strategies. This framework builds the exact long term capability we need, shifting our focus from short term pricing to service quality and operational resilience, and to ensure full accountability.

We are executing our contractual right to deploy independent auditors immediately to conduct a technical review of systems data integrity and compliance with statutory duties. And we are also beginning the process to appoint a remedial adviser at Capita's expense to force rectification directly on the ground. I am not ruling out further interventions, Madam Deputy Speaker, but we do need to build the unvarnished evidence base that will serve as a strict prerequisite for further formal escalation, including potential litigation or step in remedies.

Should performance fail to improve. Now, the House will receive a further update in October on the findings of that independent audit. The performance of the remedial adviser and the longer term structural options being considered, including meeting our manifesto commitment and bringing this scheme in-house. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, let me finish by saying this public servants who dedicated their working lives to this country deserve absolute financial security and unwavering dignity in retirement, not corporate failure, empty promises, and certainly not severe administrative failure.

I hope the House will see the uncompromising line in the sand I am drawing today. I will continue to apply commercial pressure, ensure full accountability, and we will find a way forward that delivers for the people who deliver for this country. And I commend this statement to the House.
17:51
Mike Wood Portrait Mike Wood MP (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire, Conservative)
-
-
Shadow Minister Michael. >> Shadow Minister Michael. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. advance sight of his statement. Nobody in this House should be in any doubt about the anxiety and any doubt about the anxiety and hardship being felt by retired public servants and grieving families left struggle stranded by this operational collapse. We're talking about more than 6700 outstanding pension quotations, more than 4100 unresolved bereavement cases. These are not mere statistics.

They represent vulnerable individuals left facing severe financial distress. But let us be completely clear about where the responsibility for this ongoing execution lies. The Minister can try to look backwards to November 2023 all he likes. But the critical transition phase, the data quality, integration and the actual system go live occurred on this government's watch and more specifically on his watch. The timeline of unheeded warnings is damning. Throughout 2025, both the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee explicitly flagged the Capta was missing critical transition milestones and IT delivery targets.

Yet despite these clear red flags, the Cabinet Office chose to override the warnings, accepted flawed assurances and pressed ahead with the December go live. The contract management failure belongs entirely to the current frontbench. Alarmingly, despite the establishment of the minister's flagship Pensions Recovery Task Force, the situation is deteriorating in key areas. The Minister has just admitted that the backlog of MP complaints has actually grown significantly under his watch, going from 1500 cases to more than 1900 outstanding constituent cases just since the end of April, barely nine weeks.

It's getting worse and worse still. Instead of focusing purely on immediate operational rectification, the Minister is using this crisis as an ideological springboard to flip to default insourcing. Now, I am agnostic as to whether the scheme is provided in-house or externally, but there is little in this government's record to suggest that it is capable of running this scheme any less incompetently than the current operators. Retired civil servants do not need a lecture on procurement ideology. They need their pensions sorted.

Today, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister must answer for specific questions first. Given that the Public Accounts Committee explicitly warned of captors IT system unreadiness last October, what independent technical verification did the Cabinet Office conduct before Ministers allowed the December go live to proceed? Second, the Minister noted the 140 strong government surge team is costing significant resource. While he intends to recover these costs from the 9.9 million withheld from capita, will he guarantee today that any remaining funds will be legally diverted into an immediate compensation scheme for those affected and the grieving families who have suffered real financial detriment? Third, the Minister expressed deep frustration at Kaptur's wider public sector footprint.

Now we have the Procurement Act 2023 fully active, which established a central centralised debarment list specifically to stop failing legacy suppliers from winning further public work. So will the Minister commit at the Dispatch Box today to formally referring to the Debarment review service for investigation, or will he allow them to continue bidding for other contracts whilst he waits until 2027 to implement his insourcing reviews? And if the threshold is not met in this case, just what? Where will the Minister consider it appropriate to use those powers he has? And finally, given the Minister's conclusion that capita have always been unsuitable operators of the scheme, can he tell this House why the current government chose to award cap to the new DWP contract, not in 2023, but this February? Madam Deputy Speaker, public servants who have dedicated their working lives to this country deserve financial security and dignity.

They have been let down by corporate failure, as the Minister says, but they are also being let down by this government's failure to manage the contract when it matters the most. It is time for the Minister to stop blaming the past, stop pitching future ideological tests and finally fix the operational reality on the ground.
17:57
Nick Thomas-Symonds Portrait Rt Hon Nick Thomas-Symonds MP, The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Torfaen, Labour)
-
-
David Simmonds Madam Speaker, I am quite astonished by the shadow Ministers contribution. The House should be in no doubt the previous government signed a ten year government signed a ten year contract in November 2023. That is the situation we were left with and what I've been grappling with throughout, and the idea that I have put ideology above operational urgency is utter and total nonsense. I have intervened at every single opportunity strongly, and I have held capita to account on its milestones time and time again, to the tune of £9.9 million.

In a way the previous government never, ever did. And I say to the the hon. Member, the shadow Minister, the one point he did make where I do have a lot more sympathy with him is around compensation. And we have introduced a process to pay interest in respect of pensions paid by capita from the 1st of December 2025, where full benefits are paid more than one month after retirement. The interest rate applied will be based on the Bank of England base rate, plus 1% for the period of the delay between retirement and payment.

Indeed, that information has formally been published on the Civil Service Pension website, and members will have the opportunity to ask for other losses to be covered, as well as part of the complaints process. As to the rest of his comments, I think you'll struggle to find anyone who's been as robust as me holding capita to account.
17:58
Clive Betts Portrait Mr Clive Betts MP (Sheffield South East, Labour)
-
-
Clive Betts thank. Public Accounts. >> Committee and Geoffrey Clifton-Brown. The Chair As sorry that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that. Order, order. We don't reference colleagues by their names, by their constituencies, obviously the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

constituencies, obviously the Select Committee, but you've question. Dive very. Deeply.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Into the question. The chair of the committee sends apologies. We're in a committee meeting at present. In looking at the present. In looking at the situation on a number of occasions, and we have a joint session with the Minister on Wednesday with the Minister on Wednesday with Pacac Select Committee. It's been absolutely appalling. The individual cases we've heard we've individual cases we've heard we've got two on Wednesday will relate to capita and to the Minister that widows who've been waiting since last year to get their pension sorted out, this is not acceptable.

This point two issues for the Minister to reflect on when the previous government let the contract. I think we're in a situation where procurement couldn't properly take account of the past record of companies, and I understand the government's now changed that, because if you look at companies past record, both in the teachers pension scheme, previously on the Civil Service Pension scheme, they've not run one scheme properly. This should have been taken account of before the contract was let. But I'll just say one of the point where the.

The spokesperson. The opposition did have something I think relevant. This scheme was falling apart. Last year the National Audit Office looked at it and clearly it was going wrong there. So I'd just say to the Minister, did he start to look then at alternatives and start to put it together at that point, an in-house provision that could eventually take over?
18:00
18:00
Lisa Smart Portrait Lisa Smart MP (Hazel Grove, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Spokesperson. Speaker and I'm grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement. The failure of capita to meet the 30th of June deadline is meet the 30th of June deadline is deeply disappointing, but sadly not surprising. But behind it, 1.7 surprising. But behind it, 1.7 million current and former civil servants who simply want the peace of mind that the pension they have earned through decades of public service will be handled competently, fairly and with dignity. Capita is repeated. Failures are causing real distress and uncertainty for people who deserve better, and that includes several of my constituents who from wrongly Tracy from Offerton and Christopher from Marple included.

Public accounts Committee did indeed warn that capita risked not being ready to take over full administration back in December. It raised serious concerns about weak contract management and poor oversight, and those warnings have now come to fruition as thousands of retired civil servants have experienced delays or complete failures in pension payments since capita took over. So how will the government restore confidence for the million plus current and former civil servants, who simply want reassurance that their pensions will be administered competently? What assessment has been made of the systemic failures in the administration of this scheme, and what lessons have been learned for future contracts of this kind? How can the Minister ensure that this failure is given sufficient weight? Should capita have the brass neck to bid for any future government contracts in this or wholly unrelated areas? The Minister is rightly called the thousands of unresolved bereavement cases harrowing.

These are grieving families denied closure. Can the Minister commit today to ordering capita to prioritise all bereavement cases as a matter of particular urgency? And could he guarantee a specific date by which this specific backlog will be zero?
18:02
18:03
18:04
18:05
18:06
18:07
18:08
18:08
18:08
18:09
18:09
18:10
18:11
18:11
18:12
18:12
18:13
18:14
18:15
18:15
18:15
18:16
18:17
18:17
18:18
18:18
18:19
18:19
18:20
18:20
18:20
18:21
18:21
18:22
18:23
18:23
18:24
18:24
18:25
18:25
18:26
18:26
18:27
18:27
18:27
18:28
18:28
18:28
18:29
18:29
18:30
18:31
18:31
18:32
18:32
18:33
18:33
18:33
18:33
18:34
18:35
18:35
18:35
18:36
18:36
18:36
18:36
18:37
18:37
18:38
18:38
18:38
18:39
18:39
18:40
18:40
18:41
18:41
18:41
18:42
18:42
18:43
18:43
18:43
18:44
18:44
18:45
18:45
18:45
18:46
18:47
18:47
Angela Eagle Portrait Dame Angela Eagle MP, Minister of State (Home Office) (Security) (Jointly with the Cabinet Office) (Wallasey, Labour)
-
-
it's grown and evolved. The threat posed by foreign powers will be posed by foreign powers will be known by all here. Physical threats against individuals and property threats, theft of trade secrets, threats, theft of trade secrets, attempts to interfere in and influence our democracy. Cyber influence our democracy. Cyber attacks targeting both the state and the private sector that disrupt critical infrastructure and critical infrastructure and compromise sensitive data. As the House has heard many times before, the source of these threats has come predominantly, though not exclusively, from three countries Russia, China and Iran.

The threats from each present differently. But those threats are very real and they are evolving. The bill before us will strengthen the government's ability to disrupt hostile intelligence services and their proxies by adapting counter-terrorism tools to tackle state based security threats to the UK. In developing this legislation, we have worked closely with the police, with security and with the intelligence agencies. The bill gives our operational partners the powers they need, and it does so in a way which reflects the differences between state and non-state actors.

As Jonathan Hall himself has said, this bill, and I quote, does the job. As the bill progresses through its stages, the government listened carefully to the arguments that were made in relation to legitimate humanitarian assistance, as well as concerns expressed by NGOs and the International Development Committee. The government's position remains that the bill should not criminalise legitimate humanitarian aid work or the important work of journalists and diplomats. It remains, my hon. Friend, give way. Of course, I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I welcome amendment 1 to 6 to clarify the bill. However, as to clarify the bill. However, as the bill stands, journalists could still face prison sentence of up to 10 to 14 years for working with even approaching sources in hostile governments. Will the Minister consider pausing this legislation so that we can go back to the drawing board?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

drawing board? I thank my hon. Friend. I don't agree with her interpretation of the bill at all, and I think the threats that we are facing mean that this bill ought to be on the statute book sooner rather than later, so we can begin to deal with them. As I was saying, the government's position remains that the bill should not criminalise legitimate humanitarian aid work or the important work of journalists and diplomats. And it remains our view that this bill does not have that effect.

However, to avoid a potential chilling effect, the government felt that it was better to accept amendments to the bill to put that matter beyond doubt. That's why the government supported amendments one, two, four and six, tabled by the noble Baroness Northover. In the other place.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

These amendments. Yes, of course. Thank you for giving way on that point, and I'm pleased that she's accepting the amendments. And this hopefully will give some comfort to journalists who at the moment are journalists who at the moment are in an incredibly precarious situation in every war zone. And usually somebody accuses them of usually somebody accuses them of being terrorists for what they're reporting. What will support, will the government practically be able the government practically be able to give to journalists or journalists, unions that are faced with these threats because they are very real, and the number of journalists that have been killed around the world is rising year on year.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I thank my right hon. The right hon. Gentleman for his right hon. Gentleman for his question. We are. Actually very, question. We are. Actually very, very confident that the Bill, as it's written, does not place journalists in any jeopardy. In fact, these measures allow us to act against those who are conducting harmful activity in the conducting harmful activity in the UK, including targeting journalists here in the UK because of their attempts to expose activities in other regimes.

The right hon. Gentleman makes a more general point about the jeopardy that journalists put themselves in in war zones, with which I would agree that news reporting is some of the bravest that happens. And we all support a free press and the ability of journalists to be able to report in war zones. But I would say respectfully to him that these things are slightly different. And he's combining the two issues together. We are convinced, Madam Deputy Speaker, that this bill does not and will not put journalists in any more jeopardy in this country, certainly for reporting.

So the noble Baroness tabled amendments one, two, four and six in the other place. They introduce a new defence into the Offences Act, new section 17 B and 17 C of the National Security Act 2023, specifically to cover legitimate humanitarian aid activity. This means that NGOs that have to engage with the designated body in order to carry out legitimate humanitarian activity will benefit from the same protections under the bill as do UK diplomats. The government also supported amendments three and five, which were tabled by the noble Lord Anderson.

These amendments were based on the advice of Jonathan Hall KC and also had the support of Lord Carlisle. They had a reasonable excuse. Defence in new section 17 C for obtaining, accepting or agreeing to accept information from a designated body. This means that where a person has a reasonable excuse for receiving information from a designated body, they benefit from a defence. This might include, for example, a journalist conducting an interview or a charity receiving information on the location of landmines.

The government did consider the case for exempting humanitarian NGOs from the offences, but we were advised by our operational partners that this would provide a loophole that hostile actors would seek to exploit, which in turn could make the NGOs themselves a target for infiltration. And in fact, that's the case I made to this chamber during Committee stage. I'm grateful to the Other place and the International Development Committee for their engagement on this bill and for the constructive amendments, which have helped strengthen the bill and broaden its support.

This bill represents an important new addition to our toolkit to address the growing threat from foreign powers. And as I said during Committee stage, my officials have worked very closely with operational partners in the creation of this power and the accompanying offences. They're fully supportive of the bill. It closes a gap that they have been explicit, that it provides them with vital tools, capable of addressing the sharpest threats that they are tackling. Madam

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deputy Speaker, I move the amendments. Yeah. The question is that this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agrees with the Lords in their amendment one. And I call the Shadow Minister Matt Vickers. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The government's decision to allow alterations to this bill will come as a surprise to many who followed as a surprise to many who followed it through its earlier stages. As colleagues in the Other place observed, this came as a surprise observed, this came as a surprise because throughout the interregnum, the government repeatedly informed the official opposition that it was unable to make further policy decisions. That position even extended to measures confirmed as government policy, such as passport
18:55
Matt Vickers Portrait Matt Vickers MP (Stockton West, Conservative)
-
-
seizure powers. Given that even fundamental issues relating to countries such as China could not countries such as China could not be addressed, then it surprising that we're considering further amendments to this bill now. Nevertheless, we are where we are, and today we are considering the government's amendments on humanitarian activities. I understand the intention behind them. Nobody wants genuine them. Nobody wants genuine humanitarian organisations carrying out vital work in difficult parts of the world to be caught by legislation never intended to target them.

But we also have to recognise the reality of the threats that we face as the independent reviewer of terror legislation. Terrorism legislation pointed out recently. Hostile states are willing to hide behind legitimate activity, just as they may exploit legal or journalistic cover. They may seek to exploit humanitarian cover. That is why the amendment, he suggested, was narrower than the one before us today. My concern is that the government's wording is capable of broader interpretation, particularly around conduct said to be for the purposes of carrying out humanitarian activities that risk creating uncertainty and opportunities for abuse.

What is striking that this is not the position that the government took a short time ago. During Report stage, the Minister made clear that genuine humanitarian work would not be prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom. Indeed, when rejecting amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford, she argued that the prohibited purpose test would protect legitimate conduct without creating loopholes for hostile actors. If this was the government's position, then what has changed? We would be naive to assume that this defence could never be exploited.

We have seen hostile states attempting to use charitable organisations as vehicles for influence and interference. The chief exec of the Charity Commission has warned about those risks, and Ministers themselves have highlighted concerns about Iranian backed charities operating in this country. Members have worked hard to expose those threats as we strengthen our powers to tackle hostile state activity. We must be careful not to create new opportunities for hostile actors. This bill already contains a higher threshold or safeguards, as some would call them, that create greater protections for those who support state bodies directing acts of terror.

For example, the IRGC. Then, for those who support the terrorist groups, the IRGC funds and direct. Such as Hamas and Hezbollah. This threshold, we believe, will make prosecutions far less likely as the extra hurdle and burden of intent is too high, and necessarily so. In addition, any prosecution requires the consent of the Attorney General, providing a significant safeguard against inappropriate cases. That makes me question whether these provisions are necessary. I appreciate the government's intentions, but our first responsibility is to ensure that this legislation is robust.

This bill exists because the threats posed by hostile states are real and growing. If we are giving our police, intelligence agencies and security services the powers they need to respond, we must ensure those powers are not weakened by loopholes. For that reason, we remain concerned that these amendments, however well intentioned, risk creating opportunities for hostile actors to evade the measures this bill is designed to put in place.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sarah Champion. Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise. To welcome the Lords Amendments. 1 to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

1 to. 6 and to support the progress being made regarding the implications of this Bill on the vital work of the humanitarian vital work of the humanitarian sector. I place on record my thanks to Baroness Northover, Lord Alton, to Baroness Northover, Lord Alton, Lord Anderson, Baroness Helic and Baroness D'Souza for all their work on this. In the other place, I would also like to play credit to would also like to play credit to the courageous NGOs operating on the front lines of a global crisis, who I know are following this bill carefully to understand how it may impact on their work with them in mind.

I would like to express my regret that measures covering the humanitarian sector do not go
18:59
Sarah Champion Portrait Sarah Champion MP (Rotherham, Labour)
-
-
further to provide a robust, full legal protection. As chair of the International Development Committee, International Development Committee, I wrote to the Home Secretary, the Home Office on this matter on the 17th of June, as the sector was 17th of June, as the sector was facing a terrifying landscape of legal uncertainty. Under the original drafting of the new offences, particularly around assisting or obtaining material benefit from designated body, benefit from designated body, humanitarian actors were at risk in conflict zones where state linked or designated actors hold territorial control.

Neutral humanitarian organisations are often required to engage in dangerous circumstances. This sometimes means that they must negotiate, access, pay routine local utilities or permits, and provide medical care to all sides working in accordance with international humanitarian law. Under the National Security State Threat Bill, humanitarian workers could have been prosecuted. As it stands, political reassurances alone would simply not be good enough to prevent catastrophic chilling effect happening across the sector, for example, driving banks to de-risk and forcing NGOs to pull out of regions where millions rely on UK supported aid.

And so I welcome these amendments that provide a statutory defence as a significant step forward, and thank the Minister and her Department for their full engagement on this. However, Madam Deputy Speaker, we must be honest about what a defence is and is not. A defence does not stop an organisation from being caught by the offence. It means that an age worker or an NGO could still be investigated. They could still be prosecuted. They could still find themselves in a criminal court having to shoulder the immense legal, financial and reputational burden of proving that defence.

The government can, and I urge, should go further. A true exemption takes impartial humanitarian actors out of the scope of these offences entirely. It removes the legal risk from the table, protecting organisations from the threat of proceedings altogether. So while I welcome these amendments today as a step in the right direction, I urge the government to monitor the operational reality of these measures closely and consider taking further steps beyond this bill. Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make three specific requests to the Minister that explanatory notes, prosecution or guidance, and any industry guidance issued to regulate entities provide clear, comprehensive and consistent direction on the treatment of of legitimate, impartial humanitarian activity.

Those materials should make explicit that humanitarian organisations acting in accordance with international law must be afforded appropriate protection in the application of legislation. They should provide practical guidance on how the statutory defences are intended to operate, and the factors that decision makers should take into account when assessing whether those defences are engaged. Given that humanitarian actors would otherwise be required to lie on the availability of a defence, only after an investigation or prosecution has been initiated, it is essential that the accompanying guidance minimises legal uncertainty and reduces the risk of legitimate humanitarian action being deterred or disrupted.

Clear and authoritative guidance will be critical to ensuring that investigators, prosecutors, regulators, financial institutions and other relevant actors apply the legislation in a manner that is consistent with Parliament's intention and does not inadvertently impede the delivery of impartial humanitarian assistance to ensure that these materials are both legally effective and operationally workable. Humanitarian organisations should be meaningfully consulted during their development. Those with practical experience of delivering assistance in complex and high risk environments are best placed to identify areas of ambiguity, anticipate unintended consequences, and ensure that the guidance reflects the realities of humanitarian operations.

Such consultation will help to ensure that the guidance provides a genuine legal certainty and appropriate safeguards appropriately safeguards legitimate humanitarian action. Subsequent guidance regarding on how these statutory defences are intended to operate in practice must provide a clear, comprehensive and consistent direction on the treatment of legitimate, impartial humanitarian activity. These materials must make explicit that humanitarian organisations, acting in accordance with international humanitarian law, must be afforded appropriate protection in the application of this legislation. I thank you,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker. Forster. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Liberal Democrats have supported the principle of the National Security and States Bill National Security and States Bill for some time. We know why it must pass and we know why it must pass quickly. At present, our country is quickly. At present, our country is suffering from coordinated attacks from foreign states. Their actions subvert our democracy, intimidate subvert our democracy, intimidate the public, and erode our values. The number of state threat investigations by MI5 have surged by a staggering 48% in the last year alone.

