Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
Before we begin, I should inform the House that there is a fault with the Division Bells in the immediate vicinity of the Chamber—specifically, the officials’ corridor and the third party Whips’ area. I ask colleagues working in those areas to ensure that the annunciators are turned on while the problem with the bells is resolved.
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Alex Norris)
The Home Office has a procurement policy of competition by default, actively engaging with suppliers via the Government “find a tender” service to generate interest and promote competition for immigration removal centre contracts. Bids are evaluated on both technical and price aspects to ensure the contracts we sign are effective and value for money.
Calum Miller
My constituents are very concerned about the Home Office’s race to reopen the Campsfield House immigration removal centre. The first contract for opening the centre was announced in June 2024, when this House was not sitting. The then Home Secretary announced that she intended to expand the facility in August 2024, when again the House was not sitting. I believe that contract has not yet been tendered. Will the Minister please provide my constituents with some reassurance that Ministers are not just racing to make announcements about this ahead of real need and in order to catch a headline, but are actually serious about using taxpayers’ money in an appropriate manner to look after and contain these issues?
Alex Norris
“Real need” is a very important phrase. The reality is that over this Government’s time in office, we have deported over 50,000 people who have no right to be here—the best period of time in 10 years in this regard. We do need that detention capacity. Things are moving at Campsfield, so perhaps I should meet the hon. Gentleman to give him a full brief on our plans there.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his previous answer. Does he agree that the main cause for the asylum backlog was the fact that, under the previous Government, decisions fell by 70%? What reassurance can he give my constituents in Harlow that this Government will tackle the issue we have inherited?
Alex Norris
I totally agree. The original sin in respect of what we are dealing with today—hotel use across the country and our pivot to military sites—was the choice of the previous Government to simply stop assessing applications. We are of course reversing that, but it is taking time to turn around their failure.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
I will later today be sharing the full details of my plans for far-reaching reforms to the UK asylum system to restore order and control to our borders. We have learned lessons from our international partners, including Denmark; fundamental reform to its system has seen asylum claims at a 40-year low. The impact of this Government’s plans will be to restore order and control to the border, so we can be the open, tolerant and generous country that we know ourselves to be.
Nadia Whittome
The Denmark-style policies briefed in the last couple of days are dystopian. It is shameful that a Labour Government are ripping up the rights and protections of people who have endured unimaginable trauma. Is this how we would want to be treated if we were fleeing for our lives? Of course not. How can we be adopting such obviously cruel policies? Is the Home Secretary proud that the Government have sunk to such depths that they are now being praised by Tommy Robinson?
Shabana Mahmood
I am disappointed at the nature of my hon. Friend’s question. I hope she will look at the detail of the reforms. As I have already said on these matters, we have a proper problem and it is our moral duty to fix it. Our asylum system is broken. The breaking of that asylum system is causing huge division across our whole country, and it is a moral mission for me to resolve that division across our country. I know that the reforms I will be setting out later today can fix the system and, in doing so, unite what is today a divided country.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The Home Secretary likes to talk tough, while the numbers continue to rise. As part of the statement that she will bring to the House later, will she confirm that detailed modelling will be published and whether she has shared that modelling with No. 10?
Shabana Mahmood
The right hon. Gentleman’s question would have had a bit more force if he had apologised for being part of a Government who fundamentally broke our migration system and presided over the crisis inherited by this Government. Of course we will model the impact of our policies. This is a sweeping set of reforms—the most significant in modern times. They will bring down the number of arrivals and increase the number of removals of those who have no right to be in this country. We will build on our track record in government, which has seen removals increase. The totality of the reforms will, I believe, unlock the generosity of this country in creating new safe and legal routes, which will grow more generous over time.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Well, it is good to see the Home Secretary here, taking some time off from her leadership campaign. She is quite clearly preparing a one in, one out policy for No. 10 Downing Street!
The Home Secretary has announced that she wants to replace the Government’s entire immigration policy with Denmark’s. Is that because the Government have failed so badly in the year and a half since the election? Since the election, illegal channel crossings have surged 55%, up to 62,000; new asylum claims have reached record levels; and the numbers in asylum hotels have gone up. In just 75 days, since the right hon. Lady became Home Secretary, 10,000 illegal immigrants have crossed the English channel, but the Home Secretary—
Mr Speaker
Order. You have to at least try to get to a question. Don’t forget that we are having a big statement on this topic shortly.
Chris Philp
Okay, I will ask a question. Will the Home Secretary agree with us that in order to control our borders we must come out of the European convention on human rights, enabling us to deport all illegal immigrants within a week of their arrival?
Shabana Mahmood
Well, I think we can all agree that the right hon. Gentleman’s leadership campaign is going absolutely nowhere. Once again his party reverts to an unworkable solution that is a total gimmick, just like their failed Rwanda plan, which saw £700 million spent and a total of four volunteers returned. What we always get from the Conservatives are gimmicks and solutions that would never ever work. What we get from this Government is a track record of increasing removals, following the situation we inherited from the Conservative Government, and a proper plan that will fix this broken system.
Chris Philp
Our leader is not going anywhere, but the right hon. Lady’s leader most certainly is—out of No. 10!
The Home Secretary talks about the Rwanda scheme. That scheme never even started. It worked in Australia and it would have worked here. After her Government cancelled it with no replacement, numbers have surged. The truth is that under this Government, illegal immigration has gone up, and there is a crime wave going up with it, including rape and murder. Her ideas are not radical enough. She wants to give illegal immigrants a 20-year path to citizenship—
Mr Speaker
Order. I’m not being funny. The idea is to ask a question. The statement will be coming later, and we are going to go through all this then. This really does not help. You can pick which colleagues from your side of the Chamber you do not want to ask a question, because they are the ones you are taking time away from.
Chris Philp
The Home Secretary wants to give illegal immigrants a 20-year path to citizenship. We want to deport them. Will she accept our proposal to come out of the ECHR so that we can actually control our borders?
Shabana Mahmood
I am sure that all Conservative Members will be delighted to hear that the Leader of the Opposition is going absolutely nowhere—and we are very happy to see her remain in place.
This Government will not come out of the European convention on human rights. We are going to reform the way that article 8 in particular is applied to immigration rules within our country. This Government are rolling up our sleeves and doing the hard work of governing—unlike his party, which just gave up altogether.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
On the point of asylum policy, the Liberal Democrats recently defeated an attempt by the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), backed vociferously by the Conservatives, who he is trying to kill, to rip this country out of the ECHR.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
Metaphorically.
Max Wilkinson
Metaphorically trying to kill, yes.
Leaving the ECHR would do nothing to halt small boat crossings but it would deny British people hard-won rights: free speech, the Hillsborough inquiry and protections for older people. The Government have announced that they are reviewing certain articles of the ECHR—the Home Secretary has just referenced it. Can she give us a cast-iron guarantee that when she is working on these changes, she will do so in partnership with other signatories to the convention and will not follow the Conservatives and Reform in seeking to isolate this country on the international stage?
Shabana Mahmood
The Prime Minister and I could not be clearer. We are not coming out of the European convention on human rights. We are going to pursue reform—in particular of article 8, which is a qualified right under the convention—and I will set out those plans later today. There is a conversation happening with our partners at the Council of Europe in relation to the application of article 3. A conversation is already happening on reform of the European convention—both here at home with the domestic legislation that we will pursue and at the Council of Europe itself. That is the approach with which this Government will continue.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
Tackling violence against women and girls is a top priority for this Government, and our mission to halve violence against women and girls in a decade has begun. We will deliver a transformative cross-Government approach that is underpinned by the new strategy, which we will publish soon.
Josh Fenton-Glynn
Ending the presumption of parental contact in the family courts was a huge and long-overdue step that campaigners work hard for. That presumption often allowed post-separation abuse to continue. Although the Ministry of Justice is leading on that, can the Minister tell me what the Home Office is doing to make sure that we properly police and enforce other ways of tackling post-separation abuse so that it cannot continue?
Jess Phillips
I thank and give special mention to my hon. Friend and to my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball), who have worked tirelessly since they arrived in the House to join some of us who had been trying to get the Conservatives to change the presumption of contact in domestic abuse cases for 11 years—with no success. I work closely with the Victims Minister and with the Minister for Courts and Legal Services, and we will be making sure that this matter is part of a cross-Government package of security.
Tulip Siddiq
My constituent contacted me because she had been drugged and violently raped by a man she knew; she had worked for him, as a nanny to his children. She described this man as a high net-worth individual. Despite providing detailed evidence to the police, she said that ultimately it came down to her word against his, and she feels that his financial standing and influence meant that her case never went to the Crown Prosecution Service. The Minister will know very well that less than 4% of rape allegations result in summons or charge. At what point are we going to stop talking about how unfair the system is and actually do something that means that poor constituents like mine get the justice they deserve?
Jess Phillips
I would be happy to speak to my hon. Friend and her constituent about that case; I have heard similar cases with regard to high-worth, powerful rapists or alleged rapists. It is vital that we undertake a proper change to how our policing and justice system works for rape victims, whether through Operation Soteria or other interventions such as the new national centre for VAWG; we need to improve the situation across the country, not just see pockets of good practice. It is going to take time, but I am more than happy to work with her on that.
Gurinder Singh Josan
The Minister will be aware of the important role played by specialist “by and for” organisations in supporting victims from minority communities and bringing crucial cultural awareness to the table. Sikh Women’s Aid recently held an all-women’s meeting in which it focused on the trauma and fear generated by recent racially aggravated attacks in the west midlands, including in my constituency. Will the Minister outline what steps the Home Office is taking to ensure that specialist community support services, including “by and for” organisations such as Sikh Women’s Aid, are properly resourced so that victims from all backgrounds—whether white working-class girls or Sikh women and girls—can receive culturally-sensitive support?
Jess Phillips
We recognise the vital role of specialist “by and for” services in providing tailored support to victims and survivors. It has been my personal pleasure over many years to work alongside the brilliant women at Sikh Women’s Aid, who operate so furtively in our local area. I meet regularly with Imkaan, the umbrella lead for such “by and for” services, to seek solutions to exactly the problem of ensuring that there is not a postcode lottery and that everybody can have specialist support.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I very much look forward to the new violence against women and girls strategy. Can the Minister give us a bit more of a clue as to when we might see it? Will it include a single definition of violence against women and girls that is applied consistently across law enforcement and the Department?
Jess Phillips
I very much look forward, no doubt, to coming to the right hon. Lady’s Committee to discuss the strategy on its publication. It is not for the Home Office to tell law enforcement exactly what the definition is in this regard—there are obviously definitions of domestic abuse and sexual violence in the law—but we will lay out clearly what we mean by “violence against women and girls”, and police operational matters will be corralled, like I say, by the new centre, which has had £13 million of investment to ensure that there is standardised practice across the country and we are all singing from the same hymn sheet.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
The Government are right to abolish the role of police and crime commissioner—the Liberal Democrats have been campaigning for that for some time—but many victims’ organisations rely on the PCC core grant to fund initiatives that address violence against women. Will the Minister confirm that that cash will not be lost by those organisations, including mine in Eastbourne, and that they will retain it after the reform?
Jess Phillips
I can absolutely confirm that the part of the police and crime commissioners’ role that involves commissioning local victims’ services will be brought into the new system. It will not be that that money is gone from the centre; this is about how it will be given out. I cannot say for certain that all organisations that currently have that money will have it on the basis that they currently have it, because nobody could commit to that. That is the commissioner’s job. We look forward to the violence against women and girls strategy, because there will be a huge amount on victims’ commissioning in that.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
My constituent Fiona from Milborne Port is a victim of historical rape. With recent reporting highlighting the vile attitudes of some in regard to historical rape victims, Fiona has told me that her confidence in the judicial system and the police has been well and truly knocked, and detectives have told her that there is no starting point for their inquiries. What steps is the Minister taking, along with Cabinet colleagues, to support historical victims of violence against women and girls?
Jess Phillips
There is absolutely no reason why historical cases should not be brought forward and reviewed. As part of the work following on from the Casey review—certainly in cases of historical child sexual abuse—the opening of “no further action” cases has been worked on at pace through Operation Beaconport. More broadly, there are review systems, and I will send the hon. Member information about the organisations that the Home Office works with and that work alongside the police to look into the review systems that might be needed for people in cases such as hers and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq) that have not been picked up.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
In March this year, the then permanent secretary of the Home Office said that the strategy to tackle violence against women and girls would be published before the summer recess. In July, the Minister committed to September. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) wrote to the Minister six weeks ago to ask for an update and has yet to receive a response. We would all like to see progress in halving violence against women and girls. Commenting on the delay, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, Dame Nicole Jacobs, has said:
“I fail to see where the momentum within government is coming from to ensure this commitment succeeds.”
What does the Minister make of the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s words, and can she please reiterate her commitment to publish the strategy before the end of the year?
Jess Phillips
As somebody who meets the Domestic Abuse Commissioner on a very regular basis, I cannot say that she would ever say that I did not have the enthusiasm to make this work—but perhaps I am wrong. I shall ask her what she meant by those comments. What I absolutely can say is that the strategy will come; it will be out very soon. It will be out when it is the best it can be, but we do not need to wait for a piece of paper to start our action. I will not take up too much time going through the list of about 13 things that we have already changed in the last 18 months, such as Raneem’s law or the roll-out of domestic abuse protection orders, which for four years—
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
The Government are increasing resources in neighbourhood policing teams and putting in place stronger measures to prevent farm theft and fly-tipping. We are working closely with the National Police Chiefs’ Council to deliver its rural and wildlife crime strategy, which will be published imminently and will involve a joined-up approach, ensuring that we are tackling the crimes that have devastating consequences for our rural communities.
Helen Morgan
There is no doubt that my constituents are concerned by crimes such as equipment theft and wildlife crime, but they are also really worried about drug dealing taking place in broad daylight in parks, in our villages and in country lanes. Can the Minister tell us what the Government’s drug strategy is to stop our young people being targeted by organised criminals, and also to improve community policing in rural places so that those criminals do not have the confidence to target our young people so willingly?
Sarah Jones
We are putting 3,000 extra community police in our neighbourhoods by next April, and there will be a named officer that people can contact. The hon. Member is absolutely right to highlight the wider drugs problem. Since we came into power, this Government have put in place a very successful county lines programme, which is targeting the lines where people are forced, and often exploited, to take drugs across the country. I am happy to talk to her about that more. I have seen it in action for myself in Merseyside and the impact that it is having there, but she is right to highlight this very deep problem, which we are absolutely determined to tackle.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
More than 2,000 wildlife crimes were recorded last year, but fewer than 50 resulted in convictions. I therefore welcome the Government’s commitment to consult on strengthening the Hunting Act 2004. Will the Minister update the House on what discussions she has had with departmental colleagues to ensure effective enforcement of any forthcoming legislation? Will the Home Office consider making key wildlife offences, including foxhunting, notifiable crimes so that these crimes are recorded and prioritised by police forces?
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend is right to highlight those crimes and the need for us to prioritise them in a way which they were not under the previous Government. The National Police Chiefs’ Council strategy on rural and wildlife crime will set operational and organisational policing priorities for tackling those crimes, and it will be published imminently. Once it has, I would love to have a proper conversation with him.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
Rural crime and tool theft are out of control. A tradesman’s tools are stolen every 21 minutes, and when a farmer or tradesman has their equipment stolen, it causes complete misery and costs them severely. Their means of work are then all too often sold in broad daylight at car boot sales. Will the Government adopt our rural crime and tool theft plan to crack down on the sale of stolen goods and on the misery being caused to so many farmers and tradesmen?
Sarah Jones
The hon. Gentleman will know that we are committed to the implementation of the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023 and fully support its intentions. Indeed, it was brought forward by a Member of his own party—the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith). We support the Act and are working with colleagues across the policing landscape to ensure that we can do just that. But I will not take any lessons from the shadow Minister who left crime in the state that it was, had no rural crime strategy, unlike this Government, and whose record took our police away from our neighbourhoods—we will put them back.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
As part of the neighbourhood policing guarantee, we have made £200 million available to police forces this financial year to kick-start the journey towards delivering 13,000 additional neighbourhood policing personnel. By April 2026, there will be 3,000 more neighbourhood police across England and Wales, strengthening police visibility and neighbourhood policing to help to deter, prevent and respond to crime.
Mohammad Yasin
I welcome the Government’s decision to phase out police and crime commissioners, with the savings reinvested into frontline policing. I also warmly welcome the recent grant for additional wardens to tackle antisocial behaviour hotspots. The partnership between the council, community groups and the police has reduced antisocial behaviour in Bedford town centre by nearly 15%, but much more still needs to be done. What further reforms will the forthcoming White Paper include to help Bedfordshire police get more bobbies on the beat?
Sarah Jones
I am pleased to see the progress made, and I would love to visit again, as I did with the Prime Minister in opposition, to see that progress in action. There are two aspects to where we are, and we will be making significant changes. One is through the Crime and Policing Bill, which contains new powers for us to tackle antisocial behaviour in our town centres—respect orders being just one example. Our wider police reform will also look at the entire policing landscape in a way that the Opposition completely failed to do in government. We will make it more efficient and effective and ensure that our police are targeted where the public want them in our communities.
Alice Macdonald
Recently, I visited Mile Cross with local councillors and members of Mile Cross Litterbusters, a local voluntary group that does excellent work to clean up the area, but they really should not have to. Fly-tipping is a real challenge in this area and in other parts of Norwich, so I welcome the pledge to increase neighbourhood police officers. Can the Minister assure me that they will have the powers and presence to be able to tackle fly-tipping, can she advise on any other measures that could be taken to crack down on this issue that blights so many neighbourhoods?
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. It is an issue in my constituency, and I suspect in many across the country, and the scourge of fly-tipping must be tackled. Through the Crime and Policing Bill, we are putting in place new statutory enforcement guidance for local authorities on what is to be expected by them in tackling antisocial behaviour. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has an ongoing review of the powers that local authorities and the police have to seize vehicles and crush them when we have prolific offenders of this awful crime.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
More than 5,000 people in Bexley have signed my petition to stop Mayor Khan closing the overnight counter at Bexleyheath police station. Will the Minister tell us who is to blame for the £260 million of funding cuts now facing the Met police: the Labour Government or the Labour Mayor of London?
Sarah Jones
I will not take any lessons from the hon. Member given the Conservative record on crime. In the last two years of their Government, shoplifting soared by 70% and street theft by 60%. The Mayor of London held a consultation, which has now concluded, and seven fewer police station counters will close. He will save £7 million through that work. It is important that we recognise the work of Sadiq Khan as Mayor of London. As we heard recently, the number of murders is the lowest since records began.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
One thing that neighbourhood policing can tackle effectively is the way in which TikTok is being used to distribute spice-laced vapes to our young people. Will the Minister comment on that?
Sarah Jones
I would be very happy to have a conversation with the hon. Lady about her experience of that. Of course, the use of illegal vapes, and their sale to under-18s, is prolific and a main source of income for serious organised criminals. I know that the Met police have carried out a huge operation recently to target not just the buyers of the goods but those who are responsible for driving that serious organised crime.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
Joy Allen, Labour’s very own police and crime commissioner for Durham, has said that the Government have consistently demonstrated their complete lack of understanding of policing and community safety. Does the Minister think that she said that because the Government have cut police numbers by 1,316 since they came to power, because crime is surging, or because senior police officers are warning that the Government are creating a funding crisis?
Sarah Jones
I pay tribute to Joy Allen, who I know very well. She is a very good police and crime commissioner, and I thank her for all her work. I know that our announcement last week was difficult for police and crime commissioners to hear, but we thank them for all the work that they do and will continue to do for the next two years.
What do the public want? The public want police in our neighbourhoods fighting crime. Did the Conservatives deliver that? No, they did not. Neighbourhood policing was slashed, the number of police community support officers was halved, and the Conservatives failed to tackle the fundamental problems in policing that need reform. Policing is the most unreformed part of our public services. We will make—the Home Secretary will make—the tough decisions in the coming weeks in order to put policing on the right footing for the future.
James McMurdock (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Ind)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
The previous Government lost control of our borders, and the result was a ruinously expensive asylum system that used more than 400 hotels at a cost of nearly £9 million a day. We have acted to cut those costs, with fewer than 200 hotels now in use. Our historic agreement with France means small boat departures are prevented, arrivals are detained, and those with no right to be in the UK are returned. As the House knows, I will shortly make a statement setting out the additional steps to go further and faster in the reform of our asylum system.
James McMurdock
According to a recent National Audit Office report, £15.3 billion will be spent on asylum accommodation alone over the next 10 years. That money will be spent on people who will, in some instances, commit violent and sexual crimes—crimes that would make our skin crawl—against the British people. What do we say to our residents, voters and taxpayers, who feel like we are spending money on people who want nothing for us but harm?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Gentleman should wait for the statement later today. The assumptions made by the National Audit Office in its projections are based on the current policy environment, which is about to change very significantly.
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)
UK Visas and Immigration makes millions of decisions every year about who has permission to visit or stay in the UK, protecting our borders and delivering excellent customer service across the globe. Where customers require refunds, UKVI officials ensure that they are made as swiftly as possible.
Peter Lamb
I thank the Minister for his response. I have several residents who have been waiting almost a year for a refund from the Home Office. Given the dramatic improvements that we have seen in asylum application processing in the last year, can I trust that the Minister will put the same zeal into ensuring that the other Home Office processes work just as efficiently?
Mike Tapp
I am aware of those three specific issues, and I reassure my hon. Friend that we are looking at them. I am happy to talk to him in more detail offline.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answer. Application costs are significant, and sometimes push those who apply to the wall. Whenever it comes to getting moneys back from someone who owes them, the Government are very zealous—as they should be. I suggest that when it comes to those that they owe money to, the Government should be just as zealous.
Mike Tapp
I thank the hon. Member for his question, and of course we will be just as zealous with those receiving refunds.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
The national inquiry into group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse will mirror the Casey audit, and therefore cover England and Wales. That said, all parts of the UK must work together to protect children and bring perpetrators to justice. We have committed to sharing relevant findings with devolved Administrations and are considering how the inquiry’s work may interact with devolved responsibilities in Scotland, including cross-area trafficking concerns.
John Lamont
Last week, brave grooming-gang survivor Fiona Goddard spoke of how she was trafficked to Scotland as a vulnerable teenager. As she rightly said, the idea that this issue stops at the border is “insane”. Despite clear evidence from victims about grooming gangs operating in Scotland, the SNP Government in Edinburgh still refuse to hold an inquiry. [Interruption.] Will the Minister please listen to victims and campaigners and extend the national inquiry to Scotland, so that we can ensure that young girls and teenagers are not treated in this way again?
Jess Phillips
I thank the hon. Gentleman—others are stating from a sedentary position that the SNP Government in Scotland have said something different. However, any information can be given to the inquiry. In the example that the hon. Gentleman gave, where people are trafficked into Scotland, that evidence can be given to the inquiry. But police, justice, education, children’s services and health are all devolved, which is different to the system in England and Wales, where just policing and justice are devolved. We have to ensure that we are working within frameworks where the recommendations can be fully taken, but we will work with all nations to make sure that the findings make things better in the future.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
We are committed to delivering a stronger neighbourhood policing presence in communities across England and Wales. Every neighbourhood, including those in Redditch, now has a named, contactable officer dedicated to addressing issues facing the community. West Mercia police is using its share of the £200 million made available this financial year to grow its neighbourhood team by 51 full-time-equivalent neighbourhood officers.
Chris Bloore
I thank the Minister for that answer, and for the extra £39 million given to West Mercia police. But residents in Redditch have told me clearly that they want to be able to walk into their local police station and speak to an officer face to face. Does the Minister agree with me, and the many hundreds of constituents who have already signed my petition, that the new police station in Redditch should reinstate a public-facing front desk?
Sarah Jones
As my hon. Friend will know, how resources are spent is a matter for the chief constable, but the Government are clear that visible policing is essential to restoring public confidence in the police, and we have invested £30 million since we came to power in new IT systems to make it easier for the public to report crime. That is also why we are ensuring that everyone has a named, contactable neighbourhood officer that they can call on.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)
An arbitrary limit on legal migration would serve no one. As we have seen in the past, attempts to implement such caps have been unsuccessful. I remind the hon. Member of the 1 million in one year under the previous Government, undercutting British workers. Instead, this Government have set out a plan to reduce net migration by restoring control to the immigration system, reducing our reliance on overseas labour, and investing in domestic skills.
Mike Wood
Does the Minister not recognise that an important step towards significantly reducing net migration would be to make it clear to all those working in his Department or handling migration that there is a number that everyone is working towards? If that is the case, surely Members of this House should be able to vote on that binding cap, as happens successfully in countries such as Australia.
Mike Tapp
It is always amusing to be lectured about immigration by the Conservative party. There are more sophisticated ways to address high net migration, and this Government are doing that by tackling the underlying causes of over-reliance on migrant labour by employers, alongside raising the bar for who can come to the UK, and targeted visa restrictions.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
As set out on multiple occasions in this House, no Ministers and no special advisers played any role in the provision of evidence. The Director of Public Prosecutions has confirmed that publicly.
Alison Griffiths
Our judicial system is rightly rigorous and independent, which is why the Government’s handling of intelligence that is central to national security, and passing it to prosecutors, matters so much. As the Minister responsible for our state threats framework and domestic security, will the Home Secretary tell the House when she was first alerted to concerns that crucial evidence had not been passed to the Crown Prosecution Service? Does she agree that the public deserve a full and frank account of how two alleged Chinese spies were able to walk free?
Dan Jarvis
This was an independent decision by the CPS, and we have repeatedly made clear that there was no political interference in the evidence provided. This Government are extremely disappointed with the outcome of this case, and remain concerned about the espionage threat posed to the UK. We are working relentlessly to counter it.
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)
The Government remain steadfast in their support for Hongkongers in the UK, and remain fully committed to the British national overseas route. We will consult on the earned settlement scheme shortly, and everyone will be welcome to participate.
Yuan Yang
Reading is proud to be a town of many immigrant diasporas, including Hong Kong BNOs who are seeking refuge here. Many of my immigrant constituents have lived in our community for years, and they work incredibly hard so that they can put down roots, much as my parents did when I was a child. Will the Minister acknowledge the contributions of immigrant families who enrich towns like mine, when making policy about settlement periods?
Mike Tapp
Absolutely. Across the board we recognise the contribution from migrant communities, and specifically the Hong Kong community. We are listening to their views about the route to settlement, and will continue to do so.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
The case for legal migration and for those genuinely seeking asylum is undermined by evidence that businesses in Station Road in my constituency are using and exploiting migrants to carry out illegal trading. Local businesses are shocked and frustrated that when the police raid those premises, they remain open and continue trading. Will the Government consider bringing forward legislation to provide for the immediate closure of illegally trading shops?
Mike Tapp
We take extremely this seriously in the Home Office, but it is out of control after the previous Government left us with a broken system. That is why in just over a year and a half we have increased arrests by 50% and visits by 64%—the highest in British history—and we will continue on that route.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
I recognise the huge pressure that asylum hotels have placed on communities. This Government are committed to exiting asylum hotels by the end of the Parliament. We have already halved the number of hotels in use since the peak under the Conservative party, but I would like to go faster. That is why I am exploring the use of large sites, including military sites.
Chris Murray
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank the Home Secretary for that response. The Home Affairs Committee report on asylum accommodation shows that private companies have made millions from the taxpayer, while communities and asylum seekers have suffered. What is the Home Secretary doing to address the appalling profiteering that the Tories allowed, and the disastrous asylum contracts, and will she trigger the break clause next year?
Shabana Mahmood
So far, the amount that has been recouped by this Government is £74 million, of which £46 million is excess profit and the remainder is service charges or service credit and VAT. We are rapidly reviewing the contracts that we inherited, including the break clause, to ensure that they are providing value for money for taxpayers. I will keep the matter under review and update the House in due course.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
The last Home Secretary said that we should judge the success of the Government in smashing the gangs by whether the number of channel crossings falls. By which date should we judge whether the Government have been successful? If the Home Secretary fails, will she resign?
Shabana Mahmood
We should already recognise that the action on law enforcement, particularly the co-operation with our colleagues in France and Germany, has led to the confiscation of kit that was being used by organised immigration crime gangs, and has led to 20,000 illegal crossings not taking place. Later today, we will set out a full suite of measures designed to decrease the number of arrivals from across the channel. Unlike many in the hon. Gentleman’s party, I take my responsibilities very seriously and I am happy to be held to account by the British public.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
The Government have already acted to fix the unworkable mess in which the Tories left the asylum system. An increase of 116% in processing in one year is bringing down the backlog, securing refugee status for those fleeing persecution and removing those with no right to be here, but communities such as those in Falkirk must see the benefit of the difference in approach. What steps will the Home Secretary take to guarantee Tory-created asylum hotels will be closed equitably across the nations of the United Kingdom?
Shabana Mahmood
We are working with Ministers across Government on closing every hotel as soon as possible, and by the end of this Parliament. As we have all seen, that is a complex process that must be delivered through a controlled, managed and orderly programme of work. We do not want to be in a situation where, without an alternative ready, we start exiting hotels before it is time to do so. I assure my hon. Friend that we will take a balanced and evidence-based approach towards making decisions about the locations that we will use and how we will exit hotels. I look forward to talking to him in more detail about these plans in due course.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
The Government are currently spending some £2.1 billion on hotels, but the system is not working. It does not have to be that way. The Public and Commercial Services union and Together With Refugees have shown that a humane asylum system, which expedites asylum hearings and supports employment, could reduce asylum costs by 40%. Will the Home Secretary at least look at the evidence and concede that she does not always have to try to outdo the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)?
Shabana Mahmood
What I am interested in is recognising the extent of the problems that this Government have inherited and coming up with proper solutions to those problems. For me, this is not about party politics or individual politicians, but a moral mission to fix a broken system that is unfair, costing the country far too much money and putting huge pressure on communities. I ask the hon. Gentleman to engage with the detail of the proposal, rather than playing party politics himself.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
I am pleased to start with some very good news indeed: one of the heroes of the Huntingdon attack, Samir Zitouni, the member of the train’s crew who risked his own life to save others, has been discharged from hospital. There is a long road ahead of him and his family have asked for privacy, but I am sure the whole House joins me in wishing him the swiftest and fullest recovery possible. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]
Since the last Home Office oral questions, I have made a number of significant announcements. A review of police protest powers was launched last weekend, and I am pleased that the former Director of Public Prosecutions, Lord Ken Macdonald, will lead it.
Last week, we announced that police and crime commissioners will be abolished. The introduction of police and crime commissioners by the last Government was a failed experiment. I will introduce new reforms so that police are accountable to their mayoral teams or local councils. The savings from this will fund more neighbourhood policing on the beat across the country, fighting crime and protecting our communities. I recognise the efforts of all current and former police and crime commissioners, and I thank them because they served their communities with honour and will continue to do so until they have completed their current—
Mr Speaker
Order. The answer is far too long. I still have to get other people in. Please can we have shorter answers.
Seamus Logan
The Muscatelli report, commissioned by the Labour party in Scotland, recommended that the Scottish Government push for a bespoke immigration approach that tackles the unique issues faced by Scotland and its economy. While the leader of the Labour party in Scotland, Anas Sarwar, may be a bit confused about what is devolved and what is reserved, I am sure the Home Secretary is not. Will the Home Secretary meet me to discuss the report further, to deliver a win for the Scottish economy and fulfil one of the manifesto commitments made by the Labour party in Scotland?
Shabana Mahmood
No, I will not, because immigration is a reserved matter. Trying to devolve this matter would create perverse pull factors all across the United Kingdom, which would be deeply inappropriate.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
My hon. Friend raises an important point. The assessment of the terrorist threat to the UK is made independently by the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre. Government partners, including JTAC, the National Protective Security Authority and counter-terrorism police, work closely with industry to ensure that the latest threat picture is appropriately responded to by owners of CNI. I am happy to discuss that further with him.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Last October, a Sudanese small-boat illegal immigrant murdered 27-year-old Rhiannon Whyte by stabbing her 23 times with a screwdriver. In September, an illegal immigrant from Egypt was jailed for brutally raping a young woman in Hyde Park. Just last week, an Iranian and two Egyptian small-boat illegal immigrants were committed to trial for the rape of a 33-year-old woman on Brighton beach. How many more murders and rapes must there be before the Home Secretary agrees to the immediate deportation of all illegal immigrants within a week of arrival?
Mr Speaker
Order. Just before the Minister answers, let me say that the last case is sub judice, so please be careful with the answer.
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Alex Norris)
I am grateful for that clarification, Mr Speaker.
We are totally clear that those who commit crimes should not get settlement or citizenship in this country; they should be removed. That is why removals have reached their highest level for a decade. We can do much more in this space, which is why the Home Secretary will make the statement that she is going to make later.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
My hon. Friend is right to raise that. We will ensure that there are more neighbourhood officers on our streets, with 3,000 more by next April, but PCSOs have a really vital role to play. I am a big fan of them, and I encourage all forces to have more of them.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
Ahead of the Budget next week, the Labour Chancellor departed from years of silence on the matter by admitting that Brexit has been a disaster for our economy. Will the Labour Home Secretary follow the Chancellor’s lead by admitting that Brexit has also caused significant harm to this country’s ability to maintain order in our immigration and asylum system?
Alex Norris
I am slightly reluctant to enter into the Brexit theory of everything with the hon. Gentleman. The reality is that we have the settlement we have. The British people rightly want to understand why asylum numbers are falling across Europe but increasing in the UK, and that is why we are taking the actions we propose to take. He will not have to wait much longer to hear the detail.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Dan Jarvis
Everyone deserves to feel safe and to be able fully to participate in public and political life, free from the threat of violence or exclusion driven by hateful prejudice. We will persist in our efforts to challenge extremist narratives, disrupt the activity of radicalising groups and directly tackle the causes of radicalisation. Alongside our work to tackle extremism, the defending democracy taskforce is driving forward a whole-of-Government response to the full range of threats we face to our democracy.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this case with me, and I am happy to look into it in more detail. It is a fundamental principle that victims of sexual violence are entitled by law to anonymity, and breaching that anonymity is a crime. I am very interested to hear from her and to see how we can ensure that that is not happening.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
Dan Jarvis
The Department is committed to reinvesting criminal proceeds into asset recovery and tackling related economic crime. In 2024-25, £174 million supported law enforcement, including through the ARIS top slice, a multi-year fund that is ringfenced for core and innovative capabilities. We are reviewing ARIS with stakeholders to improve stability and effectiveness. I know that my hon. Friend is engaging with the noble Lord Hanson of Flint, but I would be very happy to discuss this matter with him further.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
Sarah Jones
The hon. Gentleman highlights an awful crime that was very much overlooked by the previous Government. We are changing the system, so that the £200 rule—whereby crimes would not be investigated if the goods stolen were worth less than £200—is scrapped. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris) championed in opposition, we are bringing in a new offence of assaulting a shopworker. This issue needs a really targeted response, and we know that a lot of local police are working closely with the Co-op group and others to make sure we target the prolific offenders who are responsible for a vast amount of these crimes.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
The Government have tabled an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill that would create sweeping powers to impose conditions on public protests based on cumulative disruption. Can the Minister set out to the House what that amendment means by serious disruption to a community? How will this be determined and measured, and how will these powers be made subject to democratic scrutiny?
Sarah Jones
That would probably take longer to answer than the amount of time I have for a topical question, but I am very happy to speak to my hon. Friend about this issue. The definition of serious disruption is not changing; the amendment deals with the circumstances in which a police force can put conditions on a protest while not banning it. I am very happy to have more conversations with my hon. Friend about this.
Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Ind)
Alex Norris
I am sad that the hon. Gentleman has a different characterisation of those who seek refuge in this country than the one I have from my own community —that is not my experience. We are clear that if individuals commit crime, there must be consequences, including their removal from this country. As I have said, the hon. Gentleman will not have to wait much longer to hear what the Home Secretary has to say, but I cannot recognise his characterisation.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
As a lifelong political activist and trade unionist, I value free speech and the right to protest. Having lived through the miners’ strike, I know what it means when the state turns against working people and disregards their rights, so I am deeply concerned that the proposed amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill will allow police to prohibit marches, demonstrations and even picket lines simply because another such event has taken place in the same area. Can the Minister guarantee that this House will have sufficient time to debate and vote on those amendments?
Sarah Jones
To be clear, these amendments are not about stopping marches; they are about conditions, including the length of time and the geography of them. Of course, the right to protest is one that Labour will always champion.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Alex Norris
In so many ways, the hon. Gentleman is ahead of his time—I may well be the first person to accuse him of that. He will have the opportunity to hear from the Home Secretary about our plans regarding visa sanctions; he just has to wait a little bit longer.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Crimes committed by grooming gangs are among the most horrific imaginable; victims feel the devastating impact for the rest of their life. Does the Minister therefore agree that the findings of the national inquiry into grooming gangs should be implemented without delay, that the victims must be kept at the heart of our response, and that their voices and experiences must lead the inquiry, so that some justice can finally be delivered for those impacted?
Jess Phillips
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, and we are working urgently to establish the inquiry. Baroness Casey is supporting that work. She and I recently met some of the people my hon. Friend is talking about, and I look forward to updating the House.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
The Home Office has requested transitional accommodation for asylum claimants, following the closure of Garats Hay in my constituency. However, neither Leicestershire county council nor Charnwood borough council has been consulted or received any additional funding for this extra burden. Why are these councils being bypassed, and will they get the funding that they need?
Alex Norris
All local authorities get an extra payment of £1,200 when someone in the supported estate ends up in their local authority, so I cannot quite understand that characterisation. If I have understood wrongly, I would be keen to meet the hon. Gentleman to understand his point, because we appreciate that there is an impact on local communities. We want to make sure that things go as smoothly as possible for the people who live in them, and we want to get this right.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Hartlepool police do a magnificent job, but like police in the rest of the Cleveland force area, they are hamstrung by a funding formula that is broken. The victims core grant works out at £7 a crime in my constituency. Down the road in North Yorkshire, the figure is £19 a crime. That is unfair and unjust. Can the Minister please commit to fixing this fundamental unfairness?
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend is right that for many of their years in government, the Opposition wanted to look at the police funding formula, but they never did. The Home Secretary will bring forward our police reform White Paper, which will set out the context for our future funding decisions, but the allocations for this year are being looked at as we speak. I hear my hon. Friend.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Secretary of State will be aware that the Met police recently proposed closing, or scaling back the hours of operation for, a number of police front counters across London. Those plans were scaled back, apparently in response to public feedback, but the Twickenham police station’s front counter is still earmarked for closure, and only 15 people were invited to an online meeting at which to give that feedback. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Mayor of London and the Met police have a duty to do a full public consultation on these plans?
Sarah Jones
The hon. Lady is right: there was a consultation, and seven fewer front counters will now be closed than before, and she is right that Twickenham is not one of those that will no longer close. We need to judge the police in London on their outcomes and Sadiq Khan on the work that he has done. We have the lowest number of murders since records began. Fraser Nelson, that well-known socialist, wrote just this week:
“But look past the headlines…the city is winning the battle over violent crime. It’s not a bad time to be a Londoner.”
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Last month, there was an increase in knife crime across my constituency, and it was carried out not necessarily by younger people, but by older people. I know that the Government are determined to crack down on knife crime. What more are they doing to tackle knife crime?
Sarah Jones
Nationally, we have taken 60,000 knives off the streets, knife murders are down 18%, and knife crime is down 5%, but every single offence is one too many. We will keep pushing on the policing response—as well as, crucially, the prevention response; we will work with our young people to stop them getting involved in crime in the first place.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
It is often reported that a high proportion of people who enter the country illegally do so without any reliable identifying documentation. Can any Minister say, in percentage terms, roughly what the proportions are of illegal immigrants who do and do not have documentation?
Alex Norris
I will have to follow up in writing with the specific percentages for the right hon. Gentleman, but I assure him and the House that we are doing full biometric checks at the front door. We are checking against European databases, as well as our own databases, to make sure that we know who is here and, if there is any offending history, what that history is.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
Returning to rural crime, I pay tribute to the work that the Thames Valley police rural crime taskforce is doing for rural communities and farmers in the Buckingham and Bletchley constituency. Can the Minister set out more detail of how the national rural crime strategy will complement the work already being done by local forces? Will that strategy be complemented by a long-term funding model?
Sarah Jones
I am seeing Thames Valley police to discuss exactly that subject very shortly, and I will let my hon. Friend know when I am going, so that he can, perhaps, come with me. The crime strategy of the National Police Chiefs’ Council will, of course, build on the work that has already been done in Thames Valley.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
One of the major pull factors for illegal migrants crossing the channel is the fact that they can get jobs quite easily. Does the Home Secretary still support an amnesty for all undocumented workers?
Alex Norris
That is not the position. We in the Government are resolute in our attempts to tackle illegal working, which does indeed act as a pull factor. The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which will return to this House from the Lords on Wednesday, has important provisions for dealing with the loopholes in the gig economy that can allow for substitution and provide space for illegal working. If we want to stop that, we should get the Bill moving as quickly as we can, and I urge Members to ensure that we do.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I understand that the permanent secretary at the Home Office recently appointed a single senior official to be responsible for asylum hotels. Will the Home Secretary please use her good offices to encourage that official to come to the Stanwell hotel in my Spelthorne constituency, so that they can see for themselves how inappropriate it is in the context of the surrounding village, and prioritise it for closure?
Alex Norris
The hon. Gentleman and I have had this conversation about Stanwell before, and he has pressed the matter with characteristic vigour. I can say to him and his community that we have committed to closing these hotels in this Parliament; they will not be open for a day longer than they have to be. When we close hotels, there will be clear criteria for choosing them for closure, and he has made many very good suggestions of grounds that might be used.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
In recent years, there has been a real increase in racist attacks in this country, including on our NHS staff; they have seen a rise of 55% in such attacks. Recently, two Sikh women were not just racially but sexually abused. Does the Home Secretary fear that implementing asylum policies like those in Denmark would exacerbate the problem, and embolden those who would create hate on our streets?
Alex Norris
The Minister for Policing and Crime recently met a delegation of Sikh colleagues to discuss that very important case. As for the hon. Gentleman’s broader point about Denmark, it is right that, given the challenges we face in this country, our policies seek to draw on best practice from around Europe and the world, and he will not have to wait much longer to see the fruits of that.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Last week, the Minister for Policing and Crime told me:
“the funding allocation will be made in the usual way before the end of the year…there is more money going into policing this year and we will ensure that it is given to where it is needed.”—[Official Report, 13 November 2025; Vol. 775, c. 344.]
Irrespective of the fact that more money is going into policing, can the Minister clarify for my constituents whether the Government will update the police allocation formula this year to give Cambridgeshire its fair share? The neighbourhood policing guarantee means nothing if our local police forces are underfunded in comparison with neighbouring forces.
Sarah Jones
I would not say that the neighbourhood policing guarantee, involving an extra £200 million, means nothing. It is a substantial amount for all our communities in England and Wales, and the allocations will be decided in the usual way this year.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
As a former police officer, I have policed protests, and I know how important they are. On the issue of cumulative disruption, what evidence has the Minister gathered that demonstrates that a protest that is deemed safe as a one-off would become a public safety risk if it were repeated?
Sarah Jones
The hon. Lady is aware of these issues, and she is aware of the complexities of policing what are sometimes very disruptive and upsetting protests. We must get the balance right, and that is what we are trying to do, but I am happy to engage in more conversations with her about this.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
Shopkeepers in Maidenhead town centre tell me how pleased they are to see neighbourhood police officers doing their regular patrols, but those outside the town centre do not see those patrols as regularly and struggle more with shoplifting as a result. What is the Minister doing to tackle that, so that we have more neighbourhood police in communities, and not just in town centres?
Sarah Jones
The hon. Gentleman has referred to a challenge that the police to do with their resources. Through the White Paper and the reform programme, we are trying to ensure that our police officers can spend all their time doing the things that we want them to do—not dealing with bureaucracy, doing police staff jobs or sitting behind a counter, but fighting crime in our communities.
Budget: Press Briefings
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if she will make a statement on briefings to the press about the contents of the Budget.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
Every Minister in this Government takes their obligations to this House very seriously. There has been much speculation, as is usual ahead of a Budget, but the Chancellor will come to this House on 26 November and deliver a Budget that will protect the NHS and public services. It will support growth and enable businesses to create jobs and innovate. It will support those struggling with the cost of living, protect families from high inflation and interest rates, and get debt falling, because the less we spend on debt interest, the more we can spend on the priorities of working people.
As you would rightly expect, Mr Speaker, I will not comment on individual measures today. The Chancellor has asked the Office for Budget Responsibility to produce a forecast. The OBR and the Treasury exchange information throughout the forecast process, which is the usual practice, established over many years. The Chancellor will take decisions based on that forecast, and we will set out our fiscal plans at the Budget next week in the usual way. The OBR is making an assessment of the productivity performance of the previous Government, and we will not allow the mistakes of the previous Government to determine our country’s future. The Budget next week will be guided by this Government’s values of fairness and opportunity, and will be focused entirely on the priorities of the British people.
Stability remains at the heart of our approach. By building more resilient public finances with the headroom to withstand global turbulence, we will give businesses the confidence to invest, and leave Government more free to act, when the situation calls for it. We will continue to meet our iron-clad fiscal rules, which allow the Government to invest in homes, transport, energy security and infrastructure. Taking this action means that we can continue to build strong foundations for our economy, because that is the route to securing Britain’s future.
Sir Mel Stride
Given that response, the right hon. Gentleman might try a bit of stand-up in his spare time. The process around the Budget is meant to be the most closely guarded secret in Government, but in recent weeks, we have barely been able to pick up a newspaper without reading a fresh report of the latest policy movements. On 6 November, The Times reported that the Chancellor had included increases in income tax rates in the measures sent to the OBR for scoring. Then, last Thursday, the Financial Times revealed that those proposals have now been removed from the Budget package.
The Chancellor and her officials may think this is a game that they are playing, but it has real-life consequences and impacts markets, as we saw on Friday. More than that, it shows utter contempt for this House. In this place, questions about the Budget are always met with the same answer: “Decisions on tax will be announced at the Budget”. That is right and proper, but it becomes hollow and absurd when those same matters are being openly reported in the national media daily. The Chancellor even delivered a pre-Budget address to the country—not in this House, but in the Downing Street press room.
Given that the Chancellor has chosen not to come to the House today, I will ask the Minister the following questions. Has the Chancellor or any Treasury Minister sanctioned any briefings to journalists on potential Budget tax measures or the contents of the OBR’s forecasts? Have any Treasury officials or special advisers conducted such briefings? Has the Chancellor or the permanent secretary launched an investigation into the source of the leaks, and can the Minister explain why the Chancellor seems to have confirmed that the OBR has downgraded its productivity forecasts before the Budget has even taken place?
Either the Chancellor has been knowingly allowing the Budget process to be briefed out, or serious unauthorised leaks have occurred from her Department. That has fuelled confusion and uncertainty, and disrespects this House.
Mr Speaker
Minister, it is not normal for a Budget to have been put in the press. This is the hokey-cokey Budget: one minute something is in, the next minute it is out. I am very worried. The previous Government also had to be reprimanded for leaking. It is not good policy. At one time, a Minister would have resigned if anything was released. This House should be sacrosanct, and all decisions should be heard here first. Please do pass on the message.
James Murray
Thank you, Mr Speaker; I can reassure you that every Minister in this Government takes their responsibility to this House very seriously.
I will not engage with speculation or comment on the ongoing Budget process, but everyone in this House and beyond can be very clear of what the Chancellor’s priorities are going into the Budget. We will meet the iron-clad fiscal rules, we will make the public finances more resilient, we will reduce inflationary pressures and we will get the costs of borrowing down, because that is the way to focus on the priorities of the British people, which are to protect the NHS, bear down on the cost of living and reduce the national debt.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
There has been either a leak or wild speculation about the Budget, and it would be helpful if the Minister could advise us which it is. In doing so, could he outline—as he will obviously not go into detail, quite rightly, a week before the Budget—what this Budget’s strategic objectives are for the country?
James Murray
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Regrettably, there is always noise and speculation ahead of a Budget, but I am not going to comment on that speculation. As the Chancellor set out in her speech earlier this month, although we face challenges going into the Budget, we are very clear about the priorities of this Government, which are to make the public finances more resilient, to reduce inflationary pressures and to bring down the costs of borrowing, because that is the way we can focus on the priorities of the British people—the NHS, the cost of living and getting debt down.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
These leaks are not just Westminster tittle-tattle; they have a real impact on people’s lives and livelihoods. The cold weather has now reached all corners of Britain, and households do not know if they can afford to put the heating on, because they do not know if their taxes are going up or down or staying the same. It is just five weeks until Christmas, and our high streets are struggling with low consumer confidence. That is precisely why we Liberal Democrats have called for a windfall tax on the big banks to fund an emergency cut to people’s energy bills and a VAT cut for hospitality, visitor accommodation and attractions.
However, these leaks are a symptom, not the cause; the real problem runs much deeper. The Labour Government have no vision for the country and no vision for the economy, and whatever their destination is, they are not taking the country with them. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I have had Pinky and Perky chirping all day. Well, that is the last time!
Daisy Cooper
When people and the markets do not know what the Government are trying to achieve, rumours can and do run rife. It is clear that this Budget is more leaky than our crumbling hospitals.
I should add that the confected outrage from the Conservatives is slightly absurd, because their key Budget announcements were often leaked in advance—in at least one case, almost word for word. Perhaps this House needs to move to the Swedish system in which the Swedish Parliament gets to debate the Government’s Budget, proposes alternatives and amendments before it is finalised, and gets a proper period of scrutiny and accountability in the months that follow. What are the Government doing to stop these leaks, do they recognise that this flip-flopping is incredibly damaging to households and the markets, and will they consider all good ideas, including from the Liberal Democrats?
Mr Speaker
I remind the Liberal Democrat spokesperson that the time limit is one minute, not one minute and 50 seconds.
James Murray
Like the hon. Member, I regret the fact that there is always noise and speculation ahead of a Budget, but I am not going to add to that speculation here in the Chamber today. Our focus as a Government is to build the strong foundations that our economy needs, because that is the way to secure Britain’s future.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
I am often put in mind of that scene in “Casablanca” where the official expresses surprise at gambling taking place in the casino when I hear Conservative Members say that briefing might have taken place. Perhaps in 2017, when the key stamp duty measure in that Budget was leaked, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride) was equally surprised, as he was then the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. While there is always briefing, I am sure the Minister agrees with me that the job of the Chancellor is to get the best deal for this country.
Mr Speaker
Order. That is a toughie that one, and I think we know the answer. It is the worst patsy question so far. I call Steve Barclay.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
As the Minister will know, leaks of market sensitive data obviously carry a much higher premium than other leaks that may occur in Government. Again, could he address the shadow Chancellor’s question as to why the Cabinet Secretary and the permanent secretary have not been asked to launch an inquiry into these leaks?
James Murray
As I said, I am not going to comment on the ongoing Budget process, but what the markets know is that the Chancellor’s commitment to her fiscal rules is iron-clad. They have been met at every fiscal event since this Parliament began, and they will be met next Wednesday.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
The problem that we have is an insatiable 24/7 media who want stories and will sometimes generate their own. All this speculation has created uncertainty that has hampered investment, which I know is not what the Treasury wants. Will the Minister be clear from the Dispatch Box that any further speculation we read about will not have been authorised by anyone in Government?
James Murray
Mr Speaker, as I made clear, every Minister in this Government takes their responsibility to this House very seriously and I am not going to engage in further speculation today, but what we are seeking to achieve in the Budget next week is to ensure that, in meeting her iron-clad fiscal rules that the Chancellor has committed to, we provide extra headroom to give more resilience to the public finances, reduce inflationary pressures and get the cost of borrowing down.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Two weeks ago, the Chancellor held a press conference from which everyone inferred that income tax was going to go up. On Friday, every newspaper said that income tax was not going to go up. It is plainly obvious to the general public and anyone who reads any of the papers that everything is being briefed from the Treasury or No. 11. Surely the Minister needs to come to terms with that and face up to the fact that it has a horrendous effect on business and consumer confidence, which is doing the economy a lot of damage.
James Murray
As I said earlier, regrettably there is always noise and speculation ahead of a Budget. In reference to the Chancellor’s speech earlier this month, the reason she set out the challenges we face as a country was to be straightforward with the British people about the challenges we face and clear about her priorities, which are to protect on the NHS, bear down on the cost of living and get national debt down.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Does the Chief Secretary agree that the Tories are still as irresponsible as they were under Liz Truss, blindly promising £47 billion of cuts to justify their wacky fiscal policies? Does he agree that that is back of the fag packet territory? Does he agree that the Chancellor will deliver an excellent Budget next week?
James Murray
I agree entirely that the Conservative party has learned nothing, and nor has it apologised at all for what happened under the short-lived Government of Liz Truss. For the Conservatives to talk about the savings they have apparently identified recently, including welfare savings, is frankly not credible when the shadow Chancellor is the man who presided over the biggest increase in the welfare bill in decades.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
On one level, this is all just a bit embarrassing, is it not? But on another level, this is having a real impact on business confidence and the ability of local businesses to make decisions about investment and their future. Does the Minister agree that this is all just a bit self-defeating?
James Murray
I am not quite sure what I am supposed to say in response to that question. I would rather this urgent question had not been asked today—there are other things that we could be doing—but it is important to underline to you, Mr Speaker, that every Minister in this Government takes their responsibility to this House very seriously.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
I was astonished to hear those on the Opposition Benches cheer and jeer as the Chief Secretary made his statement. If I remember correctly, when we first took office after the election, we were told about how they had mishandled the economy, mishandled Brexit, mishandled the pandemic, spent the reserves three times over and promised money for sensitive schemes when they did not have the money, just to try and win the election. Will the Chief Secretary tell the House how decisions are made in the Budget process, and what we were left with when we first took office?
James Murray
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that our priority is to take the right decisions to provide stability and secure foundations for the long-term future of this country. It is true that we inherited a mess from the Conservative party. Indeed, the Office for Budget Responsibility is now looking at the previous Government’s record on productivity. We have been clear that we will not let the mistakes of the previous Government determine this country’s future. We will take the right decisions for the future of this country.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The speculation was inflamed by the Chancellor herself giving a speech at the press conference. Surely one of the most damaging pieces of speculation in the media was that there might be an exit tax on wealthy people fleeing the country. That has only just been ruled out, but many, many people have fled in the interim. There has been a real cost to the Exchequer from all the speculation, so will the Minister confirm that there will be a leak inquiry?
James Murray
As I made clear, I am not going to comment on the ongoing Budget process, nor am I going to engage in speculation about Budget measures. I note that this urgent question is about speculation, which I am not engaging with. It is actually Conservative Members who seem to be fanning the speculation, and I would discourage them from doing that.
Mr Speaker
Order. Can I just say that we have had leak inquiries previously when major statements have come out? The reports may be contradicted within days, but they are obviously coming from somewhere. It is worth while thinking about it.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
The Minister said in his response that the Treasury and the OBR are exchanging information, but that did not happen in the period immediately before the last election, when spending pressures were withheld from the OBR in a way that the chair said may have broken the law. Will the Minister confirm that that failure is being corrected under this Government?
James Murray
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He is right to point out that the process between the OBR and the Treasury has been strengthened to be more robust and transparent under this Government. Of course, it is an iterative process whereby the OBR shares its forecasts with us and we share with it our proposed measures. It iterates throughout the Budget process, culminating in the Budget itself on 26 November.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
There is no doubt that the chaos and uncertainty of this Budget process is having enormous consequences for the credibility of the Labour party, and maybe even for the Minister at the Dispatch Box. I am, surprisingly, less interested in that and more interested in the damage that the Government’s policies are having on my constituents and their livelihoods. I am not asking him to speculate but to clarify: does he acknowledge that if the energy profits levy continues in its current form, more of my constituents will lose their jobs?
James Murray
I am not going to take lessons on credibility from the right hon. Gentleman. What I will say is that he is inviting me to speculate on Budget measures, and I will not do so.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Can the Chief Secretary confirm that this will be a Budget that prioritises economic growth?
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Can I ask the Minister whether I have got this right? The Chancellor made a speech to try to reassure the markets that she was going to plug the enormous black hole in the Government’s finances. It reassured the markets to an extent, and the forecasted borrowing costs fell. The OBR adjusted its forecasts, and then the Chancellor decided that she did not need to take the measures she had announced in her speech, and the markets have now reacted adversely. This is all against the background of the cost of borrowing being higher today, as it has been all year, than the peak under the supposedly disastrous Budget of Liz Truss. What sort of confidence is that going to give the British economy?
James Murray
The hon. Gentleman is incorrect to say that the Chancellor announced measures in her speech earlier this month. All measures are announced on Budget day. What the Chancellor set out in her speech earlier this month were the challenges we are facing as a country and the priorities that will guide her—those are to make the public finances more resilient, with more headroom, to reduce inflationary pressures and to get the cost of borrowing down.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary will be aware of the vital role that beer and pubs play in my constituency, the beer capital of Britain. As the Chancellor finalises the Budget, will she ensure that this sector, which faces significant pressure, receives the support that it deserves in order that it can thrive and continue serving our communities?
James Murray
While I have made it clear that I will not speculate on what will be in the Budget, I note my hon. Friend’s passionate case for support for the pub sector, which is so important to all of us and our constituents.
Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
Does the Minister have any understanding at all of the impact of this incontinent briefing and leaking—the contradictory rumours about pensions, inheritance tax and housing—which is enraging so many of my constituents in the royal town of Sutton Coldfield? Does he not agree that normally an omnishambles happens once the Budget speech has been delivered, not while it is still being crafted?
James Murray
As I have said, there is always noise and speculation ahead of a Budget, but I will not engage in speculation about what the Chancellor will announce on 26 November, because that is when she will set it all out.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I promise the Chamber that I will not repeat any of the stories about my mum’s career in His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. However, the Minister will know that I take tax evasion very seriously. He will be aware that it costs the Treasury billions of pounds each year. I appreciate that he cannot speculate on what will be in the Budget, but will he commit his Department to looking seriously at how we tackle tax evasion, with serious investment in HMRC?
James Murray
My hon. Friend is right that I cannot speculate on the contents of the Budget, but I can thank his mother for her years of service to HMRC. I can also reassure her, him and the whole House that tackling tax avoidance and evasion and closing the tax gap is a top priority for the Government.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Minister is right to point out that speculation ahead of a Budget is not abnormal, but we have had speculation throughout most of this year. I wonder whether he will accept that part of the reason for that is how the Chancellor has both constructed and applied her fiscal rules. She set them up, with good intentions—we do need fiscal rules in place—but left herself with minimal headroom in a pretty volatile global economy, which has driven speculation all year round about how she would fill the gaps that have emerged throughout the year. Does he think that was a mistake?
James Murray
The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the importance of fiscal headroom to ensure that public finances are resilient. That is exactly why the Chancellor set out that one of her priorities in the Budget, in meeting the iron-clad fiscal rules, is to ensure that we have more resilient public finances so that the Government are freer to act when the situation calls for it.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Given the blatant breach of pre-Budget purdah, will the Chancellor follow the proper example set by Hugh Dalton?
James Murray
I fear that my history is not good enough to know exactly what that question means. [Interruption.] I am embarrassed to admit it. I am not entirely clear, but I suspect that I do not agree with the right hon. Member, whatever it was. I will leave it at that.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Given the chaos around the Budget, none of us would be at all surprised if the date itself changed. Nevertheless, is the Treasury aware how incompetent it looks in the eyes of the markets, which are utterly aghast, and in the eyes of businesses, which have stopped investing and stopped hiring?
James Murray
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Budget is next week, on Wednesday 26 November. I can also reassure him that businesses are welcoming the Chancellor’s iron-clad commitment to her fiscal rules.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Does the Chancellor recognise that her trailing of a mansion tax for houses that are nothing of the sort has caused deep anxiety for thousands of people, including many pensioners in my constituency, who could not afford a potential doubling of their council tax?
James Murray
As I made clear earlier, the level of noise and speculation ahead of the Budget is regrettable, but I will not engage in further speculation on these measures today.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I am disappointed that the Minister does not know of the example of the Chancellor who resigned from Attlee’s Government for inadvertently or otherwise leaking details of the Budget. Does he at least appreciate that there is a difference between speculating about the contents of a Budget and leaking a Budget, and does he think that there should be any punishment for people who leak a Budget, irrespective of whatever the details were?
James Murray
I repeat what I said about the approach of Ministers—every Minister in the Government takes their responsibility to the House seriously—and I will not engage in further speculation about the contents of the Budget.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I have had meetings with businesses and constituents in Surrey Heath who tell me that they have changed their decisions based on the speculation they have heard in recent weeks and months. We have heard about the rage that some people have felt; in my constituency, I have heard anxiety from people who have drawn down their pension pots and perhaps not pursued the house purchase that they were looking at. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, whatever the reality—whether speculation or leaks—this situation is deeply regrettable? If he can do anything at all, will he please ensure that this never happens again?
James Murray
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that I am not adding to the speculation around the Budget. It is regrettable that there is noise and speculation around the Budget, because the right way for Budgets to be conducted is for those measures to be iterated with the Office for Budget Responsibility in the normal way, with the forecasts and measures being exchanged between the Treasury and the OBR, and for the package of measures in full to be announced by the Chancellor on Budget day.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
In some ways at least, this Chancellor is improving: her Budget last year unravelled within a day, and this year the Budget has unravelled before it has been announced. We know why the Chief Secretary is refusing to answer the question about the leak inquiry. It is because the Chancellor knows exactly who leaked the details of the Budget, because she sees that face every day in the mirror. This all goes back to last year’s Budget. Labour said in its manifesto that it would limit spending increases by the year 2028-29 to £9.5 billion a year. In the Budget, the Government increased spending by £76 billion a year. That is eight times higher. Before the Chief Secretary starts spouting about the £22 billion fiction, £9.5 billion plus £22 billion equals a lot less than £76 billion, doesn’t it?
James Murray
At the Budget last year we took the right decisions to fix the public finances and to get the NHS and public services back on their feet. We could not carry on with public services as they were when we inherited them. We could not carry on with public finances as they were when we inherited them. We have restored stability because that is a prerequisite for functioning public services, for investment and for growth.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Leaks, unauthorised briefing and speculation—or maybe not speculation—are creating instability, chaos, volatility and uncertainty for the markets, for businesses and for households in my constituency, so why will the Minister not answer the shadow Chancellor’s question about having an inquiry into what has actually happened? Let us get to the bottom of this.
James Murray
As I have said, I am not going to comment on the ongoing Budget process. However, the right hon. Lady mentioned stability, and stability is at the heart of our approach, which is why building more resilient public finances with the headroom to withstand global turbulence is so important in giving businesses the confidence to invest.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
There appears to have been a lot of speculation about this Budget, and it seems to have been the same measures that have been speculated on by a number of different news sources, which leads to suspicions of a leak. The Minister must surely recognise that there was a possibility of a leak, in which case either he knows who the leak was and that is why he does not want to investigate, or he does not know who the leak was, in which case he should want to investigate. I am not asking him to speculate on the contents of the Budget, so he should please not give me that answer again. Why will he not institute a leak inquiry?
James Murray
A number of the hon. Lady’s colleagues have asked the same question today, and my answer has been consistent throughout, which is that I am not going to comment on the ongoing Budget process.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
The chaos and confusion at the heart of this Government are deeply damaging to Scotland, to its economy and to its public services. The constant leaks, briefings and U-turns flowing from the Treasury make the Scottish Government’s task all the more difficult, and this is worsened by the Chancellor’s refusal, to date, to meet the Scottish Secretary for Finance. Can the Minister succeed in persuading the Chancellor to have this meeting, please?
James Murray
In my role as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, I have met Ministers in the Scottish Government to discuss the fiscal situation. We have a fiscal forum every quarter, with representatives from the Scottish Government as well as from Wales and Northern Ireland, and that is the right way for us to have routine discussions about matters of shared interest.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
The Government have clearly lost control of this Budget process. While they have been flying kites, businesses across the UK have been sending up distress flares. The £40 billion of tax from them in the last Budget saw hiring down, confidence down and investments down, and we are now seeing the same again. If any business in this country went to find backing and made as many U-turns as this Government are producing, it would not have a chance of finding an investor, so how can any business across the country have confidence in this Government?
James Murray
Businesses can have confidence in this Government because when we say we are going to stick to our fiscal rules, we mean it. When we say we are going to have more headroom to make our economy and our public finances more resilient, we mean it. And when we say we are going to get national debt down, we mean it—unlike the Conservatives when they were in government.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
I host a regular business forum with Cheltenham constituents, who tell me that the late date of the Budget and the speculation around it have undermined their ability to make decisions, in particular on investment. They also note that there has been nearly no speculation about pro-business measures for those trying to start or grow a business. Might the Chief Secretary to the Treasury take this opportunity to speculate on something that might be useful for the small and medium-sized enterprises and larger businesses in my constituency?
James Murray
While the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to speculate on details, I can reassure him that our Budget will support growth by enabling businesses to create jobs, innovate, invest and grow.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
This urgent question is about Budget press briefings. The Minister has repeatedly said that he takes his responsibilities very seriously. He was asked by the shadow Chancellor whether he could rule out any of the ministerial team or special advisers having leaked any of the information out to the press. Will he do so from this Dispatch Box in honour of what he has been saying in his answers this afternoon?
James Murray
I did not say just that I take my responsibility to this House very seriously; I said that every Minister in this Government takes their responsibility to this House very seriously. I am not going to engage in further speculation ahead of the Budget.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
In the past year, a record £70 billion has been withdrawn from pension schemes through the tax-free lump sum as a result of the fear driven by the uncertainty of recent months. Does the Minister understand that the constant leaks and policy kite flying are leading to this adverse effect on pensioners’ savings?
James Murray
As I have said already today, there is, regrettably, always noise and speculation ahead of the Budget, but I am not going to contribute toward that speculation.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
Businesses in Maidenhead tell me that what they want to see in the Budget—the one bit of speculation that they want to hear at the moment—is for the Chancellor to just leave them alone. That is an outrageous thing for them to have to think, and it is because of what they think the Chancellor will do at the Budget. Given the damage that has been caused by our current Brexit deal, does the Minister understand that we could look to generate £25 billion a year for our economy by negotiating a new EU-UK customs union? It is very simple.
James Murray
The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the Government’s red lines on not rejoining the customs union. I can reassure him that, in approaching this Budget, the Chancellor’s commitment to her fiscal rules will ensure that we prioritise having extra resilience in terms of headroom, reduce inflationary pressures and get the costs of borrowing done.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Last week, VAT was to increase; this week, it is not. Pensions increases were to feature in the Budget; then they were not. Income tax was to feature; then it was not, and then it was again. The one thing that we are sure of is that retailers faced £7 billion in extra costs from the 2024 Budget, with employers responding by increasing prices and slashing jobs. How are the Government and the Chancellor going to breathe life into our high street and not sound the death knell for struggling small businesses? There is a very real fear that this Budget will bring a different kind of Black Friday for businesses across the UK in the form of closing down sales, which can never be allowed to happen.
James Murray
It does not count as me engaging in speculation if I assure the hon. Gentleman that, as we have already preannounced, we will set out our new business rates multipliers at the Budget, with permanently lower business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, in order to help high streets across the country. That is a really important measure for us to take to support those businesses; more widely, however, it fits within the economic stability that we will provide, which is so important for businesses. That is why, as well as meeting our iron-clad fiscal rules, it is so important that we ensure that the public finances are more resilient, reduce inflationary pressures and get the costs of borrowing down.
Small Modular Nuclear Reactor Power Station: Wylfa
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero if he will make a statement on the development of the UK’s first small modular nuclear reactor power station at Wylfa.
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
I welcome the hon. Lady’s commitment to securing a new nuclear project in her constituency. She and I have had a number of discussions about nuclear power and other energy projects.
Nuclear energy provides the stable low-carbon baseload we need to keep the lights on and to support our economy. It is central to our clean power mission. That is why we have launched a new golden age of nuclear, committing £17 billion to the most ambitious programme of new nuclear for a generation. Our small modular reactor—SMR—programme, led by Great British Energy Nuclear, is an example of British innovation at its best. These mini reactors are smaller and quicker to build than traditional nuclear power stations, and we have been considering which is the best site to kick off the SMR programme now that we have reached that decision.
Last week, we announced that Wylfa on the north coast of Anglesey—Ynys Môn—is our chosen site for GBE Nuclear’s first SMR project. A written ministerial statement on the matter was made on Thursday. The initial project will see, subject to contracts, the construction of up to three Rolls-Royce SMR units. The site could host as many as eight, subject to future policy and funding decisions. That will deliver the largest industrial investment in north Wales for a generation. It will provide 3,000 good jobs on the site at peak construction. GBE Nuclear already looks forward to working with Welsh communities on the project, with work due to start on the site as early as next year.
We will be progressing the SMR project across this Parliament, working towards final investment decision. Meanwhile, large-scale nuclear power stations will also continue to make a vital contribution to our home-grown clean energy mix, complementing these SMRs. We will continue to act decisively, to invest ambitiously and to work with communities, investors and allies to deliver this golden age for new nuclear.
Llinos Medi
Diolch yn fawr, Llefarydd, for granting the urgent question.
Last week’s announcement that nuclear power will return to Wylfa is hugely welcome. I am pleased that the Government have backed the site. As I have mentioned several times in this Chamber, Wylfa is recognised as the best site in Europe.
May I pay tribute to the teamwork over decades, by elected Members from all parties, campaigners, businesses and the local community, who have long fought for new nuclear at Wylfa. Ynys Môn has known nuclear for 65 years, with a strong local college and university ready to train a skilled workforce of the future.
To maximise the success of the project, the Government must work with the local authority on behalf of our community to deliver tangible economic and social benefits. That includes maximising opportunities in the local supply chain. The potential is clear, but the challenge is turning it into reality. After many false dawns and broken promises, my optimism is cautious. We know the cost of failure on Ynys Môn: when the Wylfa Newydd project collapsed, it robbed a generation of the opportunity to live and thrive in their community.
Recent data from the Nuclear Industry Association shows that nuclear jobs on Ynys Môn are at a record low. We cannot afford further setbacks. Clear timelines and transparent decisions are therefore essential. Can the Minister confirm when the Rolls-Royce contract will be signed, the general design assessment completed and the final investment decision made? As it stands, the SMR project is already four years behind the previous Horizon project at Wylfa. The project had a planning application and was approaching a final decision before it collapsed.
Funding the SMR project at Wylfa remains critical. Although the Government’s £2.5 billion for the SMR programme is welcome, most of the costs at Wylfa will currently be funded privately. Given the problems of the past, and that Wylfa will host a fleet of SMRs—these first-of-their-kind reactors—are the Government prepared to demonstrate their full commitment?
We cannot let this historic opportunity slip through our fingers yet again. This is a unique opportunity to create a project that will deliver for our language, our culture and our young people. I urge the Government to work with myself, key stakeholders and developers to provide the best project ever to deliver prosperity and energy security.
Michael Shanks
The hon. Lady is right that the community in Ynys Môn faced a number of false starts under the previous Government. This is an historic opportunity—a huge moment—as the project moves forward with tangible timelines in place and the £2.5 billion that she mentioned. Rolls-Royce is taking forward three SMRs initially, but there is the potential for more in the future. People will start to see jobs soon. We expect that there will be work on the site as early as next year, including 3,000 jobs when the construction phase is at its peak.
I join the hon. Lady in paying tribute to all those who have worked on this project over a great many years. There have been a lot of false starts and disappointments, but last week was a huge moment not just for realising the potential of the site with the next generation of nuclear, but for the UK to see SMRs actually move forward after years of talking, and, with that, the huge investment coming into the social and economic fabric of communities like hers.
The Prime Minister spoke last week about the investment—in colleges, for example—to ensure that we have the skilled workforce in the local area. Nuclear prides itself on creating many well-paid and sustainable jobs. Of course, the hon. Lady’s community has benefited in that way from previous generations of nuclear. We are determined to ensure that those economic and social benefits are felt by her constituents and for those right across the UK.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
My constituency hosts Heysham 1 and 2 nuclear power stations, and provides the cleanest energy of any UK constituency, so obviously I am keen that Heysham continues to be part of our golden nuclear future. Is the Minister, like me, eagerly awaiting the report of the regulatory review—particularly on the outdated semi-urban population density criteria—and will he work with me to ensure that the benefits of the Heysham site are known across the industry?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend rightly highlights the huge economic advantage of nuclear. I grew up in Ayrshire, next to Hunterston, so I know how important nuclear power stations are for the communities that grow up around them. We are considering existing sites. This is not, of course, the end of our nuclear ambitions; we have been clear that we see nuclear as a hugely important part of our energy mix now and in future. Our work to consider the regulatory regime will report in due course to ensure that we have a robust process that rightly recognises the importance of nuclear safety but is also flexible enough to take advantage of the opportunities of nuclear.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
It is no secret that I am a fan of new nuclear in this country, so I welcome the progress on SMRs. If we are to have a strong economy and a good standard of life, we need abundant, reliable and cheap energy. Nuclear works in the winter, can run 24/7 to power artificial intelligence, and is 100% clean to boot. It uses 3,000 times less land than wind and solar energy, and the latest prices around the world show that it can be much cheaper, too.
The Conservative position is that we need a lot more nuclear. We were the party that overturned the complete failure of the previous Labour Government to start any British nuclear plants, so I say this with some feeling. I have been told that there was just one nuclear welder left in the country when we started work on Hinkley Point C. We invested in the supply chain and in skills, which had completely withered under the previous Government. Now the most important thing is to keep building.
I personally signed off on a third large nuclear plant at Wylfa because it is our best site. It could host both large-scale nuclear and small modular reactors. By ruling out large-scale at Wylfa and ditching the 24 GW target, are the Government calling time on new large-scale nuclear? That is what it looks like to the rest of the country. It would be a huge mistake—the same mistake that Labour made last time it was in power. If we want cheap energy and growth in this country, we need to build, build, build when it comes to nuclear.
The Minister talked about power generation from SMRs in the 2030s, but industry is being told that it will be 2042 at the earliest. Who is right, and is that really the best the Government can do? We have plans to make nuclear building much cheaper. In fact, to cut environmental red tape, we tabled radical amendments to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, but the Government voted against them. The nuclear regulatory taskforce will report soon, though; will the Government consider our proposals when it does? Lastly, does the Minister agree that it is fundamentally absurd for the Green party to talk about clean power while it has a policy of dismantling Britain’s nuclear power plants?
Michael Shanks
Well, let me start at the end, because it is nice when we have a rare moment of consensus in this place now and again. I would add our friends in the Scottish National party to the last question, although I am not quite sure about Plaid Cymru—some of its members support nuclear and some do not, even though we are building in Wales. The right hon. Lady is right to say that nuclear must be the bedrock of our clean power system. It is also an economic opportunity, as we all know. I welcome that brief bit of consensus.
The right hon. Member says “build, build, build,” but all the Opposition did was consult, consult, consult. She talks about signing off new nuclear, but none of it has been built. It is easy to sign things off, but the previous Government committed no money—not a penny of funding. On one of the biggest days for our domestic nuclear industry in a very long time, it was remarkable to hear Opposition spokespeople last week talk down the sector. They talked big for 14 years, but built very little. Not a single new nuclear project was completed in their entire time in office, and that is because they did not put any funding into delivering it.
We have committed almost £20 billion of real money to build real projects, because we are ambitious about our nuclear future, about Sizewell C and about this SMR programme. We have not ruled out any future giga-scale projects, but our ambition is matched by funding to actually deliver them. Wylfa was the absolute best site on offer, which is why we chose it to host this most important, flagship project for the United Kingdom. We are delivering jobs and investment in Wales, and we are delivering the next generation of nuclear after many, many years of disappointment by the Conservatives.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
Scotland’s Deputy First Minister, Kate Forbes, told the SNP conference that her Government would not allow Labour to turn Scotland into a “nuclear playground”. I guess she knew her audience, but given her reputation as the common-sense member of that Government, she should have known better. That kind of playground politics is an insult to Scotland’s nuclear workers, thousands of whom leave Scotland to work in highly unionised, safe, skilled jobs in England—and now Wales—to build the next generation of nuclear power stations.
Does the Minister agree that Scotland could have these jobs—that Dounreay, Torness in East Lothian, and Hunterston in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Alan Gemmell) could have these jobs—if it was not for the Dr Nos of the SNP and their outdated opposition to nuclear power?
Michael Shanks
I cannot help but notice that none of the SNP MPs is in the Chamber for this statement, so they are not defending the ideological objection that they seem to have. My hon. Friend, not surprisingly, is absolutely right to highlight the Scottish Government’s playground politics; this is holding back investment right across the country, as well as the necessary energy security.
We know that nuclear power stations across Scotland have delivered generations of well-paid, skilled and sustainable jobs. I recently met people in Torness who had started out as apprentices and who are still there, 20 or 30 years later, working in the nuclear industry. There will be jobs in Scotland in the supply chain for the SMR programme and Sizewell C, but it is a great shame that the Scottish National party is holding back the full potential of Scotland to be part of this nuclear story. I hope that the people of Scotland will vote for a different Government in May, so that we can get on with delivering the jobs and investment in communities right across Scotland.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
New small modular reactors have real potential to help reduce our reliance on foreign gas and bring down energy bills, as well as bringing a welcome boost to jobs and investment in Anglesey. SMRs should be where the focus is when it comes to nuclear, not big, expensive nuclear power stations that cost multiples more and take far longer to build.
The Liberal Democrats are pleased to see SMRs coming forward as part of a mix of cost-effective and safe decarbonised power generation, but will the Government please confirm that they will also maintain focus on boosting wind and solar power generation in order to bring down everyone’s energy bills? My hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) has been working closely with constituents who will now be disappointed that the alternative site of Oldbury has not gone forward, so can the Minister clarify what the future is for that site?
Michael Shanks
The hon. Gentleman is right to say how important this next generation of nuclear is—but alongside other technologies. The Government have been really clear that our clean power mission is about wind, solar and storage, but it is also about nuclear. That combination is how we deliver our energy security and get away from the volatility of fossil fuels, and it is how we create thousands of jobs across the country. We need all of that.
The hon. Member is right to highlight Oldbury, which is a hugely important nuclear site that is owned by Great British Energy Nuclear. We continue to look at the future potential for Oldbury and other sites. This is not the limit of the Government’s ambition on nuclear; it is the next stage of that ambition. Wylfa was judged as the best possible site for the SMR programme and it is right that we put our flagship programme on the best possible site, but we are ambitious about the future of nuclear and Great British Energy Nuclear is looking at a range of sites across the UK—including both Oldbury and sites in Scotland—for potential future projects.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
Although this announcement is a welcome step forward for the SMR programme and the community on Anglesey, after suffering many broken promises and false starts, it is abundantly clear that the UK will not meet our future clean energy needs without further gigawatt-scale plants alongside SMRs and AMRs. To that end, and with Wylfa having been widely considered one of the best sites, if not the best, in the UK for a full gigawatt-scale reactor, does the Minister grasp the urgency in setting out the road map for wider nuclear industry needs for future gigawatt sites beyond Sizewell C?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is a huge champion of the nuclear industry, and I have learned a huge amount from her in my time in this post. I am sure the whole nuclear industry is grateful for her work on the all-party group on nuclear energy, and in other activities throughout the House to ensure that these issues are always top of the agenda. Great British Energy Nuclear has been charged with driving forward our ambition for nuclear, and the SMR programme is a key part of that, as are Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C, and we are also looking at what future potential we need.
Our country’s energy needs will clearly only increase in the coming years, and we will be looking at the future of that energy mix, and the mix of renewables with nuclear. The Secretary of State has charged Great British Energy Nuclear to look at what more projects there will be. I take my hon. Friend’s point about a road map to give some certainty to that, and I am sure that the Minister for Science, Innovation, Research and Nuclear, Lord Vallance, will have heard that comment, as well as Great British Energy Nuclear, and I am sure they will work with her on that.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Like the shadow Secretary of State I welcome the announcement on moving forward with SMRs, but like the Minister’s extremely knowledgeable hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), I am concerned about gigawatt scale. Wylfa is truly the best site for a gigawatt-scale nuclear development. When we build in such a way we create a lot of jobs in north Wales, whereas bringing in a modular pre-made SMR will do less of that. Why was the decision made to put SMRs on Wylfa, when Wylfa is practically unique in its attributes for large-scale gigawatt nuclear production, and many sites could host SMRs? Will the Minister please explain that to the House, because I genuinely do not know the answer?
Michael Shanks
I am grateful for a genuine question in the House of Commons—always appreciated. As I said earlier, the decision was made that Wylfa was the best possible site for SMRs. This is a hugely important project for us, starting with three SMR units, but with potential at Wylfa to increase that, which is a huge opportunity. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that Wylfa would also have hosted at gigascale, but after a great many years of Wylfa being promised lots of things, the option on the table was either a project with funding now, and a clear pathway to delivery on an important site that will deliver the outcomes we need as a country, or a potential wait for another spending review where we might make a decision about future nuclear. We are ambitious about what the future of gigascale nuclear would look like, but right now funding has been confirmed for SMRs. It was right that Wylfa, which is a significant site and has a skilled workforce, takes advantage of that after a significant amount of time of things being promised but not delivered. As I said, we have not set that as the limit of our nuclear ambitions, and we will say more in due course about what future sites might look like. Great British Energy Nuclear is looking at those now.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
I welcome the announcement of the new SMRs at Wylfa. This is British innovation we can be proud of, leading to decarbonisation of our electricity grid, and helping to combat climate change. It is exactly the sort of policy that my Exeter constituents want from this Government. Does the Minister agree that supply chains at Wylfa and Sizewell C will benefit businesses and workers across the entire United Kingdom, alongside the local areas where they are based?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is right: we should all be—I know we are, and the consensus has been welcome—hugely proud of this British innovation. We have a huge opportunity to be at the forefront of a technology that I have no doubt will change the energy system of a great many countries around the world, and Britain can be at the leading edge of that. This is a hugely important moment, and we should recognise that. As well as 3,000 jobs in Wylfa for the construction of the site, as my hon. Friend says there is a significant number of opportunities, including thousands of jobs across the supply chain. Great British Energy Nuclear aims to ensure that 70% of supply chain products are British built across the SMR fleet, ensuring that those SMRs are not just a product of British innovation, but that they are clearly stamped with “Made in Britain.”
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
No one likes to consider the prospect of international conflict, but we have seen from that between Ukraine and Russia how dangerous a situation can be when fuel supply installations are targeted. What thought have the Government given to affording the same level of protection against either sabotage or external attack for these new smaller reactors as those that are already built into the construction of the larger plants?
Michael Shanks
The right hon. Gentleman asks a typically important question. We take the security of our nuclear fleet in all its forms extremely seriously, and SMRs are a new part of that. The security arrangements will take into account the existing nuclear constabulary, which will look at security as soon as construction starts to ramp up on site. Across Government, we have been looking at the broader question of how we ensure our critical national infrastructure is protected in an increasingly hostile world, not just from physical attack and sabotage, as the right hon. Gentleman points out, but from cyber-attack, which is becoming more of a priority. My Department and the Cabinet Office are working together to come up with a more detailed plan to ensure that we do that, but the security of all our energy infrastructure is a top priority.
