House of Commons
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
As the right hon. Gentleman may know, data on immigration status and crime was not recorded under the last Government. We have a new programme that will improve data collection, and we have strong local relationships with police and local authorities to ensure that the full force of the law will apply to anyone breaking our laws.
Sir Edward Leigh
The Home Secretary knows perfectly well how much it worries and infuriates people that people can enter this country illegally and commit crimes, and that there is no proper vetting procedure before they are unloosed on society. To reassure our own citizens, will she ensure that everybody who enters this country illegally is detained and fully vetted, and, as most of their asylum claims are bogus anyway, perhaps deal with their asylum claims while they are in detention and then deport them to protect our own people?
Shabana Mahmood
I recognise the public concern around criminality. That is why this Government are working closely with all our partners to improve data collection and have a risk-based approach so that we can manage those individuals who pose the highest risk on our immigration estate. I gently say that the right hon. Gentleman’s suggestions for how we deal with those who seek to come to our country illegally, primarily through channel crossings, would have had more force if his Government had succeeded in stopping those boats, as they often claimed that they would but utterly failed to do so. This Government are using a number of approaches to try to get to grips with illegal migration and will be bringing forward further changes to the House in due course.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
The way to deal with any asylum seeker—or, indeed, any migrant—who commits a crime, is to remove them from the country. That is why it is good to see that removals of foreign national offenders have gone up 40% from what was left under the previous Government. The way we deal with crime in communities is by reinvigorating neighbourhood policing and supporting our police. Does the Home Secretary agree that those are two areas where this Home Office is clearing up the mess left behind by the previous Government?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is right. It is one of many areas where we are cleaning up the multiple messes left by the previous Conservative Government. He is right to note that the removal of foreign national offenders has increased hugely under this Government and will continue to do so. Removals from this country are at nearly 60,000 since we have been in office. They will continue to rise.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I recently met Siobhan Whyte, the mother of Rhiannon. Rhiannon was brutally murdered by Sudanese illegal immigrant Deng Majek, who stabbed Rhiannon 23 times. Majek arrived by small boat in late July 2024. As the Home Secretary will know, small boat crossings since the election have gone up by 45%. Majek would have been among the first eligible for removal to Rwanda, so Siobhan wants me to ask the Home Secretary this: why did the Government cancel the Rwanda scheme just before it was due to start? If Majek had been removed to Rwanda, Rhiannon would still be alive today.
Shabana Mahmood
Let me say, first and foremost, that the murder of Rhiannon Whyte was an abhorrent, horrifying crime and our thoughts, and I know those of the whole House, are with her loved ones. The vile criminal responsible for her murder is behind bars where he belongs, and he has rightly received the strictest punishment of a life sentence. I do not wish to play politics with personal tragedy and Government policy, but the right hon. Gentleman will know that, as we have discussed across the Dispatch Box on a number of occasions, the Rwanda policy was a gimmick. Hundreds of millions of pounds were spent, with only four removals made from this country. His Government knew that they were already running into problems with that scheme. This Government have focused on measures that we believe will deal with the problems we are facing. It is taking some time, but they are the right measures and they will get to grips with the problem that he left behind.
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
The Government have an ambitious programme to reform and improve how child exploitation is tackled. We are introducing a new offence of child criminal exploitation, establishing the independent inquiry into grooming gangs and the national policing operation, and expanding programmes to improve support to child victims of exploitation and trafficking.
Michelle Welsh
In the UK, a child is reported missing every three minutes. These children are often the most vulnerable in society, as going missing can be a key warning sign of exploitation. Despite the clear connection, the term “child criminal exploitation” is not included in the Department for Education’s 2014 statutory guidance on missing children. Given the Home Office also holds responsibility for protecting missing children, does the Minister agree that Departments must work together to urgently update the guidance, so that relevant safeguarding partners can understand the risks, spot the signs and work together effectively to keep children safe?
Jess Phillips
I absolutely agree. The Home Office is working closely with other Departments to ensure that, where someone goes missing, there is a joined-up response, through child protection reforms, updating key multi-agency safeguarding guidance and the better use of technology—for instance our investment in the tackling organised exploitation programme.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
With the Government’s plans to regionalise police forces and the potential scrapping of Staffordshire constabulary, many involved in the care of vulnerable young people fear that there will be less focus on protecting children as fewer senior police officers will be working with local authorities to ensure that they are cared for. What actions will the Minister take to ensure that that does not happen?
Jess Phillips
The right hon. Gentleman raises a key point about how safeguarding will be rooted at the heart of the reforms that will be brought forward. I work frequently with the Minister for Children and others to ensure that whatever local multi-agency hubs are set up are fit for now and for the future. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I will take what he has said in good faith and ensure that that is the case.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
Online cowards such as Andrew Tate make money by radicalising boys into viewing women as prey, which has been laid bare once again by Louis Theroux’s documentary “Manosphere”. Meanwhile, we have religious preachers encouraging men to beat and rape their wives if they refuse to give them sex at their request. Will the Home Secretary therefore issue statutory guidance requiring police forces to use existing incitement legislation to prosecute those who incite sexual violence against women and girls, and will she share what a difference that could make? The reality is that we have the laws, but they are not being used in creative ways to crack down on those who use their voices in this way.
Jess Phillips
I feel equally disgusted by the examples that the hon. Lady has laid out. The violence against women and girls strategy makes it very clear that in tackling online misogyny, the Government will look across regulation, legislation and education to do everything necessary to protect both the girls and the boys in our country.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
This Government are committed to building a strong and integrated society where people can express their religious identity without fear of harassment. Guidance is set out by the College of Policing in its professional practice guidance. The Home Secretary has also commissioned Lord Ken Macdonald to undertake an independent review of public order and hate crime legislation, which will consider whether police powers strike the right balance between protecting the public and upholding the right to lawful protest. We look forward to his recommendations soon.
Robin Swann
May I start by condemning the attack on the ambulances of the Hatzola community ambulance service over the weekend?
A core tenet of our system and beliefs is that of civil and religious liberty for all. Does the Minister agree that we all have a role to play in upholding that core British tenet?
Sarah Jones
I join the hon. Gentleman in condemning the attack.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that our British values of diversity, tolerance and freedom of religious belief are one of our country’s greatest strengths, and we all have a role to play in ensuring that we uphold them everywhere we can.
Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
My hon. Friend asks for the timetable on the independent review of public order and hate crime legislation. He will know that this has been ongoing for some time—since the Heaton Park attack, which happened in October 2025 —and we are hoping to receive the final report by the end of May.
Will Stone
I thank the Minister for her response. This review is incredibly important in protecting people’s rights to protest and ensuring that our communities are kept safe. Will she give me her word that she will do everything within her power to ensure that the review comes out by the end of May?
Sarah Jones
I can tell my hon. Friend that although Lord Macdonald is working independently he has assured us that the review will come before the end of May, and we will respond before the summer recess. It is very important.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I led a deputation to Kurdistan about five weeks ago, and was impressed by what the Government were doing there in relation to public order and hate crime legislation. There are many things in Kurdistan that we in the United Kingdom could take on board and have as our core values. It may be outside the remit of the Minister, but if they do something good somewhere else, I think we should look at it here, so will she do that for me?
Sarah Jones
We are always very happy to look at countries where good things are happening and learn those lessons, so I am very happy to do that.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)
We value the contribution that rural businesses make, and our immigration system takes account of their needs. Immigration is not a sustainable solution to the challenges facing our rural economies, and we are committed to controlling migration across the whole UK.
Seamus Logan
Sheep shearing may not be on the Home Secretary’s bucket list, but in another U-turn, following pressure from NFU Scotland, the Government have apparently listened to the farming industry and agreed to a sheep shearing visa extension for one year. The Home Secretary is looking a little sheepish in her place, so in order to avoid being accused of woolly thinking, if she cannot commit to a longer-term extension for the farming sector, will she transfer powers to the Scottish Parliament so that farmers, fishers, and the hospitality and care sectors can deal with their labour shortages?
Mike Tapp
I think that was a close shave for really poor humour. The sector has been supported for 14 years to enable it to train up UK workers, reduce reliance on migrant labour and provide a sustained workforce within the United Kingdom. We have extended the immigration concession for sheep shearers to cover this shearing season, but after this final extension, we expect the sector to complete its transition to using domestic labour.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
Before I give my answer, I want to pay my respects to PC Bradley Corke, who sadly lost his life yesterday in the line of duty. My thoughts and those of the whole House, I am sure, are with his family and friends.
On the matter of police efficiency, we must seize the opportunity to transform policing through technology. Through the creation of a national police service, we will invest £115 million in artificial intelligence and automation, saving 6 million policing hours every year.
Dr Gardner
Live facial recognition technology is being deployed across the country to support the police to prevent and detect crime. While I recognise the importance of improving police efficiency, we have also seen a number of wrongful arrests linked to the use of live facial recognition systems, and only last week one police force paused the use of facial recognition due to racial bias. In the light of that, will the Secretary of State reassure the House that deployment, oversight and auditing of facial recognition technologies are subject to robust and transparent safeguards, and will she state when the facial recognition framework will be published?
Shabana Mahmood
I can give my hon. Friend that reassurance. We are absolutely clear that police forces must comply with data protection, human rights, equality and other relevant laws. This means that the police can use live facial recognition only for targeted, intelligence-led and time-bound deployments to locate specific individuals on a watchlist, such as wanted offenders or people who may pose a risk of serious harm. My hon. Friend knows that we have consulted on a legal framework on how and when law enforcement should use biometrics and facial recognition. The consultation is closed, and we are going through the responses now. We will bring forward proposals to the House in due course.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Police efficiency is the argument being used to propose the merger of Lancashire and Cumbria police forces, something which I strongly oppose. Lancashire is a wonderful county, but it is a county that has many urban centres with larger populations. Does the Home Secretary agree that there is a real risk that the people of Cumbria will see our police officers being drawn down to those larger, more populous places in Lancashire and that it would be wise to call off the merger?
Shabana Mahmood
There are no planned mergers. An independent review is being carried out by Lord Hogan-Howe. That review will advise the Government on the right number of regional forces to have. This is part of our plan to change policing so that we have a national police service, regional forces and local police areas that are able to police their local communities. Those are the proposals that have been announced. When Lord Hogan-Howe’s review reports, I am sure we will be able to debate what he proposes for regional forces, but I can reassure the hon. Member that local police areas will be a key part of the reforms as they are rolled out and will deal with exactly the problems that he has raised.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
We are giving the police the powers they need to bear down on shop theft, including making it a specific offence to assault retail workers and ending the effective immunity for shop thefts under £200. We are also fighting the organised gangs who often drive these crimes. Our £5 million investment in a specialist intelligence-led policing cell is bringing more criminals to justice.
Robbie Moore
Colin Appleyard Motorcycles in Keighley was recently the victim of a ram raid, which involved a vehicle being used to smash the entrance before a gang of seven individuals entered the business and stole nine off-road bikes worth approximately £80,000. Will the Minister tell me what the Government are doing to work with local police forces such as West Yorkshire police to identify and shut down these Mafia-style criminal gangs that are causing significant harm, distress and suffering for local businesses across Keighley and our wider area?
Sarah Jones
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are completely focused on fighting crime. In West Yorkshire—his area—100 additional officers will be in place by the end of March, which will help us with our drive to tackle crime. As I said, our £5 million investment in the specialist intelligence-led policing unit will help us join the dots and bear down on the serious organised criminals who often drive much of this crime.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
Last week, I met the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, which informed me of increased levels of violence, abuse and intimidation in shops and the retail industry. That includes violence and spitting in people’s faces—horrible crimes. Will my hon. Friend say what measures the Government are taking to protect those mainly lower-paid workers in the workplace?
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend is completely right. That is why we are introducing a specific offence of assault on retail workers, which the previous Government were asked to do repeatedly but failed. That will send a message to anybody who may consider such crimes that they are not acceptable and that action will be taken.
We are also working closely with all the big organisations and retailers in the retail community to target action on those prolific, repeat offenders—we, in our communities, sometimes know who those people are. Through the summer of action last year, we saw real results in bearing down on them. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that charges for shop thefts, which often come with assaults alongside them, rose by 21% last year.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
We are ensuring that neighbourhood officers are focused on tackling issues like antisocial behaviour, which can blight our communities. Through our neighbourhood policing guarantee, every neighbourhood now has a named contactable officer dedicated to tackling crime and ASB in their local area. They will respond to neighbourhood queries within 72 hours. Every force in England and Wales also has a dedicated antisocial behaviour lead and will be publishing local antisocial behaviour action plans in April.
Jim Dickson
I am grateful to the Minister for her reply and for meeting me and others at the end of last year to discuss the troubling and growing trend of the use of catapults to target wildlife and people in Dartford and across Kent? I really appreciate the work she is doing to organise a roundtable soon, where wildlife groups, farming representatives, the police and others will meet to discuss how we can take action to reverse the dangerous and illegal use of catapults. If, after that roundtable, the evidence supports doing so, will she consider adding catapults to the list of offensive weapons, which would enable the police to act promptly and effectively to disarm those using catapults to harm people and wildlife, while protecting legitimate uses?
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for his campaigning and drawing attention to a significant issue in parts of the country, where its impact on wildlife and people seems to be on the rise. I am pleased to have the roundtable and am grateful to him for the advice he has given as we have put that together. Of course, when evidence is there, we will look to see what we can do, whether through legislative change, more policing resources or other measures, because this crime is unacceptable. We are keen to work with him on finding solutions.
Mary Kelly Foy
Residents in Langley Moor, Belmont, Esh Winning, North Road, Pity Me and the Sunderland Road estate are seeing growing levels of antisocial behaviour. From yobs on e-bikes to intimidation of shop workers, public disorder and arson in parks and woodlands, antisocial behaviour is getting out of hand. My constituents do not feel safe and, despite the efforts of our police and crime commissioner, Durham constabulary officer levels remain lower than 2010 due to the outdated funding formula used by previous Governments. Will the Minister reassure my constituents that this Government are investing in policing, with a plan to tackle antisocial behaviour? At present, they are not seeing it.
Sarah Jones
As someone who used to live in Pity Me, I know what a wonderful area it is. I say “live”, but I was at university when I lived there, as did Mo Mowlam when she was at university. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the fact that low-level antisocial behaviour, as it is called, is actually deeply damaging to our communities, and this Government are taking it very seriously. Of course, her area will see, I think, 26 additional officers by the end of this month, and we are bringing forward legislation on respect orders and more powers to tackle theft, public disorder, shop theft and all these things, but I will work with her to make sure we get the results that she and her community deserve.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
Antisocial behaviour in social housing in my community is creating a living nightmare for some council and social housing tenants. Does the Minister agree that if we have prolific offenders responsible for antisocial behaviour from these council houses, the tenants should be asked to leave? They should be kicked out and never given social housing again.
Sarah Jones
I think probably every Member has had cases where antisocial behaviour is ruining lives and it feels like the right action is not taken. In many cases, and certainly in mine, the local authority’s resources have been hollowed out, and enforcement and antisocial behaviour teams are often one of the first to go. The hon. Member is absolutely right: people have to adhere by the agreement they sign when they get a tenancy.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
May I join Members in condemning the attacks last night on the four ambulances? In my constituency of Birmingham Perry Barr, antisocial crime is on the rise, yet since 2010, West Midlands police has had 520 fewer officers to tackle it. Now, thanks to this Government leaving a funding shortfall of £41 million, residents must either pay more council tax to fill the gap or lose another 80 police officers. Labour promised more police officers on our streets, and now they are pedalling backwards on their word. Why should the people of Birmingham, who have seen their council tax rise by 24% over three years, be squeezed even more to keep what little police presence they have?
Sarah Jones
By the end of this month, there will be 3,000 extra officers across our communities in our neighbourhoods and 13,000 by the end of Parliament. An extra £2 billion has gone into policing in the last two Budgets, including over £700 million extra this year that our police forces can use. That is a 4.5% cash increase and a 2.3% real-terms increase. We will invest, but we will also reform, because the problem with policing is that it has been unproductive. We need to make sure our officers are not behind desks, like they were under the last Government, but in our neighbourhoods fighting crime.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
Sadly, as technology becomes entwined in our day-to-day lives, we recognise the threat that tech-enabled harm poses, which is why the violence against women and girls strategy sets out how we are seeking to tackle it. I am pleased to say that, from 1 April, measures under the Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023 will come into force, making it an offence to film where the intent is to cause harassment, alarm or distress because of the victim’s sex.
Wera Hobhouse
Secretly filmed videos of women on nights out have been viewed more than 3 billion times over the last three years, and the videos are often accompanied by vile, degrading comments. These videos have real victims, but they sit in a legal grey area between voyeurism and harassment, so there is very little that the police can currently do. Will the Minister discuss this legal grey area with me, and possibly look at strengthening the law?
Jess Phillips
I am more than happy to discuss the issue with the hon. Lady. I spent this morning in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology with the violence against women and girls sector and Ofcom to look at some of those gaps that she has identified. We will do whatever we can, but absolutely, where it is harassment and is in the public realm, it should be covered by the public sex-based harassment law, but I am more than happy to meet her.
Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
Economic abuse can have devastating impacts on victims, even after the relationship ends. The VAWG strategy included ambitious commitments to tackle economic abuse, and it was considered as a cross-cutting theme in HM Treasury’s financial inclusion strategy. Since 2022, we have funded Surviving Economic Abuse to the tune of £767,000 to strengthen financial systems, raise awareness and support victims.
Fred Thomas
Abusive ex-partners often continue their abuse by withholding funds from children and former partners, deliberately causing financial hardship. That has a huge impact on survivors, forcing them into contact with the perpetrator and enabling their abuser to continue to influence their lives. In Plymouth, I have a constituent who left an abusive relationship, but is now owed £48,000 in child maintenance payments. Despite court orders and liability orders being in place, the money continues not to be paid. Sadly, this is not a rare case limited to Plymouth; I know from speaking to my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) earlier that this is a national problem. How is the Home Office working with the DWP and other agencies to close enforcement gaps and tackle financial abuse effectively?
Jess Phillips
It is not unusual to hear of such cases, and that is why the Department for Work and Pensions sits on the interministerial group on violence against women and girls. The VAWG strategy commits to removing direct pay, which will enable the Child Maintenance Service to manage and transfer payments, preventing the system from being used as a tool of abuse, which has in the past had fatal consequences.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
Following on from the previous question, financial abuse between couples sadly does not always end in separation, and many women struggle to access child maintenance safely. Is the Home Office working with DWP colleagues to strengthen income assessments, such as by using His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs data, and to remove the 2% collect and pay surcharge so survivors can secure child support without direct contact with their abuser?
Jess Phillips
As I said in answer to the previous question, the Department for Work and Pensions is absolutely fundamental and a core part of the interministerial group that works on the violence against women and girls strategy because of the financial tools—not just through mortgages and other assets—that people have and use in cases of domestic abuse and coercive control. It is absolutely vital that we ensure that our benefit system and the state systems that relate to children are not used as a tool for abusers.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
We have set an ambitious but essential target to halve knife crime in a decade, and we are already seeing results. Since the start of this Parliament, knife crime has fallen by 8% and knife homicides are down 27% to their lowest level in a decade, but we must and will go further. We are working on the final plans for our cross-Government plan to halve knife crime, which we will publish soon.
Harpreet Uppal
Child criminal exploitation is a significant driver of knife crime in the UK. Around 15,500 children were identified as at risk or involved in exploitation in the year ending March 2025. Children are often coerced by gangs into carrying weapons for protection, storing drugs and trafficking illegal goods, often being criminalised themselves rather than treated as victims. What work is the Home Office doing to target the organised criminality behind CCE, and what structures are in place to support children and families in vulnerable situations?
Sarah Jones
We are introducing legislation to bring in a new offence of child criminal exploitation. Our county lines programme works extensively not just to tackle the criminals and to shut down the lines, but to safeguard young people. More than 4,000 safeguarding referrals have been made since July 2024, so while we are catching the criminals, we are also protecting the children.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
Knife crime and drugs are destroying too many lives in our country, and stop and search is the best tool we have to take them off our streets. Does the Minister agree that the only people who should have anything to fear from stop and search are criminals? If so, why will she not adopt our proposal to allow the police to act on a single suspicion indicator, so that we can treble stop and search, and take weapons and drugs off our streets?
Sarah Jones
The hon. Gentleman thought that the way to tackle crime was to recruit more officers and put them behind desks, so I will not take any lessons from him. Stop and search is a powerful and important tool in tackling crime—nobody would disagree with that—and it is part of a range of interventions with which we can tackle knife crime. Knife-enabled robbery, for example, has plummeted in areas in which we have focused our resources since the election. We must use all the tools in our armoury, and stop and search is one of them.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)
The Government remain grateful for the generosity shown towards the Ukrainians who sought sanctuary here. The recent 24-month extension of the Ukraine permission extension scheme demonstrates our intention to ensure that people have stability through the Ukraine schemes. The Government have always been clear that that bespoke offer of sanctuary is temporary and in line with the wishes of the Ukrainian Government —that position has not changed. We are, however, monitoring developments in Ukraine and intend to update the House on long-term plans later this year.
Mike Martin
I know that the Minister will listen carefully to this question because he used to live in Tunbridge Wells. Elena is a Ukrainian woman who works in our local hospital. She has not been able to advance her career because her visa restrictions mean that she cannot study. I know that the Government do not want to give the Ukrainians permanent settlement—they have made that very clear—but will the Minister at least devise a pathway by which to give visa security to Ukrainians so that they can study and get mortgages and jobs? They are restricted in their ability to do those things.
Mike Tapp
I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am listening and take these concerns seriously. I assure the House that the UPE scheme provides continuing access to work, benefits and services for those who provide proof of immigration status using a share code. We have been clear that this bespoke cohort is temporary, and we will lay out long-term plans for them later this year.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Alex Norris)
Home Office quarterly statistics show that there were 103,426 individuals in asylum accommodation on 30 December 2025, compared with 108,085 on 30 September 2025 and 96,642 on 30 June 2024. Of course, these time periods are not like-for-like comparisons, but for reference colleagues will be interested to note that in the final September under the previous Government there were more than 119,000 asylum seekers in accommodation, so the comparable figure from September 2025 is well down on that level.
David Simmonds
The figures published by the Home Office show around a 7% rise in the asylum and dispersal accommodation numbers. My Hillingdon constituents would know, because we have the highest number of asylum seekers per capita of any local authority area in the country, and it is putting huge pressure on the supply of temporary accommodation. My local Conservative council argues that it should put the housing needs of long-standing local residents ahead of the needs of those who have newly arrived as asylum seekers. Does the Minister agree?
Alex Norris
I wish that the previous Government—I suspect that the hon. Gentleman would say the same—had used their time to build some houses, because that is the root of our housing crisis. However, it is undoubtedly true that the estate is running hot, which is why he will be pleased to hear of the figures falling from September to September. Without running ahead of its publication, future data is likely to show that trend—one we all support—continuing.
Sarah Bool
Since Labour came to power, the number of people in asylum accommodation—be it in hotels or dispersal accommodation—is up by more than 6,000. With figures like that, no South Northamptonshire resident believes that the Government are tackling this issue, especially given the continued operation of the migrant hotel in my constituency. With better weather coming, boat crossings will increase, so what will the Government do differently to stop the boats, as they promised they would?
Alex Norris
The hon. Lady will know that the statement on asylum policy set out the most significant reforms to the asylum system, certainly in my lifetime. We have already introduced the reduced protection period, we are making quicker and better decisions that ever before, and removals have increased by 30% on our predecessors. Together, such measures are decreasing those numbers—that is from September to September—with perhaps future good news to come.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
May I thank the Minister for the work he is doing to close asylum hotels, including the Crewe Arms hotel, and encourage him to go further still and close the Royal hotel in my constituency? Will he join me in reminding Conservative Members that it was under the Tory Government—prominent members of which now sit on the Benches with the turquoise Tories—that the concept of asylum hotels was invented? Indeed, they presided over the opening up of the business model for small boat crossings in the first place.
Alex Norris
My hon. Friend is right. Reform Members say they are a new voice in politics, but they look very similar to the old voice if you ask me. The important thing, which his constituents will know, is that the Tories opened those hotels when in government, and it will be Labour that closes them.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
On 30 June 2024, 96,642 people were in asylum accommodation. Latest figures show that there are now more than 103,000, so despite the creative interpretation, that number has gone up, not down. There is a distinct lack of gang-smashing, crossings are up by 45%, and the Government’s new border security commander has already given up and quit. When will the Government accept that their approach is making things significantly worse?
Alex Norris
I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that creativity is pointing at different dates in the calendar for a profile that he knows has seasonal elements to it, and trying to compare them as like for like—he knows that that does not work. He was, however, kind to give me the opportunity to say that work on tackling organised immigration crime is at its record level, with a 37% increase under this Government and 5,000 disruptions. That is serious work. Conservative Members will throw rocks from the sideline, but that is what they do, isn’t it?