Those figures are a
19:04
Will Forster Portrait Mr Will Forster MP (Woking, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
stark reminder of the scale of the threat that we face. This is not an isolated spike, Madam Deputy Speaker. It's a front line of an expanding and evolving threat. The expanding and evolving threat. The United Kingdom has from both foreign governments, but also hostile foreign actors. Chief among hostile foreign actors. Chief among them is the increasingly emboldened Iranian regime, which is aggressively asserting itself to aggressively asserting itself to undermine our national security. Since the start of 2022, our security services have responded to 20 Iranian backed plots plots that present a direct and potentially lethal threat to British citizens and UK residents on our own soil.

Let us be clear about who Iran is targeting. They are targeting dissidents. They are targeting media organisations and journalists who have the bravery to report on that regime's violent oppression. I have spoken to constituents who have fled Iran that now live in Woking. I know they would support this bill. Critically, they are also targeting in Iran. They are targeting here the Jewish community that live in our country. We cannot allow that to happen. And I'm pleased we for once, have cross-party consensus on on an issue.

However, it has been over a year since Jonathan Hall KC first recommended these powers and contained in the bill to tackle state backed and state linked threats. This government and this Parliament has been too slow to listen to his concerns. We welcome this legislation creating the power for state backed entities to be designated under National Security Act 2023 at the Second Reading in this place. My Liberal Democrat colleagues, including my hon. Friends for the members for Cheltenham and the Member for Esher and Walton raised strong concerns that the offences in this bill might inadvertently capture the activities of humanitarian workers tackling state threats, whilst also protecting those who provide vital assistance and support to some of the planet's most vulnerable people, is not and should never be mutually exclusive.

I therefore highly commend the amendments tabled by my Liberal Democrat friend and noble colleague, Baroness Northover, as well as Lord Anderson in the other place, and they are now here in those amendments are now here in the Commons. These amendments protect those that carry out those humanitarian work. But I know colleagues have talked about that. We never intended this bill to capture. I'm pleased and relieved that the government is supporting

**** Possible New Speaker ****

those amendments. I would like to pay tribute. Before I briefly. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. For giving me. But don't you think there's something in this that we've never considered properly some of the inadvertent properly some of the inadvertent effects of the legislation that's been passed? What we have had is very useful amendments to the House very useful amendments to the House of Lords. But surely when we are drafting legislation that we are considering issues as important as this, we get this right in the this, we get this right in the first place. We should not have to rely on hastily drawn up amendments at the last stages of the bill in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

order to put it right. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I'm pleased that my intervention. I'm pleased that my colleagues in the other place have created and drafted these amendments, and the government have amendments, and the government have supported them. Earlier today, we were talking about the Immigration Act from 1971 that the Parliament Act from 1971 that the Parliament did never had an intention to protect someone who we've stripped him of his British citizenship. We want to deport him.

He's committed heinous crimes. There is a risk that because of potentially badly drafted legislation in 1971, we can't all do what we want to do now and should deport him. The intention of legislation is so important, and I'm pleased that we've managed to ensure that amendments have put some meat on the bones of the government's original legislation to protect vital humanitarian workers tackling state threats, whilst also protecting those workers is so important, and therefore I want to highly commend the amendments tabled by my colleagues in the other place.

I do want to pay tribute to them, particularly Baroness Northover, for her work on who's worked with the government on these amendments deserves our praise, but I also want to thank other colleagues in the other place as well for their work on this bill. Humanitarian workers Madam Deputy Speaker often work in extremely challenging and unstable areas. They need to know the law has their back when they're putting their life at risk to provide essential aid, they have to work with a wide variety of local groups.

Without these new legal protections, they could easily be penalised for simply doing their jobs. Sometimes this is landmine clearance or paying a fee to access a particular zone. We must ensure our laws don't criminalise aid workers. The amendments by my hon. Friend Baroness Northover, Lords amendments one, two, four and six provide a defence for those carrying out humanitarian activities. These amendments ensure that humanitarian organisations do not face significant additional barriers to to deliver their invaluable work. If this bill passes today and I very much hope it does, the government needs to work with urgency to bring forward secondary legislation to finally designate the IRGC that the Liberal Democrats and I have done have called.

So before. As the summer recess looms, it's clear that these regulations must be made before the House rises on the 16th of July. Please can the Minister, when she

**** Possible New Speaker ****

winds up, give me and the House that reassurance? Thank you, speaker. Mr. Stewart. Normally when you call, you're under a time limit, but now you've got over an hour. Mark Stewart.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mark Stewart. And thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. The whip is making a strange gesture at me, which suggests that maybe I don't have 60 minutes to contribute, and I do think it'll be a reassurance to her and to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I only intend to speak very briefly on this bill. Now, I did contribute at each stage when it was coming through the House last time, stage two, Second Reading, and then consideration of the amendments and Third Reading.

And I was convinced by the government's argument that an exemption already existed within the bill as drafted, the NGOs could take advantage of that. Humanitarian organisations
19:11
Mark Sewards Portrait Mark Sewards MP (Leeds South West and Morley, Labour)
-
-
could take advantage of. So I came to the House today, keen to listen to the Minister explain the to the Minister explain the reasoning behind why the government wants to accept these amendments, and I also wanted to hear the and I also wanted to hear the reasoning from my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham, who I know has contributed between each stage has contributed between each stage of this bill and had thoughts on why that exemption wasn't enough, and having listened to the and having listened to the reasoning, I am convinced of the need to accept these amendments today.

It absolutely makes sense, but I do have some thoughts and some follow up questions for the Minister that I'll go through now. So on the first two amendments, amendments one and two, that are all about, again, creating exemptions for humanitarian support, NGOs and the like. And amendments one and two directly affect the part of the bill that's all about assisting designated threats, now, assisting a designated state threat should bring with it grave consequences. But at the same time, we absolutely shouldn't do anything that risks legitimate NGOs stopping their engagement, stopping their involvement, stopping their important work in some of the most difficult regions in the world.

It's clear that there needs to be space for them to operate. But, but but we know that nefarious state actors will seek to exploit any loophole, any advantage they can to inflict harm on this country. So on amendments one and two, I do want to ask the Minister specifically if they think if she thinks that the amendment is slightly too loose, or if she's confident that designated state threats could not take advantage of the amendments, as they are now worded so that they can continue to carry out their actions through other bodies? That's the specific question I have for the Minister on that one.

On amendment 3 to 6, I have fewer concerns. It's absolutely right that there should be an exemption for humanitarian bodies to share information with designated state threats when that information is related to, say, the clearance of a minefield, that absolutely makes sense. And of course, that exemption should exist. So I have fewer concerns about that. I would be very grateful to the Minister if she could answer my first point, though. The final thing I will say, Madam Deputy Speaker, and one of the reasons why I am so keen both to accept the amendments today and see this bill go through its final stage and receive royal assent, is that it's absolutely essential that we designate the IRGC as the threat that they are to this country.

I am under no illusions about government policy. No announcement is going to be made at the despatch box today, and rightly so. But I wanted to take this final opportunity to spell out that the IRGC is a threat to the British Jewish community in the UK, and if we don't take action to prescribe them now, or in this case, designate them now, we are risking the safety of our fellow citizens. So let's accept these amendments, get this bill passed and protect our communities.
19:14
Angela Eagle Portrait Dame Angela Eagle MP (Wallasey, Labour)
-
-
Minister, to wind up, as I said, an hour and 15 minutes is yours, Minister. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. With the leave of the House, I am grateful for the contributions of. All right, honourable and hon. All right, honourable and hon. Members today. I think that the hon. Member for Stockton West was worried that somehow we we had changed that changed the bill so that it would make it less effective. The hon. Member for Rotherham still made the case for having an exemption rather than a defence for humanitarian assistance.

And again, I. I just wanted to confirm that in our view, the bill, as originally written would have excluded humanitarian assistance completely because the primary purpose rule. But we felt that there was some merit in the argument about the chilling effect of not having a defence. And that is why, in the other place, we accepted the amendments that we're discussing today. But that's belt and braces. And so nothing's changed. We are trying to accommodate potentially legitimate worries and chilling effects that might have an effect on the operational effectiveness of some NGOs, even though the law itself

**** Possible New Speaker ****

would not have caught them. So I hope. I'm very grateful for my right hon. Friend for giving way. I think if the Minister is able to give some assurance that within the guidance, we'll be able to see that guidance, we'll be able to see that in black and white so that the defence is laid out for all to see.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

defence is laid out for all to see. Yes. I mean, if she knows her pepper and heart, I've just put it on the record in this House. But on the record in this House. But obviously I'll take a close look at the guidance as it's developed. The hon. Member for Woking, I think, made a powerful speech, particularly about the threats and the rising level of threats that we are facing, which is why this bill needs to be on the statute book as quickly as possible.

And the honourable and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West, asked about the designated threats defence. And again, the answer is the same. It's the chilling effect, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we want to try to be much more certain about so that it doesn't affect the operational. I'm happy to give away. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for giving way. Just to raise the point, though, from the Member for Leeds though, from the Member for Leeds South West and Morley, it's clear to see that this new piece of legislation could allow hostile legislation could allow hostile states to set up shell charities or hide behind humanitarian cover in hide behind humanitarian cover in purely operational wording. Does the British state have the ability to actually identify if that's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

happening and stops with. I don't want us to go into very specific examples, but I can assure him that we keep a very close eye on proxy actors and state actors by proxy and what they're doing in our country. And we believe that designation, which is what this quite narrow bill before us today will allow us to do, will make it much clearer that we know what they are doing. It will make for a harder operating environment for those who wish us ill, who are directed by state actors.

And that is what this legislation is intended to do. So against a backdrop of growing threat from foreign states and their proxies, including through espionage, interference, sabotage, threats to life, this bill will strengthen the ability to disrupt hostile intelligence services and their proxies by adapting counter-terrorism tools to tackle state based security threats in the UK, it creates a new power for the Secretary of State to designate organisations involved in foreign power threat activity, backed up by new criminal offences of supporting, assisting or obtaining benefits from designated bodies.

I know there's been some concern, both in this House and in the other place, regarding potential unintended consequences, but I would like to reassure the House that the Bill was never intended to, and does not criminalise genuine humanitarian activity by NGOs or journalists or other legitimate activities. We've listened to the arguments, and it's right to put that matter beyond doubt. These amendments do that. We've worked closely with operational partners, and I'm satisfied that these narrow amendments do not weaken the bill.

This bill will enable proxy organisations to be treated in practice, like foreign intelligence services, making it easier to prosecute those acting on their behalf. Overall, this manifesto commitment will strengthen the overall national security framework so that the UK becomes a more difficult operating environment for foreign intelligence services and state proxies. And with that statement, Madam Speaker, Deputy Speaker, I commend these amendments to the House today.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House agrees with the Lords in their amendment one, as many of their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment one, as many of their opinions say. I. I of the contrary, no. Know. The The question The question is, as on the order papers, may that opinion say I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I. Know that Imogen Walker and Mark Ferguson and Tellers for the noes Ferguson and Tellers for the noes are David Simmonds and Andrew
19:22
19:34
Mary Creagh Portrait Mary Creagh MP (Coventry East, Labour)
-
-
Very much indeed. >> Very much indeed. >> Madam Deputy Speaker, it's a pleasure to be here on this hot and. >> Sultry evening. And despite.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Our late nights or early mornings, whatever we decided to do mornings, whatever we decided to do in order to get over the football, I hope I can entertain the house I hope I can entertain the house with this vital piece of new legislation. I beg to move that the environmental permitting waste, environmental permitting waste, controlling or transporting and relevant functions of Primary authorities. Amendment England authorities. Amendment England Regulations 2026, a draft of which was laid before this House on the 20th of May 2026, be approved.

I'd like to acknowledge the important work of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in their review of this Statutory Instrument. Their scrutiny is a vital part of our legislative process, ensuring that the policy intentions behind our secondary legislation are clear and well founded. As members across the House will know from their inboxes and will have seen from themselves, waste crime blights our constituencies. Criminals who dump waste illegally in our streets, our fields and our woodlands show contempt for our communities and for us, creating eyesores that damage our environment.

In 1989, under the Control of Pollution Brackets Amendment Act, a light touch registration system was set up for those who transport and deal in waste. It has remained pretty much untouched since then, and as a result it has been exploited by waste criminals, leaving the public with a huge clean up bill. Enforcement, sadly, is only reactive. This is a system that is not fit for purpose, with anyone or anything. A dead dog called Oscar fish, or even a cow called bovine.

Being able to register on the system. This stops today. This Labour government is scrapping the broken waste system that the Conservatives left behind. Today we are introducing stricter checks and requirements, closing the loopholes long exploited by illegal operators, and the objective of this government's Waste Crime Action Plan, published in March, is to stop waste crime at its source and to bring pride back to our communities. We are cracking down on the waste criminals dragging the regime into the modern age and improving waste traceability.

These regulations bring those in England who control and transport waste within the scope of the 2016 Environmental Permitting Regulations. They repeal the current carriers, brokers and dealers registration, which is now over, finished, kaput and no more. These regulations introduce tougher checks for waste controllers and transporters. Permitting will now be required for those who control and transport waste, bringing the system in line with site based waste activities. Those who apply for permits will undergo strict background checks, including tax checks, identity checks and criminal records checks.

They will need to demonstrate that they are technically competent to do the job. The Environment Agency will responsible for managing applications for and ensuring custom. The fees introduced for permits will also mean that the Environment Agency will be effectively resourced for its

**** Possible New Speaker ****

compliance work. I will. Thank you very much for giving way. My constituents in Rushcliffe way. My constituents in Rushcliffe have experienced the consequences of waste crime very recently. In April, there was a fire at the April, there was a fire at the Haven Industrial Estate. Eight years after a previous fire. And this particular fire raged for this particular fire raged for seven days and caused significant health impacts for the local community. Would my hon. Friend community. Would my hon.

Friend maybe go further and think about how the different agencies with responsibility when it comes to waste, should be working more effectively together? Because although the Environment Agency was involved with this particular incident, it also thought responsibility lay with the county council and other agencies. And I really think they need to all come together so that there is proper accountability for.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My hon. Friend for his intervention. He is absolutely right that there is sometimes a slight pass the parcel. The system slight pass the parcel. The system that we inherited was a bit of a pass. The parcel. Whose? The landowner. Who's the local landowner. Who's the local authority. What's the size of the dump? What's the size? Is it permitted? Is it not? And what that permitted? Is it not? And what that means is that waste criminals can fall between the cracks.

And what it means is that there is effectively impunity. But as I've described with a paper based. Well, we've introduced a digital waste system. But the issue with this is that you can only do enforcement under the current system reactively. You cannot do it proactively. And so this issue about introducing identity checks, do these people actually exist or is it a dog or a cow? Do they have a criminal record? Are they fit and competent people to actually manage the waste? All of these things really matter.

These are dangerous materials, as he has just described, and I'm afraid piling them high, not moving them on. And then, you know, sadly, a fire, whether deliberate or accidental, comes along and the profits are privatised and the costs and social and environmental consequences are socialised in all of these environmental crimes,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

whether that's dumping or burning. I will. Give you a my previous role as Lancashire's Police and Crime Commissioner. The often connection between sites such as this and organised crime gangs was well organised crime gangs was well documented and as the hon. Member just just outlined, this is often multi multi-agency, but it's multi multi-agency, but it's important we don't forget the role of the police within that as well, who quite often even simply have to who quite often even simply have to escort other agencies to these sites to protect them from the people who are operating them.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I thank you for that intervention. He makes a very good point, because the idea that we can send Environment Agency officials send Environment Agency officials along to deal with what, in some cases are serious crime groups is simply for the birds. And people say, oh, well, there's not the cushions, the penalties are too the cushions, the penalties are too light. Often this is just one part of a multifaceted criminal enterprise. It's just another wing of the business empire. And so of the business empire.

And so actually, we need to get better at looking upstream, looking at the tax checks, looking at the web of companies behind it and, and basically doing the Al Capone method and actually getting them on tax evasion, you know, and prosecuting that part through the Proceeds of Crime Act. But he's but there's a wider point here, which is we cannot expect council officials who have been, you know, denuded and stripped of funds over the last 14 years to suddenly become waste crime enforcers.

Often there may be only 1 or 2 trading standards and compliance officers in post in a in a local council. And this is a sort of sophisticated crime that requires a lot of multi-agency working together. And we are now doing that. And we do have someone from the National Police Chiefs Council who is tasked with that work. And we're doing a review of particularly local authority competence in this area.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Now, I'll give way to my friend. Mr. Giving Way, as I'm sure she's aware and touching on the she's aware and touching on the point that she's just made about organised crime. Modern slavery can be a real issue within the waste crime sector, and we've had some powerful debates on this in this chamber in the past. I was looking at the Waste Crime Action Plan and the fact that people will be held to account in the giving, community service and so on.

I'm reassured by service and so on. I'm reassured by what she says that she will be trying to reach further up the chain, because often these people that are being caught in the act will be the ones that are being exploited or forced to, to carry out such activities. Does she agree

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with me that we do need to go further up the chain? Well. I agree we what I would say to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I agree we what I would say to my hon. Friend is that we need to take action at every level. So for the the person who does a job for their friend on the weekend, transporting a little half a skip of old kitchen waste and then of old kitchen waste and then suddenly ends up on a layby in a farmer's field or blocking a lane. Those people are now going to face Those people are now going to face up to nine penalty points on their licence to make them think twice before they do a job for their friends.

So they may be sort of, you know, on the periphery of some of this criminality, but we have to stop that and we have to look right the way along the chain. And anecdotally, what I often hear is that when those sort of small time crooks are apprehended, they're only too pleased to pay the fixed penalty notices for the council, only too pleased to be led away with it, because often they can be the front end of what is a much, much larger, serious and organised crime group.

So what what what does this all mean? So the Environment Agency is finally going to be effectively resourced for this compliance work. And the move to permitting means the Environment Agency can suspend and ultimately revoke permits where conditions are breached. They can also prosecute, and those found guilty will face fines or up to five years imprisonment. These regulations will mean the public should have more trust in the people they hand their waste to. We are requiring waste controllers and transporters to include their permit number on advertising, whether this is a will.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for giving way, and I very much support the proposals that are being outlined. proposals that are being outlined. One of the groups of people most impacted by waste crime is farmers, and I have a farm in my constituency where more than 200 bales of DIY waste was dumped on the land at an estimated cost of a the land at an estimated cost of a quarter of £1 million to remove. And I and I welcome very much the discussion around fines.

Would the discussion around fines. Would the Minister agree that we need to be looking at whether those fines can go towards the cost of the clear up

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to a greater extent, and actually match the scale of the crimes that are being committed? He's absolutely right. And what

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He's absolutely right. And what we are doing, we are acutely conscious of the issue that farmers conscious of the issue that farmers face in this area. There are some really innovative there's really innovative work going on in this in innovative work going on in this in this area with drones. And I did meet one tractor who's told me that meet one tractor who's told me that one farmer who told me that his neighbour turned up with a tractor to block the lane of the.

As the criminals were trying to make their exit. So they kind of caught them in a trap and then called the police. So that was a very happy outcome in Hertfordshire. But of course we can't we can't have eyes on the ground in every field and every back lane. So we are working with insurers to see what we can do so that this type of crime is properly covered under farmers business insurance as well. These regulations will mean the public should have more trust in the people they hand their waste to.

So you can be you'll you'll be able to look up these operators and ensure that they have a valid permit. This reform is one of a number outlined in the Waste Crime Action Plan, and it's nothing new, Madam Deputy Speaker, because it was first announced eight years ago by the party opposite in the 2018 Resource and Waste strategy it was consulted on back in 2022, and the government gave its response in 2023. It is this government that has delivered it.

We have introduced digital waste tracking, replacing outdated paper based methods for monitoring waste movements, and we will be tightening the waste permit exemption system by getting rid of exemptions abused by those dealing with end of life vehicles, tyres and scrap metal. And we will be enabling the Environment Agency to tighten up on exemptions abused in other parts of the waste sector, including the use of waste in construction, preparatory treatments, the treatment of waste wood, manual treatment, burning of vegetation at the place of production, storage in containers and storage in a secure place.

Taken together, this strengthens the regulatory framework and the Environment Agency's ability to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

prevent, detect and tackle the waste criminals. I will. I thank you, Mr.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank you, Mr. She's being very generous in taking interventions. One of the things that I came across in my previous role, but also in meeting people in the industry, in the Fylde constituencies that often the Fylde constituencies that often the Environment Agency turns up and regularly visits those businesses that are already abiding by the law that are already abiding by the law and keeping good records, because those records are easy to inspect and the companies are too easy to deal with and often issue fines, etc.

for small owners. Whilst the actual criminal operators who are flagrantly breaking the law often evade any inspections whatsoever because they're difficult to deal with and often aggressive. And actually the regulatory framework is important. But that culture of going after those who are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

flagrantly breaking the law, rather than just checking people's well. Well, under this system,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, under this system, checking the paperwork is all they can do. So that's the problem. And the other thing is the Environment the other thing is the Environment Agency is not funded by legitimate operators under the managing public money rules, to actually go out and money rules, to actually go out and seek criminals out. And we did consult on that during digital waste tracking. There's an issue waste tracking. There's an issue with actually saying to the legitimate operators, oh, give us another, we'll add another tenner onto your licence so we can go after the criminals.