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
I congratulate the Minister on the announcement and the thousands of jobs that it will create. Is he as disappointed as I am in the SNP’s immature stance on new nuclear in Scotland that would mean that communities like mine in Ayrshire, where we have Hunterston, would not have access to thousands of new jobs? Is there anything that the Minister could do to change the SNP’s mind, short of a stonking Scottish Labour victory next year?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is right to say that the SNP’s policy on nuclear is immature. Nuclear has been an important part of Scotland’s energy mix for decades. As a result, tens of thousands of people have had good well-paid jobs in his constituency, across Ayrshire and across the other nuclear sites in Scotland. After almost two decades in power, perhaps the SNP is beyond an explanation about this and so many other things, and the only answer for Scotland is change.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
The Minister is right to say that we want as many individual components of these SMRs as possible to be built in the UK, as well as the final SMRs themselves, but what work is he doing across Government to ensure not just these SMRs, but the world’s SMRs are built in the UK?
Michael Shanks
That is a hugely important question. This is a significant moment for British innovation, because we are now moving forward quickly to ensure that we are at the forefront of this innovation, so that other countries that are already looking to the Rolls-Royce designs can benefit from them as well, but made in Britain. The aim of SMRs that is different from gigascale nuclear is to get to a point where their replicability means that we can produce the SMR technology for export market as well as for ourselves. That is important for our allies across the world who want nuclear to be part of their energy mix, and it is a hugely important economic opportunity for this country as well.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
In the first nine years of the 14 years of Conservative Government, David Cameron sent Wylfa to the wall, George Osborne begged the Chinese to invest—we are still unpicking that mistake—and Theresa May nearly killed off Hinkley Point C, and with it Sizewell C, and after that things actually got worse. Under Labour, plants are getting off the ground to end our reliance on dictators like Putin, which is to be commended. Will the Minister set out how we will build our nuclear future in all parts of the UK? May I make a particular recommendation for Dorset, because we have Winfrith, which could be a really big part of our nuclear future?
Michael Shanks
I was expecting every question today to be, “Could an SMR be built in my constituency?” but my hon. Friend is the first to ask, so he wins the prize for that. I will not labour the point, but as he says, we had a lot of promises and a lot of big talk from the Conservative Government on nuclear, but very little actually delivered. The truth is that no money was put forward for any of those things. It is easy to sign and say, “We want to deliver something,” but without putting any money forward, nothing will happen. We have committed almost £20 billion in funding to make Britain’s new golden age of nuclear a reality, which will deliver jobs in my hon. Friend’s constituency and across the country. We are ambitious about the future of SMRs. They can be sited in a great many more places than traditional nuclear facilities. We have asked Great British Energy Nuclear to look at the range of sites across the United Kingdom that are possible, not just the sites that were traditionally designated for nuclear projects. That opens up huge opportunity for the energy mix of the future, and for jobs, investment and training throughout supply chains as well.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
In the spirit of consensus, which the Energy Minister untypically just moved away from, I join him in welcoming this announcement. I was advising the then Energy Minister when the Hinkley contract was signed and the Horizon project was proceeding, before Hitachi withdrew, so I am keen to see development at Wylfa and beyond. Will the Minister confirm what tangible steps are being taken to accelerate approval of Rolls-Royce’s design and other SMR designs, and by how much? When does he expect the first SMR to be operational at Wylfa?
Michael Shanks
Let me say genuinely that with all the debates we have about our energy mix, nuclear may be a point of consensus. That is important for the industry, so I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments. On the exact details of the timelines, I am afraid that I am not the Nuclear Minister, so I will get my noble Friend Lord Vallance to write to him on that point.
In terms of the overall timeline for the SMR programme, our ambition is that the SMRs will be online in the mid-2030s. There is obviously a significant amount of work to do on the site itself and on the designs, but we want to ensure that we are moving everything possible to get this done quickly. We have a first-mover advantage as a country if we can prove that this technology works, set about expanding it and look at the export market for it internationally.
David Baines (St Helens North) (Lab)
I strongly welcome this announcement. Nuclear is a growing sector. Just on Friday, in Haydock in my constituency, I helped officially to open the new HQ of Delkia, a relatively new company that does a lot of work in this sector. Will the Minister assure me and small and medium-sized businesses such as Delkia that they will benefit from this growth, supported by this Government?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. The investment in these projects is felt in his constituency and in communities and small businesses right across the country. It is creating apprenticeships and opportunities for young people to set out in their careers in the energy industry.
As I said earlier, Great British Energy Nuclear’s ambition is that 70% of the supply chain products that will build these SMRs will be built in Britain. That is a hugely important investment right across our economy. Of course, 70% might not be the ceiling of our ambition, but this is an opportunity for communities and businesses to come forward and say, “We can help to build this innovative and hugely important part of our future energy mix, and we are really excited about the opportunities that it presents.”
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I welcome this announcement. Plaid Cymru supports new nuclear at Wylfa unequivocally, as well as at Trawsfynydd. Last week’s statement announced AI growth zones, with two sites in north-west Wales—one at Holyhead and the other at Trawsfynydd. Will the Minister provide further information on the infrastructure required in Trawsfynydd, especially in relation to data centres and energy supply?
Michael Shanks
I think Plaid Cymru as a party has different views on this matter, but I am grateful to hear of the right hon. Lady’s support for new nuclear. The AI growth zones are all about us trying to designate an area for data centres, which is important for our future economic development, in a way that allows us to plan strategically how power will get to it and what transmission infrastructure is required. It is also about us trying to give confidence that infrastructure will be in place so that data centres know it is a site that can be invested in, which brings forward significant amounts of private investment. If she has specific questions about the infrastructure, I am very happy to speak to her outside the House.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
There will be good, well-paying jobs at Rolls-Royce in Derby to get these reactors built. That will not just benefit those doing those jobs, but power up the local economy, putting money in the tills of shops, restaurants and pubs. There is huge pride in knowing the crucial roles being played in powering Britain with clean energy. Will the Minister tell us more about the work being done to maximise the extra jobs and prosperity that will be delivered in Derby, Warrington, Wylfa and other sites as a result of this Labour Government’s investment in this historic project?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is right to point out the wider impact that investment has in not just the nuclear supply chains, but the local communities that that drives forward. Nuclear tends to have much more sustainable, well-paid and trade-unionised jobs than other parts of our energy system, which means that there are wider economic benefits for those who work in the nuclear industry. We want to see a great many more jobs in nuclear right across the country. We should be hugely proud that Rolls-Royce is taking forward this project in the UK; it is hugely innovative. The UK is at the forefront of this new technology, which will change the future energy system for the UK and across the world, and we are really proud that it will be built in Britain.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
Reform UK believes in investing in nuclear energy and welcomes this news for the north-west region, which will bring jobs and growth, including in my constituency. We are told that the Wylfa SMR will start producing power in the mid-2030s, but the procurement process will be done through Great British Energy Nuclear, a publicly owned Government company. How can the Minister assure us that this will not turn into another HS2, with spiralling costs and missed deadlines?
Michael Shanks
When I said that this was a moment of consensus in the House, I did not assume for a second that Reform would be part of that consensus, but I welcome its finally taking a serious position on the country’s energy security. We are committed to delivering this SMR programme as quickly as possible; it is important for our energy security and our energy mix, but it is also important to ensure we deliver the programme as quickly as possible on an international level. Great British Energy Nuclear is an expert company, set up by the previous Government to ensure expertise is right at the heart of steering these projects through, with a board made up of nuclear experts. That remains an important part of this programme. It is in the interest of Great British Energy Nuclear for these projects to move forward as quickly as possible, as it is in all our interests.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I welcome this brilliant announcement for Wylfa, delivering for the people of north Wales after 14 years of failure by the previous Conservative Government. I join in commending the stakeholders who have helped deliver this, including the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi), my colleagues in the Wales Office, and our brilliant Welsh Labour MPs in north Wales who have been arguing vociferously for this project. It will be central to cutting energy costs and honouring our green energy commitments, so will the Minister assure me that this is just a sign of more great things to come for Wales from this UK Labour Government?
Michael Shanks
I thank my hon. Friend, and repeat my thanks to all those across the House who have been involved in these projects over many years. I particularly thank colleagues in the Welsh Government and Labour MPs from Wales who have been campaigning on this issue in recent months, as well as the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi), who has campaigned on it as well.
Jobs will come from this project in Ynys Môn, but more jobs will come from the wider energy transition right across Wales, from our investment in transmission infrastructure to our investment in renewables projects, as well as in the Celtic sea and all the jobs that go with it. That will be delivered by this Government’s commitment to clean power—to delivering not just the energy system of the future, but the jobs that go with it. We will have an industrial strategy that creates jobs in Wales, after 14 years of a lack of industrial policy leading to job losses across the country. This is the beginning of great things for Wales; it is leading the way in this area, and with the expertise, skill and commitment that exists in Wales, it will do a fantastic job and make this country proud.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi) for securing this urgent question and giving us an opportunity to discuss this issue. As the Minister will know, I welcome the UK’s first small modular reactor nuclear power station, recognising the strong nuclear heritage and expertise of that area of Wales. It is imperative that we all share that capacity—that we have the same capacity in Northern Ireland, without reliance on an all-island network. Will the Government commit to working with the Legislative Assembly to create a similar project in Northern Ireland that will provide power to homes and businesses throughout the area that I represent, and indeed right across Northern Ireland?
Michael Shanks
I should have come prepared with a line about whether an SMR could be sited in Strangford, because I should have known that that question was coming—sorry! As always, I welcome our discussions on energy policy; as I always say, I take the relationship with the Northern Ireland Executive very seriously, but energy policy is transferred to Northern Ireland. I do not have any direct responsibility for that, but we have been working with the Northern Ireland Government on their push to clean power, and of course nuclear power that is part of our baseload here in the UK is also important for Ireland. The interconnectors across the sea help to ensure that our energy security is a priority for both Governments, but I am happy to look at Strangford as a future candidate for an SMR.
Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)
I am delighted to see this Labour Government cracking on with new nuclear in the form of small modular reactors. When the Rolls-Royce site in Barnoldswick in my constituency was saved from closure during the pandemic, future SMR manufacturing work was specifically referenced in the dispute resolution agreement negotiated by my own trade union, Unite. As this Government are committed to creating clean jobs in all parts of the country, will the Minister and other relevant Ministers impress on Rolls-Royce SMR that some of the jobs created by this project must come to Barnoldswick?
Michael Shanks
It would be wrong for me to say that I am fully briefed on the particular issues of that settlement, but I am happy to take that away and write to my hon. Friend. Rolls-Royce winning this contract is a hugely important moment for British innovation. There will be thousands of jobs in the supply chains for this project in constituencies up and down this country.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I welcome this announcement about small modular reactors. Thanks to the landmark deal done back in September, Hartlepool will now lead the world in advanced modular reactors, which will bring £12 billion of economic input and 2,500 jobs, and power 1.5 million homes. The pace in getting that project started is critical, so what will this Government do to ensure that regulatory alignment is in place so that spades are in the ground as soon as humanly possible?
Michael Shanks
September seems a long time ago, but during the state visit we announced the UK and US partnership—the Atlantic partnership on advanced nuclear energy—with a commitment from this Government to work with like-minded Governments with similar regulatory regimes to build nuclear, as well as to bring in the private sector much more. My hon. Friend mentions the agreement between X-energy and Centrica, with the plan to build up to 12 advanced modular reactors in Hartlepool. Thousands of good jobs will come with that, and it is a great example of where private investment, unlocked by decisions that this Government have taken, will deliver jobs across the country.
I am happy to come back to my hon. Friend on the timeline, but we have said throughout that we want to move as quickly as possible to make sure that the regulatory regime maintains the safety that the British public rightly expect, while also being flexible enough to ensure we take advantage of these opportunities when they come. We are working on that as quickly as possible.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
It is brilliant to listen to all this chat about thousands of new jobs and billions of pounds of investment, but we are not getting any of it in Glasgow, because the Scottish National party is against nuclear power. Nuclear power is a source of reliable baseload energy and is essential for security of supply. In fact, we import nuclear energy to Scotland from time to time when the system is short. Against that background, does the Minister agree that the SNP’s anti-nuclear stance defies logic?
Michael Shanks
Of course I agree with my hon. Friend. Much of SNP policy defies logic, but this one does in particular. His constituents in Glasgow and constituents across Scotland will benefit from supply chain jobs from the SMR project and from the work we are doing at Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C. However, they are not benefiting anywhere near as much as they would, were we building those projects in Scotland. It is an economically stupid idea to ideologically block new nuclear in Scotland, but it is also a real challenge to Scotland’s energy security. For more than half of the past few weeks, nuclear has been providing electricity in Scotland. Renewables are hugely important, but they have to be balanced with storage and with nuclear. Only when we get that balance right do we deliver secure, clean, home-grown power. We need both parts of it, and the SNP is missing half of it and missing in action as usual.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is only thanks to this Labour Government investing at scale in our domestic nuclear industry that we can overturn the disastrous legacy of the Conservatives? Does he further agree that this Government, investing for the long term and working closely with our companies, can deliver the jobs and change to our energy system that constituencies across the country need?
Michael Shanks
It will not surprise the House that I completely agree with my hon. Friend, but he is right on two fronts. First, it is all fine and good to promise to do things and to talk big and to consult and consult, but at some point money has to be put on the table to deliver it. The previous Government failed to do that. Almost £20 billion of investment has now been brought forward by this Government to make these projects a reality. That is how we deliver a new golden age of nuclear in the United Kingdom, rather than just publishing lots of documents and thinking that is the end of it.
My hon. Friend’s second point is also right. Investment in the UK in the clean power transition is hugely important. We have had more than £50 billion of private investment since we came to power last year. That is because of the certainty and the policy confidence that investors have in the UK. That would be put at risk by the policies of the Conservatives, Reform and others who talk about the future energy mix, but miss out the detail and put that investment at risk. That puts at risk jobs and investment in supply chains across the country, too. We are delivering the energy policy of the future for energy security, for climate leadership and for good jobs.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the Minister for his responses this afternoon.
Illegal Waste: Organised Crime
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the powers, funding and staffing of the Environment Agency to tackle the work and impact of organised criminal gangs illegally dumping huge quantities of waste in the countryside.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
Let me first convey apologies from the Minister for Nature, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh). She would have loved to be here for the urgent question, but she is currently attending COP30 in Brazil. In her absence, I will be doing my absolute best to answer all the questions from Members about this important issue.
The British countryside is one of our nation’s greatest treasures. From rolling hills to tranquil woodlands, it is both beautiful and essential to our wellbeing and our health. That is why it is so deplorable when waste criminals scar the landscape with complete disregard, damaging precious ecosystems and undermining our communities. This Government are committed to tackling waste crime, which is a blight on local communities and the environment and damages legitimate businesses. The Environment Agency has a wide range of powers, which it uses in its enforcement work against organised crime in waste and other environmental areas. It has strong powers of entry and evidence gathering, is able to authorise mobile communications data, and has authority to use covert human intelligence sources. It is one of only three non-police agencies to have access to police databases.
The Joint Unit for Waste Crime, hosted by the Environment Agency, brings together the Environment Agency, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the National Crime Agency, the police, waste regulators from across the UK and other operational partners to share intelligence and tasking in order to disrupt and prevent serious organised waste crime. The Environment Agency’s economic crime unit targets the financial motivation behind offending, and uses financial mechanisms to inhibit the ability of offenders, including organised crime groups, to operate.
This Government have also increased the Environment Agency’s funding, including the amount available to tackle illegal waste operators, after years of frozen budgets and real-terms cuts. We have raised the budget for waste crime enforcement by 50% this year to £15.6 million, but we plan to go further still to tighten the net on waste criminals with policy and regulatory reforms to close loopholes exploited by them. We are fundamentally reforming the waste carriers, brokers and dealers system, tightening waste permit exemptions and introducing digital waste-tracking, and we are determined to clean up Britain and end the throwaway society.
Calum Miller
I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to Mr. Speaker for granting the urgent question.
I recently knocked on the door of Billy Burnell, the chair of the Kidlington Angling Society in my constituency. Billy showed me photographs and videos that took my breath away. They revealed the obscene scale of the illegal waste dump in my constituency. The site is approximately 150 metres long, 10 metres wide and up to 12 metres high. It has to be seen to be believed. Over the weekend, the situation has become much more urgent. Heavy rain has caused the River Cherwell to rise by 4 feet or so. Water now laps against the waste that can be seen floating towards the Cherwell. This incident highlights the fact that organised criminal gangs are carefully planning operations to dump industrial waste in the countryside. They gain millions of pounds in illegal earnings without a thought for the health of people or animals, or the damage to soil, water or air. It concerns me deeply that the Environment Agency is not equipped to deal with this unfolding environmental disaster. For example, the agency recently informed those in the other place that six other sites had experienced waste dumping on the same scale as the disaster at Hoad’s Wood in Kent, but the site in my constituency was not on that list.
I have three questions for the Minister. First, and most urgently for my constituents, will Ministers follow the example of the previous Secretary of State—the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), who, on 22 May 2024, issued a directive to the Environment Agency to clear up the illegal dump at Hoad’s Wood—and issue a similar urgent directive for the clearance of the dump in my constituency before it is too late for the River Cherwell? Secondly, will Ministers undertake a root-and-branch review, independent of the Department, of the Government’s response to waste crime? Finally, in the meantime, does the Minister support calls from Liberal Democrats for the National Crime Agency, in the most serious cases, to take over the investigation?
Emma Hardy
The Government are aware of the appalling case of illegal dumping in the hon. Member’s constituency, and I absolutely share his constituents’ anger. I, too, have seen the photographs and videos, and it is no wonder that he feels moved to bring forward this urgent question. There is a criminal investigation under way, and an Environment Agency restriction order has been served to prevent access to the site and further fly-tipping. The local resilience forum has been notified to explore opportunities for multi-agency support.
I understand that the Minister with responsibility for nature, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), has offered to meet the hon. Gentleman when she returns from COP, and I know that she is keen to fulfil that offer. I do not want to pre-empt the findings of the criminal investigation, but I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Environment Agency is working very closely with local partners, and that the offer of continuing the conversation outside the Chamber is there for him.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) for bringing forward this urgent question. As the Minister knows from her visit to my constituency last week, millions of plastic beads recently washed up there. After initially denying any involvement, Southern Water has admitted that it was responsible, and that they came from its waste water treatment plant. This is a huge environmental catastrophe, not least because we know that the beads pose a serious risk to wildlife, and we are awaiting further investigation of just how toxic they could be. At my public meeting on this issue last week with over 100 residents, Southern Water admitted that the use of these beads is outdated, and that there are better modern methods. I recognise that the Minister cannot comment on the live investigation by the Environment Agency, but does she agree that the Environment Agency must look at the use of these beads, and at how we can prevent such an environmental catastrophe from ever happening again?
Emma Hardy
My hon. Friend is formidable and impressive. Frankly, I am delighted and proud to be on the same side of the fight as her, and she has led an incredible campaign. I went to see these beads myself, and they are appalling. They are tiny plastic beads embedded in the sand. People are having to remove them with sweeping brushes and sieves; they are literally sieving the sand to remove thousands of beads, up and down the coastline. She is right to feel angry and upset about the issue.
As for the use of such beads being outdated, I will write to all the water companies to ask them who is still using these beads. If companies are still using them, I will ask what mitigations are in place to prevent them escaping, and what their plans are for looking at alternative methods. I agree with my hon. Friend that we do not want this to happen anywhere else.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
My thoughts are with those affected by the floods and by Storm Claudia. We cannot overstate the mental health impact of these events, and I pay tribute to the emergency teams and volunteers for the work that they do when we need them most.
All Members from across the House will have had incidents in their constituencies of fly-tippers dumping waste; sadly, we have seen serious cases in my constituency of Epping Forest. Fly-tipping is a blight on communities, and the shameless people who do it should be punished to the full extent of the law. The hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) is right to raise the issue of the shocking illegal waste dump in his constituency, in which the waste was stacked over 10 metres high. It is positively frightening to think of the effects that will unfold for the environment, ecology and wildlife.
The Labour Government’s action so far on dumping and fly-tipping has been somewhat lacklustre, despite the fact that 36 of the 50 local authorities with the highest fly-tipping rates—a staggering 72%—are Labour-controlled. What are the Government doing to help join up police forces to tackle this issue? In the case of huge, catastrophic dumps, such as the one in Oxfordshire that we are discussing, what support do the Government give the Environment Agency and the local authority? Will they work with the Home Office, the Cabinet Office and the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government to tackle this? What analysis of reform are they proposing to the Environment Agency? Would they consider a review, as we have proposed? With police numbers dropping under Labour, how do the Government propose that rural and, indeed, urban police forces tackle fly-tipping more effectively? With regard to this catastrophic Oxfordshire case, are the Government conducting an assessment of the potential public health and environmental impacts of this horrific waste dump?
Emma Hardy
I point out to the hon. Gentleman that this Government increased funding for waste enforcement by the Environment Agency by 50%, after that funding had been frozen for years under the previous Government. Not only are we increasing the funding to the Environment Agency, but we are going much further. We are reforming the carrier, broker and dealer regime by moving waste management and transport from being subject to a light-touch system to coming under the environmental permitting regulations. We are reforming the rules for waste permit exemptions. We are using digital waste tracking, so we can see where the waste ends up. We are looking at extended producer responsibility for packaging, to reduce the amount of pollution and what needs to go into the waste system, and at reforms to ensure simpler recycling. My hon. Friend the nature Minister has, ever since being appointed, been working hard to deal with the legacy that she inherited of problems in the waste environment.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Newport council is prioritising tackling waste crime and fly-tipping, and we have seen a drop in incidents this year, as more fixed penalty notices are handed out. As others have said, much of the waste is dumped by rogue traders posing as legitimate businesses, often using false number plates. Can the Minister remind the House of some of the tools that the police and local authorities already have, and what more can the Welsh and UK Governments do, working together, to help Newport council?
Emma Hardy
I congratulate my hon. Friend and her council on the work that they are doing to deal with illegal waste. On fly-tipping, there are all the measures that I mentioned in my response to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson), and we have also made an announcement about crushing vehicles. We are carrying out a review of council powers to seize and crush the vehicles of fly-tippers. We want councils to work with the police and use the latest technology, such as drones, to help catch fly-tippers, and to crush more vehicles. I will provide guidance about what more we can do in the new year.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Waste crime on an industrial scale is blighting rural communities across the country and costing the UK economy £1 billion a year. It has even been described as the “new narcotics” by a former chief executive of the Environment Agency. The Environment Agency needs the resources to both investigate the criminal activity that leads to the waste dumping, and to prevent environmental damage and toxic run-off, not just one or the other. Waste crime is significantly under-reported. Criminal activity is widespread, and there is little chance of prosecutions being brought. Will the Government back Liberal Democrat amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill, tabled in the other place? They would designate serious and organised waste crime as a strategic policy threat, establish a national action plan, ensure that waste crime data was collected and published quarterly, and establish an independent review of serious and organised waste crime. Will she support the National Crime Agency in preventing and effectively prosecuting serious and organised waste crime?
Emma Hardy
Again, I share the hon. Lady’s anger about what is happening in our beautiful countryside; we see more and more evidence of illegal dumping. As I have mentioned, the Environment Agency’s total budget for 2025-26 has increased, and it includes £15.6 million for waste crime enforcement, which is a 50% increase. Overall, the Environment Agency has been able to increase its frontline criminal enforcement resource in the joint unit for waste crime and in environmental crime teams as well. It has a wide range of powers, but of course we are always keen to look at what further could be done.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
Alongside our people, our natural heritage is the most important part of our national identity, yet every week, profiteering corporations and organised criminals treat it as a giant dumping ground for pollution and waste. It is these enemies of our countryside, not asylum seekers escaping hardship and persecution, who are the clear and present danger to our nation. Notwithstanding what the Minister has said, the status quo is clearly failing, so how will she ensure that we finally start holding to account all those who trash our environment?
Emma Hardy
Again, I share my hon. Friend’s upset and anger about the state in which waste criminals leave our countryside. We are taking forward many measures, but one that I think will be particularly important—the nature Minister was keen for me to mention it—is the digital waste tracking system. This will replace outdated methods of monitoring waste movements in and outside the UK. It will be an excellent way of digitally tracking where waste ends up. Waste holders will record waste movements digitally at each transfer point, making it easier to share with regulators and improve timely compliance checks. This is just one of the many reforms that we will introduce.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
The number of fly-tipping incidents per day is 3,157. That is equivalent to one every 27 seconds. We see fly-tipping all too often in the west midlands. In my constituency, despite the council’s great efforts to rid us of the scourge of piles of mattresses and fridges, what we see is absolutely shocking. The situation is not helped, of course, by the Birmingham bin strikes, which continue. Will the Minister support the introduction of penalty points on driving licences for those convicted of fly-tipping, to send a really strong message that those involved in organised waste crime will pay for the misery that they impose on our communities?
Emma Hardy
I agree about the appalling state in which fly-tippers leave our environment. We are looking at reviewing council powers to seize and crush the vehicles of fly-tippers. We want councils to work more closely with the police, and to use the latest technology. We will be providing more guidance on what they can do, but I will ensure that the nature Minister hears the right hon. Lady’s other ideas.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
My constituency is on the edge of the west midlands conurbation, and has plenty of country lanes and quiet beauty spots. Communities in my constituency, and particularly in my home village of Norton Canes, know all too well the impact of fly-tipping and organised waste crime. We Labour Members have not forgotten the deep cuts made to the Environment Agency under the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. Can the Minister assure us that this Government will ensure that the Environment Agency has the resources and powers that it needs to go after those who make a living out of exploiting people and businesses, and destroying our precious environment?
Emma Hardy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have introduced a 50% increase in the Environment Agency’s total budget for waste crime enforcement, so that it has the powers and resources to go after the waste criminals who are ruining our countryside.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
I think we are probably all agreed that illegal fly-tipping is a scourge on many of our constituencies. I praise Bromsgrove district council for its work to clear up illegal fly-tips. I am particularly concerned about the impact of cross-border crime. My constituency is adjacent to the west midlands, which is in a different police authority. What assurance can the Minister give me and my constituents—particularly those in villages on the northern fringe of the constituency, from Romsley to Wythall—that the Government are doing every single thing they can to empower all authorities to get to the bottom of the issue, and to put illegal fly-tipping to an end, once and for all?
Emma Hardy
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. On sharing best practice, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is chairing the national fly-tipping prevention group. It includes representatives from a number of councils, the Environment Agency and the National Crime Agency. They share good practice, look at the practical tools for tackling fly-tipping, and hopefully encourage everybody to learn from the best.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Penn cricket club in my constituency allegedly had contaminated soil illegally deposited on its grounds. That not only caused an eyesore, but prevented the club from playing cricket on its grounds. The EA put a stop notice on the club in July 2022. Despite investigations continuing, there is no end or resolution in sight. What support can the Government give to prevent such delays in the EA pursuing its investigations?
Emma Hardy
We certainly do not want to get in the way of a good game of cricket. The weather does that enough; we certainly do not want our regulators to do that. I think the best thing in this instance would be for my hon. Friend to write to the nature Minister with more information, and I will see that she meets him to discuss this issue.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I am sure that we were all shocked to see the images from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller). Rural police forces are the worst-funded in the country, with Dorset rock bottom. That is made much worse by the amount of additional visitors. We welcome them, but 25 million day-visitors and many millions of staying holidaymakers make it really hard for the police to work on this kind of countryside crime. How is the Department working with colleagues in the Home Office to ensure that rurality is properly considered? Will she work with the Home Office on including tackling organised waste crime as a strategic priority for the National Crime Agency?
Emma Hardy
The hon. Lady raises an important point. It is important that we have all the money that the Home Office needs, so I hope she will be supporting our Budget next week.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
I thank my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller), for securing this urgent question. The River Cherwell runs right through the heart of Banbury, so this issue and the images and footage from the weekend have concerned a number of my residents as well. Can the Minister reassure them that the Government are supporting local authorities as best they can so that they can fulfil their obligations to tackle environmental crime?
Emma Hardy
My hon. Friend raises an important point. It is appalling to see in the pictures how the pollution is right next to the river, and it is very concerning. Obviously criminal investigations are ongoing, and work is happening on the ground. The Environment Agency is working closely with all local partners, but my hon. Friend is right that we need to make sure that this is joined up across all the different authorities. I can assure him that that is happening. I can also offer him a meeting so that he can get more detail on what is happening in this particular case.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
On the dumping of waste across the countryside, what assessment has the Minister made of the ability and capacity of the Environment Agency to adequately control and regulate the dumping of toxic emissions by wholly unwanted and unnecessary waste incinerators that are being foisted on our communities, including in Westbury in my constituency?
Emma Hardy
As I understand it, all waste incinerators are tightly permitted. If there are problems with permitting or if the right hon. Member believes that permits are being broken, I encourage him to contact the local Environment Agency office so that it can be urgently investigated.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s clarification on organised crime and fly-tipping. From the fields to the streets, Gravesham borough council works tirelessly to investigate, fine and take to court these criminals, but as well as councils being given the powers and resources to investigate and keep our streets clean, they need a better legislative framework to make prosecution more efficient. Fundamentally, the taxpayer should not be paying for this organised crime; the criminals should be punished. Does the Minister agree?
Emma Hardy
I absolutely agree that waste criminals should face the full force of the law and be punished and fined for their activities.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
It is not just my opinion that Tiverton and Minehead is the most beautiful constituency in the country. It contains Exmoor national park, the Brendon hills, the Blackdown hills and the Quantock hills, all of which are areas of outstanding natural beauty. These are criminals who effectively run corporations that decimate our countryside. Please can the Minister make sure that the fine meets the crime and that they are penalised in their pockets, where they deserve it most?
Emma Hardy
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. One of the ways to tackle this is to go after the criminals with all the legal powers we have. The legal powers we have in this particular case could include an unlimited fine.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
There were 868 cases of fly-tipping in 2023-24 in my constituency. We saw a particular rise in on-street fly-tipping, and in Nottingham there were over 30,000 incidents of fly-tipping within the urban space. What work will be done to help bolster the power of local authorities to make sure that both urban and rural fly-tipping is addressed?
Emma Hardy
My hon. Friend raises an important point. It is as appalling to see waste dumped along the streets in urban environments as in rural ones. We are seeking powers through the Crime and Policing Bill to provide statutory enforcement guidance to increase consistency across the country in how fly-tippers are dealt with, wherever they may be.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
Hoad’s Wood, which was mentioned earlier by the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller), is a patch of semi-ancient bluebell woodland in my constituency where criminal gangs have dumped 30,000 tonnes of waste. It took about six months for them to fell ancient trees and bring in lorry after lorry. My constituents are really concerned that something like this might happen again. Over that whole period, the criminals were not stopped or apprehended. Have the Minister and the Secretary of State come to an understanding on who is responsible in such scenarios for stopping it from happening, and have they met the Environment Agency, police and local authorities to make sure that criminals will be stopped in the act if they do this in future?
Emma Hardy
The hon. Lady raises an important and serious case; I know that the nature Minister has been having many meetings about it. It is the location of a live investigation, so I will not say too much about that, but the hon. Lady is quite right that lessons need to be learned and the criminals need to be brought to justice for the damage they have done. I am grateful to her for raising that matter. Of course, when there is any further information, she will be contacted with an update.
Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)
On Raspberry Hill Lane in my constituency near the village of Iwade, there is one of these mega illegal dumps. It has started metastasising, sprouting accessory dumps nearby, all in an attempt to evade the police and the Environment Agency. It is not just putting pressure on and destroying the countryside, but putting strains on legitimate waste processing businesses in my constituency such as Sweeep, Countrystyle, MVV and DS Smith, which are key to recycling the waste that we produce. Will the Minister tell my constituents how we are not only increasing the capacity of the Environment Agency and the police to handle this problem with extra resources, but boosting the capability of those agencies—particularly with the skills and the cross-agency working that is needed—to get to the bottom of this serious organised crime?
Emma Hardy
I am horrified to hear that such an appalling thing has happened in my hon. Friend’s constituency. He is right, and we should praise the legitimate waste businesses who do a proper job and work within the confines of the law. I reassure his residents that as well as increasing funding, we are looking at increasing the powers available to the Environment Agency and local authorities to ensure that we do not continue to see these appalling acts right across our country.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
In my constituency, a 200-tonne illegal dump has left a farmer with a £40,000 clean-up bill and the risk of criminalisation if he cannot afford to clear it quickly, yet a cross-agency meeting clarified that no single agency takes responsibility for investigating these large-scale incidents on private land. When perpetrators are caught, the fixed-term penalty is a pitiful £1,000—that is for a crime that costs the economy £1 billion. Does the Minister agree that the enforcement gap, where victims shoulder the costs of organised crime while the penalties remain pitiful, is completely unacceptable? Will the Government help to establish a single accountable authority to investigate waste crime on private land and ensure that penalties reflect the true cost of these offences?
Emma Hardy
The hon. Lady raises an important point. I am sorry to hear about the impact on a farm in her constituency. One of the most important reforms we can make is to the carrier, broker and dealer regime, to go from the current light-touch system to environmental permitting so that we can better track exactly when waste transfers from one place to another. That will mean tougher background checks for operators and tougher penalties for those who break the law.
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
Brambletree wharf in Borstal in my constituency has been blighted by an illegal tip for years. A council enforcement notice recently expired without the site being cleared, yet I have recently been informed that unfortunately the Environment Agency will not be prosecuting those responsible but will instead leave it to the local council. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that the Environment Agency uses all the powers at its disposal to tackle such criminal activity?
Emma Hardy
My hon. Friend raises an important issue. I am sorry to hear that there will not be a prosecution. She might want to write to the nature Minister with more details and information, as perhaps we could look at that in more detail than we have.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Correlation is not causation, but no one has so far mentioned that our environmental levies on legal waste disposal go up and up, in correlation with rises in criminal dumping. Is it possible that we have gone too far in that direction? Regardless of the enforcement we do, we are creating an incentive, and if there is enough money in it, we will have criminals doing it. There is no point wringing our hands in this Chamber and urging greater enforcement if we have created the fundamentals of an economy that we can never fix.
Emma Hardy
Of course we need to have a legal operating system, and it needs to be based on the cost of enforcement. We cannot have a legal system that ends up costing the Government and the taxpayer more. There needs to be a system that is fair and that operates well, but one of the fundamental problems we have with waste crime is that the Environment Agency was previously so badly underfunded.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
While the dumping and the criminal gangs that perpetrate the dumping are one part of this, the other part is the businesses that seek to circumvent the legitimate routes for getting rid of their waste by passing it on to those companies that are illegally dumping in the first place. Can the Minister say a bit more about what action might be taken to educate businesses on their responsibilities for their waste, and what this Government can do to prosecute not just the dumpers but the people who are producing the waste and not dealing with it themselves?
Emma Hardy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There needs to be greater education on who we are giving our waste to. Digital waste tracking will make a big difference, because we will be able to see whether the waste ends up in the place where it is meant to end up.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
In 2023-24, there were 1.15 million fly-tipping incidents across England, with about 47,000 classified as tipper-load lorry sized or industrial. A tip fire occurred at an unauthorised waste dump in Dewsbury in early 2012. It burned for four weeks, causing significant disruption and house evacuations, and it cost over £1.2 million to manage and to clear the waste. There is no excuse for fly-tipping, and perpetrators must be made to pay for the clean-up. What resources are the Government providing to Kirklees council to help keep waste and recycling centres maintained and open, and what enforcement action is the Environment Agency taking against illegal dumping?
Emma Hardy
The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. As I have mentioned, the national fly-tipping prevention group is sharing best practice through local authorities coming together to look at how we are tackling this issue across the country. Unfortunately, it is one that seems to be everywhere at the moment.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I commend the Government’s action in this space. A contact of mine who used to work in environmental health tells me that there is a misplaced perception that in our covert surveillance regulation—the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000—“directed surveillance” prohibits surveillance of fly-tipping hotspots, yet surveillance of a “place” is not directed surveillance. The statutory code of practice makes this clear, with in-practice examples, but it simply needs updating to give fly-tip surveillance examples. That could liberate the enforcement agencies to catch far more criminals and produce a much-needed deterrent. Could my hon. Friend look into that?
Emma Hardy
The Environment Agency is able to authorise mobile communications data and has the authority to use covert human intelligence sources, but if there is more that can be done, I urge my hon. Friend to write to the nature Minister with further details, and maybe even request a meeting with her.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Residents in the Woodcote area of my constituency have been living with the misery of being opposite an illegal waste dump for years. Despite all the photographic and video evidence that they produce, nobody seems to be able to shut the site down. Can the Minister look into what level of proof is required to take action, because it seems obvious to everyone that what is going on is wrong, but nobody seems to be able to put an end to it?
Emma Hardy
I urge the hon. Gentleman in the first instance to request a meeting with the local Environment Agency area director and to ask what further evidence is required to enable them to seek a prosecution. Of course, if he is not satisfied after having that meeting, he should write to the nature Minister.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
It took four years before statutory bodies did anything about the waste dumping in Hoad’s Wood near my constituency after it was originally reported. Can the Minister tell us more about how she hopes to work with local authorities such as mine in Ashford to ensure that immediate actions are taken against people committing these appalling crimes?
Emma Hardy
My hon. Friend is right to be angry about the incidents that he is seeing in his constituency, and this is one of the reasons we have increased the Environment Agency funding for waste crime enforcement by 50%. Of course, we are always keen to work with all local authorities and to share best practice to ensure that all of them are going after these waste criminals.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
Devon county council received almost 5,000 reports of fly-tipping last year. The police rural affairs team has supported East Devon district council and the Environment Agency in a fly-tipping engagement event, which saw examples of tyres and plastic wrap. Will the Minister please speak with her counterparts at the Home Office about bolstering rural affairs teams in police constabularies such as Devon and Cornwall?
Emma Hardy
As luck would have it, the Home Affairs team happens to be on the Front Bench just now, and they will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s question.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
Residents in Exeter have raised with me the appalling fly-tipping in the glorious countryside around our city, particularly in Stoke Woods. As we have heard, it is rarely individuals; this is about dodgy cowboy operators who are ruining our countryside. I am pleased that the Government are cracking down on them, but we have to break the business model. How is the Department working cross-Government to tackle the financial incentives of waste crime, which would also support the many legitimate, responsible waste companies that do exist?
Emma Hardy
My hon. Friend is quite right to highlight that there are legitimate companies out there, but there are also waste criminals. That is why the Environment Agency has launched its economic crime unit, which targets the financial motivation behind offending and uses financial mechanisms to inhibit the ability of offenders, including organised crime groups, to operate.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
We have a serious fly-tipping issue in my constituency, but it is not just an issue in Birmingham Perry Barr; all of Birmingham has this issue because of the bin strikes. Residents are calling for CCTV cameras, but the city council says it has no funding available. I have two questions for the Minister. First, does she feel that the Labour-run city council should re-enter negotiations with the bin workers, given that agency staff are now also striking? Secondly, will this Government give additional resourcing to Birmingham city council for enforcement, such as CCTV cameras?
Emma Hardy
I think it is a shame that while the hon. Gentleman raises this issue here, on the ground he unfortunately does not seem able to work cross-party to actually deal with it. I encourage him to put party politics to one side and work with the people in the local area to bring this issue to an end.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
In January, criminals dumped two lorry loads of rubbish on Watery Lane, just outside the city of Lichfield. The dump was so large that it blocked access to the road and, in the process, stopped emergency services being able to access nine properties. One of the residents of those properties requires chemo and has issues with his blood pressure, and occasionally he needs to call an ambulance. Given that these incidents are having such a serious impact on people’s lives, are the Government looking to introduce an aggravating factor for such situations, so that if fly-tips prevent access to a property, the risk to life is treated as an aggravating factor, and the waste criminals receive larger sentences?
Emma Hardy
I am so sorry to hear about the issue my hon. Friend raises. It is shocking that his constituents were unable to access the treatment they needed because of the appalling waste criminals. I assure him that we will go after the waste criminals with every power we have to ensure that they are brought to justice for all their crimes.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
We all agree that fly-tipping is a national scourge. In addition to causing dismay, it causes a lot of disunity between communities. Furthermore, according to a 2018 report, it costs us £392 million to clear up. Will the Minister agree to give more resources to our local councils to fund enforcement measures such as cameras and to implement a zero-tolerance policy, prosecuting offenders and imposing custodial sentences on those who break the law?
Emma Hardy
The hon. Gentleman is right to mention the issue he is having in his constituency and, of course, the need for more powers. He also requests more funding, which is why I am sure he will be supporting our Budget next week.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
My constituents are quite rightly appalled by fly-tipping. It is a particular problem in the west end of Morecambe, but it also affects the beautiful countryside in my area. What action are the Government taking to tackle this appalling crime?
Emma Hardy
Fly-tipping is a serious crime. It blights local communities. It blights both our beautiful countryside and, as we have heard, our urban environments. Dealing with it costs taxpayers and businesses a huge amount of money. We are supporting councils to seize and crush the vehicles of fly-tippers, forcing fly-tippers to clear up their own mess and taking steps to provide statutory fly-tipping enforcement guidance to help councils to make full and proper use of their enforcement powers.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her answers. Nobody in this House doubts her commitment to addressing this issue, and we very much welcome that and thank her for it. The discovery of the Mobuoy illegal dump in Londonderry in 2013 revealed an enormous operation involving criminals who buried vast amounts of waste. It showed the scale of the problem and the finance available. It is clear that the Northern Ireland Environment Agency has been historically underfunded and so cannot thoroughly investigate reports of incidences, which leads to more environmental waste crime. Indeed, illegal waste has been dumped in Northern Ireland through cross-border organised crime. The matter is devolved, but will the Minister commit to liaising with the Northern Ireland Assembly on how better to work together with the investigatory bodies for these crimes throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Emma Hardy
I thank the hon. Member for, as ever, raising an important issue for his constituents. I am sure the nature Minister meets the Northern Ireland Assembly regularly and that she can get back to the hon. Member and update him on those conversations.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
In Stoke-on-Trent, under the leadership of Councillors Wazir and Ashworth, we have had the successful IDIOT—illegal dumping in our towns—campaign. As a result, we have seen the number of fines go up and the amount of fly-tipping reduce. Does the Minister agree that the IDIOT campaign is an apt title?
Emma Hardy
We perhaps could call many things in here idiot campaigns, but let us not get diverted into discussing those. I pay full tribute to my hon. Friend’s local council for the work it is doing to tackle this hugely important issue, and full credit goes to him for raising it here.
Asylum Policy
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Before I call the Home Secretary to make her statement, I am sorry that Mr Speaker has once again had to ask me to remind Ministers of the requirement in the Government’s own ministerial code that major new policy announcements should be made in this House in the first instance and not to the media. This afternoon’s statement has already been the subject of very extensive media coverage, both over the weekend and this morning, including a lot of policy detail. Hon. and right hon. Members on the Government Benches were very quick to criticise Ministers in the previous Government for this kind of behaviour, but the Home Office seems to have a particular problem with making media announcements before Ministers come to make statements to the House. I know that the Committee chaired by the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) is looking at this matter, and I look forward to reading the Committee’s recommendations. I call the Home Secretary.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement about how we restore order and control to our borders. I do so as this Government publish the most significant reform to our migration system in modern times.
This country will always offer sanctuary to those fleeing danger, but we must also acknowledge that the world has changed and our asylum system has not changed with it. Our world is a more volatile and more mobile place. Huge numbers are on the move. While some are refugees, others are economic migrants seeking to use and abuse our asylum system. Even genuine refugees are passing through other safe countries, searching for the most attractive place to seek refuge.
The burden that has fallen on this country has been heavy: 400,000 have sought asylum here in the past four years. Over 100,000 people now live in asylum accommodation, and over half of refugees remain on benefits eight years after they have arrived. To the British public, who foot the bill, the system feels out of control and unfair. It feels that way because it is. The pace and scale of change have destabilised communities. It is making our country a more divided place. There will never be a justification for the violence and racism of a minority, but if we fail to deal with this crisis, we will draw more people down a path that starts with anger and ends in hatred.
I have no doubt about who we really are in this country: we are open, tolerant and generous. But the public rightly expect that we can determine who enters this country and who must leave. To maintain the generosity that allows us to provide sanctuary, we must restore order and control.
Rather than deal substantively with this problem, the last Conservative Government wasted precious years and £700 million on their failed Rwanda plan, with the lamentable result of just four volunteers removed from the country. As a result, they left us with the grotesque chaos of asylum seekers housed in hotels and shuttled around in taxis, with the taxpayer footing the bill.
My predecessor as Home Secretary picked up this dreadful inheritance and rebuilt the foundations of a collapsed asylum system. Decision making has been restored, with a backlog now 18% lower than when we entered office. Removals have increased, reaching nearly 50,000 under this Government. Immigration enforcement has hit record levels, with over 8,000 arrests in the last year. The Border Security Bill is progressing through Parliament, and my predecessor struck an historic agreement with the French so that small boat arrivals can now be sent back to France.
Those are vital steps, but we must go further. Today, we have published “Restoring Order and Control”, a new statement on our asylum policy. Its goals are twofold: first, to reduce illegal arrivals into this country, and secondly, to increase removals of those with no right to be here. It starts by accepting an uncomfortable truth: while asylum claims fall across Europe, they are rising here, and that is because of the comparative generosity of our asylum offer compared with many of our European neighbours. That generosity is a factor that draws people to these shores, on a path that runs through other safe countries. Nearly 40% come on small boats and over perilous channel crossings, but a roughly equal proportion come legally, via visitor, work or study visas, and then go on to claim asylum. They do so because refugee status is the most generous route into this country. An initial grant lasts five years and is then converted, almost automatically, into permanent settled status.
In other European countries, things are done differently. In Denmark, refugee status is temporary, and they provide safety and sanctuary until it is possible for a refugee to return home. In recent years, asylum claims in Denmark have hit a 40-year low, and now countries across Europe are tightening their systems in similar ways. We must act too. We will do so by making refugee status temporary, not permanent. A grant of refugee status will last for two and a half years, not five years. It will be renewed only if it is impossible for a refugee to return home. Permanent settlement will now come at 20 years, not five years.
I know that this country welcomes people who contribute. For those who want to stay, and who are willing and able to, we will create a new work and study visa route solely for refugees, with a quicker path to permanent settlement. To encourage refugees into work, we will also consult on removing benefits for those who are able to work but choose not to. Outside the most exceptional circumstances, family reunion will not be possible, with a refugee able to bring family over only if they have joined a work and study route, and if qualifying tests are met.
Although over 50,000 claimants have been granted refugee status in the past year, more than 100,000 claimants and failed asylum seekers remain in taxpayer-funded accommodation. We know that criminal gangs use the prospect of free bed and board to promote their small boat crossings. We have already announced that we will empty asylum hotels by the end of this Parliament, and we are exploring a number of large military sites as an alternative. We will now also remove the 2005 legislation that created a duty to support asylum seekers, reverting to a legal power to do so instead. We will continue to support those who play by the rules, but those who do not—be that through criminality or antisocial behaviour—can have their support removed.
We will also remove our duty to support those who have a right to work. It is right that those who receive support pay for it if they can, so those with income or assets will have to contribute to the cost of their stay. That will end the absurdity that we currently experience, in which an asylum seeker receiving £800 each month from his family, and who had recently acquired an Audi, was receiving free housing at the taxpayer’s expense, and the courts judged that we could do nothing about it.
The measures are designed to tackle the pull factors that draw people to this country, but reducing the number of arrivals is just half of the story. We must also enforce our rules and remove those who have no right to be here. That will mean restarting removals to countries where they have been paused. In recent months, we have begun the voluntary removal of failed asylum seekers to Syria once again. However, many failed asylum seekers from Syria are still here, most of whom fled a regime that has since been toppled. Other countries are planning to enforce removals, and we will follow suit. Where a failed asylum seeker cannot be returned home, we will also continue to explore the possibility of return hubs, with negotiations ongoing.
We must remove those who have failed asylum claims, regardless of who they are. Today, we are not removing family groups, even when we know that their home country is perfectly safe. There are, for instance, around 700 Albanian families living in taxpayer-funded accommodation having failed their asylum claims—despite an existing returns agreement, and Albania being a signatory to the European convention on human rights. So we will now begin the removal of families. Where possible, we will encourage a voluntary return, but where an enforced return is necessary, that is what we will do.
Where the barrier to a return is not the individual, nor the UK Government, but the receiving country, we will take action. I can announce that we have told Angola, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Namibia that if they do not comply with international rules and norms, we will impose visa penalties on them. I am sending a wider message here: unless other countries heed this lesson, further sanctions will follow.
Much of the delay in our removals, however, comes from the sclerotic nature of our own system. In March of this year, the appeals backlog stood at 51,000 cases. This Government have already increased judicial sitting days, but reform is required, so we will create a new appeals body, staffed by professional independent adjudicators, and we will ensure that early legal representation is available to advise claimants and ensure their issues are properly considered. Cases with a low chance of success will be fast-tracked, and claimants will have just one opportunity to claim and one to appeal, ending the merry-go-round of claims and appeals that frustrate so many removals.
While some barriers to removal are the result of process, others are substantive issues related to the law itself. There is no doubt that the expanded interpretation of parts of the European convention on human rights has contributed. This is particularly true of article 8: the right to a family life. The courts have adopted an ever-expanding interpretation of that right. As a result, many people have been allowed to come to this country when they would otherwise have had no right to, and we have been unable to remove others when the case for doing so seems overwhelming. That includes cases like an arsonist, sentenced to five years in prison, whose deportation was blocked on the grounds that his relationship with his sibling may suffer. More than half of those detained are now delaying or blocking their removal by raising a last-minute rights claim.
Article 8 is a qualified right, which means we are not prevented from removing individuals or refusing an application to move to the UK if it is in the public interest. To narrow article 8 rights, we will therefore make three important changes, in both domestic law and to our immigration rules. First, we will define what, exactly, a family is—narrowing it down to parents and their children. Secondly, we will define the public interest test so that the default becomes a removal or refusal, with article 8 rights only permissible in the most exceptional circumstances. Thirdly, we will tighten where article 8 claims can be heard, ensuring only those who are living in the UK can lodge a claim, rather than their family members overseas, and that all claims are heard first by the Home Office and not in a courtroom.
We will also pursue international reform of a second element of the convention: the application of article 3, and the prohibition on torture and inhuman, degrading treatment or punishment. We will never return anyone to be tortured in their home country, but the definition of “degrading treatment” has expanded into the realm of the ridiculous. Today we have criminals who we seek to deport, but we discover we cannot because the prisons in their home country have cells that are deemed too small, or even mental health provision that is not as good as our own. As article 3 is an absolute right, a public interest test cannot be applied. For that reason, we are seeking reform at the Council of Europe, and we do so alongside international partners who have raised similar concerns.
It is not just international law that binds us. According to data from 2022, over 40% of those detained for removal claimed that they were modern-day slaves. That well-intentioned law is being abused by those who seek to frustrate a legitimate removal, so I will bring forward legislation that tightens the modern slavery system, to ensure that it protects those it was designed for, and not those who seek to abuse it. Taken together, these are significant reforms. They are designed to ensure that our asylum system is fit for the modern world, and that we retain public consent for the very idea of providing refuge.
We will always be a country that offers protection to those fleeing peril, just as we did in recent years when Ukraine was invaded, when Afghanistan was evacuated, and when we repatriated Hongkongers. For that reason, as order and control are restored, we will open new, capped, safe and legal routes into this country. These will make sponsorship the primary means by which we resettle refugees, with voluntary and community organisations given greater involvement to both receive refugees and support them, working within caps set by Government. We will also create a new route for displaced students to study in the UK, and another for skilled refugees to work here. Of course, we will always remain flexible to new crises across the world, as they happen.
I know that the British people do not want to close the doors, but until we restore order and control, those who seek to divide us will grow stronger. It is our job as a Labour Government to unite where there is division, so we must now build an asylum system for the world as it is—one that restores order and control, that opens safe and legal routes to those fleeing danger across the world, and that sustains our commitment to providing refuge for this generation, and those to come. I know the country we are. We are open, tolerant, and generous. We are the greater Britain that those on this side of the House believe in, not the littler England that some wish we would become. These reforms are designed to bring unity where others seek to divide, and I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Leader of the Opposition, Kemi Badenoch.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement, most of which I read The Sunday Telegraph. I am pleased that she is bringing forward measures to crack down on illegal immigration. It is not enough but it is a start, and a change from her previous position in opposition of a general amnesty for illegal migrants.
I praise the new Home Secretary. She is bringing fresh energy and a clearer focus to this problem, and she has got more done in 70 days in the job than her predecessor did in a year. She seems to get what many on the Labour Benches refuse to accept, and she is right to say that if we fail to deal with the crisis, we will draw more people to a path that starts with anger and ends in hatred. We will also allow our English channel to operate as an open route into this country for anyone who is prepared to risk their life and pay criminal gangs. That is not fair on British citizens, it is not fair on those who come here legally, and it is not fair on those in genuine need who are pushed to the back of the queue because the system is overwhelmed.
Anyone who cannot see by now that simply tinkering with the current system will not fix this problem is either living in la-la land or being wilfully obstructive. It is a shame that it has taken Labour a year in office to realise there is a borders crisis—[Interruption.] I don’t know why Labour Members are chuntering. What was their first act in government? The first act of the Home Secretary’s predecessor was to scrap the Rwanda plan, which was already—[Interruption.] Yes, they are cheering. It was already starting to act as a deterrent before it even got off the ground, and before it started, Labour Members threw away all our hard work and taxpayers’ money—they are the ones who have wasted that money, not us.
The statement is an admission that the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill of the Home Secretary’s predecessor will not work, but I am glad to see Labour Members now changing course. The powers they are using in the Bill are ones they all voted down when we were in government, and they would not be able to do that if we had not got those measures through. None of them know the work that was done; they are just cheering nonsensically, but we know what has happened since Labour came to office. The Home Secretary will know that 10,000 people have crossed the channel in the 70 days she has been in office, and we have seen record levels of asylum claims in the last year. The problem has got worse since Labour came into office, and it is getting worse by the day.
I am afraid that what the Home Secretary is announcing will not work on its own, and some of these measures will take us backwards. I say that to her with no ill will, and I hope she believes me when I say that I genuinely want her to succeed. Conservative Members are speaking from experience: we know how difficult this is— [Interruption.] We do, and we will not take any lectures from the people who voted down every single measure to control immigration. Some of the measures that the Home Secretary is announcing today are undoubtedly positive steps—baby steps, but positive none the less. We welcome making refugee status temporary, and we welcome removing the last Labour Government’s legislation that created a duty to support asylum seekers—she is right to do that. However, some of what she is announcing simply does not go far enough.
Conservative Members believe that anyone who arrives illegally, especially from safe countries, should be deported and banned from claiming asylum. Does the Home Secretary agree that anyone who comes to this country illegally should be deported? I would like to know, and I think the country would like to know, because this announcement means that some people who arrive will be allowed to stay—they just need to wait 20 years before getting permanent settlement. That does not remove the pull factor. The main problem is that for as long as the UK is in the European convention on human rights, illegal immigrants and those exploiting our system will use human rights laws to block anything she does to solve this. I know that because I saw it happen again and again over the last four years, and I know she has seen it too. We even saw it this year with the Prime Minister’s one in, one out scheme, which has seen people return to France and come back on small boats yet again.
I guarantee that the Home Secretary’s plan to reinterpret article 8 will not work. We tried that already, and Strasbourg and UK case law will prevail. I agree with her that the definition of “degrading treatment” is over-interpreted, but renegotiating article 3 internationally will take years—years we do not have if it were even possible, but the fact is that it is not. We know that because a small group of EU countries tried that earlier, and they were dismissed by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe. Her Government did nothing to support them, so I am not convinced it is the Prime Minister’s negotiating skills that will sort out that problem.
We have looked at this issue from every possible direction, and any plan that does not include leaving the ECHR as a necessary step is wasting time we do not have. Just like the Government’s plan to “smash the gangs”, or the one in, one out policy, it is timewasting, and it is doomed to fail because of lawfare. We have seen this all before. The tough measures will be challenged in the courts and blocked, the new legal routes that the Home Secretary is talking about will be exploited, and the numbers arriving on our shores and disappearing into the black economy will keep on rising. If the Home Secretary is serious about reducing these numbers—I do believe that she is—she must be bolder. She must take steps to deter illegal immigrants from coming to Britain, and deport them as soon as they arrive. Our borders plan does just that, and I know that she has studied it in detail. I have seen the looks, and I know that she knows that we would leave the ECHR and the European convention on action against trafficking to stop the Strasbourg courts from frustrating deportations, and establish a new removals force to ensure that all illegal arrivals are deported. We would end the use of immigration tribunals, judicial review and legal aid in immigration cases, as those are the things that are slowing us down, and we would sign returns agreements that are backed by visa sanctions to ensure that we send illegal arrivals back to their place of origin. I welcome what she says about Angola and Namibia, but we all know that those countries are not the ones that are creating the biggest problems.
We need to be bold, serious and unafraid to do what the British people demand: secure our borders. That is what is in our borders plan, so I urge the Home Secretary to take me up on my offer to work together, not just because we have some ideas that she might find useful, but because judging by the reaction of her own Back Benchers today, she may find our votes come in handy. Earlier this year, we saw what happened when the Government tried to make changes through the welfare Bill: the Prime Minister was defeated by his own Back Benchers and ended up passing legislation guaranteeing that more money would be spent on welfare. It does not appear that his grip on the party has improved since then, so we can be sure that Labour Back Benchers are already plotting to block any serious changes that she tries to make, so we can help her with that—[Interruption.] Why are Labour Members shaking their heads? We have seen them do that time and again.
Our offer to work together is a genuine one and in the national interest. We will not play the same game that Labour Members did by voting things down for no reason. However, the Home Secretary must be clear with the House on these questions: how many people will be able to take advantage of the new work and study visa routes? What will be the level of the cap? Will it be 10,000 people or 100,000 people?
The Government have separately confirmed that they will allow Gazan students to bring dependants. We oppose that, but can she clarify how the Government will ensure that people brought to the UK from a territory under Hamas control are not a risk to our security? If she finds that the Human Rights Act 1998 and the ECHR prevent her from enacting those proposals, will she use primary legislation to resolve that? Has Lord Hermer agreed? By her own admission three weeks ago, the Home Office is not yet fit for purpose, so why are we creating a new legal route for the Home Office to run?
Will she take me up on my serious, genuine offer to meet and to discuss how we can work together to resolve the asylum crisis—yes or no? I urge her to put party politics aside, meet me and my shadow Home Secretary, so that we can find a way to work together—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I was very generous with the time I allowed the Leader of the Opposition. I call the Home Secretary.
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for her response to the statement. I see that the shadow Home Secretary has been subbed out after his performance at Home Office oral questions, but whether it is the shadow Home Secretary or the Leader of the Opposition herself, I am very happy to take on the Conservative party any day of the week.
Let me start by saying that we will not take any lessons from the Opposition on how to run an effective migration or asylum system. As the Leader of the Opposition knows, when the Conservatives were in Government, they gave up on governing altogether. They gave up on making asylum decisions, creating the huge backlog that this Government were left to start to deal with. In our first 18 months in office, removals are up 23% compared with the last 18 months that the Conservatives were in office, so I will take no lessons from anyone on the Conservative Benches on anything to do with our asylum system. They simply gave up and went for an expensive gimmick that cost £700 million to return four volunteers and was doomed to failure from the start.
The Leader of the Opposition had a lot to say about the European convention on human rights, but I do not recall the Conservatives ever bringing forward any legislation to deal with the application of article 8, the qualified right to a private life. A Bill that sought to clarify the way that article 8 should apply in our domestic legislation or in our immigration rules was never introduced, so I am not going to take any lessons from the people who never bothered to do that in the first place. This Government are rolling up our sleeves, dealing with the detailed, substantive issues that we face, and thinking of proper, workable solutions to those matters.
The position on article 3 has changed across Europe. In my previous role as Lord Chancellor, I was at the Council of Europe just before the summer recess earlier this year, and I was struck by the sheer range of European partners who want to have this conversation. It is important that the British Government lean into that conversation and seek to work in collaboration with our European partners. The one thing that will not work is simply saying that we are going to come out of the European convention altogether. That is not and will never be the policy of this Government because we believe that reform can be pursued and that this is an important convention, not least because it underpins some of our own returns agreements, including the one with France. The right hon. Lady talked about how many years it would take for us to think about reform of the convention, but as she well knows, it would take just as many years to start renegotiating lots of international agreements that would be affected by us coming out of the convention, so I am afraid that, once again, her solution will not work.
I am always up for working in the national interest because nothing matters more to me than holding our country together and uniting it, but if the Conservatives really wanted to work together in the national interest, they could have started by voting for the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, currently going through the House, that they have voted against at every opportunity. Forgive me if I do not take this newfound conversion to working together in the national interest with much seriousness, but the Conservative party’s track record suggests that it should not be taken seriously.
To not be taken seriously sums up the position of the Conservatives: these are the people that left this Government an abject mess to clear up. They gave up on governing, they gave up on running an effective asylum system, and now they turn up without so much as an apology to the British public, thinking that they have got anything to say that anyone wants to hear.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Before I call the first Back-Bench contribution, may I remind Members that in order to expect to be called to speak in response to a statement, they should have been here from the start of the Home Secretary’s statement? There may be Members bobbing quite unnecessarily.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
The reality is that we need an asylum and immigration system based on fairness and consistency. My constituency of Vauxhall and Camberwell Green is a testament to that, as it is a place that has been made richer because of the people who have come there from all over the world. Some of them have fled persecution and have made a home in my constituency over many years. I meet these people every week in the community, including in schools, where I see those children excited about their future. When this Government came into office last year, they were right to say that their priority was to tackle the huge backlog of unprocessed asylum claims left by their predecessor. Clearing that backlog is a big task, but it is right that we identify who has the right to be here, although introducing more assessments of those who have been here for many years and making new judgments about the safety of a country, will take considerable resources. Is the Home Secretary confident that these changes will not have the unintentional consequence of making it harder to achieve her goal?
Shabana Mahmood
I assure my hon. Friend that there will be both the administrative system and the resources needed to underpin the asylum changes that we are making. At the end of the five-year leave to remain period, there is already meant to be an assessment about whether the country of origin remains a safe country or not, but in practice there has ended up being an almost automatic pathway to permanent settlement, and that it what we are changing. I would ask her to look carefully at our protection work and study route, because we will be encouraging those who have sought asylum here and been granted refugee status to go into work or to study. That supports their integration and means that they are making a contribution that will retain public support for the system overall.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
It is right that the Government are looking for ways to bring order to the asylum system, which was left in total disarray by the Conservatives. Sadly, the Government have been too slow to act.
Britain has a long and proud history of responding with compassion to people fleeing unimaginable horrors. That should continue in a way that is fair and sustainable, so we welcome some of what the Home Secretary has said on that score. However, it is not helpful for the Home Secretary to claim that the country is being torn apart by immigration. Acknowledging the challenges facing our nation is one thing, but stoking division by using immoderate language is quite another.
I welcome the news about safe and legal routes. The Liberal Democrats have called for such routes since they were scrapped by the Conservatives, leading to more small boat crossings, but we have some concerns about the far-reaching detail behind the proposals, which seems to be missing.
The Home Secretary is revoking the legal duty to provide asylum seekers with accommodation, and says that asylum seekers should support themselves and contribute to our society, yet she is still banning them from working so that they can support themselves and contribute to our society, which makes no sense. The Home Secretary relies a lot on Denmark as an example. Denmark lets asylum seekers work after six months, so will she? Can she guarantee that the burden to house asylum seekers will not fall on already struggling local councils? Can she also guarantee that we will not see a wholesale transfer of asylum seekers from hotels to the streets?
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum has announced to the media that asylum seekers could have jewellery confiscated. Is the Home Secretary doing that to raise money or to deter people? Either way, does she acknowledge that many British people will see it as unnecessary and cruel? State-sponsored robbery will certainly not fix a system that costs taxpayers £6 million every day in hotel bills.
If the Government plan to keep their promise to end hotel use, they must process the claims of the 90,000 asylum seekers in the backlog. The Liberal Democrats have a plan to do that within six months using Nightingale-style processing centres. Does the Home Secretary seriously believe that an overstretched Home Office that is yet to clear the existing backlog can also undertake reviews of every refugee’s status every two-and-a-half years?
The UK must continue to lead international efforts to manage large migratory flows. Because the flow of people comes from Europe, the Home Secretary will need to work with the EU on a solution. The Oxford Migration Observatory has identified a clear Brexit effect. That means that people refused asylum in the EU make a second attempt here—a consequence of the Brexit delivered by the Conservatives and the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). The Minister for Border Security and Asylum refused earlier to answer whether Brexit has harmed our immigration and asylum system, so I will ask the Home Secretary now. Does she think that Brexit has made it easier or more difficult for this country to control its borders and asylum system? Does she think that reductions in overseas development spending will reduce or increase migratory flows?
We have already made it very clear that we think leaving the ECHR will make no difference to securing our borders and will tear hard-won rights away from British people. It is encouraging that the Home Secretary has said that that is not part of the Government’s plan. We urge the Government to tread carefully and act with fairness, efficiency and compassion for local communities in the UK who want this issue resolved, but also for asylum seekers.
Shabana Mahmood
I wish I had the privilege of walking around this country and not seeing the division that the issue of migration and the asylum system is creating across this country. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, unfortunately, I am the one who is regularly called a “fucking Paki” and told to “Go back home”. I know through personal experience and through the experience of my constituents just how divisive the issue of asylum has become in our country.
I wish it were possible to say that there is not a problem here—that there is nothing to see and that in fact these are all extremist right-wing talking points—but the system is broken. It is incumbent on all Members of Parliament to acknowledge how badly broken the system is and to make it a moral mission to fix this system so that it stops creating the division we all see. I do not think it is acceptable or appropriate for people in this place not to acknowledge the real experience of those who sit outside this House. We are supposed to be in this House to reflect that experience, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will approach the debates that we will no doubt have on all these measures in that spirit.
The hon. Gentleman accused this Government of being too slow to act. I have to say that removals of those who have no right to be in our country are up by 23% in the first 18 months of this Labour Government compared with the last 18 months of the former Tory Government. We are a Government who are getting on with the job. We have made 11,000 enforcement raids, 8,000 arrests and, as a result of those raids, more than 1,000 people with no right to be in this country have been removed from this country. This is a Government who are getting on with the job, and this is just the next phase of our work as we deal with the broken migration system we inherited from the Conservatives.
The hon. Gentleman said he thought that people who are waiting on their claim should be given the right to work. I think he knows that would be a huge pull factor and increase rather than decrease the number of channel crossings. That would be our experience in this country, and that is why we are not pursuing that policy. We have said that those who are granted refugee status in this country who can and want to will be able to switch into the protection work and study route, so that they can start contributing to society. That will help them to integrate, and it will help the communities they are living in.
The hon. Gentleman knows full well that it is not the policy of this Government to confiscate jewellery from those who are accessing asylum accommodation. Asylum accommodation is provided to asylum seekers by British taxpayers, and it is right that if people have high-value assets, they contribute to the cost of that asylum accommodation. In my speech, I gave the example of a man who was in supported asylum accommodation, paid for by taxpayers in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and mine. He received £800 a month from his family and had enough money to acquire an Audi. It is right that the British state should be able to say to such an individual, “Contribute.” We are not saying that we will take everything away and leave that individual destitute, but contribution is a fair principle here. I would be very disappointed to discover that the Liberal Democrats do not support people contributing, when they can afford to, to the cost of their asylum accommodation.
The hon. Gentleman made his remarks on Brexit. I do not have any more to say about that; I am living in the world as it is today. If he has things to say about that, I am sure that the House will continue to hear them.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
The Home Secretary should know that language that is not acceptable in this House does not become acceptable if it is attributed to others. She might like to apologise for the language that she used.
Shabana Mahmood
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I did not mean any discourtesy; I was merely reflecting the truth of words that are used to me.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I think we all appreciate that, but I urge Members to keep their language acceptable in the House.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)
I fully support the Home Secretary and her statement. It is a fundamental duty of Government to protect our borders and to know who is coming into this country—something that we have not known for some time. She has set herself a difficult task. Will she agree to publish targets for all the areas that she outlined in her statement, and particularly for a reduction in the number of undocumented and illegal entrants to the country, so that we can check whether the plan is working? If it is not, she may need to alter some of the policies.
Shabana Mahmood
What we will not do is set arbitrary targets or caps. We have learned the lessons from previous Governments, and setting a number in that way actually costs public confidence. The better thing to do is to get on with passing the necessary legislation in this House, to deliver the reforms out there in the country, and to assess them as they go. I have no doubt that there will be much debate and scrutiny in this place and others about the success of these reforms, and I look forward to answering questions over the coming months and years.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I am sure that my Committee will want to look closely at the very significant number of announcements that the Home Secretary has made today. She referred on a number of occasions to asylum seekers contributing when they are given support. Has she given any consideration to setting up a deferred payment scheme, much akin to the student loan scheme, so that when people are granted asylum and are in work, they can start to pay back the generosity that they have received?
Shabana Mahmood
I very much look forward to my first appearance before the right hon. Lady’s Committee, which I hope we can arrange very soon. I am sure that we will discuss in detail all these proposals, as well as other matters relating to the Home Office. On the point about further contribution, we are exploring that; it is not part of the package of measures that I am announcing today, but I will happily update the House in due course.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. Does she agree that enforcing the immigration rules, including on removals, is in the public interest? Will she provide greater detail about the action that the Government will take to balance the public interest against individual rights?
Shabana Mahmood
We will bring forward legislation in the next Session on the specific ways that we will deal with the application of article 8 to immigration cases, and on updating our immigration rules. I am happy to discuss with her how that legislation will be developed over the coming weeks, but the intention is to do exactly as I said in my statement. In particular, we will define “family”; set out how the public interest test is to be used, and that it is to be used only in the most exceptional circumstances; and tighten the “who” and “where” of how article 8 claims can be made. Taken together, we believe that those measures will ensure that article 8 is applied exactly as was intended when the European convention on human rights was first agreed to.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
We Conservative Members genuinely wish the Home Secretary well, because otherwise, in her own words, the country will start falling apart. It is a good effort—seven out of 10. She clearly has strong conservative instincts, but does she fear that the misery in many of these countries is such that asylum seekers are not really worried about how long they have to wait for their claim to be processed? Does she fear that unless we arrest, detain and deport people very quickly, this problem will just go on and on? The Home Secretary mentioned return hubs; could she say a bit more about those, and will she have an open mind about schemes such as Rwanda?
Shabana Mahmood
On Rwanda, no. Turning to the substance of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I do not think he can be right, because claims are down in Europe but up here. I hope that he will approach the debate that we are having with an open mind, ditch the failed policies of his party, and maybe consider more workable solutions proposed by this Government.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
We want to continue the UK’s proud history of offering sanctuary, while simultaneously reducing illegal channel crossings. Refugees fleeing persecution should seek safe and legal routes that are subject to full security checks and controls, not pay people-smuggling gangs to cross the channel in an uncontrolled and unsafe way. I therefore welcome the Home Secretary’s announcement that such routes will be created. How quickly does she envisage them being implemented?
Shabana Mahmood
It is absolutely through safe and legal routes that we should seek to bring people into our country, not through the people-smuggling route that originates in the north of France and crosses the channel. I have made an explicit policy choice to disincentivise people from coming through that route; they are paying thousands of pounds to organised immigration criminals to do so. We will privilege those who come through our safe and legal routes. As we get order and control into the system we have inherited, those routes will become more generous over time. They will start modestly—the numbers will be in the low hundreds—but they will grow. We want them to grow, because we want people seeking sanctuary to be able to find safe harbour in this country. We are proud of that position as a Government, so those routes will grow over time. I hope that Members from across the House will support that, but we have to get order and control into our system first.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I think there is general agreement that we have chaos in the immigration and asylum system, and that the Government should be looking for new ways to discourage people from crossing the channel in small boats. Given what the Home Secretary has said today, though, is there a danger that the people we need to come to this country legally—people with the skills that we need to fill the employment gap, and who will keep our NHS working and work in the social care sector—will look at this country now and say, “No, I don’t want to go there”?
Shabana Mahmood
I disagree with the hon. Lady—there is no reason to believe that. The people who come into this country on small boats constitute about 40% of all asylum claims. About the same number of people come through a legal route—a visit visa, a work visa or a study visa—and then apply for asylum when that visa comes to an end. I hope that she will recognise that it is important that we stop that abuse of the asylum system, so that we can retain public confidence in the legal migration system that I think we can all agree this country needs.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Over the past few years, three times as many people have come to this country from Ukraine and Hong Kong, fleeing war or persecution, as have come in small boats, and there has been no public outcry about that. The lesson is that the British people are compassionate and generous to refugees when the system is controlled, fair, and gripped by the Government. Over the 15 years that I spent working on asylum issues before being elected, I saw the dysfunction that this Government have inherited. There is nothing progressive about ducking asylum reform and allowing public support for refugees to drain away. How will these reforms address the manifest unfairness in the asylum system, and rebuild public support for the system, and for immigration overall?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. This country is an open, tolerant and generous place, but there are conditions for that openness, tolerance and generosity—there must be order and control in the system. When people can see that a system is not working, and that rules are being abused and not enforced, they rightly feel angry. It is important that this Government deal with those problems, so that we can have public consent, not just for a new system that works better, but for the safe and legal routes that I know my hon. Friend and others in this House want. The two principles that underpin all the reforms that I am announcing today are fairness and contribution. Those are quintessential Labour values, but they are also quintessential British values.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
As the Home Secretary struggles to find these return hubs, she should reflect on the fact that it was her Government who wasted £700 million by giving up an opportunity to Germany and the United States before we got the chance to use it.
Shabana Mahmood
Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker; in all the finger-wagging, I sort of missed the question. I think it was something about Rwanda, which I think we can all agree was a totally failed scheme and a waste of money. There are good, ongoing negotiations about return hubs, and I very much hope that we can update the House in due course.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I hope we can all agree that a strong immigration system does not have to be cruel. When the Tories painted over murals for refugee children, the number of small boat crossings still went up. When they threatened deportations to Rwanda, guess what? The number of crossings still went up. What evidence does the Secretary of State have that taking personal belongings, such as jewellery, from refugees and selling it off actually works as a deterrent? Would it not be a much better use of all our time to focus on the new plans for safe and legal routes that she has outlined?
Shabana Mahmood
We are not taking jewellery at the border; I cannot say it any more clearly than that. As my hon. Friend knows from the example I used in my speech, the sort of cases we are going after are those in which people have assets and access to money and can afford quite expensive cars. Those people should make a contribution to the cost of what is currently free asylum support. The two things are not the same, and I urge my hon. Friend to not conflate them. We will not, and never will, seize people’s jewellery at the border; we are not going after their sentimental items, such as wedding rings. We are talking about those who have high-value assets and, having claimed asylum in this country, but before they have been granted refugee status, receive free accommodation on the state. If those people have assets, they should contribute to the cost of that accommodation, as I explained through the example that I used in my speech. That is the sort of case we are talking about, and I hope that my hon. Friend will not perpetuate what is being said about jewellery, because I have clearly ruled that out in the House today.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. Labour’s change of course is most welcome, and she has outlined some useful steps. My constituents want to see the Holiday Inn in Bridgwater emptied of migrants and returned to commercial use. To achieve that, she will have to be bolder, so does she agree that anyone who arrives in this country illegally should be detained on entry and deported automatically?
Shabana Mahmood
Again, forgive me, but I am not going to take any lessons from the party that gave us hotel use in the first place and is now lecturing me about hotel exit. It is a manifesto commitment of this Government that we will get out of hotels by the end of this Parliament. I hope to do so before then, which is why we are exploring large sites, including military sites. I know that will give rise to more debate in this House over the coming weeks and months, which I look forward to, but the hon. Gentleman is a member of the party that started hotel use; I hope that he will reflect on that fact first.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I support my right hon. Friend’s statement, and particularly her announcement about safe and legal routes. She will know that cities like Cambridge have a long tradition—going back to the Kindertransport—of welcoming people, including those from Syria and Ukraine. I very much hope that she will work closely with authorities like Cambridge city council on measures that can make those routes work.
Shabana Mahmood
We will work with local partners, councils, philanthropists and other charitable organisations as we develop safe and legal routes. As I said in my statement, they will take three primary forms: community sponsorship, because we believe that is the best model for integrating refugees into our communities; a route for talented students; and a route for skilled workers. We want to play our full part as a country in providing sanctuary to those truly in need. We need to move to a better system. Safe and legal routes will be the way to do it in the future.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
I am sure that all of us across the House can agree that a key aspect of dealing with the asylum system is to deal with the crisis of the backlog, which is enormous. The Home Secretary said in her speech that the Government are looking at a number of large military sites as an alternative to asylum hotels. One large military site already in use is RAF Wethersfield in Essex. I understand from Essex police that Braintree district council has been given funding to the tune of about £2 million to help with community cohesion, because that facility is nearby. However, buses are taking asylum seekers from Wethersfield to such places as Colchester and my constituency of Chelmsford several times a day. That is placing extra strain on Essex police in those areas, yet they are unable to access those funds. Will the Home Secretary commit to providing extra funds to Essex police in those areas to help police them?
Shabana Mahmood
I think there were two questions. The first was on the backlog of appeals, which I recognise is far too high. That is why we will create a new independent appeals system so that we can run through these cases more quickly, while fulfilling our obligations to have an independent process and provide early legal advice. On the specific point on Wethersfield and pressures on councils, we work closely with local councils and provide funding to assist with community cohesion and other issues. I will look carefully at the example the hon. Lady has raised if she writes to me.
Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)
The Home Secretary’s statement is most welcome. The proposals that she set out today are a significant step in the right direction. The comments that she made about the damage to the social fabric of this country are important. I have a specific question about asylum seekers who have committed crimes and are deported, but are then allowed to make a second application to come back to this country. Will she look at the law to see how that can be addressed?
Shabana Mahmood
On those who are convicted of crimes, the combination of the Sentencing Bill changes and what I have said today should lead to the earlier deportation of foreign national offenders from this country. It is important that those individuals face the full force of the law, but we have made a policy decision as a Government that for the vast majority of foreign national offenders, the appropriate thing to do is to move to immediate deportation wherever possible.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
The Home Secretary said that she was exploring
“the possibility of return hubs, with negotiations ongoing.”
Can she tell the House which countries she is negotiating with and how much it will cost?
Shabana Mahmood
No. I do not think the hon. Member would expect me to comment on live negotiations with other countries, but those negotiations are ongoing. I hope we will have announcements to make soon.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)
The Hornsey and Friern Barnet constituency has a long tradition as boroughs of sanctuary, and just today I had an excellent briefing from the Jewish voice for refugees, HIAS+JCORE. Does the Home Secretary agree that there is a real problem with the cliff edge for failed asylum seekers who end up street homeless or rough sleeping, particularly in the Finsbury Park area of my constituency? Will she redouble her efforts to understand the connections between homelessness and the asylum process, so that all people can have shelter as we go into the winter?
Shabana Mahmood
I understand the point that my hon. Friend is making. The reality is that there are a lot of failed asylum seekers within the asylum accommodation system, and I am sure she would accept and agree that where somebody has a failed claim and no right to be in this country, the best thing to do is to voluntarily leave the country. We already provide packages to help people make that decision. I do not want to see people homeless in this country, but I know she cannot possibly think that the answer to that is essentially for there to be no consequence of a failed asylum claim. We need to run a system where the rules are enforced, as uncomfortable as that might occasionally be. We recognise that we do not want people in destitution; that is why we make financial packages available for people to voluntarily leave the country, and that will always be the case.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
In its manifesto, Labour promised to defend migrants’ rights and build an immigration system based on compassion and dignity. Instead, we have a policy that is welcomed by Reform UK and has even found favour with Tommy Robinson. Throwing refugees into destitution, denying any meaningful route to citizenship and forcible evictions—where exactly is the compassion and dignity in that?
Shabana Mahmood
Given that Tommy Robinson does not even think I am English, he will certainly not be supporting anything I have to say, but let us just leave that there. We do not need to hear any more about what vile racists have to say about anything.
Let me say to the hon. Member that it is not a surprise to find a Scottish National party Member of Parliament defending a broken status quo; that is what they do with the Scottish Government under the SNP every day, and it is what he is doing now. I hope he can agree that good, much-needed reform of a broken system is the best way to retain public support for having an asylum system at all.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is right to seek to bring order to the chaos at our borders—chaos instituted by the Tories—which undermines trust in our state and imposes such costs on communities. She is also right to address the pull factors that lure migrants to their deaths in our channel, with claims of cushy lives in five-star hotels. She is right to insist that our proposals must reflect British values and work in practice. On that, will she say a bit more about how reviewing refugee status every two years will work in practice, particularly in regard to Home Office capacity and in regard to integration?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. We are moving from a situation where refugee status is effectively permanent and the most attractive of all routes into the country to one where it has a more temporary status. I will ensure that the administration and funding are available to run the new system as it is being designed. We are creating the protection work and study route because we believe that the best integration outcomes happen when people are in work and able to contribute. That is how we will retain popular support for having an asylum system. People will transfer, we hope, into the protection work and study route, but if they do not, they will still receive sanctuary from this country under the core protection model, and it will be more regularly reviewed. I hope we can all agree that where a country is safe for an individual to return to, a return should in the normal run of things take place. If people have switched into a work route and are making a contribution, we will set out plans in the coming days for how they can earn their way to an earlier settlement that is longer than what is available to people today—and still longer than what will be available to people on safe and legal routes—but shorter than for those who remain on the core protection model.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Most on the Government Benches disagree with us, but I share the Home Secretary’s admiration for the Danish model. The Danish Finance Ministry publishes data regularly on the fiscal contribution of different profiles of migrants. It shows in Denmark that migrants from MENAPT—the middle east, north Africa, Pakistan and Turkey—are net recipients over the course of their lifetimes. Will the Home Secretary ensure that the Treasury publishes the same data in the same way in this country?
Shabana Mahmood
We keep all statistics under review, as the hon. Member knows and as was the case when he was an adviser to a former Home Secretary. The principle that underpins all these reforms is fairness and contribution. We believe that most people want to be able to contribute to this country, because refugees recognise that it is the best way for them to have stability and security in their lives, and it is what is needed for the wider community, too. We think that all refugees, if they are on the protection work and study route, will have that opportunity. I am not interested in models that start separating out different nations from one another. Once somebody has got status in our country, they are on a path to becoming one of us if they are working and contributing.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I agree about the need for a fairer asylum system in which the public can have confidence, but everything that the Home Secretary has proposed today is predicated on decent legal advice being available to people, and we know—I know from 20 years as a Member of Parliament—that that is simply not the case. Despite the best efforts of the advice sector in Bristol, which is proud to be a city of sanctuary, there is a dearth of decent immigration lawyers, and I see too many constituents fall into the hands of dodgy lawyers who will help them to falsify and fabricate claims. What will the Home Secretary do to ensure that that decent legal advice is there?
Shabana Mahmood
I agree with my hon. Friend, in that many people have turned up at my advice surgeries believing that there are things I can do as a constituency MP to assist them with their migration claims which I cannot do. They have been completely misled and robbed by unscrupulous individuals. Under the new appeals system that we will set up, legal advice will be available from the start. We believe in access to justice, and people need to have the right legal advice, but providing it early, right at the start of claims, means that we can run a system whereby there can be one claim and one appeal rather than the merry-go-round and whack-a-mole of claims that we see today.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)
I welcome the rhetoric in the Home Secretary’s announcement. In fact, I recognise her rhetoric. We have our plan for restoring justice, and she has announced a plan to restore order and control. However, before she puts in her application to join Reform UK—and I would very much welcome her doing so—may I just draw out the difference between our parties?