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
The Home Secretary’s authoritarian tendencies often please the Reform party and the Tories, but some Labour Members are apparently less happy with that approach to immigration and asylum. In particular, changes to indefinite leave to remain risk busting efforts at social cohesion while harming public services and the economy, and creating unworkable bureaucracy in the Home Office. Liberal Democrats have expressed concerns about those proposals, and many Labour Back Benchers are reportedly very unhappy. Does the Home Secretary feel comfortable that she might be reliant on support from the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) and the Tories to force through her flagship project?
Alex Norris
I am slightly concerned if the hon. Gentleman thinks that people who come as part of economic migration schemes are in some way in the asylum population, as those two things are significantly different. Nevertheless, we have made significant proposals in that space, including increasing the main basis time to settlement to 10 years, with the ability to earn based on working, not committing crimes, and learning the English language—all sensible changes. Our consultation, which closed last month, had more than 200,000 responses, and we are looking at them closely.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)
We have discussed the introduction of visa brakes across Government, including the impact on Chevening scholars. Chevening scholarships continue to attract and support exceptional future leaders across the globe, and will continue to do so. Restoring order and control to our system is a top priority. Through the visa brake we are acting quickly and decisively to address high numbers and proportions of visa-linked asylum claims. By the year ending September 2025, asylum applications from students from Afghanistan, Cameroon, Myanmar and Sudan had risen to over 470% of their 2021 level.
Siân Berry
Including prestigious Chevening scholarships in the Government’s clampdown on certain study visas is devastating for those who have been shortlisted, including students who are set to join our world-leading programmes at Sussex University. It raises questions about the value that the Government put on nurturing talent, particularly for women from Afghanistan, from whom I have seen heartbreaking accounts of terminated applications. Will the Minister and the Home Secretary urgently revisit that decision?
Mike Tapp
I have laid out the concerns, and the reasons for this brake. For example, 93% of those coming over from Afghanistan as students are claiming asylum. The Green party may well want open borders; that is not what we stand for. We stand for control and order, but, at the same time, compassion. That is exactly why we are looking at safe and legal routes, while working to control the borders.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
We are delivering the cross-Government freedom from violence and abuse strategy, published in December, which sets out concrete actions for halving VAWG in a decade by preventing violence and abuse, pursuing perpetrators, and supporting victims. As part of that, we have already launched our behaviour change campaign, rolled out domestic abuse protection orders, and embedded domestic abuse specialists in police control rooms under Raneem’s law.
Catherine Fookes
Survivors in Monmouthshire tell me that economic abuse not only featured in their relationships, but stopped them rebuilding their lives long after they left. For some, the separation compromised their business. Others face continued control through child maintenance disputes. In what measurable ways will the VAWG strategy tackle economic abuse, and how will progress on that be reported to the House and elsewhere?
Jess Phillips
In the launch of the violence against women and girls strategy, I committed to annually updating the House on progress across a number of metrics—both the overarching metrics, and those that sit in different Government Departments, some of which are having to take responsibility for this issue for the first time. On working with the financial sector and regulators, the strategy talks about exploring how financial products, including joint mortgages, can be used as a tool of abuse. We will work with Departments, such as the Treasury, on exactly how we can monitor progress against all our aims, and I will report on that annually.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
One of my constituents suffered such coercive violence that her partner forced her to allow him back into the home. She could not tell anyone, and he continued to assault her daily. She reported the behaviour to the police, but they did very little. He is in prison for less than five years, and authorities are concerned that he will target her again when he is released. What is the Minister doing to ensure that women are properly protected against coercive violence, and that ex-partners face justice, so that we end this awful cycle of violence?
Jess Phillips
I send all my sympathy to the hon. Gentleman’s constituent, who sounds like she has had a terrible ordeal. Off the top of my head, one measure that the Government have rolled out is the domestic abuse protection order, which gives police the power of arrest, if it is breached. It is the first domestic abuse order that can be taken out for coercive and controlling behaviour. The evidence so far on the police response to those orders, compared with other orders, has been really heartening. We will roll them out across the country.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
I want to address the terrible scenes in Golders Green last night, where four Jewish community ambulances were set on fire. Mercifully, no one was hurt. For that, we owe our thanks to the police and fire services, which responded with speed and professionalism. An investigation is under way. The Metropolitan police are treating this as an antisemitic hate crime, and have stepped up their support to Jewish communities across London. The fact that the attack was directed at Hatzola, a community ambulance service and an institution devoted to saving lives, illustrates how warped those behind the attack are.
I am pleased that the Health Secretary is providing replacement ambulances, but clearly justice is required. There have, as yet, been no arrests, but the perpetrators must be in no doubt: we will pursue them and make them face the consequences of this wicked crime. I urge anyone with information to contact the police, who have the full support of my Department. The incident comes at a time of soaring antisemitism in our country, and today my message to our Jewish community is clear: we stand with you, we will do everything in our power to protect you, and we will fight relentlessly to rid our society of antisemitism.
Mary Kelly Foy
I congratulate Maya’s law campaigners, particularly Maya’s great-aunts Gemma and Rachael, on their passion and tenacity in lobbying MPs to support their campaign to improve child protection laws in the UK. Does the Minister agree with me that it is unforgiveable for someone who is supposed to look after a child to hurt them instead? Will the Minister ensure that the debate that my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) has secured on Maya’s law receives the full support of the Government?
Shabana Mahmood
The circumstances outlined by my hon. Friend are obviously horrifying. It is abhorrent for anyone entrusted with the care of a child to cause harm to them. I assure her that the Government will absolutely engage fully and constructively with the debate that she mentions.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I have come to the House directly from Golders Green, where I have visited the scene of the appalling attack on the Hatzola ambulance service. I strongly urge the Home Secretary to visit as well. I thank the police, fire service and Hatzola volunteers for their response in the early hours of this morning. The members of the Jewish community who I spoke to this morning in Golders Green feel under attack, so what more can the Home Secretary say about the Government’s plans to protect the Jewish community, including potentially by using counter-terrorism-style surveillance powers to identify and disrupt antisemitic attacks before they occur? Does the Home Secretary agree that calls on our streets at marches for jihad and intifada are calls for violence that fuel antisemitism, and does she agree that they should no longer be allowed? Finally, will she ensure that all antisemites and extremists who are not British citizens get deported?
Shabana Mahmood
I assure the shadow Home Secretary and, most importantly, the whole of the British Jewish community—not just those in Golders Green—that this Government take the rise in antisemitism that we have seen across our country very seriously. We are approaching this issue with a whole-of-Government response. My colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Education and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government are all taking forward the Government’s social cohesion action plan and taking specific measures to tackle antisemitic hate crime. There must be zero tolerance of antisemitism; I know that across this House, there is unanimity on that, from all Members. The shadow Home Secretary knows that we have an independent review on public order and hate crime legislation. We will bring forward more proposals in due course, but we will never tolerate antisemitism in our country.
Chris Philp
I will pursue these questions with the Security Minister, when he gives his statement later.
Media reports suggest that the Home Secretary is under pressure from the former Deputy Prime Minister on her indefinite leave to remain policy, so will the Home Secretary tell the House who is running the Government’s immigration policy now? Is it her, or is it the former Deputy Prime Minister? Will the Home Secretary confirm to the House now—
Mr Speaker
Order. I say to Members on both Front Benches that these are topical questions, and Members from all parties are waiting to ask them. I gave the shadow Home Secretary a lot of leeway during his first question; he has already asked one, and is coming in with another. That is not acceptable to any of the Back-Bench Members who I am trying to look after. Please ask one question during topicals. There will be a statement shortly on the subject that he asked about. It is a very important issue, and I am very concerned about it, but I have to allow Back Benchers time to ask their questions. It is unfair of Members on the Front Benches to take up that time.
Shabana Mahmood
I have almost forgotten the shadow Home Secretary’s question, but the assertion he just made is absolute rubbish. He knows that the Government have already said that we will consult on the changes that we wish to make, and I will bring forward those proposals in due course.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
My hon. Friend is right to raise this matter, because misinformation and disinformation seek to undermine our institutions and divide our communities. The defending democracy taskforce is addressing these threats through a whole-of-society approach, and we are also working closely with partners to hold platforms accountable for harmful content under the Online Safety Act 2023.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
The agreement to fund French police activities to prevent small boats from leaving the French coast is about to run out. That risks the resumption of higher numbers of small boat crossings, which place lives at risk and undermine efforts to bring control to the asylum system in this country. Many in the Home Secretary’s own party are crying out for the Government to speed up reintegration with the EU, and public opinion on the failures of Brexit is now clear. Will she go to Cabinet colleagues and advise them that it would be easier to fix the asylum system if we had a much closer relationship with Europe?
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Alex Norris)
The hon. Gentleman knows that we work very closely with our European counterparts, especially France, our nearest neighbour. He mentions the important work that we do together, which has prevented 40,000 crossings since we took office; we want that work to continue. We are having those conversations with France at the moment, and I do not think he would expect me to negotiate from the Dispatch Box.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
Without wanting to step in on the operational independence of my hon. Friend’s local police force, I am very happy to have a meeting with him to talk about this issue. I take a keen interest in custody suites, and with arrests up by 5% under this Labour Government in the last year, we need to ensure that we are running them properly.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
Sarah Jones
I think Boris Johnson closed a lot more front counters than Sadiq Khan has, but that is a different issue. We are putting more funding into frontline policing. We want police on our streets and in our neighbourhoods—not behind desks, as they were under the previous Government—and that is where the public want to see them.
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
Sarah Jones
As well as increasing the number of police officers on our streets and in our neighbourhoods, we are introducing respect orders to tackle antisocial behaviour. We are seeing shop theft charges going up in our town centres, and we are taking a targeted approach in policing, so that we really tackle our town centres. We take antisocial behaviour very seriously. We will continue to ensure that we make our streets safer—and they are becoming safer. They will be even safer when we have 13,000 additional officers on our streets.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
Sarah Jones
We are ensuring that each police force has the additional funding that it needs, and we are rolling out our target of 13,000 additional police officers. The hon. Gentleman asks an interesting question about new towns and ensuring that we have policing in them. We are reviewing the police funding formula, which is outdated, as everyone in this place knows. Through all those things together, we will ensure that his community is supported.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s commitment to community sponsorship of refugees who come here under proposed new safe and legal routes; we have several good examples of that in my constituency. What steps is she taking, in line with the recent asylum policy statement, to allow more communities like mine to sponsor refugees and support the Government’s safe and legal routes programme?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. and learned Friend knows that we have announced three specific types of safe and legal route for students and workers, as well as a community sponsorship scheme. The student scheme will go live later this year, with the first applicants arriving in the autumn of next year. We are designing the community sponsorship route with community organisations and international partners. I am sure that he will want to make representations on what his community wants to contribute to the new routes, but the design is under way, and the routes will be rolled out in due course.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
Dan Jarvis
As the hon. Gentleman knows, these are matters that we take very seriously and are addressing through the work of the defending democracy taskforce.
Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)
I am currently supporting a constituent who, after leaving her abuser, was locked out of her home, left with thousands of pounds of arrears that had been run up in her name, and denied access to her own bank account. Does the Minister agree that post-separation abuse is too often overlooked and still not recognised widely enough? What steps is she taking to better protect victims?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The violence against women and girls strategy will focus on the specific issue of ensuring that services such as the police get it right about post-separation coercive and controlling behaviour.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Sarah Jones
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Rural waste crime is completely unacceptable; it is often driven by larger, serious organised criminal gangs, and we are determined to bear down on it.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)
The Home Secretary has been commendably robust in her response to antisemitism and attacks on Jewish institutions, particularly since the two members of the congregation at Heaton Park synagogue were killed. After that attack, the Macdonald inquiry was set up to look into hate crime and public order. I think this afternoon is the first time that we have heard that that inquiry is not going to report until May, when it was promised for February this year. Can the Home Secretary speed it up, please?
Shabana Mahmood
It is an independent review. I am in constant discussion with Lord Macdonald, who has requested a short extension in order to deal with the matters comprehensively. It is right that the independent review has the time it needs, but it will be brought forward very soon.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Sarah Jones
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that England and Wales policing, which I am responsible for, will get the support it needs and bear down on criminals in exactly the way it should.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I regularly meet lead stakeholders in my constituency who work passionately to keep children safe and reduce knife crime. What work are the Government doing with grassroots organisations to support them in their work to prevent knife crime?
Sarah Jones
This Government fund violence reduction units. Where we do not have them, our police and crime commissioners make sure that we are funding a raft of organisations that know what is happening on the ground, what the right interventions are, and how we can drag children out of crime and into making better choices. I see that in my constituency, and I know my hon. Friend sees it in hers. As she knows, those community leaders are the bedrock, and we must support them as much as we can.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
Shabana Mahmood
I am, and will always be, a very proud British Muslim.
Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)
I commend Northumbria police for overseeing a huge and safe policing operation at the Newcastle-Sunderland match over the weekend, one of the many matches successfully policed every season. However, given that those officers are taken from normal day jobs in response teams, neighbourhood policing and so forth, does the Minister agree that it is time to think about the Premier League contributing more than the 20% it currently contributes to those costs, so that we can put that money back into policing?
Sarah Jones
Yes, and we are looking at that issue as we speak, making sure that we strike the right balance. At the moment, there is a huge cost to policing from football matches and other events more widely that is not covered. That support is not there, so we think it is right that we look at the issue.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Small boat returns run at around 6% of the total numbers arriving in this country, but the Home Secretary denies that this is anything to do with the European Convention on Human Rights. If not the ECHR, which part of the Government’s flawed policy is responsible for that feeble rate?
Alex Norris
The hon. Gentleman will have heard me say that under this Government, removals have now reached 60,000. That is up by 31% on our predecessors, so I cannot accept the argument that we are not removing people at pace and at scale. The routes by which people come generally depend on which country they come from and how likely they are to have their claim accepted.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
My constituent was just 13 months old when she came to this country. As a teenager, she was taken into care. She was then groomed and exploited in county lines and is now serving time in prison. Why are this Government deporting her, when she has only known this country? Will they instead look at giving her proper rehabilitation and getting her life back on track?
Alex Norris
The Secretary of State has a strict legal liability to remove anybody who gets a sentence of a year or more and, from today, anyone who gets a suspended sentence of a year or more. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend has raised an important case. If she sends the details, I will look at it closely.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The Government are making top-up payments to asylum support enablement cards, but have refused to answer my written parliamentary questions regarding how many payments have been made and how much is being spent. That is even though that is information the Department must have. It is held digitally, and the accounting officer under chapter 3 of “Managing Public Money” has a duty to demonstrate that such payments constitute value for money. Can the Home Secretary say why she is covering up this information?
Alex Norris
If the right hon. Gentleman checks the record, he will see that I answer an awful lot of questions from colleagues on a daily basis. I seek to give the fullest available information, so that we can have the best and most based in fact debate on what is a very contentious issue. I will have to look more closely at the element he raises, but he will know from his time in government that cost and person time are factors in what we can and cannot pull together to release.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
In the past few weeks, the Home Secretary has announced a whole swathe of new restrictive asylum and immigration policies which, as we know from over the weekend, are at best contentious. When will we have a vote on them?
Alex Norris
The hon. Gentleman secured and hosted a good debate on this subject only last week. It was well subscribed, and we had a very good conversation. As he is well experienced in this place, he will know that when we need primary legislation, there will be primary legislation. When we need secondary legislation, there will be secondary legislation. If things are a matter for policy, they will be a matter for policy.
Middle East
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
I want to update the House on the UK military operations in the middle east, but before I do so let me express my total disgust at the antisemitic attack in north London overnight. Our thoughts are with the Jewish community today. The House will have a statement on the attack from the Security Minister after this statement.
I will start this statement by thanking every single person across defence. They are working flat out, whether they are our senior leaders, our junior ranks—military and civilians alike—our planners in Permanent Joint Headquarters, our counter-drone units protecting coalition bases, our air defence teams in Cyprus, our fast jet pilots across the region or our sailors in the eastern Mediterranean. I say to them, on behalf of the House: you are proving yet again that you are the best of Britain in action.
In the fast-moving events in the middle east, we are maintaining a clear, consistent approach. As I said in my statement to the House last week, the UK Government’s decisions and actions are founded on three principles. The first principle is defensive and taking the necessary action to strengthen our collective defence. That is why I have been putting vital military assets into the region since January. The second principle is co-ordination with allies, and leading and co-ordinating our responses with NATO allies and with partners, including the US, the G7, the E5 and Gulf nations. The third principle is ensuring a legal basis for our decisions, allowing Ministers to make sound choices and allowing our military to operate with the fullest confidence. UK action remains grounded in those principles and our purpose: to protect British people, protect British bases and protect British allies.
Iran is a threat to us all. It is lashing out, and its attacks across the region are escalating. Since the start of the war it has attacked 12 countries, and has fired more than 3,500 ballistic missiles and drones. Both military and civilians are in its sights. Oil refineries have been bombed, embassies and bases have been targeted, and commercial ships have been hit. Some allies, such as France and the United States, have had service personnel killed, and the House will want to join me in offering our condolences to their families and to their comrades. In conflict it is never possible to remove risk, but I am able to say that all UK personnel so far are fully accounted for.
Iran’s attacks are widespread and disruptive. I can confirm to the House that in the early hours of Friday morning two Iranian missiles were launched in the direction of Diego Garcia, our joint UK and US base. One fell short of its target, while the other was brought down short of its target. Neither got close to Diego Garcia. The UK was not required to take action, and normal operations continue. I totally condemn Iran’s reckless attacks. Iran must stop; it must de-escalate. We want to see this war end now.
My priority as Defence Secretary is the protection of UK personnel, and I continue to keep the force protection across the region at the very highest levels. Those measures are reviewed daily by both the Chief of the Defence Staff and the Chief of Joint Operations to ensure that our personnel are as safe as possible. We know, however, that Iran’s aggression and intent reach beyond the middle east, so we continue to track the potential threats here at home. Over the last year we have been boosting our defence, including our cyber defences, and tightening base security. I want to thank the military police and Police Scotland for their quick work to arrest and then charge two individuals who approached the Clyde base last week and unsuccessfully attempted to enter.
Let me turn to our UK defensive operations in the region. Since January, weeks before this conflict started, we took significant steps to pre-position Typhoons, F-35s, counter-drone teams, radars and air defences in the region. Those advanced preparations made a real difference, and meant that from day one we have been defending actively and mounting those actions to protect ourselves and to protect our allies. When Iran started hitting out, putting British people and British allies and service personnel at risk, I committed further resources to the region, including more fighter jets, helicopters and a warship.
RAF and Navy pilots have now racked up nearly 900 flying hours in defence of Cyprus, Jordan, Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. We have more jets in the region than we have had at any time in the last 15 years. There are an extra 500 air defence personnel in Cyprus, and as more military capabilities are committed to the eastern Mediterranean, we are working closely with the Republic of Cyprus to co-ordinate the contributions of allies, including the US, France and Greece, to reinforce the security of Cyprus. I can confirm that HMS Dragon has arrived in the eastern Mediterranean, and will tonight begin operational integration into Cyprus’s defence alongside allies. More widely, UK Space Command is monitoring daily Iranian missile activity, and provided early warning to our armed forces and our allies operating across the region.
Our military and our industry in the UK have a shared mission: to step up support and to help defend Gulf partners during this conflict. Last week, we brought together Gulf ambassadors, defence attachés and UK defence firms, and the Ministry of Defence has now established Taskforce Sabre with industry to support partners across the middle east with rapid procurement. We will soon deploy lightweight multiple launchers to Bahrain, along with training, and we will deploy Rapid Sentry to Kuwait. Rapid Sentry is a battle-tested, ground-based air defence missile system that has already proved highly effective for UK forces in taking down drones in the region.
I turn to the strait of Hormuz. People and businesses are increasingly worried about the economic impact of this war, and the Prime Minister will chair a Cobra meeting later this afternoon to discuss the economic impact, which I will attend. Iran is holding the strait of Hormuz hostage by laying mines, targeting ships—including red ensign vessels—and putting lives in danger. This is complex, and any resolution requires close work with allies and multinational support. The UK, along with 29 other nations, signed a joint statement late last week that condemned in the strongest terms the attacks on unarmed ships, strongly backed the freedom of navigation, and expressed our readiness
“to contribute to appropriate efforts to ensure safe passage through the Strait.”
I discussed this matter with E5 Defence Ministers last week, and we have now deployed UK military planners to US Central Command to develop options. We are looking to accelerate new UK minehunting and drone technology, and on Friday we confirmed that the current permission that we have given for the US to use UK bases for defensive strikes against specific Iranian targets extends to missile sites and capabilities that threaten the strait of Hormuz. We are determined to ensure that the UK plays a leading role in securing the strait, so that commercial ships can move freely and confidently again.
This House knows that the demands on defence are rising. While we rightly focus on dealing with the immediate conflict in the middle east, we will continue to step up our support to Ukraine, to fulfil our NATO commitments, to sign vital defence contracts, and to deal with Putin’s serious threats to the High North. This House also knows that our adversaries will want us distracted and may try to take advantage of events in the middle east for their own gain. We will not let them. As a Government, we remain determined to make Britain safer, more secure at home and strong abroad.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
May I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, and for the briefing I received from his officials this afternoon? I join him in putting on record my utter condemnation of the arson attack committed in Golders Green last night. On behalf of the Opposition, I offer our sympathy to all who were affected and to the wider Jewish community. I also join the Secretary of State in expressing our condolences to the families of all allied personnel who have lost their lives in the current conflict, and in thanking the police for preventing potentially serious nefarious activity at Faslane.
The potential economic ramifications for our constituents from Iran’s aggressive closure of the strait of Hormuz should concern us all. In that context, can the Defence Secretary tell the House what he understands to be the implications of the US President’s latest remarks, specifically on deferring strikes on power plants? Can he also tell us what further naval capability he intends to deploy to assist in securing the strait of Hormuz?
It is extremely concerning that Iran fired long-range ballistic missiles at UK sovereign territory on Diego Garcia. I am grateful for the Defence Secretary’s update, but why did it take so long for the Government to confirm something that the whole world had been reporting on, and what action will he take to respond to those wholly unjustified attacks? Can he confirm whether the potential firing range of this Iranian missile implies that it could reach well into Europe?
When it comes to our own air defence, it is very welcome that the RAF Regiment has excelled in using Rapid Sentry, procured under the previous Government, to intercept multiple drones, and we pay tribute to all our personnel in the region at the present moment. We also welcome the fact that this capability is now being deployed to support our allies in the region, and we hope that the air defence system the Secretary of State is sending to Bahrain will be in position as soon as possible.
However, we note reports that at least one of the Iranian missiles fired at Diego Garcia was intercepted by a US destroyer. Is it correct that the US intercepted this missile before the Government decided on Saturday to grant the US further permission for the use of our bases? Does this not once again underline Labour’s extraordinary double standards in that, until their latest U-turn, the Government had been relying on the US to defend us while denying it the use of our bases? The reports that an Iranian missile headed for Diego Garcia was intercepted by a US destroyer underline the critical importance of our Type 45s to our own air defence, so while we welcome HMS Dragon finally arriving, does the Secretary of State regret not sending her much sooner?
As the Secretary of State knows, the Type 45 Sea Viper air defence system relies on Aster missiles. Last week, I wrote to urge him to use HM Treasury reserve funding for the middle east operations to urgently procure the missiles needed, including the lightweight multi-role missile for the Wildcat and Rapid Sentry, ASRAAM—advanced short-range air-to-air missile—for our fighter jets, and Aster for the Type 45s. Since then, he has confirmed the order of the LMM, which I welcome. Will he now use the reserve to order more air defence missiles for our ships and fighter planes?
If our Type 45s are to intercept the most sophisticated ballistic missiles, they need the Sea Viper system upgraded to Sea Viper Evolution, which I have repeatedly asked Ministers to accelerate, as it is currently scheduled to enter service in 2032. When I was a Defence Minister, HMS Diamond, which was under attack by the Houthis in the Red sea, was using expensive missiles to intercept cheap drones, so I scrapped a load of red tape to accelerate the in-service date of our DragonFire anti-drone laser from 2032 to next year. Will the Secretary of State take similar steps to accelerate Sea Viper?
There is, of course, a problem. In a written answer about Sea Viper Evolution that I received in January, the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry responded:
“Continued progress…remains subject to”—
guess what?—
“the Defence Investment Plan.”
In Defence oral questions on 15 December, there were just four sitting days left before the rise of the House, and the Secretary of State could not tell us whether the Government would publish the DIP before recess. Given that there are once again just four sitting days left before recess and that he must know his diary for the week ahead, can he tell us whether the defence investment plan will be published before the rise of the House on Thursday, and if not, will he publish it during purdah? Above all, if the DIP is not going to be published this week, will he—to break the logjam with the Treasury—urge the Chancellor to take the difficult decisions required to set a course for spending 3% on defence in this Parliament, not the next?
Finally, surely even the Secretary of State can see that hypothetical legal action under the United Nations convention on the law of the sea by a country without a navy or a standing army is less of a threat to our base on Diego Garcia than long-range missiles fired by Iran. Is not the best way that he could stand up for our sovereign territory of Diego Garcia be scrapping Labour’s crazy Chagos deal and spending every penny on the British armed forces?