That's not allowed under Treasury rules. So there is this kind of chicken and egg. I mean I've heard those anecdotes as well. But the bottom line is if you're controlling or transporting waste, you should be registered. The registration should be clear for all to see, and you ought to be able to check you are a true person on the system and that you have nothing in your background that would make us hesitate about where whether or not to issue that licence to you. I just want to come back on the multi-agency response.

So we do have the action plan. We're working with the Environment Agency, who are the national lead for Waste Crime alongside. And these are the other agencies HMRC. So going after the tax, the Home Office going after the issue of vulnerable workers and exploitation police forces locally, local authorities and doing coordinated cross-government action on this. So we are going to monitor the effectiveness and improve metrics so that we get this much better multi-agency waste crime response. I give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For giving way in further to the point for my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde, the Minister was just talking about metrics. And because you just say a little more in terms you just say a little more in terms of organised crime, in assessing the effectiveness of these changes,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the effectiveness of these changes, what are the key metrics that she would apply in terms of prosecutions relating to organised crime? Well, I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I. Think I think it's he's tempting me, but I think it's a bit too early to say. What often happens is that these prosecutions take a long time to piece together the company may we've all seen the pattern of the company goes bust. It may owe HMRC a vast amount of money, sometimes in the tens of millions of pounds. So I don't want to get into like one, three, five, seven. I don't want to be setting out those targets.

And I don't think we're at a stage to talk about that. But what I would say and what I can tell the House and reassure the House is that in terms of the risk appetite of granting permits to people, that may be questionable, my risk appetite is very high, and I'm very happy to be taken to court by people who think that they may have been denied a waste permit unjustly, and so far there have been no cases against us or the Environment Agency in terms of refusing a licence.

So we're we're a tightening up the the system all the way along it. But I don't want to get into metrics. We know the sites where we have problems. There are new ones. You know, we see new ones happening. And the thing is to stop the proliferation of these sites, many of which are simply illegal sites, they're not permitted in any way, shape or form.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And that is where our difficulty comes in. I will briefly. Thank you very much. I just want

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much. I just want to go back to the case that I mentioned earlier. Just for her reference, there will be a two and a half month delay between the Environment Agency wanting to take action and managing to get the court order, which will prevent the court order, which will prevent the individual from getting access to the site where there was a second illegal fire within eight years. So can I just put on her radar the importance of sorting out the courts so that immediate action can be taken when problems are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

identified. Responsible for many things from forests, international biodiversity, forests, international biodiversity, peat and trees. But I'm afraid the courts are slightly outwith my jurisdiction. But I will I will pass that on. And of course, we are working with our colleagues on the working with our colleagues on the issues around centre sentencing, just on the metrics the EA operates, as he knows, as a former as he knows, as a former environment secretary, a risk based, intelligence led approach that directs the greatest effort towards the highest harm, illegal operators.

So I would just say that that is, you know, giving them strengthening this regulatory framework and their ability. Alongside these reforms, we are providing those responsible in the Joint Unit for Waste Crime who tackle this waste crime with the tools they need to stamp it out. And I was very disappointed to read the Times's leader leader today on fly tipping. I thought it was a little unfair. We have this government has actually doubled the Environment Agency's waste crime enforcement Budget by committing an additional £45 million over the next three financial years.

So the Budget in 2020 425, I believe was £10 million. We've added 5 million on this year, and then it's going to be an extra 15. So, you know, I think taking it and essentially doubling it means more boots on the ground, more drones in the air to expand enforcement activities and tracking down those waste criminals. Since March, we have had, I believe, 18 waste crime prosecutions. And I want to acknowledge the strength of support in the waste, the legitimate waste industry for this reform and their patients over the years as as it has been developed under his on his watch and various other previous government watches, these regulations are a significant change.

They level the playing field for all operators. They will protect communities and the environment from waste criminals. And as I said, as part of our plan to stop waste crime, this is a really important part of it. Let me just conclude by saying these regulations also bring the environment ActionScript 2021 within the scope of the primary authority scheme by adding it to schedule three of the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act. For those who may be unfamiliar with it, the Primary Authority Scheme allows businesses with operations in more than one area to work with a single local authority that provides consistent, tailored advice on meeting their legal obligations.

This can cover areas such as environmental health, trading standards and fire safety, extending the scheme to include the Environment Act 2021 is important because it will enable primary authorities to support retailers in understanding and meeting their responsibilities under the forthcoming Deposit Return Scheme launching next year, helping to ensure a more consistent and effective approach across the country. I do, Madam Deputy Speaker, recommend this Statutory Instrument

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to the House. The question is, as on the Order Brandreth.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Brandreth. Here, here. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. We recognise that the current system for regulating those who transport and control waste needs to be updated to ensure the waste sector has a regulatory framework that delivers the safe and responsible management of waste and reduces opportunities for criminal reduces opportunities for criminal activity without being unduly burdensome to the businesses in the sector. The impact of waste crime are significant, causing damage to our environment and natural habitats, imposing a cost to the taxpayer of nearly £1 billion per year and undercuts legitimate businesses, as well as undermining public confidence.

I am pleased that the government is attempting to tackle it at source through this s I. However, I do have some concerns as to how it will be implemented and function, which I'll address shortly before I come to that. Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to note the responses to the consultation were broadly
19:55
Aphra Brandreth Portrait Aphra Brandreth MP (Chester South and Eddisbury, Conservative)
-
-
supportive of a proposal to move from registration to permitting, as from registration to permitting, as this C outlines, with 73% of respondents agreeing that the current CBD regime should be brought under environmental brought under environmental permitting regulations. The concept of proportionate regulation where of proportionate regulation where higher risk activities receive greater scrutiny, while genuinely low risk operators can benefit from exemptions, is one that makes sense and we would support in principle. However, recognising the need for reform does not mean burdening legitimate businesses with ever increasing costs.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I do want to raise some concerns with the Minister today in a constructive manner, in the hope that the Minister can reassure the House that they have struck the right balance between stronger regulation and the burdens being placed on businesses that are already under considerable pressure as a result of the costs and consequences of other policies brought forward by this government over the appraisal period, businesses will face almost £187 million in permit fees, more than 50 million in familiarisation costs, significant application and audit costs, and well over £190 million in additional training and technical competence requirements.

The government is banking on the fact that these costs, which are very significant, will be outweighed by the benefits through reductions in waste crime and by creating a fairer marketplace for legitimate operators. However, as the Minister will know, the impact assessment showed an overall negative net present value from this policy of £340 million over the appraisal period. That is substantial, even given the potential for a conservative estimate of reduced waste crime and other potential non-monetized benefits and wider social benefits, there is significant uncertainty.

So in the current economic climate, can the Minister reassure us that there will be appropriate monitoring and evaluation to ensure that these significant costs for businesses do not escalate further, and to check that the benefits are fully realised? In particular, how will the government monitor the cumulative impact of these new requirements on smaller operators? We all want to drive criminals out of the sector, but we must ensure that we do not inadvertently make life disproportionately harder for responsible businesses. Madam Deputy Speaker, businesses are already trying to deal with the consequences of this government's policies, from the jobs tax to increased costs to ever more burdensome regulations.

With this backdrop, it is entirely reasonable to ask whether businesses have been given sufficient time, support and clarity to prepare for these significant changes to the waste sector. Can the Minister provide further detail on the guidance that DEFRA and the Environment Agency intend to publish ahead of commencement, and what assurances can the Minister give about the resources in place so that any permit applications will be responded to and actioned promptly? Madam Deputy Speaker, while we welcome the intention to strengthen enforcement, what confidence can the Minister give the House that enforcement activity will be genuinely targeted at rogue operators, rather than becoming an additional bureaucratic burden on compliant firms? Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, the government intends to evaluate these reforms through the wider Resources and Waste Policy Programme, with reporting due in 2029.

Given the scale of these changes and the costs involved, will the Minister commit to providing Parliament with earlier updates on implementation, compliance costs and whether the anticipated reductions in waste crime are actually being achieved? Given the government's familiarity with a U-turn, we may need to revisit this see sooner rather than later if it is failing to work for the sector. Madam Deputy Speaker, if this C is implemented well, it should protect the environment while enabling responsible businesses to thrive. We support the objective of modernising an outdated regime and strengthening action against waste crime.

But we also believe Ministers must recognise the cumulative pressures facing businesses and ensure that implementation is carefully managed. It is in that constructive spirit that we will continue to scrutinise the implementation of these regulations, holding the government to account to ensure that these reforms deliver the environmental benefits. Ministers promise, without imposing unnecessary burdens on the businesses that are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

working hard to comply with the law. Jon Trickett can I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Jon Trickett can I. Welcome the robustness and energy which the Minister has brought to her task? It's very, brought to her task? It's very, very welcome. And of course, the shadow Minister inevitably wants to revert to some kind of light touch. revert to some kind of light touch. But frankly, what we need to do is to make sure that communities that we represent are adequately protected, if necessary, by criminal action. As the Minister envisages. Let me just then describe briefly the small village
20:00
Jon Trickett Portrait Jon Trickett MP (Normanton and Hemsworth, Labour)
-
-
of Southampton, my constituency, which, like many of the places in Britain, consists of hard working Britain, consists of hard working people, fair minded, play by the rules and expect to be able to live rules and expect to be able to live a satisfactory life. Many of them have saved hard to be able to buy it, to borrow a mortgage and buy a it, to borrow a mortgage and buy a house, or to rent one. This is a peaceful community made up of law abiding, fair minded people.

But abiding, fair minded people. But close by there is what's called the ash pit, which many, many years ago was given permission under license to do some recycling there in order to eventually return it back to arable land. Now, when those people who live there bought their houses or moved in, they had more than a reasonable expectation that that work would be finished within a ten year period. It's now running up to 17 years, and it still hasn't been satisfactorily resolved, and I think that is a great misfortune.

Let me just so I will come to the Environment Agency in a minute. But let me just quickly describe what has been happening at the so-called ash pit, because various authorities, including the appeal inspector for the the Planning Inspectorate, the E A and other agencies, the Council of all indicated that what's happened on that site is completely unacceptable. Noxious materials that have been placed in there. The site was meant to have 5000 tonnes to be stored at the facility, 5000 tonnes.

It's quite a lot, as you might imagine, but it was discovered that actually there was almost 250 000 tonnes on the site and much of it is of material which is not inert, it's noxious, and it is a problem. Not only that, but because of the scale of what's being done there. When whenever it rains, what happens is water which is polluted and quite often quite seriously dangerous, then runs into the watercourses and into the local streams like Frickley Beck.

Dust and waste is everywhere and then escapes from the site whenever there's even a small breeze. And let me come to putrefaction, which I'm sure we don't want to think about. But briefly, the level of putrefaction crucifixion, if I can say it on that site, is quite extraordinary. And what it creates is an A well, I'll call it an odour. If in Yorkshire we probably say a horrible stink and it can spread in large distances. So we have had situations where several hundred houses have been affected by the horrible smell.

I was witnessing to it the other day. When it rains, it's awful. When the wind blows, it's terrible. And when the when it's hot and the wind is blowing, it really is really, really horrible. The other day I spoke to a gentleman, a long term resident in Southampton. He's coming to his birthday with a zero at the end of it, so it's an important one. 30 odd members of his family he wanted to bring to sit in the garden in the projected heat wave, which was due to come, only to say in the end they couldn't do it because the effect of what had been left on the site was so horrible that you couldn't enjoy his birthday.

And I think lots of people tell me they can't have the windows open in winter. In summer they can't have the doors open to let a bit of fresh air in because of the problems which created by that site of site, which is five times larger than it was intended to be. And it's really not to seven years beyond the original. The original approval, the original licence. Now, I spent a long time on this because those people are decent people. I'm sure we all do the same for any community that comes to us.

Large numbers of people have been involved and quickly we latched on to the Environment Agency. And I have to say, first of all, that the officers and work for the Environment Agency are genuine, hard working, knowledgeable people who understand the impact of a site such as this. They told me this is probably the worst site in the whole of the North of England, although there are other sites as well which are competing for that that award. But let's put that to one side for a minute.

The thing which became clear fairly quickly was that the Environment Agency was understaffed, under-resourced and lacked the powers to begin the process of enforcement. And that left me worried because people pay their tax, they pay the rate, the council tax as it nowadays, and so on and so forth. And yet there were we were able to get action. Eventually we persuaded the Environment Agency enforcement people to begin to take action. The site was then refused to permission to continue.

But what happened was they simply abandoned the site or appear to have abandoned the site. So no work has been done there for some time. The area is putrid, and it's grossly unfair that people who live decent lives should be left in a situation where they are now. It seems to me it seemed to me, and it's now been confirmed by the Minister, and I welcome her comments that the idea of a light touch regulation, which was how it was first envisaged by the government of the party opposite, simply isn't working to allow the EA to take enforcement action, which is necessary when such a such activities of this are taking place, I.

It's not the only one obviously in the country, but I think it's worth raising as a case to justify what's being done. I noticed that the. That Defra said that they. The powers which existed were reactive rather than preventative. But it's too late when you're reacting. You need to be there at the beginning in order to prevent some of these things taking place. And so the idea of much more proactive operation by the EA will be very welcome throughout the country.

I'm quite sure about that. Now, the idea that these activities should be held, dealt with by a light touch, and the shadow Minister saying, well, we've got to be careful. We don't want to overregulate these things will create a bitter laugh in the communities which I represent and all over the country who are suffering the same kind of problems. We want action. We don't want action, which is when it is inappropriate. Obviously we don't, but in so many cases it is appropriate and action must be taken.

That's why I welcome the decision to proceed. Now, I just want to make two final points. The first is when a licence is being granted under the new procedure, if things begin to go wrong and an operator has been licensed, is it possible? Does the Minister envisage that the EA can then intervene and remove the licence? If, if if a satisfactory resolution isn't arrived, it doesn't arise because being preventative does not always work. It's quite clear there will be some problems which will emerge.

And so and my second point is this. And it was raised to me the other week on last Monday by the planning inspector, because we were having a planning appeal on this site, and the planning inspector went way beyond his brief. And he said to me, Will you ask the government? And he he thought I was the government. Well, of course I remember the governing party. What are they going to do about those operators who deliberately take millions of pounds of profit from a site and then abandon it at the last minute, declare themselves as in liquidation? And then what happens then is either we get this putrefaction, putrefaction, which I've just described, or else the taxpayer has to pick up the bill.

And that is happening all over the country now. Possibly the planning inspector abused his position, but I felt slightly intimidated. But I said there was a debate today and I said, I will put this question to the Minister. How does she envisage a situation like that where we'll call them a cowboy operator has taken millions of pounds in profits, left to stay the place in a state and then got into liquidation, or even gone to live abroad, as has been reported to me, in order to avoid the taxpayer picking up the funds for all this.

These are quite serious matters. But let me just finish with this point. Those people that I've described will welcome today's debate and today's action. What they want to see next is, is really action across the country. And in my patch too, we want to see some progress so that this site fails to continue to be the kind of horrible mess which it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

currently is. Democrat spokesperson Sarah madam Deputy. Speaker. I'd like. To thank the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To thank the. Minister for setting out this instrument and the Liberal Democrat support. This s I. For too long, support. This s I. For too long, the system regulating who can transport and manage our waste has relied on a simple registration scheme, unable to identify scarcely any distinction between reputable any distinction between reputable operators and rogue ones. This simply cannot continue replacing carrier broker and dealer registration with an appropriate and robust permitting regime is the right call.

Distinguishing waste controlling waste transporting and waste controlling transporting activities means regulation can finally be risk based rather than a one size fits all free for all, giving the Environment Agency the power to check before granting a permit rather than after damage is
20:10
Sarah Dyke Portrait Sarah Dyke MP (Glastonbury and Somerton, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
done, is exactly what the Liberal Democrats have long called for. Therefore, we back this instrument. But supporting it doesn't mean we will accept it as a job done, because permitting who is allowed to move waste does nothing for what to move waste does nothing for what happens when criminals move it anyway. Madam Deputy Speaker, earlier this year, a space outside earlier this year, a space outside the red brick building, alongside a key gateway into Glastonbury was blighted by a mountain of fly tipped waste.

No single body was able to take responsibility or wanted to take responsibility for its clean up, so local residents stepped in and raised a £1,500 towards the clearing of this eyesore. And after a full day of volunteers shifting rubble by hand and a local firm sending a biohazard specialist to safely handle and remove what had been dumped there, it was finally cleared. Now, although this is a great example of people power coming together to solve a problem that could not be done otherwise, and it should never have been necessary for local people to be forced into having to intervene.

So this is what enforcement failure actually looks like on the ground. It's not an abstract statistic, but ordinary people left to clean up after the criminals simply because nobody else would. And the scale of the problem stretches far beyond Glastonbury. In Somerset alone, council figures show that 3000 fly tipping incidents were reported just last year, and across England there were 1.26 million reported incidents. However, just 1377 of those initiated prosecutions. The average fine was a meagre £539, while fewer than 0.2% of incidents ever saw the inside of a courtroom.

Now this is just the start of the problem. A BBC investigation at the end of last year identified 517 active illegal waste dumps across England. 1111 of them are what investigators call super sites. The largest is in Northwich, which holds an estimated 280 000 tons of illegally dumped waste. Now, this is not fly tipping, it's industrial scale organised crime and it's happening in plain view now. Just 13 custodial sentences were handed down for fly tipping offences in England last year, while a massive 35% of waste crime now attribute is attributed to organised criminal gangs.

So much so that the former chief executive of the Environment Agency called waste crime the new narcotics. So while this C fixes the front door, it's silent on who actually brings who it actually brings to justice. And it must be the criminals committing the serious waste crime. A permit regime does not have. It does have the ability to stop a rogue operator registering. But it's never going to stop a criminal gang that wasn't ever going to register in the first place.

And why would they, when they are currently making their millions in the knowledge that there is ever any fear of being caught? So can the Minister answer what assessment has been made of how this new permitting framework will actually improve detection and enforcement against the organised gangs already operating illegally outside any system? The government could permit them into? Now, the Liberal Democrats have set out consistently what genuine reform looks like, not more law stuck on the statute book, while the powers to fine seize vehicles and imprison for up to five years already exist and they are barely used.

So what is required is proper resourcing and coordination to actually use them. That is why we call on the government to go further. First, raise each fixed penalty notice for fly tipping to £2,500. So the penalty finally better reflects the profit being made. Second, the National Crime Agency or the forthcoming National Police Service must be given clear and unambiguous responsibility for investigating serious organised waste crime. There must be no more gaps in co-ordination between local police, the Environment Agency and our hard stretched local authorities.

Third, we must introduce rewards of more than £5,000 for information leading to the successful prosecution of the criminal gangs behind sites like that of Northwich. And fourth, we must establish a single national reporting route for rural and waste crime. One number one point of contact with an automatic triage to the correct enforcement body because the system, as it stands right now, gives the farmer, let's say, a farmer in Somerset who finds waste dumps on their land, no clear direction whether to call the council, the unitary Council or the Environment Agency, or indeed the police.

Now, this confusion is actively suppressing reporting, and with it comes the lack of enforcement. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, this I is a genuine and welcome step and risk based permitting. Permitting is well overdue. So the Liberal Democrats will vote for it today. But my constituents in Glastonbury and Somerton and rural communities, the length and breadth of the country, need to know that criminals are not able to act with impunity, illegally dumping waste across the country. So I hope the Minister will confirm that today's reform marks the start of that reckoning and not the conclusion of it.

Thank

**** Possible New Speaker ****

thank. You. Madam Deputy Speaker. And. Can I thank the Minister for her.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I thank the Minister for her. Opening remarks. This is a well overdue. And welcome attempt to kerb. What is a problem that's blighting a number of communities and. And I would just like to acknowledge the the just like to acknowledge the the comments from my my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth. I worry slightly that we're at risk of entering into some sort of terrible British waste tip competition, but I definitely would challenge him that the one that I'm experiencing in my constituency of Carlisle would probably rival the one that that he described.

No one particularly relishes living next to a landfill site. However, my constituents in the village of Rushcliffe, a couple of miles to
20:17
Julie Minns Portrait Ms Julie Minns MP (Carlisle, Labour)
-
-
the north of Carlisle, have done so largely without issue for for decades. And I'm particularly glad decades. And I'm particularly glad that the Shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Epping Forest, is in his Member for Epping Forest, is in his place because he will be able to testify to the fact that by the odd testify to the fact that by the odd incident over those four decades, having been the member that represented Rockcliffe before his moved to Epping Forest, he will moved to Epping Forest, he will know that that the Hespenh would site was largely compliant.

However, that changed last year when the site was sold and in less than 12 months, the new operator, Cilicia, has inertial order, turned a once compliant site into a towering mountain of fetid and quite probably non-compliant waste. Debris from the mountain has been blown onto the adjacent M6 motorway. The heap dominates the skyline. The liquid runoff trickles into a beck that runs through adjacent farmland. And the smell the smell is stomach churning and can be smelt on the other side of the city, over ten miles away.