Unlike the Government, we do not propose to give illegal immigrants the right to stay here for two and a half years after arriving; we do not propose to give them the right to study and work here; we do not propose to allow them to bring their families here; and, crucially, we are not going to contort our law to comply with and fit into the European convention on human rights. The derogations announced by the Home Secretary will not work to stop the lawfare, just as the derogations announced in the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 would not have stopped the lawfare, which is why I opposed that Bill as well. She talks about—
Shabana Mahmood
I do not think there was a question in there, Madam Deputy Speaker. As for the hon. Gentleman’s invitation to join his party—hardly any of whose Members appear to be present—let me say to him, “Over my dead body.”
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
I commend the Home Secretary for getting the balance absolutely right. I think that her announcement will be widely welcomed throughout our diverse community in Birmingham, because we know that our generosity of spirit is upheld by our rule of law and the kindness that we show is protected by the justice that we share. Will the Home Secretary confirm that while we will always give sanctuary to those who need our protection, what she is advancing today is in effect a form of earned citizenship, and that only those who step up to the full responsibilities of citizenship will enjoy the full rights of citizenship of this country?
Shabana Mahmood
My right hon. Friend has made a powerful point. We are constituency neighbours, and both of us have engaged in many community meetings over the years in which these issues have been discussed, not just by those who are white but by those who are ethnic minority Britons. What unites all Britons, regardless of their background, is a desire for fairness and for a good system in which people can have confidence. My right hon. Friend is entirely right about the concepts of earned citizenship, earned settlement, contribution and fairness. As I said earlier, those are quintessential Labour values, and they are quintessential British values as well, which is why I know that this plan will have support from people throughout the country.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
These steps are definitely a move in the right direction, and I am pleased that the Home Secretary has rejected the Liberal Democrats’ proposal to allow those who arrive in the UK illegally to work, which would, I think, be a ludicrous magnet that would attract more illegal migrants. However, she will be aware that the vast majority of removals from the country are voluntary rather than enforced. What is she planning to do to ramp up enforced removals from the UK, in respect of visa sanctions, and why did the Government vote against their inclusion in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me just say gently to the hon. Gentleman that voluntary removal is the outcome that we should be aiming for. Enforced removals cost more money and are more likely to result in a failed removal, especially if there is such disruption that the pilot in charge of the plane says that he or she will not take the individual concerned. That often costs the British taxpayer much more. It is value for money for voluntary removals to take place wherever possible, but we will pursue all types of removal, voluntary as well as enforced, along with deportations of foreign national offenders. Our track record over the past 18 months shows that we got those numbers up by 23% to just over 48,000, doing better than the Conservatives did over their last 18 months in government. As for the issue of visa sanctions, all I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that these were powers that the Conservatives acquired but did not use.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
I commend my right hon. Friend for the measures that she has introduced to tackle abuse of our asylum system and clamp down on those who are taking advantage of this country’s generosity. The Government have already closed 200 hotels since coming to power, but can my right hon. Friend confirm that her Department is expediting the measures that she has announced so that we can restore public confidence?
Shabana Mahmood
I can assure my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour that we are moving at pace on the exit of hotels. We have already made good progress, having closed a number of them. The number of hotels that remain has fallen from the peak that we inherited to just under 200, but we will go further and faster. We are looking at large sites, including military sites, and there will be more announcements about that in due course. As for the wider proposals, some require consultation while others require legislation—I know that they were debated with real vigour in the House—but we will aim to pass these measures as quickly as possible, because I agree with my hon. Friend about the need for us to make a rapid transition to a better system in which we can all have more confidence, to introduce the safe and legal routes that are the viable alternative and the right alternative, and to persuade people not to get on to a dangerous boat in the north of France instead.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
The Home Secretary has spoken a great deal about contribution, but one of the most powerful forms of contribution to our country is getting a job and paying taxes, which the Home Secretary will not allow people seeking asylum to do, despite the fact that it can be done in Denmark. She has said that pull factors cause an aversion to that, but a study conducted by the University of Warwick, which looked at 30 other studies, found that there was no long-term correlation between labour market access and destination choice. Will she therefore review her decision not to offer people seeking asylum the right to work, so that they can pay their own way in our country?
Shabana Mahmood
What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is what I said in response to a question from another Liberal Democrat earlier today. It would be a pull factor, because we know that the ability to work in this country illegally is already a pull factor, which is why we are clamping down on illegal working—we have seen 11,000 raids, 8,000 arrests and the removal of 1,000 people with no right to be in this country. Let me also say to the hon. Gentleman that I have had the misfortune of having to look through the TikTok accounts and the various other ways in which the organised immigration criminals advertise their packages for people to get on to a boat in the channel in the north of France, and it is in all those marketing materials as well. We also know from the intelligence that we gather that that is one of the pull factors, and we have to deal with it.
Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, which I fully support. My constituency, like hers, is incredibly diverse, with people originating in countries across the world settled and contributing to our communities. One thing that people from all backgrounds have in common is that they detest the unfairness that the Conservative party allowed to creep into our asylum and immigration system. They also detest the demonising of their neighbours by members of Reform. Does the Home Secretary agree that the choice is clear: a choice between the chaos, handed over by the Conservatives, of a system taken advantage of by those who can pay the people smugglers, and a system of fair and safe legal routes for those who need them?
Shabana Mahmood
My own parents were migrants to this country in the late ’60s and ’70s. Migration is woven into the story of my family, and those of thousands of people I represent in my constituency of Birmingham Ladywood. I agree with my hon. Friend that ethnic minority Brits are just like every other kind of British: we value fairness and contribution as well. That is why those principles sit underneath all the policy announcements that I have made today.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
It is not people seeking sanctuary who are tearing our country apart; it is toxic, racist narratives and the scapegoating of migrants and asylum seekers for what is nothing to do with them. The chronic housing crisis and the running down of public services are not caused by migrants; they are caused by political decisions and by the grotesque inequality in this country. Does the Secretary of State understand that attempting to out-Reform Reform is actually just boosting this baseless, far-right narrative and will only deepen divisions, when we urgently need leadership and hope instead?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me tell the hon. Lady that I could not care less about what any other political party has to say about these matters. I do not care what other politicians are saying on the television. I do not care what other activists are saying either. I care about the fact that I have an important job to do, and I can see that there is a problem here that needs to be fixed. If there was not a problem, I would not be pretending there was one. There is a genuine problem in the asylum system and we need someone to sort it out, not to pretend that it does not exist, which I am afraid is one of the things that fuels division in the first place.
Since I have been Home Secretary, my own constituents have been telling me directly of abuses in the visa system that they can see with their own eyes, long before any officials in Whitehall have ever clocked on to those things. When we see something broken, we have a moral responsibility to fix it and to make sure that the fact that it is broken is not fuelling division in our country. Let me also say to the hon. Lady that it is Green party politicians who are absolute hypocrites, because they talk great language in here and then oppose asylum accommodation in their own constituencies.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. As the Member for Bradford West, I am really proud that Bradford is a city of sanctuary. The Home Secretary is aware that I am a former foster parent to an Afghan refugee, and my concern is about the reform of article 8 that the Home Secretary suggests. Had somebody like my foster son come to this country and not had a parent, he would not be able to apply for his only sibling to come over. The same would potentially apply to a Ukrainian woman who has young children and cannot contribute because of the trauma that she has experienced. Will the Home Secretary meet me when she is doing her consultation on safe passage for refugees and asylum seekers?
Shabana Mahmood
Of course, I will always happily meet my hon. Friend. We made it clear in the asylum policy statement that these measures do not apply to unaccompanied children and other vulnerable groups. We will set out our specific policies in relation to vulnerable groups, including unaccompanied children, separately; these measures do not apply to them. She will know that the scheme for Ukrainians is a bespoke temporary scheme that was brought in by the Conservative party when it was in government and supported not just by our party, but across this House. I expect the rules of that scheme to apply in the normal way, but I will of course discuss with her the issues that she raises.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for a copy of her speech. It states that
“the public rightly expect that we can determine who enters this country, and who must leave,”
and I agree. One thing that is missing, though, is verifying the people who come in. We Conservatives put forward the idea of age verification, which many other countries have. Is that part of her plan? If not, would she consider putting it back in the plan, so that we know that those coming in are who they say they are?
Shabana Mahmood
If the hon. Gentleman reads the asylum policy statement, he will know that, on age verification, we are pursuing artificial intelligence as a more effective and workable model, unlike that suggested by the Conservative party, which was all about MRI scans and bones. We believe we have a much more effective way of ensuring that age verification is available and that the methodology for it actually works.
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. There is currently a loophole in UK employment law that means that people who are self-employed are not subject to right-to-work checks, which means that many people work illegally in the gig economy, with no potential risk to their “non-employer”. Will the Home Secretary discuss how we can close that loophole while simultaneously ensuring that we uphold rights for British workers, but also the rule of law and the remainder of our rights within the UK?
Shabana Mahmood
We are closing that loophole through the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, and it is important that colleagues support us when that is debated again on Wednesday. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that closing loopholes and ensuring that everyone is subject to a right-to-work check, thereby building support for a rule-of-law approach to the way that people access employment in this country, is incredibly important. I hope that all colleagues, even Opposition Members, will support those measures later this week.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Nowhere in the Home Secretary’s statement does she put this into any kind of global context. Millions of people have become refugees or homeless all around the world, and more than two thirds of them are housed by the southern countries—the poorest countries in the world—with the least resources to do it. She is putting in draconian measures against refugees trying to come to this country, failing to recognise that more than 6,000 of those who have crossed the channel this year come from Afghanistan, a war-torn country that we helped to make into a war-torn country. She is instead trying to appease the most ghastly right-wing, racist forces all across Europe in undermining and walking away from the European convention on human rights—a convention created by the post-war Labour Government. Does she not recognise that history is going to be a harsh judge of this Government for undermining the global humanitarian principles behind the ECHR and the universal declaration of human rights?
Shabana Mahmood
Not for the first time, I am a little mystified as to what the right hon. Gentleman is talking about. He starts with the global context. I guess my starting point is different from his, because I start with our domestic context first. He ought to know that in this country there have already been bespoke schemes for the resettlement of people from Afghanistan, so perhaps he could read up on those schemes. He should also have heard from what I said in my statement that we remain absolutely committed to offering sanctuary to those who are fleeing conflict abroad. We think that the best way to do that is not to encourage people to get on a boat in the channel by paying thousands and thousands of pounds to people smugglers.
By the way, it is not just smuggling that is a vile crime; those individuals are involved in all sorts of other, disgusting organised crime. They should not be in receipt of money from vulnerable people. I want to disincentive people from making that choice, and I want to incentivise people to come on safe and legal routes instead. If the right hon. Gentleman had actually read the asylum policy statement, he would know that it is the policy position of this Government to provide more safe and legal routes. Once he has done more reading, I will be happy to answer more of his questions.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I remember when the Prime Minister pledged an
“immigration system based on compassion and dignity”,
yet now we have an immigration Minister tweeting
“Deport, Deport, Deport”
and this policy announcement, which I am afraid scrapes the bottom of the barrel. If we are being frank, is this not just a desperate attempt to triangulate with Reform? Like some of the other terrible policy errors that have been made in recent months, it is not only morally wrong but another policy that is set to push away Labour voters. Why not recognise that now, rather than recognising it in a few months’ time and making a U-turn?
Shabana Mahmood
I really caution my hon. Friend not to defend a broken status quo. He should know that it is foreign national offenders who are deported from this country, and I hope he can agree that foreign national offenders should be deported from this country. We should not be keeping convicted criminals in our nation for a day longer than is absolutely necessary. I say to him that the thing that is morally wrong is knowing that we have a broken system and then either pretending that it is not broken or defending a broken status quo. I will never tolerate that.
I have to say to my hon. Friend that, as I have said to Opposition Members today, I do not care for what other parties are saying on these matters or for what other politicians have to say either. First and foremost is my moral responsibility to the people of this country as I fulfil my duty as Home Secretary. I have a series of reforms that are underpinned by the values of the Labour party and the values of the British people: fairness and contribution. I hope my hon. Friend will reflect on that as he reads up on the detail of these reforms.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
In February, at Second Reading of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, I raised the issue of the generous financial and accommodation package that is advertised on the Government’s own website under “Asylum support: What you’ll get”, which outlines the provision of an asylum support enablement—ASPEN—card with £49.18 of cash loaded on to it each week, on top of free accommodation, even if someone has been refused asylum. The cards can be used for gambling and have been over 6,000 times, according to a freedom of information request. In May, I raised this issue again when I asked the previous Home Secretary what she planned to do to address the pull factors of free cash and a free home. Can this Home Secretary now commit to address my previous calls that these pull factors must be mitigated to create a deterrent, and will those on section 4 or section 95 support have the benefit withdrawn under these measures?
Shabana Mahmood
I urge the hon. Member to look at the detail of the asylum policy statement, the whole point of which is to deal with the pull factors that we know are drawing people to get on a dangerous boat and cross the channel illegally. The upshot of the reforms will be to deal with those pull factors, and he will know that we have said in the asylum policy statement that a relatively small number—just under 10%—of those in asylum accommodation already have the right to work, and in future we will expect them, where they have the right to work, to work.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Home Secretary is arguing that what will heal this divided nation is to get somebody who we have agreed is a refugee, with a well-founded fear of persecution, to feel a permanent sense of limbo because they will never be able to plan for the long term for them or their family, because their status will always be uncertain because they could still face deportation. Her consultation document, which I have read, talks about using enforced return for families. Last year alone, 10,000 children, many of whom are with their families, were granted refugee status in this country. I know she plans to consult, but given that this involves children, can she be clear with us about whether she intends to incarcerate children with their families as part of enforced return, or to separate children from their mums and dads as part of this policy? How will we continue to uphold the UN convention on the rights of the child in terms of education?
Shabana Mahmood
I encourage my hon. Friend to look at the detail of the asylum policy statement on our intentions for the protection “work and study” route, which in future will be the route by which refugees can contribute and earn their way to settlement in this country. Of course, it is the express intention of this policy statement to disincentivise people coming on dangerous channel crossings, and to incentivise and to push people towards what will, over time, become more generous, safe and legal routes of entry into this country, with more privileged status when it comes to earning permanent settlement.
Let me say to my hon. Friend on failed asylum-seeking families, because I think that important context was missing from her question, that there are 700 Albanian families at the moment who have made asylum claims and whose asylum claims have failed. The only reason they have not been removed from the country is the policies on not removing families—that is, parents with their children. We are not going to separate parents and their children, but we are going to consult on the removal of support and how we effectively and safely ensure that those individuals are returned. However, we will of course want to see most of those people return voluntarily instead.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Stoking fear and division through the kind of performative cruelty trailed in the media this weekend has consequences. We saw that in Caerphilly last month in that where Reform UK spread information, Ukrainians spoke of intimidation. When the Home Secretary speaks of unity, surely the lesson from Caerphilly is that imitating Reform does not create unity and does not win trust, but that standing firm on values does.
Shabana Mahmood
I am sorry, but that is just unserious from the right hon. Lady. I am sorry to find that the Reform party is living rent free in so many people’s heads, but I can assure hon. Members that it is living nowhere near mine.
These policy proposals are designed to fix what we all know to be true, which is that we have a broken system that is driving division across our country. I see that in my own constituency, and I hope the right hon. Lady is not suggesting otherwise. I have seen that with my own eyes and it is my own experience in my own constituency, where over 70% of people are not white and most of them have a migration story just like my own. These are matters of great interest across our country—across every type of community in our country—and it is incumbent on any Government who want to make sure we can run a decent system and not fuel division in our country to pursue the sorts of reforms that we are talking about. They are underpinned by what I would have hoped were values her party could have signed up to as well—that is, fairness and contribution.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, which I support. This reform of the system is long overdue. It is about reforming safe and legal routes, and cracking down on illegal working and those abusing the asylum and immigration system, yet it maintains support for those that need our support, such as those fleeing war in Ukraine and others who come here legally. It is about fairness. When will these reforms be in place so that residents can see the outcomes of these actions?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. We will pursue the consultation on measures that require it as quickly as possible, and there will be legislation in the coming months—certainly in the second Session—which we will obviously seek, subject to the agreement of the House, to pass as quickly as possible.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The Home Secretary’s asylum plans still have a gaping hole in the middle of them in that she does not know what to do with failed asylum seekers who cannot be returned home. Her statement says that she is exploring possibilities with third countries. Can I suggest that she swallows her pride, and speaks to a third country that we know is willing: Rwanda?
Shabana Mahmood
I say to Conservative Members that they are going to have to ditch their addiction to Rwanda. The scheme did not work, and nobody in the country supported it. As the hon. Member and Opposition Members well know, when we are negotiating with other countries about possible agreements, the one thing we do not do is publicise them before an agreement is reached.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)
The Home Secretary is aware that, in the absence of safe and legal routes, the law forces a refugee to set foot on UK soil to seek asylum, which has led to dangerous journeys and no checks or vetting taking place. She has referenced sponsorship as the primary safe route. Could she clarify whether this can be applied for from outside the UK, and what consideration has she made of recommendations by Safe Passage to implement a visa refugee scheme, so that applications can be done from outside the UK, with cases assessed, vetted and decided before a refugee embarks on a dangerous journey here?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. The whole purpose of the new safe and legal routes is that those individuals are accepted as refugees before they enter the United Kingdom. The point is that they never pay thousands of pounds to illegal smugglers along any sort of route on which they may travel. In fact, exactly as she says, we want to accept people as refugees before they set foot on UK soil, and once they are here on a safe and legal route, they will access permanent settlement more quickly than on any other route in this country. It is good that the Government are seeking to incentivise people to come through safe and legal routes, not pay thousands and thousands of pounds to criminals along the way.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
It was a genuinely good statement—as far as it went—from which we learnt that countries could be determined to be safe at some point in the future and refugees from them returned home. What would be the Home Secretary’s criteria for safety, and which countries does she have in her sights? For example, would they include the Council of Europe and NATO member, ECHR signatory and EU candidate, Turkey?
Shabana Mahmood
I am not going to provide a running commentary on countries. The right hon. Member will know that I referenced Syria specifically in my statement. Many thousands of Syrians were making claims related to the regime that was in place before, during the conflict, but it has fallen and there is a new regime, so we have already made a small number of voluntary returns to Syria. Other countries are exploring enforced returns to Syria, given the change in circumstances there, and we will of course look at doing the same. In the normal run of things, when it comes to considering whether a country is safe for a person we will keep such matters under review, as I know he would expect us to do.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)
Yes, we have a broken system, but does the Home Secretary really believe that people having to flee violence, war and persecution means they have won a golden ticket if they are lucky enough to get refugee status here? Does she understand that such rhetoric is deeply offensive and feeds division? Does she accept that shutting down routes for settlement will damage integration in our communities, and will only strengthen Reform, not beat it? Would not a better way of measuring contribution be to allow people to work and pay taxes?
Shabana Mahmood
I gently point out to my hon. Friend that we have a large number of failed asylum seekers—that is to say, people whose claims have not succeeded and who do not have the right to be in this country who are still here, despite their home country being safe. Many people who claim asylum in this country have passed through multiple safe countries across Europe before they end up in the north of France. We have seen claims go down in Europe and increase here in the UK. I would just encourage her to remember that we are opening safe and legal routes. The whole point of the reforms is to disincentivise the journeys that lead to criminals earning a lot of money and people being in the north of France, and to move to a system where we have safe legal routes and we accept people as refugees before they set foot on UK soil. That way, when they come here they can earn, contribute and be fully integrated through models such as community sponsorship, which we know work.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
I thank the Home Secretary for sharing her experiences earlier and thoroughly condemn the sort of behaviour she described. It is unacceptable in any case.
The Secretary of State described rapid decisions on appeals. Does she also believe, as I do, that rapid decision making on the initial application of asylum seekers should be promoted and highlighted? Will she consider putting a timescale target for decision—a matter of weeks, not years—in place in her Department?
In her remarks over the weekend on our Ukrainians guests, she described them going home when peace breaks out. May I remind her that peace will not mean safety? Please can she assure the House that a more considered and considerate response may be found? Will she meet me and Ukrainian guests to resolve that issue?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me just make a point about Ukraine that I think was not understood fully by those who were questioning me at the weekend. It is a bespoke scheme created only for Ukrainians, with its own rules. It is not subject to what we have set out in the asylum policy statement. The hon. Gentleman will know, as is the position in relation to our discussions with the Ukrainian Government, that those individuals are welcome in our country so that we can keep them safe. They are not classed as refugees, because they are here temporarily on that scheme. We will always uphold our obligations under that scheme—we supported it in Opposition, too.
The hon. Gentleman is right on the point about rapid decisions. It is important that decisions made at first instance, but also through an appeals process, are of high quality. That is one of the ways we have to ensure that they do not get constantly appealed. Our current system means that even though we have made huge progress on decreasing the backlog on initial decisions, the appeals backlog has grown. Over time, as people sit in the appeals queue, more rights are accrued. Unlike with any other type of legal order in this country, the order to leave this country not being complied with still allows people to accrue more rights in the interim. We do not run a good and effective appeals system at the moment, which is why we are going to create a new one, but I can assure him that at its heart will be early legal advice and truly independent adjudicators making the decisions, but doing so in a way that allows them to fast-track claims that have a low chance of success and make sure that the right decision is made quickly— one claim, one appeal—with a certain outcome at the end, not subject to years and years of a merry-go-round around the courts.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Before I call the next Member, can I just make a plea that we keep questions and answers concise?
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
I wholeheartedly welcome the measures which I believe will tackle a failure by the previous Government to maintain one of the most basic fundamental functions of government: control of our borders. My constituents are worried and angry about the proliferation of houses in multiple occupation to house asylum seekers in towns and villages that already have significant social and economic problems. Will the measures lead to lower demand from the Home Office for that type of housing for asylum seekers and the return of HMOs over time to use as family homes for local people who need affordable housing?
Shabana Mahmood
The totality of the reforms will, we believe, lead to less pressure on accommodation, so I think the short answer to my hon. Friend’s question on HMOs is yes. I recognise the problems he notes, because HMOs are a big problem in my constituency too.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
I really do thank the Home Secretary for her statement. This is a tiny step in the right direction, but it does not go far enough. To truly show that the Home Secretary is listening to the British people, does she agree with me that if you enter this country illegally, you should never be allowed to stay?
Shabana Mahmood
We will always abide by our obligations under the refugee convention and we do believe in offering sanctuary, but we make no apology for the fact that those who enter illegally by crossing the channel will have a longer path to settlement. We are deliberately incentivising other safe and legal routes into the country to show that that is the proper way to seek sanctuary in this country—rather than paying criminals a lot of money and put lives at risk.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
When we introduce new legislation and new procedures, it is important that we calculate the implications and where they could lead us. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), I have worked—for decades, to be frank—with asylum families, and in particular children. What I find is that the children are extremely traumatised. What we try to do is give them security and peace of mind for the family. Now what will happen is that every 30 months that security could be undermined and they could face removal. Could I ask my right hon. Friend whether she has consulted the Children’s Commissioner, education psychologists or others about the implications of what she is saying today?
The other issue is that in the past, she has mentioned the forced removal of families. I just remind my colleagues that in the past that was happening and families were often detained in Harmsworth detention centre. I used to visit the children. It was one of the most distressing experiences I have had as an MP. Can she give me the assurance that no child will be placed in detention as a result of this policy change?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me tell my right hon. Friend first that there will, in the usual way, be a full equality impact assessment for all these measures. As the consultations take place and as the legislation is drafted and then debated in this House, I am sure all the individuals he mentions will have their say—I would expect them to, as well. I gently remind him that when we are talking about the asylum system today, we are not just talking about those who arrive illegally on small boats; we are also talking about people who arrive on visitor visas, student visas and work visas who, the minute those visas come to an end, immediately claim asylum. We know that the relative generosity of that route—the effective automatic permanent settlement after five years—is one of the things that attracts that behaviour. It is right that we clamp down on that and disincentivise people trying to stay in this country in that way, and instead incentivise people who will come through safe and legal routes. As we get order and control in the system, the safe and legal routes will start relatively modest, but I anticipate them growing more generous over time because this country is fundamentally open, tolerant and generous. [Interruption.]
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I welcome the honest and realistic assessment the Secretary of State has made today in relation to the broken asylum system and the division that immigration is causing across the United Kingdom. She has been innovative in some of the proposals she has made. Only time will tell whether the potential loopholes will undermine the honourable objective she has set, namely to cut back on illegal immigration. In my view, the only way of doing that is to make sure that people who enter this country breaking the law get returned immediately. On the ECHR and the expanded interpretation, can she give us an assurance that whatever changes she makes will apply fully to Northern Ireland, where, unfortunately, the previous Government embedded the ECHR in the Windsor framework, which has proven already to be a means of undermining immigration policy?
Shabana Mahmood
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Minister for Immigration has met his counterparts in the devolved Administrations. We will keep all those conversations going, because this is a reserved matter rather than a devolved one.
Madam Deputy Speaker, if I can just say that, in case the microphone did not pick up my answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on the detention of children, I can give him the assurance he sought in his question.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I urge caution. We are in this predicament because the very people who championed Brexit failed to warn of the consequences of leaving the Dublin agreement. Since then, the EU has moved on and will introduce its asylum and migration management regulations next summer. Instead of creating insecurity, what discussions has the Home Secretary had with the EU on how we can explore working with the regulations to protect our human rights and responsibilities through this progressive and pragmatic approach?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Countries across Europe are tightening up their rules, and it is important that we do not become or remain an outlier. In fact, it is a regular complaint of many of our counterparts in Europe that at least 30% of those who travel across Europe are seeking ultimately to come to the United Kingdom. It is something that has come up in all the conversations I have had with multiple counterparts across Europe, and it is one of the reasons why we have to ensure that we have a system that works and that we get our own house in order.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
A constituent wrote to me asking whether I could get a wriggle on with his EU settlement scheme application. We checked with the Home Office and it turned out that he was subject to a live deportation order. It was issued in 2017, and we did deport him. Somehow he got back into the country and made his application. I said to the Home Secretary’s predecessor that if she was prepared to, with a stroke of her pen, re-enact that deportation order, then I was prepared to drive him to the airport myself. Now that we have a Home Secretary who is going to get a grip of this situation, I offer the same thing again.
Shabana Mahmood
I look forward to welcoming the hon. Member’s application to join immigration enforcement. If he wants to write to me about that specific example, I will look into it. I know that the systems at the Home Office need a lot of tightening. It is work that my predecessor started when she brought a new permanent secretary into the Department to make the necessary changes, and it is work I will continue.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that this system is absolutely smashed to smithereens. It is smashed to smithereens because of 14 years of destruction from the Conservatives. Of course we all want to see the control of our borders. We want to stop the boats, and we want to see better and safer legal routes. But I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench this: when the opposition parties—the Tories, Reform UK, not to mention that odious racist chancer who is bankrolled by the world’s wealthiest man—are championing our policies, is it not time to question whether we are actually in the right place?
Shabana Mahmood
I have a lot of time and high regard for my hon. Friend. What I would say is that he should not allow mischief making by those he names to throw him or our party off course, and I hope he has heard the support from our own Back Benchers today who can see that these changes are necessary to fix the broken system that he agrees we have. I would also ask Members to please not keep repeating the name of a man who does not even think I am English. I find that very offensive, and I would ask everyone to refrain from mentioning him. We do not need to do that. We do not need to go there. Do not fall for the mischief that others are making here. We know that there is a broken system, and it is our solemn responsibility as a Labour party and a Labour Government to fix it.
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I agree that the asylum system is broken, and I welcome the commitment to safe and legal routes for people to seek asylum, but there is much in these measures that I think is cruel, impractical and will not work. One example is making people have reviews every two-and-a-half years for 20 years. It is cruel because those people are not going to be able to get a sense of security and safety, and it is counterproductive because they will struggle to get good-quality, secure and high-paid jobs and contribute to our society. It will not work.
We know that the Home Office cannot cope with what it currently has to do. My casework is full of people whose papers get lost when they are trying for immigration status. The digital right-to-work system does not work properly, and we have a backlog of asylum claims. How is the Home Secretary going to make this work?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me assure the hon. Member that I am making changes that I will ensure will work. I make no apology for disincentivising routes into this country that basically make people smugglers very, very rich men and fuel other disgusting crimes across Europe and in this country. It is right that we reserve a privileged status for those who get into work and education, as refugees on core protection will be able to do, as well as those who come via safe and legal routes. That should be the proper way that people come into this country and it has better integration outcomes as well.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
Earlier the Home Secretary advised that I wait for the detail of the reforms before criticising them. Now the detail is out, and I am afraid it does not reassure me in the slightest. It is hard to know where to begin when so much of what has been announced flies in the face of decency and compassion, but I will focus on family reunion. Limiting access to family reunion for refugees will force children and spouses into the hands of the very people smugglers that the Home Secretary is seeking to smash. It will push them into unsafe dinghies, risking their lives. Would she be comfortable with this?
Shabana Mahmood
I urge my hon. Friend to look at the proposals on protection work and study and on safe and legal routes. It is right that we try to pivot to a more humane system that privileges those who come not via paying people smugglers a lot of money. On family reunification, British citizens at the moment have to meet thresholds and various qualifying tests before they can apply for family reunion. I think it is right that we bring the position in relation to refugees through the protection work and study route to the same level.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Members will have seen how many Members are on their feet. I will need to finish this statement by 8 pm, so please bear that in mind, because I want to get everybody in.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
I welcome a sizeable amount of what the Home Secretary has said and is trying to do. Earlier this year the immigration and asylum chamber of the upper tribunal in the case of IX reiterated the established administrative law requirements that Government decision making in asylum cases be proportionate and reasonable and not expose individuals to prolonged or indefinite uncertainty—something that the Home Office used to criticise, under the Tories in fact, as a lengthy limbo period. Can the Home Secretary clarify how her proposal to require a 20-year period before someone granted asylum may obtain a permanent right to remain complies with these fundamental principles?
Shabana Mahmood
I do believe it complies with those principles. At the moment at the end of the five years there is already supposed to be a safe country review. We will bring that forward and make the safe country review a real thing. As I have said, we will also create, alongside the core protection route, the protection work and study route, because we want to encourage people to make a contribution to this country.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
In a previous life I was a 999 call taker with the ambulance service and had the awful experience of answering a call from a distraught family desperate for help. I could not help them save their loved one because they could not understand the life-saving instructions I was trying to give them over the phone due to the language barrier. Does the Home Secretary agree that there is nothing progressive about defending a status quo where vulnerable people are unable to access emergency services due to an inability to speak our language?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I endorse every word that she said.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
The common travel area allows movement across the UK, Northern Ireland and to the Republic of Ireland. It has been reported in the Irish media that a UK Home Office official briefed the Irish Department of Justice in regard to what the Home Secretary is bringing forward. Can I ask her what is the Irish Government’s response to the proposals?
Shabana Mahmood
I am afraid I do not recognise the briefing the hon. Member refers to.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I can recall a predecessor of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary describing the Home Office as not being fit for purpose. I have never known a time when there was not a backlog of cases with the Home Office. This set of proposals will require people’s cases to be reviewed every 30 months. Is that a realistic aim, and is the Home Secretary clear that she can make the Home Office fit for the purpose she has set out today?
Shabana Mahmood
We are already supposed to do safe country reviews, and we will ensure that they are done every two-and-a-half years. We will also ensure that wherever possible refugees can move into the protection work and study route instead. I do recognise the phrase “not fit for purpose”. I have been clear that I do not think the Home Office is fit for purpose yet. There is new management at the Home Office, and they are getting on with making the changes that are necessary. I will ensure that it is both fit for purpose and able to enact the reforms I have set out today.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Ind)
Sivanandan warned:
“What Enoch Powell says today, the Conservative Party says tomorrow, and the Labour Party legislates on the day after.”
Seizing valuables belonging to asylum seekers, making refugees wait 20 years before they can apply to settle permanently, and deporting entire families, including children who have built new lives here, because their country of origin is deemed safe—these measures are straight out of the fascist playbook. The Home Secretary has described herself as a child of immigrants, so I ask her: is she proud to introduce measures that punish and persecute desperate and vulnerable people seeking sanctuary? How does it feel to kick away the ladder and be praised by fascist Tommy Robinson? I must add—
Shabana Mahmood
I will clarify a point of fact. The hon. Member said that I describe myself as a child of immigrants. It is not a description; it is just a statement of fact. Everything else she said is beneath contempt.
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
Migrants make immeasurable contributions to our communities. In Manchester Rusholme, Wendy, who has Jamaican heritage, is a community health champion; Najma, from Somalia, leads local initiatives to tackle knife crime; and Hafsa, who grew up in the middle east, leads nature improvement projects. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the language we use to talk about immigration must reflect the important role that immigrants play in the functioning of our nation?
Shabana Mahmood
I absolutely agree about the contribution that migrants and refugees make to our country. I am making these reforms precisely because I can see a broken system that is creating deep division across our country, and it is important that we not only fix the system but retain public consent to having an asylum system at all.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The Home Secretary said that nothing matters more to her than “holding our country together”. Does she accept that, to succeed, her reforms, including her adjustments to article 8 of the European convention, must apply equally across the whole United Kingdom? If so, how will that be secured in Northern Ireland, given the impeding effect of article 2 of the Windsor framework?
Shabana Mahmood
All the measures in the asylum policy statement are compliant with the Windsor framework.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
Deporting families after they have resettled here because their country is deemed safe is simply wrong. Will the Home Secretary tell us how the Government determine what a safe country is? Will she publish the criteria? She mentioned the DRC; is she really saying that it is a safe country? Will she publish all existing returns agreements, so that Members of this House, and indeed the British public, can properly scrutinise them? I have done the reading, and that is not in the detail.
Shabana Mahmood
We already do safe country reviews, and we would seek to continue that. Those reviews, and our position on different countries, are publicly available; in fact, most pass through the House, in secondary legislation. I make no apology for a system that will privilege those who come to this country through a safe and legal route, rather than those who paid people smugglers thousands of pounds to end up in the north of France.
The point on visa sanctions is related to the fact that many countries do not comply with us when we seek to return people lawfully to their country. That is just one of the tools we have at our disposal to ensure compliance from those countries, so that they take their people back.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
The UK has historical and ongoing involvement in unlawful military interventions, alongside allies such as the United States and Israel. How does the Home Secretary assess the correlation between these foreign policy actions and wars, and the displacement of populations, resulting in increased numbers of refugees and asylum seekers arriving in the UK? What steps will her Government take towards proactive peace-building initiatives and the restoration of overseas humanitarian aid, which could address the root causes of displacement and reduce the long-term pressures on our asylum system?
Shabana Mahmood
The Government always play their full part in peace processes wherever we can, and we have put our shoulder to the wheel on the delicate diplomatic efforts required to bring conflicts to an end, but that is not relevant to what we are discussing today. We have a broken system today. We have thousands of people stuck in the system today, and thousands of people coming on boats through the north of France, for reasons that have nothing to do with the British Government. We still fulfil our international obligations, and will do so going forward as well, but I make no apology for wanting to move to a system in which we incentivise safe and legal routes instead.
Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)
I agree with the Government that we desperately need to tackle illegal migration. I hear that on the doorsteps, and I see it in my mail each week in Birmingham Erdington. How quickly after the changes come into force will the Government ensure that safe and legal routes are in place? That will be key to stopping the boats. How will the Government deal with those who claim to be minors but are clearly not? That is another massive issue.
Shabana Mahmood
We are moving to a system of age verification, based on artificial intelligence modelling, which we believe is effective in verifying someone’s true age. Let me assure my hon. Friend that we will move to consult and legislate on these measures as quickly as possible. I am seized of the need to move quickly to restore public confidence. As we get order and control into the system, we will start opening up the safe and legal routes. They will be modest to begin with, but they will grow and be more generous over time, as we restore order and control.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
The Daresbury asylum hotel in Runcorn has been emptied, thanks to my by-election campaign. What assurances can the Secretary of State give my constituents that the many houses in multiple occupation in Runcorn will be emptied of illegal migrants and criminals under her Government, and that they will be deported without delay, never to be allowed legal entry into the UK?
Shabana Mahmood
It is this Government who are exiting hotels. We will do so—it is a manifesto commitment —by the end of the Parliament, and I intend to bring that forward as much as possible. Let me say to the hon. Member that we will always fulfil our international obligations, but I make no apology for wanting to privilege safe and legal routes over illegal entry into the country.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
Every single day that I campaigned in South Derbyshire while a candidate and since becoming an MP last July, immigration has been the No. 1 issue dividing my communities. They—we are talking about Labour voters—have been pushed either to apathy or towards Reform. I cannot thank the Home Secretary enough for the statement, because finally my constituents feel heard. How frequently can they expect an update, so that they can see that the promises being made today will result in delivery sooner, rather than later?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend for her comments and her question. Let me assure her that I know that the way to build public confidence in the new system is not just to announce the reforms here, but to get on with legislating, and with implementing the reforms, so that her constituents and mine, and people across the country, can see the impact. and how we can fix the system. Then public confidence in having an asylum system at all can be retained.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
Stripping people of the very few belongings that they have left after fleeing war and persecution runs contrary to the very principle of asylum, which is rooted in protection and compassion. How do such measures help address the real root causes of displacement and the refugee crisis, which are war, destabilisation and persecution, and dangerous crossings?
Shabana Mahmood
I should not be surprised to see the hon. Gentleman indulging in misinformation. In my statement I gave the example of somebody who has £800 a month from their family, has enough money to acquire an Audi and is not expected to contribute to the cost of his asylum support at all. It is right that we change that. British citizens have to give account of their assets before they access benefit support. I do not think that the individuals we are talking about should be in a privileged position if they have such access to money, or assets of high value. I made it clear that this is not about taking jewellery—wedding rings and so on—off people at the border; that will never happen, but it is right that those who have assets be asked to contribute to the cost of their asylum accommodation.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Under the previous Government, we had hostile policy after hostile policy, from the “go home” vans to the Windrush scandal and Rwanda, all of which failed to deter people from making dangerous crossings and failed to fix the asylum system. What is dividing communities is the constant anti-refugee rhetoric pumped into our politics. That has resulted in the vile racism that the Home Secretary, I and my mother have been subjected to. Let us be clear: some people will never be appeased, and will constantly stir up hatred in our communities.
The new proposals that will force refugees to reapply every two years will just add huge costs and pressure to an already overstretched system. Has the Home Secretary assessed the cost to the Home Office of processing thousands of repeated applications? This is an area of law in which I used to practise. How that will impact an already overstretched system facing huge backlogs?
Shabana Mahmood
What I think is dividing our country, and communities all over it, is an unfair, out-of-control system that is putting pressure on communities across the whole nation. It is incumbent on me as Home Secretary and on this Government to fix that system, and to retain public consent for having an asylum system. It is also my job to make sure that we have the administration capacity and the funding to enact these reforms, which we will.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
If we look at a heat map of asylum dispersals, we see that they tend to be in inner-city London, and then the towns and cities of the midlands and the north-west, which have the least resources to help them. Thankfully, in Stoke-on-Trent, organisations such as our citizens advice bureau and Asha are doing what they can. When the Secretary of State looks at this policy in the round, as she will, will she look at that dispersal mechanism to ensure that everyone is giving the support that they should? Also, the national referral mechanism for modern slavery is one of the most difficult things to access for somebody who has been trafficked into this country, because they need to be referred by a national first responder, through a third party. What will her changes be, and can she give an assurance that those national first responders will not be removed from the process, because they do a very good job in vetting people before they get access?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend for his two questions. Let me assure him that we already run a dispersal model that is designed to ensure that the burden is spread out across the country, and we will carry on doing so. We have already consulted on modern slavery legislation, and that consultation has closed. I will look carefully at the responses. It is well-intentioned and much-needed legislation, and it is important that we crack down on modern slavery in our country, but it is being used to frustrate the legitimate removal of people from this country. I saw that within my first few days as Home Secretary; I had to change policy very quickly to prevent people from thwarting their removal to France under the “one in, one out” deal. That is what I have in mind, and those are the changes that we will make.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and for taking the bold action necessary to tackle the chaos and lack of control that we inherited in our asylum system. Does she agree that these changes are as much about incentivising the right behaviour by creating capped legal routes to asylum as they are about taking tough action to break the status quo, which sees thousands of people crossing the channel in a dangerous, uncontrolled and unfair way?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I endorse every word that he said.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
What measures is the Home Secretary taking to dismantle the criminal gangs that are exploiting both legitimate and illegitimate businesses to facilitate illegal channel crossings? Can she give us details of the regulatory action that is being taken to prevent the use of assets such as shops on our high streets, and to prevent the supply of life jackets, boats and other components needed for dangerous crossings by illegal immigrants and criminal gangs?
Shabana Mahmood
I can assure my hon. Friend that we are engaging in intense law enforcement work through the National Crime Agency, and we are working collaboratively with our partners in Europe, especially in France. There have already been 350 disruptions of organised immigration crime activity. We have confiscated numerous small boats ourselves, and we are also working with our European partners to do that. The sum total of all those efforts has been to prevent 20,000 illegal crossings across the channel already, and we will grow this work, because we know that it is an important part of how we deal with the problem of small boats.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
This is about fairness. My constituents across Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove are good, kind and compassionate people, and we have a proud tradition of supporting those who need our help the most, yet they know, as we all do, that the immigration system is broken. Does the Secretary of State agree that, unlike the previous Government, who were more concerned about campaigning on the matter, we must take action to bring back the fundamental British value of fairness, so that we can resolve these issues at our borders?
Shabana Mahmood
I agree with every word my hon. Friend said. Fairness and contribution are Labour values and British values, and they underpin the totality of these reforms.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and particularly for the commitment to new, safe, legal routes. There has been a lot of talk of morality, and there absolutely should be. This is too important to get wrong, so does she agree that tolerating a system where men, women and children are encouraged on to flimsy rubber boats to risk their life in the English channel, when they are already safe where they are, is not a moral choice?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Fixing this broken system is a moral mission for me, because I do not believe that we can look the other way and pretend that it is just talking points from our political enemies that are driving division in our country. The broken system is what is driving division in our country. I am determined to put that right to make sure that we do not divide our country and that we retain public consent for having an asylum system.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement on controlling our borders, which I know will be welcomed by the majority of constituents across Bexleyheath and Crayford. In recent months, we have seen our police and enforcement officers, particularly in Crayford, carrying out raids and working to arrest people working here illegally. Can the Home Secretary set out how the measures announced today will continue that work to tackle people who are working here illegally?
Shabana Mahmood
Cracking down on illegal working is crucial to all these reforms, and to ensuring that we can retain public consent not just for our asylum system but for our legal migration system. We have already seen a record number of raids—over 11,000 since this Government took office—leading to 8,000 arrests and over 1,000 removals of those with no right to be in this country. We will build on all that work.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
Warrington has one of the largest communities of Hongkongers in the country, many of whom I met this weekend when they reiterated their profound concern that the British national overseas 5+1 scheme was at risk as a result of the Government’s wider agenda on tackling issues in the asylum and immigration system. Will the Home Secretary give a clear commitment to Hongkongers that the UK is their home, that the British state will keep its promise to BNOs and Hongkonger refugees, and that the 5+1 scheme is safe?
Shabana Mahmood
We are committed to, and have always supported, the repatriation of Hongkongers. The consultation on earned settlement will be announced to this House very shortly—later this week, I believe—and I look forward to discussing that in detail with my hon. Friend.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
As a delegate to the Council of Europe, I will always defend the European convention on human rights and its institution and treaties, and that is why it is important to talk about it in the correct context. In the last 45 years, the Strasbourg Court has ruled against the UK on immigration rules only three times, and in the latest year for which figures are available, the number of successful human rights-based appeals represented 0.73% of all sentenced foreign national offenders. The last time article 8 was successfully applied to block a deportation was in 2020, so why does the Home Secretary believe that articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR are blocking the UK from controlling its borders, when the data simply does not back that up?
Shabana Mahmood
I do not think the data relating to the Strasbourg Court is necessarily reflective of what we are seeing in our own courts here at home. My hon. Friend knows that article 8 is a qualified right, and it is absolutely appropriate for Governments to dictate how that right is applied in their individual countries. We will do that by bringing forward second Session legislation. There is a case for reform of article 8, and there is absolutely a case for continuing the discussions with our European partners at the Council of Europe on article 3, because we are not the only country that is seeing the expansion of article 3 having implications for the deportation of, in particular, foreign national offenders. The case for reform is strong and we have the right solutions, but we are signatories to the ECHR and we will always be so under this Government.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her statement. I was really proud of how my Beckenham and Penge constituency came together to welcome Ukrainian families after the conflict there, through schemes such as Homes for Ukraine. I am pleased that the Government have announced today that they will expand such safe and legal routes, recognising the UK’s responsibility and desire to support those in need, and removing the need for refugees to make dangerous journeys. Can the Home Secretary set out how quickly we can expect these safe and legal routes to start operating?
Shabana Mahmood
I would hope that we can move very quickly indeed. As I have said, though, we will do so as we restore order and control to the broken system that we have. To be candid with the House, the safe and legal routes will be modest to start with, but they will grow over time. As we restore order and control to the system, we will see those routes grow. We will work with partners from across the philanthropy sector, the UN Refugee Agency and other stakeholders as we design the new community sponsorship models that will in future bear the load of helping to bring refugees into this country, to settle them and, ultimately, to integrate them successfully into this country.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I acknowledge the gargantuan task that the Home Secretary has to regain public confidence in our asylum system. We must ensure that reflected in our asylum system is not only fairness and contribution, but compassion, which is also a quintessentially British value and is reflected in the work of charities like Napier Friends in my constituency, which supports those staying at Napier barracks.
My question is about the appeal reforms. What is the rationale for the professionally trained adjudicators when we already have a specialist judiciary with expertise to decide these cases? What is it about the adjudicator model that will mean that adjudicators are in a better position to decide these cases than those under the current system?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. and learned Friend mentions compassion. The compassion of our reforms will be reflected in the safe and legal routes, through which we will accept refugees into our country under a community sponsorship model and resettle and integrate them successfully; that is what will bear the load of fulfilling our international obligations. I know that people across our country will be proud to do so because, as he rightly says, compassion is a fundamental value of all our people, along with fairness and contribution. Taken together, these reforms strike the right balance.
The appeal system is completely shot to pieces at the moment. It is riven with backlogs and even increasing judicial sitting days will not make the difference. It is absolutely appropriate that we design a new appeal system that is independent and has early legal advice available right at the start, and it is proper for the Government to set the framework for the speed at which cases can be heard, including fast-tracking claims that have no chance of success or are from countries with low grant rates in the first place. My hon. and learned Friend knows that listing within the current system is a matter for the independent judiciary, and we would never seek to interfere with that. With a new appeal system, the Government will be able to set the framework for the speed at which cases are heard, as well as providing legal advice at the start so that we have one claim, one appeal and certainty at the end of the process.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I welcome this statement and can say clearly to the Home Secretary that she will have my complete support in implementing the measures within it and in doing whatever it takes to fix our broken asylum system and secure our borders. One of the consequences of the broken system is what can only be described as the targeting of deprived communities like Hartlepool by private companies charged with providing asylum accommodation. We have started to bring the numbers down. Does the Home Secretary agree that that process must continue to put fairness back into our system?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to bring fairness back into the system and to resolve the problems with supported asylum accommodation. Taken together, these reforms and this Government’s plans on exiting hotels and getting into large sites instead will relieve the pressure in my hon. Friend’s community and across the country.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
I take great pride in our country’s track record of offering sanctuary to people fleeing conflict and persecution, and I know Afghans, Syrians, Ukrainians and many others who are now settled here and making great contributions to our economy and society in our hospitals, schools and businesses. I therefore welcome the Home Secretary’s commitment to getting the proposed safe and legal routes working urgently. Will she ensure that the right incentives and support are in place so that people arriving in this way can integrate successfully?
Shabana Mahmood
I agree with my hon. Friend. As I have set out, we will seek to encourage those on the core protection route to move on to the protection work and study route so that they can start to contribute and integrate more effectively into this country. That will also get them to a slightly earlier settlement period. The bulk of these reforms will focus on safe and legal routes, which will be the most privileged route to settlement in this country. It is right that that is the case; it is the best way to integrate people into this country. The community sponsorship model is the way forward. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend and others in the House as we design that and move forward.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
South Norfolk expects to have a robust and compassionate asylum process. I welcome this statement. One of the aspects that I am most interested in is the penultimate paragraph on page 28 of the document, which states:
“The new model will give greater say to communities and support refugees”
to settle and become self-sufficient. Will the Home Secretary expand on the mechanisms that could be put in place to ensure that that happens?
Shabana Mahmood
In designing the new system, we will take into account all the learnings from the Homes for Ukraine scheme and other models. We will work closely with the UN Refugee Agency and other international partners, as well as philanthropist and community organisations, local councils, universities, businesses and others here in this country. We know that there are people who want to be able to sponsor refugees and play their part in offering sanctuary to those most in need. People recognise that the current system is broken. As we get to grips with the broken system, we will be able to increase the number of people who come here on safe and legal routes in the medium and long term, which is the right future and the right compassionate answer, and will enable us to fulfil our international obligations.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
The Home Secretary has outlined common-sense measures to ensure that the British public are no longer asked to fund or accommodate foreign national offenders. At the same time, she is right that our country has a proud, long-standing tradition of offering sanctuary to those fleeing persecution. Can she therefore confirm that the United Kingdom will send no individual back to a place where they may be tortured, killed or persecuted?
Shabana Mahmood
We will never send someone back to a country where they will be tortured—we will always abide by our international obligations in that regard. We believe that the totality of the reforms I have set out today strikes the right balance between ensuring that we continue to fulfil our international obligations and having an asylum system that retains public support for having an asylum system at all.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
Exeter is a proud city of sanctuary and has welcomed communities of Hongkongers, Ukrainians and Afghans over recent years. Many of my residents will be pleased with and welcome this re-establishment of safe and legal routes for refugees, which were long forgotten by the Conservatives. Does the Home Secretary agree that safe and legal routes are an element of a system that has control and order, and can she set out how the system will be flexible when geopolitical factors change?
Shabana Mahmood
We will always retain the flexibility to respond to particular crises, as we have done in the past, which we supported even when the previous Government were in power. We will design these routes alongside international and domestic partners to ensure that the community sponsorship model learns all the best lessons from previous schemes and is a world-class system, so that we can play our full part in offering sanctuary to those who need it most.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement on how the Government will make our asylum policy fit for this country. The broken immigration and asylum system under the Conservatives created an unprecedented backlog, which hindered the Home Office’s ability to process legitimate cases, including those of nurses and care workers working in the NHS and care homes who were seeking to extend their work visas. How will the Home Secretary ensure that the measures she has announced will be properly enforced so that we can restore order to our borders?
Shabana Mahmood
I can assure my hon. Friend that it will fall to me to ensure that the system we have is capable of implementing all these reforms. We will consult and legislate as quickly as possible, and it will be on me to ensure that the Home Office can handle the work that is coming its way. I assure him that getting the administration right is part of the picture, but getting these reforms passed and implemented across the country is the most important thing that we can do.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
The measures that the Home Secretary has set out to restore order and fairness will be very welcome in Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland, but the overriding sentiment will be that we will believe it when we see it, I am afraid—trust is so low after years of broken promises. What assurances can the Home Secretary give that she will not only talk the talk, but walk the walk?
Shabana Mahmood
I can assure my hon. Friend that I do not believe in doing anything other than walking the walk. I totally hear what his constituents will tell him. It is what I hear from my constituents, too—we will believe it when we see it. It is a low-trust environment; over many years, trust in the immigration system overall has been degraded, which is why it is causing such division today. It is on me to ensure that this package of reforms is implemented and that the Home Office is able to implement them effectively. I ask my hon. Friend’s constituents and people all over our country to judge us on what we deliver through these reforms.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
The proposal to raise the threshold for indefinite leave to remain from five years to 20 years is deeply concerning. At a time when far-right groups are exploiting fear and spreading misinformation, our Government should lead with compassion and fairness, instead of forcing some of the most vulnerable in our society to live in limbo for two decades. Will the Minister explain how denying people security and rights for two decades reflects the British values of justice and humanity, and what access to services will look like for people during that time?
Shabana Mahmood
I tell my hon. Friend not to defend a status quo that sees people paying a ton of money—thousands of pounds—to people smugglers in order to get on a boat and make a dangerous crossing of the channel, putting at risk their own lives and those of others. I urge him not to defend a broken status quo, but to engage with the detail of the proposals, which reflect a new protection, work and study route that will be open to those offered core protection in this country. We will also open new safe and legal routes.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
Does the Home Secretary share my concern that the scrutiny from the Conservative Benches is somewhat sparse this evening? On a more serious note, can she reassure my constituents that one of the key outcomes of this statement is that we will finally bring down the taxpayers’ bill for asylum accommodation? Time and again, this concern is raised with me by constituents. Reducing that bill will help many feel that there is far greater fairness in our asylum system.
Shabana Mahmood
I suspect that the lower numbers on the Conservative side are down to the fact that there are not that many of them any more. My hon. Friend is absolutely right on the cost. Fairness and contribution are the principles that underpin this asylum policy statement, and I hope that as we bring costs down, we can retain public support for the asylum system overall.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
Quite a few things in this statement need to be challenged. First, there is the suggestion that Britain has always been a welcoming, generous and warm place for immigrants and people seeking asylum. There will be many people from an Irish background whose ancestors faced prejudice, as will there be many Jews and Muslims who have been victims of antisemitism and Islamophobia, and let us not forget about the Windrush scandal. With what we have heard today, I am afraid that the Government have surrendered to past discriminations and the vile rhetoric of Reform that we hear today. Does the Home Secretary not see that removing the legal obligation to support asylum seekers who would be otherwise destitute is as far away from Labour party principles and values as we can get?
Shabana Mahmood
Again, I would urge my hon. Friend not to defend a broken status quo and people who commit crimes and are funded by the British taxpayer while they do so.
Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)
Having gangsters control who comes into our country is intolerable. It is not fair, humane or socialist. My constituents say to me that they just want control. They want the politicians they send to this Chamber to make the decisions on who comes into this country, not the gangsters. Can the Home Secretary reassure my constituents that she will not rest until every migrant, refugee or otherwise, comes to this country through a safe and legal route?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is nothing humane or socialist—or, indeed, any other group that people might want to put themselves into—about paying people smugglers a lot of money to get into a boat in the channel. It is a dangerous thing to do. It fuels further crime. It is not the way that people should seek to come to this country, and I will not rest until the way that people come to this country to seek refuge and be granted refugee status is through a safe and legal route instead.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I fully support the Home Secretary’s statement and the need to get the balance right. In Portsmouth North, we have seen how quickly immigration misinformation can spread on our high streets and local forums. It has even forced businesses to put up signs on developments to say who will be living there. This chaos took hold because the Tories never got a grip, gave up on governing and allowed division to reign across our country. Does the Home Secretary agree that our new enforcement plans and streamlined appeals system are essential not only to enabling much-needed action, but to restoring trust and giving clarity to stop refuelling misinformation and division in our communities?
Shabana Mahmood
I agree with my hon. Friend and endorse every word she said.
Carla Denyer
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State accused one of my Green colleagues of hypocrisy when in fact she had been objecting to the warehousing of asylum seekers in military barracks, which is a position in line with Greens in the Chamber and, in fact, all major refugee rights organisations. I wonder whether the Secretary of State would like to withdraw her grossly misleading remarks and baseless accusation of hypocrisy.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Adnan Hussain, who I understand also has a point of order that relates to remarks made by the Home Secretary.
Mr Adnan Hussain
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. After my earlier intervention, the Home Secretary stated that she “should not be surprised to see the hon. Gentleman indulging in misinformation” in here. I take my responsibilities in this House extremely seriously. I am confident that every point I have raised was made in good faith, based on publicly available information, and was neither misleading nor inaccurate. May I therefore seek your guidance on how a Member may respond, or have the record clarified, when a Minister makes such characterisation without providing any evidence, clarification or correction, in particular where it risks implying dishonesty on the part of a Member who had no opportunity to respond further at that moment?
Shabana Mahmood
I am happy to say to the hon. Gentleman that it was not misleading; it was just wrong, so I can clarify that for the record.
I say to the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) that I think it is a fair point of debate to point out that the Green party often indulges in hypocrisy. I shall look carefully at what her colleague has said in relation to the large military sites, but I say to her that the Green party never seems to offer any solution, only commentary that does not work.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank both Members for their points of order. Their comments are now on the record.
Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:06 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 143 / Noes: 318 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:20 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 147 / Noes: 318 - Question accordingly negatived.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Judith Cummins)
I remind Members that, in Committee, Members should not address the Chair as “Deputy Speaker”. Please use our names when addressing the Chair. “Madam Chair”, “Chair” and “Madam Chairman” are also acceptable.
Clause 1
The Agreement
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The First Deputy Chairman
With this it will be convenient to discuss to following:
Clauses 2 to 6 stand part.
Amendment 4, in clause 7, page 5, line 4, at end insert—
“A single report may be submitted for the purposes of sections 5(2)(c) and 6(3)(c), provided that any such single report meets the requirements in sections 5(3) and 6(4).”
This amendment would permit a single report to be provided to the Secretary of State for the purposes of fulfilling reporting requirements under clauses 5 and 6.
Clauses 7 to 11 stand part.
Amendment 5, in clause 12, page 9, line 2, at end insert—
“(aa) relating to the charging of fees under section 11(3)(c),”.
This amendment would require that any regulations enabling the Minister to set fees are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.
Clauses 12 and 13 stand part.
Government amendment 1.
Clause 14 stand part.
Government amendment 2.
Clauses 15 to 23 stand part.
Government amendment 3.
Clauses 24 to 26 stand part.
New clause 1—Powers of the Secretary of State: review—
“(1) Within three years beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the exercise of powers conferred on them by virtue of this Act.
(2) A report under this section must include—
(a) a description of the powers used,
(b) the purposes for which they have been used,
(c) an assessment of how effectively they have been used,
(d) an assessment of how their use accords with the objectives of the Agreement.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the exercise of powers conferred on them by this Bill.
New clause 2—Reporting requirements relating to the Act—
“(1) Before the end of the period of two years beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, and at least once every two years thereafter, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the implementation and enforcement of the Act.
(2) The report must include—
(a) data on access to samples;
(b) information relating to the number and nature of DSI views and downloads;
(c) information about the amount and nature of enforcement actions taken;
(d) an assessment of the impact of the Act on business, scientific research, and the fishing industry;
(e) a summary of any regulatory changes made under the Act;
(f) an assessment of the impact of any such regulatory changes.”
This new clause would require the secretary of state to lay a report before Parliament every two years on the effect and enforcement of the Act.
Schedule.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Seema Malhotra)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Madam Chair, and to open this debate in Committee of the whole House on the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill.
Before turning to the detail of the clauses and of the amendments that stand in my name, I want to underline why it is so important that this House sends a clear signal today by progressing this legislation. This Bill will, along with subsequent secondary legislation, enable the United Kingdom to implement obligations in the United Nations biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement into UK law, and enable us to move towards ratification of this historic agreement.
The House may also have seen that the BBNJ agreement was recognised by the Prince of Wales’s Earthshot Prize Council last week, which is a testament to the broad support for it. The BBNJ agreement is the culmination of nearly two decades of international negotiations. The agreement covers roughly two thirds of the world’s ocean, which is home to ecosystems that regulate our climate, support fisheries, drive weather patterns and sustain the livelihoods of millions around the world.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is such an important subject, and I appreciate the opportunity to ask a question on behalf of those I represent who are involved in fishing. The Bill and the international treaty it implements will affect the fishing industry primarily through the creation of marine protected areas and through the imposition of stricter environmental impact assessments. Does the Minister agree that this means engagement with our fishing sector is essential, and can she confirm that the viability of fishing and food security will be a priority for this Government?
Seema Malhotra
The hon. Member will know from previous conversations that we continue to engage with the fishing industry on all areas of policy. Fishing falls outside the scope of the Bill, but it is important that the Government maintain that dialogue.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I welcome and support the Bill, which is an important step forward. It is a shame that it was not passed before the election so that it could have been dealt with in the wash-up of the previous Parliament. Will the Minister assure us that the Government will provide the necessary resources, and that the UN agencies are sufficiently funded, to ensure that this law becomes an effective protection for the natural world and the oceans that we all rely on?
Seema Malhotra
As the right hon. Member will have seen—I know that he has studied the Bill closely—we are looking to implement our obligations in line with many existing obligations. It has been important for us to hear from scientists and other involved parties that there should be no extra burdens and that we should consider how to move forward together. When we ratify the agreement, we will be party to the Conference of the Parties and able to participate in how future decisions are made. That will be important to understanding how the UK can incorporate decisions efficiently, effectively and with the fewest possible resources.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I welcome the Bill’s enhancement of biodiversity and the protection of our oceans and natural world. How will the Bill help to unlock innovation in marine science?
Seema Malhotra
I will come to that later in my remarks. My hon. Friend makes a good point. Ratifying the agreement will also make it easier to share the benefits of research more widely and efficiently. That will allow those who might not be able to carry out such research themselves to use it and consider where innovations might be made. That is an important benefit of the Bill.
The Bill is the culmination of nearly two decades of international negotiations. The agreement represents a once-in-a-generation step forward in ocean governance, to ensure that areas beyond national jurisdiction are managed sustainably, transparently and equitably. Through the Bill, the United Kingdom will be able to play its full part in that effort. It will allow our scientists, companies and research institutions to participate confidently in the new frameworks on marine genetic resources, to contribute to the development of area-based management tools, and to meet international standards on environmental impact assessments in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Royal Assent early next year—subject to time in the House—will place the UK in a strong position to ratify the agreement and to take its seat at the first Conference of the Parties, which is expected to be in the second half of 2026. It is vital that the UK is at that table.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way as she speaks about the importance of the UK taking global leadership. I welcome the Bill, but will the Minister complement it and show global leadership by announcing a new international taskforce dedicated specifically to protecting at least 30% of the Atlantic ocean by 2030?
Seema Malhotra
The hon. Lady will know that that is outside the scope of the Bill, but the measures will protect the world’s oceans—as I have said, the agreement covers roughly two thirds of them. Indeed, in all areas of our international work, we do all we can for the environment around the world.
Seema Malhotra
I will make a bit of progress—I thank my hon. Friend for his patience.
The Bill is divided into five parts. Parts 2, 3 and 4 align directly with three operational pillars of the BBNJ agreement: marine genetic resources, area-based management tools, and environmental impact assessments. I will address the Government amendments and clauses stand part now, but I will address the Opposition amendments in my closing remarks, so that I have had an opportunity to hear the shadow Minister’s contribution.
Part 1 sets out the definitions that underpin the rest of the Bill. Given that those definitions will be discussed at some length today, I say for the benefit of the Committee that “areas beyond national jurisdiction” comprise the high seas—waters beyond exclusive economic zones—and the area, meaning the seabed and subsoil beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, and “marine genetic resources” are defined as any marine material containing functional units of heredity of actual or potential value. Those definitions mirror the agreement and ensure consistency between domestic law and our international obligations. Clause 20 provides definitions for terms that are used in the Bill but not defined elsewhere in it.
In part 2, clauses 2 to 10 implement the provisions of the agreement relating to marine genetic resources. The provisions promote transparency in the collection and utilisation of marine genetic resources of areas beyond national jurisdiction and associated digital sequence information, and provide the building blocks for benefit sharing.
Clauses 2 and 3 create reporting obligations for individuals collecting marine genetic resources using UK craft and for those utilising those resources and associated digital sequence information. Information must be provided to the Secretary of State before and after collection, and information about the results of utilisation should be provided in accordance with the schedule. Clause 4 provides that the Secretary of State may transmit to the BBNJ clearing house mechanism the information provided on collection and utilisation, unless it is protected from disclosure under domestic law. Those clauses are designed to implement the UK’s obligation on information sharing, with the clearing house mechanism facilitating transparency and helping us to deliver on our obligations while protecting information that is not to be shared.
Clauses 5 to 7 impose duties on those managing repositories that hold marine genetic resources from areas beyond national jurisdiction, or databases of digital sequence information on those resources. They must ensure that samples or data can be identified as originating from areas beyond national jurisdiction, provide access, and submit biennial reports. Clause 8 sets out exceptions from the requirements of part 2 in respect of fishing and fishing-related activities, military activities, and military vessels and aircraft, as well as anything done in Antarctica, the marine genetic resources of Antarctica, and the digital sequence information of such resources. The Committee will be aware that this is because the Southern ocean is governed by the Antarctic treaty system, which was part of the debate we had on Second Reading.
Clause 9 provides the Secretary of State with regulation-making powers, including those necessary to implement the UK’s future obligations under part 2 of the agreement. Given that the conference of the parties may adopt further measures once the agreement enters into force, those powers are essential to ensure that the UK can respond in a timely and appropriate manner. The clause also allows for provision for any enforcement of those requirements imposed by or under part 2 of the Bill. We will ensure that there is ample time for scrutiny of additional measures that may be brought in under secondary legislation.
Finally, clause 10 requires guidance to be published in relation to the above-mentioned provisions on marine genetic resources. Those will be prepared by the national focal point in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and will provide practical illustrations to help institutions and researchers understand the requirements placed on them. The guidance developed will also be laid before Parliament. Taken together, these measures create a clear, proportionate and internationally aligned system that allows UK researchers to continue their world-leading work with confidence, meeting the requirements of the Bill and, in turn, allowing the UK to meet its obligations under the BBNJ agreement.
Jeremy Corbyn
The Antarctic treaty, which was long and hard fought for in this House and other places, has been important and, generally speaking, very successful. But there are issues about the increasing access to the Antarctic, the pollution that this causes and the need to clean up after the substantial number of visitors that go there at present. Is the Minister confident that the resources will be available to ensure that the Antarctic treaty is fully adhered to?
Seema Malhotra
The right hon. Member will be aware that the UK also made a declaration upon the signature of the BBNJ agreement stating that the Antarctic treaty system comprehensively addresses the legal, political and environmental considerations that are unique to that region, and provides a comprehensive framework for the international management of the Antarctic. It is important to recognise that it is also about the international management of the Antarctic, to which we are committed as part of the international community. I thank the right hon. Member for his comments.
In part 3 of the Bill, clauses 11 to 13 implement the provisions relating to area-based management tools, including areas beyond national jurisdiction designated as marine protected areas. Clause 11 contains provision for the Secretary of State to be able to make regulations to implement decisions adopted by the BBNJ conference of the parties under part 3 of the agreement. Many activities under UK jurisdiction or control in areas beyond national jurisdiction, such as fishing, are already regulated domestically, and where existing powers suffice, the clause 11 power will not be needed. However, where new measures are adopted by the conference of the parties, where they require additional controls or restrictions, the clause ensures that the UK has the necessary legislative mechanisms to comply. Clause 12 sets out the parliamentary procedure for regulations made under clause 11.
Clause 13 provides a power for the Secretary of State to issue directions to UK craft, without the need for secondary legislation in order to implement emergency procedures adopted by the conference of the parties. As emergency procedures may require immediate action to prevent serious harm to marine biodiversity, regulations alone may not provide sufficient responsiveness. The clause enables swift operational steps, such as directing vessels to avoid a particular area. Clause 13 is modelled on existing direction-making powers available to the Secretary of State’s representative under schedule 3A to the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. Given the nature of any scenarios that could arise, it is power-limited in scope and emergency in nature.
Part 3 of the Bill ensures that the UK can meet its obligations and exercise leadership in protecting ecologically important areas beyond national jurisdiction.
Matt Rodda
The Minister is making an excellent speech, and I pay tribute to her work and that of the Government in showing UK leadership in this important environmental area. Could she also briefly touch on the importance of working in a multilateral way with partners from around the world, and—perhaps she will move on to this point later in her speech—could she outline how the UK will work with other countries to protect these areas and carry out other important work?
Seema Malhotra
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that this is an area where obviously no nation can work on its own. It has to be done through being influential on the world stage, working through and with the UN, and with our international partners and other nations. Indeed, through the course of all of our conversations, be that in the FCDO, DEFRA or other Departments, we maintain dialogue on this and other important matters in relation to our environment and climate impact around the world. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue, because it is another example of where being outward facing as a nation, as this Government have chosen to do, is incredibly important for not just what we achieve at home but our responsibilities on the world stage.
I will make some progress on part 4 of the Bill. Clauses 4 to 19 implement the environmental impact assessment provisions of the agreement, where relevant to marine licencing, and ensure that UK marine-licensable activities and areas beyond national jurisdiction are subject to the appropriate level of scrutiny. Clause 14 amends the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 to ensure it can be used effectively to regulate planned UK activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Government amendment 1—a minor amendment—has been tabled to omit the heading “on the continental shelf”, which will adjust the 2009 Act so it more accurately reflects the content of this section, including the section that is amended by clause 14 in part 4 of the Bill.
Clause 15 updates the Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007 to bring them into alignment with the BBNL agreement. Government amendment 2 would add “or person” to subsection (5)(b) as a minor clarificatory amendment to the regulations. Clause 16 allows regulations to be made to implement the standards and guidelines adopted by the Conference of the Parties under article 38 of the BBNJ agreement. Clauses 17 and 18 ensure that equivalent provisions exist for Scotland, amending the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010, and enabling Scottish Ministers to make regulations where it is a devolved competence, and to implement environmental impact assessment obligations for Scottish regulated marine activities.
Clause 19 amends the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, to ensure that any future environmental outcomes reports can apply to licensable activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction. The BBNJ environmental impact assessment provisions closely replicate our existing domestic arrangements for marine licensing, which operators are familiar with. These are minor technical changes to align our existing regime with BBNJ processes. Together the provisions deliver a coherent and modernised framework for assessing and mitigating the environmental impact of activities linked to the United Kingdom on the high seas.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I welcome this Bill. As chair of the Channel Islands all-party group, I was interested that the Minister tabled an amendment that covered just the Isle of Man. Before the Bill goes to the other place, could her officials please consult the Channel Islands one last time to make sure that they do not also need to be included in the Bill?
Seema Malhotra
I thank my hon. Friend for her comments, and yes we will continue those conversations with the Channel Islands.
To conclude, provisions in the Bill would be extended only to British overseas territories and the Isle of Man with their agreement. Clause 25 sets out when most of the Bill’s provisions come into force, and gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations to appoint entry into force and dates for other provisions. In summary, the Bill provides the legal foundation for the United Kingdom’s participation in the new global regime for protecting biodiversity on the high seas. It will enable us to fulfil our international commitments, provide certainty to our scientific and research communities, and demonstrate once again the UK’s leadership in marine conservation. I commend the Bill to the Committee, and look forward to engaging with hon. Members during the debate.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Minister.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
Thank you Madam Chair. It is a privilege, as always, to serve under your chairmanship. I am pleased to speak to the amendments tabled in my name and to those of His Majesty’s Government. I thank the Minister for her detailed explanation of the Bill, which we will all agree has been extremely helpful.
The Bill is a significant measure and commands broad support across the House. In plain English, if implemented correctly, the measures in the Bill could play a major part in protecting the two thirds of our planet that lie beyond any one nation’s control.
As I said on Second Reading, the United Kingdom has a proud record of global leadership in ocean conservation. Our island nation boasts the greatest maritime explorers and conservationists in history. I believe that we have always seen the oceans, which have been key to our national and international success story, as treasures that require protection.
However, as with all international frameworks, even those that are without controversy and especially those that confer upon our Ministers prerogative powers, the details really matter. The amendments proposed by His Majesty’s Opposition are by no means intended to undermine the Bill. Instead, they seek to strengthen it by ensuring that Parliament remains properly informed, ministerial powers are exercised accountably, and the new regulatory burdens placed on British science and industry are managed in a proportionate way.
The first of the amendments in my name relates to clause 7, which deals with reporting requirements under clauses 5 and 6 of the Bill. Those clauses concern, respectively, priorities of marine genetic resources and databases of digital sequence information. As drafted, clause 7 requires a separate report to be provided to the Secretary of State every two years from each repository and each database, detailing the number of times samples or data have been accessed, viewed or downloaded. Our amendment, simple though it may seem, would allow those two reports to be combined into a single report, provided that all the necessary information is fully included. It is a modest step to reduce duplication and unnecessary bureaucracy.
Many institutions, whether they be our universities, the Natural History Museum or the National Oceanography Centre, among many other institutions in this country, will operate both repositories and databases. It makes no sense to require two separate reports when a single consolidated report could serve exactly the same function. The scientists of our island home lead the world in marine biodiversity research. We should ensure that compliance with this new regime is as straightforward as possible, while still meeting our obligations under the agreement. The amendment, therefore, aims to strike a sensible balance between upholding the requisite protections prescribed by the treaty, while ensuring that we do not unnecessarily hinder our researchers, especially those belonging to smaller enterprises or university projects. I hope that the Minister will view it in that way.
Our second amendment introduces new clause 1, “Powers of the Secretary of State: review”, which would require the Secretary of State, within three years of the Act coming into force, to lay before Parliament a report on the exercise of the powers conferred by the Bill. The report would describe how those powers have been used, for what purposes, and, crucially, how effectively they have been implemented. It would also assess whether the use of those powers has aligned with the objectives of the international agreement itself
We live in a nation where Parliament is sovereign. While I respect that this is not a unique case, nevertheless Parliament is owed the right to proper scrutiny. The Bill grants extensive powers to the Secretary of State: powers to make regulations that could amend primary legislation, impose civil sanctions and even create new offences. Clauses 9 and 11, in particular, confer broad regulatory authority to implement future decisions of the international conference of the parties. It is entirely appropriate that Parliament should have the opportunity, after a period of operation, to review how those powers have been used. We have seen in other fields that delegated powers can expand far beyond what Parliament originally intended, so a statutory review clause would ensure that we learn from experience and recalibrate if necessary.
New clause 2 would enhance trust and, I think, trust in the treaty itself. The general public and Parliament want assurance that international obligations are implemented in the interests that have been set out by international agreements and, importantly, in our own national interest, and that the Government remain answerable to this House for the way in which they do so. I believe a report after three years is hardly an onerous expectation. It would create a constructive means of evaluating whether the mechanisms in the Bill are working as intended and strengthen rather than hinder the effectiveness of this legislation.
Amendment 5 concerns clause 12, which sets out the procedure for regulations under clause 11. Clause 11 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations in response to decisions taken by the conference of the parties under the agreement, including in relation to area-based management tools, such as marine protected areas, and emergency measures under article 24. Clause 11(3)(c) specifically allows the Secretary of State to charge fees in connection with the exercise of functions under those regulations. However, as currently drafted the Bill does not require those fee-setting regulations to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Our amendment would correct that and ensure that any regulations enabling the Minister to set fees are subject to a level of parliamentary scrutiny.
Fees are in effect a form of taxation. They may affect universities, research institutes and private companies engaged in marine science or biotechnology. The sums may not be vast, but they are nevertheless material. It is only right that Parliament should have the chance to debate and, if necessary, amend or reject such regulations before they take effect. The affirmative procedure is a reasonable safeguard, and I hope the Government will agree.
Finally, I turn to new clause 2, which would require biennial reporting on the implementation and enforcement of the Bill. Under this proposal, the Secretary of State would be required to lay before Parliament a report every two years, beginning within two years of enactment, detailing how the Bill is being implemented and enforced. The report would include data on access to samples and digital sequence information; information on the number and nature of the enforcement actions; an assessment of the impact of the Bill on business, scientific research and the fishing industry; a summary of any regulatory changes made under the Bill; and an assessment of the impact of those changes. The intention of the new clause is to keep Parliament and the public informed about how this complex framework works in practice.
This Bill touches on sensitive and wide-ranging interests, such as environmental protection, scientific innovation, intellectual property and economic activity on the high seas. It is right that we protect biodiversity, but we must also ensure that the UK remains a place where science and enterprise can flourish, as they always have done before. Regular reporting would help us to understand whether the balance is being struck correctly.
Are our scientists able to conduct research without being bogged down in excessive paperwork? Are our marine industries able to operate competitively while meeting environmental standards? Those questions need to be answered. Are our enforcement agencies adequately resourced? That is another important question the Minister needs to reassure the House on. These are legitimate questions that will inevitably deserve answers. I believe that such transparency would demonstrate leadership internationally. The UK has always prided itself on being a model of good governance. By voluntarily reporting on our own implementation of the agreement, we can encourage other nations to do likewise.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. I want to speak on this Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill both as the Member for a coastal community, and as someone who is truly fortunate to have dedicated environmental campaigners locally. I want to thank one constituent in particular, Viola. Her emails cover everything from ocean acidification to regenerative farming and the health of our chalk streams. Although I cannot always provide the answers that she needs, I thank her for her valued, informed and tireless campaigning.
Much of what Viola raises is exactly why this Bill matters. It matters for the important issues of pollution, harmful algae blooms in Langstone harbour, and the need to protect local bird species and our drinking water. We must be proactive on ocean heating, bottom trawling and the worrying tipping points we face in ocean acidification, as well as on regenerative farming, reducing pesticides, and protecting soil health, so that rivers, seas and pollinators can recover. Although this Bill focuses on biodiversity beyond the national jurisdiction, the principle is the same. What happens in our oceans—from the south coast to the high seas—affects us all. That is why the Government have tabled amendments to strengthen the Bill and provide clarity and accountability.
I particularly note Government amendment 1, which updates section 81 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 so that it accurately reflects the extended conservation responsibilities created by this legislation. This may seem technical, but accuracy matters, especially when we are embedding in law stronger protections for vulnerable marine ecosystems, including those far beyond our waters. Through this Bill, we will ensure that the UK plays a serious, leading role in implementing the high seas treaty, tackling the over-exploitation of shared oceans, and improving transparency and reporting. Government amendment 2, which tightens the environmental impact assessment provisions, will help to ensure that the framework that we set up is robust, enforceable, and capable of delivering real biodiversity gains beyond our borders.
While stakeholders may not always agree on how best to align planning reforms with environmental goals, we have a shared mission to restore nature, not merely preserve what is left. This Bill is one part of that mission. By strengthening the UK’s hand in protecting biodiversity on the high seas, the Bill reinforces the protection we all want to see everywhere from Langstone harbour to Antarctica. It demonstrates leadership and this Government’s commitment to restoring nature on every scale.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. I am honoured to support the passage of this Bill, along with my Liberal Democrat colleagues. It is a real pleasure to see people across the House who have been long-time champions for the ocean. Many people would have liked to have been here tonight, but are forced to be absent by COP30. They will be watching from afar and wishing us well.
I thank the Minister for taking us in detail through the provisions of the Bill, and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), for setting out his amendments. It perhaps falls to me to remind those in the House and beyond of just how significant a step this Bill takes. It may not be enough to save the oceans from their catastrophic decline in health, but it is certainly a big step in the right direction.
The oceans cover two thirds of the planet. The high seas—the areas of the ocean beyond national jurisdictions —make up nearly half the world’s surface and much of its liveable volume. Up until now, they have existed in a legal grey zone, vulnerable to exploitation, and they certainly have been egregiously exploited. The high seas are essential to life not just in the seas, but on dry land, too. With this Bill, the UK finally places itself in a position to uphold the new global agreement to protect ocean biodiversity. It is long overdue and much damage has been done, but it is none the less deeply welcome.
We often speak about forests and land ecosystems, yet the ocean is the Earth’s most powerful driving force, regulating our climate, generating oxygen, absorbing carbon and heat, feeding billions, sustaining cultures and anchoring our weather systems. As anyone who has spent much time out there knows, the ocean’s power is matched only by its fragility. During my crossings of the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans, I came to understand the sea in an intimate way. Alone in a small boat, weeks or months from the nearest coast, you are immersed in the rhythms of the ocean, with its long rolling swells, the astonishing wildlife that appears from the deep, and the immense silence that settles when the wind drops away to nothing. At times, the ocean felt overwhelmingly powerful, and at others unexpectedly tender.
The lessons that I learned on the ocean have stayed with me, especially the lesson that survival depends not on domination, but on partnership. It is not survival of the fittest; it is about the species that fits in best with its surrounding ecosystem. Humans would do well to remember that. That is why I am particularly heartened to see that today we have genuine cross-party alignment. When Parliament chooses collaboration over confrontation, we show what is possible. It echoes the spirit that I felt when I first introduced the Climate and Nature Bill earlier this year, and I give huge credit to my co-sponsors, a genuinely cross-party group of Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem, Green, SNP and Plaid Cymru MPs. That consensus across the House was based on the understanding that long-term environmental policy works only when it transcends party politics, rather than being used as a political football. I am proud that the Climate and Nature Bill campaign contributed to the ratification of this treaty, and I commend the Government on following through on their promise to all the hard-working campaigners.
We must recognise the headwinds internationally and domestically. Some voices are questioning climate ambition, watering down commitments or treating environmental progress as optional. We cannot afford that drift. Climate and ocean policy must be future-proofed against short-term politics. Nature does not bend to electoral cycles.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
As my hon. Friend well knows, 94% of the UK’s biodiversity lies within the waters of our overseas territories. Just north of the Falkland Islands is the so-called blue hole, an area of unregulated fishing beyond national jurisdiction. It is an area where trackers are turned off and illegal fishing takes place. Does she agree that the ratification of the BBNJ agreement may provide the opportunity—the common cause—to tackle intractable geopolitical issues that have led to that lack of regulation, and may point to a way forward for the international co-operation of which she speaks?
Dr Savage
I agree with my hon. Friend that the treaty can help to provide clarity about previously unregulated areas. Many countries have already ratified it, which shows that ocean conservation really can unite us where, in the past, there has been disunity.
While I welcome the speed with which the Government have introduced the Bill following the Climate and Nature Bill, thus giving us a seat at the table at the first ever ocean COP next year, it is a little disappointing that the UK was not one of the first 60 nations to ratify the agreement. We hope to be a country that leads on climate diplomacy, so we should not arrive late at the crucial environmental treaty of the decade. While many of our colleagues are in Belém, and with the world preparing for that first ocean COP, the UK must demonstrate not only that it supports global ocean governance in theory, but that it is prepared to deliver it in practice. It is also vital to recognise that the health of our oceans depends on the health of our land-based environment; one cannot heal without the help of the other. We need to decrease our carbon emissions on land if we are to slow ocean acidification, which threatens plankton, ecosystem health, and the millions of people whose lives and livelihoods depend on the ocean.
This responsibility starts at home. That is why the Liberal Democrats have long been pushing for the strongest possible marine environmental targets, both domestically and internationally. If we want credibility internationally, we need coherence domestically. Our own marine protected areas must live up to their name, which means ending destructive practices such as bottom trawling and implementing a clear, science-driven ocean strategy that rises above and goes beyond departmental silos and party-political lines. A strong stance on the high seas will ring hollow if our waters remain vulnerable. The public understand that, the environmental community understand it, and I know that many Members on both sides of the House understand it too. I join my Liberal Democrat colleagues in calling for a coherent oceans policy that joins up our commitment to international waters with stronger protections at home.