John Healey
I welcome the shadow Secretary of State’s initial comments about the loss of French and US personnel, and I recognise and respect those. He asked me, first, about the comments from President Trump today. I am sure the whole House will welcome President Trump’s statement today, with its recognition that there is progress in conversations about the
“COMPLETE AND TOTAL RESOLUTION OF OUR HOSTILITIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST”,
and his instruction to hold off further strikes against Iranian power plants. That creates the opportunity and opening for further de-escalation, and the onus is now on Iran to respond.
The shadow Secretary of State went on to the strikes that I have reported on, or the missiles fired in the direction of, Diego Garcia. I just say to him that we have been blunt and open about the threat Iran poses—the threat it poses to British nationals, British bases and British interests and partners—and to suggest otherwise is completely false. That is why we have been conducting the defensive operations throughout the region since day one of this war. Those missiles were fired towards Diego Garcia early on Friday morning, the same day I offered the shadow Defence Secretary the chance to come into the MOD for a secure briefing. I welcome his thanks for that, but he, as a former Defence Minister, will know that no Government routinely comment on the detail of such threats, due to the nature of intelligence sharing. He will also know that no Government immediately confirm such events, partly because in any conflict events are fast-moving, but mainly because to do so may put at risk the safety of military personnel or compromise ongoing operations. I just say to the hon. Gentleman that he should bear that in mind for the future.
I want to reassure the public, however, on the concern that the hon. Gentleman raises about long-range Iranian missiles and any question of Iran targeting the UK, and to say, quite clearly, that there is no assessment that we are being targeted in the UK in that way. We have the resources and the alliances in place to keep the United Kingdom safe from any kind of attack. We operate a layered defence of this United Kingdom. Our Navy, our RAF and our Army are all involved, and we operate our defence with other NATO allies. That layered defence against missiles or any other sort of threat is an important part of keeping this country safe.
It seems to have taken a war in the middle east for the hon. Gentleman to realise that air and missile defence systems for the UK are important. [Interruption.] No, because in the last year of his Government, they slashed defence spending on ground-based air defence by 70%. When he was Defence Minister, he promised a munitions strategy, which he never published and was never funded. It was down to this Government, last June, as part of the strategic defence review, to announce an extra £1 billion for air and missile defence above the Tory plans that he left. It is the UK, under this Government, that has been leading NATO’s DIAMOND—delivering integrated air and missile operational networked defences—air and missile defence initiative. It is this Government who in this year alone have boosted spending on counter-drone systems fivefold from his last year in government, and spending on ground-based air defence systems by 50%. It is this Government who are delivering for defence after 14 years of underfunding and hollowing out under the previous Government.
I have to say that I am still very confused about the Conservatives’ position on the war in Iran. One week, the Leader of the Opposition said that UK jets must “go to the source” in Iran and that “we are in this war” whether we like it or not. Then the next week, she said:
“I never said we should join”.
The week after that, the shadow Defence Secretary said on Sky News that there are no easy answers to this.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman talks about defence investment planning and spending. We are working to finalise the DIP, but he was, of course, the Defence Minister who left 47 out of 49 major defence programmes not on budget, not on time. He was the one who left a defence programme that was over-committed, underfunded and deeply unsuited to the threats we now face. It is this Government, a Labour Government, who are now delivering for defence: 1,200 major contracts signed since July 2024, 84% of them awarded to British businesses, and the largest increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Ind)
The Iranian regime is a threat to us all, not least to its own population. I implore Ministers to remember the importance of a debate in Parliament, just as we had on Iraq, if we move further in our involvement with Trump’s war.
John Healey
The Mother of the House speaks with long and deep experience of these matters. I would just say to her that the Prime Minister himself has said that while we are taking
“the necessary action to defend ourselves and our allies, we will not be drawn into the wider war.”
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. We are four weeks on from the start of President Trump’s illegal assault on Iran, and still there is no plan and no end in sight. It is not Trump or his partner in this ill-conceived war, Netanyahu, who is paying the price, but hard-pressed British families who are seeing it in their energy bills and at the petrol pump, billions around the world who are suffering the economic fallout, and more than 100 little girls who will never be coming home from school. Rather than de-escalating the crisis, Trump is just making more threats; instead of accepting responsibility, he is pointing fingers at allies, including Britain.
There is much that I hope the House can agree on at this critical moment—most importantly, that Britain’s interests are served only by rapid de-escalation of hostilities. Liberal Democrats have not wavered from this view, which in many ways reflects the broadly responsible approach that this Government, including the Defence Secretary, have taken to the war, emphasising the need for multilateral diplomacy while protecting our personnel and citizens under immediate threat in the region. None the less, the Government’s decision over the weekend to expand the use of UK bases for US strikes is grave and risks dragging Britain down the slope of Trump’s war. It appears to be a significant shift in the Government’s position.
I therefore wish to ask the Secretary of State three questions. First, does he agree that the Government’s definition of “defensive” is different today from when the House last sat? Secondly, will he commit to releasing in full the legal advice that the Government have received about this latest expansion of the rights of US planes to use UK bases? Thirdly, will he support Liberal Democrat-proposed legislation to ensure proper monitoring of US sorties conducted from UK bases, to ensure that they are truly defensive in nature?
John Healey
The country’s best interests are served by our actions both before and since the start of this period of the war—actions taken to defend our personnel, our bases, our allies and our interests throughout the region. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that our interests are served best by an end to the conflict, which we want to see happen now. We therefore welcome President Trump’s move to step back from further attacks on Iranian power plants and oil infrastructure, which creates the opportunity for further de-escalation, which the hon. Gentleman calls for. I hope that he would recognise that the onus is now on Iran to respond in kind.
In response to the hon. Gentleman’s specific question, there has been no change in the principles on which our approach, action and decisions are based. These are permissions for the US to use UK bases for defensive action, as it is striking at the very Iranian sites and capabilities that are attacking our interests and those of our partners in the region.
Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)
The Secretary of State is right to draw to attention to the fact that when he became Secretary of State, our armed forces were underfunded and very stretched. He and his team and the Government have done much to improve that, including bringing about additional funding for the armed forces. However, I am concerned that this further commitment, because of what is happening in Iran, will put a lot of strain on our already overstretched armed forces, and I am concerned about the sustainability of our continuing investment there. What discussions are taking place in Government to accelerate expenditure to at least 3% in this Parliament and as quickly as possible?
John Healey
Having been a Defence Minister and having served for some time on the Defence Committee, my hon. Friend is more knowledgeable than perhaps anyone else in the House about defence matters. I appreciate his recognition of the way that, since the election, we have stepped up the scale of investment in autonomous systems, counter-drone systems and integrated missile and air defence systems, all of which were badly lacking under the previous Government. He will have followed an important speech that the Prime Minister gave three or four weeks ago at Munich, in which he recognised, as this House does, that demands on defence are rising; that this is an era of hard power, strong alliances and sure diplomacy; and that we need to spend more, faster, on defence.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I remind Defence Ministers yet again that they should be comparing increases in defence expenditure not with the post-cold war years, but with what we used to spend on defence during the cold war years, which was between 4.5% and 5% of GDP? Can the Secretary of State look the House straight in the eye, as it were, and say that, given the very close relationship between China and the Mauritians, which includes a 25-year treaty of co-operation, it would be a sounder situation if Mauritius had sovereignty over Diego Garcia and we were only lessees to them?
John Healey
I respect the right hon. Gentleman, and the straight answer to his question is yes, I can. The deal that we have in place, which is awaiting ratification, would give us operational sovereignty over Diego Garcia for at least 99 years. This base is central and essential to our and the US’ security and military around the world. The deal now on the table, which we have negotiated with the Mauritians, gives us greater protections in the waters around the island and a greater veto over developments on the other islands. It is so much better than the deal the previous Government left when they left office, reached after 11 rounds of negotiation.
Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)
I join my right hon. Friend in paying tribute to members of the armed forces, and I acknowledge too the difficult path that he has to tread. The Government’s stated objective was to achieve de-escalation of this war led by diplomacy, yet the truth is that the US planes leaving British soil, which he authorised without parliamentary consent, are carrying not diplomats but heavy payloads. The Secretary of State said that he wants these actions to be legal. What protocols has he agreed with the United States to ensure that those bombers are operating within national and international law and in a defensive capacity only? Anything else leads to a slippery slope from defence into offence.
John Healey
The permissions that we have granted in response to specific US requests are for operations restricted to defensive legal purposes that strike at the capabilities that are doing most to hold at risk and attack our interests, allies and personnel. It is part of an established system of requesting such basing operations, with a system that ensures that the US respects the permissions that it has requested. That system allows us to ensure that that is, and continues to be, the case.
On de-escalation, I hope that my hon. Friend recognises and was encouraged by the leadership that the Prime Minister and the UK played at the end of last week, when we led the work that has produced a statement now signed by 29 other countries calling for the co-ordinated development of options and the condemnation of Iran’s attacks and closure of the strait of Hormuz. It also recognises the enormous impact that this is having across the world, including for people and businesses in this country, about which so many are so concerned.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
There is a glaring contradiction between the Defence Secretary’s statement, which refers to
“taking the necessary action to strengthen our collective defence,”
and announcing to the House that we will have another recess without the defence investment plan. Does he recognise that last year the Defence Committee, which has a majority of Labour Members on it, said that
“demand signals will not exist until the Defence Investment Plan is published”?
At a time when so many of our allies have invested in defence, does he not recognise that delaying the plan is likely to stoke inflation, undermining the spend as and when it comes?
John Healey
We are working flat out to finalise the plan, but it has not held up important decisions that we have made. Since the election, we have been able to let over 1,200 major contracts, the majority of which are with British businesses and British firms, creating British jobs, reinforcing the innovation base in this country and demonstrating that defence under this Government is becoming an engine for growth.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
The availability of Type 45s is a direct result of the severe defence cuts enacted by the Conservatives in 2010, so I am incredulous that they comment on their availability without giving an apology. However, while we recognise that perhaps there is not an Iranian missile capable of travelling the 2,000 km to the Chagos islands, will my right hon. Friend recognise that, were there to be one, that would show a worrying proliferation of technology from North Korea and Russia, and that shows we must continue to support Ukraine in its war against Russia?
John Healey
I do indeed. My hon. Friend speaks with the authority of his service experience and his service on the Defence Committee. He reminds the House, as I did at the end of my statement, that with all eyes on the middle east, we cannot lift our focus and deflect our priority from stepping up support for Ukraine, and, as the strategic Defence review encourages us to do, learning the lessons from Ukraine. He is right to remind the Conservative party that during its 14 years in office it cut the number of frigates and destroyers by a quarter, and the number of minehunters by more than a half, and in its first five years the defence budget was cut by fully £12 billion.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The Secretary of State talked a lot in his statement about British hardware, but coercing an adversary also requires us to understand their war aims and their beliefs. In Iraq, we learned late about the need to develop cultural awareness. Martyrdom is central to Shi’a Islam and viewed as redemptive suffering. Alongside all the kit that the Secretary of State talked about, will the Government also invest in cultural capability?
John Healey
I am a somewhat simple man, and I am not clear what cultural capability really means. If the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me with his proposition, I would be happy to have a look at it.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
One of the clearest lessons of the Chilcot inquiry was that the UK must be prepared to say no to the US when British interests, legal standards and global stability are at risk. Will the Government hold firm and not be drawn further into this conflict by a so-called ally whose conduct is unpredictable, insulting, destabilising and, in my view, deranged?
John Healey
Let me say again that while we are taking the necessary action to defend our interests and our allies, as the Prime Minister has made clear to the House and in public, we will not get drawn into the wider war.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State is right that we all breathed a sigh of relief this morning at the American President stepping back from the abyss of an attack on Iran’s power network. However, it remains the case that just a few days ago a projectile fell within 350 metres of Iran’s only nuclear power station. The Secretary of State spoke compellingly about the courage of British personnel in defending our assets in the region and those of our allies. If it were to come to our attention that, in an era of irrational decision making, an attack against that nuclear power station was contemplated, with the catastrophic effect that would have on the region, what steps would we take to prevent that attack?
John Healey
The right hon. Gentleman is an old hand in this House. He has also, I think, served in a number of security posts in government. He would be the last person to expect me to speculate on future hypothetical scenarios like that, but the points he made at the start of his question are really important. The opportunity now, based on the President’s declaration this morning and his instruction to his Department of War to hold off further attacks on Iranian power plants and infrastructure for the next five days, gives diplomacy the opportunity, gives further de-escalation the opening and places the onus on this country, I hope across all parts of this House, to urge Iran to seize this opportunity and see an early end to the conflict.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my right hon. Friend for this detailed update. Further to his earlier comments, it is really important that our constituents understand how serious this is. Energy traders right now are like epidemiologists in February 2020. They are looking at energy sources and shortages, just as epidemiologists looked at covid and how it was spreading around the world, and working out how on earth to warn people of the horrors to come. The brutal reality is that if this war does not end, we could see energy shortages that will have a lasting economic effect on this country for decades. My right hon. Friend says that the President has agreed to a five-day suspension and agreed not to target the Iranian power plants. He will know how serious this is. How confident is he that the President will stick to that five-day pledge and give a chance for the urgent de-escalation that our economy and our world needs?
John Healey
My hon. Friend makes the clearest and strongest possible case for an early end to this conflict and for how imperative it is to embrace this opportunity that President Trump has created. As she rightly says, the impending potential impact on the world economy, and on the lifestyle and costs of all families and businesses in this country, is severe. That is the reason the Prime Minister will be chairing a Cobra meeting this afternoon that will look at the potential economic impacts of the conflict. I will attend that meeting, and no doubt the House will be updated in due course.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
I remind the House that RAF Fairford is in my constituency, so it is with grave concern that I note the news of two missiles being aimed at Diego Garcia. The Prime Minister previously pledged that we will not be drawn into the wider war, yet we have already shifted from the defensive to the offensive use of air bases on UK land. As almost 60% of the British public oppose the use of RAF bases in this war, will the Secretary of State commit to bringing back to this House the opportunity for open debate and full transparency on all the factors that are leading to this rapid descent down the slippery slope?
John Healey
Statements such as this are exactly the opportunity for Members of the House to express their views and put their questions, but I say to the hon. Lady that she is simply wrong: there has been no shift on the permissions granted to the US for specific purposes, and those purposes are defensive. They are defensive because they are limited to the Iranian missiles and capabilities that are attacking our ships, our bases and our interests, and threatening our interests, our bases and our allies across the region. The basis of the permission simply has not changed, as was confirmed in the statement released by the Government after the meeting of Ministers on Friday.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. Despite talk of a “complete and total” resolution of hostilities from across the Atlantic, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) that we cannot give false comfort to our constituents that there will not be lasting economic and military consequences. What detail can the Secretary of State give us, and when, on the leading role that he sees the UK playing in keeping the strait of Hormuz open?
John Healey
As the statement that the UK helped co-ordinate and signed at the end of last week set out, and as I have said to the House today, we are ready to play a leading role in efforts, including all options that may be necessary, with allies to try to secure a resumption of commercial shipping and a freedom of passage through the strait of Hormuz. That is likely to require significant de-escalation, but we are preparing all options. As I confirmed to the House earlier on as well, I have put UK military planners into US Central Command, and their job is to help shape and prepare the potential co-ordination of such activity, which must include a range of allies and multinational support.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
Further to the answer the Secretary of State has just given, he has confirmed to the House this afternoon that mines have been laid in the strait of Hormuz. Therefore, one of the biggest problems—whether there was a cessation of violence overnight—will be getting vessels insured. How quickly can the Secretary of State give the other side of that coin to the markets and the insurance companies that, even if de-escalation happened overnight, they can have faith that the strait of Hormuz will be demined? That will take a military operation led by Europe. The Americans will not get involved—we know that. How quickly can he say what the counterbalance is to the fact that he has confirmed this afternoon that the strait of Hormuz has indeed been mined?
John Healey
I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman a timescale. What I can say to him is that we are bending all our efforts in defence and more widely to contribute to the development of all options, and those must involve allies and they have to be multinational. In the end, as he suggested to the House, the test will be the decisions of commercial shipowners, crews and insurers about the safety that they can have about resuming their commercial trade through the strait of Hormuz.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
What Donald Trump said at the weekend was that unless the strait was opened, he would obliterate Iran’s power plants. I agree that attacking a nuclear plant could be extremely catastrophic. As we have made clear to Putin, however, attacking power plants that supply power to civilians is against international law and is clearly a move from defence to aggression. On that basis, while I join the Secretary of State in hoping that the next five days secure peace, may I ask him to confirm that UK bases will not be used to attack power plants? If there is to be such a change of policy, will he ask the Prime Minister for a debate and a vote in this House, because I want my constituents to know that I am not willing to support such escalation?
John Healey
The permissions for the use of UK bases by the US are defensive. They do not include the striking of Iranian power plants, which is the clarification that my right hon. Friend asks of me. As I and the Prime Minister have said, those principles of defensive actions and decisions with a sound legal basis, and actions in co-ordination with allies to ensure a collective self-defence in the region, will continue to inform the decisions and choices that this Government make.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
One thing that unites the Prime Minister of Israel and the supreme leader of Iran is that neither could care less about what the UK Prime Minister says, and it is difficult to imagine that the US President is not in a similar camp. With fiscal headroom evaporating, business confidence vanishing and household budgets being shredded by this war, what can the Secretary of State offer, over and above the vacuous calls for de-escalation, to ensure that people on these islands are protected from the ferocious effects of this war on the supply of energy?
John Healey
I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman degrades the contribution that the UK is making to the collective defence of allies in the region, and that he fails to recognise that the basing request from the US to which we have agreed is an important and valuable contribution to the US operations and to our interests.
The decisions that the Prime Minister makes are in our national interests. He has said that we will do what we can, with allies, to deal with the risk to worldwide energy supplies and prices. He has supported the release of extra oil on to the markets, he has had the Government put in help for those who use heating oil, and he will chair a Cobra meeting this afternoon, as I have told the House, to consider exactly the things that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
I put on record my thanks to the British armed forces, which are working round the clock to defend British interests and British people. My constituents have made it clear that they want no part in the wider war being waged by the US and Israel, but at the same time, they expect the robust defence of British interests and personnel. Although I welcome the fact that neither Iranian missile got anywhere close to Diego Garcia, will the Secretary of State reassure the House that the UK will play its full part in the defence of Diego Garcia should another such missile attack take place?
John Healey
We will, as we always have done, defend British personnel and British bases. I know that my hon. Friend and his Rochdale constituents will be proud of the fact that RAF pilots have now flown nearly 900 hours during this conflict for exactly those purposes, and that there are now more British jets in the region than there have been for 15 years.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
Any assessment of this intervention must recognise that the Iranian regime has made the Iranian people pay with blood for every single act of defiance, so any attempt to apportion blame when a mass insurrection does not materialise would be unjust, and I hope that we will soon hear Ministers say so from the Dispatch Box. Last week, I raised concerns that the assessment of the intent and capability of Iran was clearly flawed, and this weekend’s activity has proved that to be true. What action has the Secretary of State taken to challenge thinking internally, and to support British overseas territories by taking action to reinforce their defences and by speaking to their elected Governments, not just governors?
John Healey
I am not sure that I follow the hon. Lady; I certainly do not accept what I understand to be her point. When I was in Cyprus a couple of weeks ago, I met the Defence Minister, as well as the chief of the national guard, who made it clear to me that military co-operation with the UK is closer than it has ever been. As I have said, we are playing a leading role, with the Republic of Cyprus, in co-ordinating the increasing capabilities in the eastern Mediterranean, to help that sovereign base to remain as protected as possible in the circumstances and in the face of the Iranian threat.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)
Further to that point, I thank the Minister for Europe for going to Cyprus last week, and I am grateful for the conversations between the Prime Minister and the President of Cyprus. My constituency has long-standing people-to-people ties with Cyprus, so what assurances can the Secretary of State give my constituents that Government are considering not just British personnel but the wider Cypriot family?
John Healey
I can indeed. I hope my hon. Friend, and the Government of the Republic of Cyprus and their military, realise that the steps we took well before this war broke out to reinforce defences in Cyprus and across the region, have been there not just to protect British personnel and step up defences at our base, but they are defending and helping to protect the whole Republic of Cyprus and the island of Cyprus.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
From the first moments that the attempted rocket launches towards Diego Garcia were reported over the weekend there has been growing speculation, fuelled mainly by Israel, that Iran’s strike capacity now stretches far beyond what we previously conceived, and far beyond the Gulf region. Given what the Secretary of State said today when he confirmed that they were Iranian rockets—that goes beyond the NATO Secretary General yesterday—can he confirm how close those rockets or missiles came to Diego Garcia? What is now the MOD’s assessment about the effective strike range of Iran’s missile capacity? Does it stretch deep into Europe, and is the UK even now at risk?
John Healey
As I have said, the missiles that were fired in the direction of Diego Garcia fell well short. One came down, and one was brought down well short. The specific capabilities of adversaries like Iran, and what they hold, are certainly not details that the hon. Gentleman would expect me to disclose to the House or in public.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
May I associate myself with the comments by the Secretary of State when he commends our brave servicemen and women? Far from “hanging around”, which the Leader of the Opposition thinks they are doing, they are working night and day to protect us at home and abroad, and as one of many Members across the House who have been part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I add my thanks to them. Precisely because the first priority of any Government is to protect British citizens, can the Secretary of State assure the House that those facing Iranian aggression, and who are closer to it than any of us will be, have everything they need to defend our people, our bases, and our allies?
John Healey
I can indeed. As I reported to the House, we have the highest levels of force protection in place, and they are reviewed daily by the Chief of Joint Operations, who reports to me each week. My hon. Friend is completely right. I was in Cyprus a couple of weeks ago, talking to the pilots and crews that allow our F-35s and Typhoons to fly those defensive missions, as they have done from day one of this conflict, and they were frankly insulted that the Leader of the Opposition had accused them of “just hanging around”—[Interruption.] There has never been an apology from the Opposition for those remarks, but Labour Members know that those pilots and crews are working flat out and doing an important job to defend our personnel, our bases, and our allies.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I need to squeeze in many people, so questions need to be short, and answers just as short.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
We can debate what the armed forces think or do not think, but I always think it best to leave them out of these debates. However, there is an issue here at home, and defence of the realm is defence at home first and foremost. We know that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has threatened us on these shores endlessly for a number of years, and many colleagues across the House have called for it to be proscribed. As yet, in the middle of this war, we have not proscribed the IRGC, but it would make the life of our security services so much easier if we did so. Will the Secretary of State please get up and say that it is his determination that the IRGC should be proscribed and kicked out, or arrested for all the awful deeds that it does by chasing, hounding, and killing people on British shores?
John Healey
The right hon. Gentleman makes his case. He knows, as I do, that our British services have foiled around 20 sabotage or assassination plots with the Iranian hand behind them on British soil. He makes the case for proscription. That is a decision in other parts of the Government, but it something we keep under review, and a decision we will take with a broader view of the way that we are challenging, confronting, and working with allies to deal with the Iranian threat.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
BBC News Ukraine recently published an outstanding report on the demand for drone interceptors, such as the British-made Octopus and the Wild Hornets Sting drone. Will the Government update the House on what work they are doing to bolster UK and Ukrainian drone interceptor production so that these devices can be in the skies to defend against Shahed drones, which are threatening the interests of Britain and Gulf partners alike?
John Healey
I am proud to say that there are interceptors in the skies above Ukraine now that have the British hand and British production behind them, working closely with Ukraine. The Octopus interceptor that my hon. Friend talks about is a special link-up between Ukraine and the UK. We look forward to being able to produce them en masse and return them to Ukraine to help them defend their skies against Putin’s invasion.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Six days ago, the UK Government’s security group rightly launched a leak inquiry into the leaking of very sensitive information from the National Security Council. I do not expect the Defence Secretary to comment on an ongoing inquiry, but does he agree on these principles? First, the very least that our armed forces should expect when they are being sent into harm’s way is for the political leadership of this country to not leak secret and top-secret information. Secondly, whoever it is—a Cabinet Minister, a senior official or a junior official—when caught, they should be sacked.
John Healey
I do not think anyone can doubt the determination of the Prime Minister to prevent such actions or to take the action required when such activities are going on. I can give the right hon. Gentleman my reassurance that that is the case.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
I join the Defence Secretary in paying tribute to our civilians and armed forces personnel who are defending the UK national interests. I have had the privilege of meeting many of them overseas during my time in the House. Those serving overseas have been putting themselves in harm’s way, and they will have families back at home who are understandably worried, especially given the situation with personnel from the US and France being killed. What support is the Secretary of State putting in place back at home for the families of those who are serving in the middle east?
John Healey
I will certainly write to my hon. Friend with the detail, but the House can rest assured that this issue is foremost in our mind. We have a system in place that is doing exactly what my hon. Friend urges.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Against the backdrop of this illegal, counterproductive and reckless war, next month, Palestinians in the west bank and in parts of Gaza will take part in municipal elections, which include candidates who are committed to peaceful dialogue with Israel and who reject Iranian-backed terrorism. Does the Secretary of State acknowledge the significance of those elections for building peace in the middle east, and will he and the Government do everything in their power to ensure the deployment of independent observers so that the elections are fair and safe?