If I may, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will just read some of the comments that the villagers of Rushcliffe made in response to the BBC. When they were asked about it a couple of months ago. One said that the odour was so dreadful he could almost taste it. He couldn't get away with it, even with the window shut. It woke him up at 1:00 in the morning once, and I was tasting it, not just smelling it. Another said that she had become more and more concerned as the landfill had grown in height, and she was especially worried about the fact that the pupils at Rockcliffe Church of England Primary School could see the mountain when they played outdoors.

Another local resident said that her migraines, she believed, were linked to the smell, and what she said was migraine sufferers can be sensitive to smells and I'm realising now that that's what's triggering it. In response to the BBC, Cilicia said that they were one of only four. They were one of four operators on the site and they did not believe that it was their landfill site that was causing the problem. Well, what I would say to that is that the other three operators on that site have been there in the same period.

And the only thing, the only thing that has changed at Hespenh Wood has been the takeover and management of the site by Cilicia. I would also offer as further evidence to this point, that the people who live at the nearby sister site, another Cilicia site at Tesco, at Newbiggin, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale have over exactly the same period, experienced an increase in the problems to the. To the point where the Environment Agency is now suspended.

Operations on the site, thanks to action by the Environment Agency at the Hespenh would site. The site has temporarily, it would seem, stopped accepting new waste. A point, however, that local villagers somewhat doubt. But the bottom line is that the actions of Cilicia and other rogue operators need a new approach. And that's why I welcome these new regulations. For too long, our landfill sites and local communities have been targeted by rogue operators, driven by the evasion of landfill tax and disposal fees.

Waste crime has evolved into a highly profitable and organised enterprise. As we've already heard this evening, it undercuts legitimate businesses, pollutes our soil and leaves taxpayers again. As we've heard with staggering cleanup bills, the current system for registering waste carriers, brokers and dealers is broken. It relies on a basic tick box exercise with minimal background checks, a vulnerability that criminals have systematically exploited. That's why I believe that these regulations represent a massive regulatory shift. Dismantling the old registration model and pulling these rogue operators directly into the robust Environmental permitting regulations framework.

When these laws take full effect, they will tighten the net on waste. Criminals at landfill gates in three distinct ways. First, operators will no longer just be able to sign their names on a register. They will have to actively prove they're fit to handle waste. The Environment Agency will enforce strict background checks. As we've heard, mandatory identity verification, criminal record screenings and technical competence assessments before a single permit is issued. If you have a history of illegal dumping, you will and you should be locked out of the system entirely.

Second, on transparency, bad actors frequently use anonymous white vans and misleading online adverts to trick the public and smuggle illegal loads into disposal sites. Under the new regulations, operators must prominently display, as we've heard, their unique permit numbers on their vehicles and in all advertising. This simple change turns each one of us into an enforcement officer and gives us the ability to target and identify rogue traders who will be instantly visible. And third, as we've heard, heavy penalties previously, it was unacceptable that illegally transporting or brokering waste carried no custodial sentence.

The draft regulations change that, introducing a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment for those who flagrantly break the law and ruin people's lives. Furthermore, the Environment Agency has been granted expanded powers to instantly revoke permits and issue immediate enforcement notices to freeze rogue operations on the spot. As the residents of Rushcliffe know, non-compliance and waste crime is not victimless nuisance. It's an assault on our environment and on our economy, and it's an assault on their homes by transforming how waste is controlled and transported, these regulations ensure that only legitimate, heavily scrutinised operators can move material through our supply chain and through our communities.

I welcome the closing of loopholes and the crackdown on criminality in the waste sector, and I look forward to a day when the likes of Cilicia are forced out of the waste sector altogether. Josh Newbury.
20:24
Josh Newbury Portrait Josh Newbury MP (Cannock Chase, Labour)
-
-
Thank you. >> Madam Deputy Speaker Cannock Chase knows all too well the impact of waste crime fly tipping, in particular residents of Norton particular residents of Norton Canes and Little Whirley in particular, find that our country lanes, easily accessible from Walsall and Wolverhampton, are Walsall and Wolverhampton, are blighted by illegal dumps, often huge, often dangerous. The Minister I know is passionate about tackling these vile crimes, and she is right to say that the current system is simply not fit for purpose.

I am glad that she highlighted the case of bovine, the Chevrolet Cross cow owned by and Megan, the director of the CLA in the South West, which, although humorous, highlighted the stark holes in our system. As it is, I very much welcome the robust new system that will be in line with much of the rest of the waste sector. The public have rightly been calling for background checks and competence checks, so that we can have confidence in those who we trust with our waste.

On that point, I'm always reminded of an elderly constituent who came to me when I was a district councillor in Norton Canes. She contacted a waste carrier. She'd checked his licence to make sure, as she saw it, he was legit and she'd handed over her waste and her money. A few weeks later, she was contacted by the council as her waste had been dumped along with that of others not three miles away in a rural part of our community. She was distraught and told me that she would never have been intentionally careless with who she gave her waste to.

Thankfully, in the end, she was able to help identify the criminal who exploited her and he was prosecuted. But many of our constituents end up paying the price under the current system. I'd like to pay tribute to the Environmental Protection team at Cannock Chase District Council. I saw first hand the brilliant work they do as a Cabinet member. They are more effective than many Tory controlled neighbouring councils. So I hope that the new reform administration continues Labour's long standing backing for their work, and that local government reorganisation brings others up to their top notch standard.

These regulations will give us the structures we need to root out waste criminals from sole traders all the way up to organised crime groups who are increasingly, as we've heard, moving into waste crime as a whole business model. I welcome stronger powers for the Environment Agency, particularly the ability to revoke permits, which I hope will act as a powerful disincentive, something that we have been lacking before this government came to office. And I'm particularly happy to see the requirement for the visibility of permit numbers on vans.

For example, this weekend I met with business owners who run high street shops in Handsworth and Rugeley to discuss various issues with illegal practices on the high street, and the Minister won't be surprised to hear that. Amongst those was waste crime. One told me of a business which regularly dumps their waste out the back in black bags, probably including electrical waste, because they sell vapes and they're picked up by an unmarked van and go, who knows where. Meanwhile, their businesses have fully compliant bins because they take their responsibilities seriously, and they want to know that others who don't will be hauled over the coals.

So, Madam Deputy Speaker, this is not just about fly tipping at beauty spots and protected landscapes like Cannock Chase and idyllic hamlets like little Whirley, but also our high streets and town centres. Wherever waste crime occurs, these regulations will be another plank in the government's strategy to crack down on this vile criminality so that our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

constituents can see the back of these blights on our communities. Minister, to. Wind up.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Wind up. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I'll be brief and try not to detain the House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

detain the House For too long, but what a rich and insightful debate we have had. Let me begin by addressing the Let me begin by addressing the question of costs raised by the hon. Lady who speaks for the party opposite. So let me just tell her opposite. So let me just tell her that legitimate waste businesses are highly supportive of these regulations as they raise standards and level the playing field across the. There is a tiered approach to the new permitting regime, and that will ensure that those carrying large amounts of the most at risk type of waste will be distinctly identified and charged accordingly.

Now, if we do the maths, Madam Deputy Speaker, you know, I stopped doing maths with A-levels quite a long time ago. 186,000,000/11 years of appraisal period, offset against businesses incurring costs from increased tax i.e. they'll be brought into compliance and begin playing tax 183 million. So yes, they will. They will have to pay more. The ones that don't pay anything at the moment are going to be paying their tax. One of the reasons they've moved into this space is because by taking so-called soil or taking mixed household waste and charging you £125 for landfill, and then moving it on somewhere else and saying, actually, it's only really soil.

They're making £120 profit on every tonne that they take, and you do the maths 300,000 tonnes here, 100,000 tonnes there. Pretty soon
20:29
Mary Creagh Portrait Mary Creagh MP (Coventry East, Labour)
-
-
we're talking tens of millions of pounds from one illegitimate pounds from one illegitimate landfill site. So I'm not crying any tears about that. Madam Deputy Speaker And I think actually, Speaker And I think actually, outside of this place, our constituents are going to be cheering and clapping. And as I've cheering and clapping. And as I've said, the legitimate companies know that they're being undercut by the rogues and the criminals. And why rogues and the criminals. And why shouldn't they have to learn how to do this? We've heard talk of vapes, of industrial waste, of all sorts of stuff turning up in these sites.

We're just saying it's absolutely fine. Anyone with a pair of gloves and a van can just come along and and do it. No, those. That was the old ways. We are into protecting the environment and protecting people as well. And we also are interested in protecting businesses. And so the, the environment, the actual sort of note with this says that businesses will benefit from reduced waste crime to the tune of £159 million. So net net most businesses. I do hope will be better off.

There are exemptions for charities, but they do. We do not exempt small and micro businesses from complying based on their size, because we have heard about all the small and micro businesses that are in this space, which would undermine the policy and undermine our risk based approach approach. Some of these businesses pose a significant waste crime risk. So, you know, we will we will be rolling this out. She asked about monitoring and review. We we do have a resources and waste policy program evaluation, which is an independent programme to assess the impact of the major reforms that we're bringing in that will report in March 2029.

But of course, as with anything, if stuff isn't working, we will take action, we will listen, and we will act. Now I just want to return to my friend, my hon. Friend from South Elmsall, because I obviously know his neck of the woods very well, having served as one of the four MPs for Wakefield until 2019. And he is right that our constituents have the right to the peaceful enjoyment of their home. And I was really saddened by the story of his constituent, you know, unable to celebrate his birthday party with his family in his own home, ashamed of where he lived, of the constituents, waking up with migraines, tasting the smell.

It's absolutely disgusting. The kids feeling sick at school. So mineral processing has significantly exceeded its permitted waste volumes. And it's it's it's resulted in approximately 320 000 tonnes of misdescribed inert waste containing biodegradable fines. They're the little bits that are chipped down. So the site permit has been revoked, but the waste remains. Now, we've heard the persistent and worsening odour concerns, and with the recent warmer weather and again, warm weather coming on, there have been 18 reports over 24 hours on the 24th and 5th of June.

There is increasingly dissatisfaction with this persistent impact. So EA is monitoring the site and it has installed an additional air quality and odour monitoring facility to provide further data. EA is also carrying out proactive odour monitoring in the area, requiring the operator to submit an odour management plan to address odour pollution. They are also studying air quality impacts using mobile monitoring facilities, which are installed in the area, and handheld gas analysers, and they are continuing to inspect the site and recording permit breaches when they find them.

They are also monitoring the water quality in Frickley Beck because we do not want these persistent, potentially organic pollutants ending up in our water supply only for us as taxpayers and bill payers to be responsible for clean up further down as they enter the river. And we're acting also on intelligence received around vehicle movements at the site, working closely with partners, including colleagues at UK Health and Security Agency and Wakefield Council. So the site permit has been revoked.

The site is no longer operational and questions around how do we prosecute those of left the misdescription of waste. The first thing we have to do is bring them into this regime. So we're not reacting when the crime has already been, when I don't want to say it's a crime, but the accidental overloading and breach of their permit conditions, I wouldn't want to pre prejudge anything there. Madam Deputy Speaker, I have had a long and very interesting conversation with my friend from Carlisle about the issue with Hespenh.

Would silly sites at Hespenh would. And. And the issue around the landfill gases there. And these, as I say, are horrible gas gas that they two same model breach the permitted waste massive over dumping at that site and my hon. Friend for Cannock Chase tells the story of his constituent aghast to be dragged into this and and criminalised, potentially criminalised by an innocent act of trying to do the right thing and trying to get her waste dealt with properly.

I want to thank everyone for their valuable contributions to this debate. I have issued statutory guidance to councils on how to use their powers about seizing and crushing vehicles, because we're aware they have the powers, they may not feel confident about using them. And I would also say that we are working with Crime Stoppers to get the public as part of this army of people to tackle waste crime. If you do see something suspicious, do please report it on zero (800) 555-1111.

I think is the correct number, but I will check that I've done that from memory. This legislation is a vital piece to tackle waste crime. It's long overdue for those moving and controlling waste. And I want to thank all my departmental officials in the box James Cruddas, David Reed Freya Ballard and from my private office. This legislation is widely supported by our stakeholders, highly anticipated by our constituents inside and outside this House. And I want to thank all those working at the Environment Agency and police forces across the country to tackle these waste criminals, to tackle this new form

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of organised crime. I beg to move your. The question is, as on the Order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion, say I, I of the contrary, no I think the ayes have it, the no I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. I'll just give a few moments for the frontbenchers to moments for the frontbenchers to move along. We now come to motion number four on payment scheme. I number four on payment scheme. I call Minister to move the motion. Minister.
20:36
20:36
Nick Thomas-Symonds Portrait Rt Hon Nick Thomas-Symonds MP (Torfaen, Labour)
-
-
I do want to pause and reflect on the reason why we are once again the reason why we are once again here today. Thousands of people had unimaginable suffering and hardship unimaginable suffering and hardship inflicted upon them through the use of infected blood. There are thousands of individual stories. thousands of individual stories. And, Madam Deputy Speaker, in recent years, I've had a solemn privilege to listen to many of them privilege to listen to many of them of how lives were upturned, changed, and in some cases, tragically lost.

And I know many members across the House, as they always do in these debates, very movingly share their constituent stories. It's important that we across the House keep those at the forefront of our minds, and it's essential to, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we base our work on these stories and that the compensation scheme reflects the experience, the lived experience of those who it seeks to bring justice to. I'd also like to briefly update the House on the delivery of compensation, since the compensation service opened in 2024, the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, or Ibca, as we refer to it, has contacted all infected people registered with the support scheme to start their claim and by December of last year had opened their service to all cohorts, including two affected people.

They have made offers of over £2.7 billion and paid out over £2.1 billion, and that's in addition to the £1.4 billion that's already

**** Possible New Speaker ****

been paid in interim compensation. friend. I thank.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank. The Member for giving way and for his his speech and the way that he's framing the debate about those victims of this scandal. And that's really, really important. Can you confirm the number of interim payments of £100,000 that have been

**** Possible New Speaker ****

already paid out? There's no I'll be delighted to write to my hon. Friend. With the absolute up to date figure on that, but he's absolutely right to draw attention to the importance of progress, and I know members across the House, as they always do, welcome that progress. But I also acknowledge, quite rightly, the House holding me to account and indeed ibca to account on the speed of compensation. And we always want to see swifter delivery of compensation.

Now, with each new

**** Possible New Speaker ****

cohort. I will give. To the Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For giving way. I think he is right to point out that although we welcome and I think across the House, we welcome the work and the House, we welcome the work and the diligence not only of he himself, but also the previous government in relation to the scheme and the work relation to the scheme and the work that needs to be done. But there is absolutely no doubt that there are still too few who have received still too few who have received compensation.

And as of the 2nd of June, my understanding is just over 3000 out of potential 30,000 victims had as yet received compensation. Can you update us in relation to the amendments today? What he is doing to ensure that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

more people get the money that they need as soon as possible. And the figure that the hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And the figure that the hon. Lady refers to? I thank the hon. Lady as well, because when I was first in this role back in 2024, we first in this role back in 2024, we worked closely together on this. When she was in her previous role. When she was in her previous role. But what happens is that Ibca starts small. They use a test and starts small. They use a test and learn approach. Now with the infected. That did work very well because you reach a point where if you imagine a graph that is time and numbers of payments, you go into an exponential bit where the graph goes up very, very rapidly.

Now that is where we now need to get to with the affected cohort. And indeed Ibca are taking that same approach. They are starting small, and that allows Ibca to learn what additions to the claim service are needed. And it also allows them to open the service to more people as the service is built around specific needs. Now, that does mean I completely accept that the numbers are initially lower, but I certainly expect with the affected cohort, as with the infected cohort, you will get that moment when numbers will rise exponentially as progress is made.

Now, as well as ensuring, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the victims of this scandal receive compensation as swiftly as possible, we must deliver compensation packages that reflect their experiences. Now, the Infected Blood Inquiry's additional report, published in July 2025, made clear the importance of ensuring that the community of infected and affected people are at the centre of every discussion regarding the infected blood scandal. It has always been this government's priority to deliver a compensation scheme that truly recognises the hardships faced by those who are impacted, and to do so, whilst also acknowledging the extraordinary resolve of this community in continuing to tell the stories of their experiences and their fight for justice and the regulations before the House today, Madam Deputy Speaker, are a direct product of what we heard in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

consultation. I will certainly give way to my. Right hon. Friend, with regard

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Right hon. Friend, with regard to the community, there are still concerns about the regulations that concerns about the regulations that are before us today. He knows that the regulations were laid on the day of the backbench business day of the backbench business debate that we had here on the 18th of June, and so that gave no opportunity to take on board the points that hon. Members were making on behalf of their constituents who still would like to see the let me say, tweet the the compensation scheme, tweaked through his ongoing dialogue with the community is is it does he accept that there must be opportunity for that tweaking to take place in response to some of the concerns from the community?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So with regard to my hon. Friend's first point, of course, this is what we have before us is based upon the consultation, based upon the consultation, extensive consultation with the community and, of course, the laying of the regulations. I hope hon. Members and right hon. Members hon. Members and right hon. Members will also see the timing of this debate is designed so that we can speed up payments as quickly as we possibly can going forward. That's why I am sure the House will appreciate and all I can to get this debate in and scheduled before the summer recess.

I will and I will come back to my old friend.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for giving way again. He's been very, very generous with his time. It strikes me when we have victims of these sort of scandals. And sadly, this isn't the first one that we've isn't the first one that we've discussed. I think obviously the Horizon Post Office scandal that we are talking about, people who are put in this position through no put in this position through no fault of their own and don't necessarily have, you know, degrees into how to deal with, you know, accessing this compensation scheme.

So I wondered what support he is giving those people who are looking

**** Possible New Speaker ****

at claiming consultation, you know, for example, having some sort of caseworker to support them. Now, my hon. Friend the Member

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Now, my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow is absolutely right to raise this. That's why I've always been clear both about the individualised caseworkers and the personalised approach of Ibca, but also the importance of legal and also the importance of legal and financial support so that people can make informed decisions as to what they want to do going forward what they want to do going forward with the compensation. Just going back to the point was raised by my hon. Friend, what I have sought to make sure here, following on what Sir Brian Langstaff said, is to introduce a proper mechanism for feedback from the community so that whatever the issue is within these regulations, it can be elevated to the appropriate place, whether it is to me or whoever the Minister is or indeed to Ibca, to Ibca board, to the chair, the chief Executive, whoever it might be, that then has the power to deal with that issue.

And I think, as my hon. Friend and I have discussed before, I think that mechanism, that ability to look at the scheme is really important. But the other point I would just add to my hon. Friend, I think, is he and I have discussed previously, is many of the issues being raised aren't always to do with the structure of the regulations. It's also to do with the implementation. And I think it's really important that where there are issues of implementation and indeed honourable and rightful members raise them to me that we do, where necessary, make those adjustments.

And I should also say to I, I will give one moment also. There is and I think my hon. Member acknowledged this, a diversity of views within the community on certain issues, too. But what we have sought to do is to try to ensure that we're making the compensation scheme reflect the views of the majority. Now, I will summarise those, but before I come Gentleman.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for giving, giving way. He's been very, very giving way. He's been very, very generous. I have met with people in Wokingham affected by this scandal, and it doesn't just affect the and it doesn't just affect the person that is infected, it affects their family as well. And my their family as well. And my constituent is absolutely adamant that the scandals affect on their that the scandals affect on their spouse must be recognised. So would the Minister agree with me that the government should give some clarity on whether spouses of those

**** Possible New Speaker ****

infected should receive their own separate compensation? Yes, and on obviously affected

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, and on obviously affected people, certainly. That's why the scheme is designed both for infected and affected people. And of course, that isn't just spouses either. Of course, that includes children. It can include siblings, children. It can include siblings, it can include. And also I. I'm also very proud. The scheme includes carers actually as well. includes carers actually as well. And I think that we think about those who were infected, the awful injustice of it. But we also remember the effect on their families and those around them.

And I think he makes a very powerful point. I will write, I will give way to the honourable. I will give way to my hon. Friend.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On that very point. And first of all, I acknowledge the huge amount all, I acknowledge the huge amount of effort and attention concentration the Minister has put into this, and therefore I'm into this, and therefore I'm slightly surprised that the Haemophilia Society, who are great champions for this community, do champions for this community, do say that, in their opinion, care provided by family members is not provided by family members is not being fairly compensated. The scheme does not currently enable carers, they say, to make an adequate claim for the full impact of the care they provided.

It does not sufficiently reflect the financial and personal sacrifices made by those who've delivered that care over decades, and they particularly reference children and their educational sacrifices. For example. Now, I know there are no easy answers to this, but has the Minister had an interaction with the Haemophilia Society, who are very well placed to represent the affected community?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I mean, as the right hon. Gentleman can imagine, whether it's the Haemophilia Society, but many other charities, obviously, over the past two years I've interacted with I. The scheme does include carers. I think it's very important. They should obviously. And I'm perfectly willing to look at exactly what the Haemophilia exactly what the Haemophilia Society is saying about the precise package with regard to carers. But the fundamental point is that the fundamental point is that carers should be recognised and they are within the scheme and I will give way to my.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I thank the Minister for giving way. I was very interested in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham, that notwithstanding that there are regulations and there's been a lot of work to set out the rules and scope of this compensation scheme, that there is an opportunity for people who are affected or infected, indeed, to go affected or infected, indeed, to go all the way. I think the Minister said to the chief executive, the chair, the all the different bodies chair, the all the different bodies involved, even to the Minister, if necessary, could he set out in some detail what the parameters of that are, because that could be riding roughshod through a carefully developed scheme, even if it has, you know, not everything's perfect.

