Water Sector Penalties Consultation
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
The Government are pleased to announce that today we have launched a consultation on strengthening the Environment Agency’s tools for enforcing against offences committed by water companies.
Currently, the Environment Agency has to be satisfied “beyond reasonable doubt”—the criminal standard of proof—that an offence has been committed to issue monetary penalties. We are proposing changes that would allow the Environment Agency to impose penalties to the civil standard of proof “on the balance of probabilities”. This will enable minor to moderate offences to be enforced more quickly, cost effectively and proportionately.
We are also consulting on the introduction of automatic penalties. These fixed penalties would be triggered in specific circumstances including late reporting of significant pollution incidents, failure to report monitoring data for storm and emergency overflows monthly, and where there is not accurate and reliable monitoring in place to measure water abstraction. Automatic penalties are designed to streamline the penalty process for offences that can be identified and evidenced quickly.
These changes will deliver a clear, transparent and robust enforcement regime that drives real change. The penalties will act as a proportionate deterrent, incentivising water companies to improve their performance and restoring public trust.
The new penalties will sit alongside and complement the existing enforcement options, including prosecution and unlimited penalties to the criminal standard of proof, that will continue to be used to enforce more serious offences.
We encourage everyone with an interest in the performance of the water sector to share their views and help shape the future of enforcement.
[HCWS976]
Pandemic Agreement: Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing Negotiations
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
The Minister for Public Health and Prevention, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), last updated the House in May on the adoption of the World Health Organisation pandemic agreement. I would now like to update the House regarding the follow-up negotiations to the agreement, to develop and agree a new pathogen access and benefit sharing system, including its operational details, in the form of an annex to the agreement. The PABS system will be a new, voluntary system for life sciences companies to sign up to in order to gain faster access, with less red tape, to the pathogens they need to create new vaccines, treatments and tests in the event of a pandemic. A member state-led intergovernmental working group has been established to facilitate these negotiations.
The IGWG has met three times since the group was established in May. Member states have elected a bureau to oversee negotiations, including agreeing that the bureau will be co-chaired by representatives from the UK and Brazil. Discussions so far have primarily focused on the technical details of the PABS system. These discussions will continue in the next round of formal negotiations taking place in November. We were pleased that technical experts were invited to participate in some of the informal discussions in October, and we will continue to advocate for their input into the process.
Member states have agreed to report on the outcome of negotiations by the next World Health Assembly in May 2026. Only once the negotiations on the PABS annex have concluded, and the annex has been adopted by the WHA, will the pandemic agreement, including the PABS annex, be open for signature and ratification by member states. This Government would only agree to a pandemic agreement and PABS annex that is in the national interest.
The IGWG will convene regularly until May 2026, and I will update the House at important and relevant junctures over the course of negotiations.
[HCWS980]
Deproscription of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
After careful consideration and following extensive consultation across Government and with operational partners, the Government have decided to remove Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham from the list of organisations proscribed under section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000. This decision reflects our unwavering support for British interests and commitment to the security of the United Kingdom.
HTS was first proscribed in 2017, having emerged as the principal Islamist militant group in north-west Syria, and was identified as an alias of the proscribed organisation al-Qaeda. Since then, significant developments have taken place in Syria.
In December 2024, forces led by Ahmed Al Sharaa—the former leader of HTS and now President of Syria—toppled former President Assad’s regime, which had been responsible for countless crimes against his own people.
The change in Syria’s Government has clear implications for UK foreign policy and national security objectives.
Despite the defeat of Daesh’s so-called caliphate in 2019 and its continued suppression through the actions of the global coalition against Daesh, the group maintains a significant presence in Syria and continues to pose one of the most serious terrorist threats to the UK, our people and our interests abroad.
The decision to de-proscribe HTS will support our continued efforts to counter Daesh in Syria and reduce the risk to the UK. We welcome the swift and robust response of the Syrian Government, since taking power, to terrorist attacks, including the attack on the Mar Elias church in Damascus in June, and their clear condemnation of such acts.
Strengthening our relationship with the Syrian Government will also help secure our borders by enabling a dialogue to reduce irregular migration from Syria.
A concerning legacy of the Assad regime is the existence of an operational chemical weapons programme in Syria. The de-proscription of HTS will allow the UK to work more closely with the Syrian Government to ensure the declaration and destruction of these weapons. The Syrian Government have committed to protecting chemical weapons sites and ensuring that such weapons are never used again.