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
US military aircraft departed from the Scottish Government-owned Prestwick airport up to 32 times in the 10 days before American and Israeli strikes started on Iran. Like many of my constituents, I am worried about the prospect of a Scottish airport being used in an illegal war. Will the Secretary of State definitively say today who has the authority to stop the US military using Scottish civilian infrastructure? Is it the Prime Minister or is it the First Minister of Scotland?
John Healey
There is no use—there has been no use—of Prestwick airport for US bombing strikes.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] Excuse me; I have swallowed a fly.
John Cooper
I think I just about am, yes. The situation we are talking about today is a shooting war, but of key interest to us is the tug of war going on between the MOD and the Treasury over the defence investment plan. We have some indication of what is going on—I think we have gathered that it will not come out this week. Can the Secretary of State give us some indication of whether the purdah period for the upcoming elections in Scotland in May will further impact the announcement of this critical plan?
John Healey
I don’t know why he swallowed a fly, and I do not know why the hon. Gentleman imagines that there is a tug of war, especially when he can look at the Government’s record over the past 18 months in putting in place a record increase in defence spending, the degree of support that the Chancellor has given to recognising the rising demands on defence and the commitment that the Prime Minister has given that in this era of hard power—“the currency of the age”, as the Prime Minister calls it—we need to do more and spend faster.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
The humanitarian implications of this war are already severe. In Lebanon, 1 million people have been forced to flee their homes, including Palestinian and Syrian refugees who had found safety in the south of Lebanon, but who are now being forced to flee for their lives again. Meanwhile, the airspace closures in the Gulf and the closure of the strait of Hormuz are affecting global humanitarian supply chains. For example, the International Rescue Committee has warned that $130,000 of pharmaceutical supplies for Sudan are now stuck in Dubai. What is the Secretary of State doing to support access to humanitarian relief during this crisis?
John Healey
That issue is a part of the discussions, particularly those being undertaken by the Foreign Secretary and her team, that we are having with Gulf nations and with Lebanon, and the Foreign Secretary spoke to the Lebanese Prime Minister in recent days.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The expansion of US use of UK bases announced over the weekend represents an escalation of UK involvement in this war. At a time when we all agree that de-escalation is urgently needed, we are being dragged into Trump’s illegal, reckless war, with huge ramifications for the region and for households in this country. Last week, the Secretary of State said that he would get involved only if there was a “viable, collective plan”, but where is that plan? This afternoon, the Prime Minister said to the Liaison Committee that we must beware of
“the false comfort of thinking that there will necessarily be a quick and early end to this”
conflict. Given all that, when will we have a Commons vote on the escalating UK involvement in this illegal and reckless war?
John Healey
I reject almost everything that the hon. Lady has said. We will not get drawn into a wider war. The decisions that we are taking are de-escalatory and defensive, not escalatory, and we will work in whatever way we can to bring an early end to this conflict.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
The long-range missile attacks have raised the spectre in my mind, and surely in those of others, of attacks on the United Kingdom. I have listened to the Secretary of State’s reassurances about the defence of this country, but we have all seen the value of the Iron Dome. What is being done to create such a system for the defence of this country?
John Healey
An extra £1 billion is being put now into integrated air and missile defence for Britain. That was not part of the previous Government’s plans and it stems directly from the assessment that the strategic defence review set out when we published it last year.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Given that it takes about a month to move a minor war vessel from Portsmouth to the Gulf, and notwithstanding the meetings that the Secretary of State says that he is having with allies about ensuring freedom of navigation through the strait, would it be a good idea to start shifting those minehunters now, so that when he has the results of his discussions, which I hope will be a bit more than just handwringing, we will be in a position to genuinely do something in an area that we are actually really rather good at?
John Healey
The House will have heard me say that we already have autonomous minehunting capabilities in the region and we are looking to reinforce them. I guess the right hon. Gentleman now regrets being part of a Government that in 2021 accelerated the out-of-commission dates of some of the minehunters.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
Under international law, the use of force is permitted for “individual or collective self-defence” against “an armed attack”. Such use of force must satisfy the requirements of proportionality and necessity. In light of the broadening use of British military bases at the request of Donald Trump over the past week, will the Defence Secretary clarify for the British public how this satisfies those requirements? If the lessons of Iraq are to be learned, surely he must understand that the British public will not accept anything other than a parliamentary debate and vote on any further British military involvement.
John Healey
I reassure my hon. Friend, as she invites me to, that the permissions that we have given are for operations that are defensive, in the sense that they are directed only at Iranian missile capabilities that are being used to attack British interests, British allies and British shipping, including red-ensign-flagged vessels in the strait of Hormuz.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Much old ground has been gone over by the Secretary of State, but our service personnel live in the here and now. The defence investment plan is absolutely vital for their future, whether we are talking about operations in the field, or upgrading housing for their families—a subject that we are discussing in the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill. Given that he did not answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), may I ask if “working flat out” means that the DIP will be published in days, weeks or months?
John Healey
“Working flat out” means working flat out, and we are working flat out to finalise the defence investment plan.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
May I commend our current position of not being drawn further into the US and Israeli operation in Iran? Can the Secretary of State confirm that we will continue to avoid any escalation, and will act only in ways that are in defence of British personnel and interests?
John Healey
I can indeed. My hon. Friend is right: our purpose is the defence of British personnel, our bases, our interests and our allies in the region. We will continue to make decisions and take action based on principles that are defensive and legal, and in co-ordination with our allies.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
On top of the direct attacks by Iran, its principal proxy in the region, Hezbollah, continues to defy the Lebanese Government by using Lebanon as a base from which to fire rockets into Israeli civilian populations. What steps is the Ministry of Defence taking, in conjunction with the Lebanese Government, to help them dismantle this absolute cancer in Lebanon? More importantly, what steps are being taken to ensure that infrastructure built in Lebanon in recent years using British taxpayers’ money is categorically not being used for any of those attacks?
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman is right to draw the attention of the House to Lebanon. Like him, I am gravely concerned about the conflict and the situation there. Like him, I strongly condemn the Hezbollah attacks on Israel, and they must stop, but the forced displacement of 1 million people due to Israel’s operations is unacceptable. There must be diplomatic action to prevent this conflict from widening. For that purpose, the Foreign Secretary has spoken recently to the Israeli Foreign Minister and the Lebanese Prime Minister.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I know that the people of Harlow will want me to echo the Secretary of State’s comments about our brave personnel and the work that they do to keep us safe every single day. Listening to his statement, it struck me that it is hugely important that our bases here and abroad are safe. Can he outline what he is doing to ensure that the security of our bases is paramount, and that any organisation that seeks to break into our bases faces the full strength of the law?
John Healey
I can indeed. I appreciate my hon. Friend’s concern. We are investing in more counter-drone technology and more closed circuit television, and we are tightening up the base security arrangements. My hon. Friend the Armed Forces Minister has taken personal charge of this operation.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Donald Trump may have paused his escalation of aggressive attacks, but we know that the conflict is not over. The Secretary of State said that US access to British bases is restrained by the principle that such use is defensive only. The public have the right to know what safeguards exist. What follow-up checks are made to verify that this use is indeed defensive only?
John Healey
The safeguard is the established system of granting access, basing and overflight. That established system builds in throughout—not just afterwards—the reassurance, checks and controls required to ensure that when the US takes advantage of the permissions that we have given, it does so within those permissions.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I pay tribute to all the personnel at RAF Wyton, who are doing incredible round-the-clock work to analyse exactly what is going on in this conflict in the middle east.
The Secretary of State talks about missile defence for the UK. I appreciate that he has had his Weetabix this morning, but can I gently remind him that he was a Minister in the last Labour Government, who halved the number of Type 45 destroyers, meaning that we do not have enough? They also equipped them with WR-21 engines, and as a result, we have only one that is currently seaworthy, HMS Dragon. The Security Minister, who is also sitting on the Front Bench, told me last week that the Government were informed in advance of the US and Israel’s attacks on Iran. Could the Secretary of State confirm how far in advance the Government were informed of those attacks? Was it hours, days, or weeks?
John Healey
I am not prepared to disclose that sort of data, but the hon. Gentleman should judge us by our actions, and well ahead of this war breaking out, we reinforced Britain’s defences in the region. Turning to HMS Dragon, we only have it available to deploy to the eastern Mediterranean because it was ordered by a Labour Government, and over 14 years, Conservative Governments did not order a single new destroyer.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
While the Government have set out their military approach in some detail, there remains far less clarity on the diplomatic strategy that must eventually bring this conflict to an end. Can the Secretary of State set out what the UK is doing to get all sides back to the negotiating table? As we do so, how will the Government ensure that we do not simply follow President Trump down a path that risks replacing one brutal regime with another, rather than securing democracy and freedom for the Iranian people?
John Healey
First and foremost, we are ensuring that we can protect British interests in the region. We are looking to protect our allies in the region, and everything we do is in co-ordination with our partners in the region. I hope the hon. Lady takes some encouragement from the announcement that we helped to co-ordinate and publish at the end of last week about the importance of opening the strait of Hormuz, which has now been signed by 29 other nations.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State have contacts at US Central Command that can give reassurance that there is a plan? The President’s social media feed gives the opposite impression. Is Britain at war?
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The Government may not want to be drawn into a war with Iran, but Iran has declared war on us by attacking our bases, trying to kill our civilians, attacking our economy, and even engaging in acts of terror in our country. We have found this weekend that we rely on the US to protect our bases, and require its defensive capability to do so. Does that not lead the Secretary of State to the conclusion that, rather than begrudgingly providing limited access to our bases, we should be giving full support to the Americans and the Israeli Government in destroying this regime, to stop it fomenting war in the middle east and blackmailing us economically?
John Healey
We have agreed to the requests that the US has put to us. As I have said, one of our major principles is that we are working in close co-ordination with allies on defensive operations, including and especially with the US.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
I welcome President Trump’s statement that he is apparently now in talks with Iran. Sadly and predictably, Iran seems to have achieved escalation dominance by closing the strait of Hormuz, so what plans is the UK making for a post-conflict region in which Iran retains the upper hand because it can dictate global energy prices and continue to threaten Gulf nations?
John Healey
We will work in exactly the way that the joint statement that we helped to co-ordinate at the end of last week sets out, so as to de-escalate the conflict, co-ordinate with allies, and look for a point at which we can see the strait of Hormuz reopen.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
Every credible legal analyst will state that this attack on Iran by Israel and the US was illegal. There was never an imminent threat, and the Caroline principles incorporated into the UN charter were simply not engaged. Given that Trump now seeks to withdraw from this war, and given the disquiet in this House about whether our base use is offensive or defensive in nature, will the Defence Secretary allow a parliamentary debate in which Members can vote on whether we should allow our bases to be used? If not, why not?
John Healey
The decisions we have taken as a Government have been taken for defensive purposes, and in co-ordination with allies. This House has plenty of opportunities, including for almost an hour and a half today, to put questions and debate these matters. It is important that we do that, and important that we continue to take the steps necessary to protect our people in the middle east.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
Why, alone among our European allies, is the UK facilitating Trump’s illegal war by allowing the United States to use RAF bases to launch attacks? The Government admitted last week that they could not guarantee that such attacks were not made against civilian infrastructure in Iran. In the light of the Government’s complicity, have they uprated the risk assessment of the threats faced by the population of these islands? Finally, just what is it about illegal wars in the middle east that the Labour party seems unable to resist?
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman is almost last, but not least. I reject almost every assertion he makes in his tripartite question. The decisions we have taken and the permissions we have given have a sound legal basis. They are for defensive purposes, and are directed at Iranian sites that are attacking our interests and our allies, and that hold a threat, including to British ships and red-ensign-flagged vessels in the strait of Hormuz.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Jim Shannon to ask the final question.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
While we welcome the progress of talks in the middle east, the fact that our Government have to learn updates from the news cycle is beyond disappointing. The deterioration of the relationship between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister is particularly worrying. Will the Secretary of State begin to rebuild that relationship with our American allies, and show willingness to work in the best interests of this nation? The attacks on Diego Garcia prove that this nation is under attack, and that deserves decisive action. How will the Minister secure the right action to put us back in step with our American friends, regardless of any personality clashes?
John Healey
We will always work closely with the US. This is a deep military and security relationship that has seen the ups and downs of politics over many decades, and that will continue to be the case. The Prime Minister spoke with the President last night.
Hatzola Ambulance Attack
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
With permission, I will make a statement on the abhorrent arson attack in Golders Green, north London.
I will begin with the facts as they are currently known. At 1.45 this morning, the Metropolitan police and the London Fire Brigade were called to reports of a fire in Highfield Road, Golders Green. Officers attended the scene, where four ambulances from Hatzola, a volunteer-led ambulance service run by members of the Jewish community, were on fire. The attack occurred in the car park of a local synagogue, where Hatzola’s vehicles for the area are based. I can tell the House that the vital work of this organisation will continue uninterrupted, with its highly trained volunteers responding to calls as steadfastly as ever.
The Government are determined to deliver justice following this cowardly attack. We fully support the police in their efforts to bring the perpetrators to account, and we are equally committed to ensuring that Hatzola suffers no lasting impact. As the Secretary of State for Health has confirmed, four replacement ambulances will be in place by tomorrow morning, and the Government will fund permanent replacements to ensure that this essential service remains strong and fully equipped. Nearby houses were evacuated as a precaution, but residents were allowed to return quickly to their homes. Thankfully, no injuries occurred.
The House will be aware that the police are treating this arson attack as an antisemitic hate crime. The investigation is now being led by Counter Terrorism Policing, although I should emphasise that the attack has not been declared a terrorist incident at this stage. No arrests have been made, but I take this opportunity to urge anyone with information to contact the police. Officers are aware of an online claim from a group taking responsibility for the attack, and establishing the accuracy of that claim is a priority for the investigation team. As the Home Secretary told the House earlier, support for the Jewish community in London is being stepped up. The police have the unshakable backing of this Government—and, I am sure, the whole House—in their effort to find the perpetrators of this awful crime, who should be in no doubt whatsoever that they will be pursued and made to face the consequences. I also wish to echo the Home Secretary’s words in thanking the police and the fire and rescue service for the speed and professionalism of their response, which was vital in averting an even worse outcome.
Shocking though it was to wake to this morning’s developments, I know that for many this outrage, occurring as it has at a time of profound distress and vulnerability in our Jewish communities, will not have come as a surprise given the vicious torrent of antisemitism that was unleashed following the 7 October attacks, a dreadful manifestation of which we saw, to our horror, in Manchester last year when Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation synagogue was the subject of a sickening act of terrorism on Yom Kippur. Today, as at that profoundly difficult moment and as in the aftermath of the subsequent atrocity on Bondi Beach in Sydney, we declare once more that we stand with our Jewish friends, colleagues and neighbours, and with the oldest hatred on the rise, we assert our unwavering commitment to defeating it.
The Prime Minister has made it clear that this Government will lead the way, through, for instance, the relentless national security effort that is being mounted around the clock by MI5 and the police, who of course have our full backing in their work to detect and disrupt plots targeting the Jewish community in our country. While those activities must necessarily take place away from view, our willingness to take strong and decisive action when threats present themselves has been underscored again in recent weeks, with three men jailed over a foiled terrorist plot targeting the Jewish community in Greater Manchester and a separate investigation of suspected surveillance of locations and individuals linked to the Jewish community in the London area, which resulted in two men being charged last week under the National Security Act 2023.
While our country’s national security and law enforcement agencies retain a relentless focus on the threat, such is its perseverance and potency that we have a responsibility to do more. It is a terrible indictment that we should need to do this, but we must do it and we are doing it. The demand for extra measures and precautions, such as those provided so expertly by the Community Security Trust, is only intensifying. That is why, in the wake of the Manchester attack, we increased the funding available via the Jewish community protective security grant to a record £28 million, a level that we are maintaining in the next financial year. We are also strengthening police powers for dealing with repeat protests, which have been a source of concern for many in the Jewish community, and the Home Secretary has commissioned Lord Macdonald to undertake a review to consider how public order laws can be improved to keep hate and intimidation off our streets.
However, we can only prevent the manifestations of this evil if we address the cause by tackling the very existence of antisemitism in this country. That means adopting and enforcing a posture of zero tolerance in every part of our society. The Online Safety Act 2023 will compel tech platforms to protect UK users from illegal antisemitic material. Meanwhile, we are acting to drive antisemitism out of the NHS, with stronger mandatory training and an urgent review led by Lord Mann. In recognition of the importance of education in preventing young minds from being polluted, we have committed £7 million to combat antisemitism in schools, colleges and universities, and we have launched a review, led by Sir David Bell, into antisemitism in schools and colleges, which is expected to conclude in the autumn. We do all of this and more because it is right, because it is our responsibility and because, as the Home Secretary has repeatedly made clear, no one should have to live a smaller Jewish life in this country.
I will finish by addressing our Jewish community directly: whether you live here in London or in any other part of the United Kingdom, please know that we stand with you, we are here for you, and we will do everything in our power to keep you and your family safe—not just today, after this appalling incident, but every day. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
As always, I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement.
This was a hideous antisemitic attack on a charity that provides ambulance services not just for the Jewish community, but for the whole community. I saw that for myself some months ago when I visited the Stamford Hill branch of Hatzola, and my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) has been a great supporter of the Hatzola branch in her constituency. Let me start by thanking Hatzola and the emergency services for their response this morning.
Antisemitic incidents are on the rise. The Jewish community has been targeted again and again, including through the Islamist murder at Heaton Park synagogue last autumn. The Community Security Trust recorded the second highest ever number of antisemitic incidents last year. The truth is that the Government must do a lot more to fight antisemitism. We have seen a recent antisemitic murder and a surge in antisemitism, but too little has been done, as this morning’s outrage demonstrates. This morning I visited the Hatzola branch in Golders Green with the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel). I spoke to dozens of people in Golders Green who are now living in fear, including a mother who is worried about sending her children to school.
Antisemitism often goes hand in hand with Islamist extremism, a threat we know all too well. Fifty-two people were murdered on 7/7, we had the murder of Sir David Amess, and 22 victims were killed in the Manchester Arena attack—all perpetrated by Islamist extremists. Some 75% of MI5’s terrorism caseload relates to Islamist extremism, and 94% of terrorist murders in the last 25 years have been perpetrated by Islamists, yet only 10% of the Prevent caseload is Islamist. I ask the Minister again, just as I have asked before: what is he going to do about that?
In October, I asked the Home Secretary to use her power under section 3(5) of the Immigration Act 1971 to remove any foreign national who expresses extremist views, sympathy for violence, or terrorism, antisemitism or any other religious hatred. She said that she can exercise that power where someone is not
“conducive to the public good”.
It is a wide-ranging power, and she should use it. The Home Secretary said that she was reviewing the use of the power and promised to update the House, but we have heard nothing since, so will the Security Minister update the House on what the Government will do with that power? Once the perpetrators of today’s attack have been caught, will he use that power to deport them if they are not British citizens?
Since Hamas’s attack on 7 October, we have seen protesters marching on London’s streets and openly calling for jihad and intifada. These are express calls for violence. We should no longer tolerate chants at these marches that encourage and endorse violence, and which fuel antisemitism. They must simply not be allowed. We must do more to prevent antisemitic attacks from happening in the first place, so will the Security Minister commit to authorising the intrusive surveillance powers usually reserved for counter-terrorism or to counter state threats to be used to identify and prevent antisemitic attacks that are in the planning?
Finally, since July 2024, 67,000 illegal immigrants have arrived here by small boat, which is a 45% increase on the period before. As I have said, the small boat crisis is not just a border crisis, but a national security crisis. How can we be sure that these unvetted illegal migrants are not linked to terror groups or extremists, such as the small boat illegal migrant Mosab Al-Gassas, who had previously posted on social media brandishing a gun and spouting support for Hamas? If we are serious about protecting the public, we must leave the European convention on human rights and remove all illegal immigrants within a week of their arrival.
Warm words alone for the Jewish community are no longer enough. We need to take the tough actions that will make a difference, some of which I have mentioned. The litmus test is not the good intentions the Minister has expressed today; the litmus test is taking the tough, difficult actions that will actually eradicate antisemitism from this country.
Dan Jarvis
Let me begin with what I hope is a point of consensus between the shadow Home Secretary and me. I think he will agree that any attack on the Jewish community is not just an attack on the Jewish community or on London, but an attack on our whole country. I think we send a very powerful message as a House of Commons if we stand together in saying that such attacks are completely unacceptable.
The shadow Home Secretary referred, I think slightly unfairly, to warm words. These are not warm words; these words are a statement of solidarity on behalf of the Government, and I hope on behalf of all of us in this place, in standing with the Jewish community at what is a very significant point of challenge for them. We recognise that, and we give an absolute commitment to do everything we possibly can and to use every power we have to keep that community safe—and if there is a requirement for additional powers, we will make sure we put those in place.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Community Security Trust. I want to take this opportunity, and I know he will join me in doing so, to pay tribute to the extraordinary dedication and work not just of those employed by the CST, but of the extraordinary volunteer team, whom I have seen, as other hon. Members will have done, who do an extraordinary job under difficult circumstances. It is an inspiring organisation—I spoke to the chief executive this morning—and I know all of us in this place will want to do everything we possibly can to support it.
The right hon. Gentleman made a number of points, some of which I think were reasonable and some slightly less so. I think he made an entirely valid point about the need to counter extremism in our country, and these are measures that we are seeking to take. Again, I would never want to have this debate in a party political environment, but we do need to clamp down on those who seek to bring hate to our country, and the Home Secretary is absolutely clear that she will use all the powers available to her to do that.
The shadow Home Secretary made a reasonable point about Prevent referrals, and he has flagged that with me previously. That is not new to this Government—it goes back under the previous Government—and we are looking very carefully at what we can do to ensure that there is much less of the mismatch he described. I give him an assurance that we are looking very closely at that. He also referenced the concern that I know lots of hon. Members will have about the protest activity that has taken place in recent times. That is precisely why the Home Secretary has commissioned Lord Macdonald to look at the issue, and we expect him to make recommendations as soon as he is practically able to do so.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)
I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman), who is sitting beside the Minister for Security, for her urgent action today, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky), who I know will speak shortly, from the other side of Barnet.
The four Barnet MPs are very upset and worried about what happened early this morning, and I just want to put on record our huge thanks to all the partners who have jumped into action, such as the gold group, the Mayor of London, the police and the borough authorities. Everybody is sending out huge messages of support, and we have heard with great gratitude the very strong security message that this incident will be investigated fully, and that no stone will be left unturned until we find the alleged perpetrators of this incident.
Dan Jarvis
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend and to other colleagues for the work they have done. It is at moments like this when we see the very worst of our country, but also the best: the brave men and women in the police, our intelligence services, and the fire and rescue service stepping forward to do everything they can to provide support. The police are engaged in a very significant operation to try to track down the perpetrators of this awful crime and bring them to justice. I know that they will have my hon. Friend’s support and the support of the whole House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I, like so many Londoners, woke up this morning to the news of this cowardly attack. I felt that horrible pit of disgust in my stomach, and a deep concern for my Jewish friends and neighbours. I want to express my heartfelt sympathies to Jews across London and the country, and to affirm that hate like this will never be normalised. It is the opposite of everything our city stands for.
We welcome the Government’s commitment to replace the ambulances quickly, but will the Minister set out what immediate safety measures are being put in place for local residents and key Jewish sites across the country? I reiterate that our efforts in this place must be focused not just on responding after the fact, but on making meaningful interventions beforehand to stop distressing crimes like this happening in the first place. That means recognising that we have an antisemitism problem in this country and that, crucially, we must take action to tackle the root causes of it. Will the Minister set out what steps will be taken under the recently unveiled cohesion strategy to bring an end to the scourge that is antisemitism in this country?
Will the Minister finally listen to our calls to reverse the cuts to Metropolitan police officer numbers? Since May 2024, it is estimated that 2,508 officers have been lost, while the Met commissioner has warned of the increasing difficulty of keeping Londoners safe with a shrinking force. Visible policing plays a key role in deterring and investigating this kind of crime, and it reassures communities, such as our Jewish community, because no one should live in fear as a result of their religion. Will the Minister explain what the Government will do now to get more, not fewer, police officers on London’s streets to stop horrific incidents like this ever happening again?
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that hate like this will never be normalised. I spoke to the assistant commissioner this morning and, along with senior colleagues in the Metropolitan police, I know there is an extensive operation under way to provide reassurance to communities across London. There will be engagement taking place as we speak. The assistant commissioner met community leaders earlier on this afternoon and we are expecting a statement from the Met commissioner later today. That engagement with communities and that visible policing presence are under way.
The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to the cohesion strategy. Let me give him an assurance on the importance we attach to it. There are lots of different bits of Government engaged, because this is a challenge right across the system—the Home Office, the Department for Education, the Department of Health and Social Care and local government—and we will ensure that all that work is properly co-ordinated in the way that he would expect.