How far could that go? Because there could be a risk that lots of people feel that they've not had been fairly treated and take it all the way up to the Minister, which puts this Minister or indeed a position.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No, no, it's it's it's a fair point from my right hon. Friend. And when it came to this particular recommendation from Sir Brian Langstaff, what I was concerned to do was to ensure two things that, do was to ensure two things that, number one, there was a proper structure for the infected blood structure for the infected blood community to be able to put forward their views. And what I didn't want it to become, frankly, was glorified postbox. What I didn't glorified postbox.

What I didn't want it to be was just a grand correspondence scheme where letters come in and then there's a replies being sent. What I wanted was a proper mechanism of sifting, so that the very particular nature of the complaint can go to the right place, so that the appropriate person can look at it and see if it can be dealt with. But to the broader point, which I think my right hon. Friend is alluding to, is also really important, obviously, to have stability in the policy, to be able now to continue to drive forward compensation.

And, you know, my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham, who does a fantastic job chairing the all party parliamentary group, is quite rightly raising to me about where there are concerns. I want a proper mechanism for those concerns to be dealt with. But also, this is why I've pushed so hard to make sure that we have this debate before the summer, to also make sure that we are collectively doing what we can to push forward the speed of payment as quickly as we can.

I've always been, I should say, as well, very grateful to all the opposition parties, actually, who've always facilitated that. When, you know, I've brought regulations, it's the fourth time I've brought regulations before the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My hon. Friend. I will give way to my friend and I will better get on to regulations. That he's.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That he's. Been very generous. I thank him for giving way. And it was my sombre privilege to work with him sombre privilege to work with him on this whilst I was in the while as a Minister in the Department for health, and he's talking about the driving forward of the scheme, could the Minister outline what work he's done with our devolved government Scotland, Northern

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales on driving forward the final compensation scheme? Yes, and it was it was a privilege to work with my hon. Friend in government, and she was excellent to work with on this, and I'm very grateful for all that she contributed in government, because there are, of course, a number of Sir Brian Langstaff recommendations that I've been dealing with the Cabinet Office. But there were also, as my hon. Friend knows, the Department for health had responsibility for a number as well, which I know she drove forward very well, and she's absolutely right to talk about work with the devolved administrations.

And again, I think I've been lucky over the past two years to have worked very constructively with the devolved administrations on this, trying to ensure and recognise this is a pre devolution scandal. But obviously now in terms of measures that we are taking in terms of seeking justice, we live now in the post devolution age and to reflect that it's been really important to work with governments across the United Kingdom, all of which, I have to say, have been constructive in the time that I've been working on this.

I will turn now, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the regulations, regulation three introduces a new level to be awarded as recommended by the inquiry. So the people who suffered from the side effects of interferon treatment receive an additional injury award, as well as a further financial loss in compensation to reflect the impact on their lives. Following the consultation, the regulations also make sure that people who receive more than one round of interferon will be properly compensated for each of these rounds of treatment.

Regulation four removes the 25% deduction applied to pass care compensation for people who choose to receive support scheme payments for life. Following the consultation, the regulations make sure that people receive past financial loss compensation based on whichever of the two ways to calculate the award is most beneficial financially for them. Now I chose to do this, Madam Deputy Speaker, to recognise that selecting only one way of calculating this award would mean some people's expected awards would reduce in size, which was not the intention.

So by running both calculations and giving each person whichever is the highest amount in their personal circumstances, we ensure that everyone gets fair compensation for this award. Regulation five makes provision for a 50% uplift to the Core Autonomy Award for those infected under the age of 18, calculated based on the highest severity of infection they experienced during childhood. Regulation six amends the eligibility criteria for the Unethical Research Award so that everyone treated for a bleeding disorder before 1986 will receive an unethical research award, and these regulations also introduce a new unethical research award for children.

Now, that means that people who were treated for a bleeding disorder in childhood will receive an uplifted award. These regulations also increase the amount of compensation that all eligible people receive for this award. It's one of the most shocking aspects of this scandal. I don't think any amount of money could ever truly make up for the heinous experimentation that happened, and particularly with that took place on children. We've listened to the feedback received through the consultation, and as a result, people who attended Treloar's will receive £60,000 rather than the 25,000 proposed in the consultation.

Other children receive 45,000 and those treated in adulthood will receive 30,000, tripling the amount they currently receive. Regulation seven ensures that everyone who is eligible for the special category mechanism or an equivalent payment through the Infected Blood Support Schemes, or Ibbs as they are known, receives additional financial loss and compensation. Following the consultation. Madam Deputy Speaker, these regulations ensure that everyone in this position has the award backdated to 2017, when the award was first introduced, regardless of when they were assessed, living people who were not assessed as eligible for SSM can also now apply for it through Ibca, including those who were previously unsuccessful through their application to the infected Blood Support Schemes regulations eight and nine make changes to the Exceptional Loss Award under the Supplementary Route.

These regulations introduce a compensation uplift of £60,000 for people who had entered or had an offer to enter a career that generally would have paid 10% more than the gross national median average earnings, as determined in 2024, at any point prior to retirement age, were unable to progress in this career due to their infection. That award is on top of their core Route Financial Loss award now. We also heard in the consultation that some people are concerned that they will not be able to access the Exceptional Loss award if they do not have historic payslips.

Now, the government will work with Ibca to ensure that all relevant evidence can be used to help someone show they are eligible for the Exceptional Loss award, so that this is not a barrier. And I have said this repeatedly from this Dispatch Box. I want the scheme to be as sympathetic and and burdensome to applicants as possible. And indeed I have, on the occasions I visited Ibca, I have to say I've been very impressed by the culture that is being imbued there in terms of taking a can do approach when people are ringing and trying to find appropriate historic documents.

I think that is particularly important, Madam Deputy Speaker, for two reasons. Number one, because these events often happen long ago. But secondly, we know from Sir Brian Langstaff report that there are there's evidence of deliberate document destruction. So for both those reasons, I think there needs to be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that sympathetic approach. I will certainly. Madam Deputy Speaker, there have been occasions in various roles been occasions in various roles I've had in this place where we've looked at documents and the government has a document destruction plan. For example, a destruction plan. For example, a year after death, the DWP will destroy your one's records. And destroy your one's records. And that has been a problem when there's been problems with pensions, although obviously, this Minister today is focusing on the today is focusing on the regulations around this.

What he said is very interesting in that context of document retention and other schemes that need to pay out, that require proof of things, for example, immigration, where you might need to prove you've been in the country, your doctors and school records. And I wonder if there's any thought going on in the Cabinet Office or by him, about how lessons can be learned from how Ibca is applying this in this case, that could apply to other bits of government and other compensation schemes. So we don't lose the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

learning now for the next time, as inevitably, sadly, things will go wrong with government. I think my. Right hon. Friend is absolutely

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I think there are certainly lessons to be learned, and I think that applies here. But and I think that applies here. But I think it also applies, sadly, to a number of the other historic scandals that we've been dealing with in this House over recent years. I think she makes very powerful point, and I just Brighton Pavilion hon. Gentleman want to come in as well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

come in as well. Thank the Minister again for giving way. It's very clear that the Minister agrees that the infected blood scandal is a tragic disaster and a failure of public service. The government needs to ensure this never happens again and strengthen any accountable measures that they can. Does the Minister agree with me and many of the survivors, that there must be a duty of candour on all public

**** Possible New Speaker ****

officials? That is robustly enforced? Yes, I do, and I think that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, I do, and I think that the Hillsborough law, which is something I've given a great deal of personal time to over the last couple of years. I think that it is. couple of years. I think that it is. And it's been before this House. I think it's not far away at all. And I hope that over the next few I hope that over the next few months, we will certainly see that and start to see that duty of candour rolling out. And I would candour rolling out.

And I would just say this I think that law is a landmark law, and I think putting the law on the statute book will make a huge difference, will be a hugely significant moment. But it's also important that we drive forward the cultural change that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that is that that requires. I will give way. I'm very grateful to him for giving way. The the cultural point giving way. The the cultural point is really important because all the scandals that we've seen within the NHS have this point of cultural NHS have this point of cultural failure, where cover ups have occurred and defensiveness has occurred, and people have been badly let down the health bills badly let down the health bills going through Parliament at the moment. And one of the concerns that we have is that the abolition that we have is that the abolition of Healthwatch and H.

SIB won't help progress that cultural change. I wonder if he would urge his his counterparts in the Department for health to reconsider those Abolitions.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I think that the. The point I'm making around duty of candour, which I think overrides candour, which I think overrides all these these other points, is what really what Sir Brian Langstaff was referring to, which Langstaff was referring to, which is that he called it institutional defensiveness. What Sir Brian Langstaff said was the problem was Langstaff said was the problem was when awful things happened, people put either personal or institutional reputations above the institutional reputations above the public interest.

And I think it's that cultural change that we need to drive forward. I will become conscious of time. Madam Deputy Speaker return to the regulations. Regulation ten introduces a 50% uplift to the core injury award for some affected people. That includes eligible bereaved partners and children and siblings who themselves became affected under 18 years of age. Eligible bereaved parents will also be able to receive this award in the tragic circumstances where their child passed away while under the age of 18.

I know some members have raised concerns about the eligibility for this award in previous debates. I want to assure colleagues that the rest of these regulations, the decisions we made on this award, directly reflect what we heard through the consultation. But the specific impact of the scandal on children regulations 11 and 12 are unrelated to the public consultation, and relate to the transfer of responsibility for making support scheme payments from the Infected Blood Support Scheme to Ibca to maintain consistency with the support schemes, the value of someone's support scheme payments are uprated every year in April at the rate of CPI the previous September.

These regulations therefore account for the next CPI uplift taking place in April 2027, and Ibca, after Ibca takes responsibility for making those support scheme payments from the existing infected blood support

**** Possible New Speaker ****

schemes. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, these. Of course. Thank you, and I really

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, and I really appreciate him giving. Thank you. I thank the Minister for his kind words earlier. Could he clarify if Co-infected people will be able to make compensation claim for each round of interference that they had, or whether those are being lumped together? Thank.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

together? Thank. You know, it's per round of interferon treatment. And please provide that clarification to my hon. Friend. And I again repeat my thanks to her for for her work. I,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will do one more and then I'll go on. To. Speaker, the Minister is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To. Speaker, the Minister is extraordinarily kind, just to be absolutely tidy. Could I make a absolutely tidy. Could I make a plea on behalf of those families where the the member is deceased, where the the member is deceased, but the estate still has. If you like, a claim, there is sometimes, possibly wrongly, an impression possibly wrongly, an impression that these people have put to the back of the queue could have an assurance that that would not be the case.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Certainly every single situation is a priority. Now, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that Ibca Gentleman will be aware that Ibca does and Ibca is operationally independent. It does come up with a priority set of cohorts which is priority set of cohorts which is publicly available, but the deceased estates absolutely are a priority. You can certainly have priority. You can certainly have that assurance. And indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker, the regulations are a result of listening, as we have a result of listening, as we have been doing through the public consultation, to those impacted by this terrible scandal.

We want the scheme to reflect the hardships and the suffering faced by those who had their lives upturned by no fault of their own, and we are always keen to balance this with ensuring the scheme can be delivered as quickly as possible. I am pleased with the progress we've made on the compensation scheme, but this debate is not about the government's work today. Rather, I think, as has always been the case actually in these debates, it's about the House coming together to put the voice of the community first.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is, as on the Order Paper, I call Shadow Minister Mike Wood.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I'd like to start by thanking the Paymaster General for bringing forward these important regulations and also saying thank you to the former Minister for Public Health, former Minister for Public Health, for the valuable work that I know that she did when she was in office. that she did when she was in office. This debate takes place in the shadow of one of the gravest injustices in modern British history. The infected blood scandal caused unimaginable harm, lives lost, families devastated, careers destroyed, potential never realised, children robbed of parents and many victims forced to fight for decades just for recognition and to be heard.

Compensation is not a gift from the state, it is a duty owed to those who were failed by the state, and that duty must be delivered with urgency, compassion and fairness. And these regulations make a number of amendments to the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme regulations 2025. Many of the changes appear to address concerns that were raised by victims families and campaigners about the structure and adequacy of the scheme, and particularly obviously, those contained in the additional
21:05
Mike Wood Portrait Mike Wood MP (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire, Conservative)
-
-
report. And so we welcome the government bringing forward these amendments to address those lessons amendments to address those lessons that have been learned from the early stages of the compensation early stages of the compensation scheme, to fill in some of the gaps and, of course, to implement the recommendations from Sir Brian recommendations from Sir Brian Langstaff. Additional report. However, the addition of this However, the addition of this instrument also underlines the importance of getting the scheme right. Victims and their families have already waited far too long.

They must not be required to navigate repeated technical changes, uncertainty or delays before receiving the compensation and recognition that they deserve. The regulations also amend the method for calculating past and future amounts for certain awards, including financial loss awards, and so I would be grateful if the Minister could set out clearly how the government will ensure that these changes are properly communicated to victims and to families, so that people understand how their entitlement will be calculated and whether they may be better off as a result.

I think the changes are sensible and are by necessity, of course, the the regulations can appear rather daunting. Even, you know, I my my degree was economics and law. I'm reasonably comfortable with legal texts and with algebra, but looking at looking at the the page at. At first glance you do wonder what language some of it is written in. And so it's obviously important that that is communicated in a way that can be properly understood. His Majesty's Opposition also welcomes the changes to the Autonomy Award for those infected as children.

The fact that some people are infected at such a young age, with consequences that shape their entire childhood and adult life must be properly reflected in the scheme. And this is not simply a question of medical impact. It is about lost childhoods, lost opportunities, and the lifelong trauma experienced by those who are infected when they're at their most vulnerable. There are also changes in relation to unethical research practices, which we have discussed many times in this chamber, and so we greatly welcome seeing the increase in the relevant award amounts and the extension in provision to those who receive treatment for bleeding disorders before 1986.

And given the seriousness of this issue, can the Minister confirm how the government will identify those who fall into this category and what evidence he expects them to be expected to provide, so that the process does not become another source of distress for victims and their families? We also note the creation of a new severe health condition category for qualifying chronic hepatitis associated conditions based on support scheme categories. Again, we would welcome clarity from the Minister on how he expects that to work in practice, and particularly how the government will ensure consistency across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The amendments to affected injury awards are also significant. Families were not by bystanders to this scandal. Partners, parents, children and siblings lived with the consequences every day. Many provided care, endured bereavement, suffered stigma and experienced profound emotional and financial harm. The scheme must continue to recognise that the damage caused by this scandal extended far beyond those directly infected. And so, whilst these technical changes matter greatly, the central question remains delivery victims and families need to know when they will receive compensation, including as a result of these new regulations, how quickly claims will be processed, what support will be available to them to navigate the scheme, and how the government will ensure that truly no one is left behind.

And so I ask the Minister to address the following points. Firstly, what is his intended timetable for payments under these new regulations, and how many people does the government expect to receive compensation in the coming months? Secondly, how confident is he that that the Infected Blood Compensation Authority has the staffing, the expertise and the resources it needs to to process claims under these regulations quickly and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sensitively? Thirdly, of course. For giving way. And this is a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For giving way. And this is a friendly intervention because his, you know, his response has been, you know, very supportive. And I think we all would recognise the cross-party consensus in getting this right. Last week, the Prime Minister, as you will be aware, gave a formal apology to those gave a formal apology to those women who were impacted by the the forced adoption scandal. And some of the evidence that we got as a of the evidence that we got as a Select Committee was about just the way that they were treated when they were trying to get the records.

So would he recognise the importance when these front facing organisations are there to support victims of these sort of scandals, that they are sympathetic, they are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

supportive because that's really, really important. I, I couldn't agree more. And I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I, I couldn't agree more. And I think for for these for infected, infected and affected victims and infected and affected victims and their families who for many, many years would not listen to, would years would not listen to, would not heard, would not believed, were not heard, would not believed, were faced. Officials who were. Who were, who were denying what all of the evidence later proved to be the case. I think it is particularly important that they now feel that they are being treated with respect and sensitivity.

So thirdly, Madam Deputy Speaker, will the Minister clarify further, as I asked earlier, how the government will communicate these changes, these broader changes to victims and to their families in plain English, rather than simply relying on the legal and technical language in the draft regulations? And finally, what appeal or review mechanisms will be available where individuals believe that their reward has been calculated incorrectly or does not reflect their full circumstances, the opposition strongly supports these regulations, which build on work that I think has proceeded through this House with support across the chamber and in turn continues with work that was begun before the last election, and we recognise that they contain changes which many victims and families will welcome.

And I think we're all clear, and I'm sure the Minister will agree that our responsibility as Parliament and of course, his government, does not end with the passing of Statutory Instruments. It ends only when victims and their families have received whatever we can do to deliver not only the recognition, the justice and the compensation that they have waited decades to secure. This scandal was defined by delay, denial and institutional failure. The compensation scheme must not be defined by the same failings, and these regulations are as strong and positive step in ensuring that that is not the case.

But the government must now deliver these with urgency, with transparency and with humanity. It is the very least that victims

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and their families deserve. After all this time. Clive Efford thank you, Madam

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Clive Efford thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'd like to start by paying tribute to the Paymaster General for getting us to this General for getting us to this point where it's. I think it's time to to move on. But notwithstanding to to move on. But notwithstanding that, there are still concerns, as I've mentioned already, and I hope they will be taken on board as we they will be taken on board as we go forwards, because as the Paymaster General set out, the community out there are concerned about the pace of of payments being made, particularly now that we're into the affected claims and it is time for test and, and learn to, to, to move on as move us on and to make sure that those payments are made as soon as possible.

But I would urge that, that, that, that ongoing dialogue that he referred to when he made his his original statement in response to to the inquiry report that that, that that continues and that those people's voices are heard. And I'm grateful for the meeting that he gave me following the, the, the backbench business debate where I raised all of the issues that are raised in that debate. And I'm grateful that he's going to come back to me about that.

But I won't go through all of them again today and give other hon. Members the chance to to speak. But it is important that those issues are taken on board. He's referred to the pace of payments, and so have I. That's a very important and but evidence as well. We have to take note of the fact that so many of the people infected and affected have had to campaign over 40 years or more to get to this point and to get to justice. And the likelihood of them having evidence and payslips and all sorts of evidence that they were living with their parents at the time that a sibling was infected, or it, it, it, it is not possible for, for people to provide that sort of depth of information now so late on.

And we've got to be considerate in the way that we, we, we approach that. On unethical testing. He and I have debated this and discussed
21:16
Clive Efford Portrait Clive Efford MP (Eltham and Chislehurst, Labour)
-
-
it, and we differ on this issue. I have to say, I feel very strongly, along with the those those people along with the those those people who were children who were deliberately infected. I mean, it's deliberately infected. I mean, it's a sobering thought, that sobering fact that they were deliberately infected by the state that should infected by the state that should have been there to care for them. And they feel that the compensation it's not about the money, but it's about the degree of recognition within this scheme of just exactly how badly treated they were.

And, and I think that that that the level of payments for that should be much higher than they are. So with that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I really I think I've finished my my comments and say, I really welcome these regulations. Now, it's very important that we move on and we move on as fast as possible. Now we have them in place. And again, I congratulate the Paymaster General on all the work that he's done.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Liberal Democrat spokesperson Ian Sollom. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I want to thank the Minister and I want to thank the Minister for his continued commitment to improving the compensation scheme improving the compensation scheme and keeping the House up to date on its progress. I know he takes this matter really seriously, and I hope we'll continue to see him to do so after the summer recess. Madam after the summer recess. Madam Deputy Speaker, We Liberal Democrats welcome many of the changes being made today, as we also welcome the previous changes made in April.

The infected blood scandal is the biggest treatment disaster in NHS history, and such a disaster should never be allowed to happen again. The suffering inflicted on infected and affected people was and still is immeasurable, and it was compounded by a cover up that no amount of compensation will ever truly make up for. But it can go some way. And after all this time, it must happen quickly, fully and fairly. Unfortunately, the experience of too many of those impacted is that this is not currently happening.

And today I would like to draw attention to some significant omissions still in the legislation, and I hope the Minister will take these on board in his efforts to achieve justice for everyone impacted by this scandal. And I
21:18
Ian Sollom Portrait Ian Sollom MP (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
will share some stories from my own constituents, if I may. But by way constituents, if I may. But by way of example, the first is the lack of a dedicated care award for living affected persons. One of my constituents infected with hepatitis C 30 years ago, has repeatedly raised with me her repeatedly raised with me her concern about elderly affected carers who are still alive and carers who are still alive and providing care three decades on from her infection, her mother continues to live with her and provides care daily.