While we will ultimately judge them on their actions and not their words, the new Syrian Government have conveyed their strong commitment to working with the UK on shared priorities. President Al Sharaa has made it clear that his focus is on rebuilding a stable, safe and prosperous Syria for all Syrians.
Decisions on de-proscription are not taken lightly. This Government will always put the safety and security of the British people first. This decision is consistent with the Government plan for change and mirrors the decision taken by the United States earlier this year to de-list HTS as a foreign terrorist organisation.
The decision to de-proscribe HTS was supported by a thorough assessment of the cross-Government proscription review group. The group concluded that HTS’s designation as an alias of al-Qaeda is no longer accurate and that de-proscription serves the national interest. Following its de-proscription, the offences relating to proscribed organisations under the Terrorism Act, including those concerning membership and support, will no longer apply to HTS. After this decision is implemented, 83 organisations remain proscribed in the UK.
The Home Secretary reserves the right to review proscription decisions in response to evolving threats. The Government will always act swiftly and decisively in the interests of national security.
This Government’s commitment to the security of the United Kingdom and the safety of its citizens is steadfast.
[HCWS977]
Proceeds of Crime Act Consultation: Extension of Accredited Financial Investigation Powers
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
Today the Government are launching a consultation document relating to the granting of accredited financial investigator powers under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to an additional three agencies, increasing our capacity to pursue asset recovery and further combat serious and organised crime.
The following public bodies have sought access to accredited financial investigator powers:
The Forestry Commission.
The Intellectual Property Office.
The Immigration Advice Authority.
The Government have assessed the value of extending the powers to each agency and concluded that we should seek to grant the powers to all three. However, to enhance transparency and foster effective decision making, the Government intend to seek the views of the wider public on this before laying the order in Parliament.
Additionally, the Intellectual Property Office will have its previous part 8 POCA powers restored—powers that it held while formally under the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy but were lost during departmental restructuring.
As such, this consultation will be launched for 12 weeks to seek to establish the views from the public on whether these organisations should be granted the financial investigator powers.
A copy of the consultation document will be placed in the libraries of both Houses and published on gov.uk.
[HCWS978]
Family Justice: Better Protections for Children
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
My noble Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Baroness Levitt KC), has today made the following statement:
“I am pleased to announce today that the Government will repeal the presumption of parental involvement when Parliamentary time allows.
Section 1(1) of the Children Act 1989 states that the child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration when determining questions relating to the upbringing of a child. The presumption of parental involvement was brought into legislation by the Children and Families Act 2014, which amended section 1 of the Children Act 1989. It states that, in certain private law proceedings relating to a child, the court should presume that involvement of a parent will further a child’s welfare, unless there is evidence to the contrary. It does not apply in cases in which there is evidence that the involvement of a parent places the child at risk of suffering harm.
Although the legislation explicitly states that the presumption is rebuttable and that it does not apply in cases where a parent presents a risk of harm to the child, I recognise that it has faced criticism for appearing to reinforce a “pro-contact” culture that prioritises the involvement of both parents in a child’s life over the child’s individual welfare. The 2020 Ministry of Justice report assessing risk of harm to children and parents in private law cases—known as the harm panel report—includes substantial evidence demonstrating the existence of a “pro-contact” culture in the family court.
The harm panel also recommended that the Ministry of Justice undertake a review of the presumption of parental involvement. This review has now been completed and has been published today in full with its findings alongside this written ministerial statement. One of the key findings of the review is that unsupervised and face-to-face involvement is the most likely outcome for child arrangements applications, including in cases which involve allegations or findings of domestic abuse or harm. Such decisions can be detrimental to child welfare. The presumption of parental involvement, while not the main driving force, was identified as one of a number of factors contributing to the pro-contact culture that drove these decisions.
The repeal of the presumption will form part of a package of family court reforms designed to better protect children in private law cases in the family courts. We know that abuse during childhood can have a serious impact on the rest of a child’s life, and that children who experience abuse during childhood are more likely to drop out of education, enter the criminal justice system and suffer unemployment and poor health outcomes. We hope that this wider package of reforms— of which the repeal of the presumption will play a key part—will contribute to improved children’s education and employment outcomes as well as reducing costs to the health and justice systems.
When coupled with other ongoing work to reform the family courts, we believe that repealing the presumption of parental involvement reflects our commitment to ensuring that the welfare of children remains paramount.
I will ensure that a copy of the review and accompanying research reports are deposited in the House Library.”
[HCWS979]