As I draw to a close—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I am getting there! Let me just say this. If we choose to pursue a strategy of high ambition, the UK can once again be a leader in global ocean protection, championing the first generation of high-seas sanctuaries, pushing for robust monitoring and enforcement, supporting small island states, and ensuring that the benefits of marine science are shared fairly. So yes, the Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill. It enables the UK to participate fully in the new regime for marine scientific resources, for marine protected areas, and for stronger environmental impact assessments. It is necessary, but it is not sufficient. The work that follows will determine its true legacy, and I trust that the Government will continue to draw on the support and perspectives of Members on both sides of the House to secure the wellbeing of the oceans for generations to come.
Jeremy Corbyn
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage). Every time she describes her ocean journeys, I think of that wonderful poem “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner” by Coleridge, which she must have repeated to herself dozens of times while pulling on those oars.
I repeat, very briefly, my welcome for this good Bill, which will hopefully lead to much greater protection for the oceans. However, I want to ask the Minister to respond to one question. Over the years, we have been through all kinds of arguments about Antarctica, from the original Thatcherite concept of mineral extraction to, much later, the protection of the whole continent and the seas around it. On the whaling industry that was, is the Minister satisfied that there are sufficient protections, including for the whales that have survived, and for the growth in their numbers? There are still endless reports of illegal whaling on the continent, particularly by Japan but also by other countries.
The hon. Member for South Cotswolds rightly raised the issue of plastic pollution. There are many wonderful schemes to try to clean up the plastic island in the Pacific ocean and ensure that the plastic is recycled in a proper manner. That is good, and we hope that it will be clean by 2040. The problem, as I understand it, is that two thirds of the plastic is actually under the ocean and not on the surface. Therefore, something else has to be done, but crucially, it is up to us to decide how much plastic flows into the oceans through our rivers, through dumping and through illegal activities. It is the responsibility of our water industry and sewage disposal system to ensure that plastic does not flow into the ocean.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the most important things the Government can do at COP1 when it meets next year is to establish a regime with the other members of the conference of the parties on how enforcement of the new treaty will take place?
Jeremy Corbyn
Absolutely. That is a very good intervention, and I completely agree with the hon. Member on that point. We have to bring into the enforcement regime those countries that are the worst polluters, the ones that are most guilty of overfishing and those that are most guilty of turning a blind eye to fishing companies that do that. It is not an easy gig, but it is very important to do it. If we do not do it, fish stocks will reduce, biodiversity will reduce and pollution will get worse. Ultimately, those who eat fish will be eating plastic fish.
Seema Malhotra
In the interests of time, I will do my best to come back to Members on the amendments they have spoken to. The contributions from the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) and my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) showed the importance of a healthy marine ecosystem that underpins global fisheries and climate regulation. The BBNJ agreement is an essential step towards protecting marine biodiversity and the creation of marine protected areas in areas beyond national jurisdiction.
I will speak briefly about the amendments tabled by the shadow Minister and our reasons for not supporting them. I recognise his point about reducing burdens, which is on all our minds, and I thank him for tabling his amendments. However, the Government consider that amendment 4 is not necessary, as the ability to provide a single report already exists. If the person who controls the repository on which a report is required is the same person who controls the database on which a report is required, there is nothing in the Bill that prevents them from providing a single report covering both elements. I hope that is of some reassurance to the hon. Gentleman.
On new clause 1, I think it would be helpful to say that as we do not currently know when or if the powers in the Bill will be used, we believe that our approach of a post-implementation review after five years provides the necessary flexibility to review the implementation of the Bill at a more appropriate point. We therefore do not think that new clause 1, tabled by the shadow Minister, is needed.
On amendment 5, the purpose of the enabling provision for the charging of fees under clause 11(3)(c) is to allow for the recovery of costs associated with the carrying out of functions. This is standard practice to ensure effective use of public money, as set out in the Treasury’s “Managing Public Money” guidance. Regulations made under clause 11 that amend an Act of Parliament, create a civil sanction or vary the maximum amount of a monetary penalty, and so on, are regulations that also contain provision for the charging of fees, which are already made by the affirmative procedure. The shadow Minister may not have been aware of that detail, but I hope it will reassure him.
On new clause 2, we believe that the consequences of the various reporting requirements it would introduce would be disproportionate to the value it would provide. There is also a risk that it would duplicate existing processes, misalign with the international reporting cycle and increase the burden on entities providing information in the reports.
Finally, it may help to reassure the shadow Minister if I say that engagement with scientific stakeholders suggests that the notification and other requirements are unlikely to impose a significant burden. Indeed, the BBNJ agreement will benefit the scientific community by encouraging information sharing and supporting scientific and technological development. I hope that reassures him that we have considered his amendments and that we have reason for not supporting them.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Supplementary provision
Amendment proposed: 4, page 5, line 4, at end insert—
“A single report may be submitted for the purposes of sections 5(2)(c) and 6(3)(c), provided that any such single report meets the requirements in sections 5(3) and 6(4).”—(Andrew Rosindell.)
This amendment would permit a single report to be provided to the Secretary of State for the purposes of fulfilling reporting requirements under clauses 5 and 6.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Seema Malhotra
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
If there is one message that Members should take from today’s debate, it is that this Bill is essential—essential to protecting the ocean, advancing marine science and ensuring that the UK continues to lead ocean protection efforts on the international stage. This is a landmark piece of legislation. It will, along with the subsequent secondary legislation, enable the United Kingdom to ratify the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement to protect marine biodiversity in the two thirds of our ocean that lie beyond any one nation’s control.
The Bill means that the UK can play its full part in shaping a fair, science-based international system for areas beyond national jurisdiction, one that balances conservation, sustainable use and global collaboration. It delivers on our international commitments and ensures that British scientists, institutions and innovators remain at the forefront of ocean research and biotechnology.
Let me take this opportunity to thank Members across the House for their thoughtful contributions and scrutiny of the Bill at every stage. The work of the all-party parliamentary group for the ocean and of environment Committees has been crucial to keeping the Bill high on the agenda. I am grateful to those who spoke on Second Reading, have taken part in the Committee of the whole House and have engaged constructively throughout. I would also like to thank my hon. Friend the Minister for Water and Flooding for her support throughout the passage of the Bill.
I also thank officials from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Transport, whose expertise, along with that of parliamentary draftspeople and other officials across Government, has underpinned the Bill. I thank, too, the devolved Governments for their engagement on the Bill and legislative consent processes. Finally, I acknowledge the scientific community, from the National Oceanography Centre to the National History Museum, and our universities, which have been pivotal in presenting the need for this legislation.
Let us be clear why this Bill matters. The ocean regulates our climate. It sustains global fisheries. It provides half the oxygen on Earth. Protecting it is not just an environmental choice; it is an economic, scientific and moral imperative. The previous Government began this process by signing the BBNJ agreement in 2023, but they delayed bringing forward legislation. This Government are now finishing the job, taking the necessary steps to implement their obligations in UK law and to ratify the treaty.
By passing this Bill, the House will send a clear message that the United Kingdom will continue to lead the world in the protection of our shared ocean, that we stand with our partners to deliver a healthy, sustainable ocean and that we will do so grounded in science and international co-operation. This is our responsibility today and for future generations. For those reasons, I commend the Bill to the House.
Andrew Rosindell
I thank the Minister for guiding the Bill through Parliament and echo her thanks to all those involved in its passage. I am pleased about the cross-party agreement on the Bill—that is as it should be.
On behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition, I state my support for the core purpose of the Bill. It is right that we act to safeguard the biodiversity of the high seas, promote the fair and equitable sharing of benefits from marine genetic resources, and establish clear assessment and management tools to prevent harm to the ocean environment. It was on that basis that, as has been acknowledged, the previous Conservative Government played a key role in negotiating the treaty in the first place. The United Kingdom should meet the obligations prescribed in the treaty, with the leadership for which we are known around the world. As an island nation with a proud maritime heritage stretching back centuries, we understand better than most nations the value and the vulnerability of our oceans.
However, although the Bill enables us to fulfil our treaty commitments, it also assigns wide-ranging powers to Ministers to implement future decisions taken by international bodies—decisions that could, in time, have significant implications for British science, industry and innovation. Parliament must retain the ability to scrutinise, question and, where appropriate, challenge the use of those powers. That was the spirit behind our amendments, reflecting the fundamental principle that international co-operation must never come at the expense of proper democratic oversight by this House.
The United Kingdom’s long-established record as a custodian of the seas is strengthened by the extraordinary biodiversity of our overseas territories. The Blue Belt initiative—which includes many of our territories, including Pitcairn, Anguilla, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, the Falkland Islands and the British Indian Ocean Territory—has rightly made Britain a global leader in marine protection. I therefore welcome the Bill’s application to the overseas territories under clause 20—and now, through the Government amendment to clause 24, to the Isle of Man—but proper consultation with those territories and dependencies, which is essential, has been starkly absent from the Government’s shameful handling of the Chagos Islands. Our overseas territories are part of the British family and deserve to be treated with the respect and consideration that such a relationship demands.
The challenge of protecting the oceans is neither partisan nor subject to open conflict between nations. Our seas sustain every nation, and the success of such co-operation on the high seas will depend on the integrity of domestic implementation. If we are to lead internationally, we must first put our own house firmly in order, as we are doing in passing the Bill.
As we send this Bill to the other place, I hope that the Government will reflect on the constructive contributions made from across the House and ensure that the final Bill upholds our environmental responsibilities and our democratic principles. Britain can and must lead by example. We owe it to future generations to get this right. As Sir David Attenborough said:
“If we save the sea, we save our world.”
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Business without Debate
Clive Treacey Safety Checklist
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
It is an honour and a privilege to lead this debate on Government support for the Clive Treacey safety checklist. I secured this debate in Clive’s name, and I want to start by telling the House a little bit about him. I did not have the pleasure of meeting Clive, so I am drawing here on the words of his family, who knew him best. Clive’s sister, and his father Michael, are in the Public Gallery this evening, and I am really glad that they are able to see proceedings. They have been tireless advocates for Clive, making sure that his voice is heard, and I hope that I can do their efforts justice tonight.
Clive was born in Lichfield, in my constituency, in 1969. He was soon diagnosed with a learning difficulty, and, between the ages of 8 and 10, with epilepsy. I will cover both those factors today. Sadly, they are important to understanding Clive’s death and the failures in care throughout his life, but they do not define what Clive’s life was. I want to ensure that the House hears who Clive was. Clive was a talented artist and gardener, gifted with a brush and able to make plants spring seemingly from nothing. He loved music, especially Elvis Presley, and was often singing and dancing—his family remember him as the life of the party. He wanted to work in a garden centre, helping to raise plants; to have his own home, close to family; to own a cat; to learn to drive; and to go on holiday to Blackpool and Somerset. Clive was as devoted to his family as they were to him. He was known as the family calendar, never forgetting a card for a birthday, Christmas, Easter or any other reason. Clive’s sister Elaine says that her brother was
“engaging, humorous, gentle, and loving”.
His parents, Pauline and Michael, have said his heart “knew no bounds”, and describe their son’s “magical qualities” throughout his life. In all the accounts of Clive, his love and optimism shine through.
Clive passed away in 2017 at just 47 years of age, after a seizure caused by his epilepsy brought on cardiac arrest. This is known as SUDEP—sudden unexpected death in epilepsy. Clive had been living in residential placements for years up until that point, moving often. Before he died, Clive’s family had become worried about his deteriorating health—and, tragically, so had Clive. He left a message on his dad’s phone, which was not received until some days after his death, saying that he was dying and needed an ambulance. Clive was not listened to, and his family were not listened to, and the consequences were devastating.
After that terrible event, Clive’s family had to fight hard for answers. They had to fight to secure an inquest into his death, and later to secure an independent review. When that review was completed in 2021, four years after Clive died, it confirmed what they had suspected all along: the independent review found that Clive’s care fell far short of what should be expected for somebody with drug-resistant epilepsy, and it identified multiple system-wide failures in delivering his care and treatment, which put him at greater risk. It found that his death was potentially avoidable, and that he had been failed both in life and in death.
What did that mean in practice? It meant that the management of Clive’s epilepsy was fragmented, and the link between his epilepsy and the sometimes challenging behaviours that he could exhibit when stressed, such as not taking his medication, withdrawing to his room, or not communicating, were often overstated. Those behaviours disproportionately impacted the generally held view that Clive required a hospital setting, and despite the fact that he had long expressed a wish to live in his own home, care in the community was discussed with him and his family only towards the end of his life. That is where Clive’s life was, and if we move on past his death, it is important to pay tribute to Clive’s family. Throughout all the suffering, they have been relentless in their focus on ensuring that other families do not go through what they had to. That is why we are here today, and for me, that is entirely what this debate is about.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate and thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. His choice of words, his tone, and the compassion in his voice are a real tribute to Clive Treacey, and to his family in the Gallery. The hon. Gentleman has paid a wonderful tribute to Clive, and it is right to put that on the record. I am an Elvis Presley fan as well; he could probably sing better than I can, but that is by the way. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that although nothing can bring back the life of this young man, his legacy can be life-changing for so many others? This checklist, rather than being best practice, must be rolled out as a recommended tool to each trust and area of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as a tribute to Clive Treacey.
Dave Robertson
I thank the hon. Gentleman. That is my first intervention from him. He raises an important point, and when he asked that question, I thought back to a couple of weeks ago, when I was asked at a community event, “What gives you hope, Dave?”. I thought for a while. So often, we hear in this place stories of people who have gone through unimaginable hardship, but who somehow find the strength within themselves not to turn that into anger. They do not turn inwards; they turn outwards, and campaign to make sure that the same does not happen to other people. That is an example of what we have here. It is the very best testament to the human spirit that we see so many people who are able to do that.
Like a quarter of people with a learning disability, Clive had epilepsy. By contrast, one in 100 of the general population has epilepsy. Coupled with that, epilepsy is the second most frequently reported preventable cause of death for people with a learning disability, so not only are people with a learning disability more likely to have epilepsy, but the risks they face from their epilepsy are higher. The risk of SUDEP—that is what killed Clive—is more than three times higher for those with epilepsy and a learning disability than for those with epilepsy and no learning disability.
Tragically, Clive’s case is not an isolated example of these failures; this is a story that is far too common across the country, but there are things that we can do to change the story. Research suggests that annual health checks can significantly reduce the chance of premature death in people with a learning disability and autism who have epilepsy. Indeed, the chances of death were reduced by 84% for people with a learning disability and epilepsy who had a review of their epilepsy in the past 12 months.
That brings me to the Clive Treacey safety checklist. The checklist is a tool developed after Clive’s death, and an important part of his legacy. I place on record my thanks to Professor Mike Kerr and Professor Rohit Shankar for their work on the checklist, alongside the charity SUDEP Action, NHS England Midlands, and the Cornwall partnership NHS foundation trust.
The checklist was designed for commissioners and service providers, whether the care is provided in a specialist hospital setting or out in the community, and it outlines the steps that should be gone through annually, as well as whenever a patient moves between services or has a big change in their care, such as a new team looking after them. It recommends up-to-date health plans, genuine consultation with parents and families—not box ticking, but genuine consultation—and proper epilepsy training for staff. The Clive Treacey safety checklist is not a document that should be put in a drawer somewhere in an integrated care board, left alone and looked at once every so often when someone asks a question about it. It is a practical tool and the accompanying guidance, at just 24 pages long— for the NHS, a short story at best—is packed with information, and it is a document that can save lives.
Since Clive’s death, a number of NHS regions have reviewed the way that they care for patients with learning disabilities and epilepsy using the checklist. That includes the NHS in the midlands, where 11 integrated care systems carried out a detailed appraisal using the self-assessment tool developed by the charity Epilepsy Action, based on the work of Professor Shankar, to find the weaknesses in their services and take concrete steps to improve them. More recently, six integrated care boards in the north-west, north-east and North Yorkshire have done the same. It is detailed work, bringing health and care services together, and using joined-up thinking, which we do not hear enough about in Whitehall, to tackle the problem and normalise best practice. That best practice, like the Clive Treacey safety checklist, should be more widespread. I again pay tribute to Elaine and to Clive’s family more broadly for the work that they have done to drive this entire piece of work forward.
The problem is that we still have a postcode lottery. Different parts of the country do and do not follow the checklist; different parts of the country have and have not gone through that detailed work to update their practices. In this House, we cannot tolerate a situation where local outcomes are so varied, so I hope that we hear from the Minister what more we can do, both here in this place and through the Department of Health and Social Care, to ensure that people with learning disabilities are not dying of preventable causes, and to see the very best practice, as set out in the Clive Treacey safety checklist, adopted up and down the country, so that we can end this perverse postcode lottery.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) for securing this important debate. I recognise the efforts of Clive’s family, particularly Elaine and Michael who join us today in the Gallery.
As my hon. Friend described in his wonderful speech, Clive Treacey was a caring, gentle and humorous man, who liked to paint and who enjoyed gardening and listening to music. As we have heard, Clive also had a learning disability and epilepsy, and sadly he died in 2017, at the age of just 47, following a seizure. His loss, I am sure, is still felt very deeply by his family and loved ones. I pay tribute to all the work that they have done by channelling the tragedy they have been through, and the work that they continue to do in advocating for change following Clive’s death.
The independent review into Clive’s death highlighted that there were multiple system-wide failures in delivering his care and treatment that together placed him at a higher risk of sudden death. It was found that Clive experienced sub-optimal care and support throughout his life and death, and that he was not always placed in settings that could meet his needs, in terms of both epilepsy care and support for his disability.
I am pleased that since Clive’s death, meaningful changes have been made. Following the publication of the independent review into his death in December 2021, organisations directly involved in Clive’s care developed high-level actions in response to its findings and there was an overwhelming commitment from all organisations involved to address the systemic issues raised in the report. NHS England midlands region set up a group that became known as the Clive Treacey conscience group and last year it published “Clive’s Way: A Conscience Manual”, outlining in detail the progress the midlands region is making in taking forward and implementing the learnings from the independent review.
We know that around 30% of people with epilepsy have a learning disability and that the risk of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy is much higher for those with a learning disability, as my hon. Friend pointed out. The latest annual LeDeR—learning from lives and deaths—report found that epilepsy was one of the most common underlying causes of death for people with a learning disability between 2021 and 2023. That highlights how crucial it is that information and support for patients with epilepsy who have a learning disability are tailored to their individual needs. We welcome the development of the Clive Treacey safety checklist; it is an important part of Clive’s legacy. We encourage commissioners and service providers to use the checklist and its accompanying guidance as a key tool when designing services for their local populations and to ensure that the steps outlined in the checklist are followed whenever a patient experiences a significant change in their care.
Since Clive’s death, a number of NHS regions have reviewed the way that they care for patients living with a learning disability and epilepsy—
Dr Ahmed
It is a very positive development that a number of integrated health boards in the midlands, the north-west, the north-east and Yorkshire have carried out detailed appraisals to identify any weaknesses in their services.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield raises an important point about how we can go further, including how annual health checks can significantly reduce the chance of premature death in people with a learning disability who have epilepsy. NHS England has developed a quality framework to set expectations for annual health checks for people with a learning disability and accompanying health action plans, which are vital to identifying needs early, providing the right support and mitigating the risk of sudden death.
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance on epilepsies in children, young people and adults recommends that people with a learning disability should have monitoring reviews at least annually. The NICE guidance on epilepsies also includes a number of recommendations on how information should be tailored and adapted for patients with epilepsy who have a learning disability. It sets out that patients with a learning disability should have access to specialist care and should receive co-ordinated care using a multidisciplinary approach. For young people with a learning disability who are transitioning to adult epilepsy services, transition planning should begin early. This Government expect commissioners and service providers to take NICE guidelines fully into account when making decisions about how to best meet the needs of their local communities.
We are rolling out mandatory training on learning disability and autism to health and adult social care staff. Support for people with a learning disability is also a key area of focus for the NHS RightCare epilepsy toolkit. The toolkit includes a number of actions that systems should take to support people with epilepsy who have a learning disability, such as ensuring that specialist epilepsy services are upskilled and make reasonable adjustments to support the needs of people with a learning disability, including working in partnership with staff trained in how to manage learning disability. The toolkit also sets out that services should ensure that community specialist nurses in learning disabilities have the right training in the management of epilepsy.
I recognise the important work of organisations such as Epilepsy Action and SUDEP Action. Epilepsy Action has produced the “Step Together” toolkit, which describes what good-quality integrated services for people with a learning disability and epilepsy should look like. SUDEP Action has developed an epilepsy self-monitoring app, which is a digital tool designed to help patients understand their own personal risk of seizures and to track that risk. SUDEP Action has played a key role in the development of the Clive Treacey safety checklist.
Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield for securing this important debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his contribution. It goes without saying that Clive’s death must not be in vain and that we must learn the lessons to ensure that this does not happen again. I believe we also need to commit further that no longer in our national health service should a tragedy be the only way to make things better for the patients and citizens we serve and to save their lives.
Finally, the patient voice must be our guiding star when designing services and safety checklists and keeping patients safe in the community and in hospital. I believe that through the actions we have taken in our 10-year health plan and the actions that I have taken as the Minister responsible for patient safety, we can undertake today to Members of this House that that shall be the case going forward in this Government’s approach to patient safety.
Question put and agreed to.
Rules for making health claims about food supplements
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Social Media Posts: Penalties for Offences
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 728715 relating to penalties for offences arising from social media posts.
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. As Chair of the Petitions Committee, let me say that it is always encouraging to witness public participation in politics. With more than 100,000 signatures, it is evident that this petition has engaged a large number of people all across the country.
This e-petition was created by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe). This is the first time that an elected Member of the House of Commons has the e-petition system in this way to garner enough support to secure a debate, making this a unique instance. He explained to me that he believes that this Government have taken a two-tier approach to policing, which needs to be urgently reviewed.
When I use the phrase “two-tier”, I am referring to the belief that police in this country are overtly lenient towards protestors in favour of progressive causes and racial minority protestors, compared with others. To put it simply, those who subscribe to this criticism of our justice system do not believe that citizens are being punished fairly or impartially. That is why the signatories of this petition believe the system needs to be reviewed. Specifically, they are calling on the Government to urgently review the possible penalties for non-violent offences arising from social media posts, including the use of prison. During our meeting, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth explained that it is his belief that, when it comes to punishing individuals for something they have posted on a social media platform, previous sentences issued for offences under this Government have risked encroaching on the individual liberty of the defendant, particularly their freedom of speech.
Freedom of expression has always been a cornerstone of our democracy. In the UK, people are free to demonstrate their views regardless of any discomfort caused to the majority. However, the freedom to express these opinions does exempt any criminal motivation behind them from being prosecuted. Just as we are a country that takes pride in our citizen’s liberties and freedoms, we also take pride in a criminal justice system that protects our citizens from harm. The former will never override the latter.
Under section 22 of the Online Safety Act 2023, a statutory duty to consider free expression protects the rights of users within the law. Crucially, the Act explicitly defines “freedom of expression” in terms compatible with the European convention on human rights. That is the right
“to receive and impart ideas, opinions or information…by means of speech, writing or images”.
However, section 59 of that same Act makes it clear that the boundary of that freedom extends only as far as the legality of the content. In other words, content is judged not just by whether it is unpopular, offensive or controversial but, crucially, whether it violates criminal law. Examples of such violations include—to name but a few—types of intimate image abuse, harassment or the incitement of hate crimes.
That brings us to the question of criminality and prosecution for such an offence, which I believe is the very crux of this petition. When I spoke to the Sentencing Council, it made it clear to me that intent matters a lot in many of these offences. The Sentencing Council’s definition of intent ranges from the highest culpability, for a deliberate intention to cause harm, to lower levels of culpability, for recklessness, knowledge of risk or sheer negligence.
The council considers an offender’s intent to be a key factor in determining the seriousness of an offence and the appropriate sentence, which will often be based on the level of harm that was intended even if it was not actually caused. In our modern age of social media, where communication is instant, rapid and far-reaching, the question of culpability, intent and widespread dissemination does indeed hold serious weight. It is reasonable to assume that all citizens realise that when using sites such as X, Instagram or Facebook.
When it comes to calling on the Government to review the penalties for non-violent offences arising from social media posts, it is imperative to clarify the particulars of existing sentencing guidelines. In the UK, the Government on their own cannot simply change criminal penalties, because the power to set or alter penalties is controlled by Parliament and the courts, not Ministers. Any change to maximum or minimum penalties for an offence must be made through primary legislation. That means that a new law or amendment must pass through the full parliamentary process: drafting, scrutiny, debate and, of course, approval by both Houses—the Commons and the Lords. The Government may propose changes, but they absolutely cannot impose them without Parliament voting them into law.
Even after Parliament sets the legal penalty ranges, the Government still cannot decide individual sentences, because those are often carried out independently by judges, who must follow the Sentencing Council’s guidelines and not—absolutely not—the preferences of Ministers. The Government also cannot order judges to give harsher or more lenient sentences in specific cases, because judicial independence, as we know, protects courts from political interference; indeed, I would suggest that it is a crucial pillar of our political and justice systems. Neither the courts nor Parliament stand alone; that ensures that balanced decisions are made independently in the public interest.
All of that is seriously complex, and addresses a large scale of harm and, in some cases, prejudice. That is to say that I am absolutely certain my colleagues will debate this question with respect, rationality and indeed nuance this evening. I can see that lots of them hope to speak, so I will bring my remarks to a close to allow as many as possible to participate.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
There appear to be other attractions in the main Chamber today, and a number of Members who indicated that they wished to participate are not present. For that reason, I have no need, I think, to put any time limit on contributions.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger.
The first duty of Government is to keep their citizens safe. We do that with the police and our court system; and, although they are not perfect, we could not do it without them. The online space is an integral part of our modern lives, and we need to treat it as such, because what happens online does not stay online.
Online safety naysayers want us to think that regulating the online space is a conspiracy to end freedom of speech. Some, such as the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), try to make that case, while his online followers send women and members of minorities death and rape threats when they speak freely, and that includes Members of this House—like many women MPs, I receive at least one a week.
Rather than taking away free speech and democracy, we are ensuring that everybody has a voice, so that people, including the alleged victims of Andrew and Tristan Tate, can one day have an online profile again, without getting their home addresses splashed all over the internet and being doxed, as young people like to call it.
Democracy should be about ideas and debates, yet the online environment that some Members of this House want is one where people can make deepfakes, misleading the electorate; where they can threaten women with rape, to shut up those they do not agree with; and where they can make £300,000 by making 128 Facebook pages, spreading racist and AI-generated misinformation, which is then amplified by members of the Reform party—monetising hate, as the piece in The Times exposed this morning. Without an extension of our election laws to online spaces, single platforms or platform owners with specific political or financial agendas can continue to spread lies and misinformation, even going so far as to incite violence in another country. That is not democracy; that is not free speech. It is up to this Government to ward against it and ensure that our laws and sentencing are appropriate. As I said, the first duty of any Government is to keep their citizens safe.
In real life, a 12-year-old cannot go to the cinema to see a film if it is rated 15, and pornography is put on the top shelf at the newsagents, out of reach. Kids cannot buy a video game that is adult-only rated without identification. Online, however, our kids can find any kind of graphic or sexual content, of any level of extremity, as easily as they can text their friends.
The Online Safety Act is there to protect everyone. It is there to put porn back on the top shelf and out of reach of kids. It works to prevent 10-year-olds from finding graphic depictions of violence, being encouraged to become violent themselves or being groomed by strangers. Those who want to scrap the Act and the sentencing that goes along with it actually put at risk our free speech—the free speech of those who are intimidated every day for trying to express their views online—and, even more so, they put at risk our democracy. Let us bring back common sense and protect this country.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
As the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) said, this is the first time that an e-petition debate has been instigated by a Member of this House, so it gives me great pleasure to call the culprit, Rupert Lowe.
Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I am grateful to the Petitions Committee for granting time for this extremely important debate, following our successful petition. Most importantly, I thank the more than 190,000 British people who signed the petition that we initiated, which calls for an end to the creeping use of prison as a punishment for what people say online. We would not be here today without their support, which is a credit to the petitions system, one of the better-functioning arms of Parliament.
I welcome Lucy Connolly and her husband, who are here today. She is one of the many ordinary citizens who has been swept up in the chaotic and inconsistent enforcement of our online speech laws. Her courage in speaking openly about her experience has helped to expose a growing problem: namely that the British state is now more willing to imprison somebody for a social media post than for a rape. That is not justice, that is not proportionate and that is certainly not the mark of a free country.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this petition to the House. On what analysis does he base his comment that people are more likely to be in prison for a social media tweet than for rape?
Rupert Lowe
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has heard of the Pakistani rape gangs, which are currently the subject of my crowdfunder. When he reads the report that is coming out in March, I am sure he will agree with me.
We are witnessing the steady expansion of what are essentially speech crimes—offences where there is no violence, no real threat of violence and, often, no identifiable victim at all. Yet people face dawn raids, criminal records, ankle tags and even lengthy prison sentences—for words, for arguments, for opinions that somebody somewhere claims to find offensive.
I had my own experience: a late-night police raid, initiated by false allegations from former Reform party colleagues, relating solely to words I had allegedly spoken—the party of free speech, indeed. The Reform leadership’s bitter attempt to see me in prison failed, but too many others do not escape the consequences of such vile misuse of the system. We now have laws being used to punish subjective offence, based on the most fragile interpretation of “harm” and enforced through discretionary and—far too often—politically skewed policing. A post that is deemed sharp criticism one month somehow becomes grossly offensive the next. It is arbitrary, it is inconsistent and it is fundamentally incompatible with a healthy democracy.
I receive multiple death threats, yet the police take no action. To take just one example, online influencer Shola Mos-Shogbamimu recently posted on X:
“I’m against the death penalty but for you @RupertLowe10 I’ll gladly make the exception.”
This post currently has 2 million views. The Met police have said no action will be taken. I do not want people in prison for social media posts; I also do not want such obvious two-tier policing. Shola walks free, yet Lucy Connolly was imprisoned for one foolish social media post, soon deleted. Where is the fairness in that? If these ludicrous laws are to be implemented, it must be done fairly, with no political bias. Evidently, that is not currently happening.
Is our prison system so efficient, so functional and so unoccupied that we have the capacity to put a young mother like Lucy in prison for more than 300 days? I think not. When rapists and murderers are walking free—even being released early—there is zero justification for imprisoning Lucy and the many others like her, particularly when the influence of such questionable legal aid is so heavily involved.
We must be clear: no free society can survive with a people afraid to speak. Democracy depends on robust argument, dissent and the ability to challenge orthodoxy. As George Orwell so presciently stated:
“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
Parliament needs to draw a deep line in the sand: in Britain, nobody should ever be sent to prison for an offensive social media post—full stop. That requires legislative reform. We need clearer thresholds in law, a robust statutory requirement that prosecutorial decisions consider freedom of expression, and a prohibition on custodial sentences for pure speech cases.
The poison of two-tier justice must be forensically extracted from our judicial system. This debate is not about whether we are prepared to live in a country where liberty exists only for those who never cause offence—an impossible and undesirable standard. To Lucy and to every other person who has found themselves dragged through the system for a post online: you deserve better from your Government, and I sincerely hope today marks the beginning of a serious rethink in this House.
Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
I will come as no surprise to you, Sir Roger, to hear me say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairship.
I want to be transparent: I do not believe that the law has always got it right in these cases—there have been failures, and there must be room for scrutiny and reform. But I am compelled to speak in this debate because of the hypocrisy and double standards perpetuated by many on the Opposition Benches—those who brand themselves as defenders of free speech, yet who seem to confuse freedom of speech and freedom from consequence.
Something I taught my children from when they were very young was, “You are free to use your words, but you must be prepared to face the consequences of them.” People may think that writing an offensive post—which takes only seconds and is quickly forgotten—is inconsequential, but as we have seen over the past year, and especially in recent months, such words can have devastating effects. They can fuel radicalisation, target minority communities and make individuals feel unsafe in their own homes, schools and streets. Although some demand the right to speak without restraint, they ignore the reality that others lose their freedom to live without fear—a freedom that was hard fought for by those we pay tribute to on Armistice Day.
I find it genuinely astounding that parties such as Reform UK, and many in today’s Conservative party, espouse the importance of personal responsibility and accountability, yet are fundamentally unable to stomach it when individuals on their side of the political argument are held accountable for their words. My personal position —and, I think, that of many of my Labour colleagues—is clear: hate speech is hate speech; words have consequences. No matter whether someone passionately disagrees with someone else politically, if they use social media to call for the death of or harm to another, they should be held accountable by any means the law deems fit.
Regretfully, I do not believe that the same clarity exists on the Opposition Benches. It has been astonishing to watch some Members tie themselves in knots—on one hand decrying Britain under Labour as a return to Soviet-style communism, while on the other hand demanding the removal of the Oxford Union president-elect for comments made in a private group chat, not on social media. It seems that, for the right wing, free speech is not a two-way street: it is Schrödinger’s version of free speech.
Nowhere has the hypocrisy and knot tying been clearer than in the case of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who rightly disavowed, and welcomed the imprisonment of, an individual who used social media to threaten his life, but readily platformed during his party conference a woman who said:
“Mass deportation now, set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care...If that makes me racist, so be it”.
I am genuinely intrigued as to whether free speech is deemed acceptable only if it is used to threaten the lives of refugees and not the Reform party leader.
James McMurdock (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Ind)
Will the hon. Member give way on that point?
Mr Quigley
No.
My point is this: it is completely wrong to call for the death of the hon. Member for Clacton, just as it is completely wrong to call for hotels housing refugees to be burned down. In both cases, the law rightly intervened, and justice was served. What is deeply concerning is the warped suggestion that the law should be applied differently depending on who says something rather than what is said. That is not justice; it is politicisation. Our legal professionals are not the enemy. Our justice system, widely regarded as one of the foundational models of fairness and due process, is not the enemy. And our police, who enforce the law but do not create it, are not the enemy. We must defend the principle that the law applies equally to all, regardless of political affiliation, background or platform.
That should not be controversial. It is in fact one of the oldest principles in our democracy. Magna Carta, the cornerstone of our unwritten constitution, states:
“To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.”
That commitment to fairness and equality before the law is not just historical; it is foundational. Ultimately, if we in this Parliament believe that the law needs to change, we have the power and the responsibility to change it through the proper democratic process. Those who seek to twist justice, who argue that the law should be applied differently depending on who says something rather than what is said, should ask themselves this: are they defending the spirit of British democracy, or are they defending a warped version of it, shaped not by principle but by popularity on X?
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger.
Freedom of speech is a vital right, but it must end where harm to another begins. Online freedom cannot mean the freedom to exploit, to encourage self-harm or to destroy lives. I appreciate that I am taking the debate in a slightly off-piste direction, but this is relevant to the debate we are having today, because suicide forums and other user-to-user platforms are also part of what Ofcom counts as social media. If this debate is about the proportionality of penalties applied to offences arising from social media posts, we must address the stark reality that the most harmful content online is actually the least likely to attract enforcement. Nowhere is that clearer than in the case of unregulated suicide forums, which The Telegraph recently described as a terrifying online world where users share methods, encourage one another to die, and prey on the vulnerable.
The Molly Rose Foundation, founded by bereaved parents after losing their daughter Molly, has exposed the scale of the threat. Its report “Missed chances, lost lives” links at least 133 UK deaths to a single pro-suicide forum that operates overseas. On that site, young people—many just teenagers—are encouraged, instructed and groomed into taking their own lives. The forum hosts detailed methods, promotes poisonous substances, shares advice on bypassing UK regulations and even enables suicide pacts between strangers, which facilitates the abuse of vulnerable women. That is not free speech, as the site moderators claim; it is the deliberate facilitation of harm—fatal harm.
I first became aware of the foundation’s work when I met a local family who had lost their daughter, Hannah. She had been on that forum, where she found links to poisons and guidance on how to obtain them outside UK restrictions. Her father, Pete, warned me that harm is out there waiting to be found by teenagers. No parent should ever have to bury their child because of an unregulated user-to-user forum or social media.
What makes this even harder to accept is how many missed chances there were to act. Coroners issued 65 prevention of future deaths reports to three Government bodies—65 formal warnings that the site and its content were putting people at risk. Had those warnings triggered action when they should have, many of those 133 people might still be with us today.
Ofcom eventually opened a formal investigation under the Online Safety Act, but only in 2025—long after families had begun sounding the alarm. Its own letter acknowledges serious risks to UK users, including children, yet despite that Ofcom initially accepted a voluntary geoblock, which could be easily bypassed with a simple VPN. It took the discovery of a mirror site, and determined, unrelenting pressure from bereaved families, to escalate the case to priority.
That goes to the heart of today’s debate: if we are examining how penalties are applied for offences arising from social media posts, we must ask why the quickest and toughest enforcement does not fall on those creating the greatest real-world harm. The Online Safety Act creates strong penalties for encouraging suicide and serious self-harm—up to 14 years’ imprisonment and up to five years’ imprisonment respectively. Those penalties must not be weakened; they must be used, and they must be supported by regulators who treat the loss of life due to online harms with the urgency it demands.
I have met too many parents, siblings, friends and loved ones whose lives have been shattered. Their message is simple: protect young people, target the real harms, and use the penalties to save lives. If proportionality is the principle, let it be proportional to harm, because our young people deserve a system that protects them, not one that leaves the deadliest corners of the internet untouched.
I thank the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), in part, for the debate today, which has enabled me to raise this part of the important conversation about penalties for offences arising from social media posts and user-to-user platforms.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
What a pleasure it is to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for so ably introducing the debate. Although the hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) described her speech as being a little off-piste, I thank her for raising an important subject—she is welcome to raise it in any debate I am part of.
The only two-tier justice system I know of in the UK is between the rich and the poor, and between the powerful and the powerless. That is why I am so pleased we have been able to introduce the Hillsborough law. What we are not talking about here are posts that arise from differences of political opinion: whether rail should be nationalised, or whether we should invest more money in the NHS. What we are talking about are posts that contain elements of racial hatred, which is completely unacceptable and is not a political issue—unless we are arguing that somehow racial hatred is a political philosophy.
Last summer, we saw tragic violence right across the UK. I think Edinburgh was spared only through the hard work over many years of the Edinburgh Interfaith Association. We saw British people attacked because of their faith or the colour of their skin—utterly reprehensible. I spoke to parents who were worried about their children —of all ages—going to school or going to work. It was an horrendous time, and the violence was being amplified and accelerated online.
Many of those who carried out those violent acts argued that their actions were solely in response to the tragic events that occurred in Southport. But it is clear that the fury we witnessed was encouraged by online instigators, who stirred racial tensions and spread false information before the public had a true and complete understanding of what had occurred that awful day—just as we saw a couple of weekends ago after the attack on the London North Eastern Railway train, when people online were quick to link it to immigration and also to Islam, which I found utterly unbelievable. By the time a statement was made to the House of Commons, we knew there was no link to immigration or Islam, so there were no Reform MPs in the Chamber to talk about it—an utter disgrace.
As MPs, we have all had our fair share of online abuse and unpleasant comments, although I absolutely recognise the point made earlier about women attracting much more of that abuse than men. We know that the internet is a challenging and complex place, but when posts tip over into threatening communications, inciting violence against specific groups, provisions must be in place for prosecution. Opposition Members argue that prison sentences are given for comments that were maybe mistaken or intended as humorous. But we know that for some of the people who were imprisoned, this was merely one of many racially motivated comments that they had made over a period of time. Opposition Members called these posts foolish, clumsy or misunderstood, yet many of those people actually pled guilty to inciting racial hatred.
Let us be clear: the posts that led to prosecution were an incitement to violence and outright racial hatred, which is why those people pled guilty. The Crown Prosecution Service is clear that the state must act when there is a clear threat to public order and safety—online or in the real world. Employment law applies to online. Thankfully, we have procedures in place to protect children from online harm. Fraud is a crime online, as is defamation of character. So I do not understand why people argue that racially motivated hatred should not be covered by a law online, when it is in the real world. Why should we be able to say something online that we would not say in the pub? It is utterly unbelievable that people put that argument forward —it is unacceptable. It is right that these things apply across our society. The recent case of the man imprisoned for making threats towards the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) shows that our judiciary act when faced with criminal online threats of violence. Does anybody want to say that they oppose that gentleman being jailed for five years? Of course not.
Freedom of speech is central to our democracy. I understand that all our police forces face stretched resources, but those who incite violence on our streets against vulnerable people can never go unchallenged, whether it is online or in person.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger.
The text of the petition makes specific reference to “posts on social media”, as if this modern medium is somehow separate from every form of speech that came before. Social media posts take seconds to write and publish, and then they are everywhere. They are seen by our parents, grandparents and kids, with no fact check and no filter. Terrifyingly, a 2025 Ofcom study found that three quarters of 18 to 24-year-olds use digital platforms and social media to get their news.
The sort of reach once available only to professional journalists, filtered through editors and media owners, is now available to anyone with a phone. We can post with a moment’s thought during our morning coffee break, with the same ease as world leaders with armies of speechwriters, fact checkers and lawyers to craft their statements. One impulsive tap on an app can land in the timelines of tens, thousands or millions of people.
Let us be honest: who has not posted online something they later regretted? I know I have, and I challenge anyone these days to have an unblemished record online. The incredible reach that modern social media has enabled, compared with the guardianship and control of legacy media sources for centuries, has rightly been compared with the unleashing of the evils of the world from Pandora’s box. We must recognise that attempting to reverse the exodus is as futile for us as it was for the Pandora of myth.
To keep with an historical allusion, the story of the sword of Damocles described how a single hair of a horse’s tail held a sword over the head of King Dionysius, threatening to take away all that he enjoyed as a king, without notice. A second’s misplaced rage, or a misjudged reaction to somebody else’s message, can cause the thread to break and the sword to fall, with the nationwide media sent to a person’s doorstep, their career and life torn apart. That is the reality of casting our thoughts into the social media forum.
The fragility of the risk cannot be used to diminish the impact, and hence the responsibility that must be held by users who can reach millions around the world in seconds. The ease of posting cannot be allowed to dilute the seriousness of the impact. I return to my earlier argument: I invite us to replace “posts on social media” in the petition with “words in a national newspaper” or “speech on national television”. Would there be the same uproar or calls for clemency if a journalist or TV presenter had urged their audience to set fire to hotels full of people? I suggest not.
In the case of Lucy Connolly, her post inciting violence against a hotel full of people, as riots raged throughout the country, was seen by more than 300,000 people in the three and a half hours before it was deleted. That is roughly the same number as the combined daily circulation of The Daily Telegraph and The Times newspapers. I cannot agree with treating social media differently from incendiary violence elsewhere. There were 9,000 followers and it was viewed more than 300,000 times in three and a half hours.
We cannot keep pretending that what happens online stays online. The digital world is now shaping how people think, speak and act, and the consequences are now impossible to ignore. The very power that social media holds is exactly why so many people wield it with such vigour.
Let us not forget that it is a nice little earner for some, too. The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) has earned over £40,000 from Twitter since his election, showing the huge potential of the site, and potentially why he is incentivised to defend so enthusiastically people’s right to say inflammatory and shocking things to drive engagement, clicks and views. The online world has become a place where hate speech—or, as the petition puts it, “opinion…speech”—is allowed to spread like wildfire. Too often, social media platforms shrug their shoulders and walk away from the responsibility of monitoring it or, worse, they actively encourage disinformation.
Twitter is the most obvious offender. I am told that, for those who still do, scrolling through Twitter feeds feels like stepping into the wild west. Abusive comments and dangerous posts are left to fester without consequence. A factual error is twisted and retold as the gospel truth before anyone has had time to draw breath. Communities are put at risk by conspiracies that proliferate like a virus.
Twitter must do far more to tackle the surge of hate speech that we see on our phones and tablets every single day. Since Musk took control of the company in 2022, Twitter has rolled back on safeguards designed to prevent misinformation and dangerous rhetoric. The same Elon Musk suggested that America should liberate the people of Britain and overthrow our democratically elected Government. Incidentally, the US customs and border protection guidelines for allowing non-citizens to enter the USA state that if an immigration officer knows or believes that someone would be entering the country to attempt to overthrow the US Government, they are inadmissible. If we applied that reasoning to Mr Musk’s next trip to our country, I wonder whether he might have complaints about his treatment. There is free speech, but not without consequences. This is a foreign billionaire, armed with his global megaphone, fanning the flames of division and calling for the overthrow of our democratically elected Government. We call that treason here.
We cannot allow tech oligarchs to set the rules for British society. Instead of allowing the world’s richest man to decide what toxic content floods national conversation, the Government must wake up and intervene. We Liberal Democrats call on the Minister to properly equip Ofcom to enforce tough regulations to clamp down on the spread of misinformation online. Online safety cannot rest solely on the shoulders of individual users, as algorithms push controversial content for views and shares. Legislation must be tightened to hold social media platforms accountable for the dangerous rhetoric they allow to thrive.
Social media is simply the latest chapter in humanity’s long history of communication, and vectors for incitement, from clay tablets to the printing press to broadcast news. Because it is so accessible, it arguably needs more accountability from its users and operators—not less, as the petition proposes.
Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society. We have always, and will always, stand up for freedom of speech. However, that does not mean no accountability for hate speech or speech that incites violence. Those who use violence, racist abuse or hate speech must face serious consequences. We do not support the suggestion in the petition that social media posts should be treated any differently from any other types of speech.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank the Petitions Committee for enabling this debate, and the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for opening it. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), who launched and promoted the petition. Like others, I thought it was the first time I had come across a petition from a Member, and it turns out that it is. The number of signatures that the hon. Member managed to secure shows that this issue is of great interest to our constituents, and it is right that we, as elected representatives in Parliament, debate these matters.
I want to begin by talking about something that was not given sufficient focus in the debate: priorities and choices. Police officers cannot and have never been able to investigate and solve all crimes, all the time. They will never be able to do that, so choices and priorities have always been at the heart of policing since it was introduced in this country. The Opposition would rather that our police officers prioritise catching burglars, car thieves, shoplifters and violent offenders, and it seems clear to me that the public agree.
It also seems clear that this is an issue on which the police, the CPS and the courts do not get it right all the time. As always, we cannot be led entirely by the worst examples, but they inevitably raise public concern. I will not focus overly on individual cases, many of which have been well publicised and often, thankfully, not taken forward in the end, but that begs the question: what would have happened to less high-profile individuals, or in cases that were less well publicised? The outcome may have been different, so this issue clearly needs our attention. That is not to say that there should never be any restriction on what people can put online. We need to find a balance akin to the one that we manage, as a whole—although certainly not perfectly—to keep more consistently in what we might call the real world.
The criminalisation of hate speech and incitement is not new; what has changed is the scale and immediacy of communication in the digital age. Social media allows anyone with a mobile phone to reach potentially millions of people within seconds, and their words are essentially permanent and traceable. It exposes individuals to a constant stream of content, often stripped of context, and sometimes designed to provoke. Social media also strips away the manner in which something is said and the demeanour of the person—details that are often key to the prosecution of these sorts of cases in the real world.
We have a responsibility to ensure that the law keeps pace with technology but remains fair, proportionate and grounded in common sense. Those who use social media to clearly and obviously promote hatred, threaten individuals or genuinely incite violence must not be able to act with impunity. But we must also ensure that sentencing reflects the seriousness of each case, that it distinguishes between genuine threats and offensive opinion, and that it maintains public confidence in both justice and freedom of expression.
The judiciary has discretion to consider the context, harm and intent behind each offence, and proportionality is key. Sentences must be transparent, consistent and seen by the public to be fair. We know that the vast majority of people in this country value free speech deeply, but they also expect accountability for those who cross the line into criminality. The balance is delicate and must be protected. Social media has created new forms of harm, but also new forms of expression, and the justice system must navigate these novel complexities carefully. However, when the response appears to some to exceed what is necessary to deter or rehabilitate, it is right that Parliament examines whether the framework that guides decisions remains appropriate.
There have been increasing anecdotal reports of the police arriving in disproportionate numbers to arrest children, parents and older people who may have said “the wrong thing”—as they might describe it—online. One example, widely reported in the press, was the arrest of Graham Linehan by five armed police officers at Heathrow in September. His alleged offence was a series of social media posts in which it seemed apparent to most dispassionate observers that he joked about punching transgender women in the genitals if they refuse to leave female-only spaces. That is a good example of the sort of joke that would not be welcome, and that many people would think was displeasing or inappropriate, but it should have been carefully considered before it was put forward as a possible crime. It was hardly worthy of the time of five armed police officers.
Such use of police time and resources was completely disproportionate when officers’ efforts could be focused on dealing with the crimes that our constituents care more about—such as knife crime, shoplifting and burglary—that regularly go unsolved and do not have the same level of attention in all circumstances. I welcome the fact that in response—and in clear support of the fact that there is an issue—the Metropolitan police announced that they will no longer investigate non-crime hate incidents. I direct those who think there is no issue to the decision by an independent police force to make a major change in how it polices these sorts of things and to
“focus on matters that meet the threshold for criminal investigations”.
We need to see that approach applied across the whole country. The Conservatives put that idea to a vote in the Crime and Policing Bill Committee earlier this year, but sadly the Government voted it down.
The National Police Chiefs’ Council, supported by the College of Policing, has reviewed the use and effectiveness of non-crime hate incidents. Subsequently, in September, the NPCC and the college wrote to the Policing Minister urging her to immediately scrap non-crime hate incidents in their current form, but the Government have not acted. They have ignored the authors of the review that they commissioned, and kicked the issue into the long grass. Will the Minister work with the Home Office to implement the recommendations of the NPCC and the College of Policing?
More broadly, the Government are not being transparent about this issue. They do not collect data on non-crime hate incidents and they do not publish data on the number of arrests made for online malicious communications offences. Accurate quantitative data on arrests and prosecutions for offences on social media are therefore hard to come by. Does the Minister agree that the Government should do more to assuage concerns by collecting and publishing data that might help to illuminate the issue?
We do have some data. In April, The Times published an article using data collated from freedom of information requests, setting out the number of arrests made in recent years under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. The newspaper reported that police officers are making more than 12,000 arrests a year under the legislation, equating to more than 30 a day. I remind hon. Members about the issue of priorities: police officers are going out and making 12,000 arrests a year for these sorts of offences. The paper also claims that the number of arrests in 2023 represented an almost 58% increase from before the pandemic, and that forces recorded 7,734 arrests in 2019.
Dr Arthur
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman’s summing up; he is doing a great job. Those numbers invite some further investigation. Thirty per day does sound like quite a lot of arrests, but in how many cases was the communication the sole reason for the arrest? Was it just a matter of there being many other factors combined, and that was just one point in the arrest schedule?
Dr Mullan
That is a good example of the sort of question we cannot answer. We have had to rely on a media organisation putting forward FOIs to get some information. If the Government took ownership of the issue and published proper data, which might be able to pick out the nuances, we could have a more realistic debate. The hon. Gentleman is right that that could be the explanation, but we are none the wiser.
We cannot simply blame this spike on rank-and-file officers. They are often only following orders from their superiors, who point to guidance from the NPCC and the College of Policing. Another key issue is that many people I have spoken to who perhaps thought that people such as Lucy Connolly had done the wrong thing and should be punished, but were concerned about the length of the prison sentence. At the same time as the Government will not budge on this issue, they are passing legislation that will let thousands of violent sexual offenders out of prison early. Very many thousands of them will serve only a third of their sentences. The Government say that there is not enough prison space, yet their proportionate response is to say that we have plenty of prison space to arrest other people.
Emily Darlington
Does the shadow Minister recognise that when his Government were letting out rapists and violent criminals, they put in place no protections whatsoever, whereas this Government have brought in protection orders and domestic violence orders to ensure that victims are protected in these cases? Does he also recognise that the prison crisis was caused under his Government?
Dr Mullan
It may come from a man, but it is just an explanation. The early release schemes that we used, and that the Minister was previously using, excluded all sexual offences. We excluded sexual offences, and the early release schemes that continued excluded sexual offences. The Sentencing Bill makes no exclusion for sexual offences—none. We would not let out rapists earlier, and the Labour Government initially would not let out rapists, but they are now going to do so. We would not let out people who raped children, and initially the Labour Government would not let out people who raped children, but they are now passing a Bill that will let out people who raped children.
Some people say that the scheme addresses a short-term crisis, but, again, there are existing schemes that could be used for short-term prison capacity issues, such as the ones that I have talked about, which exclude sexual offences. We agree that those should be excluded. Instead of carrying on using those schemes, this Government are legislating to let rapists, child rapists and paedophiles out of prison earlier on a permanent basis. Ninety per cent of people who go to prison for child grooming will be serving a third of their sentence. If that is something that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) thinks is defendable, I encourage her to go away and read the detail.
As I said, the Sentencing Bill will let out thousands of violent and sexual offenders, even if Government Members pretend that that is not what is going to happen. I would also point out that some Labour MPs understand that and would not vote for it. They understand what their Government are persuading them to vote for. They really should not vote for it. I hope the Minister will commit to looking again at the sentencing framework to ensure it better reflects the concerns that colleagues have laid out today. Otherwise, this will be a missed opportunity.
We are clear that we can restore democratic accountability to sentencing only through the abolition of the Sentencing Council and the restoration of its activities to the Lord Chancellor’s office. That is the sort of wholesale reform that is needed. We introduced an amendment to the Sentencing Bill to enable that, but Labour voted it down, proposing instead a halfway house that will not achieve anything like the radical change we need.
The right choices are there and a better way forward is available. It is true that this is a new area for our law and for society; perhaps we were always going to take time to get this right. I welcome the campaigners and individuals affected driving politicians of all parties to do so. We have had some clear proposals for reform, which are a start, but in the meantime it will sadly take more cases, more public concern and more demands for change for the Government to get this right.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. We are here to debate whether to review the penalties for social media posts, as put forward by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe). Freedom of expression is a cornerstone of our democracy, but so too is the right of every citizen to live free from abuse, intimidation and harm. The role of Government and Parliament is to uphold both—to protect rights and responsibilities online and offline.
It has long been a principle in this country that people are free to express their views even when those views are uncomfortable, unpopular, challenging or even offensive. However, we must also recognise that freedom of expression must be balanced against the need to uphold public safety and ensure that our laws are equipped to deal with the realities of modern communication. That balancing act is not set in stone or fixed; it is a constant challenge for our society, as it should be. Any tension or conflict between these principles must be carefully considered and monitored. This debate plays an important and symbolic role in doing that, and I welcome contributions from all different perspectives.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I will always defend freedom of expression, but one feature I am concerned about is the proliferation of disinformation content online—particularly by hostile states—that is designed to divide us and undermine our democracy. Will the Minister comment on that, and the approach the Government will take to tackling and enforcing against it?
Jake Richards
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Technology and social media have become more complex and difficult, but that does not mean we should shy away from attempting to ensure the principles that we hold so dear, including democracy. I will deal with that important point later in my speech.
This Government are committed to ensuring that penalties for these types of offences are proportionate and uphold freedom of expression. Sentencing is and must remain a matter for the independent judiciary. We all—particularly Government Ministers—have a responsibility to take extreme care when discussing individual cases. I will not be commenting on any, although we all take our own personal views on cases that capture the public imagination. But a sentence in the court of public opinion is not as rigorous as those imposed by courts of law. Each case is different, and the full circumstances are often not reported widely. Media stories of cases rarely convey all the information that the court had before it when deciding on its sentence.
Where an individual is convicted for an offence related to online speech, the independent judiciary is responsible for determining appropriate sentences, based on the facts of each cases and the relevant sentencing guidelines. An independent judiciary is vital to the rule of law and the functioning of a democratic society. It ensures that justice is administered fairly, impartially and critically, without political interference.
The independence of our judiciary from political influence is a vital part of our constitution, and I for one am determined to protect that in my role. The proposals by the Opposition to simply scrap the Sentencing Council amount to constitutional vandalism and have been described by previous Conservative Attorneys General as completely absurd.
Dr Mullan
Does the Minister accept that our proposals, which were not just to abolish the Sentencing Council but to create a number of bodies that advise the Department, are essentially exactly the same proposal that existed before the Sentencing Council was introduced by the Labour Government. Did he think there was constitutional vandalism prior to Labour’s reforms?
Jake Richards
The shadow Minister is completely incorrect. The Conservative party’s current proposals are not what was in place before the Sentencing Council was established. They propose to bring the sentencing of every type of criminal case into the Executive. That is a completely new, innovative and wholly dangerous proposal that has been criticised by Conservatives themselves. I remember when Conservatives used to stand up for our constitution and the separation of powers, rather than simply following the populist flame.
The sentencing framework is important, because it provides courts with a range of sentencing powers to deal effectively and appropriately with offenders in addition to imprisonment, including through discharges, fines, community sentences and suspended sentences. The law also makes it clear that imprisonment should only be imposed as a last resort and where no other sentence would be appropriate.
When deciding what sentence to impose, courts must consider the circumstances of the case, including the culpability of the offender, the harm they caused or intended to cause, and any aggravating and mitigating factors. They have a statutory duty to follow any relevant sentencing guidelines developed by the independent Sentencing Council for England and Wales, unless they are satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice for them to do so. Therefore, differences in sentencing outcomes will be the result of a number of factors, including whether the offender has previous convictions or whether an early guilty plea was entered, as well as any particular aggravating and mitigating factors. They may also include circumstances surrounding the offence, as well as circumstances personal to the offender.
It is right that courts have the discretion to consider these factors and to tailor sentences accordingly, but that does not mean—and none of my argument should give the impression—that sentencing is not subject to democratic accountability. Parliament is sovereign. The Sentencing Bill, which we are taking through the House, makes changes to ensure that the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice agree to new guidelines before they come into effect, which is a new mechanism for bolstering accountability. We do not want politicians handing down sentences on each given case, leading to wild inconsistencies and unfairness. But of course, sentencing has a democratic function, and in my submission this change strikes the right balance.
The Government commissioned a comprehensive review of sentencing powers through the independent sentencing review, chaired by David Gauke, the previous Conservative Lord Chancellor. This was wide-ranging and evidence-led, examining the full spectrum of sentencing options. The aim of the independent sentencing review was to ensure that the framework is robust, proportionate and fit for purpose. The review was guided by three core principles: sentences must punish offenders and protect the public; sentences should encourage prisoners to turn their backs on a life of crime; and we must make greater use of punishment outside of prison.
The Government accepted the majority of the review’s recommendations in principle, many of which are now being delivered through the Sentencing Bill, which is currently progressing through the House of Lords. Our focus remains on ensuring that the justice system protects the public, upholds fundamental rights and uses custodial sentences only where they are necessary and proportionate.
The Government have made it clear that we need to focus our law enforcement efforts on preventing crime in our communities—more police on our streets, rather than more policing of our tweets. But the Government do not feel that there is any case for a change in legislation at this stage, as proposed by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth.
Freedom of expression is a right that must be protected, but it is not an absolute right; it carries a responsibility to use that freedom honestly and decently. Freedom used irresponsibly corrodes democracy; responsibility without freedom weakens it. The Government’s job is to protect both, and the Online Safety Act and our wider sentencing framework reflect that balance. They are designed to protect individuals, uphold justice and preserve the freedoms that define our society.
The Online Safety Act has been designed to safeguard legal free speech, uphold privacy and support innovation. It does not prevent adults from accessing legal content, nor does it restrict people from posting content that others may find offensive. It involves the regulation of systems and processes that platforms have in place for tackling illegal content and, critically, protecting children. There are also protections against the over-removal of content, where platforms take down content that they should leave on their sites.
As use of the internet has expanded, there has been an increasing awareness that online content and activity can cause serious harm to users. From disinformation to targeted harassment, what happens online now shapes lives offline. The public are right to expect protection online from abuse that would never be tolerated on our streets. There are some circumstances where the criminal threshold is met for genuinely harmful and dangerous material, whether that be online or through other forms of communication. That is why the Online Safety Act introduced three modern communication offences—harmful communications, false communications and threatening communications—ensuring that our legal framework is fit for the digital age.
We have now seen that the new offences introduced by the Act are being applied proportionately and effectively. Earlier this year, an individual was convicted under section 184 of the Act for encouraging a child to undertake serious self-harm through online grooming—the first case of its kind. We have heard about the real dangers that exist online for children, and we must clamp down on them. The case demonstrates the importance of having modern, digital-age offences that are capable of protecting the most vulnerable from genuine life-threatening harm.
The Act also delivered Zach’s law, named after a young epilepsy campaigner, which rightly makes it a criminal offence to send malicious flashing images intended to trigger seizures. It is a clear, common-sense and compassionate example of how the law can evolve to protect people with disabilities from cruelty and real, demonstrable harm online. We should remember that the Online Safety Act is not the only legislation that can lead to custodial sentences for online speech: recent convictions, including that of the individual jailed for issuing death threats against the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), show that existing laws on threats and harassment are being applied robustly where speech crosses into criminal intimidation.
Democracy cannot function when intimidation replaces debate. That is the balance we seek to strike in regulating an increasingly influential online world to protect the public—between freedom of expression and the safety of individuals and communities. I thank all Members for their contributions. This is an issue that is important not only to this House but clearly to many people across the country, and it is vital that we allow, and indeed encourage, rigorous debates about the relevant legal framework.
Jamie Stone
As colleagues are aware, the Chair of any Select Committee is elected by the House. Therefore, this evening I am rather more the servant of the House than of my party. I therefore speak, I hope, impartially— as I should as Chair of the Petitions Committee. We have heard some verbal jousting in this debate, but it is no bad thing to air an issue out in the open and in our democratic forum.
I thank the petitioner himself, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe); it is indeed a historical first—it has never happened before, that I am aware of, in the history of this place—that the petitioner is a Member. I also thank you, Sir Roger, and all the Members who have spoken.
I also want to thank the members of the public in the Gallery. I do not know whether they have felt this too, but I have felt a rather chilly draught behind me—I think we ought to offer Parliament a shilling for the meter, to get heating turned up a wee bit. But I thank them for coming; I think they have witnessed something rather special that we do in this place.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 728715 relating to penalties for offences arising from social media posts.
Parkinson’s Disease
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 713714 relating to funding and care for people with Parkinson’s.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. The petition calls on the Government to increase funding for people with Parkinson’s and to implement the five steps of the Parky charter. With more than 113,000 signatures, the petition is not just a call for change; it is the collective voice of a community that has waited too long for meaningful action.
Parkinson’s is one of the fastest growing neurological conditions in the world. It affects more than 116,000 people in the UK, and that number is expected to rise to 173,000 by 2030. These are not just statistics; they are our neighbours, friends and family members. Behind each number is a story of resilience, daily struggle and hope.
The Parky charter is a powerful five-point plan created by the “Movers and Shakers” podcast group. It is backed by Parkinson’s UK, and aims to improve the lives of those living with Parkinson’s. It calls for faster access to specialists; clear and immediate information; a Parkinson’s passport to ensure joined-up support; comprehensive support across health and social services; and renewed investment in research for a cure.
Paul Davies
There is a competition. I will give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore).
Baggy Shanker
Initiatives such as Derby County Community Trust’s Parkinson’s walking football programme are doing fantastic work to boost physical health and build a community for people with Parkinson’s. Does my hon. Friend agree that, by coupling investment in the Parkinson’s support workforce with such community initiatives, we can help every person with Parkinson’s to live with the dignity and support they deserve?
Paul Davies
I absolutely agree. The strength of the community around investment and specialist support is of key importance.
Chris Bloore
As the son of someone suffering from Parkinson’s—both my uncles have Parkinson’s and my grandad sadly died of Parkinson’s complications—I was struck by the fluctuating nature of the condition. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best parts of the Parkinson’s passport is that people will not have to go through reassessment, when we know that this degenerative condition will only get worse for many people?
Paul Davies
I will refer to that later, but I absolutely agree. The fluctuating nature of the illness means that we have to provide that.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Paul Davies
Oh, go on, before I start again—I will only lose my place otherwise.
Tim Farron
The hon. Gentleman is being incredibly generous, and I thank him for his excellent introduction. Given that the condition is often degenerative and that, tragically, people do not get better from it, it is not outrageous that a number of integrated care boards—including mine, Lancashire and South Cumbria—are reassessing people with Parkinson’s for continuing healthcare, and that many of them are losing that care? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is wrong, and that people with such conditions should be able to guarantee that they will get the support and healthcare they have had for many years?
Paul Davies
I agree. I will refer later to ICBs, which clearly have to ensure the full, necessary support, particularly for this community. I understand the pressures they are under—we all do—but taking away support from people is a much bigger issue than people not getting support in the first place. I am sure that all of us across the House would like to work on that issue.
This plan is rooted in lived experience and offers a practical road map for change, including renewed investment—I say that to give some context; otherwise we will lose track of where we are. In April, during World Parkinson’s Day, I attended the Big Sing for Parkinson’s. That uplifting event was quite amazing and inspiring; it was full of energy, music and community spirit. It was organised by the same “Movers and Shakers” group I referred to earlier, and brought together people living with Parkinson’s, and very importantly their families, in both London and Huddersfield.
I had the pleasure of speaking to Mark Mardell, the former BBC political journalist and the lead petitioner—he is sitting at the back of the Public Gallery, and I thank him very much for the petition and for the work he is doing. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] He shared his personal journey with me and emphasised the urgent need for reform. Like the charter, the Big Sing is a celebration of resilience and a call for action.
Since July 2024, the Government have taken the following steps. The autumn Budget last year included a £600 million increase in social care funding and an £86 million boost to the disabled facilities grant. In April 2025, the Government reaffirmed their commitment to improving outcomes for neurological conditions, through initiatives such as the RightCare toolkit, the Getting It Right First Time programme and the neurology transformation programme. Spending review 2025 also pledged £29 billion in additional NHS funding by 2029, including £10 billion for technology and GP training. This is just the start in addressing the needs of those living with Parkinson’s.
An estimated 253 people with Parkinson’s live in my constituency of Colne Valley. That is as per the previous constituency boundaries, but there will be revised figures in line with the new constituency boundaries, although they are hopefully not revised upwards. West Yorkshire NHS ICB plans and delivers care for people with Parkinson’s in the ICB area. In 2023-24, the spend on admissions to hospital in that area increased by 4.9%, and the cost of each admission was just over £6,000.
However, we face extremely serious challenges. The UK ranks near the bottom in Europe for the number of neurologists per capita. Neurology services meet the 18-week referral target only about half the time. Only 44% of patients in England have access to an occupational therapist, only 62% have access to a physiotherapist and just 40% have access to a speech and language therapist. Those professionals are essential; they are not optional. The Government are addressing that issue through the broader NHS workforce strategy, which includes expanding the number of training places and reforming medical education pathways to address shortages in specialist areas such as neurology.
However, the Parky charter also highlights the importance of timely medication. For people with Parkinson’s, receiving medication within 30 minutes of the prescribed time is not a convenience; it is an absolute necessity. Yet more than half of hospitalised patients report delays. The NHS’s medicines safety improvement programme, which runs from 2024 to 2027, is a step forward, but implementation must be consistent across all trusts.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Ms Lewell. Earlier today, I was at the Parkinson’s event in the Palace, and I spoke to a surgeon who treats Parkinson’s patients every week. He told me that if more people were seen earlier, he could ensure better outcomes. Does the hon. Member agree that this battle is partly about funding that is needed now, rather than later down the line?
Paul Davies
Once again, I absolutely agree. I will certainly refer later to funding, which is a key issue. This is about resources and about making sure that that help is there as quickly as possible. Obviously, the longer it takes to provide that support, the more this disease hits people—the impact is far greater.
The Parky charter also addresses the personal independence payment system. As we know and as was said earlier, Parkinson’s is a fluctuating condition, and assessments often fail to capture its complexity. The Government are now working with Parkinson’s UK and individuals with lived experience to reform the PIP assessment, aiming to make it much more reflective of fluctuating conditions. The review is expected to report in autumn 2026, and the Minister has pledged that the voices of the Parkinson’s community will be central to the process. The Government have expressed a desire to return to routine face-to-face assessments, but have also indicated that for those with very severe conditions, full assessments may be waived if sufficient medical evidence is provided.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
In terms of treating those suffering from Parkinson’s, does the hon. Member agree that best practice should be shared across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland so that everybody gets the best treatment right across our United Kingdom?
Paul Davies
I could not agree more. I will speak later about the postcode lottery, although it is not just a postcode lottery; it is across the whole nation. The hon. Member is absolutely right: we should be doing everything we can to ensure consistency of support and adequate support across the nation.
Innovation also offers hope. Produodopa—I think I probably said that better today than the last time I was here—was approved for NHS use in 2024. Earlier today, I was at an event organised by Parkinson’s UK and I was talking to a specialist—a neurologist—who was talking about the impact of medication and how much difference that will make. It was fascinating, and that five minutes was of huge value in helping me to understand the impact.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
On the question of innovation, the University of Wolverhampton, in my constituency of Wolverhampton West, recently launched a new course, in collaboration with the British Judo Association, to enable those suffering with Parkinson’s to remain active and to increase their confidence with physical activity. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need a multidisciplinary, comprehensive approach to Parkinson’s care, that this kind of support is crucial to supplement the specialist medical care he has spoken about, and that that is the best way to support those who are suffering from this awful disease?
Paul Davies
Again, I absolutely agree. I know from talking to one of my constituents, Liz Ryan, that that physical support and that ability to do something, get involved in activities and have help are of immense value. We absolutely have to have a holistic view of this issue; it is not a simple case of just medication or taking people into a clinical environment. We have to look at what we can do within communities, as was mentioned earlier, and at how we can support people with their lives and ensure that they live their lives to their full potential.
Some of the innovative medicines can certainly be life-changing for those with severe symptoms, but staffing and funding constraints mean that many hospitals cannot offer those solutions. Access to new treatments must not be a postcode lottery.
I want to take a moment to share some encouraging news from my constituency. We currently have a neurology registrar based in Leeds who is spending a significant amount of time seeing Parkinson’s patients in Huddersfield. He works alongside a dedicated doctor who also travels from Leeds to support patients at Huddersfield Royal infirmary. Just last month, they met the operations director at Huddersfield Royal infirmary, who shared some good news: in December, the trust will be advertising for a consultant neurologist with a special interest in Parkinson’s.
The role will be based in Leeds but will include a significant commitment to patients in Huddersfield. That is a direct result of our local campaign, and in particular the tireless work of our local Parkinson’s community group, led by Liz Ryan MBE and Dr Chris Ryan. It shows what can be achieved when patients, families, clinicians and elected representatives work together.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for leading today’s debate, and the Movers and Shakers for promoting both the debate and the Parky charter. My hon. Friend talks about working together. One of the issues I have heard from constituents in Stevenage is misdiagnosis at the outset, where GPs have not identified the condition or referred patients to the right pathway. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just about funding, but about training as well?
Paul Davies
Certainly. In the discussion I referred to earlier with the neurologist specialist, we talked quite a bit about that as well: the difficulty with diagnosis and the similarities between Parkinson’s and other neurological illnesses and issues. My hon. Friend is right: there is absolutely a need to ensure that GPs at least recognise some triggers or areas so that patients can get specialist support. Without early diagnosis, many people suffer unnecessarily for many years, and the support that could help to alleviate some of these issues is not getting to them.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
On early diagnosis, this is not just about GPs’ ability to diagnose, but about patients getting neurology appointments. Does the hon. Member agree that more people would be able to get the clinical care and support they need if they were able to get such an appointment within the first 18 weeks?
Paul Davies
Absolutely. One of our calls in the Parky charter is for that additional support. It is crucial that those specialists are available. We recognise that there is a shortage across the country, but we have to work hard to fill that gap as soon as possible. I totally agree with the hon. Member. Going back to the work being done in my constituency, I want to say a heartfelt thank you to everyone who has supported that effort.
Parkinson’s demands our attention, compassion and action. The Government have made some progress, but clearly the petitioners would like to see more done. I urge the Minister to work with the Parkinson’s community, particularly the petitioners, to implement the Parky charter, especially in the following areas: invest in the Parkinson’s workforce; ensure timely access to medication and specialists; and expand access to innovative treatments. I welcome the commitment shown by the Minister, who has recognised the urgency of improving care and support for people with Parkinson’s. Now is the time to turn that commitment into concrete change through funding, reform and compassion.
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
I will need to put a two-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I will keep my remarks brief because the debate is so well attended. It is a real privilege to speak in this debate on behalf of so many people in my constituency who have campaigned tirelessly to improve care and support for those living with Parkinson’s. Parkinson’s UK tells me that in Bexhill and Battle, around 377 people live with Parkinson’s.
I pay special tribute to my constituents Linda, Helen and Vivienne, who join us in the Public Gallery today. They are part of a fantastic local Parkinson’s group, which campaigns with energy, determination and an unwavering commitment to the community, and their advocacy has brought the realities of living with Parkinson’s to the forefront, highlighting not just the challenges but practical solutions. Their work has also been key in raising awareness locally around the Parky charter petition. I am immensely proud that Bexhill and Battle recorded 576 signatures, the highest number anywhere in the UK. That is a testament to the strength of feeling in our area and the dedication of campaigners who ensured every voice was heard.
The charter aims to highlight delays in diagnosis, fragmented care, failed benefits assessments and underinvestment in research as key areas where we need to do better. Delays in diagnosis can have irreversible consequences. Around 21,000 people in the UK currently live with Parkinson’s undiagnosed. Access to a full multidisciplinary team is another central pillar of good care, yet only 44% of people have access to an occupational therapist; 62% to a physiotherapist; and 40% to a speech and language therapist. Research is needed to create a brighter future for Parkinson’s sufferers. Currently, there is no cure and treatment options are limited. With someone diagnosed every 20 minutes in the UK and 25 million people affected globally, the need for new therapies is urgent.
Closer to home, we have seen some encouraging steps in local Parkinson’s services. Our local trust has signed up to Parkinson’s Connect, allowing direct referral at the point of diagnosis. The trust now supports around 800 patients and the specialist team has grown from one to four staff members over the past two years. Home visits and outreach clinics are planned, which could make a meaningful difference once fully operational, but progress remains uneven.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Parkinson’s, it is my privilege to take part in this debate. In May this year I was delighted to secure the first substantive debate on Parkinson’s held in the Chamber. It is fantastic to see that as a result of that tenacious campaign we have not had to wait long for this next opportunity. I want to start by noting the incredible feat of securing over 100,000 signatures on the petition raised by Mark Mardell on behalf of the Movers and Shakers.
In Scotland there are around 14,000 people diagnosed with Parkinson’s, and every single day another seven people are told they have this disease—one of the fastest-growing neurological conditions in the world. In my constituency there are 235 people living with Parkinson’s, each of whom are supported by carers, both paid and unpaid, family members and clinicians who work tirelessly to ensure they can live their very best quality life. But when we look at the health economics of Parkinson’s, people living with the condition are seven times more likely to be among the very highest users of health services, falling into a category defined as high-cost, high-need patients, along with approximately 5% of the general population. Meeting the needs of that accounts for more health spending than the remaining population put together.
We would expect that this group of people are able to access consistent gold standard care and support, yet they face some of the starkest postcode lotteries anywhere in the UK. In the NHS Forth Valley local authority in my constituency, people referred for neurological support are typically seen quickly, but in NHS Fife the median wait for the first neurology appointment is 31 weeks, stretching to 87 weeks for some. You can imagine not knowing that something is wrong and having to wait for almost two years before a specialist can help you to understand what is happening to you. Can you imagine the impact on your loved ones? We must always remember the emotional and social cost to people.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, while tackling Parkinson’s and highlighting the issue today is critical, we also have to make sure that we look at Parkinson’s with dementia and all the other challenges that come with such a complex set of health issues.
Graeme Downie
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the complexity of Parkinson’s itself and the other conditions it presents with is another reason why this is something we must tackle immediately. I want to make sure I am not using up other people’s time by repeating some of the information in the Parky charter. However, I think there is a need for speedy care and instant information, and I echo the point raised earlier about the Parkinson’s passport and making sure that that involves the devolved Administrations, so that touchpoints are truly connected and best practice is delivered wherever possible.
The financial cost of living with Parkinson’s is immense. On average it costs a household £21,986 per year, and people with Parkinson’s are 9% more likely to be incorrectly assessed for PIP or adult disability payment in Scotland, something I hope that the Minister will address in her closing remarks as well.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I will show people how to do a 30-minute speech in two minutes. I congratulate the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) on setting the scene, and thank him for that. I am the DUP’s health spokesman, so I know many people in my constituency suffer from Parkinson’s and I know about the devastating effects it can have on aspects of their lives. I give a big thanks to Parkinson’s UK. Many of them are in the Gallery today, and I thank them for all the help that they have sent to us.
I want to present some stats on three questions in the short time I have. In my constituency of Strangford there are 272 people living with Parkinson’s and a further 694 people in the South Eastern trust area. We expect that this year 98 more people will have Parkinson’s. Shockingly, around one in five people do not have proper access to a Parkinson’s specialist nurse—1,328 people in Northern Ireland. It is lovely to see the Minister in her place; I thank her for being here. My first request to her is to ensure that, as the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) said, the four regions—England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—work together. We can do it better together and we should always try to do so.
They say that, with adaptations, travel costs and additional energy payments, it costs almost £22,000 a year to have Parkinson’s. That is a salary. I want to highlight the issue of Parkinson’s and personal independence payments, which I deal with all the time in my office. I say this with respect: I am not quite sure whether the person who does the PIP checks has the knowledge to understand what Parkinson’s is and how PIP should be involved. That is my second ask to the Minister. There is no doubt that change is needed.
My third ask is research. We are aware of the motor and non-motor symptoms that come with Parkinson’s. We must have more research. Let us find a cure in our lifetime. They say that in 10 years’ time, they will find the cure for cancer—well, let us find a cure for Parkinson’s as well. That is my hope. Timely diagnosis, specialist care and community support remain inconsistent across the region, leaving many individuals and families navigating the condition without the full resources they need.
Mary Glindon (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) on securing this debate. I have had the honour in the past of being the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Parkinson’s, which is very forceful, and rightly so.
I want to address a couple of things, starting with the workforce. It is crucial to situate the point about shortages within the context of the forthcoming refreshed workforce plan. The Government have a golden opportunity to fix problems that have blighted Parkinson’s diagnosis and care for years. As with many other conditions, people rely on Parkinson’s diagnosis to access vital support. However, recent research by Parkinson’s UK suggests that up to 21,000 people are undiagnosed. The neurology waiting list stands at more than 226,000, and only half are seen with the 18-week target. At the root of that is our lack of neurologists.
However, for many patients, receiving a diagnosis is only part of the battle. Around one in five do not have access to a specialist nurse. There are also alarming shortages of occupational therapists, physiotherapists and speech and language therapists. Adequate access to specialists and multidisciplinary care is crucial for managing such a complex condition and preventing unplanned hospital visits.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
In advance of this debate, my constituent Tony contacted me to say that he had been diagnosed with Parkinson’s in 2019 but has only seen a specialist three times in the six years that have followed. Does the hon. Lady agree that access to a specialist is vital, not least for quelling anxiety, but also to help those with Parkinson’s to develop plans to help them to live independent lives?
Mary Glindon
The hon. Gentleman has eloquently described the very real problem of what happens after diagnosis.
Sitting alongside the Government’s workforce plan, a new, modern service framework for neurological conditions would set clear, evidence-based objectives and standards for care delivery.
Mary Glindon
Sorry—I do not know that I have time to give way. Too many people want to speak.
A framework would drive faster diagnosis and treatment, boost access to multidisciplinary teams and improve secondary prevention. I urge the Minister to consider introducing a framework for neurology in the Government’s first wave of national service frameworks in 2026. Will the Minister ask the Secretary of State to meet Parkinson’s UK and the Neurological Alliance to discuss how the framework could help to improve patient outcomes?
On financial support, Parkinson’s comes with a significant financial cost. People with Parkinson’s spend over £7,500 a year on average just to manage their condition. However, the personal independence payment system has failed the Parkinson’s community since its creation 12 years ago. Inaccurate assessments are far too common, and too often people must bear the physical and emotional strain of the appeals process. In the previous debate, the Minister offered to relay concerns about PIP to the ministerial team and the Department for Work and Pensions. Against the backdrop of the “Pathways to Work” Green Paper, and now that the Timms review has been launched, will the Minister make representations in the strongest possible terms that any reform of PIP must deliver fair and accurate awards for people with Parkinson’s?
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
In the interest of time, I will concentrate on PIP. The evidence of the past 10 years tells us that the PIP system copes very poorly with fluctuating neurological conditions. As a member of the Work and Pensions Committee, I constantly hear of people being denied PIP even when diagnosed with some of the most severe conditions.
Reports suggest that people with Parkinson’s are more likely to be inaccurately assessed than people with any other condition. I have seen that close up. One of my constituents in Horsham had Parkinson’s for 30 years, yet continued to be denied PIP. Nationally, over 430,000 people are stuck waiting for PIP reviews, causing delays of £24 million a month in essential support payments. We are seeing the opposite of overdiagnosis: almost 302,000 PIP decisions have been overturned on appeal in just two years. That is not an occasional error; it is evidence of a system failing on an industrial scale. I very much hope that the forthcoming Timms review will operate in a genuinely collaborative way, as promised, to put this service on a stronger footing.
When support is denied, people lose their mobility, their independence and their ability to keep working; they fall into crisis, end up in A&E, or even worse; and all of that comes at a far greater cost to the state than if we had supported them properly in the first place. Cutting support does not necessarily save money; it simply shifts the burden on to hospitals, social care, carers and families. People with Parkinson’s deserve dignity, independence and a system that understands their condition. Let’s give it to them.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
It is a privilege to speak for Worthing West, where support for the Parky petition has been strong, particularly in our amazing local Parkinson’s group. Parkinson’s is one of the fastest-growing neurological conditions. Behind the statistics are many people coping with tremor, rigidity and “off” periods—and carers holding everything together. Too many constituents face long waits for diagnosis, inconsistent annual reviews and patchy access to specialist nurses and community rehab.
In West Sussex alone, more than 4,000 people are living with Parkinson’s. Most of them are over 65 years old, but there are also many younger people who have Parkinson’s and are trying to work and support their families. The Government have acknowledged the challenges, and we have already heard about the RightCare toolkit and the neurology transformation programme, but without targeted workforce and implementation funding, the guidance will not translate into timely care for patients, especially given the plan to restore the 18-week referral-to-treatment standard by 2029.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. She mentioned the Parkinson’s group in her constituency. In my constituency, the wonderful Mervyn Dunkley, Jane Hua and their team run brilliant weekly Parkinson’s move and shout classes at the Fairfield leisure centre in Dartford for people living with Parkinson’s disease. Does she agree that every community deserve a Mervyn and Jane and a roll-out of such classes? They are of huge benefit to people suffering from Parkinson’s across the country, and more people could benefit.
Dr Cooper
It is incredibly timely that we are talking about this issue in the context of the NHS 10-year strategy, which will provide a shift from treatment to prevention. A lot can be done in the preventive space for those with Parkinson’s, as with so many other neurological disorders. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention; I can slow down slightly now.
The Parky charter asks for speedy specialists, instant information on day one, a cross-condition health conditions passport, comprehensive multidisciplinary care close to home, and a sustained quest for a cure. Alongside that, I ask the Minister to consider a near-term date to deliver 18-week neurology referrals for suspected Parkinson’s; to ensure annual specialist reviews for people with diagnosed Parkinson’s; to expand specialist nurse and multidisciplinary team posts in each area of the country—no more postcode lottery; to pilot the cross-condition health conditions passport, although I appreciate that there are links there to the upcoming NHS App work; to publish access standards and dashboards—
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
Order. I call Gregory Stafford. My apologies; we were having issues with the clock. It should be okay now.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) on introducing this debate.