Yet there is no separate pathway for her to claim compensation for this now, to possibly pre-empt the minister's response that care awards can be applied for through claims made as an infected person, I would argue that this method only works if it is performed at pace. We know that the speed of compensation is not what it should be, and my constituent tells me that, and I quote, it is painful to contemplate that she may not receive compensation in time to meaningfully support or repay her elderly mother after a lifetime shaped by infection.

So I would be interested to hear from the Minister what consideration the department has given to calls for a dedicated care award paid directly to eligible living affected persons, and why, while simultaneously promising to speed up compensation, he is continuing to only compensate carers through this complex existing pathway. Also missing from the regulations and measures to remove the impossible evidentiary demands currently in place, such as requiring victims to produce non-existent records, forcing elderly and grieving parents to go through complex online verification processes, or parents of children who died as a result of infected blood products being asked to prove that they lived with their child at the time.

Again, by way of example, I have a constituent whose father received blood transfusions following a severe car accident in 1989. He contracted hepatitis C and subsequently died from leukaemia. In 2007. The records of his treatment across two hospitals have been destroyed, and his daughter has reached a complete impasse. Trying to claim compensation for this incredibly traumatic series of events. Now, I appreciate that some of this was only raised with the Minister very recently, but I do wonder if he might tell the House what steps he has taken to urgently investigate those reports and what steps he is taking to ensure that no victim is traumatised and prevented from being served justice by having to provide impossible evidence? I've also raised my constituents concerns about disparities in compensation for different diseases several times before.

One of my constituents has lived without his mother for 25 years. After she died from hepatitis C in 1998, and he questions why claiming in her case involves complex severity bands. Whereas claiming for a living infected person with HIV is done through one single band, can the Minister clarify whether he is still considering where there may be broader structural differences within the scheme and how they might be addressed? And the final, broader point I would turn to is that there are very few accountability mechanisms in place for infected and affected people to genuinely hold.

Both Ayoub Khan and the Cabinet Office to account. Both of those have been responsive. When I pass along letters from my constituents. But it does beg the question why they weren't so responsive when the constituents made contact themselves. Victim and patient voices matter, and they must be listened to at every level. We Liberal Democrats would mandate integrated care boards to include patient voices at board level through organisations such as Healthwatch, and we share the disappointment of many impacted by the infected blood scandal that the government has consistently, it seems, listened to the advice of the technical expert group over the lived experience of hundreds of victims.

We need to end that culture of cover up exposed by the Infected blood inquiry and other scandals by immediately introducing that legislation to impose a statutory duty of candour on all public officials and establishing a patient safety taskforce to improve data sharing, analyse patient risk and co-ordinate safety responsibilities. So I would just ask the Minister for an update on the progress of the Hillsborough Law and stress once again, the urgency of getting it through this place. And in closing, I pay tribute to every victim of this awful scandal and reiterate calls from across the House for Ayoub Khan to work faster to ensure justice is served for all.

Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Tom Hayes. Thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker. On behalf. Of constituents that I am proud

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of constituents that I am proud to represent, I want to ask the Paymaster General questions of Paymaster General questions of justice. I want to ask whether the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme is delivering the justice that Sir Brian Longstaff's inquiry promised. Everyone who has suffered one of the greatest scandals in our nation's history. And before I do, nation's history. And before I do, I want to thank the Minister for our discussions about this topic most recently just a couple of hours ago.

This is something that I have raised on the floor of this House before, and I will keep raising on behalf of my constituents. And tonight, I want to represent one family in particular. And although I am raising the experience of one family in my constituency, their experiences are identical to those of so many up and down our country. Jane Yvonne Fitzgerald was infected with contaminated blood following the administration of a single unit of blood during a non-emergency procedure. She did not consent to the risks she was exposed to, and according to the inquiry, many patients like her should never have had these transfusions in the first place.

She endured decades of illness, repeated hospital admissions, invasive procedures, severe psychological trauma and profound threats to her sense of dignity, her experiences of care fell short of expectations. She suffered litres of fluid being drained from her abdomen. On one occasion, in what was effectively a hospital broom cupboard. On another occasion, she was sent home despite being in excruciating pain because no bed was made available. And on that same day, her abdomen ruptured. When she sought support, she was told there was nothing physically wrong with her.

The only psychological support she was offered was alongside alcohol and drug dependency groups. When she had no addiction, the state had failed to protect her. They failed to care for her mental and physical health. And then, when she died ten years ago, her family have felt that justice have evaded them under the current compensation scheme, because Yvonne died before surviving long enough to make a claim. Under today's framework, her compensation is deemed by her family to be around £300,000 less than someone in otherwise similar circumstances who remains alive today.

The scheme, in her family's view, creates a perverse outcome whereby dying from infected blood can result in less compensation than surviving with it. The younger someone was when they died, and the earlier they died, the greater the financial penalty imposed upon the family. In some cases, the disparity between deceased victims and survivors, I'm told, can approach £1 million. Can the Minister explain to my constituents why the technical expert group recognised that severe psychological harm and exceptional suffering could be evidenced through historical records and expert opinion.

Yet many deceased victims can access enhanced awards because they died before modern assessment mechanisms existed. The inquiry recognised that affected family members, suffered direct and profound harms and recommended a supplementary compensation route.
21:27
Tom Hayes Portrait Tom Hayes MP (Bournemouth East, Labour)
-
-
Yet that recommendation has still not been implemented. On behalf of my constituents, I ask the Paymaster General why the recommendation of the infected blood psychological service that blood psychological service that affected individuals should receive individual assessments has not yet been adopted. The current approach also produces unfair outcomes. My constituent, Ruairi Fitzgerald, constituent, Ruairi Fitzgerald, moved back into his parents home to help save it. When his father was considered too old to obtain a mortgage. He gave up his own first time buyer status and put his own future on hold to care for Yvonne, his mother.

He cooked, he cleaned. He accompanied her to countless appointments, witnessing first hand the effects of her poor health, and his mother died before she could see him marry. She never met his two children, her two grandsons, and he is living life in that knowledge. Under the current scheme, he is entitled to substantially less compensation than the strange relatives who played little or no role in her life or her care. And he wonders why the scheme compensates people according to broad family categories.

Rather than recognising the harm individuals have experienced. And there are further concerns. Widows support payments made under the previous schemes and now deducted from compensation awards for many claimants, while those who settled earlier are unaffected, compensation is not routinely uprated for inflation, meaning delays steadily erodes its real value. And the question as to my constituency is this surely compensation delayed should not become compensation diminished? Madam Deputy Speaker, this debate, as we've heard from all of the contributors, is about trying to remedy what went wrong and trying to ensure justice.

Justice cannot depend upon whether somebody survived long enough to satisfy an administrative process. Justice cannot depend upon the year someone died. Jane Fitzgerald endured years of suffering caused by failures of the states before losing her life, and her family believe that the current scheme treats her life as though it were worth less because she died before the compensation framework caught up with the truth. And so, in closing, I put the following questions to the Ministers Minister. Will the government review the disparity between awards for deceased victims and survivors? Will the government establish a route for recognising severe harm suffered by deceased victims through historical evidence? Will the government implement the inquiry's recommendation for a supplementary route for affected family members, including individual assessments, where appropriate? Will the government end the deduction of widow support payments and ensure compensation keeps pace with inflation so that delay does not diminish justice.

Jane Yvonne Fitzgerald for her whole family and for every family whose loved one was taken from them. This debate, the proceedings in this House, they offer us an opportunity to ensure that a promise is honoured, a promise that Justin justice is given to all.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There was so much, Madam Deputy Speaker, and once again, I'm very grateful to the Minister for giving grateful to the Minister for giving us that update and introducing the regulations again this evening. He does it with real

**** Possible New Speaker ****

does it with real With guile and with grace. And I think we are all grateful to the way that he engages with all of us way that he engages with all of us across the House. I don't know how many of these statements are Urgent Questions have attended in the Questions have attended in the course of the past 1520 years. I seem to be spending an awful lot of time with the hon. Gentleman from Eltham and Chislehurst attending these, attending the debates, the all-party groups that he has so assiduously chairs.

Writing the letters to various Ministers. Getting the responses. Taking that to constituents. Letting them down again, perhaps even giving them some sense of encouragement. I'd like not to be doing it any more. I'd like just for things to work. I'd like to think that everybody that I've represented and got to know within the community, we're feeling positive and good about what is happening. Feeling satisfied that things were moving on, that people who deserve these payments were securing them, that they didn't have to worry anymore.

They didn't have to be anxious about their own domestic or personal situation. They wouldn't have to be concerned about those that they care for or love or live with, that things were just being done. It would be great to be in that position now. We always like to hear from the Minister and it's great, and it's good that he gives us constant updates about all this, but wouldn't it be something to get to that place, to get to the place of resolution, get to the place where people are satisfied with the progress that's being made in the payments that are being made now.
21:32
Pete Wishart Portrait Pete Wishart MP (Perth and Kinross-shire, Scottish National Party)
-
-
We had a very good debate a couple of weeks ago that was referenced by a couple of the people around the house. Mid Norfolk was really, really good. I thought lots of very important and relevant points and important and relevant points and issues came from that debate, and that's why I was just a little bit surprised to find that the regulations were laid the very next day, and I thought, surely what we should have done was take the should have done was take the opportunity to pick up some of the things that had come forward, because the themes were quite consistent across the House over several concerns that were regularly raised.

And I think the Minister got a very clear impression about what the priorities were about. Those of us who work with the community and who raise those regular basis. I think it came loud and clear. So what I don't get, and maybe the Minister can explain this to me, maybe it was always part of the timetable. The regulations were going to be laid on that particular date, but surely we should have had time to reflect. Surely we should have had time to sort of go through all the various points that came up from members from right across the house before we made this final progress and laid these regulations, because there were important things that came forward in that debate.

And we've heard some of them again today, and I'm not going to repeat them because I've said them so many times to various Ministers who sat behind that Dispatch Box. But the key ones, I think the ones that really need to be progressed and to look at and to be resolved is the pace of the payments. Now we know the affected are being looked after. We know that. And it looks like we're making real progress. And the Minister is right to refer to the sort of structure and process that was used about that.

And it has worked. And I think we're all satisfied that things have moved on quite significantly and payments are being made, but it's to do with the affected. And I think we just need to see a little bit more dynamism, a little bit more energy in ensuring that those payments are going to be made to those people who are desperately waiting when it comes to this thing. The issues around interference, I don't think have been properly addressed with those regulations. I think we're all happy and satisfied that we've got the new two B payments, but there's a huge case to be made for further levels of payments, particularly around three B or four B awards.

I think the community have been asking for quite consistently, and the government and this expert group seem to have ignored the huge amounts of real world evidence regarding the debilitating and enduring impact of interferon treatment. I likened it in the debate a couple of weeks ago to something akin to chemotherapy. I think we should start to think about the interfering damage that has been done along that same basis and take it as seriously as that type of treatment.

And I think we welcome the increase. I think the Minister says to set up a figure for, for, for, for families which have been subject to research and medical trials, which I think is. I think the previous figure was £25,000 to 60,000. I think that's a significant rise. And I think that's something that's going to be welcomed. But there are still a few questions and issues around some of these payments and the inclusion of some people in the groups around unethical research.

And again, it comes back to this date of 1986. I think I heard the Minister say something in regards to that particular date, but my impression and understanding is that that still seems to be a pretty rigorous cut off point for anybody who is considered. And even though in the report itself, there was reference to damage that could be done beyond that. So maybe the Minister could just clarify that a little bit for me and satisfy me that those that particular group will be addressed for any cases that have come after 1986.

And it is disappointing that there's very little reference to the significant problems regarding estate claims, despite a number of meetings and correspondence with the Cabinet Office on this issue. And I think I have heard again from several hon. Members that it was a feature that did come up in the debate, and that is about the evidential hurdles that so many people are being impacted with, about the fact that records don't exist, and it's really difficult to prove certain documentation when that no longer is there because of historical issues, or just because of the fact that it had been lost, mislaid, or perhaps destroyed.

We heard a little bit just about the government's own role in facilitating this, where a number of records that have been kept by various departments are no longer available for people who need to access them in order for their claims to be to be progressed. And I think, again, as a couple of members have made, we cannot forget the the thousands of bereaved families who continue to wait for their compensation claims to begin causing great anxiety and distress. But the most important thing, I think, is the scaling up of the claims process to end this unbearable period of limbo that people are still having to endure.

The numbers of the affected remains too low, and now is the time for real progress. And I think we are looking for a commitment that the government will reflect on some of these issues that were highlighted. Perhaps think about coming back again, having considered some of the things that have been raised consistently in debates and statements over the course of the past few weeks, and maybe get an update just about how the government are going to actually raise this. And I suppose it won't surprise them that I am going to raise the issue of the duty of candour.

I think that's the most important missing detail in all of this. The thing that I think really profoundly needs to be addressed, and we know we've got the Hillsborough Law Bill coming up. I would just suggest, ever so gently to government, that this now has to be an absolute imperative. And we need a duty of candour for civil servants who are involved in some of these scandals, who civil servants who give stuff to Ministers for correspondence. To me 20 years ago that Ministers know, knew was lies, not just misleading, not just getting a few things wrong, but they were supplying correspondence, facts and figures to Ministers who were replying to me when I was raising issues on behalf of constituents that were experiencing real difficulties.

They know that was wrong. We need to try and understand why that happened, and we need to have this address. And I think the duty of candour aspect of any Hillsborough law, I think, is going to be highly important as we go forward to ensure that nothing ever like this ever happens again. But I will end, Madam Speaker, by saying that we are in a so much better place than we were even five years ago, even three years ago. We we are getting there.

And I think for all of us who care about this, to be to have been here and put these issues to the Minister. The thing for us is we do not want to have anybody left behind. Everyone affected, infected or affected should be brought with us and have this resolution house. I will say one other thing to the Minister, the community. We were engaged in this debate. We have suffered so much throughout the decades who have taken up this fight with such distinction and such courage, I think, needs to be looked at again and thanked.

And I know where the service, which is brilliant. But I hope as he goes forward he will look at the community as a resource, as a source of lived experience that has a background in these issues, which is beyond anything that perhaps any expert group could appeal because they have lived with this, they have seen it and it's them that are dealing with it. But I'm satisfied that we're going forward. I do hope that we get some sort of updates. I congratulate the Minister for bringing it forward, but please look at some of the things that so many of us have been saying for such a long time, and make sure that they're going to be properly addressed as we go forward.
21:40
Nick Thomas-Symonds Portrait Rt Hon Nick Thomas-Symonds MP (Torfaen, Labour)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker and once again, I think this has been an excellent debate. You know, been an excellent debate. You know, excellent in tone and excellent in terms of honourable and right hon. Members speaking about their Members speaking about their constituents. I will try and deal with some of the issues, and obviously there are others as well, where particular issues of detail. If members want to write to me, I will, of course address them to the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross Shire, and I congratulate him on his work as the very able deputy for the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst on the all party group.

The 1986 date is simply because the last medical study, identified as unethical by Sir Brian Langstaff inquiry was 1984. So it's going forward a bit to try and make sure that that is encapsulated is simply the significance of the date. He and I, I think, have had the debate about interferon before. When we had the debate some weeks ago. I agree with him and indeed the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats on the duty of candour. Absolutely. I think it's hugely important that we drive that forward.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East. If he could send me that list of questions about his late constituent, Jane Fitzgerald, I would just make one observation in terms of those who previously died versus those who are living the. There is a difference. But I would point out that, of course, money gets paid to dependants in the first circumstance, which should be taken into account, but I will come back to him in detail if he sends me those questions. My hon.

Friend for Eltham and Chislehurst once again thank him for his work. I agree with him on the sympathetic approach to evidence, the importance of the ongoing dialogue, and certainly the importance of speed to the Shadow Minister. I couldn't agree with him more on clear communication. It is something I am frequently speaking about. I will continue to speak about on the review mechanism. You can ask for review. You then have, beyond that, the option of a first tier tribunal and beyond that the courts.

But is that initial stage of review to Ayoub Khan? I entirely agree with him about me being available to support ibca the Operationally Independent, but to offer appropriate support where necessary. The bulk of infected people should be paid by the end of 2027. Bulk of affected by the end of 2029. But they are backstops. They are not targets. And as I've often said to the House, it is about speeding up those claims, getting to that point of exponential growth now in payments with the affected claims, I can deal with the point of care, because I think that was raised by the hon.

Gentleman for New Forest East and indeed the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats. The reason the care award is not paid directly to the person who provided care is simply because if you did that, you'd be asking Ibca to determine who provided the care. You'd be asking Ibca to go to affected people for evidence that they provided care, and you might even end up with ibca having to mediate between disputes, where you've got multiple people talking about care. So rather than go down that particular route, which would have led to further delays, that's why we've taken the approach we have with the infected person.

But can I just say, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think it's absolutely right that these regulations reflect the majority of what we heard in the consultation, and we do make changes. They do complete the government's response to the additional report. But as members across the House have said, the hard work to deliver the compensation must now accelerate. It's also our duty to remember that the tragedy inflicted on thousands of people and to bring real change not just to this compensation scheme, but it goes beyond that as well, not least to the duty of candour, which is another Sir Brian Langstaff recommendations.

So I hope that colleagues across the House will join me this evening in supporting these regulations, and I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

commend them to the House. The question is on the Order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion say I of the contrary, no, opinion say I of the contrary, no, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. I'll give a few moments for the frontbenchers to swap over. We now come to motion number five on employment and training. I call the Minister to move the motion. Minister Sir Stephen Timms.
21:44
Stephen Timms Portrait Rt Hon Sir Stephen Timms MP (East Ham, Labour)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I beg to move that the House approves the draft industrial training Levy. Engineering training Levy. Engineering Construction Industry Training Board Order 2026 regulations. In my Board Order 2026 regulations. In my view, the provisions in the instruments are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The statutory purpose. Madam Deputy Speaker of the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board, the ECITB is to make better provision for training across the engineering construction industry in England, Scotland and Wales, and engineering construction is critical to the government's wider ambitions for economic growth, for clean energy and for energy security.

The industry provides the skilled workforce to build, maintain and operate major energy manufacturing and industrial infrastructure across the country. The continued value of the E, C, I, T, B and the Construction Industry Training Board was confirmed by a 2023 independent review. It found that a statutory levy remains the most effective model for industry wide investment in training, and is needed to address persistent structural workforce challenges within the industries covered by the Itbs. This Statutory Instrument gives effect to the E C Itbs Levy proposals for 2026, 2027 and 2028.

The levy remains the board's primary source of funding, and this order is required for the board to raise mandatory assessments on employers, which are in scope. The CITB continues to receive very strong support from employers. Over 85% of levy paying employers supported the levy proposals, representing nearly 98% of total levy value, so well above the more than 50% statutory threshold for support required from industry. Let me just point out that a 12 week government consultation has just closed on a proposal to bring together the two itbs into a single, unified body to support the combined skills needs of the engineering, construction and construction sectors.

The government is now carefully considering the views raised before making decisions on reforms that may be needed to ensure the system delivers the support employers need. I can't prejudge the outcome, but to maintain the TBS for support for employers, we do need the levy order we are debating today. If the government chose to propose to proceed rather with the proposed reform, then the earliest that a single body would be in place is spring 2028. If recall reform required a new ITV levy order, this would come to the House through the usual parliamentary process.

But returning to this levy order, I thank the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for its detailed review. The order retains levy assessment rates from the 2023 Levy Order and retains the exemption threshold to protect small and micro businesses who are still eligible for CITB grants and support. An estimated £137.9 million will be raised in levy over 2026 to 2028. This will be invested in meeting the skills needs of the engineering and construction industry. It will fund programmes to widen participation, raise skill levels, increase opportunity and to maintain occupational standards for the industry.

It includes targeted grant support to employers to develop the skills pipeline in engineering construction. Since 2023, over 5000 apprenticeship starts have been supported through CITB employer funding, including electrical, mechanical and nuclear specific apprenticeships. This support includes direct grants to employers, travel and accommodation costs and costs for additional qualifications required. The funding raised by the levy directly underpins broader economic priorities. Over 9000 people are employed in the levy workforce, with contributing an estimated £33 billion in gross value added, rising to £100 billion when including the wider sectors serviced by the engineering construction industry.

But the industry faces big, long standing challenges in recruiting and retaining a skilled workforce that makes voluntary investment in training harder to secure. Only a statutory levy can guarantee that the skills industry urgently needs will be provided at the scale that's required. If this order was not approved, the CITB would be unable to collect levy in 2026. That would hit apprenticeships and other vital industry qualifications, employer support programmes, training standards and the future capabilities of one of our most economically significant sectors.

It's estimated, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the UK needs an additional 40,000 engineering construction workers. This order will play an important part in supporting major infrastructure projects nationwide. In addition to industry support, the proposals before the House today have received the full support of the devolved governments of Scotland and of Wales. They recognise, as we do, that the ability of the CITB to raise and invest levy income is vital to ensuring employers across all three nations can access the engineering construction skills that they need, and I commend the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

order to the House. The question is, as on the Order Paper, I call Shadow Minister

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Paper, I call Shadow Minister Rebecca Smith. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This draft order will allow the This draft order will allow the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board, known as the easy. Excuse me. I'm used to saying citb the ECITV to continue collecting a levy on employers in order to fund
21:51
Rebecca Smith Portrait Rebecca Smith MP (South West Devon, Conservative)
-
-
training and address skills shortages. The engineering construction industry underpins many of the services we rely on every day, whether that is heating our homes, supplying clean drinking water or providing the energy and fuels that keep our economy moving. The levy helps ensure that we have the skilled workforce needed to build and maintain critical infrastructure. This workforce, Madam Deputy Speaker, is essential to the UK's future energy security and economic growth. The order continues the board's established approach of setting levy orders for a three year period.