Let me also agree with the hon. Gentleman’s sentiment about police numbers. We inherited a situation in which police numbers were declining. The Home Secretary and colleagues in the Home Office are crystal clear that we want to drive those numbers up.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement, and I echo his thanks to the police and the other emergency services. This antisemitic attack happened only a few hundred metres from my Hendon constituency. So many people in my community, Jewish and non-Jewish alike, rely on the work of the selfless volunteers of Hatzola in both Golders Green and Edgware. It has been my honour to visit Hatzola Edgware on a number of occasions. This is not just an attack on our Jewish community, despicable though that is; it is an attack on Britain and on our core values. It was good to meet the Prime Minister earlier today with community leaders to discuss what can be done to defeat this tide of antisemitism. Can the Minister give more information to the House on what is being done to co-ordinate between the police and community organisations to give the reassurance that my community so desperately wants?
Dan Jarvis
I can provide my hon. Friend with the assurance he seeks. Extensive engagement has been under way throughout the day and it will continue for as long as it is required, along with a visible policing presence in the right place. He is right to pay tribute to all those who have stepped forward to volunteer in the way that he described; I know that it is a huge priority for the Prime Minister to ensure that their efforts are recognised. I know that my hon. Friend will understand the seriousness with which we take this issue.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
On an occasion like this, it is right that we should not apportion blame, but try to unite as the House of Commons and say that it is fine to be a critical friend of Israel, but it is not fine to go around fully masked up and call for the destruction of Israel and therefore the Jewish people. I think we should be even more positive and say that we love the Jewish people and think they are the most successful immigrant community we have ever had in this country. They are fantastic, they have our complete, utter and full support, and we will protect them at every opportunity.
Dan Jarvis
I agree with the Father of the House, who makes a very powerful point; hopefully there is consensus on all of that. I want to take the opportunity to reiterate the Government’s horror at what happened; what took place in the early hours of this morning was despicable. Extensive activity is under way to try to hunt down those who are responsible, and I very much hope we will see progress on that in the near future.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
In our synagogues each week, we pray for the King and for the Almighty to grant wisdom to all his counsellors. Never has such wisdom been more essential, for antisemitism and Iranian-backed terrorism are evil bedfellows. Will the Minister join me in supporting all the work of the CST and our emergency services at this terrible time?
Dan Jarvis
I will join my hon. Friend in that. The CST is very well known to Members across the House—I have worked closely with it for a long time. It is an inspiring organisation, and the Government are proud to count it as a close and trusted partner. At this time of challenge for the CST and for our Jewish communities, I hope very much that the whole country will stand alongside and support the trust’s work.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
Hatzola is an organisation that I know very well; it supports many of my constituents and is supported voluntarily by many of my constituents. It was attacked simply because of its connection to the Jewish community, which is why the community feels so deeply fearful right now. The Minister has rightly said that no Jew should have to lead a smaller life, but right now, they are—people are having to hide symbols of their faith. They fear that antisemitism is simply not taken as seriously in this country as other forms of racism. What can the Minister do to reassure my constituents and Jews up and down the country, who are deeply worried right now, that that is not the case?
Dan Jarvis
I can absolutely provide the right hon. Gentleman with the assurance that he rightly seeks. I hope he will have seen the responses earlier from the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary, and I hope he understands the seriousness with which the Government take these issues. He is right to challenge us in the way he has, but I give him an absolute assurance of the seriousness with which we take these issues. We will ensure that the police and intelligence agencies have all the resources they need to target those who would seek to cause division and disruption within our Jewish communities. Those communities are precious and valued within our country, and this Government will do everything we can to support them.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I heard from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman), who met Hatzola in her constituency, how only half an hour after the attack, volunteers were taking calls to support people. Hatzola does amazing work across Hackney, the borough that I partly represent, supporting Homerton hospital in particular. It is much more than just a nice-to-have; it is an essential part of our health service.
The Minister rightly raises the wider issues. My constituency has a smallish Jewish community, and I have a few constituents who are frightened to leave their homes and whose children are frightened to bring friends home from school, and not just because of what happened today—this was the case prior to that. They are living their life in a diminished form. Can the Minister give us a bit more information about how the cohesion strategy will help to educate adults, as the Bell inquiry will help to change the curriculum in our schools?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend is right to raise the importance of the cohesion strategy. I assure her that there is a lot of work on this issue being led by colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and we are working to ensure that it is joined up with all the different Departments. We completely recognise the concerns and fears that have been expressed by members of the Jewish community, and we are determined to make sure that the response of this Government is necessary and proportionate, given the nature of the threat that they face.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I join the Minister in condemning this evil attack and expressing my sympathy with the British Jewish community. To build on the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden), we have been talking about this issue for years, including when I sat on the Government Back Benches in the last Parliament. When I went to a Hanukkah event in my constituency led by the South Bucks Jewish Community in 2024, the rabbi opened the ceremony with words of welcome, saying “even though we no longer feel safe to meet as a community”. That should shock each and every one of us. Does the Minister accept that we need not incremental change or modest change but a sea change in the way that we as a country put our arms around the British Jewish community and protect them?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Member for that point and the way in which he raised it. I do accept that this Government—any Government—need to do everything they possibly can to provide the reassurance that the Jewish community both need and deserve. Some of that is about resource, and I am pleased that we have been able to increase protective security funding for Jewish communities to record levels, but he is right that more needs to be done beyond the allocation of resource. That is why a range of different activities are under way across Government to try to respond to this particular threat. I think that all of us have a responsibility to be led by the Government and to make sure that we are crystal clear about our opposition to this activity and in saying that we will always do everything we can to stand against antisemitism wherever it raises its ugly head.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I join the Minister in condemning the abhorrent attacks we saw in Golders Green this morning. I pay tribute to Rabbi Irit Shillor and the work that she does to support not only Harlow’s Jewish community but the wider community of Harlow. The Jewish community will rightly be concerned after this morning’s events, so what reassurance can the Minister give the Harlow Jewish community that he and his Government will do whatever they can to keep the Jewish community safe?
Dan Jarvis
I can give my hon. Friend the reassurances that he seeks, and hopefully the words I have spoken will reassure those in his community about how seriously the Government take these kinds of threats. It is important to say that this must involve a range of different organisations. That is precisely why, in my earlier remarks, I detailed the work taking place in academia, the NHS and local government. We will ensure that wherever there are challenges in this regard, our response is joined up and properly resourced, and that we are clear across Government and across society that this kind of antisemitic behaviour is not acceptable.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
The United Kingdom remains one of the most tolerant nations in the world, but social cohesion can never be taken for granted, as the Minister knows. As well as the welcome work to increase security around faith schools and places of worship, what more can the Government do through the Secretary of State for Education to teach all communities that tolerance and respect for all is a fundamental tenet of being British?
The Minister mentions the Bell review. I welcome the £7 million of funding, but the review is looking at schools and colleges, not at universities. A recent report showed that 49% of Jewish students have witnessed glorification of Hamas and Hezbollah on campus. What more can the Minister do to work with universities, not just schools and colleges, to root out antisemitism?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who made important points about social cohesion and, more widely, about the importance of activity that takes place in academia and education. I referenced the £7 million that the Government have previously invested, and I know that the Union of Jewish Students attended the meeting with the Prime Minister earlier today.
I would to like to take this opportunity to commend the extraordinary work of the Holocaust Education Trust—an organisation that many hon. Members will know and will have worked closely with. Let me further reflect on the right hon. Gentleman’s important points.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Alongside many inside the House and outside it, I condemn the attack on the Jewish-run ambulance service in Golders Green. The attack was clearly antisemitic, and it is right that the authorities treat it as such. My constituency is a diverse and inclusive place where many people of all ages and faiths live side by side peacefully. The Minister has spoken about community cohesion, but will he outline what immediate steps are being taken to reassure communities like mine?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his important points. Immediate steps are being taken by the Metropolitan police, because it is vital that there is that presence, reassurance and engagement at community level. Having spoken earlier to the assistant commissioner, who I have previously worked with closely, I know how seriously the Metropolitan police are taking this issue, and I know that work is under way as we speak. I can therefore give my hon. Friend the reassurances she seeks, but we can never be complacent about these things. While there is clearly a focus on this activity today, we need to ensure that that continues tomorrow and for as long as is necessary.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
What happened at Golders Green this morning was simply sickening and abhorrent, and the rise of antisemitism should alarm all of us in the House. The recent attacks on the Jewish community have been national and international in scope, and we simply do not know where the next attack might be. Will the Minister assure me that he is working with police forces right across the United Kingdom and doing everything possible to share information and seek co-operation when required?
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Member makes an important point. He is right that it was sickening, but not surprising. He also made the important point, which perhaps has not been reflected on previously, about the truly international scale of the challenge. Yes, there are significant challenges that we are grappling with here in the UK, but that is a shared endeavour with our international partners; we want to work incredibly closely with them on it. His basic point about co-ordinating activity with the police around the country is a good and fair one. I will ensure that that activity is under way.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
This was an appalling antisemitic incident, targeting those providing urgent medical care. It was not just a criminal act but a direct attack on our shared values of respect and tolerance. Emergency service workers should never have to fear for their safety. Will the Minister outline what immediate steps are being taken to reassure the Jewish community across the whole United Kingdom?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend is right that it was sickening, and she was right to raise the important issue of reassurance. A reassurance operation will be under way, conducted by the Metropolitan police and other police forces around the country.
It just happens that the Community Security Trust is having its annual dinner this evening, and I know that a number of hon. Members will be attending. Important messages of solidarity will be delivered at that gathering by both Sir Mark Rowley and the Home Secretary. It is important that that event takes place.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The people who carry out such attacks are mainly seeking to terrorise the target community, but the people who plan such attacks often have another end in mind, which is to set two communities at each other’s throats. Without revealing anything that one should not about the techniques of the Security Service, can we spare a moment to pay tribute to those members of the Muslim community who bravely go undercover to infiltrate plots of this sort, who are briefly seen in court, often under an assumed name, when convictions are assured, and without whose work many more such plots would succeed than is the case?
Dan Jarvis
The right hon. Gentleman makes a very sage point. I make this point in more general terms, because clearly I am not going to get into the specifics of what happened this morning, but he is right to draw a distinction between those who plan the attacks and those who conduct them. I am beyond proud of the work of our intelligence services, who recruit from lots of different backgrounds in our country. They do extraordinary work. By necessity, they do their work in the shadows, but I know that I speak for the whole House when I say that we owe them a huge debt of gratitude.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
May I express my solidarity and the solidarity of all Rochdalians with Britain’s Jewish community in the wake of this horrific attack on the ambulance station in Golders Green? Whenever such an antisemitic outrage has occurred, my Muslim constituents stress to me repeatedly that it is not done in their name. They want to make that absolutely clear. In fact, antisemitism has now become normalised, not just offline in the playground, but online everywhere, as we saw in Louis Theroux’s documentary “Inside the Manosphere” last week. Does the Minister agree that Ofcom needs to take much tougher action against antisemitism online, perhaps by having a specific strategy to target men and boys who are being deliberately targeted by the antisemites in our community?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I can give him an assurance that, through the defending democracy taskforce, we work closely across Government and with law enforcement, and we look closely at the work of Ofcom. He will know that the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology is the lead Department, and it sits as a key member of the taskforce. We will want to assure ourselves that all the powers are being used appropriately, and if not, we will want to ask why not.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
Does the Minister agree with members of the Jewish community who think the hate marches increase the risk of antisemitic attacks, and if he does, will he ban them?
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
I share the Minister’s disgust at the horrific arson attack today, which will further worry the Jewish community and all decent-minded people in Altrincham and Sale West, and across our country. He rightly spoke of the importance of strong and decisive action to tackle the torrent of antisemitism, so can he tell the House when we will see concrete implementation milestones for the Government’s “Protecting What Matters” action plan?
Dan Jarvis
These issues are an urgent priority for the Government. My hon. Friend will know that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is the lead Department, but we work closely with all Departments to ensure that our response is proportionate and in line with the nature of the threat. Although people’s minds have understandably been focused by what has occurred this morning, I can give him an absolute assurance that we are on these matters seven days a week and are working across Government to ensure that we keep the public safe.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
These despicable attacks have been claimed by Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamiya, a group assessed by analysts to be an Iranian proxy linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Hezbollah. Emma Schubart of the Henry Jackson Society has warned that this reflects a pattern of co-ordinated attacks on Jews across Europe. Do the Government share that assessment, and if so, when will they finally proscribe the IRGC? The best time to do that was 10 years ago; the second best time is now.
Dan Jarvis
I know that the hon. Member will understand that, given that there is a live counter-terrorism police operation under way, it would not be appropriate for me to speculate about the linkage of this activity with other activities that have taken place on continental Europe. I hear his point about the proscription of the IRGC. I hope that he will understand that the Government commissioned Jonathan Hall to look at our terrorism legislation. Mr Hall has made a series of recommendations, the essence of which is that we need new legislation to be able to proscribe state-backed entities. The Government intend to bring forward that legislation as soon as we can.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
We should not be surprised by the attacks that happened in Golders Green last night because after all, we have been promoting this antisemitism in various ways across the United Kingdom—whether it is the sectarianism of politics that we have seen from some parties directed towards the Jewish community, whether it is a Labour council in Kent promoting an art show that shows Jews eating babies with blood dripping from their teeth, whether it is a chief constable trying to ban Jewish fans based on lies, or whether it is the leader of the Green party encouraging councils to boycott trade with Israel, even though that would be illegal. Does that not set the atmosphere that Jewish people are a target because Jewish people in some way are doing things that are evil and wrong?
Dan Jarvis
I do not think anybody was surprised by what happened this morning, but it is the absolute requirement of Government to ensure that our response is proportionate given the nature of the threat. Ultimately, all individuals and organisations have a responsibility for their own conduct. Some of the points the right hon. Member makes are not unreasonable. There has been, in my view, an unacceptable climate in recent times where certain sections of certain organisations have thought that it is almost acceptable to allow this kind of antisemitic hate. That is not the view of this Government; the view of this Government is that it is completely unacceptable. That is why we are organising to ensure that we have the resources marshalled in the right place at the right time to give our Jewish communities the reassurance that they absolutely need and deserve.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
This was a horrific attack on the Jewish community. While Jewish communities experience disproportionately high levels of antisemitic incidents, offences targeting Jewish victims are statistically far less likely to result in a prosecution. Does the Minister accept that the Jewish community does not trust that the law will work to protect them? What further assurances can he provide them at this difficult time?
Dan Jarvis
I completely understand that many members of the Jewish community are living their lives under the threat of the kind of activities that we saw this morning, but I hope that nobody here thinks that that is remotely acceptable. That is why we all have a responsibility to redouble our efforts and ensure that not only are we seeking to provide that reassurance, but more practically, we are putting in place the right laws and powers and ensuring that we have the right resource to take on that threat.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
My thoughts are with the Jewish community in north London. There is something particularly abhorrent about the destruction of ambulances, and actions motivated by extreme hatred must be condemned. No one anywhere should be made to feel at risk because of their race or religion. How are risks to the wider Jewish community, particularly those communities that are perhaps scattered or individual families or even individuals, being assessed at present—this is of course relevant to Wales—because so many people feel at risk?
Dan Jarvis
I completely agree with the right hon. Member. It is beyond abhorrent that anyone would seek to target ambulances providing an extremely important and valuable public service in the way that we have seen this morning. She is also right to make the wider point about ensuring that no community is left behind. While the attack this morning has taken place in London, as I mentioned in my earlier remarks, we saw a terrible terrorist attack take place in Greater Manchester last October. Wherever we have Jewish communities in our country, we need to ensure that the police and the range of other organisations provide the support that is obviously now required.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
In a previous incarnation, I was fortunate enough to be a parliamentary candidate in Hackney. I was invited to meet Hatzola in Stamford Hill, and I was blown away by its incredible work. The fact that Hatzola is integrated into the London ambulance service and provides such a vital community resource is extremely commendable, and I pay tribute to it.
I am conscious that emergency workers are incredibly vulnerable at the best of times. Given that Hatzola is liveried and clearly marked as effectively Jewish, what steps is the Minister taking to mitigate the additional vulnerabilities of the Hatzola crews going forward to ensure that they are not targeted in any type of copycat attacks?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks about the important work of Hatzola. He makes a good point about whether we can do more to provide support and reassurance to emergency workers who are quite literally engaged in lifesaving activity. He will understand that the incident took place only a number of hours ago, so we are dealing with the immediate response to it, but I commit to considering his point carefully.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
I welcome the additional support that the Government are providing to our Jewish community. As a Muslim, I know how reassured the Muslim community was by Government support following arson attacks at a mosque. One of the biggest problems is on social media, particularly X, where extreme antisemitic remarks have been made about this incident. We know that this voluntary ambulance service supports not just the Jewish community but all communities. The perpetrators of this abhorrent and callous act must be apprehended. Does the Minister agree that it is important to expedite their apprehension so as to send a message of deterrence that says an attack on any community member or community asset is an attack on every single person in this country?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks, which I know will be appreciated in the Jewish community. He is right to raise the considerable concern in every corner of the House about the online threat. I hope he sees that we take it incredibly seriously. A lot of work is under way, led by the defending democracy taskforce, and he will know that we have commissioned Philip Rycroft to conduct a review of this area. The Online Safety Act 2023 will provide some protections, but the Government have been crystal clear that if those protections are insufficient, we will have to do more.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Among the many reviews that he cited, the Minister mentioned Jonathan Hall’s review, which is getting a bit long in the tooth. Surely, given the events in north London and the middle east this month, its recommendations should now be expedited, as there appears to be cross-party support for the concept that the IRGC should be proscribed. Why can the Wagner Group—a state-linked entity—be proscribed, but the IRGC cannot, even without changing the Terrorism Act?
Dan Jarvis
The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Jonathan Hall, who has done a lot of good work in this area, made recommendations, which the Government have accepted. We are looking closely at the best way to provide the legislation that he recommended. I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point about urgency. As a very experienced Member of this House, he will understand that I would be in a lot of trouble with the Leader of the House if I started speculating about future legislation. However, the Government have committed to bringing that forward, and we will do so as soon as we can.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for his statement, and for assuring Jewish people across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that we stand with them and that they are in our prayers. No one has any doubts about the Government’s commitment to standing alongside the Jewish diaspora, but this latest antisemitic attack shows the depth of depravity that those who hate Jews will sink to even today. The symbolism of an attack on ambulances for the sick and vulnerable cannot be lost on anyone. It is clear that Government steps to combat antisemitism do not go far enough, so what meaningful steps will the Minister take to support the Jewish community, whose only crime is to exist in Britain? They are British citizens, and they deserve full support from their Government.
Dan Jarvis
As always, I am grateful to the hon. Member for the wisdom he brings to these matters, about which he speaks with great experience and passion, as a long-standing champion of all those who seek to practise their religion. I hope that my remarks today and previously have conveyed the seriousness and importance that we attach to these issues. Nobody, regardless of their religion, should be in fear that they will be targeted in this country. That is why it is a priority for the Government to ensure that we have the right resources and legislative framework in place, and that we are taking necessary and proportionate actions.
With your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank again—I know that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) will join me in doing so—the brave men and women who serve in our police. As we speak, they are out there seeking to apprehend the perpetrators of this attack, and we wish them every good fortune in their work.
Tobacco and Vapes Bill: Programme (No. 2)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Tobacco and Vapes Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 26 November 2024 (Tobacco and Vapes Bill: Programme):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement.
Subsequent stages
(2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(3) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Christian Wakeford.)
Question agreed to.
Tobacco and Vapes Bill
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I inform the House that Lords amendments 21, 22, 29, 32 to 34, 37, 38, 43 to 48, 51 to 59, 62, 77 and 78 engage the Commons’ financial privilege. If any of these Lords amendments are agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving the Commons’ financial privilege to be entered in the Journal. I call the Minister to move the motion. I believe it is her debut, so congratulations and welcome—enjoy.
Clause 1
Sale of tobacco etc
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mrs Sharon Hodgson)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Lords amendments 2 to 27.
Lords amendment 28, and Government amendments (a) to (c) consequential on Lords amendment 28.
Lords amendment 29, and Government amendments (a) to (c) consequential on Lords amendment 29.
Lords amendments 30 to 123.
Mrs Hodgson
Before I address Lords amendment 1, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), for her work on the Bill and the wider prevention agenda. I also extend my thanks to Baroness Merron for her work in the other place, ensuring that the Bill was expertly steered through the legislative process.
This is a landmark Bill, and I am honoured to have taken on responsibility for it as the House considers the amendments made in the other place. Creating a smoke-free generation is the most significant public health intervention since the ban on smoking in public places in 2007, under the last Labour Government. Tobacco claims around 80,000 lives every year, and in England it is responsible for a quarter of all cancer deaths. Someone is admitted to hospital almost every minute as a result of smoking, and up to two-thirds of deaths among current smokers can be attributed directly to smoking. Those are not abstract figures; they represent lives cut short by an entirely preventable harm.
The Bill also takes decisive action to tackle the rapid rise in the use of vapes and other nicotine products, particularly among young people, protecting a new generation from nicotine addiction. All the amendments to be considered today have been accepted by the Government, starting with Lords amendments 1, 2, 39 and 40, which change the parliamentary procedure for age verification regulations from negative to affirmative in England and Wales, and in Northern Ireland. The regulations will set out how retailers may ensure compliance when verifying a customer’s age. The changes were made as a result of a recommendation from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which the Government accept.
Mrs Hodgson
I have always wanted to give way to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
Jim Shannon
Well done, Minister—it has been a joy to see the hon. Lady’s elevation to the position she now holds, and I wish her well. Is she aware that Lord Dodds, a DUP Member of the other House, continued to push for changes to age verification in the Bill, and that my party’s primary motivation for the amendments was retailer protection? Without strict parliamentary scrutiny of age verification rules, small businesses will face disproportionate burdens compared with large supermarkets, and the moving age restriction, which rises by one year every year, makes manual verification increasingly difficult for shopkeepers over time. Has the Minister had the opportunity to address that issue, as it concerns many people?
Mrs Hodgson
We do not intend to place undue burdens on retailers. Indeed, it should be easier because there is one only date that anyone will have to remember when verifying somebody’s age, which is 1 January 2029. It should be a lot easier as nobody has to do any complicated arithmetic in their head any more. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.
Lords amendments 3 and 4 provide a narrow exemption to the Bill’s ban on vape vending machines, allowing them to be used in adult mental health settings in England and Wales, and only in areas “wholly or mainly” for patients. That aims to support adult in-patients who may face limits on accessing vaping products used to manage nicotine addiction. The Government remain committed to the wider ban on vending machines, to prevent children and young people from being able to bypass age restrictions on vapes and nicotine products. However, we are aware that adults with long-term mental health conditions have a much higher smoking prevalence than the general population, and ensuring that adult in-patients are able to access vapes from vending machines supports smoking cessation.
Lords amendments 6, 7, 9 to 18, 20, 25, 27, 29 to 31, and 92 to 102 relate to the creation of a licensing scheme in England, and allow for the licensing authority to enforce the future scheme in addition to trading standards. The change was made in response to feedback from local government stakeholders that such a measure would strengthen the scheme and help it to be managed more efficiently following its introduction. Lords amendments 21 to 24 and 28 allow the proceeds from the £2,500 fixed penalty notice for licensing offences in England and Wales to be retained by local authorities for enforcement purposes. The Bill previously required them to be returned to the consolidated fund after costs were deducted. That aligns with the Bill’s approach to allow local authorities to retain proceeds from the £200 fixed penalty notices. Local authorities will be able to reinvest proceeds into strengthening enforcement of the Bill, and help to tackle the illicit market.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
May I, too, welcome the Minister to her post, and say how wonderful it is to see her leading on this important work? On a point of clarification, I am sure the measure she mentions will be welcomed by local authorities. Certainly the experience in my area is that there are hotspots where local authorities struggle with enforcement on a range of issues, whether that is antisocial behaviour, noise, or other activities. Will the measure apply to all local authorities, or just those in some parts of the country? It would be wonderful if it is all local authorities.
Mrs Hodgson
As far as I am aware, it is all local authorities—I am getting an affirmative nod from the Box, so I am happy to give my hon. Friend that reassurance.
The Government have also tabled amendments (a) to (c) consequential on Lords amendments 28, and amendments (a) to (c) consequential on Lords amendment 29, to correct an error arising from changes made on Report in the other place. Without these amendments, trading standards officers in Wales would lose the ability to issue certain fixed penalty notices for a short period. The amendments resolve that issue and ensure consistency of approach between England and Wales.
On the Bill’s ban on advertising vape and nicotine products, Lords amendments 72 and 106 to 109 create a specific defence and provide additional clarity for businesses, ensuring that they can promote non-branded vaping and nicotine products where that is done in an arrangement with a public health authority for public health reasons. It was always the Government’s intention to allow public authorities to continue to promote effective smoking cessation tools, and these amendments strengthen that. I am pleased that we can provide reassurances to healthcare professionals that they can continue to promote smoking cessation materials in agreement with public health authorities.
There are also a number of more technical Lords amendments—71, 104, 105, 110 and 123—relating to advertising. They ensure that the policy works as intended by ensuring consistency of approach, and by taking account of changes to other legislation. They support the implementation and enforcement of the advertising provisions in the Bill.