Every hour, two more people in the United Kingdom hear the life-changing words, “You have Parkinson’s.” As I have said before, for me, this is personal. A close family member was first diagnosed with Parkinson’s and later with progressive supranuclear palsy, a more aggressive condition, but my family’s experience is far from unique. Numerous constituents have contacted me about this debate—including Ellie from Farnham, who is in the Public Gallery today—and they all speak plainly about their daily reality, including mobility issues, speech challenges and the emotional strain that falls on individuals and their families. Their stories show extraordinary resilience, but also the gaps in support that remain.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the current pathway for innovative technology to be licensed is both costly and time consuming, meaning inventions that would help his constituents, such as BeechBand, which uses vibrotactile stimulation to decrease symptoms, face delays in testing and potential introduction, and that we need to find a way forward?
Gregory Stafford
I have also been approached by BeechBand. I hope the Minister agrees that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and the Government must ensure that where there are new, innovative technologies that could help sufferers of Parkinson’s or any other disease condition, they can get to the frontline to help people as quickly as possible.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Does the hon. Member agree that early detection is key to fighting this disease? Is he, like me, encouraged by research from Moorfields eye hospital and University College London that found that a scan of the retina—the back of the eye—can detect Parkinson’s disease seven years before any symptoms present?
Gregory Stafford
I bow to the hon. Member’s experience on that. I hope the Minister is listening carefully, because these types of innovative technologies can make a significant difference and should be rolled out as quickly as possible.
Living with Parkinson’s brings real financial strain. On average, people spend more than £7,500 each year managing their conditions. That rises to £22,000 when lost earnings are included, so support is not just a clinical need, but an economic one.
In my Farnham and Bordon constituency, which includes Haslemere, Liphook and the surrounding villages, 289 people are currently living with Parkinson’s. The fact that we are—I believe—the only constituency served by three integrated care boards of different sizes brings with it not only challenges but a chance for comparison. Despite their different sizes, some of their challenges are the same, including the increasing number of emergency admissions across all three ICBs. Those numbers lay bare the scale of need and the pressure on services, and underline the urgent requirement for earlier access to specialist care. I raised these concerns in May as the shadow Minister, but I sadly remain unconvinced that the current Government have identified Parkinson’s as a strategic priority.
The new 10-year health plan imagines neighbourhood teams of doctors, nurses, pharmacists, physiotherapists and social workers. It is a positive vision, but it will work only if Parkinson’s specialists are part of those teams. In the Health and Social Care Committee, we often hear about artificial intelligence, remote monitoring and wearable devices, all of which have the potential to transform care through early intervention and better monitoring. The Government must look at those things as well.
I will end with three clear questions. First, in May, the Minister committed to discussing support from the point of diagnosis with Parkinson’s Connect, the Parkinson’s UK programme designed to equip NHS professionals. Have those discussions taken place, and what actions will follow? Secondly, the Minister has said that Parkinson’s nurses are
“worth their weight in gold”—[Official Report, 1 May 2025; Vol. 766, c. 493WH.]
and I agree. What practical measures have been introduced to strengthen training and development for those nurses, particularly those who support patients with the most complex needs?
Thirdly, will the Minister commit to working closely with charities such as Parkinson’s UK to ensure that the 10-year plan gives patients, carers and frontline staff the support they urgently need? Members on both sides of this Chamber share one goal: to get better diagnosis, better treatment and better support for people living with Parkinson’s. Action is what brings progress, and action is what our constituents need and deserve.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for the way he introduced the debate. Given the time, I will focus on the particular challenges that the Parky charter, which I strongly support, addresses.
Parkinson’s brings additional financial challenges for people with Parkinson’s and their families. In particular, I want to highlight the prescription charges faced by many people with Parkinson’s. England is the only part of the UK where people with Parkinson’s still pay for their prescriptions because the NHS medical exemption list has barely changed since it was created in 1968. To put that in context, that is the year that the Beatles’ “Hey Jude” was the UK’s biggest-selling single, and it was before Neil Armstrong walked on the moon. Medical knowledge was far behind what it is today, and it was a long time yet before I would be born.
I gently suggest to the Minister that this is a very serious issue. People with Parkinson’s who cannot afford their prescription sometimes reduce their dose or skip medication, risking hospital admission and irreversible damage to their health. Many people with Parkinson’s already hesitate about taking medication—I think of my father, who had Parkinson’s—because they are worried about the side effects or have difficulty accepting their diagnosis. Having to pay for prescriptions simply creates an extra barrier or a reason not to start medication, but taking that medicine can significantly help with the day-to-day management of symptoms, and can prevent falls and hospital admissions.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I pay tribute to my constituent David Reid, who has done a huge amount of work to promote this petition, including by wearing his Parky charter T-shirt around the Scottish Borders. I met him most recently at the Border Union show, where he spoke about the petition’s importance and his hope that it would get enough support for us to have a debate, and here we are.
Parkinson’s impacts every aspect of people’s daily lives, from making a cup of tea to getting dressed, spending time with friends and family, and much more. According to Parkinson’s UK, around 14,000 people in Scotland have a diagnosis of Parkinson’s. Parkinson’s UK does outstanding work to support people with this terrible condition. In the Scottish Borders, I have met its teams many times, including recently in Galashiels, and have learned more about the helping hand it gives to people living with this terrible disease and to their families. I encourage anyone who is affected by Parkinson’s to attend one of its events if they need someone to talk to, need a bit more support, or simply want to get out and about to socialise. I thank everyone who volunteers for Parkinson’s UK in the Scottish Borders and across the UK. They do so much to ensure support for people living with the disease.
One in three people diagnosed with Parkinson’s are of working age, and more than 10,000 are under 50. We owe it to everyone with Parkinson’s to ensure they have the support they need and the best life they possible can.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
I want to thank my constituent Ruth, who attended my recent drop-in surgery and asked me to speak today about an issue that is personal not only to her, but to my family and thousands of other families in my constituency and across the country. Ruth was diagnosed with Parkinson’s in March 2023 after a long, fragmented and exhausting journey. She went from GP to GP, and from test to test, waiting months and years for appointments. As her symptoms worsened, she felt that she had no choice but to seek a private neurologist, and she finally received the diagnosis that changed her life.
Community, information and honesty are the things that have helped Ruth since. That is why the “Movers and Shakers” podcast and organisations such as Parkinson’s UK are so important. Public figures speaking openly about related issues such as depression, the fear of falling and navigating care have cut through the stigma and reached thousands who felt unseen.
The Parky charter sets out clear, reasonable asks: faster access to consultants and follow-up care; clear guidance on diagnosis; a Parkinson’s passport to ease access to support; and timely access to physiotherapies, speech therapies and wider services. Parkinson’s is the fastest growing neurological condition in the world. We need Parliament to act now. Families are asking for a system that does not leave them waiting, fighting or falling through the cracks.
Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
Thank you for calling me, Ms Lewell, and many congratulations to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) on securing the debate.
As many Members have already said, a huge number of families have acquaintance with Parkinson’s. My old dad, who served in this House until 1997, lived with Parkinson’s and I am hugely honoured to be the patron of the Royal Sutton Coldfield and North Birmingham Parkinson’s Group, which does so much good and hard work in the royal town and elsewhere.
I pay special credit to Movers and Shakers, which is led by people living with Parkinson’s. Some of them are in the Public Gallery today. Movers and Shakers was started by Rory Cellan-Jones and Sir Nicholas Mostyn. The “Movers and Shakers” podcast has made a huge difference to so many people, and I am extremely grateful to Sir Nicholas for agreeing to come to Royal Sutton Coldfield next April.
There are just two key points that I want to emphasise today. The first is that we need more specialists and better access to specialists. We do not have enough neurologists in this country. People are supposed to have to wait for only 18 weeks to see a neurologist, but there is clear evidence of people waiting for between one and two years to see one, and of course most of those people will not have any medication in that period. There are 720 neurologists in the UK. There are 4,400 neurologists in Poland, which has half the UK’s population.
The second point is that we need more support for research. Inevitably, that is about funding. We need to harness the private and public sector together to maximise that funding. These two points seem to me to be two of the five key points that we are discussing in this debate.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell.
Imagine being told that you have a progressive, incurable condition and then waiting over a year just to see a specialist. That is the reality for so many people with Parkinson’s and the number of people with Parkinson’s is set to double by 2050. When my constituent Carol was diagnosed with Parkinson’s in 2009, she was only 46 years old. Consultants told her then that they hoped a cure might come within a decade, but 16 years later there is nothing.
At this point, I must declare an interest. My daughter Molly is a PhD researcher with a brilliant team at the University of Southampton that is working to understand Parkinson’s, so that better treatments and cures can be found. As a member of the all-party parliamentary group on Parkinson’s, I know that great work is also happening elsewhere, particularly through the Brain Bank at Imperial College London. However, research alone is not enough; people living with Parkinson’s need care now.
Just before the general election last year, the current Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, then in his shadow role, admitted in the “Parky Politics in the Pub” podcast that there were not enough neurologists and committed to fix it. He said:
“We campaigned hard on workforce to get the last Government to commit to doubling the number of medical places so we can train up staff—especially in neurology, where we have shortages.”
He said he would deliver that workforce plan, yet today waiting times are unacceptably long—not just for initial appointments, but for ongoing care.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I pay tribute to the 459 constituents of mine who have signed this important petition. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as well as swift access to neurologists, access to specialist nurses is absolutely vital, as is having a named GP for long-term conditions such as Parkinson’s disease? One of my constituents who wrote to me said that her father has just had his medication changed and is having real problems with it, but he will not get to see anybody until March. We could reduce unplanned admissions by improving support.
Vikki Slade
I am so pleased that my hon. Friend has made that intervention, because I am just coming on to tell people about my constituent in Wimborne. He said that he, his brother and his nephew have all been diagnosed with Parkinson’s. When he was first diagnosed, he saw a Parkinson’s nurse every six months and then saw one annually. However, because there is now just one specialist Parkinson’s nurse covering my constituency, he has seen nobody for two years.
Karen, who is also from Wimborne, emailed me and said that she had an appointment with a neurologist and then one with a nurse, but now faces a 14-month wait for her next appointment. Across England, as we have heard, only half of patients meet the 18-week target, even though we know that early support—physiotherapy, speech therapy and clear information—keeps people healthy for longer.
If the Government are serious about transforming the NHS, they cannot allow people with progressive conditions who need a multidisciplinary approach to be forgotten. The NHS workforce plan is due in the spring. What assurance can the Minister give that neurology and Parkinson’s care in particular will feature strongly? It is great that the Government have expanded medical places, but what assessment has been made of how that will translate to neurology services? Given the training time required to generate such expertise, what is being done to bring consultants here from abroad to tackle the crisis now?
In my constituency, 333 people are living with Parkinson’s. On average, each one will be admitted to hospital at least once a year, two-thirds of them in an emergency, which will mean spending a week, unplanned, in an acute bed. That is simply not acceptable and we need to do better now.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
In Stroud, 295 people have Parkinson’s disease, yet we had 960 admissions for it. Although we have a good turnout for the debate today, I believe that Parkinson’s gets less attention than other degenerative diseases. That must change, because it is much more common. As a GP, I would say that diagnosis for the disease is difficult. It can present in a huge number of ways—40 different symptoms, often with rigidity. The tremor can be due to other things such as essential tremor. It can even present with constipation or depression, and indeed with dementia, where it is called Lewy body dementia, which is associated with Parkinson’s. A GP cannot make the diagnosis; they have to wait for the outpatient specialist to make it, which is why the wait is so criminal.
We need comprehensive and co-ordinated care. I believe that neighbourhood health centres will be fantastic at delivering this care. Parkinson’s specialist nurses are absolutely crucial, as are multidisciplinary teams with physios and occupational therapists. Social prescribing—signposting and getting the right benefits—is also incredibly important. Indeed, there is good evidence that dancing is really good for Parkinson’s disease—that is something a little innovative. We need timely diagnosis of patients with Parkinson’s disease, and a co-ordinated and comprehensive care plan; and most of all, we need to give them back their dignity.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. As we have heard today, Parkinson’s is a life-changing, degenerative and deeply debilitating condition. I am grateful that we are taking the time to debate the issue and give voice to people living with Parkinson’s—people such as Matt Eagles, who lives in my constituency. Unlike many Parkinson’s sufferers, Matt has lived with the condition for more than 50 years. He was diagnosed at just seven years old. Parkinson’s, however, is not the defining thing about Matt; what truly stands out is his positivity. He speaks openly about the vulnerability and heartache, along with the courage, resilience and optimism that has helped him to navigate life with Parkinson’s. Matt has done a brilliant job of promoting the petition today, and is a passionate advocate for improving Parkinson’s care. Today’s debate is not only about recognising and championing people like Matt, who face the adversity of Parkinson’s with such optimism; it is a call to action for us as parliamentarians to engage seriously with how we can improve access to care and work towards a cure.
The Parky charter highlights some important changes to consider. Ensuring that everyone suspected of having Parkinson’s can see a specialist promptly and then have regular follow-ups is vital for timely and effective care. We need to provide people with immediate access to clear, relevant information when they are diagnosed, while the ongoing quest for a cure offers hope for a future where Parkinson’s no longer imposes such a heavy burden on those affected. Hope, support and dignity are what people with Parkinson’s deserve. I am deeply grateful to the 313 constituents in Chester South and Eddisbury who signed the petition, and to all those working towards a better future for those with Parkinson’s.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell, in this very important debate. I thank Parkinson’s UK, Parkinson’s Care and especially the “Movers and Shakers” podcast, whose dedication and campaigning led to the huge number of people signing the petition. I am sure the Minister has seen how many MPs are in the Chamber and how many people are in the Public Gallery today. Lots of people will be watching at home as well.
In Putney, 163 people have Parkinson’s disease. Across the South West London ICB, 2,540 people were admitted with the disease in 2024-25. Overall, the NHS spends £325 million a year on unplanned admissions of people with Parkinson’s. This is a very big issue, which rightly deserves the attention it is getting today. I hope for some great answers from the Minister about what the NHS will be doing. First, we need more specialists for faster diagnosis. Many Members have mentioned the delays in diagnosis today, which is true in my constituency, but also in Northern Ireland, where one in 20 people wait more than five years for a diagnosis. Has the Minister spoken to the Northern Ireland Health Minister, Mike Nesbitt, about this issue? What steps are the Government taking to solve the Parkinson’s diagnosis crisis? Secondly, we need instant information. St George’s University has the vital Parkinson’s Connect resource, and it is using it, but can that be rolled out throughout the country?
Thirdly, we need the Parkinson’s passport on social security. As many Members have mentioned, it is a fluctuating condition. The PIP system is failing people with Parkinson’s and their families and carers. Has that been raised with the Minister for Social Security and Disability, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms)? Comprehensive care and more funding will allow us to deliver care, dignity and hope to everyone living with Parkinson’s and their families.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
I pay tribute to everyone in Wales and across the United Kingdom who has campaigned so hard for people living with Parkinson’s. In Wales, we expect the number of people living with Parkinson’s to rise to more than 9,000 by 2030. Yet too many people trying to access the most basic elements of care, from diagnosis to rehabilitation, still face a postcode lottery. Welsh health boards do not have reliable plans to replace specialist staff when they leave, which means long gaps in access to expert care. Given the ongoing shortages in neurology, people can wait far too long to see anyone with the right expertise. For a degenerative condition that demands regular and specialist review, that is simply unacceptable.
Wales saw some of the worst disruption to rehabilitation services during the pandemic, and many of those pressures have not fully eased. People with Parkinson’s still report difficulties accessing physiotherapy, speech and language therapy and occupational therapy. When rehabilitation breaks down, people deteriorate physically, mentally and socially, and carers are left to carry an enormous burden—many are older spouses whose health is already fragile, and they deserve a system that recognises and supports them. We must also fix the basics. In Wales, 73% of people with Parkinson’s in hospital say that they do not receive their medication on time. A delay of just 30 minutes can make the difference between going home or staying another week on a ward. That should not be happening.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) on his excellent opening speech. In June this year, my father-in-law, Adrian Lawther, died after living with Parkinson’s for more than a decade. Adrian was a smart, decent and unassuming man, and very much lived the lessons of “two eyes and one mouth”. He did not miss a trick and spied everything, but only ever spoke when he needed to—a lesson he never managed to teach me, but one that I suspect quite a few of us around here would benefit from. He had an interest in the world around him and the world far overseas, and was incredibly kind and welcoming to me—which is no guarantee when marrying someone’s daughter. But for all the memories, the love, the grief and the sadness, we also saw up close the cruel impact of Parkinson’s on a person’s dignity and their quality of life, and on those around them.
Graeme Downie
I thank my hon. Friend for the moving way he has talked about his father-in-law. Does he agree that what he has said emphasises the need to make sure that families are also supported during Parkinson’s care?
Adam Jogee
I could not have put that better myself.
In Newcastle-under-Lyme, hundreds of local people live with Parkinson’s, and that number is rising. It is a life-altering disease that destroys personal autonomy; it affects someone’s ability to talk, swallow, move and write. Cruel is not the word. For those who are suffering and need treatment now, the lack of care provision and the inaccessible treatment is simply unacceptable.
I think of my friend Alderman Lizzie Shenton, a former leader of Newcastle-under-Lyme district borough council, who I saw just last week. She has been diagnosed with the early onset of Parkinson’s in her 50s. She is very healthy and still has much do to. Lizzie had to wait 10 months for a consultant appointment to make a formal diagnosis, and she has been waiting for her DaT scan for five months, without which no medication or treatment can be prescribed.
I pay tribute to the fantastic work being done by the North Staffs Parkinson’s UK branch—the chair, Lorraine, the treasurer, Councillor David Grocott and the whole committee who do wonderful things week in and week out. I thank the Dubb family from the Westlands in Newcastle-under-Lyme for their annual fundraising 5k run and a massive cookout at their home—which smelled very good—all raising money for Parkinson’s UK. My constituent Julie Hibbs has long campaigned to add Parkinson’s to the medical exemption list. The Minister knows that I support those calls—I have raised them with her and others, and I will continue to do so.
The funding and availability of care for Parkinson’s patients do not match the severity of this disease and the desperate need for proper treatment. Getting those suffering from Parkinson’s the right care at the right time is critical to ensuring that their quality of life is as high as it can be, and that the cost of providing that is used as efficiently as possible. As more and more of us get Parkinson’s, those who will suffer from it and their loved ones deserve to know that the question of getting the right treatment is not one they will ever have to worry about.
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
I am terribly sorry; we are not able to take any more Back-Bench speeches. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I would like to begin by thanking the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for securing this debate and for making such a well-articulated case for why more needs to be done to support people with Parkinson’s. I also thank him for mentioning the Big Sing, which brought to mind a brilliant event I went to in July: Picnic in the Park, hosted by the Parkinson’s UK Mid Sussex group. Their choir and their band were there, and we all had a brilliant singalong. I very much enjoyed it, and I pay tribute to the group for what it is doing—bringing people together and reducing isolation, both for those with Parkinson’s and their loved ones.
There are people like my constituent Sophie, whose mum Janet was diagnosed with Parkinson’s six years ago. Janet was active, spoke multiple languages and had an impressive career in business, but Sophie says that Parkinson’s has robbed Janet of much of who she is. Despite raising the loss of her sense of smell with her GP several times, as well as other symptoms such as increasingly small handwriting, it still took more than five years for Janet to get a diagnosis.
We know that Parkinson’s predominantly affects men, but much less is known or understood about Parkinson’s in women, including how symptoms might interact with menstrual cycles and the menopause. Sophie worries that the dismissive response Janet received when trying to get a diagnosis may be a very common experience for women across the board, and I think Sophie may be on to something here.
The e-petition bringing forward the Parky charter matters profoundly, and it makes a lot of sense. I will not spend time repeating many of the points that hon. Members have made in the past hour.
Rachel Gilmour
Does my hon. Friend agree that the challenges faced by those living with Parkinson’s are far from isolated, and that across neurological conditions such as Parkinson’s, multiple sclerosis, ME or chronic fatigue syndrome, there are calls for a joined-up neuro-optimal care pathway? A coherent national strategy is what is required.
Alison Bennett
My hon. Friend makes her point very well, and I agree with it.
Rather than repeat what other hon. Members have said, I will move to identifying the three or four main areas that the Liberal Democrats want to highlight, hopefully giving the Minister more time to address the many points that hon. Members have raised so far in the debate. Those issues are mental health, social care, work and medicines availability.
On mental health—and I think this is a critical point—nearly half of people with Parkinson’s experience anxiety or depression, and up to 60% will experience psychotic symptoms as the condition progresses. Yet mental health support remains inconsistent and inadequate generally, and specifically for people with Parkinson’s.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
My hon. Friend is quite right to highlight the importance of mental health support for people suffering from Parkinson’s disease. Will she join me in paying tribute to my constituent Peter Cook, who is doing great work as a trustee of the Parkinsons.Me charity, and also to Paul Mayhew-Archer MBE, who, as well as having written “The Vicar of Dibley,” is now doing fantastic work campaigning for people suffering from Parkinson’s disease?
Alison Bennett
Of course I am happy to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Peter Cook and to Paul Mayhew-Archer for their campaigning.
The Liberal Democrats believe that people deserve regular mental health check-ups, access to walk-in mental health hubs and timely specialist dementia care. No one should have to fight the system while they are already fighting their condition. Social care is a crisis that cannot be ignored any longer. Parkinson’s is a progressive and fluctuating condition that affects every aspect of daily life, yet people are too often left without the support that they need to live with dignity.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that diagnosis is just the beginning, because too many people tell us that after receiving that life-changing news, they just feel abandoned? Nearly one quarter receive no information about Parkinson’s services and no adequate information about their condition, so does my hon. Friend agree that we need to ensure that they receive that?
Alison Bennett
I am happy to agree. My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and it also applies to the loved ones of people receiving a Parkinson’s diagnosis.
We need better social care for all people when they are faced with a disability. We need there to be more respite breaks, paid carer’s leave and a system that recognises the specific needs of people with neurological conditions.
On work—here I am thinking in particular of my friend Rob, whom many of my hon. Friends will also know—we must ensure that people who have Parkinson’s and are of working age can live and work and participate in work with independence and dignity wherever possible. That is why my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I are fighting for a new right to flexible working, and the right to work from home for every disabled person unless there is a significant business reason otherwise.
The Liberal Democrats also want to adopt a new accessibility standard for public spaces and embed in UK law the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. We want to ensure that support moves with the person and does not just stay with the original employer. That is why we are calling for adjustment passports—records of the modifications, equipment and adjustments that a disabled person uses—so that when they change jobs, their support goes with them. That seems to be plain common sense.
On medicines and their availability, we must speed up access to new treatments. It is simply unacceptable that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has seen its workforce cut.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I want to commend the Poole and District Branch of Parkinson’s UK but also, on that particular point, tell the story of Carla, whose husband was affected by a lack of access to time-critical medication. Does the hon. Member agree that it is critical that the Government do everything they can to speed up access?
Alison Bennett
I agree wholeheartedly.
The MHRA workforce has been cut by 40%, and that has slowed down the arrival of new therapies for people who desperately need them. We should be halving the time it takes for new treatments to reach patients, not lengthening it.
None of this is impossible. It requires us to listen to people living with Parkinson’s—really listen to their fears, needs, hopes and experiences. The Parky charter sets out a clear and achievable path. It demands dignity and fairness, and that the Government finally deliver the timely, specialist, compassionate care that every person with Parkinson’s—like Sophie’s mum, Janet—should be able to count on. Today, let us send a message to everyone living with Parkinson’s: we see you; we hear you; and we stand with you. I want to send an equally clear message to the Government and the Minister, whom I thank for being here today: the time for half measures and for excuses is over. The time to act—seriously, decisively and with compassion—is now.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for securing this debate and I thank the charities and organisations including Parkinson’s UK and the Royal College of Emergency Medicine for meeting me and sharing the insights into Parkinson’s that they have as patients and clinicians.
In the UK, 166,000 people have Parkinson’s. It is a progressive neurological disorder that can start with a tremor or muscle stiffness, sleep problems or a whole range of symptoms, and end in complications such as swallowing difficulties, falls and bone fractures. Like all degenerative conditions, it impacts not only the individual but their family. It is vital that our NHS has the neurologists and therapists to care for people with Parkinson’s, because they depend on them for world-leading care. Unfortunately, this is an area in which we could do better. The UK was ranked 44th out of 45 European countries for the number of neurologists per head of population. The UK has only one neurologist per 100,000 patients, compared with one for every 25,000 patients in France and Germany, and one in five patients here has no access to a Parkinson’s disease nurse.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
The real-world experience in North Norfolk is very much like that. It is a struggle to secure the care that people need. We have a shortage of specialist care and Parkinson’s nurses, and those are just some of the things that our rural health system struggles with. Does the hon. Member agree that those living with Parkinson’s in rural communities such as North Norfolk need support and care provided in a way that is equally accessible to them?
Dr Johnson
As I am a rural MP myself, the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I agree with him.
The problem is with wider specialisms, too. According to the 2022 audit by Parkinson’s UK, just 40% of people with Parkinson’s had access to a speech and language therapist, 45% had access to an occupational therapist and 62% had access to a physiotherapist. I want to particularly highlight that to the Minister because there are no treatments that slow down the progression of Parkinson’s disease, but evidence published last year suggests that exercise might do, so physiotherapy—making sure that people are doing the right exercises to help them—is important. What plans does the Minister have to recruit, train and retain the NHS Parkinson’s health workforce? For the benefit of charities, hospitals and patients, will she shed any light on how her delayed long-term workforce plan, when it is published, might assist in that mission?
As was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), Parkinson’s disease patients can live for many years, often with huge positivity. I was inspired to read of Neil Russell, a 65-year-old gentleman who ran from London to Barcelona—almost 1,000 miles—to raise money for Parkinson’s disease research. One in three of those living with Parkinson’s is of working age. It is crucial that they can get support, because many work as doctors, nurses, chief executives, scientists, journalists and in other professions. I was inspired by a meeting that I was privileged to have with Dr Acheson last week. He is not only working as an A&E consultant, after being diagnosed with Parkinson’s almost 10 years ago, but is leading work on a time-critical medicines project.
We have already heard that medicines for Parkinson’s are time critical. If people with Parkinson’s do not get their medication within 30 minutes of the prescribed time, it can lead to them being unable to walk, talk or swallow. Research by Parkinson’s UK has found that 58% of people with Parkinson’s—a clear majority—do not get their medication on time every time when in hospital. That will not only cost hospitals £65.8 million in excess bed days and readmissions, but cost over 150 people their lives this year. That is inexcusable.
Just half of NHS trusts provide staff with training for time-critical medication, and one in four trusts in England does not have policies allowing people with Parkinson’s to take their own medication in hospital. That leaves patients capable but unable to take their medication, and they suffer detriment as a result. I was pleased that last week—following repeated questions to the Minister, both in the Chamber and outside—that the Minister for Health Innovation and Safety, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), met me, Dr Simin Nikou from the RCEM, and Dr Acheson to talk about self-administration of medicines. I am pleased that the Minister was able to commit that the chief pharmaceutical officer will work with those individuals to ensure that there is a protocol for self-administered medicines in A&E for those who are capable of taking them, and to ensure that the protocols for time-critical medicines are enhanced.
NHS England launched a three-year national quality improvement initiative on time-critical medications that is not yet complete. I worried that the Minister’s eagerness to merge NHS England and her own Department may cause such ongoing initiatives to be simply lost. I encourage the Minister to correct me if I am wrong but, from conversations with her ministerial colleague, I understand that NHS England’s three-year initiative on time-critical medicines will be completed.
Research is important because, at the moment, treatment for Parkinson’s is symptom-relief treatment, not disease-modifying treatment. In fact, some of it is not symptom-relief; it is treatment to relieve side effects of the treatments that are providing symptom relief. Ramping up research is an important step towards finding better treatment, and hopefully chasing down a cure for Parkinson’s.
Between 2019 and 2024, the last Conservative Government invested almost £80 million into research for Parkinson’s disease, on top of a £375 million investment over five years for research into neurodegenerative diseases. Will the Minister confirm whether that funding commitment will be renewed as part of her Government’s spending review? What assessment has the Minister made of companies pulling out of billions of pounds of life sciences investment in the UK? How does she think that will impact critical research into conditions such as Parkinson’s? Is she working with her colleagues in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to resolve matters for the health sector?
Within the treatments that we have so far, Produodopa was approved in February 2024, and made available on the NHS, under the last Conservative Government, to around 900 people with Parkinson’s. As people with Parkinson’s often struggle with taking numerous tablets to manage fluctuating symptoms, delivering a continuous dose of medication 24 hours a day by a canula under the skin can be ideal to manage symptoms day and night. What assessment has the Minister made of the benefits of Produodopa so far? What steps is she taking to make sure that more people with Parkinson’s have access to that potentially life-changing treatment? More broadly, what is she doing to mitigate the supply issues for some Parkinson’s medications?
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Member for giving way, particularly because I had a magnificent speech I was not able to make. She is speaking about health-related issues, but I want to draw attention to the personal independence payment assessment process for people with Parkinson’s, and to reference the adult disability payment in Scotland. Does the shadow Minister agree that there is a much better system for assessing people’s needs, and would she recommend it to the Minister?
Dr Johnson
The debate today is about the Parky charter. I am sure the Minister will answer that question in her speech—at least I hope she will.
The Government established the Neuro Forum, which was designed to address the gaps in treatment and care for people affected by neurological conditions, including Parkinson’s disease, but its achievements so far are unclear. Progress in this space demands clear action, not just empty roundtables, so will the Minister confirm how many times the Neuro Forum has met in the year since it was established, what budget and resources have been allocated to it, and what its successes have been so far?
The Government want to shift towards technology. New, affordable technology is available: focused ultrasound can help with tremor; at the most invasive, there are deep brain stimulators. There is also very simple technology. I recently met the former MP Steve Double, who gave me a device that shakes to put on my wrist for a few minutes. Apparently, people find that it helps with dyskinesia, rigidity, walking problems and speech difficulties. What assessment has the Minister made of the benefits of technology as a treatment pathway for people living with Parkinson’s in the UK? What is she doing to facilitate research so that, when someone has a good idea that may benefit patients, it is brought to the fore as quickly as possible?
I note the Minister’s response to a written question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking). Will she clarify whether NHS England’s neurology transformation programme will indeed be concluding at the end of this financial year? Will she reassure us that the conclusion of the programme, which includes Parkinson’s disease treatments, is not related to the Department’s abolition of NHS England? What will she replace it with?
The linchpin of the e-petition is that it asks the Government to consider implementing the Parky charter, which encompasses faster diagnosis, better support, welfare support, access to multidisciplinary care and investment in research—all things that I and others call on the Minister to give answers to today. Given the Government’s decision to do away with the major conditions strategy, I am concerned that Parkinson’s disease will not get the research and workforce it requires.
People can live with Parkinson’s for very many years. For the quality of life of the patients and their families, greater consistency is urgently required in the administration of time-critical medicines in hospitals. Parkinson’s is a condition that is time-critical by its neurodegenerative nature; the Minister’s actions must be equally urgent and time-critical.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for introducing the debate, as well as everyone who signed the petition for raising this important issue and the many hon. Members who contributed.
I acknowledge each one of the 18 Back-Bench speeches and numerous interventions, and particularly all the constituents and campaigners that hon. and right hon. Members mentioned. We also have a packed Public Gallery, which goes to show just how important this issue is. I will attempt to answer as many questions as possible. I am unlikely to answer all of them, but my officials have noted every question asked; anything that I do not cover in my speech will be covered in writing to the hon. Member involved.
Parkinson’s disease presents one of the most complex and growing challenges for our health and care system. Given an ageing population and the condition’s rising prevalence, Parkinson’s demands not only specialist clinical expertise, but co-ordinated social care, community support, and innovative approaches to treatment and management. The impact on those affected is profound, and addressing their needs requires a system that is integrated and responsive to both current pressures and future demands.
The Parky charter is a five-point manifesto created by the Movers and Shakers to tackle what are described as “systematic failings” in care. It calls on Government to deliver five commitments: speedy access to specialists, instant information for patients, a Parkinson’s passport to streamline support, comprehensive and co-ordinated care, and a renewed quest for a cure. The charter aims to ensure timely diagnosis, dignity and better quality of life for everyone affected by this fast-growing neurological condition. I had the pleasure of meeting some of the Movers and Shakers only a few weeks ago, along with Parkinson’s UK. I recognise the urgency of their calls. I shared with them my commitment to improving outcomes for people with Parkinson’s and their families.
I acknowledge the need to improve access to Parkinson’s specialists. Through the elective recovery plan, the aim is for 92% of patients to start consultant-led treatment within 18 weeks by March 2029, supported by millions of additional elective appointments across specialties, including neurology. Our recently published 10-year health plan for England sets out a vision for neighbourhood health services, bringing multidisciplinary teams closer to communities and ensuring that Parkinson’s expertise is embedded in care pathways. We will also publish a 10-year workforce plan, which will ensure that the NHS has the right people in the right places with the right skills for patients when they need them, including patients with Parkinson’s. Those measures, combined with digital consultations and integrated care models, aim to reduce waiting times, tackle workforce shortages and deliver timely, personalised care for people living with Parkinson’s.
As of August 2025, there are over 2,000 full-time equivalent doctors working in the speciality of neurology in NHS trusts and other core organisations in England. That is over 90—nearly 5%—more than in 2024. It includes over 1,000 full-time consultants, which is almost 50—over 5%—more than in 2024. We will soon publish a 10-year workforce plan to create a workforce ready to deliver a transformed service.
Sadly, Parkinson’s cannot currently be cured, but it can be managed effectively with the right interventions. That is why we have embedded Parkinson’s care with broader neurological strategies, including the neurology transformation programme and the RightCare progressive neurological conditions toolkit. Those initiatives aim to reduce variation in care, improve safety and deliver integrated services across the NHS. They set out what good treatment looks like and support integrated care systems to provide the right service at the right time.
We are also taking steps to ensure that people have better access to information. In the 10-year health plan, there is a strong emphasis on using technology and community-based services to provide joined-up care and practical advice closer to home. Initiatives such as Diagnosis Connect, partly inspired by Parkinson’s UK’s referral programme, will help newly diagnosed individuals to receive instant information and support from trusted sources. We are expanding access to digital health tools so that patients and carers can manage symptoms, access guidance and connect with specialist teams without delay.
Consistent and timely access to medicines is key to maintaining a good quality of life and good symptom control for people with Parkinson’s, as well as preventing the complications that could otherwise lead to unnecessary hospital admissions. A focus on time-critical medicines is a key priority for NHS England’s medicines safety improvement programme, which is seeking to reduce severe, avoidable harm associated with medicines. Work is currently under way involving 80 NHS trusts, with 48 of them receiving active support for innovation and improvement. Practical tools such as the RightCare toolkit and resources from Parkinson’s UK’s “Get It On Time” campaign are also helping staff and patients to plan for hospital stays and optimise medication schedules.
While we currently have no plans to offer automatic entitlement to benefits, reforms to the welfare system are intended to improve support for people with long-term conditions such as Parkinson’s. Proposals in our “Pathways to Work” Green Paper mark a significant step in that regard, by moving away from the one-size-fits-all approach, so that people receive the tailored help needed to live with dignity and independence, and to work if they are able to do so.
For those who cannot work, we will guarantee a strong safety net, so that those with the most severe lifelong health conditions have their incomes protected through an additional premium and are exempt from future reassessment. We have recently published our consultation response to the Green Paper recently, and we will set out detailed policy proposals in due course.
Any changes to personal independence payment eligibility will come after the Timms review—an ambitious and inclusive review that aims to ensure that we have a system that supports disabled people to achieve better health, higher living standards and greater independence, including through employment. To ensure that lived experience is at the heart of that work, the review will be co-produced with disabled people, the organisations that represent them and other experts.
There is currently no plan to review the medical exemption list of conditions. However, I assure all Members that I am acutely aware of the list, and that it has been added to only once since its inception in 1968, which was to add cancer in 2009. However, approximately 89% of prescription items are currently dispersed free of charge, and a wide range of exemptions from prescription charges exist, including free prescriptions for everyone under the age of 19—or 16 if they are in full-time employment—and over 60.
Innovative treatments are transforming the outlook for people with Parkinson’s disease. The NHS has recently rolled out—let me try to say it now—Produodopa. No, I did not do well on that, but it is helping patients with advanced Parkinson’s to achieve more stable symptom control and to improve quality of life. The technology uses a small, wearable pump to deliver medication under the skin, managing symptoms more steadily through the day and night than traditional oral tablets. The 10-year plan commits to make wearables standard in preventive, chronic and post-acute NHS treatment by 2035. We will provide devices for free in areas where need and deprivation are highest. Alongside such research, we are driving breakthroughs in cell and gene therapies, and large-scale trials testing multiple disease-modifying drugs.
Of course, future progress depends on research, which is why my Department invests more than £1.6 billion each year on research through its research delivery arm, the National Institute for Health and Care Research. In the financial year 2024-25, the NIHR has committed £6 million to Parkinson’s disease projects through its research programmes. In addition, last month, the world’s largest clinical trial for treatments to stop or slow the progression of Parkinson’s opened for recruitment. I encourage researchers to keep applying for funding through the NIHR. We would love to see more proposals.
We have set up the UK-wide Neuro Forum to work across the four nations. I will ask officials to explore a conversation specifically on Parkinson’s and how better to share practice across the four nations.
Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley for opening the debate, and all Members who have contributed to the actions I have outlined. The reforms echo the priorities set out in the Parky charter. By aligning policy with the charter’s five key asks, we can build a health and care system that delivers dignity, certainty and hope for every person with Parkinson’s and their families.
Paul Davies
I will be brief, Ms Lewell. First, many thanks again to the Movers and Shakers group—the work it puts in is absolutely fantastic and amazing. I also thank all hon. Members for their contributions; it has been an excellent debate. The Minister will have seen that the consensus across the Chamber is very clear on what we need to do.
During the debate, I was thinking of my constituent, Liz Ryan, whom I mentioned. She suffers from Parkinson’s, and she is an amazing individual. She just wants to have her independence, to be treated with dignity and to live life to the fullest she can with this condition. She is not alone, and I know from talking to other sufferers that that is exactly what they want too. Let us adopt the Parky charter. Let us do the work we need to do to give those people that chance.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 713714 relating to funding and care for people with Parkinson’s.
Cabinet Office
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for giving way; it is much appreciated. Just briefly, those standards are very much welcomed, particularly in my constituency. Does he agree that they must be applied at parish and town council level too? We want expectations aligned across all public services.
Chris Ward
My hon. Friend raises a very good point, although I should remind him that I think parish councils are about to be abolished in the local government reorganisation so we might have to look at that, but I take his point, which is a fair one.
[Official Report, 12 November 2025; Vol. 775, c. 286.]
Written correction submitted by the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven (Chris Ward):
School Funding
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
Publication of provisional funding allocations for mainstream schools and local authorities in 2026-27, through the schools, high needs and central school services national funding formulae, has been delayed from the usual timetable due to the timing of the spending review and the need to ensure that rigorous quality assurance processes have been completed in full.
The Department for Education has received a number of requests for clarification of when the allocations will be published. Finalisation of the NFFs is being pursued as a matter of urgency. Our priority will be to publish the schools NFF shortly in order to allow local authorities to proceed with preparation of their local schools formulae.
[HCWS1059]
Hydro Benefit Replacement Scheme
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
I am tabling this statement to inform Members of the outcome of the statutory review of the hydro benefit replacement scheme and the common tariff obligation, which help protect consumers in the north of Scotland from inherently high costs of electricity distribution in this region.
Electricity network charges are paid primarily by suppliers and then passed on to consumers. These charges are split into those for the high voltage transmission network, and the low voltage distribution network. It costs significantly more to operate and maintain the electricity distribution network in the north of Scotland than elsewhere, due to its large and sparsely populated terrain. Under the principle of cost reflectivity, this means consumers in this area face higher distribution network charges.
The hydro benefit replacement scheme was established under the Energy Act 2004 and provides an annual cross-subsidy—£112 million in 2024-25—which will reduce electricity distribution charges for consumers in the region by around £70 per household in 2025-26. It is funded by electricity suppliers across Great Britain, and hence ultimately by consumers, at an annual average cost of between £1 and £1.50 per household.
The common tariff obligation places a requirement on suppliers’ charging arrangements in the north of Scotland to ensure domestic consumers are not charged different prices based on their location within the region. There is no direct monetary amount attached to the common tariff obligation.
There is a statutory requirement to review the hydro benefit replacement scheme every three years. There has been a long-standing ministerial commitment to review the common tariff obligation alongside the hydro benefit replacement scheme.
The Government have reviewed these schemes through engagement with our delivery partners in Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks and Ofgem, combined with analysis of distribution charges and the assistance amount. The north of Scotland continues to have significantly higher charges compared to the rest of GB and therefore it remains appropriate for assistance to be targeted. The review concluded that the current design continues to strike the right balance between protecting consumers in the north of Scotland and maintaining the benefits of cost-reflective charging, which promotes efficient use of the network and minimises overall system costs. As such, the schemes will be retained in their current form.
The Government’s recent decision on reformed national pricing has no impact on the outcome of this review.
[HCWS1061]
Renters’ Rights Act: Implementation Road Map
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
In their manifesto, the Government promised to overhaul the regulation of our country’s insecure and unjust private rented sector. The Renters’ Rights Act delivers on that commitment.
The Act will empower renters by providing them with greater security, rights and protections so that they can stay in their homes for longer, build lives in their communities and avoid the risk of homelessness. It will ensure that we can drive up the quality of privately rented housing so that renters have access to good-quality and safe homes as a matter of course. It will allow us to crack down on the minority of unscrupulous landlords who exploit, mistreat or discriminate against renters.
The Act will also provide tangible benefits for responsible landlords who provide high-quality homes and a good service to their tenants. Not only will it improve the reputation of the sector as a whole, but it will also ensure that good landlords enjoy clear regulation, better access to information, and clear and expanded possession grounds, so that they can regain their properties quickly when necessary.
I am announcing the publication of “Implementing the Renters’ Rights Act 2025: Our roadmap for reforming the Private Rented Sector”.
The document, a copy of which I will deposit in the Library, provides an overview of our implementation plans for the coming years and includes detail on how we will phase our reforms and when they will come into force.
We intend to implement the Act in three distinct phases:
In the first phase of our reforms, we will implement the new tenancy regime. This will apply to both new and existing tenancies and will come into force on 1 May 2026. In this phase, section 21 evictions will finally be abolished; we will move to a simpler tenancy structure where all assured tenancies are periodic; the practice of landlords demanding large amounts of rent in advance from tenants will be brought to an end; rental bidding will be prohibited; and tenants will be given strengthened rights to request a pet.
In the second phase of our reforms, from late 2026, we will introduce the new private rented sector database and private rented sector landlord ombudsman service. The database will help landlords understand their obligations and demonstrate compliance; will increase transparency and facilitate better access to information for tenants so they can take effective action to enforce their rights; and will support local authorities with effective enforcement. The ombudsman will provide quick, fair, impartial and binding resolution for tenants’ complaints about their landlord and will bring tenant-landlord complaint resolution in line with established redress practices for tenants in social housing and consumers of property agent services.
In the third and final phase of our reforms—dates to be settled following consultation—we will apply a modernised decent homes standard and Awaab’s law to the private rented sector for the first time. Extending the decent homes standard to the sector will give renters safer, better value homes and remove the blight of poor-quality homes in local communities. Extending Awaab’s law will set clear legal expectations about the timeframes within which landlords in the private rented sector must take action to make homes safe where they contain serious hazards.
The Government look forward to ongoing engagement with all stakeholders to ensure a smooth implementation of this transformative Act.
[HCWS1060]
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Scott of Needham Market) (LD)
Good afternoon, my Lords. If there is a Division in the Chamber while this Grand Committee is sitting, we will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Tobacco and Vapes Bill
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Howard of Rising
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 160 in the name of my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister, I also speak to Amendment 173A in my name. I spoke at Second Reading about the infringement of personal liberty and not allowing individuals to take their own decision; I stand by that. My amendment would make it less difficult to vape than to smoke, but without increasing the risk to children.
The National Health Service website says that although vaping is not completely harmless,
“Nicotine vaping is less harmful than smoking. It’s also one of the most effective tools for quitting smoking … The routines and rituals of smoking can be hard to stop, so vaping can help you gradually let go of these while immediately reducing the health risks of smoking cigarettes”.
I also quote Professor Sir Chris Whitty, Chief Medical Officer for England:
“If you smoke, vaping is much safer”.
Again, I suggest that, by making the purchase of vapes more difficult and reducing the number of shops that they can be brought from, the Government are not helping. Vaping does away with the danger of passive smoking. My amendment would require the Secretary of State to undertake research into the potential effect of fewer smokers switching to vapes and nicotine products, or fewer consumers continuing to use these products instead of cigarettes as a result of these regulations, and of extending the provisions in Part 6 to such products.
The essential point here is that the Government should not proceed with their plans unless they have properly investigated the expected impacts of the Bill on those who are smoking and vaping. As I have already commented, vaping is safer than smoking and the Government’s policy should reflect that fact. Ministers should be required to consult the sector properly when assessing these impacts. We must not allow a situation where well-intentioned, if overbearing, government policy has the effect of worsening health outcomes for individuals.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I put my name to Amendment 161 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, and I am interested in the themes in Amendment 173A, about which we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, because I think that an assessment of and research into the impact of any kinds of advertising and sponsorship restrictions is very important moving forward. The reason why I am concerned about any advertising restrictions is that people who currently smoke and are looking to switch to vape can do so only if they know what vapes are and understand the facts around relative harms, where these products can be purchased and so on. Imposing these restrictions as written in the Bill without consultation would have grave unintended consequences. At the very least, there must be clearly defined exemptions.
In this House there is constantly talk about the problem of misinformation. I agree that we do not want people to be making judgments about anything based on misinformation or factual inaccuracy. Yet the difference between vaping and smoking is not well understood. Public Health England and, indeed, Doctor Khan’s independent review concluded that vapes are 95% less harmful than tobacco, yet misperceptions about the harm of vaping have risen at the same time. In 2025, 56% of adults believe that vaping is more harmful than or equally harmful as cigarettes, compared with 33% in 2022. In other words, misinformation is creating ever more misperceptions every year. Opinium research from July 2025 found that 51% of all respondents believe that vapes are equally harmful as or more harmful than smoking, with 48% of current smokers believing that. Certainly, they do not know that vapes and other nicotine products have 99% less toxicants than cigarettes. Curtailing the opportunity to provide public information on the relative benefits of vaping, as this Bill threatens to do, would further exacerbate this lack of understanding.
My concern is that a lot of the discussion is driven by a small but very loud portion of lobbyists who are very concerned about youth vaping rates. Lobbying groups particularly push that issue, as has the public health industry. Actually, the percentage of young people who vape is dwarfed by adult vapers, many of whom, as we have heard, have switched to vaping from smoking for health reasons. That safer alternative could now be in jeopardy unless we allow advertising to make it clear that vaping is in fact a desirable, healthy option. By putting forward the argument that vaping is not desirable and just as dangerous as smoking, we risk doing public health a real disservice.
Even now, vaping products are allowed only very restricted advertising since the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations came into force in May 2016. Additional to these restrictions, I fear that clauses in the Bill go so far as to treat vaping products as though they are the same as tobacco products. That sends an implicit message that nicotine, tobacco, smoking cigarettes and vaping are all much of a muchness. That is one of the themes that I have been pursuing: we need to have a much more granular, nuanced approach. Prohibiting any form of marketing for vape or nicotine product manufacturers directly undermines the important role that marketing has to play in encouraging smokers to switch to vaping or other nicotine products.
Just to finish off, there seems to be a complete contradiction. On the NHS Better Health webpage, it says in big letters, “Vaping to quit smoking”. I want to know: is that not advertising? It contains a range of information and advice for people who smoke and are looking to quit—in fact, I read it when I was smoking and looking to quit. It includes the message that you are roughly twice as likely to quit smoking if you use a nicotine vape compared with other nicotine replacement products, like patches or gum.
I want to ensure that adult smokers like me have access to information. When I read that, I then had to go out and find out about vapes. I went to the local vape shop and had a bit of a seminar. I then went to talk to the local convenience store and looked at the range of vapes. Then, as a consequence, I took up vaping and eventually gave up smoking—which I would have thought the Government want. If I had not been able to see where those vapes were on sale and to see and read the advertising and the marketing, then I might have stayed a smoker. This is not about me but about all the other smokers who as yet do not understand that vaping is a safer option than smoking. They might as well find out about it. I would have hoped that the Government would be encouraging, not discouraging, them.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will speak against all the amendments in this group. They all, in various ways, could restrict or delay action by the Government—action that is urgently needed.
On vaping, I know that the Advertising Standards Authority has expressed concern about product placement on websites such as TikTok. There are concerns and, given the new technology and new media around, further action may well need to be taken on vaping. But I will focus on nicotine pouches; I hope that the Minister will be able to provide me with some information on them.
I note that today, for example, Convenience Store magazine reports that Imperial Tobacco has launched new nicotine pouches
“with five flavour options—Sweet Mint, Cool Mint, Watermelon Ice, Juicy Peach and Berry Blast”.
They apparently have a “better mouthfeel” than previous versions and smaller, slimmer tins that will fit conveniently in your pocket. That does not really sound like a stop smoking aid, does it? You will see these nicotine pouches in convenience stores, as the site of that announcement suggests—colourful tins with colourful labels stacked conveniently right beside the chewing gum. But this is not just about the nature of the product or where it is stored. I invite noble Lords to have a look next time they catch the Tube, where they will almost certainly see adverts for nicotine pouches.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I was saying that, if noble Lords travel home on the Tube tonight, they will see at the side of pretty much every escalator at least one advert for nicotine pouches. Theoretically, these are stop smoking aids, but what does the advert say? It is along the lines of “Make your journey more pleasant; enjoy these favours”. If you are quick and have great eyesight, you might read in the small print as the escalator goes past, “Meant for under-18s for smoking cessation”, but that is not the message presented by the advert. I hope that the Minister will tell us how the Government are planning immediate action on the advertising of nicotine pouches, because it is clearly a huge issue.
It goes further than advertising to promotion. I recently went through Manchester Piccadilly station, where some bouncy young people with very sharp haircuts, in matching sports and leisure wear—that is probably how I should refer to it—were handing out free samples of nicotine pouches, mostly to young people who matched their demographic. That is not appropriate behaviour; it is not good for public health. We need to crack down on this. I come back to the delays and barriers that these amendments would cause to the Government’s action on nicotine products and offer the strongest possible opposition to them.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
My Lords, in relation to the amendments in this group, first, I do believe that vaping is safer than smoking. All the evidence is that it is safer, but it is of course not risk-free. Indeed, that was the position under the previous Government: in October 2023 it was stated quite clearly that vaping is safer than smoking but it is not risk-free. If you do not smoke, do not vape.
I am all in favour of the promotion of vaping as a cessation tool for smoking; I think that is permitted under the Bill, and the Minister will no doubt cover that in response. I think we do need some way of promoting vaping, certainly for those who smoke, so that they can give it up. But if, as appears to be the case, everybody regards vaping as powerful for the cessation of smoking but for no other reason, because it is not risk-free, we should not be permitting advertising except in the narrow compass of the promotion of vaping as a cessation tool. For me, that would be the most sensible position, so I am not in favour of the amendments in this group.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I have my name to one of the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister, but I will start with the comment by my noble friend Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth that vaping is not risk-free. Well, what is risk-free? I shall go home in the car tonight, as it happens, since the noble Baroness inquired. Is that risk-free? Driving a motor car is certainly not risk-free. Nor is the Tube risk-free. That is why—I remember this from when I was deputy chairman—safety is our first priority. It is only by working terribly hard on safety that a railway actually comes close to being safe—but it is still not risk-free. Even on the escalators, one of our former colleagues, Lord Ribeiro—some noble Lords will remember him—blacked out, fell down, was taken to hospital and eventually retired from the House as a result of the injuries he sustained on the Tube network. So anything that is predicated on the idea that we in society can tolerate only something that is risk-free is frankly barmy. Life would come to an end if that were the case.
On these amendments, I would say: imagine you have a friend who breaks the habit of a lifetime, gives up smoking and adopts vaping. You want to send them a card to congratulate them on this move. We might all pass the card round the office and sign it and send them a card to congratulate them. There can be no such card. Anyone who in the course of business even designs such a card is committing an offence. Anyone who prints it is committing an offence. Any such card that says “Well done” could be held to look like it was promoting vaping: “Well done on giving up cigarettes and taking up vaping”. It could easily be found to be committing an offence. Anyone who publishes it is committing an offence. Anyone who sells it is committing an offence. That is for old-fashioned means of advertisement that are printed on paper. The measures are absolutely draconian. There is no commitment to consult. All I want to say is that the amendment in this group to which I put my name, tabled by my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister, is one that calls on the Government at least to consult.
To conclude, the Government are in a terrible state of mental confusion. They want the public to know about vapes. I want to repeat from my own experience something very similar to what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, said: it is not that easy to take up vaping. You need to know something about it; you need to know how the kit works and what it is you like. I was not quite as assiduous as her in reading the internet, going to the local vape shop and going to the convenience store as she did. I stumbled in a less systematic way through a similar sort of process until I found something that worked for me.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Just to clarify for the noble Lord, everything that I was speaking about on flavours was about pouches, not vapes.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I beg the noble Baroness’s pardon, but I will still make my point about what she said about flavours. She was not describing the flavours; she does not know what the flavours are. She never bought them or consumed them as far as I imagine. She is talking about the descriptors—the rather lurid descriptors—just as my amendment is saying. That is what the Government should focus on, rather than flavours, which is what the Bill refers to. That is a digression back to an earlier group.
I simply want to say that the Government are in a state of tremendous confusion. They want us to have the information, but they do not want us to have too much information. What they have is a regime that is astonishingly oppressive and amazingly draconian, and which really ought not to stand as it does.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
My Lords, I will briefly follow my noble friend’s comments. We are in danger, with an understandable zealotry to extinguish all types of access to all types of tobacco-related products, of missing the reality of the point that there are millions of people in this country who could be occasional smokers and/or smokers who, like my noble friend and like the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, are keen to move from smoking cigarettes to other alternatives which are frankly better. It is often the perfect that becomes the enemy of the good; my recommendation is that the Government try to avoid that being the case.
The point here is that we should not have a zealotry-based attempt to ban something because an individual does not like it—a natural and understandable prejudice. The point must be about public health and giving people longer, happier lives and being practical about how to apply the laws to ensure that they function effectively. These amendments illustrate the opportunity for the Government to have a proper consultation to work out how they can ensure we do not end up, as my noble friend Lord Moylan might suggest, with an NHS-approved vape. It would be similar to those spectacles that you got on the NHS when I was a child; you could have either tortoiseshell or black. That strikes me as exactly what we will end up with in this scenario.
We should be proud of ourselves if we move to a regime where many people use vapes as a practical alternative to smoking and as a route to the ultimate cessation of smoking cigarettes. That should be the aim, and I am extremely concerned that, through the meticulousness and overfocus on a desire for perfection and completeness, we will end up causing the exact opposite effect and not increasing people’s health outcomes. Surely the Committee and the Minister would suggest that that should be the priority, and we need some common sense to prevail in this discussion.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, we cannot support these amendments, I am afraid.
I want to make a couple of comments on the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. The scenarios that he outlined would be against common sense and I really hope that, when the regulations come before us, they adhere to common sense and take account of the sorts of scenario that he suggested. I certainly think that, with the Bill as it stands, if the noble Lord had decided to give up smoking after the Bill—rather than before, as I understand he already has done—by being of age, in that I think he probably is over 18, he would be able, once the Bill becomes law, to go into a shop and buy vapes to help him give up smoking. So, I do not share his fears; let us put it that way.
I agree with the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, about the egregious nature of some of the advertising. In my own experience, in the high street of my local village, the whole window of one of the local shops is covered with advertisements for vapes, which are very clearly aimed at children: there is no question about it. Of course, the regulations must be carefully drafted to make sure of the objective we all share: making sure that adults who are of age and who wish to stop smoking can do so with the help of vapes.
I turn to the specific amendments in this group. In Amendments 160 to 166 and 173, the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, seeks to exclude vapes and nicotine products from the prohibition on publishing and advertising. We do not believe that these products should be marketed to the general public; there are already provisions allowing them to be promoted as a cessation tool, which is what they are supposed to be in the first place, with a reasonable range of flavours correctly advertised.
Amendment 172 would require both a call for evidence and consultation before the introduction of marketing restrictions on vaping and heated tobacco products. These would delay the Bill—there is no question about it—and would, therefore, delay what the Bill is trying to do, which is combat the uptake of these products by young people. In any case, consulting with the manufacturers in this way may very well contravene Article 5.3 of the FCTC, which we debated last week.
Amendment 173A is not necessary, as we have already been assured both that consultation will take place and that the available evidence will be considered.
Finally, Amendment 174 from the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, is not necessary because Clause 132(2) already states:
“Before making regulations … the Secretary of State must consult any persons the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult”.
That should cover the noble Lord’s concern.
I have a question for the Minister about the consultation. This morning, I met a mother whose teenage daughter took up vaping at school and now cannot get off the habit. The mother did everything a good mother should do, because the child was quite upset about it; she was so hooked on nicotine that she could not give it up. She went to the GP. She went to the stop smoking services. She went to the pharmacist. She went to a drop-in. She then tried to buy 0% vapes but could not find them in any shop. Eventually, she persuaded a local shop to stock a small number of 0% nicotine vapes, so that the child could continue the behavioural habit without the nicotine—and without standing out from her peers, all of whom vaped behind the bike sheds, as far as I understand it.
It is important. It harks back to an amendment that we discussed last week about the NICE guidelines for stop vaping services. The Government need to make it clear that 0% vapes are and should be available as part of the cessation tools for people who do not just want to give up smoking tobacco but want to get off nicotine as well. That public health service—I do not call it an industry, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, does—should be available to young people.
In the real world, they are vaping. We do not know how harmful it is to them, but I strongly suspect that it is. It is certainly highly addictive. It takes all their pocket money and who knows what else. Very often, they get their vapes from illicit sources, which brings them in contact with people they should not be in contact with. So I would like to know from the Minister whether the consultation will take that sort of thing into account.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I hope I was right in believing that it was implicit in the noble Baroness’s remarks that she felt that 0% vapes should be an exception to the advertising rule.
Earl Howe (Con)
That is helpful. These amendments once again bring us back to the issue of proportionality. The first thing to say, and I hope that no Member of the Committee will disagree with me, is that we have to be very careful when legislating on vapes and nicotine products, lest we inadvertently discourage their use by those who need them for smoking cessation purposes.
That leads to me to make a point similar to that made by my noble friend Lord Moylan. Sending the message that there are harsh criminal penalties associated with advertising these products or having anything to do with the advertising process plays right into the false narrative, which a lot of people now believe, that vapes and nicotine products—but especially vapes—are as harmful to human health as tobacco smoking. Used irresponsibly, vapes can cause addiction to nicotine and, in that sense, are bad for you. However, when responsibly used as a means of quitting smoking, they are not bad for you. We should tread carefully when purporting to put them on a par with tobacco products and herbal smoking products, as the Bill does in Clauses 113 to 118.
There are 6 million tobacco smokers in this country whom the Government rightly want to help to quit. But those who go through that process know that it is not as easy as simply putting down the cigarette and walking away. Having a safer, accessible and—dare I say—pleasant alternative to turn to is often what makes it bearable for those suffering from cold turkey.
Vaping and nicotine products are those safer alternatives to smoking. They do not possess the same chemicals and tar found in tobacco, and the poisonous chemicals in tobacco smoke are absent. Despite this consensus, 53% of the public believe that vapes are just as bad, while 40% believe that nicotine causes most smoking-related cancer. What do the Government say to those people when they place equal bans on the advertising of tobacco, nicotine and vapes alike? I do not think that they convince them that one of those options is better.
Amendment 173A, in the name of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising, and Amendment 174 in my own name, would require the Secretary of State, before imposing a ban on the advertising of vapes and nicotine products or a ban on vape and nicotine companies acting as sponsors, to assess the impact of those bans on likely rates of smoking cessation and the impact on producers, retailers and, indeed, consumers. The free market has played a large part in the threefold reduction in smoking over the past 20 years through the natural growth of tobacco alternatives. The result is that we now have a vaping industry worth over £3 billion, a large part of it with standards and codes of practice, and a rapidly growing nicotine products industry.
I believe that we should welcome that, because it has facilitated the decline in smoking rates and, at the same time, contributed to the economy. I am the first to concede that there are bad-faith actors out there. No one on these Benches would argue against a ban on products or advertising targeted at children, but that is a very different thing from a ban on all advertisements of vaping and nicotine products in any circumstances.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for bringing forward these amendments. For the convenience of the Committee, I will speak to them as a group. I am also grateful for noble Lords’ contributions and reflections throughout.
The clauses within Part 6, to which these amendments refer, taken in their totality will ban advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products and nicotine products. By doing this, it will bring all these products in line with tobacco. There has been—as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, helpfully made reference to—a significant growth in awareness of vaping promotion, with some 55% of all children aged 11 to 17 aware of promotion in shops in 2025, which is up from 37% in 2022. It is unacceptable that children are exposed to vape adverts on the side of buses and in shop windows as they make their way to school or elsewhere. It is also unacceptable that a family going out to watch football could be exposed to vape branding on the kits of players who should be role models to children.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, raised nicotine pouches. There are currently few restrictions on the advertising of these products, and they are highly promoted in shops and on social media. As a demonstration of this, awareness of nicotine pouches has risen from 38% in 2024 to 43% in 2025.
I understand why the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked about non-nicotine vapes. However, the reality is that non-nicotine vapes may be used as a gateway to nicotine vapes. In addition, nicotine could be manually added to the device. We have to take all that into account and, on that basis—to go directly to her question—we do not plan to include them in a consultation.
The noble Lords, Lord Johnson and Lord Moylan, spoke about the banning of vaping and nicotine products being deliberately branded and advertised to children. That is of course a manifesto commitment. We are doing it, as I have said a number of times, to stop the next generation becoming addicted to nicotine.
We also know that there is strong support among the public for doing this. Measures to restrict vape advertising are supported by some 77% of adults in Great Britain, who are keen to see bans on the advertising and promotion of vapes, so we will not be consulting on the whole matter of advertising. I can say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that addictive products of the nature she has described should never have been handed out for free. The Bill will address this by ensuring that free samples of these products cannot be given out to adults and children of any age.
The Government have already published a thorough impact assessment of the measures in the Bill, including the effect of the prohibition on the advertising and sponsorship of vaping and nicotine products. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that the advertising ban aims to reduce the risk of young people being exposed to vape promotion and advertisements, not the ability of adults to buy vaping products.
I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Howard—and I say this to all noble Lords—that we are committed to helping adult smokers to quit. That is best led by the appropriate health authority, such as the NHS. The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, was right to say, “If you don’t smoke, don’t vape”. We will return to this in a later group, but I can tell him that the Bill allows public health authorities to take certain steps to promote vapes as a means of smoking cessation. That is the right place for this to be.
Further to that, the NHS can provide tailored advice to the individual with the necessary behavioural support. We have invested an additional £70 million in 2025-26 to support local authority-led stop smoking services in England to help people quit smoking, and we will continue to run targeted campaigns to help current smokers quit.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked about an assessment of how the bans will impact businesses, smoking cessation services, et cetera. We will continue to monitor the impact of these changes following implementation.
With that, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Howard, will be able to withdraw Amendment 160.
Lord Moylan (Con)
Since the noble Baroness has said so clearly that the purpose of the advertising ban is to prevent information being communicated to children and young people, and that that was a manifesto commitment, why does the ban have to be drawn so widely? Clause 119 has a list of defences that can be advanced for those who are accused of breaching the various preceding clauses on advertising, but none of them says that it is a different matter if the communication is with adults. Is this not drawn far too widely to be justified by her laudable ambition?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am glad that the noble Lord regards it as a laudable ambition. We will come to exemptions in the next group, and I look forward to doing so.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I, too, am slightly confused by this. I was reading something the other day from the DCMS, boasting about the creative industries, and one of the big and most profitable parts of the creative industries in this country is advertising and marketing. It is considered to be something we are proud of. Lots of products have age issues. If you are a cider producer, you have to advertise, but you do not want a six year-old drinking it. We have discussed things such as fizzy drinks, so I appreciate this. This appears to be a blanket catch-all. It does not seem to take up the ways we have learned, in the advertising and marketing world, how, in a society that has children in it at the same time as adults, you can have a sensible restriction on advertising sometimes without depriving everybody of the gain of the advert. NHS information, while useful, is not the same as marketing choice, giving people ideas of the options they might have with vapes, which are not all the same product.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness. This kind of question also comes up in respect of other products: for example, the 9 pm watershed, in terms of the advertisement of high-fat, high-sugar, high-salt foods in order that that advertising is not affecting children and young people. So, this is a constant discussion: that is not a criticism but an observation, of course. What is interesting to me in respect of tobacco is that the evidence found that partial bans are not as effective as a comprehensive ban when it comes to the aim, ambition and intent to reduce tobacco consumption. Similar assumptions can clearly be drawn on vapes. I hope that helps in terms of clarifying the point I am making, even if it may not satisfy the noble Baroness, which I understand.
Lord Howard of Rising
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes the offence for designers regarding a “reason to suspect” as an offence regarding the design of imagery that contains these kinds of products.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
In moving Amendment 161A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister, I will speak to Amendments 168A and 170A in this group. My Amendment 168A seeks to permit the advertisement of vapes, heated tobacco and other nicotine products to adult smokers as a public health measure. We know that these products are less harmful than smoked tobacco, as I have already pointed out today, so it is important that adult smokers are provided with adequate information on these products. It would be a perverse outcome if this legislation resulted in less harmful products being made less accessible to adult smokers who currently use the more harmful smoked tobacco products. Will the Minister says what steps the Government will be taking to ensure that adult smokers are still able to access less harmful alternatives to smoked tobacco? I would be interested to know whether the Government will take this point on advertisement away for further consideration before Report.
Amendment 170A in my name would permit compliant retailers to communicate at point of sale to their legal-age and nicotine-consuming customers information about vapes, heated tobacco and other nicotine products, so that adult smokers are empowered with full information on the alternatives available for them to switch to.
Noble Lords may have seen reports in the press in October that the managing director of UK and Irish operations of British American Tobacco argued for allowing a very strict marketing framework targeted only to adults, which could make smokers aware of the alternatives and encourage them to switch. Surely, we want smokers who are currently using more harmful smoked tobacco products to switch to less harmful vaping and heated tobacco products, especially if they are unable to quit completely.
Can the Minister please confirm whether she has met British American Tobacco, or any other producer of vapes or heated tobacco, to discuss this issue? Does she agree that it is beneficial for the health of smokers to switch if they cannot quit? I beg to move.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 171 in my name, which contains some echoes of Amendment 167 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe; I thank my noble friend Lady Walmsley and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for their support.
Noble Lords will not be surprised, I think, to hear that I fully support the restrictions on the marketing of vapes, nicotine pouches and other nicotine products. We urgently need to put an end to the relentless and irresponsible advertising to which we are currently subjected; the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, described this in our debate on the previous group. You cannot travel on the London Underground without seeing adverts for pouches saying things such as, “Hi, London. Your commute just got tastier”—not, noble Lords will note, “Hello, London smokers. Did you know that there are less harmful alternatives to smoking?”
This kind of indiscriminate marketing works to expose children to these products, which have been criticised by trading standards as mimicking sweets. As the Minister pointed out, awareness of nicotine pouches among under-18s has risen from 38% in 2024 to 43% in 2025. My amendment seeks to probe the Government on how they will ensure that public health authorities, NHS bodies and smoking cessation services can communicate effectively with smokers to make it clear that these products, while not risk-free, are significantly less harmful than smoking and can help smokers quit.
Such bodies have been impeded by the vaping industry. As we all know, vaping and addiction to nicotine is, in turn, leading to young people smoking, something that all of us, it seems, want to reduce. To put it bluntly, we have the wrong people using these products. Uptake among children, young people and never-smokers is far too high. Some 20% of 11 to 17 year-olds have tried vaping. Conversely, the people whom we most want to switch—they were addressed in our debate on the previous group: adult smokers—are not doing so. More than one-quarter of adults who currently smoke have never tried vaping, and misperceptions about harm are most acute among these smokers; the proportion who believe that vapes are as harmful or more harmful than cigarettes has increased. Had the vaping industry not promoted its wares to young people, we would not be in this situation.
This Bill currently makes provisions for public health bodies to promote these products but, of course, there are major challenges. The industry is responsible for the situation that we are in. I have heard from smoking cessation services that some online platforms make it practically impossible to promote vaping, even from bona fide health organisations; any post with a budget on these issues gets blocked and could have an impact on the Government’s messaging on this topic. Will the Minister explain how she feels this Bill will steer a proper course here, so that we put forward the public health benefits to which noble Lords referred in our debate on the previous group? In a similar way, different radio stations have different policies on vaping adverts, with some not allowing them at all even if it is clear that the public health messaging is from professional services. How will the Government steer through that?
As noble Lords indicated in our debate on the previous group, there clearly needs to be differentiation between commercial promotion and public health messaging if these vapes are to be used for what they were supposedly there to do in the first place. The problem here is that the vaping industry has not proved trustworthy, as children and young people are targeted. Many of the amendments here will simply allow more loopholes and are, therefore, likely to muddy the waters yet again.
We should not soften the approach that the Bill takes towards commercial companies. Just this year, we have seen heated tobacco advertising in supermarkets—Sainsbury’s and Morrisons—despite the Government telling them that this is currently illegal. If they are willing to flout the current law, why should we consider creating further loopholes for them to stretch in future? Once again, I will show an advert, which I have shown before, which is clearly not targeting smokers—if only it were. It says:
“Claim your free sample today”.
In tiny writing, it says that it is “not risk-free”. This is how loopholes have been exploited. That is what this Bill is seeking to address.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 168 and 170 in my name. At the end of the previous group, the Minister expressed a little gratified surprise that I thought the ambition of trying to end vaping by children was laudable. I am disappointed that she was surprised because I hoped that I had made it clear from the outset of my participation in this Bill that I entirely understand and support the Government’s wish to do everything possible to prevent the uptake of vaping and other nicotine products by children. My remarks were entirely about adults, as they will be on this group.
I do not wish to be impertinent, but I have a question for the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, who spoke of the vape industry as if it were a monolithic thing. There are several different characterisations of the vape industry, but the key one is that some of it is the work of respectable, accountable companies that are based in the UK and similar countries and conduct their affairs in one way, and some of it is the huge flood of vapes that have entered the market without proper regulation or control, I understand, although I do not know, very often produced by Chinese companies.
I ask the noble Baroness please to stop pointing at that piece of paper that nobody can actually see. Even if we were allowed to see it, we cannot read it at that distance.
Lord Moylan (Con)
It is blue. Is there something wicked about blue?
There is a distinction between the one and the other. The truth is that respectable companies will comply with the law, as they do with the law on smoking advertising, and disreputable ones will find ways of getting around it, as so many currently do.
I return to the two amendments in my name. Amendment 168 addresses Clause 119, which, as I mentioned in the previous group, contains certain defences that can be used by those charged with offences laid out in the previous clauses, such as distributing or designing advertising. I propose that an additional defence be added to it that,
“it is, when in relation to the advertising of vaping products or nicotine products, in a location in which it would be reasonable to expect that everyone present is aged 18”.
This is an attempt to try to fit in with what the Minister said earlier about the aim of the Bill, that we are meant to be trying to address young people, which I agree with, and help ensure that they are not induced into taking up vaping and other nicotine-based products.
Amendment 170 would create an exemption, not by amending Clause 119 but by adding a new clause, for a specialist vaping retailer making communications online in an age-verified environment. We have robust age verification now as a result of the Online Safety Act. There are many sites, I believe, which you are required to verify your age to access. That is what Ofcom has increasingly rolled out under the provisions of that Act. It is perfectly possible to have age-verified sites and to ensure that people can access them only if they can demonstrate they are above a certain age. That is what this is trying to do. It is trying to create some sort of balance for those adults—those above the age of 18—who wish to have access to information about vaping in a way that ensures it does not get to children. On the basis of what the noble Baroness has said is her purpose, I really cannot see how she should object to this. I hope that Amendment 170 and possibly even Amendment 168 might find favour with her.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendments 167 and 171 in the names of my noble friend Lord Kamall and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. They seek a carve-out from the ban on advertising for smoking cessation purposes.
In Part 6, which is about advertising, I cannot see any exemption for those services. It may be tucked away somewhere else in the Bill. My enquiries about this led me to believe that the qualification that you have to act in the course of business before the ban applies is an exemption for the health service, local government and any other public health agencies. I wonder whether that is good enough. Pharmacies are businesses, and many GP practices are limited companies. If I went into a pharmacy or to my medical centre and asked for help to give up smoking, it seems that they might commit an offence because they are a business. I think there is some merit in those two amendments, unless there is something somewhere else in the Bill that provides a specific exemption for smoking cessation services.
I have looked at the defence in Clause 199, “Advertising: defences”, and there is a defence, but it can be exercised only by somebody “in a relevant trade”—in other words, selling tobacco products, herbal smoking and the rest. If the only exemption is for business purposes, it seems to me that there are some grey areas. Surely there is a case for making it clear that we want these products to be promoted as smoking cessation services and people should not run the risk of getting caught by what I think is rather vague drafting of the Bill as it stands.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, much has been said on this. It might be worth noting—I appreciate this is the wrong place to note it—that the ultimate virtue in life and the bottom line of every single decision we make does not have to be public health. If you think that other things are important, it does not make you beyond the pale, evil or somebody who can be cast out of society. Public health is one of the balancing things we have to consider in society, but there is a range of things we need to discuss.
I say that because when we are talking about these exemptions, which I think are very sensible, moderate and proportionate, one of the things that is interesting is that the plethora of specialist vape shops—I appreciate that people in this Room might not be familiar with them—are full of geeky people who understand the wide variety of vapes that are available legally on the market in this country. They are not somewhere that young people hang out; I mean young in the sense of being under 18. They are often frequented by people who are interested in the different types of vaping you can choose to indulge in. I do not think there is anything wrong with that. The point that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has made is that they are not places for children.
It is interesting that many of the people who work in those establishments see themselves as being in the smoking-cessation business; they actively see themselves that way. Many go on training courses in smoking cessation and are therefore almost zealots. So, in some ways, I would much rather buy my vapes from a convenience store than go into a vape shop, because they give you a lecture in all things related to vaping, very often to do with public health.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to the amendments relating to penalties around advertising. As is often the case with legislation—many of us on this side were Government Ministers, too—the catch-all is extremely complex and rather dangerous. I agree that trying to prosecute someone who “has reason to suspect” that an advertisement may have been created for some type of tobacco-related product seems wholly reasonable. I note that, on page 66, internet services are included, which effectively means that anyone who runs an internet company where there is any advert for some type of tobacco product that could be seen by someone in the UK will go to prison for two years. I do not know whether we want to let some of the great tech bros of the world know that they should start planning. The good news is that we are so overcrowded that it will take years before we process them. But this is the sort of legislation—
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I apologise for delaying the Committee. I was not having a cigar, as was suggested; I just got caught in the slow lane in the Lobby.
I shall come briefly to a conclusion. I ask the Minister for some clarification around the reality of how these proposals will be brought into play. I do not wish to speak on behalf of my fellow Peers but, clearly, there is a broad understanding across the Committee that we will end any form of advertising or promotion, except in specialist areas. I was pleased to see, and am grateful for, the carve-outs for specialist tobacconists, but we must ensure that these are proportionate and realistic; I assume that it is not the Government’s intention to impose a two-year prison sentence on someone who inadvertently passes on an advert for tobacco products or whatever it may be.
The “Internet services” clause needs serious consideration because, like all these laws that try to catch the provider, be it the telephone company, the internet service provider or whatever, from my experience, having sat where the Minister is, they are largely impractical. It is better to think practically about what these service providers can do, what sort of expectations we should be holding them to and how they can practically try to minimise the proliferation of adverts for tobacco products.
My final question to the Minister is, how can I receive my information as a legitimate enjoyer of an occasional cigar? How will I be given information online, which is how many people purchase their tobacco products perfectly legally? The Minister said that she is not looking to take action retrospectively on people who now enjoy a legal pastime but to bring in a smoke-free generation, but how will that conflict with my rights? How will I receive information? Can I receive the information that I want to receive in a way that enables me to distinguish easily between products, which requires some type of brand point, online, by email or through the websites of the suppliers? How is that going to work in practice? It is all very well to say that we do not want to have advertising. The reality is that it is perfectly reasonable for me to receive good information. I am sure that the Committee would want to make sure that that was safely delivered and appropriate rather than using the wrong type of legislation and a catch-all or a sledgehammer in order to try to crack this nut.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will address just two amendments in this group. The first is Amendment 171 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, who powerfully and clearly introduced it as a probing amendment to the Government while very handily timing her intervention to remind me that it is in this group and that I have attached my name to it. I thank the noble Baroness for that.
We might say that there are different sides in this Committee, but everyone has agreed that adult smokers need to be able to get the information they need that this is an effective way to stop smoking. That is what this amendment does, and I do not think I need to say anymore on that.
I want to address briefly Amendment 172A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, which is about restrictions on brand sharing. It is important to highlight why this amendment should not be part of the Bill. The process of brand stretching or brand sharing is something that we have seen the tobacco companies doing a great deal of. Mysteriously, expensive leather jackets, fancy sunglasses or even stationery suddenly start to bear various branding aspects—I will get to what those aspects are in a second—that just happen to echo that of a certain form of cigarettes. Governments very often find themselves playing a whack-a-mole game: if you try to ban this, then something slightly different appears and so on.
I particularly want to highlight the guidelines for implementation of Article 13 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control because this amendment very clearly goes against what that says. It notes that there needs to be an effective ban on all forms of tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship. I think it is worth quoting this because it highlights the ways in which the WHO is trying to catch everything because it has to try to catch everything:
“Promotional effects, both direct and indirect, may be brought about by the use of words, designs, images, sounds and colours, including brand names … or schemes of colours associated with tobacco products, manufacturers or importers, or by the use of a part or parts of words, designs, images and colours”.
The Government need all the powers they can possibly have to stop the merchants of death sneaking round into little gaps in the legislation.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Northover’s Amendment 171 in this group, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. My noble friend has highlighted many egregious examples of the sort of advertising that the Bill needs to avoid through careful drafting. Her suggestion is explicit that advertising must not appeal to children, non-smokers or indeed anyone for whom these products are not intended, while ensuring that their core purpose as smoking cessation products is not impeded.
Amendment 171 would tighten up the wording of the Bill to achieve the Government’s intention. It would also future-proof it. We debated, on Amendments 195 and 196 from my noble friend Lord Russell, the need for reviews in the future, to give everyone the confidence that the Government will at least keep pace with—or preferably get ahead of—developments. We should include in those reviews any clever advertising and marketing intended to get round the Bill, as well as product development and emerging evidence of harms. Frankly, if the industry does not like it, it has only itself to blame because of its blatant and highly successful campaign to lure children to use its products.
On Amendment 161A, from the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, about the removal of “reason to suspect”—
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, as I was saying, on Amendment 161A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, about the removal of,
“or has reason to suspect”,
in Clause 114(1)(b), we believe this phrase is commonly used and therefore there is no need to remove it.
On Amendment 161B on possible disparities between penalties in different devolved nations, we look forward to the Minister’s response. Although consistency is usually desirable, there may be unintended consequences, which the Minister knows about, because different situations prevail in different parts of the country.
We support the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, in his Amendment 167 because it is important that vapes can be promoted as a cessation tool. However, as I understand it, the Bill prohibits the advertising of vapes by businesses only, which means that public health organisations, GPs and hospitals treating patients suffering from smoking-related diseases could promote them as a quitting aid. As I understand it, the prohibition does not cover products licensed as medicines, so they can continue to be promoted.
Having said all that, I hope that the Minister can assure us that clear guidance compatible with the Bill’s intentions will be provided by the Advertising Standards Authority so as not to hinder public health settings while preventing commercial advertising, which has had such an egregious effect on the level of awareness of these products among children, who do not need them to quit smoking.
With Amendment 168, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, would allow vapes to be promoted in what we might call adults-only places. Leaving aside the fact that, as we know, many younger people slip into these places, promotion there would give the impression that these products are for recreational use, which is not their purpose. Anyone going to a nightclub who is trying to quit smoking but fears they may be tempted to have a cigarette when they have had a few drinks and their resistance is lowered would certainly equip themselves with their vapes before going out.
We do not think Amendment 168A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, is necessary as the Bill already allows public health authorities to promote heated tobacco and other things as quitting aids.
Amendment 169 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, raises an interesting issue that we think could be explored. There may be a case for some limited arrangements for display or promotion by specialist retailers, but this should be done very carefully to avoid ensnaring young people inappropriately. I think the Bill allows specialist vape shops to operate, and they could display material provided by public health authorities.
Amendment 170 is not necessary as there is no prohibition in the Bill of specialist retailers putting information on their website.
Regarding Amendment 170A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, I think about my local corner shop, which has illuminated signs inside and a shop window plastered with enticing advertisements for sweet-flavoured vapes. I hope the Minister will resist this very broad exemption.
Finally, we think that Amendment 172A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, on brand sharing is far too broad and would, in the end, apply to all brand sharing. I know from my work on food advertising how widely brand logos, colours and images can be recognised by the public. Who does not know that burgers and chips are being sold when they see the golden arches of McDonald’s, or that chocolate bars are being advertised when they see the colour purple and the words Dairy Milk? You need to be very careful when regulating brands, so I hope the Minister will resist that one, too.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, in this group of amendments we have seen a logical continuation of our debate on the previous group, since in their various ways these amendments pose the question of what are the appropriate constraints to place around products that are of considerably less concern in a health context than tobacco products. We are back in the realm of deciding what is proportionate and how to secure better clarity and consistency in the operation of the Bill’s advertising and design provisions.
Although he has not been here to speak to it, my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister’s Amendment 161A struck me as a point worth raising. It would protect designers and creative professionals from being criminally liable based on mere suspicion or indirect association because it would work to raise the threshold of proof of intent. One could imagine that in some cases it could be difficult to prove that someone designing an advertisement had reason to suspect that it would be published. In any event, is it right that someone who has been asked by their employer to design a vape advertisement should be criminalised because they know or believe it may be used in some context? I am afraid that the word “draconian” comes to mind.
On my noble friend’s Amendment 161B a very similar thought came to mind. Are the Government really saying that the offence of designing an advertisement for a vape merits a prison sentence? There are mixed messages coming out of the Government at the moment. How should the sentencing provisions in this part of the Bill be read alongside the provisions of the Government’s Sentencing Bill? What is the overall message? The Sentencing Bill will require almost all sentences of less than 12 months to be suspended. On the one hand, the Government are creating imprisonable offences, and on the other, they are saying that people should not actually go to prison, even if they are sentenced to it. At the very least, the Minister needs to explain to the Committee why the sentence on summary conviction is to be different in Scotland than in Northern Ireland, which might have been a point my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister would have made.