Under the proposals before us, the levy rates for employees working on site will remain at 1.2% of total annual enrolments, and rates for off site employees will remain at 0.33%. This is unchanged from the 2023 levy. Order and exemptions, as we have already heard, will be in place for smaller employers as they have already been. Now, this draft order is particularly relevant to my constituency Devonport Dockyard in the neighbouring Plymouth Sutton and Devonport constituency, and its supply chain provides thousands of highly skilled engineering and construction jobs across Plymouth and the wider South West.

Indeed, the maintenance of the UK's continuous at sea nuclear deterrent is confirmed for over 70 years from Plymouth and will need a trained workforce, something that Team Plymouth is working hard to deliver. So as major investment continues in defence and nuclear infrastructure, it is critical that we maintain a steady stream of skilled engineers, technicians and apprenticeships. And I can confirm that the opposition will not be opposing this order tonight. However, this is a useful opportunity to scrutinise the government's plans to address issues in particular with recruitment and retention as the right hon.

Member for East Ham has already said, the training levy clearly commands industry support, with 85% of levy paying employers voting in favour of it in 2025. This represents 98% of the levy paid. The levy system plays a vital role in developing a consistent pipeline of home grown engineering construction works. 65% of employers felt that without the levy and grant system, the training would not take place, according to research from 2024, commissioned by the CITB. In an increasingly fragile geopolitical climate, it is vital that we have a well-trained domestic talent pool across these sectors.

The levy works because it is driven by industry need. Companies understand their workforce requirements far better than Whitehall ever could, and we should be empowering businesses to create jobs, not burdening them with ever greater costs, and then attempting to compensate through government schemes that seek to manage the consequences of labour shortages after they have already arisen. One reason levy rates are not being increased is that employers are already facing higher operating costs, not least because of Labour's damaging national insurance hikes.

This is classic labour economics, making it more expensive to hire people than intervening with subsidies to solve the problem of their own making. As I have said before, most employers would rather keep more of what they earn and invest it themselves, rather than have government take with one hand and give a little back with the other. And I believe details like this are included within the explanatory note itself. The levy proposals are expected to raise a total of £137.9 million over the levy periods between this year and 2028.

We must ensure that this levy delivers the workforce that the industry needs. Over 70% of employers are now experiencing significant hiring challenges, up from 53% in 2021, according to the Sib's 2025 report. The main reasons for skill shortages include a shortage of qualifications and skills among candidates, a mismatch between candidate expectations and what employers can offer a limited applicant volume, mobility and location issues, and increased competition among employers and other sectors. To make matters worse, Madam Deputy Speaker, the engineering construction industry is facing an upcoming wave of retirements.

Almost 15% of the workforce is already over the age of 60. Workers in craft roles, in particular are in short supply concerningly around 1 in 4 welders and 1 in 5 pipe fitters are over 60 now, although the number of workers under 30 has slightly increased since 2021, from 14.7% to 16.8%, new entrants are not yet arriving quickly enough to offset experienced workers leaving the industry. We know that the CITB invested £28 million in training grants and new entrant programmes in 2024.

It supported over 2000 new entrant starts, including 1000 apprentice starts and over 5000 graduates. This is to be welcomed. However, those numbers must keep growing if the industry is going to replace retiring workers, whilst simultaneously expanding the workforce needed for future projects. The industry will be facing peak demand for workers in four years time, 40,000 extra workers will be needed for major projects by 2030, according to CITB forecasts. This does not even take into account Madam Deputy Speaker the demand in manufacturing sectors which are not covered by the CITB.

Now I accept, the Minister said that 5000 places have been filled, but given that 4000 aim and number, I think we are going to need to see further work done in this. So can the Minister outline what further steps the government are taking alongside the work to attract new entrants into the workforce, and given the significant training costs that employers incur, does the Minister believe that current CITB grant support is sufficient to incentivise employers to expand recruitment, particularly in occupations facing the greatest shortages? And we know that retention is equally critical.

So could the Minister confirm what proportion of apprentices, graduates and new entrants who are supported through the CITB are still working in the industry 12 months after completing their training? Now, finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, the government has recently consulted on proposals to bring together the Construction Industry Training Board and the CITB into a single body. As those responses are considered, I would welcome further clarification from the Minister on how the specialist needs of the engineering construction sector will be protected.

Constituencies such as mine rely on highly skilled engineering and technical workers to support major defence and nuclear infrastructure, but we also need construction workers to build new homes and the like, and it is important that those skills are not overlooked within a larger organisation. I also want to just ask the Minister, if I may, that since the removal of local training groups by the Construction Industry Training Board, I have heard that money for regional employer networks has not been found in certain regions and as a result, those networks have not properly been set up.

Now, we have debated that in the past, so I appreciate that's not entirely related, but it is because it's about employment and training. So how is the department working to mitigate those? The apparent failure in those regional employer network hubs that were being set up to conclude the engineering construction industry requires a strong pipeline of skilled workers. There is clear evidence that employers continue to support the levy system, but I would welcome the minister's response to the points I have raised about recruitment, retention and the future direction of the CITB.

If we are serious about delivering our ambitions for energy, infrastructure and industrial growth, we must be equally serious about investing in the workforce that will make those ambitions a reality.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. These levy proposals may sound technical, but at their heart they're about investing in people and in Britain's future. Because, let's be honest, everything we let's be honest, everything we touch we see is supported, repaired and built by these industries. And and built by these industries. And as far as the Labour MP for Portsmouth North, this debate matters deeply to me. Portsmouth is
21:59
Amanda Martin Portrait Amanda Martin MP (Portsmouth North, Labour)
-
-
proud of its industrial heritage. Our city once helped build and maintain the ships that defend our country. Skilled engineering and trade shaped our communities for generations, but many people in my constituency also know what it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

feels like to be left behind. Too many of those skilled. 10:00 motion. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. The question is, as on the Order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion say I of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have it. Amanda Martin thank you. To many, but many people in my feels like to be left behind. Too feels like to be left behind. Too many of these skilled industrial jobs have disappeared, and too many young people today do not see the same opportunities that previous generations had. So when we talk about levies like this, we're really talking about whether today's young people will be given the opportunities their parents and grandparents had. It's about creating the next generation of engineers and skilled workers who will build and maintain and modernise the infrastructure our country depends on.

For many young people, particularly those who do not choose a traditional university route, apprenticeships offer a pathway into secure, highly skilled and well-paid work. By supporting this levy, we're investing in those opportunities and in the workforce our economy will need for decades to come. But, Madam Deputy Speaker, we need to ensure that these levies enable maximum opportunities and flexibilities, such as supporting those in the construction industry to use the levy creatively for transport by providing maybe driving lessons, as it's not very easy to get on public transport to building sites at the hours of times that these people need to be attending.

So will the Minister work with me to look at how we can use this levy flexibly across the sector? The truth is that our ambition for clean energy, advanced manufacturing, industrial decarbonisation and major infrastructure projects will only succeed if we have the skilled workforce to deliver them. No single employer can solve these skills alone. A collective approach allows industry to invest together in training, ensuring we develop not only the workforce we need today, but the workforce for tomorrow. We need to find a way to ensure that larger businesses who do not use their full levy work to support those smaller ones that need it.

Madam Deputy Speaker, earlier today, the all party parliamentary group for tradespeople met and met and held a round table with Checkatrade, presenting new research into young people's attitudes towards careers in the trade. The findings were encouraging. Almost half of the people are considering becoming a plumber, a builder or electrician, while 40% of under 25 now see an apprenticeship is more appealing than a degree. Just ten years ago, that stood at 3%. So an apprenticeship is slowly becoming the first choice. This is a remarkable shift, but it also creates a responsibility.

If more young people want to pursue skilled trades, we must make sure the training and opportunities are there. This is particularly important when more than a million young people are currently not in education, employment or training. Madam Deputy Speaker, can I ask them to support cross party working, cross-government working to ensure that this opportunity is available in Portsmouth, where it is much needed and much wanted? I also know that there has been a consultation taking place on the future of the CITB and the CITB, and I ask the Minister to engage with the APPG for tradespeople about those discussions and the progress that will be made.

Finally, there is a wider national interest at stake. Engineering construction underpins our critical national infrastructure, from an energy network to to defence facilities and an increasingly uncertain world, Britain cannot rely solely on importing the skills we need. So we must develop home grown talent, indeed, city grown talent that strengthens both our economy and our national resilience. And to do that, we must recognise the barriers to taking up and completing these apprenticeships and to look to ensure that we look to remove these.

For communities like Portsmouth North, this is about restoring opportunity. It's about giving young people the chance to learn a trade, earn a good wage but a rewarding career, and take pride in contributing to Britain's future as they once did

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in my city. For those reasons. Can I ask for our words and our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I ask for our words and our comments? But when it comes to opportunity, whether it be in construction for apprenticeships, wherever they may be, wherever they may be, apprenticeships are also available and they should be available. In fishing, for instance, they should be apprenticeships available in be apprenticeships available in farming. And does the hon. Lady agree when it comes to seizing those opportunities for apprenticeships, there should be equality for men and women to to grasp the opportunity because both

**** Possible New Speaker ****

can do the job equally good. As a a student who studied Stem

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As a a student who studied Stem when I was at college. Absolutely. I agree with my hon. Friend, we need to ensure that our young need to ensure that our young people have the maximum opportunities to give resilience and in our country, whether that's in defence, whether that's in farming, whether that's in maritime, something also close to my heart. So I wholeheartedly agree with him.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So I wholeheartedly agree with him. And for those reasons, I am pleased to support these proposals. I call Liberal Democrat

**** Possible New Speaker ****

spokesperson Steve Darling. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And growing.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The economy is one of the essential duties of the government, and this levy is a key part of making sure that we're growing production of part of that agenda. production of part of that agenda. We know that the opportunities that this gives of growing core industries and colleagues have already alluded to core infrastructure and changing our economy so that we become more environmentally sound, tackle climate change and have a cleaner economy is absolutely essential. And many of these jobs help achieve that.

Colleagues in the debate have already alluded to the more than a million NEETs that are out there in our communities, and we know that through these levies, these can be tackled as well. We're also very much alive to his Liberal Democrats. We believe in working in partnership with employers and educationalists, and we know that this can be achieved through this levy approach. In my own
22:05
Steve Darling Portrait Steve Darling MP (Torbay, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
constituency of Torbay, I'm very much aware that for electronics and photonics, we're one of five core areas of opportunity for that across the United Kingdom. And we know and I'm well aware, that companies such as photonics and Co companies such as photonics and Co work in partnership with South Devon College to make sure there's a pipeline of opportunities for a pipeline of opportunities for young people in Devon. And so, as liberal Democrats, we warmly welcome these proposals before us

**** Possible New Speaker ****

tonight. Thank you. Laurence Turner thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. And outset, I should draw attention to my membership of the GMB and unite my membership of the GMB and unite trade unions, both of which organise workers in the engineering construction sector. It's a construction sector. It's a pleasure to speak in this debate, which may be auspicious because which may be auspicious because depending on the government's future reform of this sector, we may be moving towards longer term settlements for levy changes.

And on account of the consultation, which has already been said, closed just two weeks ago, industrial training boards once covered a much wider share of the economy before many of them were, I think, sadly scrapped in the early 1980s, and it's quite difficult now to imagine a role in the modern economy for the wool, jute and Flax Industry Training Board, but it is worth reflecting that in the past, those training boards have overseen some very important skills transition, particularly the Gas Industry
22:07
Laurence Turner Portrait Laurence Turner MP (Birmingham Northfield, Labour)
-
-
Training Board's role in the highly successful conversion from town gas to natural gas. And as we think to natural gas. And as we think about the future of home heating, perhaps if that body still existed, we would be in a stronger position we would be in a stronger position today. But thankfully, both the city and the CITB have survived and city and the CITB have survived and are now modern 21st century institutions. Engineering construction refers to that aspect of the construction industry, which crosses beyond design into implementation, covering everything from bridges to tunnels to energy, from waste plants to HS2 and new nuclear sites.

In other words, if we are to build the infrastructure that the UK needs, we need that steady pipeline of skills and the industry. Training boards are not the whole of the answer, but they are an important part of it. But as has already been said, construction productivity is lower in the UK than in some comparison countries such as Germany and the Netherlands, and these are deep seated problems. In this country, 38% of engineering construction workers are aged 50 or over, rising to 40% in the oil and gas sector.

And although some progress has been made and there are still critical shortages for skills such as plating and welding. And this is an issue which we looked at on the Transport Select Committee, which my hon. Friend, the shadow opposition Speaker, contributed to, where we heard repeatedly that the shortages in these key skills are holding back the UK's ability to deliver those major projects and raising costs for taxpayers. Now, this Statutory Instrument is necessary to continue the provision of essential skills training.

It carries forward an effective 1.2% levy on on site net labour costs and 0.33% on offsite costs. These rates are unchanged on 2023, and there is clearly a good level of satisfaction in the quality of individual courses, because the share of employers that voted in favour of the levy went up slightly in this round. Now, this Statutory Instrument should raise around £138 million over the next three years and give an idea of the scale of the training that it delivers in 2024, the CITB supported almost 2200 new entrant starts, and 64,000 people were trained on E citb courses and other products.

Now, we have heard a lot rightly about employment in the North Sea oil and gas sector, and many workers in that sector feel a great sense of frustration because they know that their skills are transferable. But there has not always been sufficient recognition across related sectors of the transferability of those skills, and indeed, attempts to create a skills passport under the last government did run into some frustrations and ran over in terms of its timing. So I think it is important to quote the free North Sea trade unions GMB, unite and RMT in respect of the Itbs Connected Competence programme when they said that the trade unions have been pushing for a standardised, fair and transparent approach for competitive skills assessment for several years and we that as unions welcome the Connected Competence Scheme, we sincerely hope that the initiative is adopted and utilised by all contractors and industry bodies.

This would truly enable workers to transition around the energy sector and help maintain and develop a skills base. This is good news both for workers and the wider UK economy, so clearly the value of the CITB does extend beyond the provision of training courses. As important as that is. Now, we have heard about the reform programme which the government has been taking forward and in fairness, was prompted by the independent review commissioned under the last government. And at the heart of those proposals is the proposed merger of the CITB and the TB.

The justification is that there would be more effective long term planning and strategic decision making on which courses should be invested in, and I'm sure that the whole House will agree that it is important that we realise these aims. But at the same time, the construction industry and engineering construction, although allied trades do have important differences. So I think it would be helpful if we could hear about how the distinctive nature of construction engineering skills requirements would be protected should the merger go ahead.

The consultation, as we've heard, has only closed recently, but it would be appreciated if the Minister is able to give any information on when he anticipates that the government will respond in full to that consultation. And I wonder, just in the short time left, whether I might make a point about workforce representation on the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board. And there is a related point here about the Construction Industry Training Board, as well as one I've raised before in this House, which is that when these boards were established in the 1960s, there was equal 5050 representation on the boards of the industry.

Training schemes for trade union representatives. So worker representation and employer representation over the years. And it was not an immediate process. The trade union representatives were gradually squeezed off both boards, to the point, now that there is no trade union representation on the boards of either the CITB or the ECITB, they are represented on a subsidiary advisory board, but this is lesser of lesser status, and it does mean that they are not in the room when the core decisions are made.

So as we approach this point of potentially wholesale reform of the Itbs, I wonder if the we can take this opportunity to write what I think was a mistake, which was to remove that direct worker voice from the boards of these organisations, whether that is, as a standalone continued separate existence for the ECI, TB or the TB. I wonder if the Minister ever perhaps would send some information on that proposal in writing, or when he sums up. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

To wind up. Well. Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you, and I'm grateful to all those who've spoken in the debate for the who've spoken in the debate for the the thoughtful scrutiny that's been given to this instrument. I'm grateful to the support expressed grateful to the support expressed both by the hon. Member, South West Devon and the hon. Member for Devon and the hon. Member for Torbay and for my hon. Friends representing Portsmouth North and Birmingham Northfield for their contributions as well. And what I think the debate has effectively underlined is just how important the work of the TB is, and the scale of the challenge that faces one of our most economically vital industries, with a workforce of 9000 people responsible for £33
22:15
Stephen Timms Portrait Rt Hon Sir Stephen Timms MP (East Ham, Labour)
-
-
billion in annual output, and the importance of that industry has been well reflected in the been well reflected in the contributions to this debate. It is clear that the engineering construction industry can't meet construction industry can't meet its skills demands in the coming decade without a stable collective decade without a stable collective system of investment in training. The evidence for that is consistent that market forces on their own will not deliver the pipeline of skilled workers that the industry urgently needs.

The TB levy is the mechanism that enables the collective benefits of a focussed skills strategy for this industry. It ensures that employers can access support for training and share the benefits of a skilled, competent and resilient workforce. It also opens up opportunities. It helps apprentices and other new entrants to complete high quality training and existing workers to reskill or upskill to progress their careers. The hon. Member for South West Devon asked me about what the government is doing to support this industry more widely with skills, and there is substantial government investment being deployed to this effect as part of wider reforms, helping employers to respond to current and future workforce needs.

This includes an additional billion pounds of investment to help deliver some 50,000 more apprenticeship opportunities over the next few years, alongside increased flexibility through the new growth and skills levy and specific sector skills packages in engineering. Construction worth over £800 million, she'll know of the the targeted incentives for employers, including payments of up to £2,000 for taking on foundation apprentices, helping more young people, entered skilled careers and continued investment. We're making skills, boot camps and increasingly devolved approaches through mayoral.

Strategic authorities are enabling local authority local areas to respond more effectively to local employer demand and to skills shortages, and together with support from CITB, these measures certainly will strengthen the pipeline of skills, and I agree with her about how important that is, perhaps just worth making the point that she gave the figures from 2024, £28 million invested by the CITB in training grants and new entrant programmes. That was up to £32.6 million last year, and we're expecting continuing increases.

Recognising the the importance of being able to fulfil the growing demand that we are seeing. My hon. Friend for Portsmouth North reflected how important these measures are for Portsmouth. Quite rightly, she also asked for engagement with the all party parliamentary group, and that is a request I'll pass on to my colleague the. My hon. Friend the Minister for transformation. I'm sure he'll be very pleased to do that. To my hon. Friend from Birmingham, Northfield, I'd say I'm afraid I'm not in a position to shed any light on the timing for the decision.

Following the recent consultation. I will, though, pass on from him his suggestion about trade union representation, and that should be considered when this reorganisation is being reflected on. The Shadow Minister asked me for a question about the proportion of new entrants. I think she was asking about those who are still in the industry. 12 months on. That's not a figure that I have to hand, but I would, if I may, drop her a line, if I can get that information to to answer her question.

So, Madam Deputy Speaker, the debate has reminded us of just how important supporting the needs of small businesses, ensuring maximum impact and value for money from employers levy contributions. And I think this order does give reassurance on all those points. It maintains support for the engineering and construction industry, minimising burdens on employers, holding steady levy rates and protecting smaller firms by maintaining exemption thresholds, regardless of any future decisions needed to future proof its support. The industry cannot afford a gap now in funding, and approving this order provides continuity, stability and confidence for engineering construction.

Employers across England, Scotland and Wales. I'm grateful for the support this measure has received in this debate and for all those reasons, I beg to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move EA. The question is, as on the Order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion say aye. Contrary, I think opinion say aye. Contrary, I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it, and I'll give a few moments for the and I'll give a few moments for the House to settle. Thank you sir. We

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now move on to motion number six on Education Minister to move. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. The question is, as on the Order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. no.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

no. no. Division. The division is deferred. It's a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The division is deferred. It's a very late night. Sorry. We now move on to motion number seven on Health and Safety. Minister to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. The question is, as on the Order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion, say I, I. On the contrary, opinion, say I, I. On the contrary, no. No division deferred. We now move on to motion number eight, Electronic Communications Minister,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Electronic Communications Minister, to move. I beg to move. The question is, as on the Order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion say aye. of the contrary, no I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now move on to motion number nine. Town and Country Planning Minister to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. The question is, as on the Order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Paper, as many as are of that no, No. Division deferred. We now move

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Division deferred. We now move on to motion number ten on Legal Aid and advice. Minister. To move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Aid and advice. Minister. To move. I beg to move. The question is, as on the Order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion say aye. of the contrary,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

no I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Motion number 11 on companies. Minister to move. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that Paper, as many as are of that no I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Motion number 12 on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ayes have it. Motion number 12 on constitutional law. Minister to move. I beg to move. The question is, as on the Order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion say aye. of the contrary,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

no I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. Motion number 13 on criminal law. Minister to move. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion, say I. Of the contrary. No, opinion, say I. Of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to motion have it. We now come to motion number 14 relating to Scottish Affairs Committee. Gen Kitchen.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion say I of the contrary, no I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it.
22:23
None Portrait Adjournment: Review of patient safety across the health and care landscape, published in July 2025
-

I beg to move that this House do now adjourn the. >> The question is that this House do now adjourn to Bernard Jenkin. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy. >> Speaker. >> And I'm grateful. For this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I'm grateful. For this opportunity to evaluate the Dash review of patient safety. And I do thank the Minister for the meeting with her this afternoon, and I hope with her this afternoon, and I hope the House will forgive me and Penny Dash, but in the interests of brevity and clarity, I shall be direct. Whenever asked to justify the abolition of the Health Services Safety investigation body Ministers refer to Dash, but Dash fails to make the case for what it recommends.