The issue of filters has been raised throughout the passage of the Bill, both in this House and in the other place. Action on filters has been proposed by parties from across the political spectrum, because of concerns about environmental harms and harms to health. However, parliamentarians have advocated for restricting filters in a number of different ways. Lords amendments 32 to 34, 37 and 38, 42 to 48, 51 to 59, 62, 77 and 78, and 103 therefore contain a suite of powers that will enable secondary legislation to regulate filters, should evidence suggest that this is necessary. Regulations could ban filters in the future, or regulate their packaging, advertising and display. The evidence on the effect of filters, including their direct health impact, is still emerging, so no decision has been made on the use of those powers. The Government will look to consult on using the powers only if we think that there is sufficient evidence to justify action.
Jim Allister
On the review of the Bill, can the Government give an absolute guarantee that all its parts will apply to the whole United Kingdom, and particularly Northern Ireland? We are still, alas, subject to the EU’s tobacco directive, which many believe conflicts with a key part of the Bill. If that aspect of the Bill is overturned in Northern Ireland, will the Government commit to legislating to ensure that it does apply across the whole UK?
Mrs Hodgson
We are content that the measures in the Bill, which are intended to apply to Northern Ireland, are compatible with the obligations under the Windsor framework. I hope that answers the hon. and learned Gentleman’s concern.
We hope that the review will be a clear demonstration of the Government’s commitment to monitoring progress against our smokefree ambition. Finally, Lords amendments 5, 8, 36, 41, 60 and 61, 63 to 76, 79, and 81 to 88 are technical amendments, some of which are consequential to the commencement of several other Acts. They also improve consistency in drafting across the Bill.
I encourage all Members to support all the amendments. These are meaningful changes that strengthen the Bill and respond to concerns raised by Members across the House and in the other place. The Government amendments tabled today will return to the other place for consideration, and I look forward to their timely agreement, and to the Bill completing its final stages.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I welcome the new Minister to her place; she is stepping in and taking the Bill through this stage, like a technical finishing substitute. I, too, have been substituted for my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), who spent a huge amount of time going through the Bill in Committee. I place my thanks to her on the record. Because of what she did, I have not had to do it, which has been a relief.
Eradicating smoking among young people is a public health priority. There may be differences in how we would achieve that, but the objective is shared by Members across the House, and we will not divide the House on the Bill tonight. There has been important common ground. As my colleague Lord Kamall said in the other place, smoking is harmful, vaping is less harmful than smoking, and not vaping is better than vaping. I think we can all agree that those principles should guide this legislation.
Those principles underpinned the Bill introduced by the previous Government. Since then, it has expanded, and at times it risks losing focus on its central aim of reducing smoking, particularly among young people. The Opposition have been concerned, for example, about measures that have placed additional burdens on hospitality and retail, and about restrictions on vaping that could undermine its role as a quitting tool for adult smokers. I therefore welcome the changes made in the House of Lords and the Government’s acceptance of them.
Further, the exemption of the adult mental health in-patient setting from the ban on vapes vending machines is a sensible and compassionate decision. Ministers were right to respond to concerns raised by peers, including my colleague Lord Moylan, and mental health charities, and we welcome the changes to clause 12. It is also right that local authorities will be able to retain proceeds from fixed penalty notices to support enforcement under the amendments to clause 39.
However, the Bill marks not the end of the process, but simply the end of the beginning. Key questions remain, including about the regulation of flavours and descriptors, advertising, and the designation of vape-free places. Those decisions will pretty much determine whether the Bill works in practice. It is therefore essential that the Government proceed in a way that is proportionate, enforceable and sustainable. We have already seen the importance of that balance. I welcome the decision to drop proposals to extend restrictions in pub gardens, which would have placed further strain on the hospitality sector. However, Ministers should take note. Restrictions should be targeted at areas where there is a clear and significant risk to public health. Possible considerations include restrictions outside schools and playgrounds, and I gently ask the Minister to reflect that approach as further regulations are developed.
The Lords also strengthened the Secretary of State’s powers in relation to cigarette filters, enabling more effective regulation of components that contribute to environmental harm. In addition, a series of technical amendments were agreed to, aimed at clarifying definitions, improving compliance mechanisms and ensuring that secondary legislation is subject to the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny. For example, Lords amendment 1, relating to age verification regulations under clause 1, requires the affirmative procedure to be used, increasing oversight of a core part of the Bill. Those are sensible improvements that reflect the spirit of constructive scrutiny.
A key and central issue raised throughout the passage of the Bill has been the risk of unintended consequences, and particularly the growth of the illicit market. Whether we are for the Bill or against it, one concern unites us all: the black market. If regulation is too restrictive or poorly enforced, it will drive consumers away from the legal market and into illegal supply, which would undermine both public health and enforcement. The Opposition proposed an annual report on illicit tobacco and vaping activity, which the Government rejected. Given the concerns raised throughout the passage of the Bill, I would be grateful if the Minister could set out clearly how the Government will monitor and respond to changes in the illicit market.
We support the broad objectives of the Bill, but we will be watching closely. Its success depends not on its intentions, but on its delivery. When it was first introduced, I spoke about my experience as a junior doctor on a respiratory ward—my first hospital job. I saw patients struggling for breath, families in distress, and moments when, despite everything, there was little more that could be done. The true test of the Bill is simple: in years ahead, fewer families should have to experience the same pain, suffering and despair. Let us hope this works.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
I declare an interest: I am proud to be the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health. I am pleased that the Bill has returned from the Lords with minimal amendments. All the amendments before us are either Government amendments or have Government support, so I hope that the Bill can achieve Royal Assent as soon as possible. I understand that the amendments put forward today by the Secretary of State are simply to correct drafting errors, so I assume that they will need only brief consideration by the Lords.
I am proud that the Bill will become law under a Labour Government. I hope that this Government will be remembered as the one that began the end of smoking in this country. In a few decades’ time, I hope that people, particularly young people, will look back on smoking with disbelief, and will say, “Can you believe that selling tobacco, a lethal product, with the aim of getting us hooked, was ever allowed?”
Before coming to this place, I was a councillor in Gateshead council, where I held the public health portfolio from 2009 to 2019, and I chaired the Gateshead Tobacco Alliance. Tackling smoking was a central part of my work during that time, and it continues to be so today, because it remains the single biggest driver of health inequality in communities like mine and across the north-east.
In areas of high deprivation, smoking is not just a public health issue, but a deeply entrenched inequality. It is far more common in disadvantaged communities, where people are more likely to start smoking younger, find it harder to quit, and suffer the worst health outcomes as a result. That means higher rates of cancer, heart disease and respiratory illness, and lives cut tragically short. I have seen that reality at first hand over many years, and it is why action like that set out in the Bill is so important.
We should remember that tobacco is the single most harmful commercial product on sale in the world. It is sold for profit, while killing around two thirds of its long-term users and generating enormous returns for the companies that manufacture it. It is highly addictive, and many who start smoking wish they never had. Over 80,000 people die in this country every year because of it, and if it was introduced today, it is unthinkable that it would ever be permitted.
This Government are right to legislate for a smokefree generation, because there is a fundamental imbalance at the heart of this issue. Companies are making vast profits from a product that drives disease, kills two in three of their customers, deepens inequality and places huge costs on our NHS and wider society. We know how important it is to work towards a truly smokefree future, and to drive smoking rates down to as close to zero as possible.
In the north-east, we have a clear declaration for a smokefree future, endorsed by all directors of public health, our integrated care boards, Fresh, all 12 local councils and all 10 local hospital trusts. That kind of whole-system commitment is vital, not just for improving health but for tackling poverty, supporting a more productive region and preventing the premature loss of loved ones to smoking-related disease. That work is already delivering results. In County Durham, smoking rates have nearly halved over the last decade, reflecting a sustained effort across prevention and support to help people quit. However, rates remain higher in some communities, so we cannot afford to lose focus now.
I am equally pleased about the strong cross-party support for the Bill. We saw that clearly in debates in the other place. The APPG on smoking and health is a great cross-party effort, which I am proud to co-chair with the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman).
There is much to welcome in the amendments. In particular, amendment 80, which requires the Government to review the Act, is an important addition that strengthens the Bill. To be clear, it is not a sunset clause, nor is it a test of whether the smokefree generation policy has succeeded in its health aims—the impact assessment makes it clear that we are playing the long game—but rather it will assess how smoothly implementation has progressed and what burdens, if any, have fallen on retailers. I am confident that it will report positively, and that it will encourage other countries to follow our lead. I note that a similar private Member’s Bill is before the French Parliament, which I hope reassures colleagues about the policy’s compatibility with EU law.
Mary Glindon (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)
I commend my hon. Friend for all her work as part of the APPG on smoking and health and in her former role as a councillor. Does she find it as shocking as I do that four in 10 adult smokers in this country believe vaping to be as harmful or more harmful than smoking, when it is one of the most effective tools to help people quit?
Mary Kelly Foy
I totally agree with my hon. Friend. We must keep in mind the fact that it is smoking that causes harm and death, not vaping, which can be a very successful cessation tool. I hope that the Bill will continue to push that.
Powers in the Bill cover marketing, display, packaging and product design, as well as flavours and their descriptions. However, there is a crucial balance to strike: reducing youth appeal without limiting access or effectiveness for those using the products to quit smoking. We must keep the harms of smoking firmly at the forefront of our minds.
A review after four to seven years feels appropriate to assess how the regulations are affecting usage and the market, and whether we are striking the right balance. This should be considered alongside the disposable vape ban and the forthcoming vape excise tax. I would welcome reassurance today that the review will place the harms of smoking and the needs of smokers at its centre.
Many of the other amendments are technical in nature. I welcome the comprehensive definition of tobacco coming into force on Royal Assent, through Lords amendments 89, 90 and 91, as there is no need for a transition period. The exemption for vape-vending machines in Lords amendments 3 and 4 is also welcome, as others have noted, because we must ensure that vulnerable smokers are supported as much as possible to quit.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) has recently taken up her role, I welcome her to her position as Minister for Public Health. I look forward to working with her as this Bill, soon to be an Act, progresses, so that we can continue our work, and hopefully set out a road map for a totally smokefree country and to look again at introducing a polluter pays levy.
Finally, as someone who has spent many years advocating for a smokefree future, free of death and disease from tobacco, I know from speaking and listening to many people affected by smoking just how much the public want and need this action. We have already shifted the social norms around smoking and now, thanks to the work of organisations such as Action on Smoking and Health and Fresh, and the work of colleagues across the two Houses, a smokefree future is now possible. That is truly something to celebrate.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
I also welcome the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) to her position as Minister for Public Health. I had the privilege to serve on the Bill Committee, as other hon. Members did—indeed, I see some familiar faces in the Chamber. One of the things that struck me most was when the chief medical officer gave his evidence: he said that the Bill was not only the most significant piece of public health legislation in 30 years, but probably the single of piece of legislation that will most help to address inequality. Inequality is multifactorial, but one of the main factors in the difference in life expectancy between certain wealthier areas and certain more deprived areas is the rate of smoking. This Bill will have a huge impact, especially on the communities for which we are really trying to improve life expectancy.
I am very pleased that the Government accepted so many amendments in the Lords. Some of the amendments that the Liberal Democrats are really keen on are regarding fixed penalty notices and require all the money from those fines to go to local public health initiatives, as directed by local authorities. We know that public health is so important, yet funding for such organisations is usually extremely limited, given the pressures on local authorities. Without the Lords amendments on fixed penalty notices, the money would go straight back to the Exchequer. We fundamentally believe that if we are serious about making a meaningful difference to people’s lives, that money must be used in local smoking-cessation initiatives.
As the mental health spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, I am acutely aware of the benefits of the Lords amendments that support those with long-term mental health conditions, who have higher rates of smoking than the general public. We know that going cold turkey is simply unrealistic and can even be dangerous. The exemption on vape vending machines in secure mental health hospitals ensures that people are supported professionally in quitting in a sustainable and maintained way that will not further damage their mental health.
I welcome the Lords amendments on regulating filters, which have cross-party support. Not only are filters an environmental issue, but they provide a false perception of safety to smokers. Ensuring that there is awareness of the lack of protection that these filters provide and of smoking as a whole is imperative if we are to ensure that people can make informed decisions about their health and wellbeing.
I am very pleased to support this Bill as it goes through Parliament; it is momentous and significant. We really appreciate the Government’s accepting the Liberal Democrat Lords amendments, which will slightly improve how the Bill will be delivered. We are very pleased that this will be a strong and impactful Bill. We hope that it will deliver meaningful change on public health for generations to come and that we will have a smokefree generation growing up.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister to her new position and thank her predecessors for all the excellent work that they did in getting this legislation through Committee and in their representations in the House of Lords.
As has rightly been said by Members across this Chamber, this is a seminal piece of legislation that puts Britain at the forefront of smoking cessation. It is a Bill that will be modelled in other nations around the world and that reflects the changing nature of tobacco use in the United Kingdom. I remember that when I was growing up in the 2000s—not that many years ago some might say—smoking was a real problem in schools. Among under-18s in particular, 50% of cohorts were smoking. I am a former schoolteacher, and if we fast-forward to today, that figure has dramatically reduced. However, we see new technologies such as vapes and chewable tobacco taking the place of smoking.
I welcome many of the measures in this Bill and the fact that we are the cheerleaders taking it forward. I also welcome the cross-party consensus in accepting many of the Lords amendments and in accepting proposals from representative groups outside the House. Those proposals include the ban and restrictions on filters, which are evolving as I speak; in many cases around the world, filters are quickly changing, so they still remain a problem.
I accept some of the changes regarding vending machines. One of the big things discussed in Committee was vending machines in mental health and other health institutions as smoking-cessation tools. It is welcome that, as a result of the debate in Committee, we have accepted that vaping remains a smoking-cessation tool. Broadly speaking, until evidence is presented that shows otherwise, vapes are a far healthier product than cigarettes, so they continue to have a place in smoking cessation.
I thank the Government for accepting Lords amendments on the issuing of fines of up to £2,500 by local authorities and the ringfencing of that money for those councils. We know that councils do outstanding work in challenging illegal tobacco. My council in Medway in Kent has one of the most successful track records in identifying illegal tobacco and challenging those who market the product, but we know that that is just the tip of the iceberg. These products contain significant quantities of dangerous chemicals and other types of product that can be severely damaging to people’s health.
I also want to mention restrictions on advertising. We know that there is gamification around tobacco products. We know that tobacco companies have sought to advertise specifically to young people so that they become addicted at ever younger ages. That is not a new technique; it has been happening for generations. I am glad that the Government have accepted Lords amendments on advertising to ensure that we restrict it on television and in other marketing efforts.
This Bill and all the amendments tabled by Members across this Chamber and in the other place, reflecting the views of different organisations in civil society, are broadly speaking extremely sensible, and I am glad that the House is not dividing on the Lords amendments tonight.
Lastly, I pay tribute to all the people working in our health services, who have been the most clear advocates for this Bill. They are the people who have been at the coalface every single day dealing with the consequences of tobacco, be they lung conditions, heart disease or concurrent conditions. It is because of their work over many years that we are here today with this Bill and these Lords amendments.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
I served on the Bill Committee, and the subsequent process of scrutiny of this Bill has been entirely as expected. I was disappointed, though not surprised, by a failure to engage critically with its contents and to listen to the real concerns, in particular those of the high street businesses and the hospitality industry, which it will impact on most. I disagree with this socialist Bill on principle. Although I have a lot of time for my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), I am sorry to see my Front Benchers continuing to support the broad thrust of the Bill. It creates two tiers of adults and, at its core, is fundamentally illiberal.
However, I was willing to look beyond that and engage constructively with the Government to improve the legislation, which is why I tabled a series of common-sense amendments both in Committee and on Report. They would have allowed for the advertisement of smokefree products in venues that are already adult-only; required a consultation on the impact of advertising bans on retailers; and permitted the targeted advertisement of vapes and smokefree alternatives to existing adult smokers. Those proposals had some cross-party support in this House, and two of them were taken up by peers in the other place, notably Lord Udny-Lister and Lord Sharpe for the Opposition.
Throughout this process, I have engaged with the Minister and her predecessors through letters and written questions, and I genuinely thank her for her timely responses. However, it quickly became clear that there was little interest from the Government in improving this Bill, which is driven more by puritan ideology than by evidence or practicality. As a result, we have seen it forced through by the Labour Government and their little helpers, the illiberal Democrats in the other place, with no regard to implementation or unintended consequences. Today, we are likely again to wave through 100 Government amendments from the Lords with minimal scrutiny.
All parties will welcome the fact that smoking rates in this country have declined from 30% in the early 2000s to 10.4% today. The free market has played a key role in that, with companies creating less harmful, smokefree alternatives such as vapes and nicotine pouches. There has been a consistent failure to recognise what an important role such products have played in the decline of smoking, and I hold concerns that the tight restrictions in this Bill on flavours and advertising will stop adult smokers from making the switch.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Although I disagree with much of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, I recognise the passion with which he speaks. Does he recognise that one issue with vape products is that a number of people who smoke vapes have not previously smoked cigarettes? That is a concern. Vapes are not just an alternative to smoking and a means to stop people smoking; young people are being drawn to vapes rather than cigarettes because of their colours. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that that is an issue that needs to be addressed?
Jack Rankin
I absolutely recognise that. We should make sure that these products are available to adult smokers—children should never start. However, I am afraid that the heavy-handed nature of this Bill risks sending the broad message to the general public that vapes are bad, which is not a message that we want to send to existing adult smokers. That point was ably made earlier by some of the hon. Gentleman’s friends on the Labour Benches. I believe that we would be doing a disservice to, and setting back, the public health aims of the Bill by advancing it as it stands.
Lords amendment 72 rightly protects the advertisement of vapes and nicotine products as part of a public health campaign, but this demonstrates the great irony of the Bill. The Government know that vapes and nicotine products are an effective quit aid and actively promote them for that purpose, but at the same time they are bringing in measures that will reduce their availability and attractiveness to adult smokers.
If Ministers will not listen to Members of this House and peers in the other place, I had hoped that they might at least listen to the hundreds of high street businesses that took the time to write to them. I share those businesses’ concerns about the extra pressures the Bill will place on corner shops, convenience stores and hospitality businesses, and how it will change the face of our high streets. That is where the real impact of the Bill will be felt. Those businesses are already under immense pressure from high energy costs, increasing national insurance contributions, the Employment Rights Act 2025 and changes to business rates—I will admit that the Government are nothing if not consistent. Corner shops and convenience stores now face losing custom due to the generational ban, alongside further compliance burdens through advertising restrictions and licensing schemes. The ban alone is expected to cause 7,680 store closures, to cost 70,000 jobs and to cost retailers £6.52 billion. Those are not my numbers; they are from the Government’s own impact assessment.
Dr Chambers
The hon. Gentleman raises legitimate points about the pressures facing small businesses at the moment, but does he not agree that there must be better ways of supporting small businesses than facilitating children to get cancer?
Jack Rankin
I am not suggesting that at all, sir. I am suggesting that the generational smoking ban that applies to smoking adults—I have never met a smoking adult who did not know that smoking was bad for them—is an illiberal policy that will create two tiers of adults. There is absolutely nothing wrong with people making decisions that we individually might think are bad for them. The evidence suggests the same, but people should be perfectly able to make those decisions should they choose to do so.
As legitimate businesses struggle, less scrupulous operators will inevitably fill the gap. The rapid growth of seemingly dodgy vape shops is a real concern for my constituents in Windsor, and it will be a concern for the constituents of Members right across the House. On the high street in Windsor, there are eight such shops. This is not a response to the demand for vapes, so we should ask whether fraud, money laundering or organised crime are taking place. We already have much evidence to say that they are. During a mystery shopper exercise in Windsor and Sunninghill, I witnessed the sale of illicit tobacco in three shops—it was alarmingly easy to obtain. The price difference explains why: a pack of illicit cigarettes can cost as little as £3.50, compared with £16.75 at retail. If such activity is taking place openly today, that raises the question of what else might be happening behind the scenes, and where this activity will go under the Bill.
The Bill risks turbocharging an already thriving black market. Tobacco receipts are down by £414 million, or 10%, in the last six months alone, and have fallen nearly 30% over the past decade, far outpacing the decline in smoking rates. More than one in four cigarettes consumed in Britain are now illicit, amounting to about 2 billion cigarettes each year, and the international evidence, including from Australia, should serve as a warning. Members who are sceptical should spend time with their local trading standards office to see the reality for themselves. That is why hundreds of retailers backed an amendment, tabled by Lord Murray of Blidworth, that would have replaced the generational ban with a minimum age of sale of 21. That would have been more enforceable and less costly. Naturally, that amendment was rejected.
Hospitality businesses have voiced real concerns about provisions in the Bill. That sector is so important to the economy in Windsor, and it is already struggling: since the 2024 Budget, job losses in the sector have made up around 50% of job losses overall. UKHospitality has said that many businesses have no capacity to absorb additional costs. Labour has hiked alcohol duty, is banning smoking and is considering health warnings on alcohol. Labour hates fun—it is no wonder that landlords are barring MPs from their pubs.
Amendments tabled in the other place by Lord Sharpe of Epsom would have protected our beer gardens from being designated as smokefree and allowed the advertising of products that do not contain tobacco in age-gated venues, in a similar way to the amendments that I tabled in the Commons. Those amendments would have gone some way towards reassuring pubs and venues that the Government are not completely set on destroying them. Again, those amendments were rejected—or am I to understand that the Government have U-turned on that?
Before I conclude, I will briefly raise one further concern regarding the powers granted to Ministers to prohibit cigarette filters in future. The justification for this measure remains unclear, and it is yet another example of the broad and—I would argue—excessive powers that this Bill contains, including the host of Henry VIII powers it grants. Through this Bill, the Government have teed themselves up to bring in further puritan measures in the coming years without needing to consult this House. Any such steps will simply exacerbate the growth of the black market and the decline in duties collected.
Smoking rates are falling naturally, but this Bill may well reverse that trend, as it limits access to quit aids. It will likely mean less revenue for the Treasury as the black market grows, and it will cost our high street businesses billions. The amendment process has done little to address, or even acknowledge, those concerns. However, I will end on a more positive note by saying that I welcome Lords amendment 80, which requires a review of the Bill within four to seven years of its implementation. I believe that review will vindicate me in many of the concerns I have raised today and provide a future Government with the opportunity to address or, indeed, repeal those aspects of the Bill that prove most unworkable—not that I believe this Bill will get that far. It will not survive a change in Government, which will happen at the next opportunity afforded to the Great British people.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my position as chair of the responsible vaping all-party parliamentary group, in which I succeeded my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon).
As a member of the Bill Committee and part of the envious generation who will precede the smokefree generation this Bill promises, I welcome its return to the House and welcome the Minister for Public Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), to her place. It cannot go without saying that we also welcome the immense contribution of her predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), and her mammoth work in guiding the Bill through Report and Third Reading. Finally, I welcome the contributions of Members from all parts of the House to the Bill.
It is critical that the powers enabled by the extensive secondary legislation that this Bill provides for are employed with our constituents’ health at the forefront of Ministers’ minds. My primary hope is that the Bill will drastically bring down smoking-related illness and early death, which are still far too prominent among smokers in this country. It has been proven by all currently available evidence that for smokers, switching to vaping is a substantially preferable and healthier choice than continuing to smoke. To put it simply, if you do not smoke, do not vape, but if you do smoke, switching to vaping is a far preferable choice for your health. That is a message we should never tire of repeating, especially considering that four in every 10 smokers still believe that vaping is just as harmful as smoking, if not more harmful, despite the scientific and medical consensus.
As we pursue a smokefree generation for those turning 18 at the turn of the year, the Government must recommit at every opportunity—including through this Bill—to rebutting this harmful misunderstanding of the relative harm of vaping through both words and actions. Lords amendment 72 acknowledges this by providing a defence for public authorities to the offences in clause 113 on advertising that would enable the ongoing use of vapes and nicotine products for the promotion or protection of public health. I note that that defence applies only to non-branded vaping and nicotine products. When she sums up, will the Minister clarify whether the amendment would permit the use of flavoured vapes or nicotine products in pursuit of the promotion or protection of public health? The written and verbal testimony of ex-smokers across the country who have made the switch to vaping is clear that they rely on flavours to quit, to stay quitting, and to quit for good.
When we consider the use of secondary powers as part of the powers available to Ministers under the Bill, we must fairly balance the crucial public health objective of getting adult smokers to quit for good against the rising concerns about youth vaping across the country. It is the sadly too common gaudy and immediately apparent displays in shops, the ridiculous flavour descriptors and the packaging associated with illicit manufacturing and retailing that are driving youth vaping far more than the flavours themselves. We talk about the proliferation of vape shops on high streets, but it is the illicit and unregulated market that we must pursue as a priority. We certainly should not group that market with specialist retailers that pursue strong age verification, muted displays, safe storage and the ability to support smokers to quit.