Turning to my Amendment 167 and the very well worded amendment, if I may say so, from the Liberal Democrats, the underlying purpose of each is the same, which is to urge the Government to regulate, rather than ban, vape advertisements so that in narrow clinical contexts, such as smoking cessation clinics, they can be deployed for public health purposes. Amendment 168A in the name of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising has a very similar purpose.
In Amendment 169 I am asking the Government to consider a further exemption for advertisements located discretely in specialist vaping shops. Why not allow that? As my noble friend Lord Moylan has asked in his Amendment 170, why prohibit such specialist shops providing information online subject to suitable age-gating checks? That in turn raises a further question from my noble friend in his Amendment 168. In adult-only environments, why should displaying an advertisement for a vaping product be against the law given that, as we need to keep reminding ourselves, vapes are and will remain legally available for purchase by anyone aged 18 or over? Why are the Government treating vape advertising in exactly the same way as tobacco advertising? What is the justification? Amendment 170A from my noble friend Lord Howard asks that question in a different form. Why should we not allow factual product information to be provided at point of sale in an age-restricted area in suitably licensed premises?
Finally, Amendment 172A from my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister would prevent overreach. It would ensure that brand restrictions target only genuine attempts to promote nicotine or tobacco, not completely unrelated products such as clothing or other merchandise. I think my noble friend has identified an issue that requires clarification from the Government, and I would welcome the Minister’s comments.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am most grateful to noble Lords for bringing forward this group of amendments, which reference Part 6 provisions, and for the contributions that have been made.
I will start with Amendments 161A and 161B, which are tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister. The current drafting of Clause 114 makes it an offence, when acting in the course of business, to design an advert that would promote a relevant product and be published in the UK. If an organisation knows or has reason to suspect their advert has a promotional purpose or effect and will be published in the UK, it has committed an offence by designing the advert.
I say to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that the inclusion of “has reason to suspect” is deliberate, not least because it mirrors the approach taken in the existing Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act. This wording is designed to avoid loopholes and to ensure that those who are involved in the design of ads cannot evade responsibility by claiming ignorance where it is clear from the evidence that they had reason to suspect what they were designing an advert for. I hope the noble Earl will understand that we will, therefore, not seek to weaken existing legislation or allow any uncertainty that could be exploited.
I turn to Amendment 161B. I sympathise with the intention to align penalties across the UK but, of course, it is important that we respect Scotland has a separate criminal justice system. There are maximum penalties for this type of offence; they are fixed in line with the criminal justice system in each jurisdiction. I hope that that is helpful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe.
I turn to Amendment 172A, which was also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister. It seeks to restrict the scope of the offence of brand sharing. Brand sharing, also known as brand stretching, is a form of indirect advertising and should be seen as such, not least because it promotes the use of a service or product by putting its branding on other products or services or vice versa. The clause is drafted in a manner that already limits the offence that could be created under this power to cases where the purpose or effect is to promote a relevant product. Brand sharing, as defined in the Bill, would be unlikely to capture the types of case about which the noble Lord is concerned in his amendment; it is our view, therefore, that this amendment, as it stands, would introduce unnecessary complexity.
I turn to Amendment 168 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. The Bill as drafted takes decisive action to ban the advertising and sponsorship of all vapes and nicotine products, delivering on our clear manifesto commitment to stop vapes being advertised to children—something on which the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, spoke. The ban is essential to creating what we seek: a strong, consistent regulatory environment; and to provide clarity for businesses and enforcement bodies. I can say to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that guidance will be produced on advertising.
This Bill already includes defences for the limited circumstances in which advertising would be appropriate. As I have said in our debates on earlier groups, we are not considering any other exemptions for adult-only spaces, not least because of the risk of loopholes; these were referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. However, I take this opportunity to correct a statement that was made in the other place: this prohibition will apply to all advertisements for relevant products, not just those for specific products. In practice, this means that anyone acting in the course of business could commit an offence if they promote a relevant product, whether that is a generic product, a category of products or a specific branded product.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I think the noble Baroness has addressed Amendment 170. Does she therefore not share the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, which was, as I understood it, that my Amendment 170 is unnecessary because there is nothing in the Bill that prohibits specialist vape retailers communicating on the internet? I would like clarity on that.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Of course; I am going to come on to the point about online advertising.
Amendments 167 and 169, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, Amendment 168A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howard, and Amendment 171, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, all seek to create exemptions to allow for the promotion of products for the purposes of smoking cessation—something that was also spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Young. As I mentioned on the previous group, I repeat the assurance to noble Lords that the Bill as drafted will allow certain public authorities to continue to take steps to promote vapes as a means to quit smoking. This is a matter that I will come back to on Report.
The offences in Part 6 apply only to those acting in the course of business. For example, following the passage of the Bill, local stop smoking services will still be able to take steps to promote vapes to smokers as a less harmful alternative. The noble Lord, Lord Young, raised an important question about GPs and pharmacists having such a facility. I assure him that we will be further reviewing whether the Bill provides the necessary approach considering the points that he made.
I also mention something relevant to an earlier group—I may be stepping a little outside of things here, but I remember the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, in particular, making this point. The advertisement offences will not prevent a retailer offering verbal smoking cessation services to their customers. While I am sympathetic to the intention to ensure that vapes remain accessible and visible to adult smokers, there are already strict rules in place for nicotine vape advertising. Under current legislation, it is illegal to advertise nicotine-containing vapes on television, radio, most online platforms and in newspapers and magazines. Companies are not allowed to market a vape as a smoking cessation product or to make medicinal claims about products unless these have been authorised as a medicinal product by the MHRA. As noble Lords have heard me say many times, we believe that promoting smoking cessation is best led by the appropriate health authorities, including the NHS, which can provide tailored advice to the individual with the necessary behavioural support.
I should be clear that all tobacco products are harmful to health, including heated tobacco, which contains tobacco and generates aerosols with carcinogens. The department therefore does not recommend the use of heated tobacco products to quit smoking.
I turn to Amendment 170 from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan—
Lord Lansley (Con)
Forgive me for interrupting, but I did not quite follow. Where in the Bill is the reference to the ability to place an advertisement for a product that is authorised as a medicinal product, where it also happens to be a vaping product? I do not know where that is to be found in legislation.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I will be happy to come back to the noble Lord and be precise about that while I am going through the rest. If I do not get the opportunity to do so, I will of course write.
I turn to Amendment 170 from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and Amendment 170A from the noble Lord, Lord Howard. I am sympathetic to the intention of ensuring that consumers have the information they need to make a purchase. This was spoken to by not only the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, but the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. However, Amendment 170 is not necessary because retailers, as I have said, will continue to be able to provide the necessary factual information about products to enable purchases. Amendment 170A is also not necessary because the Bill does not prohibit businesses displaying the categories of information that this amendment refers to, as long as the information is not promotional.
The noble Lords, Lord Johnson and Lord Moylan, referred to online providers. The Bill builds on existing legislation and effectively bans all advertising of relevant products, including online. On the particular point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, we expect enforcement bodies to take a proportionate approach, as they currently do with the advertising of tobacco products.
The noble Lord, Lord Howard, asked about government engagement. We will continue to engage with independent vaping associations and other vaping businesses, but I remind him and the Committee, as I said probably on day one, that the UK Government are committed to Article 5.3 of the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which means the protection of public health policy from the vested interests of the tobacco industry. So I have not met and will not meet British American Tobacco.
I will need to write to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and will be glad to do so. I hope this will allow the noble Lord, Lord Howard, to withdraw Amendment 161A.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 176 and 177.
Amendment 175
Lord Kamall
(a) an NHS property or hospital,(b) a public playground,(c) a provider of early years education, or(d) a school.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment restricts the Secretary of State’s power to designate smoke-free places to only hospitals, children’s playgrounds, providers of early years education and schools in England.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 175 and 179 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Howe propose restricting the Secretary of State’s power to designate smoke-free places to a clearly defined and limited set of locations: NHS property or hospitals, public playgrounds, and providers of early years education and schools. As it stands, Clause 135 gives the Secretary of State extraordinarily wide powers to add new areas and designations to the list of smoke-free places: in effect, to designate almost any space or area regarded as open to the public smoke-free by regulation. While well intentioned, it is a sweeping power that merits careful scrutiny.
Therefore, the purpose of these probing amendments is to seek to understand how the Government intend to use this sweeping power and whether they will act responsibly in exercising it. The four categories proposed—NHS property or hospitals, public playgrounds, early years providers and schools— are all spaces where there is a clear public health argument for restrictions and, indeed, support for these restrictions. They are environments that the Government have consistently said they wish to protect. However, the Government intend to designate additional places through delegated powers. Therefore, we are probing the Government on the level of discussion, scrutiny and accountability for any such changes. Will this be by way of the negative procedure, draft affirmative procedure or made affirmative procedure? We hope that the Government, in seeking to augment or change this list, will return to Parliament and make the case openly, thereby ensuring that the Secretary of State’s power in this area is clearly defined, appropriately limited and exercised with the scrutiny and responsibility that Parliament expects.
The other amendments in the group address in different ways the question of how far-reaching the Secretary of State’s powers under Clause 135 ought to be and what safeguards should accompany them. Amendment 176, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, which proposes that the Secretary of State can act only where there is evidence that smoking in a given place is causing harm to non-smokers, is a reasonable and proportionate test, but this evidential safeguard should be in addition to, not instead of, clear and meaningful parliamentary oversight. Amendment 177 from my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister is welcome, since it seeks to ensure that Ministers are not handed sweeping authority to alter well-established rights, such as the ability to smoke in open, uncovered hospitality venues, without the explicit oversight or approval of Parliament. This also appears to be a sensible and proportionate check to ensure that government powers are exercised within a clear and democratically accountable framework and, when combined with Amendment 176 from the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, would ensure that any extension of bans is justified by evidence.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, we have not yet heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, but I will speak briefly in opposition to the amendments just introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, particularly Amendments 175 and 179. I start from the point of view that the powers to extend smoke-free places in England, were Amendment 175 to pass, would be less than the powers in the devolved nations. As smoking prevalence continues to fall, there will clearly be an ongoing open discussion that appraises the evidence on smoke-free extensions and how best to protect public health and workers’ rights.
In August 2024, the Government indicated—well, apparently it was leaked—that they were going to extend these powers when bringing back the Bill. There was then a backlash, the Government U-turned and said that the consultation would focus only on schools, playgrounds and hospitals. That is disappointing, but we do not want to close down the opportunities and options for the future that would be available from this Bill.
Think about some of the other places that might be high-priority areas in the future, such as beaches. Very often, we experience big problems with litter and there are lots of small children on beaches. People have an expectation of fresh air there; that is one of the reasons why they go to the seaside. There are other places where exposure to second-hand cigarette smoke is particularly high. One example is transport hubs, but we can all think of other places where there are real issues and where we might want to keep the possibility of further extension open.
Finally, our medical understanding of the impacts of so-called passive smoking and second-hand cigarette smoke is growing and increasing all the time, and heading in only one direction. I note, for example, that just in the last week a major veterinary provider told pet owners to be aware of the impacts of passive cigarette smoke and vaping on pets. Our understanding of the impacts in this kind of area just keeps growing and growing, so we should not close down the possibilities in the Bill.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I will speak first to my Amendment 176. As the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, said, his Amendment 178 does something very similar. As I have often said, policy should be based on evidence, so this amendment seeks to tease out exactly what evidence the Government plan to use when designating a new area as smoke-free.
The Government have already said that their consultation on further smoke-free areas will focus on schools, playgrounds and hospitals. It is fairly clear that areas in and close to schools should be smoke-free, in the same way that local authorities now have powers to prevent the opening of new fast-food outlets near schools because of the health dangers of much of their sales.
However, some playgrounds are very large and it is possible that a parent waiting on a bench for a child, well away from the play equipment, may want to smoke a cigarette—if they are of legal age, of course. Although it would set a bad example, it would be hard to understand the level of risk to the children playing; it would depend how far away they are. As for hospitals, many of them have already designated their grounds as smoke-free, although it has been hard to enforce. Many of us will have seen people smoking outside St Thomas’ Hospital, underneath the “No smoking” sign. Many hospitals have distinct outdoor smoking shelters. The matter is complicated, which is why my amendment probes the Government on the criteria they will use.
On the other hand, Amendments 175 and 179 seek to specify in the Bill the areas that can be designated as smoke-free. This could restrict the Government from acting in other areas in future. Obviously, we want the same rules in all parts of the UK, to save confusion. There are several reasons why the Government should not be limited in this way, and they must bear in mind the different circumstances that prevail in different areas. For example, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned, there are many children on beaches, and discarded cigarettes are a real litter problem, according to coastal local authorities. As she said, transport hubs may also come into focus, because of the crowded conditions in many of them, especially at certain times of the day such as rush hour. We think the Government need flexibility on this issue. Indeed, somebody might be more affected by second-hand smoke in a transport hub than at the far side of a very large playground, which is why I would like to see an evidence test.
We do not support Amendment 177 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, as the Government may want to restrict smoking in uncovered hospitality areas in the future. However, if they do so they will have to explain the reasons why, and we could debate it then. The fact is that the prohibition on smoking in indoor hospitality venues has proved very popular with customers and landlords alike and has certainly not had a damaging effect on footfall or expansion of the sector. The same might apply to uncovered hospitality areas in the future, if they are considered for the ban.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, as we have heard, all the amendments in this group seek to limit the powers in the Bill to make additional places smoke-free in England. On Amendment 176, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, we know that passive smoking, whether indoors or outdoors, poses a risk to health. The rule of thumb is: if you can smell cigarette smoke, you are inhaling it. This is particularly important for children, pregnant women and those with pre-existing health conditions such as asthma or heart disease, which may not be visible to the smoker.
However, despite these well-known and very well-evidenced harms, trying to ascribe specific harms to locations is somewhat challenging, as this debate shows. For example, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, mentioned, in a large children’s play area it is difficult to evidence that exposure to second-hand smoke has caused a specific harm in a specific place. I can assure noble Lords that we are extremely mindful of this. Therefore, the test referred to in the amendment is overly restrictive, technically very difficult to do and not necessary, given the extensive evidence of harm to vulnerable people. It would also likely lead to a scenario in which we are unable to protect the most vulnerable in society from the harms of second-hand smoke.
Similarly, on Amendment 178, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, as I mentioned, we know the harms of passive smoking. There is strong indirect evidence but, as I said, it can be difficult to demonstrate this evidence in specific locations. Again, this restrictive test would prevent areas where there are harms of second-hand smoke to children and medically vulnerable people from becoming smoke-free. Furthermore, as this amendment would apply in England only, it would leave England with more restrictive smoke-free provisions than the devolved nations.
Amendments 175 and 179 were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall. As we have made clear but I would like to reiterate, in England we plan to consult on extending smoke-free places as and when. In the first instance, it would be to the outdoor areas of schools and early years settings, children’s playgrounds and healthcare settings. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that all proposed smoke-free locations will be subject to consultation both now and into the future and that regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure. We will be guided by public health advice. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, rightly observed that the powers within the Bill allow us to respond to evolving evidence at a later time, particularly where there is evidence of clear harms to children and vulnerable people.
On Amendment 177 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, we have made it very clear—I am glad to take the opportunity to do so again, not least because the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, raised this—that outdoor hospitality settings will not be in scope of the consultation on smoke-free places. We fully recognise the balance that is needed to protect the most vulnerable as well as ensure that businesses are not financially impacted. We are confident that we have the balance right in deciding the places, which I have already outlined, on which we plan to consult.
However, the powers in the Bill, as has been observed, allow for additional places to be designated smoke-free in the future, subject to further consultation and parliamentary debate. The landscape may change significantly on tobacco legislation, as it has done over the years. Evidence and attitudes may also shift, again as we have seen over the years, so it is sensible to ensure that the Bill is future-proofed and can respond to evolving evidence. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the wide range of noble Lords who spoke on these amendments. These are clearly intended as probing amendments, at this stage, to understand—as the Minister herself agreed—these wide sweeping powers to designate additional spaces as smoke-free. We are grateful because we were concerned about the level of scrutiny there would be. The Minister assured us that there will be consultation and that any changes will be by regulation following the affirmative procedure. We are very grateful for that and that perhaps answers some of the probing amendments that we have in future groups. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, the notice to debate whether Clause 136 should stand part of the Bill has been tabled as a probe. From my reading of Clause 136, it alters a long-standing regulatory regime set out in the Health Act 2006. Under that Act, Ministers have a regulation-making power to exempt performers and performances from the smoking ban, where doing so is justified by the artistic integrity of the performance. That provision, in effect, creates a presumption of legality that empowers producers, directors and performers to make a reasoned judgment about whether smoking is intrinsic to the artistic content of the work.
Clause 136 turns that structure on its head. Instead of a power to permit smoking for artistic reasons, it substitutes a power only to create a defence to the criminal offence in Section 7(2) of the 2006 Act. That offence is clear. It says:
“A person who smokes in a smoke-free place commits an offence”.
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 180 in the name of my noble friend Lord Faulkner, to which I have added my name. Amendment 180 would remove the sampling exemption to smoke-free legislation that currently allows cigar lounges to operate.
This exemption has created a loophole that accommodates smoking indoors in a public place—something that we rightly consigned to history in 2007. The 2007 statutory instrument carved out an exemption for specialist tobacconists, allowing for the sampling of products within the premises. The justification offered then was that cigars, being a niche and luxury product, required a try-before-you-buy approach.
Yet what I see today bears little resemblance to the spirit of that exemption. These venues are no longer retail premises merely offering brief product sampling; they are fully-fledged cigar lounges. They are described by no less an authority than the Daily Telegraph as:
“The last place you can smoke indoors in the UK”
and
“a network of hangouts where smoking is not just permitted, but encouraged”.
That is surely not what Parliament intended.
In some of these lounges, food and drink are served as cigar smoke fills enclosed spaces. Some noble Lords may be enthusiastic supporters of what one nearby cigar lounge’s website describes in the following terms:
“Nestled in a quiet corner of the city lies … a haven for those who seek solace in the timeless ritual of cigar smoking. Step through our doors and be transported to a world of refined tranquility, where every detail is crafted to enchant the senses and soothe the soul”.
Note the absence of any reference to sampling, by the way.
What about those who work in these environments—staff being exposed to second-hand smoke on every shift? I saw the reality of this at first hand just a couple of months ago at a friend’s birthday party in a smart London hotel. As the guests, including myself, wandered from room to room and from snacks and dancing to drink, we were amazed to see that one of our options was a cigar lounge. Although this was indeed an option for us—one that I obviously chose to skip, given my father’s untimely death from lung cancer—it was not an option for the staff, who were working in all parts of the hotel.
The smell of that cigar smoke took me back to my childhood and teens before my father died at 66. He usually smoked cigarettes and a pipe—it was Cut Golden Bar, if any noble Lords are old enough to remember the cheaper brands of tobacco. He would smoke a cigar, purchased as a present or as a treat for himself, once a year at Christmas. I remember the smell of that smoke in the room. I had no idea—I do not know whether he did—of the harm it was doing to his two daughters, who now suffer from asthma.
During the campaign for the smoking ban, trade unions and the hospitality industry made one of the strongest arguments for change: all workers have the right to a safe workplace free of second-hand smoke. Does that principle not equally apply to those working in cigar lounges? We are seeing new lounges open, too. In Sheffield, for example, a new lounge opened earlier this year despite strong objections from the public health team at Sheffield City Council. The team noted that the venue was within 400 metres of a school and that smoking remains the leading cause of preventable death in the city. It warned that such a venue risked normalising tobacco use for young people, undermining the council’s public health objectives, yet the lounge opened regardless.
The health harms of cigars are clear. Even when not inhaling, cigar and pipe smokers are at increased risk of cancer of the mouth, oesophagus, throat, voice box and lungs. There is no safe form of tobacco. I strongly support the Bill taking action on all tobacco products and look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments regarding indoor smoking in these establishments.
Lord Strathcarron (Non-Afl)
My Lords, on the first day of this Committee, there was wide agreement that this Bill was about public health in general and about preventing young people starting to smoke in particular. Amendment 180, against which I shall speak, addresses neither of these objectives. As we have heard, the amendment is based on the oft-repeated shibboleth that all tobacco is dangerous, but that is as nonsensical and unscientific as saying that all water is drinkable. Neither proposition stands up to even the most basic inquiry: with water, it all depends on where it comes from, and, with tobacco, it all depends on what it is done with.
I am sure that, after reading Hansard on day four of this Committee, the noble Lords who were not here and who support this amendment will have learned that the tobacco used in handmade cigars is a totally different product to the tobacco used in mass-produced cigarettes. It is smoked by a much more elderly cohort of users and is handmade as an artisanal product by cottage industries in friendly, foreign-aid-supported Caribbean countries, which are, in turn, the very opposite of what most people refer to as the tobacco industry. They will also have learned that cigars are not inhaled, are not addictive and are smoked only occasionally at best; and that, as such, there is absolutely no evidence at all that handmade cigars pose any danger to public health. In fact, it is quite the opposite if we refer to the US health studies already mentioned in Committee, there being no UK equivalent.
Turning to the second objective of this Bill—to discourage young people from starting to smoke—again, there is absolutely no evidence, either statistical, anecdotal or commonsensical, that young people take up smoking cigarettes after smoking a cigar. So one is left wondering: what is the point of this amendment?
I turn now to its specifics, bearing in mind the call for proportionality here. There are only 25 sampling rooms in the UK. Access to them is usually by appointment and they are certainly open only to the tobacconist’s cigar aficionado customers; under no circumstances are they open to the general public. I know of only one of these places. It is on the roof of a shop that has a tin roof in case it rains but is otherwise open on all four sides; I have heard that others have powerful extractor fans, which is the norm. I cannot see any possible danger to the consenting adults sampling cigars in these circumstances or to anyone passing by, by which time the smoke will have long since disappeared into the greater good.
Sampling cigars is very different to sampling, say, a piece of cheese or a piece of chocolate. A cigar takes half an hour to smoke, and it changes throughout that half hour; therefore, it is necessary for the whole cigar to be smoked. That is in the tobacconist’s interest because, at the end of the sample smoke, the customer may well buy a box of 25 cigars, which could cost, on average, about £750. Methinks that noble Lords supporting this amendment are not familiar with what they hope to ban.
On day four of this Committee, in referring to the question of a health threat from smoking cigars, many noble Lords from all Benches—or, like me, from none—emphasised the need for evidence before legislation and pointed out that, in this case, there is none. Many argued that, ergo, cigars should continue to be exempted from it. Many also referred to the lack of any impact assessment and so to the unintentional, possibly terminal, damage that would be done to the related retail and hospitality sectors. Whether intentionally or unintentionally—it is not clear—this amendment hits right at the heart of these sectors for no evidential benefit. In the absence of any evidence that there is a problem that needs legislation—and in the spirit of, “If no harm’s being done, let us live and let live”—I hope that noble Lords will agree that this amendment is quite simply not needed.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I rise to speak in favour of the first amendment, proposed by my noble friends, and against the second amendment: Amendment 180.
On actors and their ability to smoke on set, in my view, this is something that needs further refining. I ask the Minister to go back slightly on the previous amendments discussed, but intertwined with those is this question: what is an offence and what is not an offence? If I were to be playing myself, as I may be now, would I be able to light a cigar in an authentic fashion in order to prove that point? Where are we talking about these regulations being relevant and effective? How far do the regulations intend to go when people are posting on social media, which is a far cry from the adverts of the 1970s promoting the joys of smoking? If they put themselves on social media smoking a cigar and talking about its delights, is that advertising the genre, as the Minister said it was? Would that be a criminal offence? If that is the case, we are going to find ourselves in extreme difficulty, aside from the absurd attacks on our liberty.
I am afraid that I will also speak very firmly against Amendment 180, with the greatest of respect to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath. She made a strong case for how she saw these processes, but the reality is that this is an exemption temporarily used by premises to enable people to sample tobacco. The idea that this is something that somehow Parliament should be focusing on is a little bizarre when there is so much going on in the world. The anti-smoking lobby has found somebody somewhere somehow smoking a cigar, and the entire machine has focused its gaze, like the great Eye of Sauron, on this activity that is, at worst, fringe and, at best, quite relevant in ensuring that people can legitimately engage in the trade and sale of occasional cigar smoking, which we have established has no factual health consequences at all, regardless of the desire of many who want to see the end of smoking and a smoke-free generation. I disagree with that fundamentally but can see the point of it; this is contradictory to that point. It is important that, as legislators, we understand the facts and take a fact-based approach to the way we legislate.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for raising the issue of theatres. This is one of those peculiar issues where “Why on earth would you do this?” is a good question. What is the problem with the present circumstances? It reminds me of the previous group. This could compromise artistic freedom for no good reason. In the previous group, I suddenly envisaged advertising and product designers being rounded up and facing two years in prison at some point. It speaks to the dangers of the state being drunk on power. It is state overreach, where it gets carried away with itself, saying, “We are righteous, on a good cause, on a mission. We are very zealous”, and suddenly all sorts of important norms get thrown out of the window.
I know that the Minister personally is very reasonable, but sometimes legislation gets carried away with itself. I suggest that this legislation needs a fine-toothed comb run through it to get rid of these disproportionate, perhaps unintended, consequences. Once that happens, it encourages others to table amendments that make a virtue of such state overreach. I completely support the previous speech, and I am opposed to Amendment 180, which is a huge hammer to deal with a very small issue that is not even a problem but somehow gets lumped in with everything else.
I am also opposed to Amendment 186, which would introduce the notion that:
“Pavement licences may only be granted by a local authority subject to the condition that smoking is prohibited”.
I remind the Committee that hospitality is absolutely under the cosh. We spend a lot of time worrying about the fate of the high street. I am involved in lots of discussions at the moment about fragmenting communities: people not going out and about and socialising. We worked hard as a society—we had to—to get people back socialising with each other after the terrible lockdown period, and even now, hospitality is finding it hard to recover.
There are all sorts of economic reasons for that, so it seems ludicrous to say that pavement licences—for sitting out, enjoying yourself, meeting your friends and so on—will be granted by local authorities only if smoking is prohibited. Individual establishments might decide to prohibit smoking; that is up to them. They are entirely free to do so, and people who smoke will not go to them. Or, if there is seating outside, a pavement licence can be granted so that in some of the space you are allowed to smoke or vape. In other words, grown-ups negotiate their way round this. I, for one, enjoy that we have found café society in coming out on to pavements, and it is really misanthropic and mean-spirited to try to stamp on that in any way. I therefore completely oppose Amendment 186. It is in the spirit of the relentless, never-ending attempt at banning, regulating and stopping.
I also think that it is a terrible insult to local authorities’ autonomy to tell them what to do in this way. It seems both ridiculously petty-minded and authoritarian at the same time. The evidence is there, and there is a notion around the dangers of smoking outside; this point relates to the previous group. I remind the Committee that Cancer Research UK says, in relation to passive smoking and smoking outside, that
“it will be important to consider how to avoid stigma or accidentally risk pushing people into smoking in their homes, which would increase second-hand smoke exposure to those living with them”.
If you take an approach where the state decides that the public square is its own, and the state imagines that it can sanitise it of all kinds of things it does not want the public to do—that is not a free society, by the way—then, ironically, there can be unintended consequences. You push people into the anti-social home, in some ways, where, if you are a smoker, you will smoke. You might as well let them outside—but, of course, some people here do not want that either.
As I have said, unless you have the courage to make smoking a criminal offence, you have to have a certain sense of proportion and allow smoking outside in some instances. In my case, that is outside cafés if the establishment allows you to.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I obviously support my noble friend Lord Howe’s amendment. However, I would like to make some remarks in opposition to Amendment 180; the principal points have already been covered by my noble friends Lord Strathcarron and Lord Johnson, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley.
A proposer of this amendment—the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey—outlined an experience of hers, based in a hotel. It suggested that she has perhaps confused an outdoor smoking area with a sampling room; as we have heard, there are only 25 sampling rooms. It behoves the Committee to look at the regulation this amendment seeks to revoke. It is carefully drafted and was signed in 2007 by the then Health Minister, who had brought in the Health Act 2006. The way in which the regulation works—it certainly repays careful attention—is that its first phrase reads:
“The shop of a specialist tobacconist that is being used by persons who are sampling cigars and pipe tobacco is not smoke-free for the duration of that sampling if”—
I will pause there to unpack the various conditions that have to be met in order to smoke in a sampling room. First, it has to be in a specialist tobacconist. Secondly, it has to be used by a person who is sampling cigars or pipe tobacco. Cigars, I might add, are specified in the regulation to have “the same meaning” as that in the Tobacco Products (Descriptions of Products) Order 2003, the same regulation which specifically defines specialist tobacconist.
It is not an option for any old tobacconist—or, indeed, any old public house—to set up a sampling room. That cannot be done in accordance with the regulations. The effect of the exemption is to disapply the smoke-free ban in the 2006 Act from those premises for the duration of the sampling. For the rest of the time, the ban still applies; it is not a general smoking room as existed in, perhaps, working men’s clubs prior to the ban.
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
I wish to correct a potential misapprehension in the description of my view of Amendment 180. The “cigar-tasting tasting experience” at this particular hotel is described as:
“Explore the finest traditions of handmade cigars and sample an exceptional collection”.
Availability is “all year round” and the pictures, as I saw for myself, are entirely indoors.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
As the noble Baroness will agree, the sales-people who run these sampling rooms are entitled to market their goods. What she just read out is clearly marketing puff—to coin a phrase. I do not think it suggests any abuse of the regulation and it certainly does not amount to evidence justifying the amendment that she seeks to advance.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 186 in my name. I thank my noble friend Lady Walmsley for her support. This amendment would ensure that all pavement licences granted by local authorities are required to be smoke-free. Some noble Lords will remember that this House voted in support of this issue previously, but I will briefly cover the background for those who are less familiar with it.
Pavement licences were introduced during the pandemic when mixing inside was prohibited. They allowed hospitality venues to expand their seating outside at a time of great difficulty. We worked across parties to ensure that these outside spaces, as an extension of inside, should, like the interior areas, be smoke-free to protect the public, including children, and staff. We secured that, despite the familiar refrain that hospitality would go to the wall and so on. Then the industry indeed got to the Minister and the DCLG and, without consulting the Department of Health, this was ended. It is such a familiar story.
Meanwhile, outside areas proved very popular and became permanent fixtures in 2021. At that time, the House voted in favour of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, regretting that smoke-free pavement licences had not been adopted by the Government. This amendment honours that vote.
When pavement licences were first introduced, there was a requirement that some seating in the designated area was smoke-free. However, unless outside spaces are vast—we do not expect that on a pavement—having smoking and non-smoking tables next to each other means that everyone experiences second-hand smoke exposure due to drift.
The LGA backed our campaign to make all these areas smoke-free. Some councils decided that they would make the spaces being smoke-free a requirement of pavement licences, which was perfectly acceptable within the regulations, such that there was no requirement to have a smoking section. So far, 11 councils have introduced 100% smoke-free conditions in pavement seating. This includes cities such as Liverpool, Manchester and Newcastle. Evidence from these local authorities shows that the scheme is popular with customers and businesses alike, protecting public health without having adverse economic impacts.
There is no risk-free level of exposure to second-hand smoke. Second-hand smoke is an irritant for people struggling with asthma or other lung conditions, and associated health effects from second-hand smoke include stroke, lung cancer and heart disease. I hope that hospitality settings are included in the consultation for smoke-free extensions for the Bill. Polling shows that 40% of people said that they would be more likely to visit pubs and restaurants if smoking was banned in outdoor seating areas.
Hospitality is an important sector of our economy, but the notion that it is somehow economically dependent on the continued consumption of tobacco and allowing smoking in outside spaces requires further examination of the evidence. These arguments were made when public places were made smoke-free in the first place. Now, few people could contemplate pubs and restaurants once more being full of cigarette smoke. All the same arguments were made about banning smoking in public places and that places would go under—not so. In fact, the debate helped encourage people to give up, as opposed to smoking more at home. Making pavement licences smoke-free, which has proved such a success in many areas, feels like a step in the right direction.
I will comment on other amendments in this group. Amendment 180, regarding cigar lounges, points to an interesting case. Where we make exceptions and create loopholes, they have the potential to be exploited. Following the powerful speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey, it seems that there has been a very liberal interpretation of the notion of “sampling” that goes beyond what Parliament intended in the 2000s. She pointed to the real health consequences of cigar smoking and the potential risk to staff. I point noble Lords to what the NIH—the National Institutes of Health—and the National Cancer Institute say on this:
“Yes. Cigar smoke … contains toxic and cancer-causing chemicals that are harmful to both smokers and nonsmokers. Cigar smoke is possibly more toxic than cigarette smoke … there is more … tar in cigars than in cigarettes”.
They say that there is no safe use. There are higher rates of lung cancer, coronary heart disease and lung disease than among those who do not smoke, and similar levels of oral cancer and cancer of the oesophagus as for cigarette smokers. Anybody can look this up for themselves; I suggest that, in terms of there being “no risk”, noble Lords should do so. We should do nothing to create loopholes in this Bill, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister says about that.
The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, have challenged the proposition that Clause 136 stand part of the Bill. I listened with great interest to the discussion on why they wanted to probe smoking for artistic purposes. Of course, it used to be the case that smoking was a mainstay in films—I think of Humphrey Bogart smoking a cigarette in “Casablanca”, looking very cool with Ingrid Bergman melting before him. I would welcome hearing from the Minister what the Government plan to do in relation to this, because it came across as something that was very cool. We also do not want non-smoking actors to be led into a smoking habit. We hear about instances of that, where actors were not addicted but became addicted as a result of their roles. I know that the National Theatre has a smoke-free policy and that there are alternatives to smoking tobacco that can be used to portray it.
We know also that the depictions of smoking and vaping in the media increase the chance that young people will take up the habit, regardless of whether it is a positive or negative depiction. I realise that noble Lords are simply probing to elucidate what the Government are planning, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister says, but I also hope that the Minister is sympathetic to my Amendment 186. I also look forward to what she says in relation to the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, the amendments in this group seek to change the detail of exemptions and powers on smoke-free places. I am grateful both for the debate and the amendments, which raise a number of issues.
I start with the amendment introduced by my noble friend Lady Ramsey on behalf of my noble friend Lord Faulkner, who tabled it. It seeks to remove the existing exemption that allows individuals to sample cigars and pipe tobacco indoors in an enclosed and ventilated area in a specialist tobacconist. This amendment was also spoken to, although in a different way, by the noble Lords, Lord Johnson, Lord Murray and Lord Strathcarron. Tobacco is, as I have said, a uniquely harmful product. I sympathise with the aims of the amendment and agree with the intention. However, specialist tobacconists, as we have heard in the debate, are currently exempt because of the specialist nature of their trade. These businesses make up a very small percentage of the market in the UK.
I can assure my noble friend Lady Ramsey that there are a number of restrictions to the current exemption. For example, the sampling area is legally required to be enclosed, clearly signed and appropriately ventilated to prevent smoke spreading to non-smoking areas. Other tobacco products such as cigarettes cannot be sampled. I was interested to hear the example that my noble friend Lady Ramsey brought before the Committee. I know she will understand that I cannot comment on very specific circumstances, but this may or may not be a matter for enforcement. I am sure that my noble friend will look into that further.
It is important that the Bill balances the public health aims within it while ensuring that small and medium-sized businesses are not unnecessarily financially impacted. Ultimately, given our ambition to prevent future generations taking up smoking, we anticipate, as we have said in previous groups, that in the long term specialist tobacconists will have to pivot their business models. Given this, we expect the exemption currently in place, which we are not seeking to change, to be used less and less over time. I give the assurance that we will continue to monitor this niche market to ensure there is not a targeting of young people or an exploitation of the exemption. Of course, as this exemption is in regulations, it is possible to review this in the future, if required.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, asked about impact assessments. Any further impact assessments that are required will be prepared in advance of any legislation which is the normal process where there could be economic impacts. The impact assessments will be reviewed by the regulatory policy committee—again, in accordance with normal practice.
The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, have indicated that they oppose Clause 136 standing part of the Bill. The clause recasts an existing regulation-making power that was found in the Health Act 2006. It allows the Secretary of State to make regulations permitting performers in England to smoke during a performance. The intention of the clause is to provide simplification and offer greater consistency with the Bill’s other provision. In practice, it is our assessment that this will not make a real difference, which I know is of concern to the noble Earl.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I begin, I am afraid, by briefly taking issue with the intent behind Amendment 180. I was grateful for the Minister’s comments on that. In the Bill, we have an incremental measure designed to bring successive generations into adulthood without cigarettes, while not imposing restrictions on those who have been smoking their entire lives. That nuance is a large reason why a blanket ban on smoking would have been considered unfair.
The unfairness of a blanket ban is also one reason we still have cigar lounges. Cigars, which, over time, evolved into a cultural practice for many people, have, up to now, been understood to hold a special position in legislation. That was reflected in the establishment of cigar lounges and their continued exemption from other general bans on indoor smoking.
There is a further reason for that. There comes a point where considerations of personal freedom and choice and the interests of small businesses, as the Minister said, take precedence over considerations of harm to health. I know that harm to health is important, but there are other considerations in this context as well, which is the reason why I keep emphasising the need for proportionality in the Bill.
Equally, I am afraid that I cannot support Amendment 186. Its scope goes beyond the extended scope of the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, was entirely right to mention the state of the hospitality sector at the present time: it is under acute pressure.
Of course, I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, but, again as we have debated in the past, there is a need to distinguish evidence of harm from evidence of nuisance. Some people, if they are sitting outside and the person at the next table is smoking, might regard that as a bit of a nuisance. But the watchword surely must be that policy should be founded on evidence. We need to have solid evidence of real harm arising from passive smoking in the open air. That is simply to state the position of these Benches.
Finally, on Clause 136, I was very grateful for the Minister’s response and look forward to her letter on this. I am still in some difficulty, which I hope she will take account of in her letter. The current regime—which I remember, having taken the Bill through when in Opposition—was carefully framed in the 2006 Act and has operated effectively for nearly two decades. It has allowed a tightly controlled exemption where artistic integrity justifies it. I think it has done so without any evidence of harm, abuse or increased smoking prevalence.
I look forward to what the Minister has to say. Of course, I will reflect on what she has said today. In the meantime, I shall not press my opposition to the clause standing part.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, clearly, we have failed to reach the target in this session. I just want to reassure noble Lords that provision has been made for an additional session. The timing of that will be discussed in and conveyed through the usual channels.
Dyscalculia
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they recognise dyscalculia as a learning difficulty, and what plans they have to support children who have it.
The Minister of State, Department for Education, and the Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, we know that some children face real challenges in maths, particularly those with dyscalculia and other special educational needs. That is why we are supporting schools through our national RISE maths hubs, helping teachers deliver effective, inclusive lessons. Our Curriculum and Assessment Review is tackling attainment gaps for pupils with SEND, and in the new year we will publish a White Paper to build a system where every child receives early support so as to thrive.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that Answer. For the edification of the House, dyscalculia is a specific difficulty in understanding numbers and number processes. It is 130 years since the term dyslexia was coined. In 1978, Baroness Mary Warnock was told by an education civil servant that she should not suggest that there is a special category of learning difficulty called dyslexia. Her report on special educational needs, of course, transformed that view. I rather hoped it would not take quite so long for the Government to properly recognise and integrate SEN support for the 6% of the population with dyscalculia. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that having children and young people struggling with numbers and maths is a huge problem for them as they become adults and seek work, and for future economic growth dependent on technology and innovation? Why would the Government take the risk of not recognising this as a learning difficulty and giving it the proper treatment it deserves?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, I very much recognise what my noble friend says about the challenges that children with dyscalculia have in relation to their maths. Probably where we differ is on whether it is necessary to name those things in order to make sure that children get support: we do not believe that a child should need a diagnosis of a condition to get support. While diagnoses and labels can be useful for some children, whether a child has secured a diagnosis should not determine the support they get. A child with dyscalculia needs more support to master concepts in maths, so the support that we offer will be the same as for others facing difficulties with maths—that is better scaffolding, more effective use of representation and careful sequencing of learning. We are taking action to ensure that children who have difficulties with maths, including those with dyscalculia, will get the support they need.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, the answer that the Minister has just given shows why we need a name. She gave a long description of a term that can have one name, which means that the teachers, the parents and the child can understand it. One word is better than many for this, even if it happens to be a Greek one.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I think I said that I completely understand that children who have difficulties in maths, including those with dyscalculia, will need support. My emphasis was on the action that the Government are taking to support those children, which is, I suspect, where both noble Lords are in asking this question.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, I would like to understand from the Minister what steps are being taken to make sure that the conception of dyscalculia does not become far bigger than it should. We now know that much dyslexia was in fact the outcome of faulty early reading teaching. What efforts are being made to make sure that the emphasis is first and foremost on making sure that the curriculum and teaching are as good as they should be before anybody risks going near labelling a child and giving them a damaged conception of themselves?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I have just faced two questions that suggest I am avoiding the difficulties that might occur with labelling. I fall somewhere between these two points: I think it is important to be able to identify as early as possible children who have difficulties with maths, but it should not be necessary to name that or to get a formal diagnosis to make sure that the support the Government are putting in place, some of which I have already described, is available for that child as quickly as possible.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, in 10 years of teaching I had not heard of dyscalculia until last year, and I could not pronounce it until about last week. It is okay supporting the children, but if the teachers do not know about it, how can they support the children? Can we please get more of this discussion, whether it is dyscalculia or whether it is just children finding it very difficult, into teacher training?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a very important point about how we need to support the workforce in schools to meet the needs of children. These children deserve cutting-edge pedagogy that is rooted in evidence. That is why, for example, we introduced a new national professional qualification for SENCOs in 2024 and why, when we recently reviewed the initial teacher training core content and the early career framework, we introduced significantly more content on adaptive teaching and supporting pupils with SEND. That started in September 2025 and is now being delivered for teachers. We supplement that core offer with further SEND-specific training that is easy to access at any point in a teacher’s career, through the universal SEND services contract. Having teachers who understand the support that children need is fundamental, and that is what this Government are putting in place.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, given the current pressures on SEND, I understand why the Government are wary of another classification and assessment, which would be very difficult to meet. I ask the Minister whether Ofsted, in its future programmes, is going to look at identifying some of the issues on maths teaching, which might at least support the kind of changes that she has referred to.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
In the new framework that has been set out, we are expecting Ofsted to place more emphasis than has been the case previously on the extent to which schools are achieving the type of inclusive practice that will benefit all pupils with special educational needs and disabilities, including those with dyscalculia. Alongside assessing the extent to which schools are doing that, we are also putting in place the support for the workforce that I have talked about, as well as evidence of, and development of, best practice in inclusive schools to ensure that all children can make progress.
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Curriculum and Assessment Review made a recommendation for a diagnostic maths test in year 8; my understanding is that the Government have not accepted that. Can the Minister explain why?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The Government will be introducing a reading assessment in year 8, on the basis that we think reading is the thing most likely to open up the rest of the curriculum and the ability to succeed in assessment. We will also make sure that schools have the support to use a range of methods of assessing progress in both maths and writing in year 8. Other changes we are making in response to the Curriculum and Assessment Review will make sure that the sequencing of maths learning enables students, including those with special educational needs, to build up their core understanding in a way that is more likely to support success.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I first came across dyscalculia as a young dad in school reports 25 years ago, when one of my children had an issue with mathematics. I noticed that his 2s, 3s, 5s, 7s and 9s were all the wrong way around. Is that not a very early and obvious sign to teachers that there is an issue?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I suspect it is, as other things would also be. The noble Lord makes an important point, which goes to the point I made in my first two responses. It is important that we identify all pupils who have challenges with maths—including those with dyscalculia—as early as possible, and put in place support, structure in the curriculum and training for teachers to enable those students to succeed, whatever is causing the problems with their maths learning.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, a number of people in my family have a whole variety of learning difficulties and have been successful despite that. There is a huge difference in being able to name the difficulty. Children who are not doing well find another single word if they do not get a diagnosis, usually “stupid” or “lazy”. To have a proper diagnosis makes a significant difference.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I partly accept the noble Baroness’s point, but there is a problem with suggesting that it is not possible for students who have problems with maths to get support unless they have had a diagnosis and have a single name for the issues that are causing challenges. Sometimes it is precisely the waiting for the assessment, rather than the action on the difficulties the child had, that causes the problems in our special educational needs and disabilities system. We need to identify where children have problems with learning and take action immediately, not wait for diagnoses.
Artificial Intelligence Legislation
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Holmes of Richmond
To ask His Majesty’s Government when they will publish the consultation on artificial intelligence legislation, and when a bill will be introduced.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I declare my relevant interest, as set out in the register, as an adviser to Endava plc and to Simmons and Simmons LLP and as a member of the technology and science advisory committee of the Crown Estate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
I appreciate the significant interest in the Government’s intentions for AI legislation, and I thank the noble Lord for his valuable contributions on the issue. The Government do not speculate on legislation ahead of future parliamentary Sessions, and I cannot confirm the timing of any such Bill. However, we will keep Parliament updated on the timings of any consultations ahead of bringing forward any legislation. We have remained committed to ensuring the UK and its laws are ready for the changes AI will bring.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, when it comes to AI legislation, the position of the previous Government was largely “wait and see”; so it is with this Government. But what is really required if you are an innovator, investor, citizen, creative or consumer is clarity, consistency and certainty. Further, the excellent Ada Lovelace Institute recent research showed that 72% of those surveyed said they would feel more comfortable with AI were it specifically regulated. Would the Minister not agree that, to deliver that clarity, consistency, certainty, comfort and confidence to act, we need a cross-sector, cross-economy, right-sized AI regulation Bill right now?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I remind the House that AI is already regulated in the UK and we regulate on a context-specific approach. Our regulators can take account of the developments in AI, which are indeed rapid, and ensure that they are tailored. In addition, as noble Lords know, we have got various regulators undertaking regulatory sandboxes and the new proposal for the AI growth lab, which will look across all sectors and allow regulators to collaborate on this quite rapidly changing technological development.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I declare in interest as chair of the Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society and as a consultant to DLA Piper on AI policy. The first meeting of the rather grandly named Lords’ AI and copyright parliamentary engagement group takes place tomorrow. Would it not be extraordinary if the Government did not bring forward a Bill in the face of that engagement group’s conclusions and those of the industry working groups? Would any of those discussions not be rendered meaningless without a Bill next year? If a Bill does not come forward, would that not demonstrate the influence of big tech and the major technology companies on the Government?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The issues to which the noble Lord refers have, of course, been extensively debated here. One outcome of conversations during the passing of the data Act was a commitment to have these discussions. I also think it would be premature to decide the nature or timing of legislation until those discussions are completed. Like the noble Lord, I highlight the importance of the parliamentary consultations, the first of which with Peers is indeed happening tomorrow, with the two Secretaries of State.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, given the concerns that exist about the misuse of AI by pernicious actors, can my noble friend the Minister reassure the House that the Government are regularly stress-testing these threats, that we are preparing robust answers to them and that we will not therefore have any catastrophic incidents in this country? Will the lessons from the stress testing, if they exist, inform any future legislation?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for her interest in this area. I can highlight that the AI Security Institute was established to provide the Government with exactly this kind of evidence and respond effectively to emerging AI risks. It has tested more than 30 frontier models, including OpenAI, Google DeepMind, Anthropic and others, and works closely with security experts across government, including the National Cyber Security Centre and Defence Science and Technology Laboratory. This is to ensure the institute’s work informs the preparations against AI-related incidents. We are committed to ensuring the UK is prepared for the changes AI will bring, and the institute’s research will continue to inform our approach.
Lord Tarassenko (CB)
My Lords, several European countries, including Italy, the Netherlands and Switzerland, have recently launched their own sovereign large language models to reduce dependence on models from the US and China. Now that hardware compute capabilities are no longer an issue in this country, is it not time for the UK to start developing its own sovereign large language model?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The noble Lord asks a very good question about our sovereign capabilities. The Sovereign AI Unit’s remit spans the full AI stack, including large language models. Our priority is to secure UK access to the best models, including by deepening strategic partnerships and remaining open to backing UK companies to compete. However, we are focusing our efforts where there is greater opportunity for the UK to advance its strategic position in AI, looking across the value chain. This could mean supporting companies developing narrow models in high-impact sectors in which the UK has strengths, such as defence or drug discovery, or backing paradigm-shifting approaches in computing that can outperform incumbents.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, in September the Government announced plans for a national digital identity system—a policy that will have very profound implications for the safe use of AI, particularly agentic AI. Can the Minister confirm that the interaction between the Government’s digital identity scheme and AI systems will be explicitly included within the scope of the consultation? If not, can the Minister commit to ensuring that it is?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The noble Viscount asks about digital ID, as he highlights a proposal which was announced a few months ago. Digital ID will help make it easier for people to access the services they are entitled to and prevent illegal working. It will streamline interactions with the state, saving time and cutting frustrating paperwork. A public consultation on the digital ID will launch in the coming few weeks, to ensure the system is secure, trusted and inclusive. I will take back his specific question on the coverage of the consultation coming up.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
We will hear from the Cross Benches next, then we will go to the Labour Benches.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
I thank the noble Lord. The World Economic Forum has said that dis- and misinformation is the number one threat to economic stability. Generative AI has hugely increased the scale of that threat. There is concern from AI safety groups that companies are not adequately tackling the problem. Can the Minister tell the House whether the Government will take this as seriously as they do cyberattacks?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I thank the noble Viscount for his question. Strengthening media literacy education is incredibly important: it helps people navigate the growing presence of AI-generated content and it is important in schools and further than that. Noble Lords will remember that we have welcomed the report of the independent Curriculum and Assessment Review, which recommends that children in schools should be taught how to spot fake news and disinformation, including AI-generated content, and help develop critical thinking skills to protect themselves online.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
My Lords, I very much welcome the meeting that is taking place tomorrow, which came out of the commitments made by the Government during the passage of the data Bill. However, I understand that, notwithstanding the fact that the Government are not going to say what legislation they are introducing at this point, they are discussing the principles by which they will go forward. Can the Minister commit to the House that one of those principles, given the discussions we had in this House, will be that access to data, particularly around the creative industries, should be with the active consent of creators and rights holders?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My noble friend highlights one of the important points made during the passage of the Bill. The whole swathe of those discussions, both at technical level and with parliamentary colleagues, is intended to have the views of rights holders and other actors on the table, so that we can work through these at the same time as the AI developments are happening in real time.
Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)
My Lords, I note my register of interests, specifically as an adviser to SMEs in AI—VED 3, Automated Analytics and Scrumconnect—and as part of the AI APPG. Let me bring some good news to the House: the UK AI sector is booming. Nearly half of UK businesses’ resilience budgets are now going on AI, agentic AI and technology. This investment been supported by the UK Government’s sector-led, principles-based approach to AI regulation, designed to foster innovation and ensure safety. As the Minister confirms, I hope this flexible model will continue and be central to our strategy. Is the Minister aware that recent analysis shows that the EU’s AI Act has contributed to a 20% decline in AI formations in the region, and up to a €500,000 annual compliance cost for high-risk systems, disproportionately affecting SMEs and deterring investment—outcomes the UK has wisely avoided?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an extremely good point about the way in which we regulate. The UK has a bespoke approach. It is obviously important that we continue to work with other countries, as AI development is not something that happens only in the UK. Therefore, there is an element of needing to talk to the US and the EU, for example, about the developments. The noble Lord is absolutely right that our approach here is designed to safeguard security, build trust and get the economic benefits for the people of the UK.
Inheritance Tax: Pensions
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Altmann
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on bereaved families, confidence in pensions and future levels of pensioner poverty of proposals to impose inheritance tax retrospectively on unused pensions and death benefits.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government continue to incentivise pension savings for their intended purpose of funding retirement. Most unused pension funds and death benefits payable from a pension will form part of a person’s estate for inheritance tax purposes from 6 April 2027. This removes distortions resulting from changes made over the last decade, which have led to pensions being openly used and marketed as a tax planning vehicle to transfer wealth, rather than to fund retirement.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
I thank the Minister for his Answer, but my Question was whether the Government have actually properly considered the real-world impact of these unworkable proposals. With its aim to hit the minority of wealthy pension owners, this policy could actually damage millions of less well-off families who will see a 40% cut in death benefits, especially if they are in a defined contribution scheme, much less so in defined benefit. A single parent with a house and children will lose out significantly. Does the noble Lord recognise that this retrospective confiscation without transitional protection undermines confidence in long-term planning, reduces long-term investment and will lead to more people rushing to take money out of their pensions quickly, just in case they may face the inheritance tax? This is especially the case if they can take out thousands of pounds a year at just 20%, which will mean more pensioners in future in poverty, despite the Government’s aim to get more people saving for a good pension.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question; I think the short answer is no. Let us be very clear: this is not a retrospective policy change. It takes effect for deaths on or after 6 April 2027, so that is in no way retrospective. As for the examples that the noble Baroness gives, it is important to be very clear that estates will continue to benefit from all the normal nil-rate bands, reliefs and exemptions available. An estate can pass on up to £1 million with no inheritance tax, and spouses are fully exempt from inheritance tax. More than 90% of UK estates will continue to have no inheritance tax liability following these changes.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
May I welcome my noble friend’s clear statement that the purpose of a pension fund is to provide pensions and not to assist the better-off in estate planning? Does he agree with me, given the frequent press comment that inheritance tax is, in many senses, a voluntary tax, that anyone will be able to avoid paying the higher rate of tax with a modicum of planning?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I very much agree with the first part of my noble friend’s question. It is very important to state that the intended purpose of pension savings is to fund retirement. The Government continue to incentivise pension savings, with tax relief on both contributions to pensions and the growth of funds held within a pension scheme. These tax incentives are very significant, costing taxpayers £78 billion a year. It is therefore right, as my noble friend said, that it is important to ensure that these tax reliefs are being used for encouraging savings for retirement, rather than ordinary taxpayers subsidising the wealthy to pass on their wealth free of inheritance tax.
Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is an important principle of the tax system that tax reliefs, and therefore tax expenditures, should be tightly drawn? Does he also agree that the point of pension relief is to provide a pension in retirement, and therefore that pension savers should draw down their pension, rather than using it as a device to avoid inheritance tax and to improve the lot of their descendants, rather than themselves?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I do agree with everything the noble Lord said. I enjoyed discussing these matters with him when he was a Treasury official and I was a special adviser. I probably learned a lot of this from him then, so I completely agree with what he said. To repeat, the purpose of pension savings is to fund retirement. If taxpayers are spending £78 billion a year on that, it is very important that it is used for its intended purposes rather than for estate planning, as the noble Lord says.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that in real life, many people restricted their lifestyles, spending and gifting in order to build a sufficient defined contribution pension that could pay, if needed, for years in a care home—not knowing how long they would live or their health condition—and because they did not want to burden the state or their children? They now see that they were being gullible in believing the assurances that anything unused could go to their loved ones free of inheritance tax, and that the Government simply regard their sense of responsibility as rather stupid. What would the Minister say to those people?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
More importantly, what would I say to the noble Baroness? I would say that she is saying things that are completely misleading. As I have said already, estates will continue to benefit from all the normal nil-rate bands, reliefs and exemptions available, so an estate can pass on up to £1 million with no inheritance tax, and spouses are fully exempt from inheritance tax. It is also important to say that we have equal treatment here. There is equal treatment for inheritance tax purposes between pension and non-pension assets, and I think that is perfectly fair within the system.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I speak as someone whose relatives have struggled for years, rather than months, in coping with the probate system, partly because of the problems caused by the inefficiencies of the probate office. Executors will not be able to deal with the extra complexity of adding pensions to IHT, particularly those with lots of small pension pots. My noble friend Lady Altmann, in her submission to our Finance Bill Sub-Committee, has suggested a simpler mechanism for dealing with this and raising the necessary revenue. Will the Government examine this sympathetically?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I presume the noble Baroness is referring to the proposal of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, for a flat tax, and it is very interesting that she raises that. Currently, fewer than 10% of estates will have an inheritance tax liability. If you put a flat tax on all pensions, you are asking 90% of estates to pay more so that 10% of estates can pay less. I do not consider that to be fair.
Lord Massey of Hampstead (Con)
My Lords, interest charges for late payments of tax are charged at 8% per annum and apply to estates after six months. Does the Minister agree that, given potential complications in finalising and executing wills, six months is rather short and that a longer grace period of at least one year should apply before interest charges are levied?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I understand the point that the noble Lord raises. As I understand it, six months is standard within the tax system.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, the Minister may recall that this time last year I asked a Question about pensioners who are coming up to the time when their pensions are ready to be drawn down, and they are looking forward to the 25% tax-free lump sum. Despite the noble Lord’s reassurances, thousands of pensioners took their pension early. Can the Minister reassure pensioners waiting to draw down their pension that there will be no changes to the 25% tax-free lump sum?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I remember the noble Lord’s Question last year. As he knows, I will not speculate on the next Budget now or comment on individual tax measures ahead of time.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, does the noble Lord accept the principle that it is wrong to raise any tax of any kind on people who do not have the cash to pay it?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
As I say, given that all the normal nil-rate bands will continue to apply, an estate can pass on up to £1 million with no inheritance tax. If you are leaving £1 million, you probably have the cash to pay the tax.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I fully agree with the noble Lord that pension funds should be used to fund retirement. The point is that this is a retrospective tax, because people have already put the money in and made long-term plans, of which now a significant proportion, and sometimes the majority, is being confiscated by HMRC if they are unlucky enough to die before they draw down. The worry is about people who are younger, not those who are deliberately avoiding taking their pensions. People die unexpectedly young, and their families will lose out and their death benefits will be cut. These are people who have made long-term plans. I am concerned about the impact on future pension savers, who will think, “The Government might just come and take this money away from me. I’m not going to invest it for the long run—pensions is just not something I want to bother with”, even if they would not eventually pay IHT. That is the problem and why I was suggesting a flat-rate levy, which can recover some of the tax relief given on unused pensions but still not impact the future confidence in pensions.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
All the points that the noble Baroness raises have been covered in previous conversations. It is clearly not a retrospective tax because it takes effect for deaths on or after 6 April 2027. I have also dealt with the fact that a flat-rate tax would mean that 90% pay more so that 10% can pay less, and that an estate can pass on up to £1 million with no inheritance tax due.
Teachers: Music, Drama, Art and Design, and Dance
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Keeley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what action they will take to support an increase in the numbers training to be teachers of music, drama, art and design, and dance.
The Minister of State, Department for Education, and the Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, we are working with the sector to re-establish teaching as an attractive profession across all subjects, including the arts. That is why this Government have increased teacher pay by almost 10% over two years and are providing bursaries this year worth up to £10,000 for trainees in art and design and in music. We are already seeing a positive impact. The number of new trainees and teachers has increased significantly in art and design and in music over the past year.
Baroness Keeley (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for her Answer. The undervaluing of music in state schools by successive Conservative-led Governments since 2010 led to the loss of over 850 full-time equivalent music teachers since 2011; high vacancy rates and poor retention rates of music teachers, with only two-thirds of those who qualified five years ago still teaching; and music teacher recruitment targets being missed 11 times in 12 years. There is a great deal for the Labour Government to do. Sustained bursary funding for initial teacher training has shown more stable recruiting. Can my noble friend look at reinvesting in the music teacher training bursary and then sustaining it for a number of years? That must be backed by Ministers who emphasise the central place of that music teacher training bursary rather than just those for science and maths.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend is right that we have to deal with the previous Government’s underinvestment in teachers and the narrowing of the curriculum, which limited students’ ability to study music and art and design courses. However, I am pleased to say that we are making good progress on our pledge to deliver 6,500 more teachers. The workforce has grown by over 2,300, and we have a near-record low of teachers leaving the profession. When thinking about the additional funding that we provide for bursaries, we must consider the current position around recruitment. The good news is that we have seen a 53% increase in people starting postgraduate music teacher training in the past year. For that reason, we have decided not to continue the bursary this year. However, we are optimistic, given the figures that we have already seen and will publish in December, that course acceptances indicate that this improved recruitment will be at least maintained.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, the previous Government and this Government have recognised the problem that we have in getting teachers—for music in particular and for the arts generally. Therefore, it is very disappointing that the bursary for people wanting to train as music teachers has been cut to zero. For young people to follow on from people such as the Beatles, who have brought a huge amount into the economy, we need to invest in the next generation. That means teaching them to play instruments and to become the musicians of the future.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I completely agree with the noble Lord. That is why, as well as investing in all teachers and seeing the results of teachers coming into the profession, we are making specific contributions by funding the over 40 music hubs, which exist across the country to support the very best teaching of music, and the music opportunities pilot. That will ensure that more young people, particularly those who are disadvantaged or who have special educational needs and disabilities, will be able to play an instrument or sing to a high standard.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, when discussing the Curriculum and Assessment Review last week, the Minister highlighted that creative subjects will no longer be the privilege of the lucky few. Rural and smaller schools often struggle to attract specialist teachers in creative subjects. How will they deliver a full, high-quality creative curriculum?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
That is precisely why we need the 6,500 new teachers in secondary and special schools to which the Government have committed. By not only committing to but investing in the profession, we are already delivering results through the increased numbers of teachers that we are seeing. Through the music hub programme, which I discussed previously, we also need to ensure that there are opportunities for teachers to understand the best way both to teach music and to enable their students to have the joy that comes from understanding and enjoying music and either playing instruments or singing.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, we know that the great majority of teachers in arts subjects—for example, in music and in art and design—in primary schools, where it all starts, do not have specialist knowledge in those areas. What importance do the Government attach to having specialist arts teachers in primary schools? Do they think that gathering statistics on the numbers involved—these figures do not currently exist—would be helpful in getting to grips with this area?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
As the noble Earl says, in primary schools, teachers will often have a range of areas that they will teach. What is important is that teachers have access to the best understanding of how to teach music, with support from the music hubs. We will develop their understanding of best quality, excellent arts teaching through the new centre for arts and music education. They must also be supported—for example, through the pay increases that we have put in place—to enter the profession and stay in it.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I will follow on from the question from the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. Before I do so, the Minister was very quick, as ever, to criticise the previous Government and come out with various statistics. However, she omitted to mention that teacher numbers were at an all-time high when we left office. On specialist teachers in art, music, drama or the other subjects that have been mentioned in this Question, one way to get the specialism to which the noble Earl referred would be to allow those without qualified teacher status to continue to deliver that teaching and to bring with them their specialism in these areas. Would the Minister reconsider that in the context of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I believe that good teachers bring specialist knowledge as well as the particular skills that teacher training and qualified teacher status bring alongside that. That is why pupils have an entitlement to ensure that those teaching them have both the knowledge specialism and the teaching specialism in order to give them the best possible opportunities. That is the reasoning behind this Government’s determination that all pupils should be entitled to have a qualified teacher in the classroom in front of them, because, as we know, the quality of teaching is the single most important determinant in pupils’ success in school.
Lord Wigley (PC)
Does the Minister accept that the most important driver in this area would be every primary and secondary school having access to a professional music teacher, whether full-time, part-time, peripatetic or through distance learning? If that were to happen, it would create the demand for teachers, which would lead to the necessary supply. I draw attention to my interest in that my wife is a harp teacher.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am sure that the noble Lord’s wife is doing an enormously important job in developing an interest in harping in the pupils whom she teaches. We need to ensure that we have qualified teachers with access to the support for their specialisms—which, for example, the Government aim to provide through the new national centre for arts and music education—to ensure that all children, not just fortunate children, have the opportunity to benefit from arts and music. That is what this Government are putting in place.
Baroness Bousted (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the recruitment of qualified teachers is clearly essential, and that the Government have made great strides in that the picture of recruitment looks much better this year than it has done in the past 10 years? Does she also agree that the retention of mid-career teachers is equally important? The report of the Teaching Commission, which I chair, entitled Shaping the Future of Education, revealed that it now takes 10 newly qualified teachers to replace every seven more experienced teachers who leave teaching before retirement. Does the Minister agree that this trend must be reversed if we are to maintain educational standards and a broad and balanced curriculum, including for the arts?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right, and I thank her for the work she has done to support teachers throughout her career and continues to do now with the work to which she alluded. We need not only to get teachers into the classroom but to keep them there. I am pleased that this Government’s investment in teachers, through pay as well as broader support in the classroom, has not only brought new teachers to the profession but reduced the number of them leaving it to one of the lowest ever levels.
Environmental Protection (Wet Wipes Containing Plastic) (England) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 16 September be approved.
Relevant document: 37th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 10 November.
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, before we conclude the Lords stages of the Bill, I wish to express my deep sadness following the news last week of the passing of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove. On behalf of the Home Office, I praise her dedication and her work in supporting victims, drawing on her personal experience, as Victims’ Commissioner. I am sure that the whole House will join me in sending condolences and thoughts to her family and friends.
The Bill has been subject to many hours of debate across this House, and I thank all Peers for their contributions. It was introduced in the House of Commons back in January and is part of a serious and credible plan to protect the UK’s border security that sees the Government working very closely with our international partners and with colleagues across the country, so that we can ensure law enforcement and have the powers and tools that we need to identify, disrupt and dismantle organised crime.
The Bill is about protecting those who need it, swiftly removing those with no right to be here and cracking down on criminal gangs. It establishes landmark new offences which deliver our manifesto commitment on counterterrorism powers that will give law enforcement the ability to tackle those involved in putting lives in danger and threatening border security. It also establishes the new Border Security Commander, about which we have had much discussion.
During debate in this House, the Government have also introduced a new offence to criminalise those who advertise illegal migration services online and through social media. We have listened to your Lordships’ House, and to the Constitution Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and amended the new offences in the Bill where appropriate. These proposals, alongside the asylum policy statement being announced today by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, are important matters. I thank all noble Lords who have tabled and spoken to amendments during the passage of the Bill.
I also thank the Ministers in the Northern Ireland, Scottish and Welsh Governments, who have seen and supported the relevant provisions in the Bill. We have had legislative consent from each of the relevant Parliaments and Assemblies. I also thank the Bill team, without whom this Bill would genuinely not be possible, and officials in my private office.
The passage of the Bill by this House is an important step to develop and strengthen the UK’s border security. I beg to move.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I echo the Minister’s thanks to the Bill team. I also thank him, because I cannot recall the number of meetings he has held with officials and Members who have raised issues during the passage of the Bill. That does not mean that those meetings resulted in satisfaction for all those who made those comments, but I think the fact that we were given those opportunities is respected across this House.
It would be foolish to say that the Bill marks the passing of an endpoint for the immigration and asylum services of this country. We are told that we are to have two Statements, one today from the Home Secretary and one on Thursday, which will take this matter further forward. It is rather like having the London bus come along, then suddenly you have more than one. This will probably end up becoming an annual event: a new immigration Bill. We expect that to happen.
Many of the issues that have been raised in the background to the Statement that is going to be made in the other place in, I think, a few minutes’ time have been raised in the debates on the Bill, so I ask the Minister: will any amendments be attached to this Bill on the questions that are being raised in the two Statements, to give some speed to its passage? I hope the answer is no and that we have dealt with the Bill before us in the proper manner.
I think we can safely say that three distinct approaches have been set out on the Bill. From the Labour Government, it is pragmatic, law enforcement-led control; the Conservative Opposition demand a policy of absolute deterrence based on previous legislation; and we on these Benches seek to balance necessary enforcement with safe, legal and humane routes, ensuring that international obligations are fully codified and respected—in essence, a policy of control and compassion, which I think go together.
At the outset of the Bill, we laid out our concerns that it dealt only with the supply side—the smugglers. As long as the smugglers have customers, that is the problem which this side of the equation deals with, but our belief—I hope that it will be proven with Thursday’s Statement, rather than today’s—is that the demand side also needs to be looked at appropriately. We are told that the proposals to be outlined today are that if you are harsher on those making irregular routes, this will stop people taking the dangerous journeys. That is what this Bill has been about: trying to reduce and put a stop to the dangerous journeys that people are taking. That debate will now proceed, because there are now points around the demand-side issues that I understand the Government are going to make.
In passing this Bill, it seems appropriate that we have all had learning experiences which are going to be useful for at least the next 12 months as we proceed to the next stage. Perhaps the Minister will say, but are we going to have one in the year after as well? I hope, given the strength he has demonstrated, the amount of time he has put in, and the amount of time he is having to put into another Bill, that at least he will have some respite over Christmas.
I also thank those on my side who have been helpful to us in making sure that the Bill has been debated fully: my noble friends Lady Brinton, Lady Hamwee, Lady Ludford and Lord Oates, and Elizabeth Plummer in our office here in Parliament. With that, I thank the Minister and the team behind him for the helpful way they have dealt with this Bill.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, it has been a long time since the Bill was introduced in the other place and since then much has happened. The Government have brought forward the immigration White Paper detailing changes to the Immigration Rules. They have established a one-in, one-out agreement with France which has so far returned just over 100 migrants. Meanwhile, since that deal was announced on 10 July, almost 18,000 people have crossed the channel in small boats.
We know that the Government are now bringing forward new measures relating to the asylum system. We will have the opportunity to debate those once the Home Secretary has announced the full details today in the other place, but many of the plans have been trailed already and it is evident that new legislation will be required to implement a number of those changes. The point is that events have moved at such a pace that this Bill feels out of date before it has even become law. The Prime Minister’s “smash the gangs” pledge has fallen so flat that the Government appear to have ditched the slogan. But as we have consistently said, simply going after the gangs will not work. What is required is a credible deterrent but, unfortunately, as we know, this Bill repeals the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024.
We put our plan to the House, and it is a shame that the Government and the Liberal Democrats appear unwilling to take the action necessary to put an end to the small boats crisis. That said, I am pleased that we were able to amend the Bill in a positive manner. My noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, who is not in his place today, sadly, has been pushing for the Home Office to release data on overseas students for a long time now. His successful amendment to the Bill requiring the publication of those statistics is welcome and I hope the Government will finally listen and agree to publish that data. It is also welcome that the Government agreed with me that the new offences in Clauses 13 and 14 contained gaps as originally drafted. They did not cover possession with intent to supply an article for use in immigration crime, nor handling by third parties, and I am very pleased the Government took this on board and brought forward their own amendments.
I thank the Minister. I do not share his enthusiasm for the Bill, but I know how hard he has worked to steer it through your Lordships’ House with his willingness to meet Members of this House privately. I extend my thanks to the Bill team and to all noble Lords who contributed, particularly my noble friends Lord Harper, Lord Murray of Blidworth, Lady Lawlor, Lord Goschen and Lady Maclean of Redditch. I am also grateful to all noble Lords who supported our amendments both in Committee and on Report, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley.
To conclude, the Government had the opportunity with this Bill to take serious steps to fix the crisis in the asylum system. They could have banned illegal migrants from getting asylum. They could have committed to detaining and removing anyone who enters illegally. They could have committed to deporting all foreign criminals. Unfortunately, they have not, and we will have to wait to see what new ideas the Government bring forward and whether they will have any real impact, because the Home Secretary was right when she said that illegal migration is tearing this country apart. It is well past the time to take the comprehensive action necessary to protect this country’s borders.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to His Majesty’s Opposition and the Liberal Democrats for their contributions to this debate. We have had some differences but I think both noble Lords will accept that the Government have a plan to try to deliver on our manifesto commitments. Additional proposals are being discussed, and they will be outlined shortly in another place, that will form an answer to the proposals by the noble Lord, Lord German. They are not part of this legislation, but I will be outlining further the Government’s approach once my right honourable friend has made her Statement. I thank both noble Lords from the Front Benches for their contributions; they have helped generate discussion on the Bill.
As well as the Bill team and my private office, my two colleagues on the Government Bench today from the Whips’ Office have provided stalwart support. I also place on record my thanks to the Chief Whip for ensuring that only one defeat of the Government took place on the Bill, which on an issue as contentious as immigration is a matter of some joy for the Government and of some frustration, undoubtedly, for the Opposition. I commend the Bill to the House.
Employment Rights Bill
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
15:58 - Division on Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A) - Ayes: 296 / Noes: 147 - Motion A1 agreed.
17:03 - Division on Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B). - Ayes: 309 / Noes: 150 - Motion B1 agreed.
17:16 - Division on Motion C1 (as an amendment to Motion C) - Ayes: 298 / Noes: 157 - Motion C1 agreed.
17:35 - Division on Motion E1 (as an amendment to Motion E). - Ayes: 302 / Noes: 135 - Motion E1 agreed.
17:49 - Division on Motion F1 (as an amendment to Motion F) - Ayes: 295 / Noes: 150 - Motion F1 agreed.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1B to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1C.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Motion A, I will speak also to Motions C and C1. In this group, we will be debating the amendments relating to zero-hours contracts and seasonal work.
Amendment 1B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, would require employers to write to workers at the end of each reference period, explaining their right to receive the guaranteed-hours offer and giving them the option to accept or decline. I take this opportunity once again to thank the noble Lord for his contribution throughout the Bill. We agree on many of the fundamentals relating to the security of work, and we have commonality in wanting to protect workers from precarious employment.
I recognise that the intent and sentiment behind the amendment is to ensure a balanced and practical approach, and I share the noble Lord’s desire for the Bill to work for businesses and workers alike. I look forward to further conversations with him on this matter and beyond, when we will continue our programme of consultation to ensure that the Bill’s measures are delivered effectively and proportionately for business.
However, the amendment as drafted would alter fundamental aspects of the Bill. We are building an economy based on fair competition between businesses, greater productivity in the workplace, job security for workers and a fair reward for hard work. We need to tackle exploitative zero-hours contracts that leave some staff unable to plan their working lives or manage their family finances, and the provisions in the Bill do that. We appreciate that some groups value the flexibility that zero-hour contracts can provide. Those workers will be able to decline a guaranteed-hours offer and remain on their existing arrangements if that works best for them. I hope noble Lords agree that ending exploitative zero-hours contracts and providing security for the workers who need it most is imperative.
Motion C relates to Amendment 48B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. The Government are fully aware that work in certain sectors fluctuates throughout the year, and we recognise the importance of those sectors. That is why consideration of seasonal work is built into the right to guaranteed-hours provisions. There are several ways in which an employer could approach seasonal demand. One approach would be to use annualised-hours contracts, which allow employers to vary the number of hours worked at different times of the year. Some businesses already use these contracts, ensuring that they can account for fluctuating demands in work when planning, while enabling workers to plan for household budgeting. Additionally, the Bill already allows guaranteed-hours offers to take the form of limited-term contracts where reasonable. The Bill also provides powers to address seasonal work through regulations, ensuring flexibility as needs evolve.
We will consult with employers, trade unions and stakeholders before making regulations. It is paramount that stakeholders are engaged with before we make these necessary decisions. Through the introduction of the new right to guaranteed hours, work will become more secure and predictable. It will leave workers in some of the most deprived areas less exposed to the hidden costs of insecure work, which can add up to as much as £50 a month for some, while strengthening the foundations that underpin a modern economy. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Geddes) (Con)
The Minister’s enthusiasm got the better of her but I had not actually put the Question that the amendments and reasons be now considered. I hope the House will take it that we did so do, even though we did not say it.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Lord Fox
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 1B.”
Lord Fox (LD)
I thank the Deputy Speaker for his expert guidance. Your Lordships could be excused for a sense of déjà vu, perhaps because we are back in your Lordships’ House with the same issues we discussed on 28 October. They remain unresolved and, indeed, not addressed in any meaningful way.
Since the last very similar session of ping-pong, I have had an engaging meeting with the Lords Ministers and their officials, and I thank them for that meeting. The prospect of that meeting gave me a sense of anticipation. I expected some sort of legislative rabbit to be pulled out of the Government’s hat at that point, but no—there was nothing. At first, I thought something substantive was being concealed for tactical reasons, perhaps ready to be flourished in some dramatic prestige at the moment that pleased the Ministers. But it has become increasingly clear that not only is there no rabbit in the care of the Benches opposite but there is actually no hat. If there is a hat, it exists elsewhere, and for that I have some sympathy for the Ministers opposite, because they sit bare-headed at the moment, with nothing to offer.
Time has passed, however, and, if the Government’s position has not changed, what has? Well, the business environment has got worse. September saw negative growth in GDP, per capita productivity fell in the last quarter and unemployment rose to 5% as recruitment cooled. Yet this ping-pong represents a doubling down—but for what? The Government’s manifesto vowed to “make work pay”, and we agree with that. None of these amendments confound this. My Motion A1 does not in any way dent the worker’s right to convert zero hours to guaranteed hours. What it does is streamline the administration of that right. I explained last time that Motion A1 merely avoids unnecessary work, helping SMEs that have limited administrative capacity to get on with focusing on growing their business and, hopefully, creating more jobs. But, in the absence of an amendment in lieu today, I will insist on this.
Moving on to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe—Motion C1—we have consistently raised concerns about seasonal work. I welcome the Minister’s careful description of the issues in the current legislation—the problem being, of course, that there is outstanding consultation and outstanding details that make it difficult. We are not 100% happy with the noble Lord’s drafting, but we feel that it is a starting point for further conversations of the nature the Minister just brought up. We will support Motion C1 if it is voted on. Sorting the impasse on these Motions and those in subsequent groups requires political gumption. In the end, I suppose it will be up to No. 10—I understand that it might be preoccupied with other issues at the moment.
I close with one last statistic, this time from the Work Foundation at Lancaster University. There are now 1.79 million people out of work and looking for a job. With economic inactivity stable at a staggering 21%, the number out of work appears to be rising not due to increasing inflow but rather due to limited outflow caused by difficulties in finding work. That is 1.79 million people. The Government did not address the arguments we put two weeks ago, and therefore they deserve the same response as last time. I beg to move Motion A1.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, here we are, back again.
In the ping-pong debate last time, the noble Baroness, Lady Lloyd of Effra, stated:
“The Government have engaged extensively with stakeholders on their make work pay reform since August 2024. A major part of this engagement has been to seek the varied views of SMEs. As of 15 October, we had engaged directly with more than 250 stakeholders. This included 139 businesses, of which 75 were SMEs. This approach to engagement will remain throughout the various consultations”.—[Official Report, 28/10/25; col. 1246.]
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Motion C1—but before I do so, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that I am in complete agreement with the speech that he made on Motion A1. To recall the words that he used before, the Government were put on notice that they needed to come forward with a solution, but solution there is none. Requiring all businesses to offer guaranteed hours to every worker, including those who do not want them, imposes an unnecessary administrative burden, and one that falls, as my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley has just pointed out, particularly heavily on small businesses. It also sits uneasily with the Government’s stated intention to reduce the regulatory load on businesses by 25%. Should the noble Lord, Lord Fox, choose to test the opinion of the House, he will have our support.
On Motion C1, the Government have to recognise that seasonal work is fundamentally different in nature from permanent or year-round employment, and defining it clearly in statute will ensure that this Bill, as well as any future legislation, properly reflects the realities faced by seasonal industries. Seasonal businesses operate within narrow windows of opportunity; their labour needs rise sharply and predictably at various times of the year, then fall away again. Without a clear and credible definition, there is a risk of uncertainty both for employers trying to comply with the law and for workers trying to understand their rights.
We on these Benches have spoken to many seasonal businesses, large and small, and they remain concerned about the potential impact of the Bill and the absence of a framework that recognises the specific characteristics of seasonal labour. If the Government are not prepared to accept this amendment, we will test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have contributed to the debate today. Let me start by recapping the reason for this measure.
There is a moral case to press ahead with ending exploitative zero-hour contracts. We aim to rebalance the scales so that all the risk associated with insecure work is not placed on workers. By our doing so, work will become more secure and predictable, saving workers in some of the most deprived areas up to £600 in lost income, strengthening the foundations that underpin a modern economy and increasing productivity, rather than the obverse.
On business engagement, we have indeed engaged with businesses and consulted them, both directly and through federations that represent a large number— hundreds and thousands—of small businesses. We will continue to do so as we implement all the measures in the Bill. We are committed to full and comprehensive consultation with businesses big and small and will arrange focus sessions with SMEs specifically to look at the practical implementation, understand any challenges and make sure that we give the right guidance.
I want to reflect on the point about business regulation and the 25% target. We have established a baseline for the administrative burden; the 25% target is about ensuring that regulation is proportionate and efficient and works for business. It is not about blocking regulation that is needed to deliver the Government’s priorities. We want to implement the Bill in a way that delivers the intent as efficiently as possible. For example, the fair work agency will consolidate the functions of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate and the Director of Labour Market Enforcement into a single body, so we are reforming as we go ahead with all these measures, and we believe that, fundamentally, this is about balance.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, raised the issue of seasonality. Let me reassure noble Lords that the Government are fully conscious of the need to take account of fluctuations in seasonal demand, while ensuring that workers are not left holding all the risk. Under the Bill, there are several ways that an employer could approach seasonal demand while upholding the new rights, depending on circumstances. I set out some of those in my opening speech, but they could be limited-term contracts or guaranteed hours in various ways, such as an annualised hours contract. We think it is important to continue to consult on seasonality.
On growth, we have seen huge progress in foreign direct investment and trade agreements. We are very keen to continue to promote the economic prospects of the country, which is fundamental to improving the productivity of the labour market. In conclusion, I thank noble Lords for their contributions today and I look forward to further discussions on these issues.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, she said that she had consulted representative bodies of industry and commerce, by which I assume she means the FSB, the IoD and the CBI. Can she give us a flavour of those conversations, and identify any organisation that has given wholehearted support to the Bill?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
Of course, we have had many discussions and there have been amendments during the passage of the Bill as a result of some of the consultation we have had with all social partners. We made amendments to the Bill on Report in respect of fire and rehire and the school support staff negotiating body—all sorts of changes or amendments have been made through the consultation process. We have also set out a clear plan for implementation, so that each milestone is there and there is a consultation before that, so that all businesses, large and small, can have the right amount of time to prepare and to get the guidance they need to implement these measures.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. I very much welcome the objective that she set out of reducing red tape. I remind her that the Bill contains 170 statutory instruments. In my experience, every statutory instrument leads to at least one regulation, so perhaps when next she stands up, she can commit to retiring at least one regulation, if not two, for each one that the statutory instruments bring in on the tail of the Bill, if indeed it ever becomes an Act.
The Minister also talked about a moral duty in respect of zero hours. I share that moral duty. Nothing in Motion A1 resiles from that moral duty, and on that basis, I would like to test the will of the House.
Lord Collins of Highbury
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 23 and 106 to 120, to which the Commons have disagreed; and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 120C, 120D and 120E in lieu of Lords Amendments 23 and 106 to 120.
“(6) Before making—
(a) the first regulations to be made under subsection (4), and
(b) the first regulations to be made in reliance on subsection (5)(b),
the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.””
“(5C) Before making the first regulations to be made in reliance on subsection (5A), the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.””
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move Motion B and I will also speak to Motions E, E1, F and F1. In this group, we are debating amendments relating to unfair dismissal, trade union industrial action, ballots and political funds. These are areas clearly linked to our manifesto commitments, which the Government have an electoral mandate to deliver. I thank all Members of the House for their engagement on these areas throughout the passage of the Bill. We have listened carefully to the concerns raised and in response, wherever possible, we are offering amendments in lieu that we believe strike a fair and workable compromise to the amendments made to the Bill. It may not be the rabbit that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, expected, but I would like to make it clear to the House that none of the amendments tabled by the Government will compromise the fundamental principles of the Bill, nor their intended impact, which is, I repeat, a commitment made in our manifesto.