This new clinical incident investigator was established less than three years ago. It is a new concept in healthcare, conceived to challenge the culture of denial and blame in the NHS. It is proving itself even with its very limited Budget. One early report on aortic dissection led to 300 more people receiving life saving, life saving treatment. The Minister now has a list of key recommendation impacts produced by. A lot of them may seem small or piecemeal, but this is a small body so far.

After a boy suffered an avoidable death from cancer, eight CIB recommended to NHS England, a new community Language Translation and interpreting services framework so that non-English speaking patients will get appointment letters for their children, which they can read and understand. Hseb recommended a protocol between prisons and ambulances ambulance services to avoid wasting ambulance time and new guidance for non-accidental injury of babies in emergency departments, where no specific guidance had existed before. The Dash review shows no understanding of its purpose and shows no comprehension of coherent safety system management.

Dash gets facts wrong and misinterprets the law, either through a failure of understanding or because the recommendation to abolish CIB somehow reflected a desired outcome of the review. Regardless of the facts, I will set out some specific questions which the Minister has had in advance, most of them, and if she does not have enough time, I look forward to the further meeting

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that we discuss. We may have. In the future. Well, my hon. Friend. I certainly give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I certainly give way. I'm grateful to my hon. Friend who is making a very powerful case. Does he agree with me that one of Does he agree with me that one of the common themes in all the maternity scandals that we've been discussing in recent weeks, sadly, discussing in recent weeks, sadly, has been the way that a blame culture in the NHS makes it very culture in the NHS makes it very hard for NHS staff to speak openly about why tragedies have happened, and that's why they welcome Seb with its safe space protections.

And is he worried that that could be undermined by putting it into the CQC, which has a regulatory duty, a legal duty to act on information it receives, therefore creating the worry for people talking to Seb that the information that they give to each Seb may no

**** Possible New Speaker ****

longer be protected in the same way. Well, I. 100% agree with my right hon. Friend and he will note that I pick Friend and he will note that I pick up these points during my remarks that I come back to the questions I want to put to the Secretary of want to put to the Secretary of State. The first is this if investigations are intended to continue unaffected by the transfer continue unaffected by the transfer to CQC, then why bother with the expense of the transfer? Or are expense of the transfer? Or are Ministers simply using Dash as the pretext for what people in the Department or elsewhere in the NHS would like to have? A chip was deliberately started, very small, but intended over time to take over more investigations in health and to replace the need for wealthy, wasteful, lengthy, inexpert ad hoc public inquiries.

Over the years, inquiries have proved to be a chaotic means of investigation, assembling expertise from scratch, which is then lost after the inquiry and failing to command public confidence or to fix the system. That is why, after the 1999 Paddington rail crash, the Ladbroke Grove inquiry in 2001 established the Rail Accident Investigation Branch. Since then, despite many fatal rail accidents, there has been no public inquiry into a rail crash. Nor has the public felt the need to demand one and the rail safety has improved.

So given that is expert full time and can conduct much cheaper and quicker investigations than public inquiries, how can Ministers accept the recommendation to abolish Seb? Why not consider expanding Hitchin to avoid the need for so many costly public inquiries? Dash complaints about far too many recommendations. And yes, there are. But as Dash itself enumerates, it is the 30 public inquiries that have cluttered the landscape in their language, with some 1400 recommendations over recent years. He is therefore not the source of too many recommendations.

So let me ask. In its first 34 months of operation eight, Seb has produced only 56 recommendations. So how can Ministers use this reason to justify its abolition? Dash refers more than once to, and I quote, quality, including safety of care, unquote. This elides quality of care with safety in any other safety critical industry, safety is seen as a distinct, separate and overriding priority, and it is telling that the words, including safety, are merely added in parentheses, as though safety is ancillary to quality.

But that becomes justification for rationalisation while actually compromising safety, safety safety system management is intrinsic to the safety and public confidence in other safety critical activities like aviation. But this is alien to NHS culture. So I ask the Minister again without HCV, can the Minister explain which independent body will promote coherent understanding of safety system management in health, and who is to hold the NHS and government to account for failures of safety without hCG? Very briefly, I have a lot to say, but thank you very much.

Recommendation one of Dash says that the new National Quality Board should, and I quote, avoid unfunded mandates being imposed on the system without due consideration, unquote. Public inquiries have certainly made well-meaning but unaffordable recommendations. And I think of the Francis inquiry recommendation on blanket standards for minimum staffing. It is, however, wrong to see safety as a cost in opposition to other benefits. The cost of safety failures is astronomic, with annual NHS clinical negligence costing 3.6 billion a year.

Despite all the public inquiries. Effective safety management is about cost effective management of risk, not risk elimination at any cost. If a I b did not balance costs with effective risk management, aeroplanes would not fly. So can the Minister point out which of Seb's recommendations have been too expensive to implement to justify the abolition of HCG? And if not, where is the justification for abolishing H. Seb and neither Ncbi nor C QC should control investigations. Neither the CAA, CAA nor the Transport Secretary, nor airlines themselves can stop AIB making independent recommendations.

So I ask the Minister, why should the Ncbi, which will be subject to political direction, be allowed to decide what safety recommendations should be made? What should be investigated, which is what? Recommended by Dash. On page 31, dash states incorrectly and I quote H. Seb was not able to retain the maternity programme because the Health and Care Act 2022 does not make provision for maternity investigations under H, end quote. So why have the government accepted this assertion as true? It is wrong, in fact, and law.

The new statutory H did not take on the maternity and newborn safety investigations because they were commenced without the safe space protections, so their evidence is available for legal proceedings. This is not how H. Seb operates. Since 2023, H Seb has been conducting its own maternity investigations. Indeed, when Amos was established, Amos took on the relevant investigations from H and then relied on H. Seb for assistance with them with sufficient resources. H Seb could conduct all maternity investigations much more effectively than Ms.

I Amos reported that massive investigations are not trusted by families as my right hon. Friend was saying, and I'm not consistent or effective at identifying, learning or providing accountability. Amos also says that families should have access to an independent investigation if they lose confidence in the local investigations. So I asked the Minister without H. Seb, who will provide those independent investigations. Finding six accuses her of having, and I quote, expanded its scope of work beyond the original remit, for example, and this is continuing the quote H Seb was originally established along the lines of safety investigatory bodies in other industries to look at specific cases of incidents of severe harm.

But it has since broadened its work into making more systemic recommendations, unquote. That's what Dash says. This is complete nonsense. H is exactly equivalent to A IBMAIB and RAIB, and was like them set up to conduct systemic investigations, which is why they are such effective bodies. The Health and Social Care Act 2022 does not limit H. Seb investigations to individual incidents. There is no reference whatsoever to severe harm quoted by Dash as though it was in the 2022 act.

It was always intended by Parliament that H. Seb should make systemic recommendations arising from the investigation of specific cases of incidents or groups of incidents. I can say this with authority because it was my Select Committee which recommended H. Seb in the first place, and I also chaired the Pre-legislative scrutiny committee on the draft legislation. So how can Ministers give any authority to the Dash review, which claimed that H has expanded its remit when it has done no such thing? Now recommendation three proposes, and I quote, most investigations into safety incidents.

Incidents should be continued to be managed within provider organisations. Now, this really is the fundamental flaw in Dash. Recent maternity investigations conducted by trusts have highlighted the deficiency of provider led investigations. As Ockenden and Amos have pointed out. Does the government accept that provider organisations investigations are inherently conflicted? Just ask the clinicians, patients, families and patient safety organisations what they think about trusts marking their own homework. None of them has confidence because providers are keen to protect themselves from litigation and reputational damage.

I'll just finish this point. So how can Ministers accept the recommendation that we should rely on investigations conducted by provider organisations? I give way to the hon. Lady.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And commend him for speaking so clearly about why having an clearly about why having an independent hscic to investigate is so important, independent of those so important, independent of those providers. Time and again we hear about devastating failings in the NHS. He alludes to maternity NHS. He alludes to maternity services, but we could add to the list infected blood, pelvic mesh. So does he agree with me that for So does he agree with me that for professionals and those working inside the NHS, they must be able to speak freely when things go wrong in order to learn lessons, and that's only possible with an independent organisation

**** Possible New Speaker ****

investigating. I really thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. Only an that intervention. Only an independent investigator can find the causes of the incident that may be part of the culture or practice be part of the culture or practice of that provider, or of the system as a whole. And it is like suggesting that airlines or aircraft manufacturers can protect aircraft manufacturers can protect passenger safety without the independent accountability provided by A I B. Of course, providers by A I B.

Of course, providers should have the capacity and capability of conducting patient safety investigations, but they must know that H can and will look at that work and will hold them to account. Recommendation three also says it should continue as what they call a centre of excellence for investigations, unquote in CQC. But I'm afraid this is just a sop. See CQC, as was pointed out by my right hon. Friend is a regulator and compliance enforcer, not an investigator. How can CQC also be an independent investigator? And Dash also says that the CQC internal successor should collaborate through Ncbi to agree the scope of any investigations it carries out, and agree the recommendations.

Dash is effectively saying that CQC investigations will be overseen by Ncbi. That is a direct attack on the independence of investigations. So can the Minister explain who will conduct investigations into safety incidents in the NHS in future, which are independent and unconflicted? For example, how would an investigation under CQC be free to find that seeks inspections themselves were causing unintended harm to patients? Or is it back to the misery of litigation through the courts and more public inquiries? This recommendation also makes no reference to the statutory safe space raised by the hon.

Lady, which provides for protected disclosure by patients and their families, clinicians and others in in safety investigation bodies. It's a crucial safeguard, allowing people to speak. It allows for the duty of candour. And I just point out the duty of candour doesn't work if it's just imposed on people. You cannot force people to incriminate themselves. If placed under CQC, confidence in the safe space, investigations will collapse and back we go to public inquiries. The health Bill does attempt to address this by replicating the 2022 act Safe space provisions, but that act also provided for disclosure in certain circumstances, which has allowed on the basis that the benefits for the safety of patients outweighs any impact on current and future investigations.

But under this bill, who will decide what protected information can be disclosed? How will seek to give the same confidence that the safe space is not being compromised, as H said? And finally, Dash fails to look at the comparative cost of Hcid investigations versus the cost of public inquiries. H at the moment only cost £6.3 million per year. To save money, the Secretary of State should request that H should cuts conducts far more investigations into matters which he thinks are important, provided comparison, the Lampard inquiry best use of resources for conducting investigations.

So I ask the Minister, why has Dash and the government ignored the whole question of value for money? Even if H only saves a fraction of the 3.6 billion costs of clinical negligence, H will pay for itself many fold. And I do hope that Ministers will reconsider the whole issue. Reflecting on the fact that none of the Royal Colleges, nor any of the patient safety organisations, nor the all party group on patient

**** Possible New Speaker ****

safety support this unjustifiable policy. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I would like to thank the Member for Harwich and North Essex Member for Harwich and North Essex Essex for securing this important debate, and he has long taken a serious interest in patient safety, serious interest in patient safety, including the importance of independent investigation, and I recognise the strength and recognise the strength and sincerity, sincerity of the points that he has raised, and I will try and answer all of his questions in my remarks.

Madam Deputy Speaker, at the heart of this debate is a simple question. When patients and families tell us something has gone wrong, does the system listen? Does it learn? And most importantly, does it change because patients do not judge the system by the number of reports published, the number of organisations involved, or the number of recommendations written. They judge it by whether care becomes safer. And for too long, across too many parts of the system, we have seen the same pattern harm happens.

A review follows, lessons are identified, but the change patients were promised does not always follow quickly enough. And this is what this government is determined to change. Doctor Penny Dash's review was commissioned to consider whether the current landscape of organisations provides effective leadership, listening and regulation on patient safety and wider quality of care, and whether a different approach could deliver will.
22:41
Preet Kaur Gill Portrait Preet Kaur Gill MP (Birmingham Edgbaston, Labour )
-
-
I thank you for giving way, and I guess it's just before she goes down the route, which I completely down the route, which I completely understand is the focus of the debate today. I just wanted to put on record once more the concerns on record once more the concerns about Healthwatch and the abolition of that. I know there is a strong desire to see independent, patient desire to see independent, patient voice maintained outside of the system, because, of course it was established due to issues within health structures and notably with the Mid-staffordshire scandal.

So I just wanted to put on record the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

concerns about that. Thank you. Ben, for doing that. He will know that we are in Committee stage know that we are in Committee stage of the health bill, and there will be the opportunity to debate this issue on the floor of the House. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will. The Minister for outlining the case incredibly well, and I have a case incredibly well, and I have a request to the Minister of Pat Cullen, please, in relation to the vital lessons learned. Will it be data collection? Will it be streamlined complaints? Will it be patient safety, culture? Can I ask, Minister, that the lessons learned in their. Very important. Because they're important for us all in the United Kingdom and that they will be shared with the Northern Ireland Assembly Minister, Mike Nesmith, who.

Because the devolved matter to ensure that safety for all across this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is assured for everyone. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, absolutely. I am very privileged to have patient safety in my brief, and it's certainly something I know everybody across this House really cares about, and this House really cares about, and I would make sure that officials do that. Madam Deputy Speaker Oh, well, final time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful. And I. Certainly want to concur with all of the remarks by the right all of the remarks by the right hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex. And I think it's a really crucial point that he has made. But crucial point that he has made. But there's a wider issue, which I think the health bill completely misses, and I really do urge Ministers to look at, and that's around the accountability systems within the NHS. The reforms are not going to deliver that, they're going to weaken it.

And as a result, we will see more requests for investigations into patient safety. And I really want the Minister to take that back, because I'm worried that we're going to see a system which is more unsafe as a result of these reforms.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution. She's absolutely right. I take very seriously the issue of accountability. I am going to talk about it in my remarks on to talk about it in my remarks on this specific issue, because far too often we see so many inquiries and so many recommendations, but nobody taking responsibility for implementing the change. And in the end, patients have got to feel that end, patients have got to feel that things have changed and not we're having further reports and recommendations.

Madam Deputy recommendations. Madam Deputy Speaker, the review that Penny did examine, six organisations that are overseen by DHSC, the Care Quality Commission, the National Guardian's Office, Healthwatch England and the local Healthwatch Network, the Patient Safety Commissioner, the health service Safety investigations body and the patient safety learning functions of NHS resolution and the review's conclusion was clear. The problem is not that people working in patient safety lack commitment. There are dedicated people. We all know that across the system doing important work every day.

The problem is that the system around them has become too cluttered, too complex and too difficult for patients, staff and leaders to navigate. We inherited a landscape with more than 70 routes for patients and service users to raise concerns or provide feedback, and around 40 public bodies with a formal role in quality and safety. And that complexity does not automatically make patients safer. What it does do it can make responsibility unclear, create duplication, and it can make it harder to ensure that learning leads to improvement.

A cluttered landscape, as we would all agree, is not an effective landscape. My hon. Friend asked me about the expertise in CYP and full time job that they do, and whether it could conduct much cheaper and quicker investigations than public inquiries. Well, the investigation function within CQC will be expert, it will be full time and it will be able to conduct investigations in the same cheap and quick way that it does now. The same opportunity to use the CQC investigation function instead of needing a public inquiry will exist in future as it does now with CYP.

The review also found that too many recommendations are generated through reviews. As my hon. Friend said, inquiries and investigations without enough clarity on ownership, prioritisation, implementation and impact. And this is the fundamental point. Recommendations alone do not make patients safer. Safer change does, and that is why the government has accepted all nine recommendations of the review. I know my hon. Friend asked me about how CQC gives him. Will give the same confidence that the safe space is not being compromised.

Well, the criteria for disclosing protected information outside of the investigative function is set out in the bill. The criteria sets a very high bar for any disclosure, as high as high as it is currently with eight CYP and CQC will publish further guidance on this. That sets out much more detail. As the Bill sets out, CQC will appoint a responsible person who will decide whether a case matches the criteria, whether it warrants the information sharing outside of the safe space, and this is likely to be the CQC CEO.

He also asked me about why. Why has Dash and the government ignored the whole question of its value for money? Well, look, the Dash reforms, let me just be clear, are not about saving money. They are about strengthening patient safety and voice across the system, the abolition of hate speech and transfer of functions to the CQC do actually play an important part in making the system of patient safety much more effective. Safety is the issue, not not the money, but accepting the recommendations is the beginning, not the end.

Patients who have suffered harm. Families who have campaigned for years and staff who have spoken up do not want another report sitting on a shelf. They want evidence that the system can listen, learn and prevent harm happening again. And I want to be absolutely clear every organisation in the system has a responsibility to meet that challenge. Patient safety cannot be something we support in principle, but resist when it requires us to change. No organisation, however established or well intentioned, should believe that learning and improvement only apply elsewhere.

And that is why we are streamlining and strengthening the patient landscape safety landscape. I know my hon. Friend mentioned the National Quality Board and we have revitalised the board, giving it a much stronger role in performing, in providing a single, authoritative view of quality across the system. This will help reduce duplication. It will bring greater clarity to recommendations and ensure effort is focussed where it has the greatest impact. We do need fewer recommendations. I think everybody in this House can recognise that because we know they disappear into the system and more recommendations are needed that are owned, that are tracked and delivered.

So just turning to the health services services safety investigations body. Look, I do recognise the concerns my hon. Friend raises and we had a very constructive conversation earlier today. So on his point around, you know, the accusations of hate slip of having expanded scope of its work beyond its remit. And I did explain to me in detail about how I hate it came to being. To its inception. Well, just to say that the government have accepted the recommendation that HHS role as a centre of excellence for investigations should actually continue and clarified the remit of any future investigations, the investigation function within CQC, I think, will fulfil the role of a centre of excellence for investigations.

Hscrp has developed important expertise in understanding why things go wrong and identifying system wide learning. I want to acknowledge that work. The question before us is not whether investigations matter. They of course, do. The question is how we ensure investigations lead to action, because learning without implementation does not improve patient safety. And the dash review recommended transferring its functions to the Care Quality Commission while maintaining a dedicated investigation capability. So I understand why colleagues will want reassurance on this because independence.

Transparency is, my hon. Friend said. And trust are really essential in patient safety investigations, but so is impact. And the purpose of these reforms is not to weaken investigation. It is to strengthen the link between investigation, learning and improvement. We need a clearer route from identifying problems to making recommendations, to ensuring someone owns delivery and patient patients see change. My hon. Friend asked if if Dash is implemented, whether I could explain who will conduct future investigations into safety in the NHS, will the investigation function within CQC will have autonomy to launch investigations into any part of the health system, and it can make recommendations on any part of the system, just as it does now.

There will be no barrier to an investigator finding out that CQC inspections are causing unintended harm. If they are, and the investigator feels a recommendation for change should be made, they will make it. There will be no need for litigation through the courts, and insights gained from investigations will continue to inform recommendations concerning the Care Quality Commission's regulatory functions. The bill also allows for the investigation function to make recommendations to the CQC in its report, and the CQC would legally be required to respond to such recommendations, so I hope he is assured that we will work carefully with colleagues, patients, staff and system leaders as these reforms are implemented and the same principle applies to patient voice.

Patients do not share their experiences simply to for the system to record them. They do so because they want to see things change. Listening matters. But acting on what we hear is what makes patients safer, safer. And that is why we are ensuring patient experience is closer to where decisions are made, with commissioners and providers responsible not only for delivering services, but for listening and responding. The Patient Safety Commissioner will continue to champion patient voice on medicines and medical devices and report

**** Possible New Speaker ****

directly to Parliament. I will Bernard Jenkin. I'm listening very carefully to what she said, and she's really engaged positively with the engaged positively with the questions I've asked, but she's actually made the case for keeping each separate. Can she reflect on that? Because if the only thing is she wants to see to kind of own the she wants to see to kind of own the recommendations, well, then amend the bill, amend it and say, see, CQC must make sure these recommendations are implemented.

In fact, their recommendations are directed at Ministers and bits of the health service which are answerable to her and to the Secretary of State. Keep them separate, separate. And by all means, let's discuss how we should make sure the recommendations are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

implemented properly. I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. Look, I did recognise the reason for keeping them separate, and just because they're part of the CQC does not mean to say that they don't have their independence. they don't have their independence. And I've pretty much set out the powers that they currently have they will be able to do. But we do they will be able to do. But we do need to see in situations that we spoke about never events, for example, they don't prioritise going to investigate those.

It's going to investigate those. It's not just simply about the investigation. It's about how do we then get those never events to lead to learning to change in the system and held to account to make sure that actually the very thing that the regulator recommendations that have been made are actually implemented and what that journey looks like, I think, for patients is going to be far more significant, as opposed to them just simply doing investigations leading to further recommendations.
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page