On enforcement, Lords amendments 9 to 13 make necessary clarifications on the definition of an enforcement authority in England and Wales. Lords amendments 14 to 20 subsequently clarify where the responsibility to issue fixed penalty notices sits. Enforcement of this Bill will be necessary if it is to achieve its aim to crack down on illegal and illicit vape products, but we must not forget that the proliferation of the illegal vaping business is still concentrated at points of entry to the UK market. We must pursue that important objective, because we cannot prejudice public and consumer opinion against the sale of legal vapes from the regulated industry by allowing them to be displayed alongside illicit and unregulated products that we all want to see off the shelves of our local corner shops. Those are the products that are driving youth vaping, not the regulated ones. We must therefore ensure the adequate resourcing of Border Force, trading standards and local enforcement authorities. Will the Minister provide detail on how the Government will seek to achieve that within the scope of this Bill?
Lords amendments 21 and 22 to clause 38 are a welcome step. They permit relevant local enforcement authorities to retain the sums and reinvest them in connection with their enforcement functions, rather than those sums going to the national Consolidated Fund. Can the Minister clarify the purposes for which those funds can be utilised? As I understand it, they can be used only in connection with the enforcement function and not to support swap-to-stop schemes or any broader activity. I would appreciate that clarity when she winds up.
The need for enforcement against illicit retail practices has rightly become an increasingly salient issue, especially in Scotland following the tragic fire earlier this month in Glasgow. While it is important for us to state that no cause of the fire has yet been definitively established—that is rightly for the relevant authorities to investigate— will the Minister expand on how secondary legislation and associated Government action around trading standards could better enable local authorities to enforce against the illicit practices that the Bill seeks to address? How will the Government encourage retailers to drag themselves up to the best practice of specialist retailers on display, storage and age verification?
To conclude, the Bill’s primary aim to create a smokefree generation is welcome. I welcome that it will directly make that generation healthier and happier, and enable them to live far longer than those who preceded them. We must do all that, however, while enabling the millions of adult smokers in Britain to quit quicker and to get healthier.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
I welcome the Minister to her place. I worked with her predecessors when I was Health Minister in Northern Ireland, when this Bill first came about. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Members for Windsor (Jack Rankin) and for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy), because this legislation started its iterations under the previous Government. Very little has changed between what was debated then and what is before us now, because it is the right thing to do. It is the common-sense thing to do for the health of the entirety of our nation.
I remember having those conversations with the then MP for South Northamptonshire, Dame Andrea Leadsom, who was passionate about what the Bill would bring about. She was receiving the same advice as I was from chief medical officers across the nation about how the cessation of smoking across generations would dramatically change not just health, but the income of many families. In respect of that four-nation approach, I seek reassurance again from the Government—I have received reassurance on this from the last Government and this Government—that the Bill will apply equally in Northern Ireland and all parts of the nation.
Jack Rankin
The hon. Member is right that the Bill, if it does apply, should apply to the whole United Kingdom, of which Northern Ireland is an integral part. Under the Windsor framework—the sell-out that is disgracefully named after my constituency—Northern Ireland is subject to the tobacco products directive, is it not? Is it possible, then, for the Bill to apply equally to Northern Ireland?
Robin Swann
That is the concern, but I point out that the Windsor framework was negotiated and implemented by the previous Government, who left Northern Ireland in this current situation. When I was in post, I received reassurances from the previous Government and from this Government. I would like to be in a place that I can take both at their word that they have done their due diligence about the applicability of this legislation, and the Minister responded to the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) on that.
Robin Swann
Well, it was Democratic Unionist party MPs who were prepared to oppose the Bill in this House while their MLAs supported it back in the Northern Ireland Assembly. That was a strange mixture, but that is where we are and that is where they are at this minute. I am assured that DUP MLAs support this legislation applying equally to Northern Ireland, and I think that was part of the debate in the other place with their peers. I finish by seeking reassurances from the Minister about the application of this Bill, because it is a good piece of legislation.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to have this Bill back before us today. During the many great speeches tonight, but also on Second and Third Reading, the great majority of people have agreed that we should feel proud of this world-leading piece of legislation. It will create that elusive thing: a smokefree generation in this country.
As a former smoker and as vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health, I am grateful to have been able to speak regularly in the debates on this Bill, including spending many hours in the Bill Committee going through it line by line. As the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) said, there is a feeling of veterans of the Bill gathering round to see it finally get over the line, and that is a wonderful thing.
As vice-chair of the APPG on smoking and health, I want to put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) and the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for their great work over the years leading that APPG to the point where we now have legislation that embodies the APPG’s ambitions.
Before I get into the detail, I will offer my thanks to Ministers and officials here and across the four nations of the United Kingdom for the work that they have done to create a Bill that will apply across our entire nation. I welcome the new Minister for public health, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), to her place. It is brilliant to have a champion for public health over many years as the new Minister. She was a very able public health spokesperson for this party while in opposition.
Just under a year ago, I tabled an amendment on Report that would have introduced a ban on all cigarette filters, regardless of whether they contain plastic. I tabled it in recognition of the fact that there are no health benefits at all to cigarette filters, despite the hon. Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) seeming to be of the view that there are. Filters were developed by the tobacco industry following evidence that smoking caused lung cancer, in order to give a false sense of reassurance to smokers. The passage of this Bill has also seen discussions of the merits of what have been described as biodegradable filters. As Dr Bas Boots, ecologist and senior lecturer at Anglia Ruskin University—he spoke last year to the APPG on smoking and health—has said:
“All cigarette filters are harmful to the environment. Research from Anglia Ruskin shows the extent of this, with filters leaching toxic chemicals into soils and waterways causing harm to plants and animals.”
Although the Government did not accept my amendment, I am pleased to see other amendments—including Lords amendments 37 to 45—to ensure that regulatory powers in the Bill can apply to filters, and I understand from Action on Smoking and Health that if the UK were to ban filters, we would be the first country in the world to do so. I hope that the Minister, when she sums up the debate, will be able to tell us when a call for evidence related to cigarette filters will be launched.
In Committee, we discussed at length whether the changes in the Bill should extend to vape vending machines in mental health settings. I am grateful to the Government for considering that carefully and altering the Bill, via Lords amendments 3 and 4, to exempt vending machines in such settings from the overall, and very sensible, ban on them elsewhere in the light of their obvious role in helping often vulnerable people to stay smokefree.
The addition of a Government commitment, via Lords amendment 80, to review the implementation of the Bill within four to seven years is really sensible. It is important for us to look at how it is working, and to share any lessons learned with other countries that may be pursuing similar legislation—we know that a number of countries are doing so.
I also support Lords amendments 89, 90 and 91, which will ensure that a comprehensive definition of “tobacco” will apply from Royal Assent, as it should. That will end the practice of illegally marketing heated tobacco products, and will enable the Government to use powers in the Bill to specify that devices used for the consumption of tobacco cannot be promoted.
Finally, I want to reflect on the key impact of the Bill. When the age of sale restrictions for tobacco come into force on 1 January 2027, we will create a smokefree generation, with those born on or after 1 January 2009 turning 18 and never being able to purchase tobacco legally. As this century progresses, millions of UK lives will be saved, and we will genuinely be on the road to a smokefree Britain.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
Before I begin my brief speech, may I say how good it is to see my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) in the Chamber? We owe her a debt of gratitude for both introducing the Bill and piloting it through the House. She leaves behind—I was going to say large shoes, but that seems a bit rude—significant shoes to be filled, but I know they are shoes that the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), is more than capable of filling, and I am very glad to see her in her place this evening.
I wish to speak briefly about Lords amendments 11 and 61, which, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank), clarify what we mean by a “relevant enforcement authority” and, in particular, clarify the duty that will be placed on that relevant enforcement authority to consider annually whether it is appropriate to carry out a programme of enforcement action. As has been said, we acknowledge, and know, that vaping can support adults who want to move away from smoking, but we nevertheless cannot ignore the rapid rise in youth vaping and the growing presence of illegal, non-compliant and counterfeit vapes and cigarettes in all our communities. That is why a robust, mandatory licensing framework is so urgently needed. The Bill will give the Government the power to introduce such a framework, and that can only be strengthened by a requirement for licensing authorities to consider annually the programme of enforcement.
Contrary to what the hon. Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) seemed to suggest, one of the strongest arguments for licensing is its ability to combat the sale of illegal cigarettes and vapes on our high streets. Local authorities and enforcement bodies have warned repeatedly that rogue sellers are flooding the market with untested, high-nicotine, incorrectly labelled or counterfeit products, and my constituency is no exception. Just a few weeks ago, Cumberland council trading standards seized 6,000 illegal cigarettes in raids, and that was in addition to the £20,000-worth of illegal tobacco and vapes seized last summer. The introduction of on-the-spot fines of up to £2,500 and the ability to revoke retailers’ licences entirely are therefore welcome.
Mandatory licensing will also make it much easier to shut down dodgy shops that knowingly stock or distribute illegal vapes and cigarettes. Under the new framework, any premises found storing, displaying or supplying unregulated products will lose their licences, because licensing applies not just to the act of selling, but to the possession of regulated products for retail purposes. This means that enforcement officers will no longer have to rely on repeated seizures or warnings; they will have a fast, lawful route to closing down problem retailers for good.
In short, mandatory licensing is not just another layer of regulation; it is a powerful tool to crack down on illegal vapes, remove bad actors from our high streets, and support safer and more responsible retailing. More important, it will give local authorities the powers they need to shut down dodgy shops quickly, decisively and permanently. I therefore welcome both the Lords amendments and the Bill as a step forward to cleaning up our high streets and ensuring that we have a healthier, happier country.
Mrs Hodgson
With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to place on the record my sincere thanks to all Members who have contributed to this thoughtful and constructive debate, and throughout the Bill’s passage in this House. It has been a real privilege to take it through this stage, following in the elegant and tiny footsteps but great ability of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), who, along with our colleague Lady Merron in the other place, has done sterling work.
I am so grateful for the engagement of colleagues across the House, and for the shared commitment to improving public health and protecting future generations. As Members are aware, smoking remains the leading preventable cause of death, disability and ill health in this country. Despite significant progress, 5.3 million adults were still smoking cigarettes in 2024, and while tobacco remains the greatest threat, owing to its unique harms, we are also seeing a rapid rise in the use of vapes and other nicotine products, particularly among young people, creating a new generation at risk of harm and addiction. That is why this Bill matters, and why the action that we are taking today is so important.
Let me now turn to the points raised by hon. Members, who were small in number but mighty in their contributions. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), made an excellent speech, and I enjoyed hearing his thoughts—but he is not listening while I am talking about him.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
She is trying to be nice to you!
Mrs Hodgson
I am trying to be nice, and the shadow Minister is ignoring me, but I really enjoyed listening to what he said about being a practising doctor, and about his concerns which made it so apparent that we had to do something about this. I am sure that, having got here, he is proud to have played a part in getting this legislation on to the statute book, for those very reasons. He asked me about the illicit market. The creation of a smokefree generation will prevent people from ever becoming addicted to smoking in the first place. When the age of sale was increased from 16 to 18, 1.3 million more people could no longer to be sold cigarettes, and would, in theory, be in the market for illegal cigarettes. In practice, the number of illicit cigarettes consumed fell by 25% between 2005-06 and 2007-08.
The Bill takes bold action to strengthen enforcement and crack down on rogue retailers. We are investing up to £10 million of new funding in trading standards annually until 2028-29 to tackle the illicit and under-age sale of tobacco and vapes, and to help enforce the law. That funding is being used to boost the trading standards workforce by hiring 120 apprentices across England. The illicit tobacco strategy establishes a cross-Government taskforce, enhancing the ability of His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to disrupt organised crime. Between April 2015 and March 2023, over 10 billion cigarettes on which UK duty had not been paid were seized by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and Border Force. The hon. Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) asked about the illicit market, so I hope that addresses some of his concerns.
The shadow Minister asked about an appropriate balance. The Bill rightly takes strong action against youth vaping while recognising the important role that vapes play in helping adult smokers to quit smoking. The Government have been cautious to strike the right balance between reducing the appeal to children and ensuring that vapes remain an accessible tool for smoking cessation. That is why the Bill provides powers to tackle the appeal of vapes to children through elements such as packaging, display, flavours and device features. However, in order to avoid unintended consequences for adult smoking rates, the scope of restrictions will be carefully considered and consulted on.
Dr Evans
I am glad the Minister has addressed many of the questions that I posed. One was about the designation of vape-free places, and I think there is consideration of what that will look like. How will the Government approach that? I would welcome it if she could at least set out the framework of what she might think about in her new role.
Mrs Hodgson
That is being looked at, and I can write to the shadow Minister with the details as we progress. I will commit to doing that.
Mary Glindon
I welcome the Minister to her place and congratulate her on her new role. She has a hard act to follow, but I am sure she will be brilliant in her job. Could she say what metrics the Government will use to measure whether the Bill successfully reduces youth vaping?
Mrs Hodgson
I will definitely write to my hon. Friend, rather than just guess, but I suppose that we will see fewer young people vaping—the numbers should go down. To quote chief medical officer Chris Whitty, as someone did in an excellent speech earlier:
“If you smoke, vaping is much safer; if you don’t smoke, don’t vape.”
That is what we want the message to be, but I will commit to writing to my hon. Friend about how we will follow the metrics.
I come to the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy), who asked about the levy. The measures in this Bill to reduce the use of tobacco are world leading. Given that the Bill will create a smokefree generation, and that we have a proven and effective model for increasing tobacco duties, we do not think that introducing a new, bespoke levy is the best way forward.
My hon. Friend also asked about advertising. We must stop the advertising and promotion of products that risk addicting a new generation to nicotine. The Bill delivers on this Government’s manifesto commitment to stopping the blatant advertising of vapes to children while continuing to support adult smokers in quitting. She said that it would be appropriate for nicotine pouches to be in scope of the ban on advertising, and I can commit to that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne) made a very thoughtful contribution, which sadly was followed by a not-so-thoughtful contribution from the hon. Member for Windsor. He and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) called this a “socialist Bill”, but I remind the House that it started its life under a Conservative Government, and was lost in the wash-up prior to the general election.
Mrs Hodgson
I will finish responding to the hon. Member’s ideological arguments. This is not about liberty or choice for smokers. Up to two thirds of deaths among smokers can be attributed to smoking; three quarters of smokers wish they had never started; and the majority want to quit. That is not freedom of choice. The tobacco industry took away their choice by addicting them at a very young age.
Jack Rankin
I thank the Minister for her implied compliment to the Leader of the Opposition, who voted against this Bill on Second Reading when the previous Prime Minister brought it forward. She voted against it because the Bill does not respect the proper relationship between the state and the individual, and does not deliver equality under the law, so we will take that as a compliment in the new Conservative party, which is being refreshed in an authentically conservative direction.
Mrs Hodgson
The freedom to be addicted—I think that is what the hon. Member has just defended. I am sure that those on his Front Bench will take note of that. He also asked me about smokefree places. No smoker wants to harm people, but they do so through second-hand smoke, as we all know. On 13 February, the Government published our consultation on “free from” places. As we have previously set out, this Government are consulting on making outdoor public places smokefree and free from heated tobacco, including children’s playgrounds and spaces outside a number of health, social care and educational settings. Children and medically vulnerable people who visit such places should not be exposed to harm through no choice of their own. Additionally, we are consulting on making areas outside playgrounds and schools vape-free. With regard to indoor spaces that are currently smokefree, we are consulting on making the majority free from heated tobacco and vape-free. The consultation does not consider extending the proposals to outdoor hospitality.
Moving on to the excellent speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank), I can confirm that, for smoking cessation purposes, flavoured vapes can still be promoted by businesses if they have an agreement with public health authorities. We recognise that vape flavours are an important consideration for adult smokers who are seeking to quit smoking, which is why the Government recently committed to consulting on regulating flavour descriptors as a first step before considering broader restrictions on flavoured ingredients.
The hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann), in his really good speech, mentioned concerns about Northern Ireland. The Bill is UK-wide and has been developed in close partnership with the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive. We are content that the measures in the Bill, which are intended to apply to Northern Ireland, are compatible with the obligations under the Windsor framework, as I said earlier. The UK Government notified the EU’s technical regulation information system—TRIS—that certain provisions in the Bill relate to Northern Ireland; this is a standard process, not an approval process. Certain EU member states issued opinions setting out concerns about the compatibility of the smokefree generation policy with EU law, and it is not unusual for member states to submit opinions on TRIS notifications. For instance, several member states recently wrote to France when it proposed a ban on nicotine pouches, despite several other member states having already introduced such a ban.
The Government have provided a comprehensive response to the opinions that we have received, which sets out the strong public health justification for the policy, and explains why the smokefree generation policy complies with EU law as it applies under the Windsor framework, and the European Commission has now responded, noting our response. This concludes the TRIS process. I hope that answers some of the hon. Gentleman’s concerns.
We had really good contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Dartford (Jim Dickson) and for Carlisle (Ms Minns). If I have not answered any of their questions because I was not quick enough to write stuff down, I commit to writing to both.
I very much hope that this House will support all the amendments under consideration, and that the Governments amendments will return to the other place for due consideration. I hope that this landmark Bill can complete its passage shortly, and that we can move forward with delivering a smokefree UK.
Lords amendment 1 agreed to.
Lords amendments 2 to 28 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendments 21 and 22.
Government amendments (a) to (c) consequential on Lords amendment 28 made.
Lords amendment 29 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived.
Government amendments (a) to (c) consequential on Lords amendment 29 made.
Lords amendments 30 to 123 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendments 32 to 34, 37, 38, 43 to 48, 51 to 59, 62, 77 and 78.
National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill: Programme (No. 2)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 17 December 2025 (National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill: Programme):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement.
Subsequent stages
(2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(3) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Imogen Walker.)
Question agreed to.
National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:50 - The House divided: - Ayes: 280 / Noes: 161 - Question accordingly agreed to.
20:04 - The House divided: - Ayes: 279 / Noes: 167 - Question accordingly agreed to.
20:15 - The House divided: - Ayes: 280 / Noes: 164 - Question accordingly agreed to.
20:29 - The House divided: - Ayes: 281 / Noes: 167 - Question accordingly agreed to.
20:43 - The House divided: - Ayes: 278 / Noes: 164 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I inform the House that Lords amendments 1 to 12 engage the Commons’ financial privilege. If any of these Lords amendments are agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving the Commons’ financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.
Clause 1
Employer pensions contributions pursuant to optional remuneration arrangements: Great Britain
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 2 to 12, and Government motions to disagree.
Torsten Bell
I welcome the opportunity to consider the Lords amendments to the Bill. I thank Members of both Houses for their careful scrutiny of it, and I particularly thank the Financial Secretary, Lord Livermore, for leading the Bill so expertly through the other place. Before addressing the amendments directly and explaining the Government’s decision not to support them—I know that will be shocking—I turn briefly to the need for these reforms.
As the Chancellor set out at the Budget, we are taking action to make the tax system fairer and fit for the 21st century. That requires us to keep the effectiveness and value for money of the £500 billion of tax reliefs under review, and it is especially important to do so when costs are expected to increase significantly. The cost of national insurance contributions relief on salary sacrifice into pension schemes was due to almost treble, from £2.8 billion in 2017 to £8 billion by 2031, without reform, which would be equivalent to the cost of the Royal Air Force. This is not only an expensive tax relief, but one with a very uneven impact. The majority of employers do not offer salary sacrifice at all. The vast majority of salary sacrifice contributions are made by higher and additional-rate taxpayers. Salary sacrifice is unavailable entirely to those earning at or near the national living wage, or to the UK’s 4.4 million self-employed workers, and we know that both groups are more likely to be under-saving for retirement.
On this basis, the status quo is indefensible. Change was inevitable, but we have chosen to take a pragmatic approach, with no change until 2029, and a £2,000 cap to allow pension contributions via salary sacrifice to continue.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for bringing this Bill forward. He brings a good story to the House, but sometimes these decisions give rise to questions. My constituents believe that the Bill creates a financial disincentive for middle-income earners to save for their retirement. Does he not agree that this risks creating a pensions gap, with individuals becoming more dependent on the state in later life, which will cost the taxpayer more in the long run than the tax relief costs today? My constituents feel that, and I am asking the Minister the question. How would he answer it?
Torsten Bell
The hon. Member always raises questions brought up by his constituents, which we know is a valuable part of the work he does in this place. The direct answer to his constituents is that all of them have a very strong tax incentive to save for their pension, without salary sacrifice. We spend £70 billion a year to provide that incentive, whether via the lump sum or the national insurance exemption for employer contributions. I hope the main thing he says to any of his constituents who come through the door is that they have a very strong incentive to save, whatever their circumstances. On the pension gap, that is why we have revived the Pensions Commission. Its work is ongoing, and I am sure he will read in detail its interim report, which will be coming out in the coming months.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I like to think I represent my constituents as well as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) does his, if anyone could. My constituents are really concerned about the pension gap, because the reality for many of them is that they do not earn enough money to begin to think about saving for a pension. Those are actually the things this Government should focus on, not tax reliefs for higher earners who can afford an additional small bit of tax. Personally, as a resident of Harlow, where a number of young people are in poverty, I will not have sleepless nights over this tax change.
Torsten Bell
As always, I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. He was pretending that the competition is about who is the better MP, but we know it is really about the volume of speaking in this Chamber. The two of them are running it close, but never testing the patience of this House. It is amazing that you have allowed them both in this early in the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, because that is what the closing minutes of every debate in this House should be about. It is important to have traditions, and they both deliver admirably, but I will make some progress before we get sidetracked entirely.
I was talking about the pragmatic approach we are taking to this change. As I have said, there will be no change until 2029, and the £2,000 cap means that salary sacrifice contributions can continue. That recognises the fact that that has become an established process in several companies and for individuals, so we are giving people time to adjust. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised that, and I have responded by saying that this is pragmatic because pension tax relief continues in its entirety. It is important to remember that relief is available to all savers, not just to the minority who have salary sacrifice available to them.
With that in mind—and I am sure that the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) for the Conservatives will have decided to support the Bill in its entirety having listened to those powerful arguments—I turn first to Lords amendments 1 and 7, which would exempt basic rate taxpayers from the operation of the Bill, and Lords amendments 5 and 11, which would increase the contributions limit to £5,000. The Government’s balanced and pragmatic approach, with the £2,000 cap, means that 74% of basic taxpayers using salary sacrifice will be entirely unaffected. The small proportion of basic rate taxpayers with contributions above the cap will still be getting the national insurance contributions relief on the first £2,000 of contributions made via salary sacrifice, in addition to the full income tax relief that is available to all employee pension contributions.
Exempting basic rate taxpayers in the manner proposed would be incredibly difficult to operate. An individual’s tax band is not knowable until the end of the tax year, which means employers would be required to carry out complicated calculations at the end of the year to reconcile the figures, and they would need to know their employees’ other sources of income, which I do not think anyone would believe is a good idea.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The Lords amendments might not be perfect, but do they not set out the principled objection to the Government taxing some basic rate taxpayers more for choosing to save for their pension and at the same time using that money to increase welfare spending?
Torsten Bell
No, that is not what is going on. What will happen is that everybody will still have a strong tax relief incentive to save for their pension, and by taking a sensible approach to reforming that, we will avoid seeing the cost of the tax relief rise to the same level as the cost of the RAF. I listen to Opposition Members day in, day out calling for more defence spending. There are consequences for that. One of them is that we have to do our job of looking carefully at the quality of our tax reliefs, and that is what we are doing today. Hon. Members should support us in doing that.
Sir Ashley Fox
Rather than raising taxes, could the Minister perhaps not send £36 billion to the Government of Mauritius to rent back an airbase that we already own?
Torsten Bell
That is a question the hon. Gentleman should put to his Front Benchers, who opened the negotiations with Mauritius in the first place. Opposition Members come to the House making cheap points, because they used to take seriously the job of government and they have given up entirely. I will make some progress now, having engaged with the hon. Member who obviously gave up on the job of serious government some time ago.
A world where 95% of those earning £30,000 or less and contributing via a salary sacrifice are unaffected makes the case for the £2,000 cap I have set out, but the Government agree with the sentiment raised in the Lords about keeping it under review. The Bill allows for that to take place in future.
That leads me to Lords amendments 2 and 8, which would exempt salary sacrifice pension contributions over the £2,000 cap from the calculation of student loan repayments. It is right that we focus on the outcomes for younger generations too often let down by the failures of the previous Government. I gently remind Conservative Members—there are only two of them here, but there are some Liberal Democrats who deserve some of the “credit” too—of their track record on this matter: trebling tuition fees, raising interest rates, scrapping maintenance grants and the rest. And that is before I get to not allowing anything to be built. That is what younger generations are being let down by.
On the specific proposal, it is worth noting that while salary sacrifice arrangements can reduce the student loan repayments made, they do not reduce the total amount due for repayment. Much more important is the fact that the £2,000 cap means that young graduates are broadly unaffected. In fact—these are new figures that were not available for the discussion in the Lords, but as this issue has been raised and brought to the Commons, I will provide them—the £2,000 cap means that 90% of graduates under the age of 30 repaying student loans who are saving into a pension will be unaffected, in the sense that 90% of them save less than £2,000 a year. I hope that provides some reassurance to Members who have raised that point.