On Motion B, relating to Amendments 120C, 120D and 120E tabled by the Government in the other place, we remain committed to delivering unfair dismissal protections, ensuring that around 9 million employees who have worked for their employer for less than two years are protected from being arbitrarily fired—that is the principle we are addressing. The Government have listened to stakeholders and tabled an amendment in lieu in the other place which ensures that the Government consult on key aspects of the framework. This will ensure that there is direct input from both employers and employees, enabling businesses to shape the legislation and ensure that it is practical and proportional.
To reiterate what was said in the other place, day-one protection from unfair dismissal will not remove the ability of businesses to dismiss people who cannot do their job or pass a probation period, but it will tackle cases of unfair dismissal in which hard-working employees are sacked without good reason. That is what this Bill is about. A six-month qualifying period threshold still leaves employees exposed to arbitrarily being fired during the early months of their new job.
As we have said from the start, the implementation of day-one unfair dismissal rights will be done with a light touch. There is a power in the Bill to modify the test when employers can fairly dismiss employees during the statutory probationary period for specific reasons related to performance and suitability. The Government will consult on our approach to ensure it has maximum flexibility so that the new framework works effectively for employers and employees in terms of the cost of its implementation and operation.
Motion F and Amendment 62C, tabled by the Government in the other place, relate to the 50% turnout threshold for industrial action ballots. As the period of disruption between 2022 and 2024 has shown, unnecessary red tape on union activity works against the core negotiation and dispute resolution that we all seek. Bureaucratic hurdles do not prevent strike action; they only make it harder for unions to engage in the bargaining that settles disputes—and that is our commitment in this Bill in terms of ensuring the promotion of growth. The repeal of the 50% turnout threshold also aligns union democracy with other democratic processes, such as parliamentary votes and local elections, and we should not forget that.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendments 23 and 106 to 120, and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 120C, 120D and 120E.”
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for outlining the government amendments and for the noble Lords opposite’s willingness to meet. But to say that the amendments that have been offered are inadequate would be something of an understatement. In essence, they oblige the Secretary of State, before making regulations, to
“consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”.
Who might those persons be? That really is the extent of the amendment. We already know that, so far, government consultations with business on this Bill have been desultory at best. I do not believe that the amendment even qualifies as a bunny, never mind a rabbit.
The chorus of disapproval for this proposed legislation has now been joined by Labour’s most successful ever Prime Minister, Sir Tony Blair. As my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley pointed out—and to expand on my noble friend’s remarks—in its report Tony Blair’s institute said:
“At present, employees gain protection from unfair dismissal only after two years—one of the longest qualifying periods in the OECD. The bill would move to the opposite extreme, granting such rights immediately. This would raise employment costs by increasing the legal and procedural risks attached to every new hire and discourage firms from recruiting—a concern already raised by some of the UK’s largest business groups, which have urged the government to amend the bill”.
Addressing the Government’s intention to introduce regulations allowing an initial probationary period, during which an employee could be dismissed under a light-touch process, the institute said that
“uncertainty over what rights apply during probation will do little to reassure employers nervous about taking on staff. Introducing a six-month qualifying period for unfair-dismissal protection, which is more typical among advanced economies including across much of Northern Europe and Australia, is more likely to balance fairness with flexibility”.
Meanwhile, billionaire Labour backer John Caudwell put it rather more succinctly. He said this will make Britain “less investable”. He continued:
“It’s not good for Britain, it’s not good for workers”.
Spot on.
To summarise, we have multiple business groups against this, and perhaps we should recap who they are: the Federation of Small Businesses, the CBI, the Institute of Directors, Make UK, the ADS Group, the British Retail Consortium, Care England, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, Family Business UK, the Recruitment and Employment Confederation and UKHospitality. The British Chambers of Commerce contacted me after the last debate to explain that it would have signed the letter but had been too late.
Academia has added its voice to the chorus of disapproval. Professor Jonathan Haskel of Imperial College, and a former member of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee, said:
“Using the OECD index of employment regulation, there’s a negative relationship which is that more employment regulation means less intangible investment. My best prediction is that the employment rights bill is a rise in uncertainty for firms. The reason is that these employment rights are set out in broad outline in the bill but will then end up being interpreted by the courts”.
Those are all joined by the Government’s favourite think tank, as we discussed last time: the Resolution Foundation. Lest we forget, its former chief executive now sits in the Treasury. I have to say, looking at the Benches opposite, that they are also joined by quite a lot of Labour Peers, whose facial expressions the Minister cannot see.
The Government will of course say, “Business would say that, wouldn’t they?”, but that is to miss the point. These are the people who make hiring decisions, who decide whether to offshore because it is cheaper and causes them fewer HR headaches, whether to downsize, and whether to just close down completely, as we just heard so powerfully on the last group from my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley and his correspondent—I think it was Mr Dunham.
Remember that the impact assessment says the measure is likely to have a disproportionate impact on small and micro-businesses. Additionally, following the decision by the Government to double the conciliating period to 12 weeks for ACAS to resolve disputes, the Employment Lawyers Association has said:
“We are apolitical but the fact is that Parliament can pass all the reforming legislation it wants, but unless those laws can be enforced, with cases heard within a reasonable time, its laws are placed over the horizon, de facto out of sight to both workers and employers alike”.
These are the people who might be expected to benefit from the 10,500 increase in claims forecast to go before ACAS in the Government’s own impact assessment. Instead, they are expressing despair at the broken employment tribunal system.
As we saw last week, unemployment is rising and stands at almost 2 million, and it was reported yesterday that half the 170,000 jobs shed since Labour came to power are from the under-25s. Everyone who knows anything at all about wealth creation, about private sector hiring and about employment law says that the Bill will make it worse.
I need to refer back to the Tony Blair Institute, because it was very explicit about discouraging from hiring and I noticed that the Minister did not engage with that particular point in his introduction. This debate is about the people the party opposite claim to want to help. It is about a young person trying to find a job, a long-term unemployed person trying to rejoin the workforce, a woman wanting to return to work after having children, and somebody recovering from a long-term health issue getting back on their feet. The Bill should be about helping them; it is doing the complete opposite.
The last time we debated this, the Minister constructed a tortuous analogy and said that I and my party were on some sort of journey. If we are, our destination is common sense, and the Government need to listen to the wise voices on their own side and to join us.
On Motion F1, all I will do is quote what the Health Secretary said last week, that
“to be out on strike, setting back the NHS, because you don’t think we’re going fast enough, and because the leadership of your union are not honest enough that some of this change takes time, is extremely irresponsible. It is extremely unnecessary”.
He said that the BMA
“is no longer a professional association, and it is engaged in cartel-like behaviour”,
and that:
“The BMA’s leadership appear more interested in grandstanding and causing pain to patients than improving the lives of frontline resident doctors”.
Those are fairly damning words.
According to the Government’s own analysis, the full-time basic pay of resident doctors is expected to reach £54,300. This is where the farce becomes almost theatrical, because recently we heard that the Treasury considers that anyone earning above £45,000 a year is not a working person.
It appears that the Government have achieved something truly novel. They are actively creating a category of “non-working people”—not my phrase but the Chancellor’s own definition—and then showering them with no-strings-attached pay rises. Meanwhile, the BMA, emboldened by these spineless handouts, continues to abuse its influence, holding our NHS hostage while the Government wave through concessions without so much as a performance requirement or reform condition attached. The 50% threshold is not some sort of draconian barrier but a bare minimum, a line of defence against precisely this kind of chaos. Removing it will only accelerate the downward spiral that the Government have set in motion with their desperate, unconditional giveaways. The union bosses, entirely predictably, have now turned on them the moment it suited their agenda. I beg to move.
Lord Burns (CB)
My Lords, I support Motion B1. As the Minister has set out, the Government wish to go back to an arrangement where all new members automatically pay the contribution to the union’s political fund unless they take the initiative of opting out.
My own view is that it should be equally easy for a person to choose to contribute or not to contribute to the political fund at the point of applying to join the union. That is what my amendment seeks to do. The alternative approach supported by the Government is to have arrangements designed to minimise the number of new members who will exercise their legal right not to contribute to political funds. They want to do this by requiring action to opt out but not requiring any action to opt in, but, surely, an equal choice can be given only by respecting people’s personal preference.
Clearly, the Government wish to reduce the number of people exercising their right not to contribute. As one Labour Member in the House of Commons stated when opposing my amendment, they aim to avoid
“a reduction in the ability of working people to speak with a collective voice”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/11/25; col. 975.]
That is a wonderful euphemism for putting barriers in the way of people exercising their true preference.
I accept that opting out has been the dominant arrangement for political funds since 1945. However, as I said last time, the rest of the world has moved on. Technology and widespread use of online applications and communications have made it much easier and less burdensome for members of an organisation to make a clear and convenient choice. Additionally, the standards that are now accepted for dealing fairly with people exercising their choice have changed significantly. Active, explicit consent has become the accepted standard.
I have examined the existing application forms for five unions which have political funds and whose application forms are easy to access without having to initiate the online application process myself—which I thought would be a rather risky thing to do. Two forms stand out. The version of the UNISON form, which I have seen, already provides a clear choice. There are two parts to the fund, one for the benefit of the Labour Party and another for general campaigning. Applicants are asked to tick their preference between the campaign funds, Labour Link, and “no thank you”. The GMB form, which I have also seen, offers a clear choice in response to the question:
“Do you want to opt-in to the political fund?”
There are two boxes. Applicants are asked to select the “yes” or “no” box. The other three application forms simply ask whether new members wish to contribute to the political fund. However, importantly, all of them have clearly decided that it is in their own interests to ask applicants to opt in at the point that they apply to be members—I will come back to this in a moment.
My goal remains to find a solution that provides genuine freedom of choice, avoiding the need for repeated arguments with each change of government. My amendment requires all unions to adopt the approach taken by the GMB and UNISON unions under the present law. It would give members a clear and transparent choice when joining a union that gets away from a focus on opt-in or opt-out. Under the amendment, all applicants to join a union with a political fund would be required to answer a simple question: do they wish to contribute to the political fund or not? It is an equal choice with no bias. That question will be on the application form.
I worry that this amendment, as it is set down on the amendment paper, may seem rather lengthy and complicated, but the essence lies in Amendment 72D—the remaining amendments are all subsidiary to the key provision of that amendment.
In rejecting my previous amendment, the Minister in the House of Commons stated, and we have heard it from the Minister in this place again this afternoon, that reinstating automatic contributions to the political fund, unless members choose to opt out, would
“restore balance and fairness in union operations”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/11/25; col. 958.]
But what could be more balanced and fairer than the present UNISON and GMB forms, where applicants have a clear choice which they exercise at the time that they apply to join?
The Minister further claimed in the other House that the current opt-in system did not improve transparency or strengthen members’ choice, but how can that possibly be true of the amendment I put forward today? What could be more transparent or strengthen choice more than presenting two options side by side, along with the case for having a political fund, and allowing members to choose between them?
The Minister in the House of Commons, and the Minister this afternoon, have emphasised that under the proposed arrangements in the Bill, members will be informed on the application form of their right to opt out of contributing to the political fund and that opting out will have no impact on other aspects of their membership. However, I notice that there has been no commitment to being able to exercise a choice to opt out by ticking a box on the application form. Perhaps the Minister could explain why this simple option was not mentioned and apparently will not be required. Even under the opt-out system proposed by the Government, it would improve transparency and strengthen choice if members could exercise their choice not to contribute on the application form. If they are required to apply subsequently for an opt-out form to complete, does this improve transparency? Does it strengthen choice? Of course not.
I have had very helpful conversations with the Minister, and I must say I am very sorry to find myself in dispute with the Government on this. I have no political interest in this debate but continue to press the issue because this is not the way we expect organisations to operate today. It is a step backwards from the hard-fought cross-party compromise of 2016, and it is a stark reversal of everything we have learned in recent years about making choice more transparent and ensuring that decisions better reflect people’s true preferences.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I want to speak to Motion B1. Like, I think, many noble Lords, I start to become a bit uncomfortable when we have multiple rounds of ping-pong; and I generally hesitate to vote against the Government in more than one round, but I am expecting to make an exception in this case, for four main reasons.
First, I firmly believe that introducing day-one unfair dismissal rights will cause real and permanent harm to young people and others who are seen as higher-risk hires, such as those who have been on benefits for a long period, ex-offenders and people who have had long career breaks, perhaps because of parental or other caring obligations. When I say permanent, I mean that; if you are unemployed for a year, it becomes considerably more difficult to get on to that ladder and to make a success of your career. This is really important.
I am supported in that belief by every business group. The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, has listed many such groups; I would add another: the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, of which I am a member. There is the Resolution Foundation, the Tony Blair Institute, and perhaps most importantly, the Government’s own impact assessment, which is very clear on this. I would love to hear the Minister’s views on his own impact assessment—he has never actually addressed that point. None of the several Ministers in this place or the other place has made any coherent argument to the contrary. So I put the question very simply to the Minister: will restricting the reasons that may be used to dismiss someone during a probation period, and thereby opening up the risk of an employment tribunal from day one, make it more or less likely that an employer, especially a smaller employer, will take a risk on, or give a chance to, a young person with no experience? Is it more or less likely? It is very simple. I think most of us know the answer to that. Is he going to argue that his own impact assessment is wrong?
Secondly, this measure directly contradicts other government policy. The Government’s youth guarantee, something I am strongly in favour of, will offer every eligible young person who has been on universal credit for 18 months guaranteed paid work. To do that, you need employers who are willing to give them a job and to take that risk. Why would an employer do that if they can be taken to the employment tribunal from day one if the employment does not work out? It does not make sense.
Thirdly, despite, frankly, the clear harm that this will do, the Government have not provided any evidence that the change will create any material tangible benefits for workers. No evidence has been provided to show that the qualifying period is being abused or is causing actual harm. There is no evidence provided in the impact assessment; there is evidence that doing this will cause harm, but none about the harm we are trying to solve. No evidence has been provided in this or the other place.
The Resolution Foundation is also very clear: if we are going to harm the life chances of young people, which is what the Government confirm in their impact assessment, we must have real evidence that there is a genuine greater benefit, not just the usual statement that it cannot be right that someone can ever be dismissed for no reason.
Fourthly and finally, I want to look more closely at the claim that this is a manifesto commitment. It is in the manifesto, but it is part of a wider commitment that includes the explicit commitment:
“We will consult fully with businesses, workers, and civil society on how to put our plans into practice before legislation is passed”.
We have heard several times today that the Government will consult afterwards. They might argue that that is because the rules for the probationary period will be in a statutory instrument.
Let us unpick this light-touch probationary period the Government are talking about. The problem is that the Bill expressly and specifically sets out the reasons why someone can be dismissed from day one during that probationary period, meaning that it is not genuinely a probationary period. Under the Bill, it cannot become a light-touch probationary period; that is simply impossible, given the way the Bill is drafted. I would love to understand more about the light-touch probationary period because we have had no detail about what it really means. However, the employer is obligated by the Bill—the Act, should that come to pass—to give specific reasons which are limited by the Bill. It cannot be light-touch, so I would like to understand better what the Government mean by that.
There is a possible way forward, however, which is where I start, perhaps, to part company with the Opposition. It is because the Bill sets out that there have to be specific reasons for dismissal that is the problem—that is what allows the employment tribunal to get involved during a probationary period and all the rest of it. I wonder—I am thinking aloud—whether there is a solution to the problem by taking that element out.
For those reasons, I am inclined to support the Opposition on Motion B1. I urge the Minister to take this seriously. As the Resolution Foundation put it so well, let us not
“needlessly put employers off hiring”.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, we have heard four very good speeches, and I do not intend to repeat them. I listened very carefully to the Minister and, unusually, I will read what he said in Hansard rather than just saying I will, because there was some interesting stuff there. I picked out the phrase, “We will not compromise on the fundamental principles of the Bill”. It would help if those could be set out because they are currently in the eye of the beholder.
The Minister also raised the notion that someone who had worked just less than two years should not be unfairly dismissed. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, recognises that point fundamentally but there are 730 days between day one and two years. We do not have to go from 730 to one; there are stages. We may disagree on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, pulled out the issue of light-touch rules and the criteria for fair dismissal in the Bill. I have some problems with the noble Lord’s suggestion, because if it is not in primary legislation, it will come as secondary legislation. We all know that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition never kill secondary legislation—I am looking at them. We would like to from time to time because it should happen; there should be a sense of jeopardy in secondary legislation, which currently there is not. Without that sense of jeopardy, I am not happy with taking things out. However, if it is in primary legislation, the consultation is not worth anything because it is already there, so we might as well forget about that.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I apologise: I wanted to speak before the noble Lord, Lord Fox, spoke, but he went far too quickly and never looked in my direction.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips, a former Lord Chief Justice and the first President of the Supreme Court, asked a question: would you employ somebody with a criminal record without the qualifying period? He was never answered. Like a gramophone where the needle has stuck, I am stuck in that groove, so I will ask a second time: would you employ somebody without any qualifying period if they have a criminal record? I will add another category. Say somebody graduated from university and could have worked because they are not unwell, but they have not worked for 30 years and they want to go back to work: would you employ them without any probationary period? The serious issue here is like the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said: going from two years to just one day—24 hours and you are in.
There is another thing that worries me. We tend to describe employers as if they are all rogues. There are some bad employers, but the majority abide by the law. Today, they go before a tribunal if there is an unfair dismissal, so most people do not do it, but they want to have the security of knowing, when someone comes in, that there is a period of six months, say, during which they find out how that person plays in the firm and whether they are going to be loyal and faithful.
This probationary period is not a bad thing; most of us have been through it. I was a deacon for one year, and if they had discovered that I was no good, that would have been the end. The bishop would not have made me a priest; he would have said, “I will leave you as a deacon, and somebody, one day, may use you”. That sort of thing is discussed in relation to people in the Army. For example, a gentleman might want to become a commanding officer, and his trainer puts on his report, “Men will follow this gentleman, out of nothing”—or, in other words, “Do not take him”. Those reports are still being written.
Let us not deny employers who like to take on young people who have done some kind of mentoring work. I took on some, and that period was very useful. Quite a number ended up being ordained. We are discussing one day—24 hours—in which someone cannot be dismissed. I reckon that that is not how the world works. We want to protect workers’ rights but let us do it properly.
Finally, although this is a manifesto commitment, there is always a hurdle to turning a manifesto commitment into legislation. For me, the law is a public statement of policy; it is not just a manifesto commitment. Will this country go awry because we are so keen to protect workers’ rights—which we all want to do—without any qualifying period? I support Motion B1.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I cannot resist telling the House the following. Immediately after secretarial college, I had a job for a fortnight. On the last day, my employer said to me, “What are you really wanting to do?”, and I said, “Be a barrister”. He replied, “Thank goodness. You would never make a career as a secretary”.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
We have had many days of debate in Committee and on Report, so I want to bring matters to a conclusion. Our changes will not prevent fair dismissal. The Government will ensure that employers can operate a statutory probationary period to assess new hires. That is exactly what will be in the Bill and what we will consult on. We are committed to consulting on the light-touch approach to the probationary period, and we have made that clear at each stage of the Bill.
Our reforms to the labour market are critical for growth, because low productivity is our biggest problem in this country. How do we ensure that we motivate good employers? I have correspondence from think tanks, such as the Tony Blair Institute, on protecting workers from unfair dismissal from day one of employment. They say that employers could respond to this by improving their people management—a vital ingredient to productivity—which could boost labour productivity. This must be one of the benefits that comes from job mobility. These are issues that we discussed in Committee, so I do not want to go on.
The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, raised the issue of convictions. I have repeatedly said that, currently, having a spent conviction is not a proper ground on which someone can be dismissed, unless it is from one of the roles listed in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. The two-year qualifying period applies, making it an unfair dismissal claim in those circumstances, which is what the Conservatives have put.
I appreciate, as I said to the noble Lord opposite before, that the Conservatives have been on a journey from day-one rights to six months, 12 months and two years—and they are now back to six months. I urge them to think about going that one step further. Most employment law has been subject to those statutory instruments and codes of practice, because we do need to respond to them. It is incredibly complicated, and we cannot simply put it in the Bill.
The impact assessment is there. If nothing else happens then of course there will be a danger, but the point I am making is that this is about creating a fairer and better workforce, where we encourage employers to set the best practice so that we have a situation where productivity is increased. What are we afraid of? I believe that no one in this Chamber supports unfair dismissal. We are talking about is ensuring that everyone who is employed can have that basic human right. Therefore, it is absolutely important.
The whole point—I will repeat what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe—is that, as we have said from the start, the implementation will be done with a light touch. There will be a power in the Bill to modify the test for when employers can fairly dismiss employees during the statutory probationary period. In response to all the issues that noble Lords raised in Committee and on Report—such as whether we are getting rid of the probationary period or, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, asked, whether we are inhibiting employers—the answer is no; we just want it done properly and fairly. That is not an unreasonable demand in this modern age.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, that there has indeed been a burden on the tribunal system because of unfair dismissals, as we have seen the cost of that. We recognise the volume of cases going to both ACAS and the employment tribunal, and the Government will extend the ACAS early conciliation time from six weeks to 12 weeks from 1 December, to allow it to manage and deal with the demand for early conciliation services. DPT is also providing additional financing immediately to recruit 29 additional conciliators, ensuring that ACAS can deal with that. Therefore, we are responding to those issues.
The BMA strike ballot was under the conditions that the noble Lord talked about, but that has not stopped the dispute. What will stop it is having proper negotiations, and that is what the Health Minister is focused on ensuring happens. Legislating to somehow undermine ballots is not the answer. We want to ensure that unions are representative and that their ballots are too. We want to ensure that they have a modern way of balloting, to ensure that we increase participation. That will be the key to future fair and open collective bargaining.
I turn to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, on political funds. He knows—I have incredibly strongly made this point to him—that a trade union is not a company and is not offering services. It is a democratic body. There are collective decisions. If a trade union makes a resolution at its conference to support X or Y policy, that is the collective decision. People can opt out of that collective decision by leaving the trade union—and many do. If a union starts spouting things that are not representative of its members, then the members will walk. It is not compulsory to be a member of a trade union. However, it is a collective body making collective decisions.
The noble Lord said, “We want to avoid pendulum swings”. I admire the work that he did on his committee, which ensured that there was a soft landing for a decision made by the then Government in 2016 to break a consensus that had been in existence from 1945. We are trying to return to that consensus, in order to recognise that trade unions are an important part of our democracy. I have said before that the most important ingredient of a healthy democracy is a vibrant civil society. We all need to be challenged, and that is what this is about—collective decisions.
Whether the noble Lord thinks so or not, the fact is that his current amendment basically maintains the processes of 2016. I have engaged in discussions with him. I think most trade union leaders recognise that the world has changed. When I first joined a trade union, in the early 1970s, it required us to write a letter. The only information about contracting out was contained in the rulebook. Not many people read the rulebook. We now have online facilities—email—and the possibility of someone exercising their right to opt out. Of course, the reasons for opting out are not just political; they can be religious. That has been part of the consensus since 1945.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response, but he has yet again failed to answer the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu. We know that you cannot use a spent conviction as a reason for a dismissal, and that is entirely appropriate. The point is that there will not be anybody with a spent conviction in work, because no one will employ them. That is what the noble and right reverend Lord was asking, and yet again the Government have failed to answer what is a very straightforward question. They also failed entirely to address the excellent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, highlighting the difficulties young people are likely to face, and indeed are facing in the current workplace, because of this Bill.
I am afraid that the answers have not alleviated our concerns on these Benches. We entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Burns. It is not just the noble Lord who is obsessed with this; I think the whole House is. If he wishes to press his Motion, we will support him, but, in the meantime, I commend Motion B1 to the House.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 48B to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 48C.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion C. I beg to move.
Motion C1 (as an amendment to Motion C)
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 48B.”
Lord Leong
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 60B and 60C, to which the Commons have disagreed; and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 60D and 60E in lieu of Lords Amendments 60B and 60C.
“Guidance about the employment of children on heritage railways
(1) The Office of Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive, acting jointly, must, before the end of the relevant 12-month period, prepare and publish guidance setting out circumstances in which a child carrying out activities for the purposes of a heritage railway in Great Britain is, or is not, to be regarded as employed in an industrial undertaking for the purposes of section 1 of the Employment of Women, Young Persons and Children Act 1920 (restrictions on the employment of children in industrial undertakings).
(2) The Office of Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive, acting jointly—
(a) may from time to time revise guidance published under this section;
(b) must publish any revisions of that guidance.
(3) In this section—
“heritage railway” means a railway which—
(a) is operated for the purposes of—
(i) preserving, recreating or simulating railways of the past, or
(ii) demonstrating or operating historical or special types of motive power or rolling stock, and
(b) is exclusively or primarily used for recreational or educational purposes;
“railway” includes a tramway;
“the relevant 12-month period” means the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”
“( ) section (Guidance about the employment of children on heritage railways) (guidance about the employment of children on heritage railways);”
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester for their engagement on this issue.
The Government’s amendments, which were tabled in the other place, build on the previous amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, placing a statutory duty on the Office of Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive to produce guidance supporting 14 to 16 year-olds volunteering on heritage railways. This guidance will offer a clear benchmark for reasonable activities and assist inspectors in enforcement decisions. The Government are committed to this work, with publication targeted for 31 March 2026.
By working with the regulators, as well as heritage railways that are already operating successful volunteering programmes for children, there can be clear and practical guidance to protect the health, safety and well-being of young people interested in volunteering on heritage railways. This collaborative approach will provide practical guidance that empowers children to engage safely and meaningfully in heritage railway volunteering. In turn, it should provide the necessary bodies with reassurance.
It is of utmost importance that young people get the opportunity to learn new skills and gain confidence, as well as to help their community—all while ensuring that high-risk activities are not carried out and only appropriate activities are undertaken. I beg to move the Motion.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, I will be very brief. The House has heard me speak on this subject a number of times over the past 10 years, ever since the counsel’s opinion came through that the engagement of young people on heritage railways and tramways was illegal under the 1920 Act. The government amendment, which bears a remarkable resemblance to the one that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and I discussed with Ministers during the process of the Bill’s consideration, removes that threat from heritage railways provided that they follow the guidance which the ORR and the Health and Safety Executive lay down for them. I am grateful to them for their willingness to undertake the consultation which will produce that guidance, we hope by 31 March. Meanwhile, heritage railways are now able to recruit youngsters legally and, I believe, successfully to be involved in the running of the railway, and thereby provide some certainty that the heritage railway movement will continue. I will of course support the Motion that my noble friend has moved.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I will be briefer still. I renew my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Leong, and the Government for listening on this issue and my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, who has campaigned on this issue for many years. This compromise from the Government, which the noble Lord very kindly outlined to us before the tabling of the Motion in another place, puts beyond the uncertainty of recent years an issue that has prevented young people from gaining skills and opportunities in volunteering on heritage railways, which are often considerable employers in their local areas and the linchpin of the visitor economy. This is a measure which will help growth and employment, as well as extending opportunity.
As it happens, when the Government were inserting these new words into the Bill in another place, the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and I were both at the Heritage Railway Association’s annual conference in Southampton where the Government were rightly getting the plaudits that they deserve for moving on this issue, so I am very grateful that they have done so.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I add my support and thanks to the Government for this amendment.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their very kind words. I thank my noble friend Lord Faulkner and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for their engagement with the Government, myself and my colleagues. This amendment is good news to the thousands of volunteers working in heritage railways up and down the country, who will not have to worry about breaching any legislation. That said, let us choo-choo along and I beg to move.
Lord Collins of Highbury
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 61 and 72, to which the Commons have disagreed; and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 72C in lieu of Lords Amendments 61 and 72.
(i) a day specified in, or determined in accordance with, the rules of the union, and
(ii)”
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion E, and I beg to move.
Motion E1 (as an amendment to Motion E)
Lord Burns
Leave out from “disagreed” to end and insert “do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment 72C in lieu of Lords Amendments 61 and 72; and do propose Amendments 72D to 72H in lieu—
“84 Contributions to political fund from union members
(1) It is unlawful to require a member of a trade union to make a contribution to the political fund of a trade union if the member has not chosen to become a contributor.
(2) For the purposes of this Act, a member of a trade union is deemed to have chosen to become a contributor to the political fund of the union if they—
(a) are an existing contributor to the political fund immediately before the date on which section 59 of the Employment Rights Act 2025 comes into force,
(b) have chosen to be a contributor under the provisions of section 82(1)(ca)(i) or subsection (5), or
(c) have chosen to become a contributor at a later date by submitting a political fund contribution change form under subsection (8).
(3) A trade union must give a political fund contribution consent form to each member of the union within the period of eight weeks beginning with the day after the day on which a political resolution is passed by the members of the union under section 73.
(4) A “political fund contribution consent form” is a form which requires the person to make a choice between being a contributor to the fund or not being a contributor to the fund.
(5) Any member who is issued with a political fund contribution consent form under subsection (3) shall only be deemed to be a contributor if they have returned the form indicating that they wish to be a contributor.
(6) A member of a trade union may change their choice about whether to contribute to the political fund at any time.
(7) A member of a trade union may change their choice about whether to contribute to the political fund by completing a political fund contribution change form provided by their union and—
(a) delivering it (either personally or by an authorised agent or by post) at the head office or a branch office of the union;
(b) sending it by email to an address that the union has told its members can be used for sending such notices;
(c) completing an electronic form provided by the union, and sending it to the union by electronic means in accordance with instructions given by the union;
(d) by such other electronic means as may be prescribed.
(8) A political fund contribution change form takes effect at the end of the period of one month beginning with the day on which it is given.
84A Information to members about changing their choice on contributing to political fund
(1) A trade union must give a political fund contribution change notice to each member of the union within the period of eight weeks beginning with the end of—
(a) the period of one year beginning with the day on which a political resolution is passed, and
(b) each successive year,
unless during that previous year the political resolution is rescinded or otherwise ceases to have effect.
(2) A “political fund contribution change notice” is a notice stating that—
(a) each member of the union has the right to change whether they are a contributor to the political fund of the union, and
(b) a member may exercise that right by completing a political fund contribution change form under section 84.
(3) A political fund contribution change notice must be given in accordance with rules of the union approved for the purpose by the Certification Officer.
(4) In deciding whether to approve those rules, the Certification Officer must have regard in each case to the existing practice and character of the union.”
“(4) The amendments made by subsection (3) apply only after the end of the transition period.
(5) In subsection (4) “the transition period” means a period of not less than 12 months, starting on the day on which this section comes into force, specified by the Secretary of State in regulations made by statutory instrument.
(5A) Before making regulations under subsection (5) the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Certification Officer, and
(b) all trade unions that have a political fund.
(5B) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (5) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
Lord Collins of Highbury
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 62, to which the Commons have disagreed; and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 62C in lieu of Lords Amendment 62.
“(5) In deciding whether and when to make regulations under subsection (3) bringing section 65 (industrial action ballots: turnout threshold) into force for any purpose, the Secretary of State must have regard to what effect any provision made after this Act is passed for industrial action ballots to be conducted otherwise than by post has had, or is expected to have, on the proportion of those eligible to vote voting in such ballots.
(6) In subsection (5) “industrial action ballot” means a ballot for the purposes of section 226 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (ballots on industrial action).”
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion F. I beg to move.
Motion F1 (as an amendment to Motion F)
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 62, and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment 62C.”
Crime and Policing Bill
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Blencathra
“Forfeiture of vehicles under the Environmental Protection Act 1990In section 33C of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (section 33 offences: forfeiture of vehicles), omit subsection (7).”Member’s explanatory statement
This would remove some of the issues a court has to consider before granting a forfeiture order for someone convicted of fly tipping controlled waste, and ensures that the innocent landowner must not bear the cost of removal.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for the delay; the lift was delayed, so I just made it.
In moving my Amendment 40, I will also address Amendment 42. Amendment 40 suggests omitting subsection (7), on the forfeiture of vehicles, from the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The first question is: what does subsection (7) say? To start with, this part of the 1990 Act deals with the criminal act of illegally fly-tipping and the massive amounts of rubbish dumped in the countryside, including controlled waste. We saw an example of that at the weekend at Kidlington, where an enormous amount was illegally dumped there. Section 33 deals with a forfeiture of vehicles and rightly gives the appropriate authority, which may be a local authority or the Environment Agency, power to ask the court to take possession of the vehicle used in the commission of the crime and dispose of it—excellent law, in my opinion.
Regarding subsection (7), the point of my amendment is to remove a few hoops which the court has to consider before making the order—in my opinion they are not necessary—and make it more difficult to penalise the organised crime rackets behind most of the worst illegal dumping. Thus, subsection (7) says:
“In considering whether to make an order under this section a court must in particular have regard to … the value of the vehicle … the likely financial and other effects on the offender of the making of the order (taken together with any other order that the court contemplates making) … the offender’s need to use the vehicle for lawful purposes”
and
“whether, in a case where it appears to the court that the offender is engaged in a business which consists wholly or partly in activities which are unlawful by virtue of section 33 above … the making of the order is likely to inhibit the offender from engaging in further such activities”.
I say to these caveats that the value of the vehicle is irrelevant. If the criminal uses it to commit a crime, too bad. Whether it is a 20 year-old clapped-out van or a new Mercedes-Benz Sprinter, if it is used in a crime, he loses it, whatever the value. As for the likely financial effects, what should we care if it has financial effects on the criminal? I would hope it would—that is the point of confiscating the implement he uses to commit the crime.
Then the court has to consider the criminal’s
“need to use the vehicle for lawful purposes”.
I have no doubt that he will tell the court that he needs it to transport meals on wheels or medical supplies and give any number of bogus excuses. If a criminal uses a vehicle for criminal purposes and has made a lot of money by doing so, he should forfeit the vehicle, even if he can no longer use it for the school run.
Let us not be naive. We are not looking here at a householder who drives in his Volvo to the countryside to dump a bag of garbage but at serious and organised criminals, using their three-tonne tipper trucks—or, as we saw recently, their 30-tonne tipper trucks—to dump thousands of tonnes of controlled waste, including asbestos, chemicals and other building rubble. It is estimated, according to our House of Lords Select Committee report of two weeks ago, that the organised gangs make about £1 billion per annum from illegal dumping of controlled waste. As I said in a debate last week, the only thing that hurts these criminals is not a fine, which they might not pay, but depriving them of their property. We should not have any get-outs, as we have in subsection (7); instead, we should confiscate any and all vehicles used in their criminal waste-dumping activities.
I will not speak to Amendment 42, since my noble friends on the Front Bench put down their own amendment before mine and will make a better argument of it than I can. All I say is that I apologise that my explanatory statement is wrong here; I inadvertently attached the same one as for Amendment 40. However, going back to Amendment 40, I beg to move.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, I wholeheartedly support my noble friend. He has done the Committee a great service by bringing forward these amendments. The Bill is indeed very broad, and the question of fly-tipping falls very squarely within its auspices.
This is a very serious issue indeed, and it is undertaken by a range of criminals, from small one-man bands to large, organised gangs, and everything in between. The fact is that we still have a really serious problem, which is not taken sufficiently seriously by law enforcement. Therefore, we have to bring forward measures that the criminals will be frightened of and will not just consider as a cost of business of being in that field. They must be concerned about the potential loss of their vehicles and the potential removal of—or, at least, adding of points to—their driving licenses. I could not agree with my noble friend any more; he has absolutely hit the nail on the head.
There is another very important measure, on which we will hear from my noble friends on the Official Opposition Front Bench in a few moments, around equity. It is inequitable that the person who is the victim of this crime must be responsible for clearing it up—that is just completely wrong. I have never understood why that should be the case.
I declare an interest of some description in that I have a small farm in Devon. I really feel for landowners and those who have responsibility for land. They go into their fields to tend their stock and then see massive piles of waste that could contain everything from biowaste to asbestos, to building products, and so forth, and then somehow it becomes their problem to find the means to clear it up. This is wrong, so we ought to use the Bill, in a very positive way, to remove that burden on the victims of crime and put it on the perpetrators, with support from local authorities.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I will respond briefly to this group of amendments. Fly-tipping is out of control and a very serious problem. As we have heard, farmers and innocent landowners often end up paying the cost for other people’s criminality. The Government’s own statistics show that around 20% of all waste generated ends up being illegally managed. These figures highlight the absolute scale of the problem. With profits being up to £2,500 per lorry, if you start driving 30 lorries a day, the profits soon add up. So this is no longer a small matter of rural dumping but a major criminal enterprise—it certainly spreads into major criminal enterprises—which damages our ecosystems, undermines legitimate businesses and leaves legitimate legal landowners with responsibilities.
We on these Benches start from the position that prevention is better than cure and call on the Government to make rapid reforms and approaches to these issues through a lens of fairness, proportionality and effective enforcement. We stand firmly behind innocent landowners and want to see progress made on these matters. The law needs fundamental and major reform. We would like to see that happen.
Amendment 40 concerns the forfeiture of vehicles under the Environmental Protection Act. We can see the logic in removing Section 33C(7), strengthening the ability to confiscate vehicles used for fly-tipping offences. Its removal concerns the offenders’ need to use the vehicle for lawful purposes—well, they should have thought about that before they started using it for illegal ones. However, enforcement agencies must ensure that these powers are used proportionately if the Government agree to them.
Amendments 41 and 42 relate to landowners and the bills that they are facing from others’ criminality. We support the principle that the polluter should pay and that those who dump waste should be caught and prosecuted. However, we have some concerns about these amendments. This is a complicated matter and the truth is that most of these criminals are not caught. Convictions are often far too lenient. Often, when people are caught, the authorities lack the financial capability to track down sufficient funds to meet clean-up costs. This can all take considerable time, during which there is ongoing environmental damage.
Amendment 42 comes as a package deal with Amendment 41. It states categorically:
“Any guidance issued under this section must state that the costs of removal of illegally tipped refuse will not fall on the landowner on whose property the refuse was dumped”.
The trouble is that it does not say who does pick up the cost. It raises a lot of questions without providing enough answers. In some cases, we are seeing criminals even buying land specifically for the purposes of dumping waste—it is so profitable to do so. I am worried about the nuance of the law in this. I fully recognise that the law needs full reform. I have every sympathy with what the noble Lords are trying to do. I am just not certain that, as drafted, these amendments would do what the noble Lords intend.
Amendment 46 seeks to add a penalty point to driving licences of those convicted of fly-tipping. This is about creating a potentially powerful deterrent. This policy was a hangover from the last Conservative Government which was not legislated for. Fly-tippers depend on their vehicles to carry out their criminal activities. This is an amendment that we generally welcome and support. I would be interested in the Government’s response to it.
Amendment 47 goes further by seeking to amend the Police Reform Act to allow vehicles used in fly-tipping to be seized. Local authorities already have a lot of these powers to seize vehicles. This amendment would take it further. I am interested in the Minister’s response to this amendment. Separate to these amendments, I ask the Government to go further and consider giving local authorities greater powers to stop vehicles that are suspected of taking part in fly-tipping and to create greater co-operation and intelligence sharing between local authorities and the police.
Some of the answers to these questions revolve around our policy of a national fund to support innocent landowners who fall victim to this, rather than this approach and these amendments. We call for that fund to be enacted from levies on waste carriers and for that money to help innocent landowners who find themselves the victims of others’ crime.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group address the very serious blight that is fly-tipping. The issue lies at the heart of community life. It is vital that we make every effort to ensure environmental protection and community confidence in law enforcement.
The scale of fly-tipping in the UK should not be understated. Between 2023 and 2024, local authorities in England dealt with around 1.15 million incidents, a 6% increase on the previous year. The majority of these cases involved household waste, sometimes dumped in bulk. Unfortunately, the absolute number of prosecutions is tiny in relation to the problem. There were only 1,598 prosecuted actions in that same year. Fly-tipping is organised crime, but it is local councils and private landowners who often bear the cost of clearing up the mess.
The amendments tabled in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Davies and my noble and learned friend Lord Keen seek to protect local communities from the destructive practice of fly-tipping by providing for harsher penalties and giving the police more powers to act. Amendment 41 amends Clause 9 so as to ensure that the Secretary of State’s guidance on fly-tipping makes the person responsible for the fly-tipping, rather than the landowner, liable for the costs of cleaning up. It is wrong that this is currently left to judicial discretion—that risks inconsistent outcomes. The amendment does identify the person responsible, who in this case is the convicted offender.
My Amendment 46 introduces a further enforcement tool. Where a person is found to have committed a fly-tipping offence, authorities would have the power to add three points to their driving licence. Rather than simply compelling fly-tipping offenders to pay a fine, which they may deem a worthy risk when compared with the profits of their actions, this measure places at risk the offenders’ ability to drive. By threatening points on driving licences, repeat offenders will be less likely to fly-tip as their licences will be in jeopardy.
I thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for his Amendment 42, which seeks to ensure in statute that the cost of cleaning up fly-tipping should not fall on to the landowners. In many ways, this amendment seeks to achieve the same outcome as my Amendment 41. I therefore welcome it and hope that the Government will pay it due regard.
I also thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for his Amendment 40, which seeks to remove the provision of third-party protection for seizure of vehicles in respect of fly-tipping, which he spoke to most compellingly just now. This would mean that offenders cannot escape punishment by using someone else’s vehicle and that local authorities are better equipped to tackle fly-tipping. Again, I look forward to hearing the Government’s position on this proposal. If we are to tackle fly-tipping seriously, it is important that police are well equipped to act.
My Amendment 47 seeks to amend Section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002 so that the police can seize a vehicle which they reasonably believe has been used in association with fly-tipping offences. It empowers the police, not just local authorities, to take action.
In conclusion, these are practical, targeted interventions with a clear principle: those who dump waste illegally should be held to account and local communities should not be left footing the bill. I hope that all noble Lords recognise the importance of holding those who dump waste to account and protecting communities from the blight of illegal dumping. I earnestly hope that the Government will consider carefully the practical measures proposed by me and my noble friend Lord Blencathra and the broader structural steps proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in the amendments in the next group. Together they form a system for tackling fly-tipping. I look forward with interest to the Minister’s response.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, we are debating again the Crime and Policing Bill—the second day in Committee—which has as its core purpose making our communities safer, protecting victims from harm and ensuring that they secure the justice they deserve, so it is fitting that I echo the words of my noble friend Lord Hanson earlier today, when he spoke on the border security Bill, by paying my own tribute to that doughty campaigner for victims’ rights, Baroness Newlove. Her tireless campaigning on behalf of victims and the bereaved was truly inspirational. Like other Members of your Lordships’ House, I was deeply saddened to hear of her most untimely passing. She will be much missed, and I am sure all noble Lords will join me in passing on our condolences to her family and friends.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Davies of Gower, for setting out the Opposition’s position on Clause 9 and fly-tipping more generally. Fly-tipping is a serious issue, as both the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said. It is environmental vandalism, and you have only to consider the enormous pile of illegally dumped waste by the A34 and the River Cherwell in Kidlington, to which the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, referred, to see that this is a very real problem, which the Government are absolutely committed to tackling.
On that particular, egregious example of fly-tipping, noble Lords will, I hope, be pleased to hear that the Government are engaging with the Environment Agency on this specific case. I understand that an investigation is under way. An Environment Agency restriction order has been served to prevent access to the site and further tipping, and the local resilience forum has been notified to explore opportunities with multi-agency support.
In 2023-24, local authorities in England reported 1.15 million fly-tipping incidents and 60% of fly-tips involved household waste. Fly-tipping is not only an eyesore, blighting our streets and open spaces, it can pose a serious public health hazard when not effectively dealt with. It really impacts the quality of life in communities across our land, often the most deprived areas, urban and rural, and that is why we as a Government are committed to tackling it.
The current waste carriers, brokers and dealers regulatory regime is not fit for purpose and the Government have announced plans to reform this regime and move the regulation of waste management and transport from a light-touch registration scheme into environmental permitting. We committed in our manifesto to forcing fly-tippers to clean up the mess that they have created, as part of a crackdown on anti-social behaviour, and will provide further details on this commitment in due course. We are also carrying out a review of local authority powers to seize and crush vehicles of suspected fly-tippers, to identify how we can help councils make better use of this specific tool.
We want to see an effective enforcement strategy at the centre of local efforts to combat the problem, which makes full and proper use of the available powers. I stress that we think that this is appropriately done at the local level, because it is local people, local communities, and indeed local councillors, who are elected to represent those communities, who are best placed to understand the specific needs and issues in those areas. Clause 9 will help achieve that by placing a legal duty on councils across the country to have regard to forthcoming guidance on fly-tipping enforcement.
I recognise the significant burden that clearing fly-tipping waste places on landowners. However, I do not believe that Amendment 41 from the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and Amendment 42 from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, are the right way to tackle the issue.
Through Section 33B of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, where local authorities prosecute fly-tippers, a court can mandate that a costs order be made on the convicted person in order that a landowner’s costs can be recovered from the perpetrator. Such a cost order is a criminal penalty and, as such, is properly imposed by the independent judiciary under the relevant provisions of the 1990 Act. Where there is sufficient evidence, fly-tippers can be prosecuted and, on conviction, a costs order can be made by the court so that those landowners’ costs can be recovered.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister help the Committee by telling us how often such an order has been imposed?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I am afraid I will have to write to the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, with that detail. But I stress that there is no statutory limit on the amount of compensation that may be imposed for an offence committed by an offender aged 18 or over. However, in determining whether to make a compensation order and the amount that should be paid under such an order, the court must take into account the offender’s means. If they are limited, priority must be given to the payment of compensation over a fine, although a court may still impose a fine. I suppose 20% of something is better than 100% of nothing, if I can put it that way.
Having said that, guidance on presenting court cases produced by the National Fly-tipping Prevention Group, which is a group chaired by Defra that includes a wide range of representatives from interested parties—central and local government, enforcement authorities, the waste industry, police and fire services, private landowners, and the devolved Administrations—sets out that prosecutors should consider applying for compensation for the removal of waste. Defra will consider building on this advice in the statutory guidance that will be issued under Clause 9 once the Bill becomes law.
Noble Lords will also be interested, I hope, to hear that local authorities can already issue fixed penalties of up to £1,000 to fly-tippers, the income from which must be spent on clean-up or enforcement. Local authorities issued 63,000 fixed penalty notices in total for fly-tipping during 2023-24, and these were the second most common enforcement action, according to Defra data.
I fully understand the sentiment behind these amendments and entirely accept the principle that the polluter should pay but the Government believe that the sentencing framework, as set out in primary legislation, is the proper place to deal with this issue. I recognise, however, that there may be benefits in providing the court with an alternative disposal relating to penalty points, as proposed in Amendment 46 from the noble Lord, Lord Davies. Defra remains committed to considering such a move and will provide an update in due course.
I also stress, and in response to Amendment 47, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, noted, that there is an existing power for local councils and the police to seize a vehicle where there is a reasonable belief that it is being used or had been used for fly-tipping, which can lead to the vehicle being sold or crushed if it is not claimed. If the vehicle is claimed, the council can prosecute and a court can order that ownership rights are transferred to the council, under which it can keep, sell or dispose of the vehicle. There were nearly 400 vehicles seized in 2023-24 as an enforcement action.
When such an order is being considered, it is appropriate that the court must consider certain factors that Amendment 40, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, seeks to remove. The duty on the courts to consider these factors, such as the financial impacts of the forfeiture or the offender’s need to use the vehicle for lawful purposes, embeds principles of Article 1 of Protocol 1 of—our friend—the European Convention on Human Rights. This entitles a person to a peaceful enjoyment of their possessions but allows the state to enforce laws to control use of that property when it is in the general interest. Any such interference with this right must be lawful for legitimate aim and be proportionate. Amendment 40 would remove these safeguards, and we should always tread lightly when considering long-held rights regarding property, something I am sure I would not have to tell the Benches opposite.
In light of my explanations, I hope the noble Lord will be content to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s response and to all those who have spoken in this short but interesting debate. I start with the problem: fly-tipping does not sound as bad as the crime actually is. Many people say, “Oh, fly-tipping, that is just dumping a mattress or a fridge in the countryside”, but as we have seen recently, there are 30,000 tonnes of contaminated garbage in Hoads Wood, with probably around 900 or 1,000 tonnes left at the weekend. It is not fly-tipping: it is rubbish racketeering. I am not going to suggest an amendment to change the title of it, but we really need to take it seriously.
Now, the other point that my noble friend on the Front Bench and I—and, I think, nearly all of us—agree on is that, ideally, the landowner should not have to pay the cost of clearing it up. He or she is the victim by having it dumped on their land in the first place, and then they are the victim the second time around in having to pay for clearing it up. But it should not be the ratepayers who pay for it either.
Ideally, of course, it should be the people who do it, but in many cases, we cannot catch them; we do not know who they are. In those circumstances, it seems grossly unfair that the landowner then has to bear the cost of doing that. We may discuss this in the next group of amendments, but I would hope that on, say, the Kidlington thing, a couple of forensic experts can crawl over that and find something. There must be addresses; there must be some data—that rubbish has not come from 200 miles away. There must be intelligence to pin down who has been doing it and then we should hit them hard.
I do not accept that the European Court of Human Rights would say that we need all those safeguards before taking away the vehicle of someone who has been involved in heavy crime. I challenge the Minister on that. I like the idea of three points on the licence, although I would go slightly further and make it three points for every load the person has dumped, but there are various penalties we can add there as well.
So I think we are all on the same side here—the noble Earl, Lord Russell, my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel on the Front Bench, myself and the Minister—and we are all searching for slightly tougher penalties. I hear what the Minister said, but perhaps if all of us on this side of the House could agree some simple, concerted amendment for Report where we can toughen up on this a bit, maybe adding the penalty points thing, maybe finding some way to make sure that the landowner does not pay and some way to penalise the organised crime behind this, it may be worth while coming back on Report. But in the meantime, in view of what the Minister said and his assurances, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Earl Russell
“Serious and organised waste crime: national action plan(1) The Secretary of State must regard serious and organised waste crime as a strategic priority threat.(2) In furtherance of the strategic priority in subsection (1), the Joint Unit for Waste Crime (JUWC) must follow an approach based on reducing serious and organised waste crime.(3) The JUWC must establish a national action plan to further the priorities of—(a) reducing the impact of waste criminality where it takes place,(b) preventing people from engaging in serious and organised waste crime,(c) protecting the UK’s critical infrastructure, environment, and communities, and(d) prosecuting and disrupting people engaged in serious and organised waste criminality.(4) JUWC partners must use all their relevant specialist skills, experience and investigative and intelligence in furtherance of the priorities in subsection (3).(5) A relevant person must, so far as appropriate and reasonably practical, cooperate with the JUWC to further the priorities in subsection (3), including by— (a) sharing intelligence on waste crime, (b) reporting incidents of waste crime, and(c) sharing connections between waste crime and other forms of serious and organised crime.(6) The national action plan may include a single point for receiving and disseminating reports of waste crime.(7) In this section—(a) “JUWC partners” means—(i) Environment Agency;(ii) National Resources Wales;(iii) Scottish Environmental Protection Agency;(iv) Northern Ireland Environment Agency;(v) His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs;(vi) Police;(vii) National Fire Chiefs Council;(viii) British Transport Police;(ix) National Crime Agency;(x) Revenue Scotland;(xi) Welsh Revenue Authority;(xii) Environmental Services Association;(xiii) Chartered Institute for Waste management.(b) a “relevant person” means—(i) regional organised crime units,(ii) local police forces in England and Wales, and(iii) local authorities.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment takes forward recommendations of House of Lords Environment and Climate Change Committee. It requires the Secretary of State to designate serious and organised waste crime as a strategic priority threat. It also requires the Joint Unit on Waste Crime to establish a national action plan and places a duty on relevant persons to cooperate with the JUWC in furtherance of the plan’s priorities.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 43, I shall speak also to Amendments 44 and 45, all on serious and organised waste crime. By chance, I found myself involved in this since those from the save Hoads Woods campaign came to me. That resulted in a ministerial direction and resulted in the clean-up of Hoads Wood at a cost of £15 million to the taxpayer, equivalent to the Environment Agency’s annual budget for fighting waste crime. It also led to the Environment and Climate Change Committee conducting a short inquiry into these matters, which has reported in the last couple of weeks. My amendments deal with some of the key findings from that report.
I do not wish to jump the gun, but some of these matters are clear cut; they are urgent, and I want to keep up the pressure. The Bill represents a vital opportunity to make progress, and it is progress that I do not want to be missed. I know that the Government have inherited broken systems and are committed to making reforms, particularly on the broker and dealer regulations, which I welcome and thank them for doing. The work done by the committee clearly shows that all parties recognise that this is a problem and is out of control. The findings paint a picture of fundamentally broken systems, where criminality is endemic in our waste sector. The key is to treat it as an organised crime problem and provide the right tools with which to fight it. We need to fight fire with fire.
While we sit with bits of paper that are easily forged, criminal networks buy land under false ID, using the dark web and secret apps to communicate with each other. I have no wish to blame individuals, but broken systems are creating broken results. This is a £1 billion a year problem. These criminal organised gangs are also involved in drugs, firearms, money laundering and modern slavery. There is the sheer scale: 38 million tonnes—enough to fill Wembley stadium 30 times over—is believed to be illegally managed every year.
We need look no further than the devastating environmental catastrophe that is unfolding in real time in Kidlington, Oxfordshire, as has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, which came to light just this weekend. My heart sank when I saw this, because this dump—150 metres long and 6 metres high—threatens to become an environmental disaster, with toxic leachate running into the River Cherwell, which is only metres away. It feels like Hoads Wood has been allowed to happen all over again. I do not understand how, for months and months, lorries were allowed to dump this stuff and nothing has been done. I ask the Minister seriously to consider meeting the costs and to work with local residents and the council to ensure that that clear-up takes place. That is extremely important.
Without swift and decisive action, we will continue to draw ever more sophisticated criminal networks into the UK waste sector. The National Crime Agency warns that this is now a strategic threat. Beyond financial losses, this is not a victimless crime; there are damaging consequences for public health and the natural environment, and we, the taxpayer, are left to pick up the bill.
We welcome the Joint Unit for Waste Crime, but it has only 12 individuals and has no statutory footing or clear strategic direction. There needs to be better co-operation between partners. The committee heard witnesses say that this is the Bermuda triangle of intelligence—information is simply lost between partners and falls between the cracks. Amendment 43 would require the Secretary of State to take serious and organised waste crime as a strategic priority threat and to mandate the Joint Unit for Waste Crime to establish a comprehensive national action plan. That would focus on prevention, protection and prosecution, underpinned by effective intelligence sharing. It would place a duty of co-operation on all relative public bodies and enforcement agencies, ensuring that intelligence and expertise flow across the system. The national action plan would create a single point for receiving and disseminating waste crime reports.
Members of the public report this and get rightly frustrated when nothing happens. The need is clear: these issues are falling between organisations and jurisdictions, and all the while it is the criminals who are benefiting. Amendment 44 calls for greater transparency and accountability. Openness and accountability are key to understanding the causes and the scale of organised waste crime. A lack of transparency benefits only the criminal networks.
When the Environment Agency was asked by the Environment and Climate Change Committee how many sites of a similar size to Hoads Wood existed, the answer given was six. However, since then Sky News has reported a site in Wigan and, as we have heard, there is the site in Kidlington which was publicised in the press at the weekend. It is not clear whether those two sites are additional, but time will tell, and we need to know the true scale. We cannot effectively fight that which we do not know. More than numbers, it would require location, sizes, types of waste and what action is being taken to clear up these tremendous, huge waste piles. This amendment is also essential; these matters need to be legislated for as otherwise they will not be properly reported.
Amendment 45 is the linchpin of the committee’s recommendations. It would establish a root-and-branch review of serious and organised waste crime which would be independent of Defra, the Environment Agency and HMRC. The committee found multiple failures by the Environment Agency and criticised the regulators for being slow to respond. Despite receiving over 24,000 reports of waste crime in three years to March 2025, the EA opened only 320 criminal investigations. HMRC has achieved zero criminal convictions for landfill tax fraud, despite the tax gap being estimated at £150 million annually. The independent review scrutinised the egregious events at Hoads Wood, the fact that they were reported for years and that it took until January 2024 for the EA to obtain a restriction order. Clearing up the six sites that are already known about could cost close to £1 billion if the cost is similar to that of clearing Hoads Wood.
These are very important issues. Critically, we want to see a change in the financial rules set by the Treasury that prevent the Environment Agency diverting income derived from environmental permits on legitimate businesses towards dealing with criminal activity. Additional funding provided to the Environment Agency for 2025-26 should be maintained.
To conclude, I recognise that the Minister has not had long to consider the committee’s report, and that a formal response is not due until the start of December. My hope is that there is time for a formal response to the committee’s report prior to the Bill’s Report stage. I hope that the Government are minded at least to take an initial look at the amendments. If it is helpful, I am fully prepared to work and co-operate with the Government in any way I can. I beg to move.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
May God and my noble friends forgive me, but I think our Lib Dem Peers have a good point, particularly with regard to the new clause proposed in Amendment 43. I will not repeat what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, but the letter from our chair of the Environment and Climate Change Committee is absolutely spot on. The crime is massive—costing the country £1 billion per annum—and the environmental damage is enormous. I was not aware that our committee had carried out a short investigation, and I had not focused on Amendments 43, 44 and 45 until I saw the horrendous photos and videos last Friday and Saturday of the hundreds, possibly thousands, of tonnes dumped on that back lane in Kidlington, just six yards from the River Cherwell. The local MP and others have called it an environmental catastrophe, and that is no exaggeration.
This criminality is happening all across the country. I was on the board of Natural England when our SSSI at Hoads Wood was destroyed by 30,000 tonnes of illegal waste, dumped over a period of many months before the Environment Agency was aware of it. The agency then issued a notice barring further access to the site and is now spending £15 million to clean it up. The cost of cleaning up the Kidlington dump is estimated to be greater than the local authority budget.
Many have criticised the Environment Agency but I will not slag it off—at least, not too hard. Its main response is to issue a notice stopping further dumping, but inevitably that is weeks or months too late and the criminal gangs will have found new sites by then. This level of mega organised crime is way beyond its capability. It is a licensing organisation. It can do criminal investigations, but not of this complexity. It is easy for it to investigate a leak into a river from a factory, or prosecute a farmer who illegally dredged the River Lugg, but this level of organised crime is way beyond its capacity to investigate.
Conclusion 2 in the letter to the Defra Secretary of State from the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, is so right. She says:
“What we do know, however, is that criminality is endemic in the waste sector. It is widely acknowledged that there is little chance of criminals being brought to justice for committing waste offences—the record of successful prosecutions and other penalties is woeful. Organised crime groups, including those involved in drugs, firearms, money laundering and modern slavery, are well-established in the sector. They are attracted to the low-risk opportunity to make large sums of money and commit crimes from coordinated fly-tipping to illegal exports and landfill tax fraud”.
When I was on the board of the Food Standards Agency until 12 months ago, I had responsibility for the National Food Crime Unit. We found that the gangs involved in recirculating condemned food back into the food chain, usually to the catering sector, were also involved in moving stolen high-value cars, JCBs, drugs, mobile phones, et cetera. They were simply movers and distributors of all high-value stolen property or illegal items. If you have the network to move stolen vehicles then you have the network to dump thousands of tonnes of rubbish also.
How much money do these organised crime teams make from illegal dumping? The cost of legally disposing of mixed waste is up to £150 per tonne, and up to £200 per tonne for hazardous waste. A legal company would have to charge that fee, which includes the landfill tax of £94 per tonne. All these crooks have to do is put in a bid slightly below £150 and they would probably get the contract, including from possibly legitimate companies that did not know that they were dealing with crooks—it is possibly more likely that they would know, but they take the cheaper option and deny responsibility. The crooks who dumped at Hoads Wood probably made away with about £4 million: 30,000 tonnes at a profit of £130 per tonne. At Kidlington, let us say that they dumped 10 loads of 30 tonnes each day for 30 days. That is 900 tonnes, or £120,000 pure profit—dirty profit, to be more exact.
Although Amendments 44 and 45 are okay, they are not the important ones in this group. Of course there is no harm in more data, but we already know how serious the problem is, as our Lords inquiry has shown. Conducting a review to report by 2027 sounds a bit like that wonderful line from Sir Humphrey Appleby in the “Yes Minister” episode “Doing the Honours”, when he said,
“I recommend that we set up an interdepartmental committee with fairly broad terms of reference, so that at the end of the day, we’ll be in the position to think through the various implications and arrive at a decision based on long-term considerations rather than rush prematurely into precipitate and possibly ill-conceived action which might well have unforeseen repercussions”—
to which Hacker says: “You mean ‘no’?”
However, the new clause in Amendment 45 has one good gem in it—namely, proposed new subsection (2), which says that the review must consider
“the extent and effectiveness of integrated working between the Environment Agency, HMRC, the National Crime Agency, local police forces in England and Wales, and local authorities”.
That leads me on to the noble Earl’s Amendment 43, which has a very sensible key suggestion: beefing up the Joint Unit for Waste Crime. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, whom we all respect, said in answer to an Oral Question in this Chamber on 15 October that Defra had increased the budget for the EA to use on the joint unit by 50% and that the number of staff had doubled. I have no real criticism of Defra, but that will still not work because the Environment Agency is the wrong organisation to lead it.
We are talking about massive, organised crime of £1 billion. There is only one organisation capable of leading a multiagency task force on that, and that is the National Crime Agency. I urge the Minister to take this back to the Home Office, discuss it with Defra, the EA and the NCA, and, without changing everything, give the National Crime Agency the lead in tackling this. As I and the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, have pointed out, these same criminals are involved in high-value stolen goods such as mobiles, construction equipment, drugs—all stuff way out of the league of the EA but bang in the bailiwick of the NCA. If the noble Earl, Lord Russell, can come back with a simpler amendment on Report on something like that, then I would be minded to support him.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his amendments. As he said, they include requiring the Secretary of State to designate serious and organised waste crime as a strategic threat; to create a national action plan to collect and publish quarterly information on waste crime; and to provide for an independent review of serious and organised waste crime.
On the strategic priority designation and the national action plan, of course I support taking fly-tipping and organised waste much more seriously. Fly-tipping goes far beyond simple domestic waste and is a widespread practice of criminals; I point to the comments I made in the preceding group. I earnestly hope that the Government take this amendment seriously and I look forward to hearing their thoughts on a national action plan.
On the publishing of quarterly data, we on these Benches are always sympathetic to the principle of transparency, which in turn drives government accountability. More granular and consistent data assist the Government in formulating their efforts to tackle fly-tipping.
On the third and final amendment, although I recognise the noble Earl’s thought process behind an independent review and the importance of scrutiny, my one worry is that it may divert scarce government resources away from tackling the problem at hand. Too large a focus on reviewing may unduly delay action. In our view, this Government are already all too keen to launch a review to solve every problem that comes their way. We do not need to give them any more incentive to do so. It is our priority to give the police the power to act as soon as possible. None the less, I hope the Government take all the noble Earl’s amendments seriously.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, explained, the purpose of these amendments is to take forward some of the recommendations of your Lordships’ House’s Environment and Climate Change Committee to tackle serious and organised crime in the waste sector. At this point, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, and the work of her committee, not just in their detailed examination of the issue but in the whole way their report has raised the profile of this important issue.
I am glad we have had an opportunity to discuss waste crime in the round. As we have noted, and I think we are all in accord across the Chamber, this is a serious issue. At the end of the debate on the previous group, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, mooted that perhaps we need to rebrand fly-tipping to make people take it more seriously. From reflecting on this debate, nobody can be in any doubt, as the committee’s report demonstrated, that this is a serious business—and it is a business. It incurs huge costs in terms of the damage done. It is obviously a very profitable business to those who engage in it and I think we are all determined to tackle it. We argue that there are certainly provisions in the Bill, as well as other government actions, that will help to address this.
As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, waste crime costs the economy an estimated £1 billion annually. We are determined to tackle it, why is why we are preparing significant reforms to the waste carriers, brokers and dealers regime and to the waste permit exemptions regime. Bringing waste carriers, brokers and dealers into the environmental permitting regime will give the Environment Agency more powers and resources to ensure compliance and to hold operators to account. Changes will make it harder for rogue operators to find work in the sector and easier for regulators to take action against criminals. Our planned reforms will also introduce the possibility of up to five years’ imprisonment for those who breach these new laws.
We are also introducing digital waste tracking to make it harder than ever to misidentify waste or dispose of it inappropriately. By digitising waste records, we will make it easier for legitimate businesses to comply with their duty of care for waste and reduce the opportunities for criminals to operate. Furthermore, better data will help us manage resources more sustainably, reduce waste and protect the environment for future generations.
As the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, noted, the Government have also increased the Environment Agency’s funding, including the amount available to tackle illegal waste operators. This year, we have raised the budget for waste crime enforcement by over 50% to £15.6 million. The Joint Unit for Waste Crime, which is hosted within the Environment Agency, has nearly doubled in size thanks to that extra funding. Overall, the EA has been able to increase its front-line criminal enforcement resource in the Joint Unit for Waste Crime and area environmental crime teams by 43 full-time equivalent employees. They will be targeted at activities identified as waste crime priorities, using enforcement activity data and criminal intelligence. That includes tackling organised crime groups, increasing enforcement activity, closing down illegal waste sites more quickly, using intelligence more effectively and delivering successful major criminal investigations.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, touched on the terrible incident at Kidlington, which we discussed in the previous group. All I can do is repeat what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. The Government are engaging with the Environment Agency on the case with the utmost seriousness. An investigation is underway, and an Environment Agency restriction order has been served to prevent access to the site and further tipping. I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra; it is bad now, but at least this way it cannot get any worse. The local resilience forum has been notified to explore opportunities for multi-agency support. Noble Lords may be aware that there was an Urgent Question in the other place this afternoon asked by the local MP Calum Miller; I believe that my honourable friend the Minister Mary Creagh offered to meet with Mr Miller to discuss this further. This is an issue that we are taking very seriously.
As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will appreciate, the Environment and Climate Change Committee wrote to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs as recently as 28 October, to set out the conclusions of its inquiry into waste crime. I am sure that noble Lords will appreciate that it will necessarily take a little time to consider fully the Government’s response. Having read the letter that the committee sent this morning, I know that it is a complex letter that raises many points, and rightly so. Notwithstanding what the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, offered from the annals of classic British comedy, we do not want to rush our response, and it certainly would ill behove me to shoot from the hip in my response when my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will respond to it. I assure the Committee that the Secretary of State is carefully considering the report and will respond in due course.
Noble Lords will be aware of two facts, and I will put it no more strongly than this. First, the committee asked in its letter for a response by 9 December. Secondly, we are due to continue in Committee on this Bill until the end of January at the earliest—
Lord Katz (Lab)
Hooray indeed. I will not commit any more strongly than that. I will let noble Lords come to their own conclusions about the ability to take on those considerations ahead of Report.
In the light of the action that we are taking already to tackle waste crime, and without pre-empting the response from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State Emma Reynolds to the Environment Committee’s report, I hope the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will be content to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
Before the noble Earl responds to the debate, I ask the Minister: when he comes back to the Committee with an update on the Kidlington issue, will he explain how it unravels in open sight? As we have heard, there must have been hundreds of lorry loads and, no doubt, many complaints and missives to the police, the Environment Agency and the other bodies responsible. To the man and woman in the street, it seems that if we cannot deal with something as enormous and obvious as this, what hope is there for smaller fly-tipping incidents?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, for that point. I appreciate what he is saying. I am not aware of the events that led up to the time it took to issue this enforcement action, and it would be wrong for me to speculate. I am afraid I have not yet had the time to review the Hansard report of the Urgent Question, but I suspect we may have some of the answers to that question if we review the Commons Hansard report of the Urgent Question that Calum Miller asked of the Government today.
I understand the point the noble Viscount is making, and in the future should I be in the position to report back, I will offer more information. All I will say is that one would hope—I am not speaking out of turn, I simply do not know the facts—that there would be community action and community reporting of this in strength. The Environment Agency only has so much resource; it cannot be all-seeing and so it cannot take enforcement when it does not know the action there. I am not suggesting that that was the case in this situation in Kidlington, but it is important for us to take wider societal responsibility to address these issues.
I am fortunate that the London Borough of Camden, my home borough, has an app through which I can always report fly-tipping, which is nowhere near on the scale of Kidlington. I am an avid user, and therefore I take responsibility. My kids hate me stopping to take pictures of rubbish when I am walking along with them, but I use it because that means that the offence is noted and recorded, and then action is taken. In tribute to Camden, it is usually taken quickly.
Earl Russell (LD)
I thank all those who have spoken in this group and the Minister for his response to my amendments. I recognise that the Government have inherited this problem, and I recognise that they are putting more resources into it through the plans for brokers and dealers and through digital waste tracking, which I hope are brought forward as soon as possible. That will start to make some concrete changes to these issues.
That said, however, this problem is out of the Government’s control and more needs to be done. It is not acceptable that these serious organised criminal gangs are exploiting loopholes in the system, destroying our countryside and leaving a mess behind them. Therefore, I want to see action on that.
I fully recognise that the Select Committee report came out only two weeks ago and that the Government are not due to respond until 9 December, as the Minister said. I am sure that the Minister also recognises that, if I did not raise these points in Committee, I cannot bring them back at Report. I think there is a commonality here on the need to address these issues, and I hope that between now and Report we can have further conversations and co-operate on these issues.
Returning to Kidlington, I know there was an Urgent Question. I had an opportunity to have a word with my honourable friend on that prior to the Statement. It is important that this site is cleared up and that the Government help meet the costs for that. I encourage the Minister to consider using a ministerial direction, if needed, to make sure that that happens. That said, I hope that, when the response to the committee’s report comes, the Government recognise that it is a serious job of work and that it takes a unique and forward-thinking perspective on genuinely trying to find ways to address and resolve these problems. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Blencathra
Member’s explanatory statement
Anyone trespassing in the gardens or grounds of a private house must be assumed to be targeting the private residence and should be guilty of the same offence as if the tresspasser had entered the physical building and there should be a minimum penalty as well as the scope to have a larger maximum.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendment 47B.
Amendment 47A is to seek clarification that the definition of “premises” as
“any building, part of a building or enclosed area”
will include gardens and grounds associated with private dwellings. The phrase “enclosed area” is a key part of the statutory definition. Gardens and grounds of private dwellings are typically surrounded by fences, walls or hedges, marking them as distinct and separate from public areas. I hope that the intention behind the word “enclosed” here is to extend the definition beyond the physical structure of the buildings to include spaces that are set apart for private use. Therefore, I suggest that gardens and grounds, by virtue of their possible enclosure and association with the dwelling, fulfil the criteria set out in the definition.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I have listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and read the Member’s explanatory statement on these two amendments. I will be brief.
I can remember, as a child, signs indicating the barriers and limits of public access to certain parcels of land. Across the field, there was a substantial area of public allotments with a wide footpath running through the middle to an empty field beyond, which had public access. Nevertheless, there was a large hand-painted black sign at the start of this footpath that read, “Trespassers will be prosecuted”—not that as a child I understood what that meant, except to say that I could not use the footpath to access the field beyond but would have to walk a long way round to access the field, which was public open space.
Trespass is a crime that has been with us for decades but not always understood. At a time when Governments are trying to open up the countryside to those who have previously had limited access, extending trespass to private gardens and grounds needs careful consideration. Of course, if someone enters your property uninvited, even if the front door is temporarily open, they are trespassing, but those who are not intent on committing a crime—stealing the owner’s valuables, or helping themselves to the contents of the fridge—might have strayed there by accident. That is extremely unlikely. Strangers will generally enter a private property uninvited only if they have some nefarious project in mind.
However, that is unlikely to be the case in respect of grounds and gardens. Public footpaths are not always clearly signposted. The map that the walker may be following might be inaccurate or out of date. Some footpaths may have been temporarily diverted due to the lambing season or some other stock grazing in the area. Stiles and bridges may have fallen into disrepair, causing walkers to look for an alternative route to complete their walk. Is the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, suggesting that these unwitting miscreants should be dealt with in the same way as those who have deliberately set out to commit a crime?
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My amendment refers specifically to gardens and grounds of houses, not to farmers’ fields with a footpath wandering through them. Even if a garden has a footpath going through it, people have the right to use that footpath and it would be difficult then to prove that someone had criminal intent, but if someone enters the grounds and gardens of a private residence, we must assume they have the same criminal intent as if they want to enter the person’s house. It has nothing to do with farmers’ fields or footpaths.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
I am grateful for the noble Lord’s interjection and for that clarification. However, as somebody who lived for 35 years with a footpath running through their garden, I have to say that I do not really agree with him.
We should be very careful about implementing these two amendments. They smack to me of the landed gentry attempting to keep the ordinary man and woman from enjoying the countryside. I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that it would not be an easy task to prove that deliberate trespass had occurred over land and grounds or gardens with the intent of causing harm or wanton damage to those grounds.
In respect of Amendment 47B, I do not support increasing the fee should an offence be proved. I am nevertheless keen to hear the Minister’s views on the amendment, but at the moment I am not inclined to support the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for tabling these amendments. The case he set out seems clear and obvious. His amendment would ensure that the offence of trespassing with intent to commit an offence extended to people’s gardens and grounds, and it goes no further than that. Any intrusion into those grounds or gardens with mal-intent should be reflected in the level of criminal fines.
My noble friend’s amendments simply proceed on the assumption that gardens or grounds, in their simplest terms, should be treated the same in legislation as residences and buildings. Private property does not stop existing once you step out of a physical doorway; the grounds or gardens surrounding buildings are extensions to them, to be bought and sold just as freely. I think the word “curtilage” often appears—certainly in the law, but often more widely—to describe the land or garden around someone’s house. Indeed, there may be even as great a need to create an offence for this as there is for trespassing on a property with intent. I can imagine criminals using back gardens to navigate between houses to commit burglary. I can imagine confrontations taking place not inside a building yet still in the garden or grounds owned by a victim. They are just as serious as entering a property to commit a crime.
However, I acknowledge that there is generally a difference between entering someone’s house and entering their garden. The former is in most cases far more intrusive—a far greater infringement of someone’s right to a private property. It therefore follows that entering a house should regularly carry a harsher sentence than merely entering the grounds, but that can be the case while ensuring that both are offences. We do not have to disapply the latter simply because it might carry a lower fine than the former.
My noble friend Lord Blencathra’s Amendment 47B provides for this, as he set out. It seeks to give the court the discretion to alter the fines levied on an offender based on the seriousness of the offence, creating a higher maximum fine to be used for the most serious offences. Additionally, creating a minimum fine will ensure that any form of trespassing with the intent to commit another offence is dealt with to a minimal acceptable standard.
Whatever form it takes, trespassing in order to commit crime is incredibly invasive and often traumatic, and it is right that this is acknowledged in the range of the fine level. I hope the Minister has listened to these points, and I look forward to his response.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for tabling the amendments. I hope I can half help him today and, in doing so, assist the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville.
I confirm that the Government will repeal the outdated Vagrancy Act 1824. In Clauses 10 and 11, the Government are legislating to introduce targeted replacement provisions for certain elements of the 1824 Act, to ensure that the police have the powers they need to keep our communities safe. Those targeted replacement measures include a new offence of facilitating begging for gain, which we will come on to shortly, and an offence of trespassing with the intention of committing a crime. Both were previously provided for under the 1824 Act, and the police have told us that it would be useful to retain them.
I hope this helps the noble Baroness, because the new criminal offence of trespassing with intent to commit a criminal offence recreates an offence that is already set out in the 1824 Act. It does not add to it; it recreates it. As is currently the case, it will be an offence for a person to trespass on any premises—meaning any building, part of a building or enclosed area—with the intention to commit an offence, and that is currently in the legislation.
Amendment 47A from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, seeks to ensure that trespassing in gardens and grounds of a private dwelling is captured by the replacement offence. This is where I think I can half help him by indicating that gardens and grounds would already be included in the definition of “premises” in the 1824 Act, so, in essence, that is covered already.
His Amendment 47B would introduce a minimum level 2 fine and increase the maximum level fine from level 3 to level 4 for this offence. Again, the measure in the Bill replicates entirely—going back to the noble Baroness—the maximum penalties currently set out in the existing legislation that we are repealing, but replacing in part, through the clauses addressed by these amendments. I agree with the noble Baroness on the proportionality of the current level of the fines. I say to the noble Lord what he anticipated I would say to him: sentencing is a matter for the independent judiciary, and we need to afford it appropriate discretion. Parliament rarely specifies minimum sentences, and this is not an instance where we should depart from that general principle. I know he anticipated that I would say that—as the good old, former Home Office Minister that he is, I knew he would clock that that was the potential line of defence on his amendment.
It is important to say that the penalties set out in the current legislation, which we are replicating, are considered appropriate and proportionate to the nature of the offence. Therefore, with what I hope was helpful half clarification on grounds and gardens, and with my steady defence on the second amendment, which the noble Lord anticipated, I ask him not to press his amendments.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, half a loaf is better than no bread, of course. All I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, is that she has got totally the wrong end of the stick. I will not go into more detail to argue against her, except to say that I too had a footpath right across the middle of my garden in Cumbria, and I had no problem with it at all. However, that is quite separate from the guy who, in 2000, threatened to burn down my house because he did not like my view on hunting. That is quite a different matter. He committed an offence on my driveway, as opposed to the thousands of people who used the footpath, which I built special turnstiles at either end of for them to use.
I accept entirely what the Minister said and am delighted to see that grounds and gardens of public dwellings will be included in the definition—that is the half I am very happy with. I knew he would not accept my amendment on the penalties. He said that it is up to an independent judiciary—I wish we had one, without a Sentencing Council tying its hands, but that is a matter for another debate. With the Minister’s courteous remarks, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Whitaker
“Repeal of offence for unauthorised encampment in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994(1) The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 is amended as follows.(2) Omit section 60C (Offence relating to residing on land without consent in or with a vehicle).(3) Omit section 60D (Offence under section 60C: seizure of property etc).(4) Omit section 60E (Offence under section 60C: forfeiture).(5) In section 61 (power to remove trespassers on land)—(a) in subsection (1)—(i) in paragraph (a), omit sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii), and(ii) at the beginning of paragraph (b) omit “in either case,”,(b) in subsection (4)(b) omit “prohibited period”,(c) omit subsection (4ZA),(d) in subsection (9), in the definition of “land”, in paragraph (b)—(i) in the words before sub-paragraph (i), omit “in Scotland”, and(ii) insert—“(i) a highway unless it falls within the classifications in section 54 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (footpath, bridleway or byway open to all traffic or road used as a public path) or is a cycle track under the Highways Act 1980 or Cycle Tracks Act 1984; or”, and”,(e) omit subsection (10).(6) In section 62 (powers to seize property related to offence under section 61)—(a) in subsection (1)(b), omit “prohibited period”;(b) omit subsection (1A).(7) In section 62B(2) (failure to comply with direction under section 62A: offences), for “twelve” substitute “3”.(8) In section 62C(2) (failure to comply with direction under section 62A: seizure), for “twelve” substitute “3”.(9) In section 68(5) (offence of aggravated trespass), omit paragraphs (a) and (aa).(10) Omit section 62F (guidance).”Member’s explanatory statement
This would repeal amendments to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 made in 2022 in respect of unauthorised encampments, including those on which the High Court has made a Declaration of Incompatibility under section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 49 in my name and those of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle—for whose wide-ranging support I am most grateful—would right an acknowledged wrong: the declaration of incompatibility with human rights of part of Part 4 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. The right reverend Prelate regrets he cannot at the last minute attend, but he hopes His Majesty’s Government will help. The amendment also tackles the whole of that discriminatory part of the 2022 Act. I will not rehearse again the full range of unfair disadvantage which has resulted from these provisions, which I set out at Second Reading. I will briefly describe what our amendment would achieve, to correct a manifest unfairness which harshly criminalises, and confiscates the caravan homes and domestic possessions of, a small number of families whose nomadic way of life is recognised in law.
I should first of all say that it is the shortage of authorised sites which is the underlying problem. That is why that minority of Gypsies and Travellers who live in that way have often no other choice than to park their family home on an unauthorised site. This is where the judge found race discrimination. He said that
“it means that Gypsies will no longer be able to avoid the risk of criminal penalty by resort to transit pitches. The position might be different if transit pitches were readily available … But the evidence shows this is not the position”.
The amendment simply returns the situation to what it was before the cruel and discriminatory provisions of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act were enacted. It in no way reduces the ample powers the police already had in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to oblige unauthorised trespassers to leave if there had been threatening behaviour or damage—previous case law has included “squashed grass” in this category—to issue temporary stop notices and injunctions to protect land, to direct unauthorised campers to an alternative site, and to prevent them returning within three months. Our amendment’s main provisions are: the elimination of the power of a landowner to command eviction on a subjective reason of being caused distress, and a return to 12 months as the interval within which the travelling family cannot return to the land—from three months, which was the discrimination that the incompatibility declaration captured.
I need hardly remind the Committee that our Gypsy and Traveller population already suffer a degree of prejudice which has substantially contributed to the worst life chances in health, employment, education and well-being of any minority ethnic group in our country: the attitudes and conduct enabled by the provisions we seek to repeal can only further encourage that prejudice and disadvantage. Can your Lordships imagine how it feels to have hanging over your head, when you cannot find an authorised site, the fear that your family home might be impounded, with all that is in it, and your family turned out, homeless, to find shelter—all on the say-so of a member of the public who feels “distress” simply at the presence of a travelling family? Not the least of your fears will be that your children cannot get to their school, or that the medical regime of an elder in your family has to be abandoned.
I urge the Minister to heed the widespread condemnation of the provisions we seek to repeal by our Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights and the UN Committees on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and fulfil this Government’s acceptance of the obligation to comply with the court through our amendment. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, Manchester’s famous Christmas markets are now in full swing. If you’re visiting my city any time in the next few weeks, until the last few days before Christmas, you are most welcome to patronise them. However, that was not the case for a number of young people from Gypsy, Roma and Traveller backgrounds this time last year. They were turned away by police at the railway station on the supposition that they must have come to commit crime. Children were seen being forced on to trains heading to unknown destinations, separated from family members, and subjected to physical aggression. That included shoving, hair-pulling, and handcuffing. Several individuals reported officers making disparaging remarks about their ethnicity.
It is a sad fact that in 2025, it remains acceptable in our society to treat Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people in ways that seek to drive them to the margins of society. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which amended the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act in respect of unauthorised encampments, included changes in respect of which, as we have just been reminded by the noble Lady, Baroness Whitaker, the High Court has made a declaration of incompatibility under Section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998. Police powers were expanded beyond the original provisions of the CJPO Act, allowing officers to arrest, seize vehicles, and forfeit property if individuals failed to leave when directed. The PCSC Act also extended those powers to cover land on highways, increased the no-return period from three months to 12 months, and broadened the types of harm that justify eviction, removing the previous need to demonstrate threatening behaviour or damage.
I opposed those changes in your Lordships’ House then, and I do so still. The overwhelming reason why illegal encampments take place is simple. As the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, has just reminded us, it is down to the continuing failure of local authorities across the nation to provide sufficient legal sites. There are few votes for local councillors in providing Traveller sites; alas, there are many more votes for those same councillors in closing or refusing permission for them. That is a direct consequence of the same prejudiced attitudes against the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community which underlay the distressing treatment of the young people in Manchester last year. Amendment 49 can be a first step towards rectifying that institutionalised injustice.
I hope that in responding to this debate, the Minister, can give us some indication of how His Majesty’s Government intend to legislate, both in this Bill and elsewhere, to tackle the persistent levels of discrimination against the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I wish to speak in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, and thank her for tabling this important amendment. The noble Baroness has laid out the arguments extremely carefully and clearly. Romany and Traveller people experience stark inequalities. They are subject to a wide range of enforcement powers against encampments. Part 4 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, introduced in 2022, created a new criminal offence relating to trespass and gave police tougher powers to ban Gypsies and Travellers from an area for up to 12 months, alongside powers to fine, arrest, imprison and seize the homes of Gypsies and Travellers.
This draconian amendment was tabled and supported by the previous Conservative Government. It took no account of whether elderly relatives or children were on site, or whether a woman might be in the late stages of pregnancy. It was a broad, sweeping power which the police had not asked for; nor did they want it.
On several occasions I called on the previous Government to require all local authorities to provide adequate permanent sites for Romany people and Traveller people, as well as temporary stopping sites to accommodate the cultural nomadic lifestyle—but to no avail. His Majesty’s official Opposition prefer the scenario where, due to the absence of authorised stopping places or sites, illegal camping is dealt with in a draconian manner. The Gypsies and Travellers are evicted and thrown in prison; their caravan homes and vehicles are seized; and their children are taken into care—all a burden on the taxpayer, with no thought to the humanitarian impact on the Romany people and Travellers themselves. Making a nomadic, cultural way of life a criminal activity was and is appalling and is out of all proportion, and it is in breach of Section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
In Somerset there was previously adequate provision of both temporary and permanent sites for the Traveller community. I am pleased to say that I worked very hard to get those sites up and running, against huge opposition. Some of those sites have since been closed. I now live in Hampshire, where I am to all intents and purposes surrounded by Traveller sites. They live round the corner; they live at the bottom of the road I live in; their children go to the local schools, both primary and secondary; their babies are baptised in the church. One baby girl was baptised yesterday, surrounded by over 100 well-wishers from her extended family. We bought our logs from the man who lived down the road. Sadly, he died earlier this year, and we now buy from his grandson, who has taken over his grandfather’s business. There is nothing but good will and respect between the Travellers and the rest of the community.
There will, of course, be those who live close to very large, unmanaged, sprawling Traveller sites. I have some sympathy with those people. However, if their local authority had made adequate provision in the first place, with sites having adequate toilet and water facilities, maybe they would not be in the current unfortunate circumstances we hear about.
I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for reminding us how Gypsies and Travellers are still treated. It is a disgrace. It really is time that proper provision be made for those who have a culture different from those of us living in bricks and mortar. Now is definitely the time to ditch the legislation of 2022. It was not needed then, and it is not needed now. I fully support this amendment and look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise with pleasure to join the three other proposers of Amendment 49. I apologise for not taking part at Second Reading. As my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb said then, there are two specific issues that we will be dealing with, and this is one of them. The case for the amendment has already been overwhelmingly made, so I will not repeat what has already been said. However, I will take your Lordships back to December 2021, when I called for a vote in the House on whether Part 4 should be part of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, as it became in 2022. I said then that this was a moral issue: to have legislation explicitly targeting Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people, given what it was doing to them, was such a moral issue that it could not be allowed to drift by. I note that first on the list of the people supporting me in that vote was the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. There were four Cross-Bench Members who supported me, including the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady O’Loan. There were nine Labour Members who supported me in that vote, and 54 Liberal Democrats. I thank all of them for supporting me then and for hearing the strong words from the noble Lady, Baroness Bakewell, now.
It is worth looking back to that debate. At Second Reading, the then Conservative Minister said, in effect, “We have to have this; we are delivering on a manifesto commitment.” I believe and hope that maintaining Part 4 of the Bill was not a Labour manifesto commitment. This is an opportunity for Labour to undo something the previous Tory Government did, and which absolutely should be undone. That could be achieved very simply, as shown by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, who is such a champion of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller issues in your Lordships’ House over such a long period, and who leads all of us who follow that path so well. This is a chance simply and clearly to do something that needs to be done.
I will also go back to the discussion around that time. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs—who is not in his place, unfortunately—wrote a very powerful piece for the Independent opposing Part 4, which is what we are essentially undoing here. Like the right reverend Prelate, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who, of course, is a Kindertransport survivor, was thinking of the situation of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children, who
“could see their worldly possessions wheeled away, their warmth and shelter seized, their parents potentially imprisoned”.
That is what this part of the Bill, which we seek to remove, actually does.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate and to the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for her amendment. Contributions have been thoughtful, and they have certainly highlighted some of the issues that certain communities face. There is no doubt at all that we are united in the belief that all communities should be treated with dignity and fairness, and that these considerations should guide interactions between them and local authorities.
However, I respectfully state that we on these Benches cannot support Amendment 49. The effect of this amendment would be to repeal the provisions introduced by the previous Government in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. That Act created the offence relating to unauthorised encampments and the accompanying enforcement powers. Those powers were introduced by a Conservative Government, after much consultation and representations from local authorities and members of the public, who repeatedly expressed concern about the impact of unauthorised encampments on local communities.
The provisions that this amendment seeks to remove were designed to address situations where unauthorised encampments caused significant harm, such as damaging land, obstructing highways and shops or creating fear and distress in local neighbourhoods. We are not talking about minor inconveniences; we are talking about serious damage and disruption. In many cases, these provisions have provided clarity and reassurance, enabling the police to respond more proportionately and local authorities to act more swiftly while still supporting negotiated stopping and offering lawful sites wherever possible.
The noble Baroness deployed the argument that these provisions have been declared incompatible with the Human Rights Act, but I do not think that is an overwhelming argument for repealing legislation passed by this Parliament.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, but does he accept that there is no definition of “alarm and distress”, and that it is in fact a subjective view on the part of the landowner? Does he also accept that majority of the police did not want this provision when consulted?
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
I think the point is that the lack of a definition gives the police the ability to act within their discretion.
As for the issue of incompatibility, it is worth noting that, when a declaration of incompatibility is made by the courts, such a declaration is not a strike-down power; it is not a mandate for immediate legislative repeal. It will come as no surprise that we on these Benches believe that there have been too many instances of judicial overreach, as to justify a repeal of the Human Rights Act and withdrawal from the ECHR. If we cannot prevent unlawful encampments by people with no right to reside on the land, which is, in our view, an absolutely legitimate aim, that is an indication that the Human Rights Act and the ECHR are not fit for purpose.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I thank the noble Lord for giving way. He speaks about so-called judicial overreach, but building on what the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, said, in a consultation in 2018, 75% of police said they did not want these extra powers and 85% said that they did not support the criminalisation of unauthorised encampments. This is across the justice system; it is not just what the judges are doing.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
That may be the case in the year the noble Baroness cited, but the fact remains that these provisions have been brought into force, have been effective and have responded to representations from local authorities and members of the public, who have repeatedly expressed concern about the impact of unauthorised encampments on their community. I earnestly believe that repealing these measures entirely would remove essential tools for managing the real and sometimes serious harms experienced by communities across the country. For those reasons, these Benches cannot support the amendment.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Whitaker for tabling the amendment. She has obviously secured widespread support—from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
As my noble friend explained, the High Court ruling in May 2024 found that the specific changes made by the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 relating to Traveller sites were incompatible with convention rights. This is where I am going to depart from the view of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, because the Government respect the decision of the court. The Government—I hope that this is helpful to my noble friend—are working now on a response to that court judgment. I want to make it absolutely clear that I recognise the High Court ruling, and the response is needed. I hope I can help my noble friend by saying that I can undertake to update the House ahead of Report on this matter. We are not able to finalise the exact response as yet, but I hope that is helpful to my noble friend.
I cannot support my noble friend’s amendment today, but it is important that we signal to her that this matter is one we have to resolve speedily. In considering the court’s judgment, the Government will carefully balance the rights of individuals to live their private lives without discrimination, while recognising the importance of protecting public spaces and communities affected by unauthorised encampments. That balance will be made, and I hope to be able to resolve that issue by Report, as I have said.
A number of noble Lords and Baronesses have mentioned the question of the shortage of unauthorised sites available to Gypsies and Travellers, and that is an important point. Local authorities, as Members will know, are required to assess the need for Traveller pitches in their area and must plan to meet that need. These decisions are made locally; they reflect specific circumstances in each area and operate within the national planning policy for Traveller sites, which is set by the Government. We aim to ensure fair and equal treatment for Travellers in a way that facilitates the traditional and nomadic way of life of Travellers, while respecting the interests of the settled community.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
Does the Minister accept that, aggregated across the country, the effect of lots of local decisions by local authorities is that there is a calamitous shortage of legitimate sites for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people? If so, what do the Government plan to do about that, rather than simply saying that it is up to each local authority?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The position of the Government is that it is up to each local authority. I understand the right reverend Prelate’s point, but there is overarching guidance in England, provided by the National Planning Policy Framework, which basically indicates that local authorities are required to assess the need for Traveller pitches in their area. That is a conflict; there is a shortage, there is always a debate on these matters, there is always opposition, there is always discussion, but, ultimately, local councils have to settle on sites in their areas and I cannot really help the right reverend Prelate more than that. There is guidance and a process to be followed.
Issues around the proportionality of enforcement action were also mentioned in passing today. Again, our laws are designed to address unlawful behaviour such as criminal damage or actions that cause harassment, alarm or distress, rather than to criminalise a way of life. This distinction is central to ensuring fair and proportionate policing. Harassment, alarm and distress are well established within our legal framework, so there is a careful balance to be achieved. The response to unauthorised encampments, locally led, involves multi-agency collaboration between local councils, police and relevant services. This approach supports community engagement and ensures that responses are tailored to local needs.
My noble friend’s amendment goes slightly further than the court’s judgment: she seeks to repeal the offence of residing on land without the consent of the occupier of the land, as well as the power for police to direct trespassers away from land where they are there for the purpose of residing there. I just say to my noble friend that those are matters the court did not rule on, and the Government still consider these to be necessary and proportionate police powers, but I give her the undertaking today that I did in my earlier comments, that we hope to be able to bring forward solutions by Report. In the light of that undertaking, I hope my noble friend will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken, in particular my cosignatories, the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Bennett, but also the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, who spoke tellingly about recent experience. I thank warmly my noble friend the Minister for being the first Minister to offer a way through. The sites issue will, all the same, be pursued, but then there are other routes to pursue that with areas that are not within Home Office responsibility.
I simply make one point: the 1994 Act does give the police powers to remove people when there is damage caused. It is the criminalisation element of Part 4 of the 2022 Act which is so discriminatory, but we shall discuss these aspects before Report, I hope, including the way through that my noble friend the Minister outlined. I hope we shall have the opportunity to talk about that. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel
“Removal of power of entry under Part 8 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003In the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003, omit section 74 (power of entry in relation to complaints about high hedges).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would repeal provisions of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 that permit the local authority to enter a person’s property without their consent to investigate complaints about high hedges.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, this amendment seeks to repeal provisions of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 that permit the local authority to enter a person’s property without their consent to investigate complaints about high hedges. I entirely accept that this is a somewhat niche and technical amendment, but it is nevertheless an important one. The 2003 Act established a regime whereby individuals can make a complaint about their neighbour’s high hedge. This provision made its way into the Act after amendments to the Bill in your Lordships’ House during its passage in 2003.
The intention was understandable, but it is one thing to give people the ability to complain about their neighbour’s high hedge and another matter entirely to grant the state the right to enter a person’s private property without their consent simply to measure that hedge. Such a power is and must always be exceptional. It should be tightly drawn and robustly justified. We submit that the matter of high hedges, however irritating or capable of provoking neighbourhood disputes, simply does not meet that threshold. Section 74 was conceived at a time when the framework for powers of entry was far less coherent than it is today, and since then, Parliament has rightly legislated to reduce, rationalise and strengthen oversight of such powers. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in particular represents a significant step towards rebalancing the relationship between citizens and the state. Yet the power preserved in Section 74 stands out as an anomaly, disproportionate in nature and insufficiently justified in practice.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I listened attentively to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, and I am inclined to agree with him—in part. I start by declaring my interest as the part owner of a property that has high hedges on both sides of our home. One side is higher than the other: approximately four to five metres high. It may well keep the sun out of our neighbour’s front garden in winter when the sun is low in the sky, but since it is where they park their cars and it is their hedge, they are not that worried. We cut our side of the hedge and bought a special three-legged ladder to ensure that this was conducted safely and my husband did not break his neck. I stress that neither hedge is Leylandii.
The right to light is something that many of us take for granted. However, travelling to Waterloo on the train every day, I can see that many of those who live towards the bottom of high-rise flats have little or no right to light. I understand and sympathise with those who live close to a property which has a high hedge obscuring the sun from their house and garden.
While good hedges and fences make for good neighbours, excessively tall and untidy hedges may not. It is always better if neighbouring properties can come to some accommodation about what is acceptable as the height of a hedge. Where this is not possible and communication has broken down, there must be some recourse for those suffering from being on the wrong side of a very high hedge. In the first instance, this will be the local authority.
Currently, local authorities have the right to enter a property without the owner’s consent to investigate a high hedge complaint. Given the current budget restrictions on local authorities, I cannot imagine that many officers will pitch up unannounced at a property to investigate. They would much rather not have a wasted journey, and hope to solve the problem easily—that is, unless they have previously been threatened when visiting the hedge.
The problem with the hedge will depend on what is growing in it. Leylandii causes a significant problem, being dense and fast-growing, enabling a hedge to reach unsatisfactory heights in a relatively short time. If there is a considerable problem with such a hedge, then just how is it to be resolved if local authorities are not involved in finding a solution? Will one party continue to have the disadvantages of living with the high hedge and all that involves while the owner of the hedge remains intransigent and deaf to their protests?
This is unacceptable. I have sympathy with those who suffer from high hedges and am keen to find a solution. The legislation in the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 was introduced not on a whim but in a serious attempt to tackle unpleasant situations arising between neighbours. While the best solution is for difficulties to be sorted out between the interested parties, that is not always possible. In those cases, the local authority should have the power to intervene. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for tabling what he termed a niche amendment today—there is nothing wrong with a niche amendment; it has generated discussion. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, has just said, this puts the focus back not on the legislation or even on the enforcement but on whether, when discussions between parties break down, the local authority should be and is the arbiter of the dispute and, in order to be the arbiter of the dispute, whether the local authority can have access to the property.
It is important to say that, when assessing a complaint or appeal, issuing a remedial notice to an individual or assessing whether an individual has taken the necessary action, entering a property to assess the hedge in question surely is not a niche issue; it is part of the role of the local authority to be able to assess that issue. The Government believe that local authorities are best placed to consider unresolved disputes on high hedges; the procedures are set out in national guidance.
On the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, has mentioned, I note that the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 enables local authorities to intervene, as a last resort. It should be for neighbours to try to sort these matters out, but there are opportunities for people who are unhappy with the council’s decision to have a right of appeal to the Secretary of State in cases in England. The power of local authority officers to enter someone’s property is an important part of ensuring such disputes are resolved and any remedial action is taken.
I assure the noble Lord that the power of entry is a power to enter a “neighbouring land” to carry out functions under Part 8 of the Act. The term “the neighbouring land” means the land on which the high hedge is situated—effectively someone’s garden. A local authority must give 24 hours’ notice of its intended entry and, if the land is unoccupied, leave it as effectively secured as it was found. I stress to the noble Lord that there is clear guidance on GOV.UK for local authorities in exercising their powers. The Government will keep this guidance under review.
In the absence of disputes being resolved by neighbours themselves—as the noble Baroness has said—amicably between the parties, it is possible that there are remedial powers to step in and require the offending property owner to take action. Where they fail to do so, it is also right that the local authority should be able to undertake the remedial work itself and charge the householder concerned. To do this, it is necessary to undertake the niche point of entering someone’s garden to examine the fence or hedge or to erect a platform on the highway to do the same.
If we accepted the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, today, I do not know how local authorities would be able to assess in terms of the legislation under the Act. If he says he does not believe the legislation under the Act is appropriate, and we should not have high hedges legislation, that is a different point. If we do have that legislation, then we need a mechanism whereby the local council can enter a premises. There might well be occasions where the local council must do that because relations have broken down to such an extent that only the local council can resolve it, and therefore it must undertake entry into a person’s garden or erect a platform to assess the issue in the first place. That is not a gross invasion of a householder’s property; it is a sensible resolution by a third party—given the powers to do so under the 2003 Act—to resolve an issue that neighbours have not been able to resolve.
The local council may resolve the complaint in favour of the complainant or in favour of the person with the high hedge; that is a matter for them. But if the council does not have access to the property to do that, then the niche discussion will be about not being able to resolve the problem, so I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I thank those in your Lordships’ House who have spoken in this debate. I am delighted to have a degree of support from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, who, as she recounted, has had some personal experience of this issue. I reiterate to the Minister that it seems entirely disproportionate for local authorities to be able to enter a person’s private property without their consent to investigate this issue—that is what underpins this amendment. I do not want to beat around the bush any more, and, for now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel
“Gang-related graffiti(1) A person commits an offence if—(a) the person defaces a relevant surface with graffiti, and(b) the graffiti is gang-related.(2) Graffiti is gang-related if—(a) the graffiti contains any symbol, sign, mark or slogan that is associated with, or is an identifiable marker of, a gang or gang activity,(b) the graffiti contains any symbol, sign, mark or slogan that a reasonable person would associate with a gang or gang activity, or(c) the person who defaced the relevant surface with the graffiti is part of a gang.(3) In this section a “relevant surface” is any of the following surfaces, whether internal or external or open to the air or not—(a) the surface of any street or of any building, structure, apparatus, plant or other object in or on any street;(b) the surface of any land owned, occupied or controlled by a statutory undertaker or of any building, structure, apparatus, plant or other object in or on any such land;(c) the surface of any land owned, occupied or controlled by an educational institution (including its governing body) or of any building, structure, apparatus, plant or other object in or on any such land.(4) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable—(a) on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);(b) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.(5) In this section –(a) “gang” means the activities of a group that—(i) consists of at least three people, and(ii) has one or more characteristics that enable its members to be identified by others as a group;(b) “graffiti” includes painting, writing, soiling, marking or other defacing by whatever means.”
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, this group speaks to the two amendments in my name and in the names of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower and my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie. They seek to address the long-standing problems of gang involvement in our cities and to probe the Government’s approach to this. I am grateful to the Minister for approaching me recently to discuss the issue, and I hope that we can continue that conversation.
Gangs are groups of people whose entire identities are founded on the control of a territory through the means of violence. They are established to exert power, maintained through the coercion and grooming of the youth, and exist to establish themselves over their counterparts by any means. They are exploitative organisations. The very idea that groups of young men should be able to gain de facto control of large parts of our cities through intimidation and aggression is one that should have been stamped out long ago. Unfortunately, we have let them fester. The result is that the Metropolitan Police believes there are 102 active gangs in London, each vying for their own share of the territory that is not, and cannot become, theirs. They commit a litany of crimes, with the most horrific reports suggesting that they keep scoreboards of the number of rival gang members they either stab or kill. This is not unique to the capital; it is the norm across many of our major cities.
Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to legislate against gang involvement before a crime has taken place. They are uncodified organisations, and attempting to break them up would require a large infringement on every citizen’s right to associate freely. But that does not lessen the need for legislative steps to be taken. Amendment 52 would implement, in our view, the next best thing by creating the aggravating factor of committing an offence in connection to the activities of a gang. This would disincentivise group-based crime and would mean that criminals identified as gang members would be able to be imprisoned for longer.
Similarly, it is well known that gangs often leave tags to mark their territories. This graffiti comes at enormous cost to either the taxpayer or private businesses. Small local businesses can see the fronts of their stores defaced, leaving them to choose between forking out repair costs or seeing customers potentially put off by the vandalism. Councils are faced with even more bills as they are forced to pay for the upkeep of their local areas. It is entirely unfair on the law-abiding communities that are burdened with this.
Gang-related violence does not end at the physical crime committed; it extends to the psychological. There is also the problem of the tone that gang-related graffiti sets. It is bad enough seeing your neighbourhood vandalised by gangs, but it is far worse when it is vandalised by a violent group marking their territory. It sends a signal to locals that their community is not, in fact, their shared property but that it belongs to a small group of individuals with scant regard for the law. It alarms them that these people live among them; it causes fear, distress and alarm. It is an act of intimidation which makes society feel less safe.
On the subject of graffiti, I do not know whether noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches are aware, but my right honourable friend the shadow Lord Chancellor has received a letter from one of their colleagues, the honourable Member for Cheltenham, Max Wilkinson. In his letter, he said that our amendments would see anyone who paints a St George’s cross on a public surface jailed for up to two years. I was rather baffled when I saw that; the subject matter of Amendment 51 is, in explicit terms, gang-related graffiti. The amendment would criminalise graffiti that uses gang signs, symbols or slogans that is committed in the course of gang activity. It uses the same definition of “gang” as Section 51 of the Serious Crime Act 2015. In our view, a person who simply paints a cross on a public building is very clearly not in scope of this new offence.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendments. Every week, coming from the north of England to this House, I see literally miles and miles of repulsive gang graffiti. On the outskirts of every station, walls and buildings are plastered with it. At Crewe and near Euston, hundreds and hundreds of goods wagons are covered in it, and even the walls of residential buildings. We see it everywhere, so why worry about it? It is unsightly and destroys any beauty that may be left on the approaches to cities by rail, but it is much more insidious than that, as my noble friend on the Front Bench has pointed out.
Gang-related graffiti, which we see in all urban areas, is often seen as both a symptom and a catalyst of criminal activity. I suggest that there is sufficient evidence available to conclude that gang graffiti leads to increased crime in affected neighbourhoods and that it instils fear among local residents. Gang graffiti typically consists of symbols, tags or messages used by criminal gangs to mark their territory, send warnings or communicate with other gangs. It differs from other forms of graffiti, such as street art, due to its association with organised crime and territorial disputes.
Several studies and reports indicate a correlation between the presence of gang graffiti and higher rates of crime, particularly violent offences. Gang graffiti is often used to demarcate territory, which can lead to turf wars and retaliatory violence. Areas marked by gang symbols may experience an increase in robberies, assaults and drug-related crimes as gangs seek to assert dominance. A study published by the Journal of Criminal Justice found that neighbourhoods with visible gang graffiti reported higher levels of gang-related crime and violence, suggesting that graffiti serves as both a warning and an invitation for conflict. Police departments in cities such as London and Manchester have noted that the appearance of new gang graffiti often coincides with spikes in criminal activity, particularly when rival gangs respond by marking over existing tags.
Crime prevention experts argue that gang graffiti is not merely a symptom but a tool used to intimidate, recruit and claim control, thereby fostering an environment conducive to criminal behaviour. Although correlation does not necessarily imply causation, the consistent association between gang graffiti and increased crime rates supports the argument that graffiti can contribute to localised crime.
The visual presence of gang graffiti can have a significant psychological impact on residents and visitors, as my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel said. Research conducted by community safety organisations has shown that people perceive areas with gang graffiti as less safe, which can lead to heightened anxiety, avoidance behaviours and reduced community cohesion. Surveys by our local councils in the UK reveal that residents often cite gang graffiti as a major contributor to their fear of crime, even if they have not personally experienced gang violence.
Our own British Crime Survey found that the visibility of gang markers and threatening messages increases the perceived risk of victimisation, causing some individuals to alter their daily routines or to avoid certain neighbourhoods or streets altogether. Community leaders report that gang graffiti can erode trust in public institutions as residents feel that the authorities are unable to maintain law and order and prevent criminal groups operating openly. In summary, gang graffiti acts as a visual clue that can frighten people, negatively impact mental well-being and discourage positive social interaction within affected communities.
Last year, the Metropolitan Police estimated that there were 102 active gangs in London engaged in violence and robbery, and they were responsible for a significant amount of serious violence, including half of all knife crimes with injury, 60% of shootings and 29% of reported child sexual exploitation. I think those 102 gangs equate to about 4,500 individuals. It is not just London; the same is happening in all our major cities. Let us be clear: gang-related graffiti is not some kids with aerosol cans spray-painting walls for a bit of fun. Gangs are making powerful statements to their allies and enemies that this is their criminal territory. Therefore, the solution has to be the prompt removal of graffiti, expensive though it is, and that has to be part of gang prevention strategies. However, we also need increased penalties, as suggested by my noble friend in his Amendment 51.
I do not need to speak in support of Amendment 52; I think I have just made the point that gangs are highly dangerous organisations and there should be tougher sentences for any crimes that have gang connections.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, everyone is concerned about gang activity. The dark web means it has never been easier for people to source and buy drugs independently, contributing to the emergence of more loosely organised micro-gangs, as once an individual has a large supply of illicit drugs, they need to recruit others to help distribute them. I am sympathetic to the intentions behind the tabled amendments.
On Amendment 51 on graffiti, I entirely agree with some of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, that this usually relates to gangs marking territory or expressing group affiliation. It can result in public spaces feeling unsafe, and the fear is that it could fuel turf wars between rival gangs. To many it is also an unsightly nuisance, with the clean-up cost high for home owners, businesses and local authorities. However, we remain unconvinced that this amendment is the way forward.
Graffiti without the property owner’s permission is already a criminal offence, classified as vandalism or criminal damage, with penalties ranging from fines to imprisonment. I am also concerned that measures such as this risk embedding racial bias in law enforcement and disproportionately affecting minority and marginalised communities. The courts have already found that using graffiti as a marker of gang identity can result in the unjust targeting of marginalised groups, especially people of colour.
In 2022 a legal ruling forced the Metropolitan Police to admit that the operation of its gangs matrix was unlawful, breached human rights and had a disproportionate impact on black people. The matrix used factors, including graffiti, to label people as gang members, leading to life-changing consequences for those who had been wrongly included. Over 1,000 individuals assessed as low risk subsequently had to be removed from the database. This demonstrates the danger of conflating graffiti, gangs and criminality. While I understand the intention behind this amendment, the risk of unintended consequences is clear.
The definition of a gang in Amendment 52 feels worryingly broad, so we cannot support it. As drafted, it raises significant concerns that outweigh its intended benefits. Prosecutors are already cautioned not to use the term “gang” without clear evidence because, used inappropriately, it can unfairly broaden liability for an individual’s offending while disproportionately affecting ethnic minorities.
This proposal also feels overly prescriptive. It is important that the courts retain discretion and the law allows for nuanced sentencing; for example, when someone was plainly being coerced, groomed or manipulated into gang activity.
On these Benches, we believe that sentencing must account for individual circumstances and be based on specific individual criminal behaviour. Simply being in with the wrong people is not the same thing.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Cameron of Lochiel, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, for tabling Amendments 51 and 52. These amendments are proposed and supported by three Members of your Lordships’ House who, between them, have considerable experience in what might loosely be called the law and order space. They are, in rugby terms, a formidable front row and, as such, I have considered what they proposed with care.
I reassure the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Blencathra, and indeed your Lordships’ House, that this Government are definitely against gangs and absolutely against graffiti. That said, we do not believe that these proposals are needed, primarily because the activities criminalised in these measures are already covered by existing legislation.
The intended effect of Amendment 51 is to criminalise the kind of graffiti which gangs use to mark what they feel is their territory and/or to threaten rival groups with violence. As the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, said, this criminal behaviour is already covered by the existing offence contained within Section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. Section 1 is broad enough to cover graffiti because case law establishes that the damage does not have to be permanent, and it catches behaviour such as using water-soluble paint on a pavement or smearing mud on the walls of a police cell. In addition, Section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act has a higher maximum penalty than the proposed new offence, being punishable in the Crown Court by a maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment.
Not only is the proposed offence not needed, there are very real problems with the structure of what is proposed; I will mention three, but there are others. First, this amendment creates an offence of strict liability. That means that the prosecution is not required to prove intention, recklessness or even knowledge. The result is a criminal offence which could be committed by accident. The criminal law does not like strict liability offences, and they are very rare in our jurisprudence. The reason is simple: we do not usually criminalise people who are not even aware that they were doing anything wrong.
Secondly, whatever the intention behind the drafting of this proposed criminal offence, in the way it is drafted, the definition of “gang” is so broad that it would capture both the Brownies and the Church of England, as well as football teams, drama societies and many other groups not normally regarded as criminal. I do not think that the noble Lords intend that a Christian cross chalked on a fence could potentially be prosecuted as a criminal offence.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I apologise for standing up a bit late but I want to go back to an earlier comment that graffiti could happen by accident. How on earth can graffiti artists spray a wall with gang tags by accident?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
The difficulty is that if somebody were to put something on a fence, for example, and they were not aware that this was associated with a gang, they would potentially be criminalised by it.
Thirdly, the requirements of the proposed new offence mean that expert evidence would need to be adduced in order that the jury or magistrates could decide whether the prosecution had proved to the criminal standard—that is, beyond reasonable doubt—whether the graffiti is gang-related within the meaning of the section. Most judges, magistrates and juries are unlikely to understand the significance of particular names, symbols or tags—this is not just the Sharks and the Jets that we are talking about, but rather most abstruse versions. Then the requirement that a trial be fair would require that the defence would also have to be able to instruct an expert, usually at public expense. Your Lordships’ House is well aware of the difficulties the criminal courts already have with delay. The idea that these existing challenges should be added to by numerous “battle of the expert” trials about graffiti is as unpalatable as it is unnecessary, given that the conduct is already captured by the Criminal Damage Act.
Amendment 52 seeks to make gang involvement a statutory aggravating factor in the sentencing for any criminal offence; thus, it is very wide indeed. The definition of “gang” is once again so broad that it would capture a number of wholly innocuous groups, and this is not a mere drafting issue. It encapsulates the fundamental problem with this provision, which is the difficulty of defining the conduct which it seeks to condemn with sufficient precision to make it workable. Again, evidence might be needed at the sentencing stage.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, and I thank the Minister for her kind comments at the start—they were slightly undeserving in my case, given her own experience. I listened carefully to what she said.
There were a couple of points I would like to come back on. Painting a St George’s cross, a saltire or whatever symbol might be chosen, would not and would never be caught by this, because it is not “gang related”. In addition, it is not too difficult for juries to understand the concept of something that is gang related.
On the issue of defining a gang, a point made both by the Minister and by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, the definition of a gang is the same as the one used in Section 51 of the Serious Crime Act 2015. It is the accepted definition. In that respect, I would not accept that it is too broad.
Underpinning these amendments is something that we all want to see: clean, happy cities that do not face the persistent threat of crime of any form. Unfortunately, a large part of the urban crime we currently face is the product of gang-related feuds and violence. The Centre for Social Justice has estimated that 60% of all shootings are gang related. Other reports suggest that they are responsible for as much as half of all knife crime. If we are serious about tackling crime, especially knife crime, we must do all we can to punish criminal gang members and disincentivise those who have not yet joined a gang. It is for that reason that we have put forward these amendments: to make gang-related offences specific and for them to require specific treatment in our law.
I could say much more about the amendments—and I am very grateful for the comments from all noble Lords, particularly for the support from my noble friend Lord Blencathra—but for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 51.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel
“Offence of engaging in nuisance begging(1) A person aged 18 or over who engages in nuisance begging commits an offence.(2) Where a constable has reasonable cause to believe that a person is engaging or has engaged in nuisance begging, the constable may require the person to leave a relevant location as soon as reasonably practicable.(3) Where a person has been required to leave a relevant location by a constable, the person commits an offence if the person does not comply with the requirement.(4) A person who commits an offence under subsections (1) or (3) is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month or a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.(5) For the purposes of this section, a person engages in “nuisance begging” if subsections (6) or (7) applies.(6) This subsection applies if the person begs—(a) on public transport,(b) in a station or any form of public transport, or at an entrance to or an exit from any such station,(c) at a bus stop, tram stop or other place where members of the public get on to, or alight from, any form of public transport,(d) at a taxi rank,(e) on a carriageway or cycle track,(f) in any area outside business premises (whether or not the area forms part of a highway) where people are consuming food or drinks supplied by the business,(g) within 10 metres of an automated teller machine or night safe, (h) within 10 metres of a ticket machine, a vending machine or any other device through which members of the public obtain goods or services by making payments,(i) in, or within five metres of, the entrance to, or exit from, retail premises, or(j) in the common parts of any building containing two or more dwellings,(7) This subsection applies if the person begs in a way that has caused, or is likely to cause—(a) harassment, alarm or distress to another person,(b) a person reasonably to believe that—(i) they, or any other person, may be harmed, or(ii) any property (except property belonging to the person begging) may be damaged,(c) disorder, or(d) a risk to the health or safety of any person except the person begging.(8) In this section—“carriageway” and “cycle track” have the meaning given by section 329(1) of the Highway Act 1980;“distress” includes distress caused by—(a) the use of threatening, intimidating or abusive words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or(b) the display of any writing, sign, or other visible representation that is threatening, intimidating or abusive;“relevant location” means a location where the person is engaging or has engaged in nuisance begging;“retail premises” means premises used wholly or mainly for the purposes of the sale of anything by retail.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would introduce the offence of nuisance begging and permit a constable to move on a person engaging in nuisance begging.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, these amendments require a little bit of legislative background to be given. In 2022, the Government accepted an amendment to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act to repeal the Vagrancy Act 1824. Section 81 of the 2022 Act containing the repeal has not yet been commenced.
The previous Government stated their intention to commence the repeal of the Vagrancy Act only once appropriate replacement legislation was put in place. The replacement legislative framework was included in the previous Government’s Criminal Justice Bill, after which the current Bill is modelled. While almost one-third of the clauses of the Criminal Justice Bill have made their way into this Bill, the provisions to replace the Vagrancy Act have not. This amendment is intended to ascertain why.
The Criminal Justice Bill proposed to create a new framework of nuisance begging and nuisance rough sleeping, as well as creating three new related criminal offences. I entirely accept that the Government have carried forward the offence of trespassing with intent to commit a criminal offence and the offence of arranging or facilitating begging for gain, but we do not see anything relating to nuisance begging in the Bill. My question to the Minister is simply: why? Do the Government believe that the police will have sufficient powers to deal with anti-social begging once the Vagrancy Act is repealed? It appears somewhat counterintuitive for the Government to seek to criminalise the facilitation of another person’s begging but not to criminalise nuisance begging. Do the Government believe there is such a thing as nuisance or anti-social begging?
Regardless of the Government’s response to that, it appears to us that there will be a legislative gap if the Vagrancy Act is repealed and nothing is put in place to substitute it. My Amendment 53 therefore mirrors the proposals from the previous Government’s Criminal Justice Bill. It would create a very narrowly defined offence of nuisance begging and would equip the police with a proportionate and practical tool—namely, the power to require an individual to move on from a relevant location where disruptive or unsafe behaviour is occurring.
This amendment does not criminalise poverty, homelessness or the simple act of asking for help. It does not target those who are vulnerable or down on their luck, nor does it seek to sweep such people out of sight. It draws a clear distinction between legitimate, peaceful begging on the one hand, and conduct which crosses into harassment and intimidation—with danger both to the public and often to the person begging themselves—on the other.
We believe that the public have a right to move through stations, transport hubs, shopfronts and busy pavements without being impeded, threatened or placed at risk. Likewise, those who beg have a right to be treated with dignity. But it is precisely because dignity matters that we must address those situations where begging is carried out in a manner or in locations that create real harm.
The amendment identifies particular locations: public transport; station entrances; ATM machines; business forecourts; taxi ranks. These are points where there is little practical ability for a member of the public to avoid unwanted confrontation. They are places where one cannot simply walk around a challenging encounter. A narrow station staircase is not somewhere to negotiate past an insistent or aggressive request for money. These are the very locations where nuisance behaviour has taken root and where the police currently lack a clear and effective mechanism to act.
The amendment would set a threshold based not on the mere presence of a person asking for money but on conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress, fear of harm, risk to health or safety, or disorder. These are long-established, widely understood standards in public order law, and they ensure that the power is used only when behaviour becomes unacceptable.
The move-on power in subsection (2) is at the heart of the proposal. It is preventative rather than punitive. It would give a constable the ability to intervene early, to de-escalate situations and to protect all involved before matters deteriorate. For the individual concerned, it would avoid immediate criminalisation; it would give them an opportunity to comply and move on without penalty. Only wilful refusal to comply would constitute an offence.
For all those reasons, and with the balance that this amendment strikes so carefully, in our view, I commend it to the Committee, and I urge noble Lords to lend it their support. I beg to move.
Amendment 53A (to Amendment 53)
Lord Blencathra
“(k) outside any residential building.”
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, as well as moving Amendment 53A, I will also speak to my Amendment 53B in this group. I completely support the comments of my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel on the Front Bench, and I support his amendments.
I encounter this every day coming to this House, where beggars lie on the pavement, half blocking it. Possibly they think they are less frightening sitting down than standing up, but the nuisance is the same, as is the chant asking for money. I have not seen them for some months now, but for a couple of years we had different beggars every day; then I realised it was the same dog they had. I presume that the dog got passed around between them, since the public are possibly more sympathetic to the dog than to the beggar— a kind of Dogs R Us.
There was another one who, when I first encountered him, was really scary. He was a beggar, but he was shouting and screaming—not at the public, I realised, but more to himself or to the ether than anything else. Clearly, he had a mental health problem. After I saw him a couple of times, I had no problem; I just did not make eye contact. However, people who had never met him before, such as women coming out of the shops, were terrified of him. It was nuisance begging, but clearly there was a health problem behind it.
My Amendment 53A would merely add a little tweak to my noble friend’s new clause by adding “outside any residential building” to the list in subsection (6). In this Westminster area, I have seen them sitting not on the doorstep but right beside the entrance to a residential block of flats. Frankly, I think that is intimidating, and residents should not have to face that fear, whether misplaced or not, that they may face beggars as they come and go from their own property.
My Amendment 53B would amend my noble friend’s amendment after subsection (7), by inserting:
“The judgement that the begging satisfies the conditions in (a), (b) and (d) is one to be made by the person who is the victim of the begging”.
So what does subsection (7) say? It says:
“This subsection applies if the person begs in a way that has caused, or is likely to cause … (a) harassment, alarm or distress to another person, … (b) a person reasonably to believe that … they, or any other person, may be harmed, or … any property … may be damaged, … (c) disorder, or … (d) a risk to the health or safety of any person except the person begging”.
In other words, the purpose of my amendment is that I do not want a police officer to come along and say, “Oh no, guv, that’s not harassment or causing alarm. What are you worried about? There’s no risk to your health and safety”. I suggest that the judgment be made by the person who is the victim of the nuisance begging. Some people will not be worried or alarmed, as I was not worried after I saw that chap with the mental health problem a few times, but others may be.
I came across this in an accusation about bullying in the Civil Service. If a civil servant believes that someone is bullied, that is taken for granted because one person felt it even though others might have felt differently. I dealt with that in my capacity of serving on an ALB.
In conclusion, I want to make it clear that, if a person feels that begging is causing him or her alarm, distress or harassment, or is a risk to health and safety, then it is the victim’s view that must be considered, not that of anyone else applying their own test for what that alarm might be.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, there is a genuine problem around aggressive begging and the involvement of organised criminal gangs. That is why we support Clause 11, which rightly focuses not on individuals who are begging but on those who are orchestrating and profiting from this practice.
Lots of things in life are a nuisance, but that does not mean we should criminalise them. Where begging is causing a genuine nuisance, police already have a range of powers to deal with it under anti-social behaviour legislation. We think this amendment is the wrong solution at a time when charities such as Crisis say that the number of vulnerable people on the streets who survive by begging, including women and first-time rough sleepers, is rising. In these circumstances, we should be looking at how we can better reach and support those in such straitened circumstances. By contrast, criminalising begging would push people away from support, and it will not solve the problems of poverty, homelessness, addiction or exploitation.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for his Amendment 53, which, as he explained, would introduce a new offence of nuisance begging and permit a constable to move on a person engaging in this behaviour. Failure to comply with the notice would constitute a criminal offence. I note also Amendments 53A and 53B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, which seek to further extend what constitutes nuisance begging under the proposed new offence.
I start by saying to noble Lords that the Government do not wish to target or criminalise individuals who are begging to sustain themselves or rough sleeping because they have nowhere else to go. That is why we are committed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, mentioned, to repealing the outdated Vagrancy Act 1824, and why we will not be introducing measures that target or recriminalise begging and rough sleeping. It is also—for the very reason the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, mentioned—why the Government have invested more than £1 billion in homelessness and rough sleeping services this year, which is up £316 million compared to last year. So there is an increase in support to tackle the very issues that the noble Baroness mentioned.
However, we are legislating in the Bill to introduce targeted replacement measures for certain elements of the 1824 Act to ensure—I hope the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, will welcome this—that police retain the powers they need to keep our communities safe. These targeted replacement measures, in Clauses 10 and 11, include a new offence of facilitating begging for gain and an offence of trespassing with the intention of committing a crime, both of which were previously provided for under the 1824 Act.
As noble Lords mentioned, begging is itself a complex issue, it can cause significant harm or distress to communities and local areas need appropriate tools to maintain community safety. But where I come back to in this debate is that there are powers in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, which many police forces use effectively to tackle anti-social behaviour in the context of begging and rough sleeping—for example, the very point the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, mentioned, where an individual may be harassing members of the public on a persistent basis, including potentially outside their own home, as in his amendment.
The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 provides for current statutory guidance. I hope that it partly answers the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, to say that we will update that anti-social behaviour statutory guidance. This will ensure that it is clear to agencies how ASB powers can be used in the context of harassment and this type of begging, if an individual’s behaviour reaches a threshold that will be set in the ASB statutory guidance.
Existing criminal offences can also be applied where the behaviour crosses the current criminal threshold. I expect the updating of the guidance to take place very shortly after Royal Assent is given to the legislation passing through the House of Lords. In the light of the assurances that we take this issue seriously, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, will not press his amendment and that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, is somewhat mollified that there are powers in place to deal with the issues that he has raised.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I am grateful for what the Minister said. I admire his style at the Dispatch Box; he is courteous and thorough in giving his answers. In view of his assurances that this is really covered by the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, this has been a most interesting debate, and I thank all those who contributed. I listened very carefully to the Minister and his indication that the Government believe that they have all the necessary tools to prevent anti-social begging.
Underpinning these amendments is that those who work daily in town centres, transport networks and retail spaces consistently report situations where members of the public feel frightened or cornered. The law does not provide a consistent, targeted response to those problems. That is the basis of this amendment, which seeks to ensure clarity for the public and the police. The amendment is carefully drawn, limited, balanced and rooted in the principle that no one should be made to feel unsafe when going about their daily business.
We cannot ignore the reality that some forms of begging today bear little resemblance to what many of us have known in the past. We now see behaviour that is aggressive, persistent and sometimes strategically targeted at locations where people feel trapped. However, having listened very carefully, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Blencathra
“Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014: amendment(1) Schedule 2 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 is amended as follows.(2) After paragraph 1(3) insert—“(3A) A detention order must be made in relation to a person between the ages of 14 and 18 who has been in breach of three injunctions.(3B) A person subject to a detention order under sub-paragraph (3A) must be detained in youth detention accommodation as defined by paragraph 14(3).”.(3) After paragraph 2(7) insert—“(8) Any person subject to a supervision order under this paragraph is eligible for an electronic tag.”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and another in the name of Lord Blencathra add a power of detention for 14 -18 year olds who have a record of breaching inunctions.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, in moving my Amendment 54, I will also speak to my Amendment 55. Amendment 54 seeks to amend Schedule 2 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. The relevant section says that:
“A youth court, if satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a person aged under 18 is in breach of a provision of an injunction under section 1 to which he or she is subject, may make in respect of the person—(a) a supervision order or (b) a detention order”.
Dealing with the detention provisions first, the court “may” make a detention order. My amendment seeks that it “must” make such an order, tying the court’s discretion, if a person between the ages of 14 and 18 breaches three or more injunctions.
As the Minister knows—indeed, as we all know—the problem with juvenile crime is habitual offenders. None of us want to lock up little kiddies who make a couple of mistakes or commit minor crime—of course not. However, before any juvenile gets an injunction, the anti-social behaviour has to be reasonably serious. This is what the College of Policing says on the grounds for an injunction:
“A civil injunction is issued on the balance of probabilities. It must be just and convenient to grant the injunction to prevent anti-social behaviour, and the respondent must have engaged in or threatened to engage in either: conduct that has or is likely to cause harassment, alarm, or distress … or conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance”.
The College of Policing states that a civil injunction is used for
“drug/alcohol-related ASB … harassment … noise (tenure-neutral)”—
whatever that means—“vandalism” and “aggressive begging”. Therefore, I submit that if a juvenile between the ages of 14 to 18 breaches three of those, we have passed the stage where the court may—I stress “may”—make a detention order. Anyone who has breached three injunctions is rapidly heading to becoming a habitual offender. If he does not get a detention order after all that behaviour, what signal will that send to him and his mates? It will signal that you can get away with it, and nothing will happen but another appearance before the court, a rap on the knuckles and being told to be a good boy. As parliamentarians, we owe it to innocent members of the public to protect them from habitual trouble-makers, and my amendment would do just that.
The court also has a discretion on whether to make a detention order when a juvenile breaches one or two injunctions. I am happy with that. I submit that we only remove that discretion when the offender breaches three or more.
I will move on to supervision orders. The court could order a supervision order instead of detention. Such an order could impose one or more of three requirements: a supervision requirement, an activity requirement or a curfew requirement. We do not need to go into what each of those requirements can do or the obligations they might impose. My amendment simply seeks to add an additional power, so that:
“Any person subject to a supervision order … is eligible for an electronic tag”.
Note my wording: it states that they would be “eligible” for an electronic tag; I am not tying the court’s hands here to make it compulsory.
One of my reasons for attaching electronic tags to juveniles under court-imposed supervision orders is the enhancement of accountability. Electronic monitoring provides a reliable, objective mechanism for tracking the whereabouts of young offenders. This not only helps to ensure compliance with curfews and exclusion zones stipulated by the court but gives our Prison and Probation Service immediate insight into any breaches. The knowledge that their movements are being monitored can act as a significant deterrent against further anti-social or criminal behaviour.
I suggest that electronic tagging offers reassurance to communities affected by persistent anti-social behaviour. Enabling authorities to monitor offenders more closely would reduce the risk of reoffending while under supervision. This is particularly pertinent in cases where the offence involves intimidation, vandalism or harassment in a particular locality. The visible commitment to monitoring can help rebuild public confidence in the justice system’s capacity to protect communities.
I have no doubt that some will argue that tagging for a juvenile is punitive, but I suggest it can also help with rehabilitation. Electronic monitoring allows for greater flexibility compared with secure detention, enabling juveniles to remain in their communities, continue education and maintain family relationships. The structure imposed by tagging can help young people develop routines and take responsibility for their actions, while still being held accountable. For many, this balance of liberty and oversight provides a constructive framework for positive behavioural change.
As we all know—the Minister knows this, and he knew it from his last experience in the Home Office—for many young offenders, early intervention is critical to prevent escalation into more serious criminal behaviour. Electronic tagging, as a clear and immediate consequence, can serve as a wake-up call, highlighting the seriousness of continued non-compliance. This timely intervention can disrupt cycles of offending and encourage reflection, potentially diverting young people from the future of criminality.
I will not speak to my Amendment 55, since I think I have a bit of inadvertent duplication here. I was drafting an amendment to the Act and then one to Schedule 2, and my Amendment 55 is my first draft, which I should not have sent to the Public Bill Office by mistake. Therefore, I beg to move Amendment 54.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, we recognise the legitimate concerns about persistent anti-social behaviour. Repeat offenders represent a significant challenge; within many communities there is a small core of individuals creating a disproportionate amount of misery and distress to victims. However, the Liberal Democrats remain sceptical about the approach taken by Amendment 54. On these Benches, we believe that youth incarceration should be a last resort, not an automatic consequence. Mandatory detention after three breaches not only removes judicial discretion, it risks criminalising young people for behaviour which is below the criminal standard.
The evidence shows that detention is largely ineffective and often counterproductive. In reality, it increases the likelihood of future offending. Indeed, a chief constable I spoke to told me that short-term sentences simply equip people to be better at crime. The aim of these measures may be to help victims, but the risk is that they could ultimately result in the creation of more of them.
We believe that the key to tackling persistent anti-social behaviour is properly funded community policing. There are about 10,000 fewer police and PCSOs and neighbourhood teams now than in 2015. More than 4,500 PCSOs have disappeared, and their loss is continuing. Some forces simply do not have enough personnel in neighbourhood teams to actively address anti-social behaviour. In his response, will the Minister say what is being done to reverse the exodus of community officers?
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, the contributions we have heard demonstrate the seriousness of the issue and highlight why communities and victims need reassurance that persistent anti-social behaviour will be confronted robustly and effectively. I thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for bringing forward these amendments. They provide a welcome opportunity to examine whether the current response to repeat breaches of injunctions is sufficient.
It goes without saying that ongoing and persistent anti-social behaviour has a profound impact on the lives of ordinary residents, including the feeling of individual safety and a wider sense of cohesion in our neighbourhoods. Amendment 54 seeks to provide that if someone under 18 breaches three injunctions of supervision orders, they must be given a detention order. It seems likely, to me at least, that someone who has broken three such injunctions is plainly on the path to becoming an habitual offender. Repeated breaches should not simply be met with ineffective sanctions—communities have to know that the law has teeth and that those who repeatedly defy court orders will face meaningful consequences. The amendment seeks to reinforce that principle and to signal clearly that a cycle of breach, warning and further breach is unacceptable.
I hope that the Government give the amendment the thought and time that it deserves, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for Amendment 54 and for fessing up to Amendment 55, which we will accept as an honest mistake. I welcome his honesty in raising the issue.
There is a recognition that Amendment 54 still wants to provide for minimum sentences for persistent breaches of youth injunctions. I emphasise that the Government do not want to criminalise children unnecessarily, an aspiration we share with the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. That is why the new respect order in the Bill will not apply to those under 18. However, we know that in many cases the behaviour of offenders under 18 requires a more formal deterrent and intervention. That is why we have retained the civil injunction as is for those under 18. Practitioners have told us that it is a particularly helpful and useful tool to tackle youth anti-social behaviour and to ensure that their rights and the safety of the community are upheld.
Youth injunctions are civil orders and fundamentally preventive in nature, which again goes to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. It is more important to intervene to prevent than it is to punish afterwards, particularly when young people are the individuals who are causing those challenges in the first place.
The important point about youth injunctions, which, again, goes to the heart of the noble Lord’s amendment, is that if the respondent abides by the terms of the order, they will not be liable for any penalties but, self-evidently, where a respondent does breach an order there needs to be some action. The noble Lord has suggested one course of action. I say to him that the courts already have a range of responses, including supervision orders, electronic tagging, curfews and, in the most serious cases, detention orders for up to three months for 14 to 17 year-olds.
I hope there is a common theme across the Committee that detention of children should be used only when absolutely necessary, and that courts should consider the child’s welfare and other risks before imposing such a response. This should be on a case-by-case basis, and the prescribing of a mandatory minimum sentence, even for repeat offenders, would both undermine the ability of the independent judiciary to determine the appropriate sentence and potentially be disproportionate. There is a place in our sentencing framework for mandatory minimum sentences, but I submit that this is not it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, is quite right again that one of the best preventive measures we can have is to have large numbers of boots on the ground in neighbourhood policing. She will know that the Government have a manifesto commitment to put 13,000 extra boots on the ground during this Parliament. In this first year or so, the Government have put an extra 3,000 in place. We intend, where we can, to increase the number of specials, PCSOs and warranted officers to replace those who were lost between 2010 and 2017. When I was Police Minister in 2009-10, we had 20,000 more officers than we had up to around 2017. That is because they were hollowed out and taken out by the two Governments who ran the Home Office between 2010 and 2017.
The noble Baroness is absolutely right that visible neighbourhood policing is critical to tackling anti-social behaviour, but the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, seeks to provide minimum sentences, which I do not think will achieve his objective. It does not have my support either. I hope he will withdraw the amendment, having listened to the argument.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, once again, I am grateful to the Minister for his courteous and detailed answer. I did not realise that electronic tagging was already an option and it is very important that it is applied in appropriate cases. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, that I am not creating a new criminal offence here. The power of detention already exists to be used by the court when it thinks fit.
On the general principle of minimum sentences, why do we fetter a judge’s discretion by having a maximum sentence? If we want proper judicial discretion, we should say that the judge can sentence anything he likes, but we do not—and I am glad we do not. We say that Parliament cannot set a minimum. Why is it appropriate, in a democracy, for Parliament to set a maximum sentence but not a minimum? I knew that the Minister, in his courteous way, would say that we would fetter judicial discretion, but I have suggested three breaches of injunctions. When can a court say, “You’ve done six now”, or, “You’ve done 10, Johnny”, and impose a sentence of detention for continued breaches of injunctions? As a democracy, it is perfectly legitimate for us as parliamentarians—and Members in the other House, whose constituents are suffering—to say that judges will have a discretion to impose orders of detention up to a certain level, but once the breaches of injunctions go past a certain threshold, Parliament demands that they impose a level of detention, whatever that level may be.
I have made my point. The Minister will probably hear me make a similar point about minimum sentences at various other points in the Bill but, in view of his remarks, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Blencathra
“(3) The coordinating officer need not be a constable but must be someone versed in the internet and online sales and purchases.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to ensure that the police and NCA appoint a person as the co-ordinating officer who is the most qualified about the internet and online sales and need not be a person who has qualified as a constable.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
The House will be relieved to know I will be mercifully brief on this occasion. Until 1968 the Met and other police forces used CID officers to do SOCO work—that is, collecting forensic evidence at the scenes of crimes. For many it was not their speciality and they often damaged vital evidence. Police forces realised that teams of dedicated civilians who specialise in gathering evidence at crime scenes could do a better job. Naturally, the Police Federation opposed any civilians being brought in to do it. Now, civilians do command and dispatch—which used to be done by serving officers—investigation support, and crime analysis. Over the years the police service has had to recognise, reluctantly in my opinion, that a constable of whatever rank may not be the best-qualified person to undertake increasingly complex tasks. We see credit card fraud going through the roof because there is practically no one in any police force capable of investigating it. Goodness knows who could do it —forensic accountants, perhaps.
All I am seeking here is an assurance from the Minister that this important co-ordinating role will not go to an inspector or a superintendent unless he or she is an absolute expert on the internet and online sales. This requires a switched-on internet geek, and not necessarily a uniformed bobby. Can the Minister assure me that the police will recruit for this role the best-qualified person, from wherever that person comes from, provided that he or she passes all the integrity tests, and that the guidance envisaged in the clause will say so? I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I must say, I admire the range of interventions made by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. I do not want him to fall back on his seat, but on this occasion, we have some sympathy with the two amendments he has put forward. This group addresses the establishment of the new civil penalty regime for online advertising, a measure which we on these Benches support for its goal of strengthening accountability for online platforms. The introduction of civil penalties in this part of the Bill is intended to tackle the online grey market that facilitates the sale of illegal weapons, enabling earlier intervention and prevention of offensive weapon crimes. We must ensure that the framework we establish is not only robust legally but operationally effective in the digital age.
Amendment 55B tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, concerning Clause 13, focuses specifically on the essential role of the co-ordinating officer. Clause 13 mandates that the Secretary of State designate a member of a relevant police force or a National Crime Agency officer as the co-ordinating officer for this chapter. The amendment proposes that:
“The coordinating officer need not be a constable but must be someone versed in the internet and online sales and purchases”.
We on these Benches recognise that 21st-century crime fighting is no longer solely about boots on the ground. It relies heavily on specialised digital expertise to effectively police online marketplaces and hold search services and user-to-user services accountable. The designated officer must possess deep knowledge of digital platform sales techniques and online advertising mechanisms, as the noble Lord indicated. By explicitly allowing this officer to be a non-constable professional and expert, we would ensure that law enforcement can deploy the most qualified individuals to secure content removal notices and apply civil penalties. In our view, this pragmatic approach would ensure efficiency and maximum efficacy against technologically sophisticated platforms.
Amendment 55F in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, relates to Clause 24, which governs the guidance issued by the Secretary of State regarding the operation of this new regime. All new intrusive powers, especially those concerning online services, require clear, precise guidance to avoid unintended consequences and ensure fairness. Proper statutory guidance is the mechanism by which the principles established in the Bill should be translated into proportionate and actionable requirements for online service providers.
In short, in our view these amendments seek to guarantee that the architecture of this new regime is built on technical expertise and clarity, both those pillars being essential in ensuring that our online crime-fighting tools are fit for purpose. As such, we support them.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I hope to be as brief as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and my noble friend Lord Blencathra when introducing these amendments.
There is an urgent need to ensure that the mechanisms we put in place under the Bill are both workable and effective. My noble friend’s amendments seek to ensure that the person appointed as the co-ordinating officer is simply the most qualified regarding the internet and online sales. There seems to be broad agreement that those responsible for enforcing penalties for illegal online sales must have the right skills. Whether or not such individuals wear a uniform is less important than whether they understand the digital channels through which harmful goods are marketed and moved, and criminals should not be able to exploit technological advantage to stay one step ahead of enforcement. I therefore hope that the Government take these amendments seriously as practical suggestions to help tackle a serious problem.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for his amendments to the clauses that implement this Government’s manifesto commitment to hold senior managers of online platforms, be they social media platforms, online marketplaces or search engines, personally liable for the failure to remove illegal online content relating to knives and offensive weapons. His Amendment 55B would require the co-ordinating officer—that is, the person appointed by the Home Secretary to administer these new powers—to have the necessary internet and online sales experience and skills, stating that they need not be a warranted officer. Amendment 55F would make these criteria explicit in the statutory guidance for these measures.
I agree with the sentiment behind the amendments. It is of course important that the co-ordinating officer responsible for the administration of these powers be suitably experienced. I reassure the noble Lord that the Government are providing £1.7 million for a new national police unit to tackle the illegal online sale of knives and weapons, including the issuing of content removal notices. The unit will be dedicated to co-ordinating investigations into all aspects of online unlawful knife and offensive weapon sales, and to bringing those responsible to justice. It will also improve data collection and analysis capability in order to expand police understanding of the knife crime problem and how enforcement activities can best be targeted. The intention is that a senior member of this specialist unit will be appointed as the co-ordinating officer, and they will have the necessary skills and resources to administer the powers.
Whoever is appointed as a content manager must be experienced in both aspects of the problem we are trying to tackle. They should have experience not only of online sales but of the investigation of illegal online sales of knives and weapons—that is, they must be able to understand the investigatory and evidential process as well as having experience of the internet. This will, to paraphrase the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, not be any old bobby with a warrant card but someone highly experienced in internet sales and the investigatory and evidential role. That is why, in short, we feel that the role must be held by a warranted officer. It is a police role. They will be issuing enforcement notices and, as part of the criminal process, they need to have that experience as well as the essential online experience that all noble Lords who spoke in the debate mentioned; we agree that that is necessary.
Given the assurance that we are not neglecting the online side of things, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, will be sufficiently reassured and is content to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, first let me say that I am almost overcome with deep emotion, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the Lib Dems have supported a Blencathra amendment—I wonder where I have gone wrong.
I say to the Minister that I am not totally reassured. I was not suggesting any old bobby; I was afraid that the police would automatically look for someone of senior rank: inspector, superintendent or chief superintendent. But the absolutely crucial thing is that that person must be fully qualified on internet sales and online stuff. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, set it out with rather elegant detail; I called the person a computer geek. If that superintendent is a senior investigating officer and he or she is a computer geek, then I am satisfied. I do not suggest that I will take this back on Report, but the Minister’s answer did not totally satisfy me that the best person will necessarily be recruited for the job. Yes, of course the person must have an understanding of investigation techniques, but that does not necessarily mean that it has to be a high-ranking police officer. The police already have civilians investigating things that do not require an officer.
As I say, I am slightly equivocal about the Minister’s answer. It is slightly disappointing that the Government will not countenance the possibility that this person may not be a warranted officer. It is quite simple: if you recruited the right computer geek, you make him or her warranted officer—you can do it that way. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Blencathra
Member’s explanatory statement
A fine is based on a judgement of the seriousness of the crime and is subjective. My amendment ensures that the penalty is based on the actual value of the illegal knives and the profits from their sale.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 55C, I will speak also to my Amendments 55D and 55E. My three amendments here are all similar, as I argue that a value-based penalty is more effective than a maximum fixed fine. The issue of illegal knife sales on the internet is a matter of serious public concern. It is big business with big consequences when those knives—machetes and zombie knives—are used to kill and maim, as is increasingly the case.
The proposals in the Bill to fine individuals and businesses up to £60,000 for selling illegal knives online seem hefty at first glance. However, the effectiveness and fairness of such a fixed penalty are questionable. A more effective approach would be to impose a fine equal to 500% of the total value of all the illegal goods advertised. I want to convince the Minister that a proportional penalty is, in some cases, superior to a subjective fixed maximum fine.
First, there is the subjectivity of the fixed maximum fine. Setting a maximum fine of £60,000 for selling illegal knives leaves the final penalty to the discretion of the court. This introduces subjectivity into the process, as judges must determine what amount is appropriate in each case. The outcome may vary significantly depending on the judge’s interpretation of the offence’s severity, the defendant’s circumstances and other factors. Consequently, similar offenders could face vastly different penalties, undermining the consistency and predictability of the law. Then, of course, I come back to my favourite organisation, the Sentencing Council, advising that the £60,000 fine should never be imposed—but let us leave that aside for the moment.
Moreover, a fixed cap may not reflect the true scale of the illegal activity. For example, a small-scale individual seller and a large business operation could both face the same maximum penalty, despite the latter potentially profiting far more from illegal sales. This lack of proportionality can result in fines that are either too lenient or excessively harsh, depending on the specifics of the case.
In contrast, my suggestion of a fine set at 500% of the value of all illegal knives advertised is directly linked to the scale of the offence and the profits. This proportional penalty approach ensures that the penalty increases in line with the seriousness of the crime. Large-scale operations, which are likely to profit more and cause greater harm, would face correspondingly larger fines. This not only achieves greater fairness but strengthens the deterrent effect. As we have said on many occasions, criminals are primarily motivated by profit. If the financial penalty reliably exceeds any potential gains—by a factor of five in this case—the risk heavily outweighs the reward. I suggest that that creates a strong disincentive for individuals and businesses to engage in illegal knife sales.
The proportional system also ensures that penalties remain meaningful, even as the market or profitability of legal knives fluctuates over time. The proportional penalty system is more likely to deter criminal behaviour, because it removes ambiguity and subjectivity from sentencing. Offenders know in advance that any profits from illegal activity will be entirely wiped out and replaced by a substantial loss. That clarity and certainty are crucial in discouraging would-be offenders. Furthermore, tying the fine to the value of the legal goods ensures fairness across all cases. Small-time offenders are punished proportionately for their actions, while major players face penalties commensurate with the harm they cause and the profits they make. That upholds the principle that the punishment should fit the crime.
In summary, I submit that a fixed maximum fine of £60,000 for selling illegal knives online introduces subjectivity and inconsistency—whereas a penalty of 500% of the value of all illegal goods advertised is fair, more predictable and far more likely to deter criminal activity.
I do not need to speak to my Amendment 55E; it is the same concept but suggests a mere 100% proportional penalty for a lesser offence. I urge the Minister to consider adopting a proportional penalty system to effectively combat the sale of illegal knives over the internet. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has so concisely described—he gets more concise as the evening goes on—this group deals with the sanctions applied under the online weapon advertising regime.
We very much welcome the Government’s commitment to ensuring accountability for businesses and sellers who facilitate the online sale of knives. However, if the penalties imposed are too small, they merely become a tolerable cost of doing business for large, wealthy online service providers. As the noble Lord explained, the Bill proposes maximum civil penalties for service providers of up to £60,000 for failing to comply with content manager requirements or for failing to comply with a content removal notice. His Amendments 55C and 55D directly challenge that maximum limit by proposing that the penalty for a service provider’s non-compliance should instead be a minimum of 500% of the value of the illegal goods advertised.
In our view, that proposal shifts the focus decisively towards financial deterrence—although I hate to agree with the noble Lord twice in one evening. The argument embedded within these amendments is sound: fines should reflect the scale and profitability of the illegal advertising business they enable. By linking the minimum fine directly to five times the value of the illegal goods advertised, we ensure that the penalty scales proportionally with the volume of the illicit trade facilitated by the platform, making it financially unsustainable to turn a blind eye to illegal weapon content.
The noble Lord’s Amendment 55E applies this same principle to the penalties imposed on the service provider’s content manager. Clause 23 currently sets the maximum penalty for the content manager at £10,000. Amendment 55E seeks to replace that cap with a minimum penalty of 100% of the value of the illegal goods advertised. That would ensure that the individual responsible for overseeing compliance within the organisation also faces a penalty that reflects the seriousness of the content they failed to manage or remove, particularly where that content is tied directly to the advertisement of unlawful weapons.
These amendments force us to consider how we can make our laws genuinely tough on organised online crime. In our view, legislation must be proportionate; and proportionality, in the face of corporate digital crime, means that penalties should meaningfully exceed the profits derived from facilitating criminal activity. The amendments rightly push us to consider the financial consequences that would truly deter platforms from risking public safety for private gain.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Blencathra for these amendments and offer support from the Front Bench for them.
The three amendments by my noble friend all have the same aim: to tie the level of financial penalty directly to the value of the illegal knives being advertised and the profits generated from their sale. The logic behind them is obvious—and they also raise an important point. Fines that merely represent a modest operational cost to criminals will do little to deter those who deliberately trade in dangerous and illegal weapons. If the economic reward remains greater than the economic risk, the deterrent effect is minimal. Therefore, it seems prudent to put into statute appropriate provisions to ensure that that never is the case. The purpose of penalties must be both to punish wrongdoing and to disrupt the business model that makes it worth pursuing.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for his explanation of the amendments in this group. As he said, Amendment 55C would set minimum fines for companies that fail to comply with an appointment notice that requires them to designate an executive to be held liable for failing to take down illegal knife and weapons content. Amendments 55D and 55E would set minimum fines for companies and liable executives that fail to take down illegal content when requested to do so. As he explains, his proposed minimum fines are proportionate for companies; they are set at 500% of the value of the knife or the weapon for companies, and 100% of the value for individuals.
I hate to disappoint the Committee or to ruin the spirit of accord that has broken out across the Benches opposite, but while the logic of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, is good, I am afraid it does not reflect the actual behaviour and experience of the marketplace. If I can, I will try to explain why it would not be as effective or as impactful as he no doubt intends.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I hate to interrupt the Minister—well, I do not really—but can he explain what he means by that about the market? I did not grasp what he meant by that.
Lord Katz (Lab)
Well, that is a very good segue into the words that are just following—I was about to get there.
Many knives and weapons that are sold illegally are sold relatively cheaply, in the order of tens of pounds. Some sellers who sell knives and weapons over social media tend to hold and advertise small stock numbers. Therefore, we contend that the suggested minimum penalties are simply too low to incentivise the prompt removal of illegal content. The independent review of online safety of knives shows a case study as an example where an individual bought 30 knives to sell illegally over social media for under £50 each. Should the social media company not take the illegal content down, the proposed minimum fine under these amendments would be £1,500 for the executive and £7,500 for the companies. Those penalties, as I am sure noble Lords would agree, would be too low for large tech companies and executives to be worried about at all. Not having a minimum penalty will leave full discretion to the police, who specialise in investigating illegal knife sales online. This will allow them to use their judgment to issue fines that are commensurate in each case.
The penalties for failing to comply with these are, as already noted, issued in the form of civil penalty notices by the police. They can be up to £60,000 for companies and £10,000 for individuals. I remind noble Lords that these penalties are for single violations and will add up if companies and executives repeatedly fail to comply with removal notices. The measure is intended not just to punish companies but to facilitate behaviour change. I trust that the police administering these measures will issue fines of an appropriate level to incentivise the prompt removal of illegal content.
I note the experience, which I found instructive, of the independent review of the online sale of knives, that a lot of the activity is undertaken through very small stocks that are cheaply sold. If we used the regime of a proportionate measure, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, we simply would not generate enough. Noble Lords may not think that £60,000 is worth much, but we certainly would not generate anywhere near £60,000 in those examples.
It is worth bearing in mind that a lot of the grey market sellers do so over social media websites. The recipient of the fine is the tech company that does not take down the illegal material, rather than the person selling the knives or the weapons. We understand the intended recipient of the punishment—the fines—which is why we think that having the £60,000 or £10,000 level is appropriate, because that is for single offences. Any time a company fails to remove the content for which they have received a notice, the fines will add up and accumulate, which will make an impact—and we would all agree that that needs to be done.
In response to another point made by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, we feel that the Sentencing Council is unlikely to comment on the level of a civil penalty. That may be a little speculative from my perspective, but I think that it is probably what the experience bears out.
Given this explanation and the clarification of our view of how the environment—I should not have used the word “market” earlier—in which these sales take place, I hope that the noble Lord is sufficiently assured that these penalties will have an impact in the way they are set out in the Bill and that he will be content to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I almost had palpitations for the second time tonight when the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, supported my amendment.
I hear what the Minister has to say. I had not intended for the 500% penalty to apply to just two or three individuals selling a few knives; I intended that it would apply to the supply of the whole shooting match. The individuals who are selling a few knives have got them from somewhere: there is a supplier or a big source making these by the thousand. For someone at the centre who has a warehouse with £100,000 worth of knives, a penalty of £500,000 would clean them out completely, whereas a penalty of £60,000 would still leave them with £40,000 profit. However, I accept the point that, if the case involves small-scale individuals, the 500% penalty might not be as great as the penalty in the Act. I wonder whether it is worth looking at the possibility of offering “either/or” as an option—I think that is a possibility for the future.
I will make another general point. I woke up about a week ago at 2 am and thought of this proportional system. It may not be perfect for knives, but I think there is some merit in this concept of proportionate fines for certain offences, whereby rather than having a maximum penalty imposed by law, the penalty is a percentage—100%, 200%, 300% or 1,000%—of the value of the goods being advertised or sold.
Bearing in mind what the Minister said, we would like to look again at the possibility of offering a fine and some proportional penalty. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would increase the maximum sentence for the new offence of possessing a weapon with intent.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 56 in my name seeks to increase the maximum sentence for the new offence of possessing a weapon with intent, where conviction is conviction on indictment, from four to 14 years. The principle behind a new offence of possessing a weapon with intent to use violence is well intentioned. It is one that we support. We are living through an epidemic of knife crime, and the level of general offensive weapon offences has shown no signs of declining over the past decade.
I appreciate that the Government are taking some of the necessary steps to attempt to curb this situation and this new offence is one of them. Creating more offences to eliminate the problem at source is the right approach, in our view, while introducing additional measures that target the most dangerous in our society is also necessary. This Bill creates a separate category for those who have violent intent, which, in principle, should achieve the latter. But it is worth implementing this offence only if it is accompanied by sufficient corresponding punishment. The Bill as it stands does not achieve this.
There is, of course, the current law that prohibits the carrying of a bladed article in public. That offence carries a maximum sentence of four years. It is a blanket offence which does not consider additional factors; it treats offenders the same regardless of whether they hold some kind of ill intent. This new law, conversely, will consider intent. Violent intent will become an additional factor to be considered, and rightly so, because the extra element of meaning to commit damage or harm makes it a worse crime than simply carrying a weapon. It will differentiate between those who might and those who intend to cause a threat to society. In essence, the question behind this amendment is: why then is this not reflected in the punishment? Why does the new law carry the same maximum four-year sentence?
This law should work to do two things. It should allow the justice system to differentiate between those who pose intentional threats and those who may not. It should deter those who have intent from leaving the house with a weapon in the first place. If the penalty does not differ from the current law, it will do neither. If the maximum sentence remains identical, the courts will not have the means to sufficiently differentiate criminals who have been convicted. The criminals themselves will not be deterred in the first place, as there will be no greater threat of repercussion than that which already exists.
If we are to treat carrying an offensive weapon with violent intent as a separate, more serious crime, it must be reflected in the punishment. It is an incredibly serious offence that someone should not only break the law by carrying an offensive weapon but do so with the intent to inflict damage or harm. It self-evidently threatens the safety of our citizens and shows complete disregard for the functioning of society. Sentencing these criminals as if their violent intent is merely a secondary factor that does not deserve consideration will not do, in my respectful submission.
Amendment 56 seeks to solve this disparity. It increases the maximum sentence to 14 years. It is a maximum sentence, a ceiling, not the sentence to be imposed whenever. That, in our view, is the right thing to do. It will give the courts the means to reflect this in practice. There is no reason why the Government should not wish to achieve both these things, but the punishment must be reflective of the crime. I look forward to the Government’s response on this. For those reasons, I beg to move.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, very briefly, I align myself with my noble friend on his remarks and the question he put to the Minister. I do not understand the situation, so I would very much appreciate an explanation from the Minister. What is the logic of having the same maximum penalty for both the existing offence of carrying an offensive weapon and the new offence of carrying an offensive weapon with intent to commit harm or violence, and so forth?
My mild concern, which I am sure the Minister with his usual skill can allay, is that if we have the four years maximum penalty for the new aggravated offence of having intent to commit harm, is there not a danger that that could diminish the seriousness of the existing offence if it is not possible or likely to prove the intent to commit violence or the other provisions of the new section? I absolutely support what the Government are trying to do here; we are all on completely the same side. It would be very helpful for the Minister to explain how these two offences would differ in their application in practice and therefore the implications for the maximum sentences.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I rise for the final time tonight—the Committee will be pleased to know—to support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel. I wish I had put down my own amendment to Clause 27 to draw attention to what I think is the complete disconnect between subsections (1) and (3) in the new section.
The Bill in its current form proposes in subsection (1) of the new section that it shall be an offence for any person to possess an article with a blade or point or an offensive weapon with the intent
“to use unlawful violence against another person, … to cause another person to believe that unlawful violence will be used against them”
and others, or
“to cause serious unlawful damage to property”.
That is fairly serious stuff.
However, the penalties in subsection (3) of the proposed new section, with a maximum of 12 months’ imprisonment in a magistrates’ court and up to four years on indictment, are insufficient given the gravity of the offence. I support the argument for a substantial increase in sentencing powers to reflect the seriousness of the conduct involved.
Possession of an offensive weapon with intent to use it for violence or to cause fear is a profoundly serious criminal act. Such intent demonstrates a premeditated willingness to inflict harm, intimidate or destroy property. It is not a spontaneous or lesser form of criminality but rather a calculated and dangerous escalation. The mere possession of a weapon with such intent poses a direct threat to public safety, undermines community trust and creates an atmosphere of fear and insecurity.
As the Minister will know, offences involving offensive weapons are often precursors to more serious crimes, involving grievous bodily harm right up to homicide. I maintain that actions that create an imminent risk of serious harm should be met with robust deterrence and sentencing. Allowing relatively lenient penalties for those caught with weapons and with criminal intent fails to deter potential offenders and signals a lack of seriousness in addressing violent crime. The psychological impact on victims—those who are threatened or believe they are at risk of violence—can be profound and long-lasting, as many reports say, even if no injury actually occurs.
When compared with other offences of similar seriousness, the proposed penalties appear disproportionately low. For instance, offences such as aggravated burglary or possession of firearms with intent to endanger life attract significantly higher sentences, often exceeding a decade in custody. This clause is about people going out with vicious knives or machetes, intending to use unlawful violence against another person—in other words, to attack them and possibly kill them. Why on earth should there even be a summary trial for that sort of offence? That is why I wish I had put down my own amendment to delete from the new section subsection (3)(a), which provides for trial in a magistrates’ court.
Of course, we must not look at this Bill in isolation; we have the Sentencing Bill coming along, which will aim to ban anyone—if I understand it correctly—going to prison for a sentence of 12 months or less. If one of these cases goes to a magistrates’ court, and the magistrates impose the maximum sentence of 12 months, it will be automatically suspended and the perpetrator will get away with it. What signal does that send? If these criminals were going out with a knife to scratch cars or vandalise property, summary might be appropriate, but they are going out with knives to attack people and possibly kill them. That is why, in my opinion, it has to indictable only and a 14-year maximum sentence—which, as we know, will end up as seven in any case, with automatic release at half-time. I believe the current proposal for a maximum of four years on indictment is markedly out of step with comparable offences and the seriousness of potential offences in subsection (1).
The criminal justice system must not only punish offenders but deter would-be offenders and reassure the public that their safety is paramount. Inadequate penalties such as this one risk undermining public confidence in the legal system. A more severe sentencing framework would send a clear message that society will not tolerate the possession of weapons in the street with intent to commit violent acts or grievous bodily harm to people. It would also be a stronger deterrent to those contemplating such conduct.
In conclusion, I believe the Government are absolute right to introduce this new power, but they have the penalties wrong since they are disconnected from the seriousness of the offence. Given the potential for severe physical and psychological harm, the premeditated nature of the crime and the need for effective deterrence, I also submit that the maximum penalties should be increased. Of course, this is not tying the judge’s discretion; I am suggesting no minimum sentence but a sentence of up to 14 years.
I should add that I have exactly the same view on the suggested penalties in the next massive group of amendments, but I have made my arguments here and I will not repeat them when we come to that group on Wednesday.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, nearly half the murders in the UK over the last three years are due to knife crime, so we recognise the vital importance of equipping police with the necessary tools to intervene when there is clear evidence of intent to commit serious violence. We give Clause 27 our full backing.
Before I turn to the amendment, I want to make a couple of points around the new offence. Will the Government ensure that robust guidance and oversight are in place to prevent unjustified or discriminatory use of this power? That needs to be accompanied by improved training for police and judiciary. The reality is that young black men are already significantly overrepresented in knife crime prosecutions, and we must be careful not to compound that position. Discrimination and justice are opposites.
I hope this may also help stem the rising number of incidents in which people suffer life-changing injuries after being attacked with acid or other corrosive substances. Reports of such offences increased by 75% in 2023, including 454 physical attacks. Half these victims were women, with attacks often occurring in a domestic abuse context, but only 8% of these cases resulted in a charge or summons, partly due to the victim’s fear of reprisal. The hope is that this new offence may allow prosecutions to be brought before harm is inflicted, since proving intent would not necessarily require the victim to testify. Can the Minister say how the Government intend to use the offence to this end?
On Amendment 56, the Liberal Democrats agree with Jonathan Hall that four years in prison in insufficient when there is clear evidence of the intention to cause mass fatalities. The court must have the full weight of the law behind it in the hopefully rare cases in which a lengthy sentence is thought necessary for public prosecution. I would expect the Sentencing Council to issue guidance around how to categorise levels of seriousness, and I hope this will guard against sentence inflation. Nevertheless, we are minded to support this amendment and I urge the Government to look again at the maximum penalty.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for his amendment, which, as noble Lords will know, increases the maximum penalty to 14 years for possessing a weapon with intent. I happen to think that sentences should be proportionate to the offence, and that is why the maximum sentence for this offence has been set at four years. This is in line with other weapons offence penalties, such as that for possession of a bladed article. To set the sentence for this offence at 14 years would be disproportionate.
The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and others, including the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked legitimate questions about the difference between existing offences and this new proposed offence. It is already an offence to carry a bladed article in public without good reason. It is also an offence to then threaten a person with a bladed article or weapon. Under Section 52 of the Offensive Weapons Act 2019, it is an offence to intentionally threaten someone with an offensive weapon in public or in private.
The introduction of this new offence bridges a gap, which I believe is there, between being in possession of a knife or other offensive weapon in public or on education premises, and it being used to threaten or harm anyone. This offence will target those who equip themselves with bladed articles with the intention to endanger life, cause serious harm or fear or violence, but are intercepted by the police before they have had the chance to carry out any attack on the intended victim. It will therefore empower the police to bring charges against those individuals, which, in my view, is a differentiation which I hope has been clarified for the noble Viscount. He shakes his head.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
The issue is not the Minister’s explanations. I will have to think carefully about this. If the police can already stop someone and already have an easier test to make an arrest and prosecute that individual for the carrying of a knife, how does the carrying of the knife with the intent to commit harm make that easier to do? Surely, it makes it more difficult, because not only do you have to show that the person was carrying the knife, but you also have to prove their intent. I am not criticising the Minister’s intention here; I just do not understand.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I hope the noble Viscount can examine Hansard tomorrow. The maximum sentence is the same, but the intention will be reflected in the courts being able to give a penalty close to the top end of the range, whereas a simple possession offence is likely to attract a sentence close to the bottom end of the range. Therefore, again, this is for judicial interpretation, but it gives a flexibility within the proposed clause that allows for a potentially different level of maximum sentence within the four-year range that we have.
We believe that 14 years is disproportionate, which is where we have a difference with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, and I cannot support that amendment for this reason. However, we have introduced this new power, which will be of additional benefit for police forces to examine and work with at a local level.
The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, mentioned the report by Jonathan Hall, KC, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, which followed the Southport attack in July 2024. He has indicated that he wants us to examine creating a new offence, proposed by the independent reviewer. He said in his report:
“If this offence is created, then there is no need to reconsider the maximum sentence for the proposed offence of possessing an article with violent intent under the Crime and Policing Bill”.
We are currently considering his recommendations and examining them with operational partners. We want to look at how we can close that gap, but, as yet, we are not in a position to make a further announcement on this issue. However, as I have said, the maximum penalty of four years’ imprisonment is consistent with maximum penalties on other knife-related possession offences. To answer the noble Viscount’s point, it gives greater flexibility to police forces to take action under Clause 27, if the Bill becomes law in due course.
The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, took a wide view, perfectly legitimately, on the issue of knife crime. We have a clear government objective to reduce knife crime—to halve it—and we are trying to do that. There is an awful lot of work going on with my colleagues in the policing side of the Home Office on how to ensure we tackle some of that disproportionality, focusing on young black men particularly. Ultimately, we want to focus on all individuals who are victims of knife crime. There is a range of public education work being done at the moment, and a range of new resilience measures are being talked about, as well as support for neighbourhood policing. This is part of the back-up we will have to support individuals through highly visible policing, looking at issues such as stop and search, which are still valuable in identifying and collecting weapons.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Goschen and Lord Blencathra, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for their support for this amendment. I really hope that the Minister will reflect on the support for it from different quarters of the Committee.
I particularly want to comment on the speech of my noble friend Lord Blencathra, in which he pointed to the 12-month summary conviction, because under the Government’s Sentencing Bill, that sentence would be suspended. A convicted criminal, having just been proven in court to hold violent intent, will not go to prison, but will instead be released back into the public. I really hope that the Minister reflects on that specific point, as well as the more general one, which is that it is self-evident that legislation must give the courts the necessary flexibility to account for different levels of crime. If we cap the maximum sentence at four years, which is the same as for the lesser crime of carrying a bladed article, we risk not effectively penalising those planning to commit the worst possible crimes.
As the Minister said, it is a differentiation, this new offence. It is a more serious offence, and it must be sufficiently different from the existing law: that difference must continue through to a different level of sentence. It is consistent that the maximum punishment is increased to reflect this additional consideration, but the Bill does not yet do this. The maximum sentence remains at four years, even though it is for a more serious crime. Therefore, I really hope that the Minister reflects on everything that has been said tonight and that he looks again at Amendment 56 in my name.
It is an amendment that solves these issues: it gives the courts ample room to adapt their sentences, based on the severity of a crime; it gives the judiciary the discretion to issue longer sentences than it is currently able to do; and it is a maximum—I say again, it is a maximum—sentence. It is a ceiling. It would allow the justice system to effectively deal with criminals who pose a tangible risk to their fellow citizens, and act as a great deterrent. We all want a system where the worst criminals are proportionately punished and the courts are able to adapt to achieve this. Although I listened very carefully, I am not convinced that the legislation as it stands achieves this, and I really hope that the Government reconsider this. For the time being, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.