Lords amendments 3, 4, 9 and 10 would make the regulation-making powers in the Bill subject to the affirmative procedure, except for those which solely increase the contributions limit. The Government agree on the importance of maintaining strong parliamentary scrutiny, particularly where changes could affect individuals’ national insurance liabilities. However, the Bill already contains a series of safeguards and the legislative approach taken follows long-standing precedence for national insurance legislation. In addition, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has carefully scrutinised the powers in the Bill, including the proposed level of parliamentary scrutiny, and concluded that there is nothing in the Bill that it wishes to draw to the special attention of the House.
Lords amendments 6 and 12 seek to exempt small and medium-sized enterprises, alongside smaller charities and social enterprises, from the Bill’s provisions. Again, the Government agree on the importance of supporting small businesses—I am sure that that is a matter of cross-party support—but small businesses are much less likely to use salary sacrifice than larger businesses. Furthermore, the £2,000 cap means that 90% of employees in SMEs making pension contributions through salary sacrifice will be entirely unaffected. Indeed, the largest benefits from uncapped salary sacrifice accrue to larger businesses, not smaller ones. In practice, the changes in the Bill will help to level the playing field between small businesses and their larger competitors. Those wanting to see support for small businesses should support the measures in the Bill. The Government are engaging with employers, payroll professionals and software developers to ensure that the changes are implemented in the least burdensome way possible for employers of all sizes.
I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will understand why it would not be right to support the amendments from the other place, even though we recognise the valuable objectives that have in many cases motivated them. As I said, the Government spend over £500 billion each year on various tax reliefs within the tax system. That is more than double the entire annual NHS budget. The size of the spend means that the Government must always keep the effectiveness and the value for money of those reliefs under review. These are necessary, pragmatic and fair reforms that protect ordinary workers while ensuring that public finances are kept on a sustainable footing. I respectfully propose that this House disagrees with the amendments.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
I would also like to start by thanking the Lords for their very hard work. I do not think the Government won a single vote during the Bill’s passage in the other place.
Over the past few months, we have seen how enthusiastic the Government are to raid savings. In particular, they are very keen to raid pension pots. Whether by taking powers to mandate private pension funds to invest in Government white elephants or through the Bill we are debating tonight, the Government have established beyond any doubt that they have no interest whatsoever in savers and strivers.
Pensions are important. They provide for security in retirement. The pact that has been established between the state and the pension saver, which goes back to the 1920s, is all about not just helping savers but taking the strain off the state: encourage saving now and there will not be a burden on the state of an impoverished pension in the future. Under the previous Government, we saw the roll-out of auto-enrolment, bringing 10 million people into the savings culture, and we introduced the triple lock to reverse the decline in the value of the state pension under the previous Labour Government.
Despite those positive steps, we recognise that people are still not saving enough for their retirement. As the Government’s own analysis shows, 50% of savers are projected to miss their retirement income targets set by the 2005 Pensions Commission, so we need to do better. I know there is cross-party consensus on that point, if nothing else, so let us be honest: the changes to salary sacrifice arrangements will do the complete opposite. As the Association of British Insurers and Pensions UK have outlined, we should be improving our current offering and providing new opportunities. Instead, the Government are making the situation worse in a desperate attempt to balance the Government’s books, conveniently in three years’ time. Frankly, it makes little sense and that is why we oppose this legislation.
The point of salary sacrifice arrangements is that they incentivise certain behaviours. That is why people are allowed to use these schemes to put money towards not just pensions but workplace nurseries, childcare vouchers and cycle-to-work schemes. Those are all good things. However, in this case the Government have singled out pensions and are attacking one of the most important things that people should be saving towards—their pensions. This is hard-earned taxpayers’ money that could be going towards a good thing. Instead, the Bill will remove an avenue that 7.7 million employees are currently using. The Bill will add even more cost to the 290,000 businesses and charities that use it. It will pile more cost on to students already saddled with student loans. It will harm pensions adequacy and force more people to rely on the state, pushing more costs on to the next generation. I am proud that my colleagues in the Lords, as well as Liberal Democrat and Cross-Bench peers, understand those concerns. The Opposition remain opposed to the Bill, but the amendments do go some way to address those issues and support the stated objectives of this policy, even though we disagree with the fundamental policy.
Lords amendments 1 and 7 would make basic rate taxpayers exempt from this policy. That would protect a group who typically under-save and allow them to continue to put savings into their pensions. The hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) may be interested in listening to this, because he raised a very important point about lower rate taxpayers. The amendments are identical to the amendment we tabled in the Commons and that Labour MPs decided to vote down. As the Government’s own impact assessment clearly states, they are trying to target higher earners or those making larger contributions. While that might be the stated purpose and the political justification, in reality that is not the case for two reasons.
First, the cap will still affect 858,000 basic rate taxpayers, according to the Society of Pension Professionals. In fact, reporting from the Financial Times has highlighted how the Bill will disproportionately affect those people, compared to those on a higher rate of tax. Those on the basic rate of tax pay 8% national insurance contributions, while those on the higher rate of tax pay 2% NICs. That means that on national insurance contributions alone, lower earners are being hit four times as hard by this policy—four times. On Second Reading, I asked the Minister how that could be fair. He did not answer my question then, but I hope he will be able to answer it when he winds up. Maybe he can tell us how the policy is fair for those hard-working people, or whether they are just casualties of rushed policymaking.
Secondly, a behavioural outcome may be that employers will remove salary sacrifice as an option for all their employees. We already recognise that salary sacrifice is mutually beneficial for employees and employers. It is also more attractive to both sides, as it is simple to understand. By enforcing the cap, it will change not only the viability of salary sacrifice arrangements, but employers’ perception of them.This may result in many employers removing them as an option altogether, meaning that 4.4 million people who are supposedly protected may be affected. If this Government were really serious about their policy objective, they would exempt basic rate taxpayers altogether. These amendments give them the chance to do just that and to back hard-working people.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats have been clear throughout the Bill’s stages that we think the Government would be misguided to make this change. While it may raise some tax revenue in the medium term, in the longer term it discourages pension saving. It also puts an extra cost and admin burden on small businesses at the worst possible time. For that reason, we support Lords amendments 6 and 12, which would exempt small and medium-sized businesses and charities.
I would like to note again, as I did on Second Reading, that I am sceptical of the timing of this change. It will, very conveniently for the Government, only kick in during the likely election year of 2029-30, and not in 2026-27 or 2027-28. It seems as if the Government are motivated more by a wish to fix their numbers nominally to meet their fiscal rules than by a genuine belief that this change is the right thing to do. [Interruption.] I am asking the Minister to give us a reason why it is deferred and to explain that logic.
Lords amendment 5, tabled by my colleague Baroness Kramer, would raise the proposed threshold from £2,000 to £5,000 on NICs-exempt savings. That would at least mitigate the impact on many lower and middle earners. This would be a sensible way to ensure that it is genuinely those who can afford to pay more who are impacted by this change. The proposed threshold of £2,000 will undoubtedly hit people on relatively modest incomes who are simply trying to do the right and sensible thing and plan for their future. The CBI has also expressed its strong support for a threshold at £5,000.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that at times like these, we want the Government to be encouraging those on low and medium incomes to invest in their pensions and their futures—and increasing the threshold would help people to do that—rather than disincentivising people from doing so, as they seem to be doing at the moment?
Charlie Maynard
I completely agree. It sends the wrong message and puts in place the wrong incentives, and that is a real problem.
Ministers will have seen the analysis produced by the Office for Budget Responsibility in response to the former Lib Dem Pensions Minister, Steve Webb, highlighting the flaws in the Government’s claim that these changes will not impact most lower and middle earners—that is, those not saving more than the £2,000 threshold in any case. The OBR’s new analysis highlights three main ways that the Bill could affect the wider workforce. First, employers may move away from salary sacrifice altogether by increasing ordinary employer pension contributions in place of wage growth, all by reducing contractual pay in exchange for higher contributions. The OBR’s analysis makes it clear that any change of this kind would necessarily have to be applied across all of the workforce and could not be limited to higher earners, so the impact of these changes could indeed see lower pay rises or reduce base pay for employees who contribute less than £2,000.
Secondly, the new analysis spells out that some employees may move to make standard pension contributions, including through relief at source schemes, thereby losing the NICs advantages of salary sacrifice and increasing their NICs bill, even if they contribute small amounts. Thirdly, OBR modelling shows that employers would pass down around three quarters of the additional NICs cost to employees, mainly through lower wages, which again would likely hit all workers regardless of the amount they save through salary sacrifice.
Not only does this OBR analysis indicate that the Government have been wrong to frame these changes as something that will impact only those with broader shoulders, but, crucially, when the OBR assumed a significant behavioural response from employers and employees, the estimated amount this policy will raise fell by almost half, from £4.7 billion in 2029-30 to £2.6 billion in 2030-31, as these impacts feed through. I am interested to understand whether or not the Minister agrees with that point. Raising the threshold from £2,000 to £5,000 will not solve these issues entirely, but it would mitigate them by exempting a larger number of people on lower and middle incomes from the key change in the Bill. That would, in turn, reduce the number of employees impacted.
Lords amendment 2 relates to the repayment of student loans. This issue was also explored in the Lords, but I think it should be reiterated here, because although it is probably an inadvertent effect, it is none the less a significant issue. I appreciate the Minister’s words, but the fact remains that for any graduate who saves above the threshold, not only will their NICs payments go up, but so will their student loan repayments. This Bill is a double whammy on a group who are already struggling with high interest payments, escalating debt and a very challenging jobs market.
To conclude, with four in 10 people in the country, whether in my Witney constituency or any other Member’s, already not saving enough for retirement, and with the pressures on the state pension and social care system well known, it is counterproductive to reduce the incentives for those who can afford to do so to save towards their retirement. Once again, the measures in the Bill are short-sighted, and the Government’s justifications for them do not add up. I support the Lords amendments, which seek to iron out problems and mitigate the negative impacts. Overall, my party and I cannot support the Bill.
Torsten Bell
I am grateful to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard), for their contributions. I will not reiterate the arguments for the Bill as a whole, but I will try to respond directly to the points that they have made.
The hon. Member for Wyre Forest explained that the Conservatives are opposed entirely to these changes, but of course he did not explain at all which bits of the NHS services they would cut, since they obviously do not support the revenue being raised from this sensible—[Interruption.] Which bit of the benefits system would they like to change then?
Torsten Bell
Here we have it again: when the Conservatives are faced with any difficult choice, the answer is higher child poverty. It is the answer to every question they are ever faced with. They stand up day in, day out and say that what they want to see is higher child poverty—and they cheered enthusiastically for it just then.
I will move on. Not only can the hon. Member for Wyre Forest not say which bit of the NHS he would like to cut because he opposes these changes, but he cannot even explain why the Conservatives were planning to implement exactly these kinds of changes when they were in government—before their whole giving up on being serious people thing.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Will the Minister accept that if these changes go through and people save less for their future, we will have pensioner poverty? That is the impact of these measures.
Torsten Bell
Absolute nonsense. Members of the House should be reminding everybody in this country that they have a strong incentive to save for their pension, not misleading them by implying that they will somehow lose out by saving for their pension. That is not the case, and it is really important that we are consistent in our messaging to the public about that. I will come back to the wider point about the levels of saving in society.
The hon. Member for Wyre Forest also asked questions about savings gaps, and he was right to do so. Unfortunately, however, he talked nonsense about that. He talked about the self-employed, low earners, women and those working for SMEs, all of whom do have lower pension savings rates, but all those groups who are under-saving are those least likely to use salary sacrifice. He talked about those on lower incomes, but as I said, 95% of those earning under £30,000 and contributing to a pension via salary sacrifice are completely unaffected. He claimed that the impact was largest on those on low earnings. That is nonsense, because 86% of contributions over £2,000 are from additional rate taxpayers. Those are the facts.
The hon. Member for Wyre Forest went on to invent a brilliant story of a young graduate struggling to get by who was somehow putting £5,000 into their pension every year. As I mentioned earlier, 90% of young graduates are saving £2,000 or less into their pensions. Why are they not saving more? Because their wages did not rise under the Conservative party. Why are they not saving more? Because that party did not build enough houses to help them get on to the property ladder. He asked—[Interruption.] I am glad to hear that all Conservative Members will stop opposing the building of homes in their constituencies in the years ahead.
The hon. Member asked about the implementation. As he mentioned, I have set out that it will operate on a per-job basis. He also asked about how it will operate over a pay period basis. As he knows, national insurance broadly operates on a pay period basis, but we are consulting with employers and payroll providers to ensure that we get that right. As is normal with national insurance legislation, we will set that out in the regulations.
I turn to the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard). It is not surprising that he, as a Liberal Democrat, opposes these measures but set out absolutely no ideas for how to pay for that. I look forward to him calling for more spending later this week—again with absolutely no idea how to pay for it. He raised timing. Directly to his two questions, we think it is pragmatic to give employers and individuals time to adjust—that is the basis for the pragmatic point that he raised. He also raised the scoring of that, which is a technical issue reflecting how the national accounts deal with the claiming back of tax relief for some pensions. He also mentioned the OBR. If he looks at its report, he will find that it set out that the Budget measures will have no material impact on savings levels.
To end on a point of wide cross-party consensus, both hon. Members raised the case that people do need to save more for their pensions—the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) just did so, too—and we all agree on that, and particularly those 45% of working-age adults who are currently saving nothing. As I said, that includes in particular groups such as low earners and the self-employed, for neither of whom is salary sacrifice available. The answer to that is the work of the pensions commission, which I hope will continue to operate on a cross-party basis. Its interim report will be coming forward soon, and I will commend its work to the House. For today, I am afraid that the Government will oppose the Lords amendments.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Division off.
Question agreed to.
Lords amendment 4 disagreed to.
Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 5.—(Christian Wakeford.)
Business without Debate
Petitions
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Water is life, and rivers are the lifeblood of our landscape, but too often they are in a perilous state. Yesterday we celebrated World Water Day, and last month, on Valentine’s day, I celebrated the work of North Herefordshire constituents who love the Lugg, the river that flows through the heart of my constituency. Those constituents care for our precious rivers: the Wye, the Lugg, the Arrow, the Frome and others. They run businesses and protect wildlife and heritage, and they include river-friendly farmers and citizen scientists. We are united by our desire to save our previous rivers from pollution, because we recognise that healthy communities and healthy economies depend on healthy rivers. We urgently need a water protection zone to protect the River Wye and its tributaries from damage caused by pollution. I am therefore honoured to present this petition on behalf of my constituents who love the Lugg and all the other North Herefordshire rivers.
The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take further action to save the River Wye catchment, starting with formally evaluating the option of introducing a Water Protection Zone across the entire River Wye, as a mechanism to address phosphate pollution and restore the river.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that the River Wye has been in the headlines since 2020 as one of the UK’s most polluted rivers, and that phosphate pollution is especially severe in the Rivers Lugg, Arrow and Frome; further declares that the Environment Agency’s plan for reducing pollution levels in the river falls short of what is needed to fix the problem and restore the health of the river; and further declares that introducing a Water Protection Zone would formally identify all sources of pollution, specify who should do what and by when to reduce and prevent pollution, and restrict or ban certain polluting activities with penalties specified for polluters who fail to take the necessary action.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take further action to save the River Wye catchment, starting with formally evaluating the option of introducing a Water Protection Zone across the entire River Wye, as a mechanism to address phosphate pollution and restore the river.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003172]
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
Following an online petition signed by more than 12,000 people, I present this petition on behalf of Yeovil residents, who declare that Yeovil hospital’s hyper-acute stroke unit should not close unless local evidence supports that decision, particularly evidence relating to travel times to HASUs in other hospitals.
The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to review the planned closure of Yeovil District Hospital’s hyper-acute stroke unit and ensure that the plans do not proceed until a comprehensive evidence base has been established regarding the impact of the proposed alternative arrangements on local residents.
And the petitioners remain, etc.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Yeovil,
Declares that Yeovil District Hospital’s hyper-acute stroke unit (HASU) should not be closed without the move being clearly supported by a local evidence base, particularly in relation to travel times to HASUs in alternative hospitals.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to review the planned closure of Yeovil District Hospital’s hyper-acute stroke unit and ensure that the plans do not proceed until a comprehensive evidence base has been established regarding the impact of the proposed alternative arrangements on local residents.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003175]
Rail Connections to London: Rural Towns
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)
I am delighted to lead this debate to enable the House to discuss the need for rail connections between London and rural towns.
As the Minister well knows, I represent the beautiful constituency of Shrewsbury, the county town of Shropshire and home to some 70,000 residents. We already have the nation’s favourite market, winning the national award no fewer than three times, but this weekend we were once again named one of Britain’s best places to live, according to The Sunday Times in its annual guide. Judges praised our “period-drama backdrop”, our fabulous range of eateries and our cool suburbs. The Sunday Times went on to say:
“The award-winning indoor market is surely one of the most inspiring places to shop in the whole country… the town centre has enough quirky delis, bakeries, bars and cafés to keep you in top-notch flat whites…and espresso martinis every day of the week. Culture comes courtesy of the cinema in the Old Market Hall and the boldly brutalist Theatre Severn”.
It added that Shrewsbury
“even has its own cool suburbs in Belle Vue, where volunteers run an annual arts festival”.
That is before we mention the 600 listed buildings, the Tudor castle and the riverboat cruises along the loop of the River Severn.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
Shrewsbury certainly does sound like a wonderful place to visit. I am working hard on the visitor economy for Amber Valley, and an integrated transport system and good transport links are a vital part of that. There was a daily railway service running from London to Alfreton in my constituency until 2021, when it was unfortunately discontinued. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important for us to encourage people to come out of the big smoke and into our rural areas to see what we have to offer in, for instance, her constituency and mine, and that it is important that they have the transport links to facilitate their visits?
Julia Buckley
My hon. Friend has made a powerful point about the need to visit these beautiful spots around the country.
A loop of the River Severn encircles our medieval town with a beating modern heart on the border with Wales. However, before all Members in the Chamber rush to book their weekend break to Shrewsbury, I must tell them that there is a slight problem: how can anyone get there from here? Shropshire is the only county in the UK without a direct train service to London.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
The hon. Member is making an excellent speech, and I empathise with her, because communities in Biggin Hill in my constituency are also completely without a railway station. Although the distance to Biggin Hill is 12 miles as the crow flies, it takes an absolute age to get there. Does she agree that such communities need to be served by efficient bus services, which are just as important?
Julia Buckley
The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. Public transport must combine both trains and buses to make sure that all communities are well served.
As I was saying, Shropshire is the only county in the UK without a direct train to London. We can change at Birmingham, Stafford or Crewe, but that doubles our chances of a delay or a cancellation, creates extra barriers for those with mobility issues, and reduces work productivity for commuters. Not having a direct service is such a missed opportunity, because our town is the economic powerhouse of the region.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
The hon. Lady is my constituency neighbour, and she is making an excellent speech about how wonderful Shropshire is. Also lovely is Oswestry in my constituency, another medieval town with a great history. I support the call that I think she will make for a direct service to London that runs through the whole of Shropshire, but in my constituency the rail line goes to Gobowen, not Oswestry, and that is really important. I support the call for the service, but does she agree that it is really important that Oswestry is linked to Gobowen, so that people in all our medieval towns can benefit from the railway?
Julia Buckley
I thank the hon. Lady for making that point about the inter-regional connectivity between our market towns. We need to get to London, but also to travel to each other. In Shropshire, we have three hospitals dotted throughout the county. Because of the lack of buses between those hospitals, we are reliant on trains. She makes a valuable point.
I was saying that Shrewsbury is the economic powerhouse of the region. Indeed, a recent report on our visitor economy shows that Shropshire’s tourism sector is worth a staggering £1 billion to the economy, supporting nearly 10,000 jobs across the county. Transport for Wales recognises Shropshire as a net contributor to the Welsh network, because we offer such fantastic employment, training and leisure opportunities to travellers. The Shropshire chamber of commerce’s quarterly business survey consistently reports the need for additional rail services, and states how much economic growth this would unlock, because additional contracts would be secured, increasing employment. Students no longer have the option of studying at a university in Shrewsbury, so travelling to London or stations along the way is hugely important for skills growth.
To fill the gap in services, Alstom UK has a bid for an open-access operation on the proposed Wrexham, Shropshire and midlands railway. It is offering up to four trains daily, based on its economic modelling of the latent demand at Shrewsbury. The railway would provide a total of six underserved rural towns with new connections to London.
Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)
Nuneaton serves as a valuable interchange for services to the economic centres of Coventry, Birmingham and Leicester, as well as for connections to Peterborough, Cambridge and Stansted airport. Strengthening those regional links is estimated to be worth about £500 million across the region. Does my hon. Friend agree that routes such as the WSMR will deliver greater growth across our region, because by making more connections—not just to London, but to those centres—we will enhance the travel and services that we can offer?
Julia Buckley
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Connections between towns give rise to employment opportunities and create connectivity, which adds to our local economy, as well as having wider benefits.
The WSMR bid will not take profit from other operators, because they choose not to serve our town. Instead, open access could save Government funds by adding value and thousands of passengers to the existing mainline routes. Some 2.3 million passengers already use the Georgian station at Shrewsbury to access the gateway between the midlands and Wales. Adding a direct train service to London is projected to generate £9 million in gross value added every year for the regional economy. That would surely magnify Government investment in housing growth and employment.
On the latent demand, it is so encouraging to see that, in just the last month, a petition from passengers in favour of the service has accrued over 6,200 signatures. Our local transport partners, Transport for Wales and Network Rail, have both committed resources to a fresh masterplan for Shrewsbury station that can explore the investment needed to unlock our infrastructure and generate additional capacity.
To conclude, could the Minister outline how the Department for Transport seeks to work with other rail partners to maximise investment in underserved towns such as mine, and what economic assessment has been made of the cost-benefit and the social and economic benefit of a direct train from Shrewsbury to London in the near future?
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
My hon. Friend, who is making a fine speech, is a passionate champion for her constituency. Does she agree that there are many new opportunities for rural communities in a post-covid world because they are really attractive places to live and work, and that the Government have a huge opportunity to harness their potential for economic growth but that we need better rail connectivity to help achieve that?
Julia Buckley
My hon. Friend makes a really important point, because most modelling shows that passenger numbers have not just recovered post covid, but have grown significantly. To achieve modal shift, we need to lean into that latent demand and make sure we provide opportunities for people to travel by train.
I would also like to ask the Minister: how can we unlock the economic potential that comes from increased rail connectivity for high-growth county towns such as Shrewsbury? As part of the 48% that are not yet in a combined mayoral authority, what strategic framework is available to support rural towns such as mine with direct transport investment? To wrap up, when will the Minister book his train trip to Shrewsbury to see for himself what a beauty spot we have to offer, and to find out just how much easier the journey would be with a direct service?
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I will keep this short, as I am conscious of time. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) for allowing me to speak in her Adjournment debate on rail connectivity between London and what she refers to as rural towns. My constituency is not exactly rural—we are on the edge of the west midlands—but the rail line she talked about runs right through Aldridge-Brownhills, hence I am speaking in this debate. I was very fortunate to travel on a recent charter service that took in the whole of the line—a number of Members were able to travel on that train—but I had to hop on in Walsall. I will come shortly to the reason for that, because the service passed right through Aldridge in my constituency.
The proposed Wrexham, Shropshire and midlands railway line—the WSMR line, as we refer to it—should and could be a huge opportunity for communities such as mine in Aldridge-Brownhills. Finally reconnecting us to the rail network, it would unlock jobs, growth, investment, access to education and social links, some 60-odd years after the last passenger services left Aldridge. Sadly, however, we in Aldridge have no railway station at all, and we are at risk of missing such opportunity because of the Labour mayor.
We saw new stations open at Willenhall and Darlaston just last week—projects delivered thanks to the leadership and funding of the former mayor, Andy Street—but Aldridge, by contrast, is very much in the sidings at the moment, because the Labour mayor has stripped away the funding for our station. The project had been promised to my constituents and funding had been set aside by the previous mayor, Andy Street. I want to be clear about what that means: if WSMR goes ahead—and Members should be in no doubt that I sincerely hope it does so—we could soon see trains running from Wrexham to London, which would be great, and they would be going straight through Aldridge, but they would not be able to stop, all because of the decision not to build the railway station. The reality we face is passenger trains running through our village and our communities, but my constituents being left standing on the trackside watching them pass by, which would be a complete failure of priorities.
I cannot let this opportunity go without saying to the Minister that an open-access bid from WSMR is a great idea—this evening, we can show our support for it—so please will he back this line and the connectivity that our region needs? However, I challenge the decisions that risk leaving communities such as mine behind, because Aldridge does not need or want passenger services that simply run through the constituency; it needs a station where the train can actually stop.
Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
I wish to place on record my sincere thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) for her work in championing the Wrexham, Shropshire and midlands railway proposal, a new service that will link north Wales, Shropshire and the midlands, and on to London.
For many families in Wolverhampton and Willenhall, north Wales plays a very special part in our stories. We have all enjoyed day trips and summer holidays with the warmth of our Welsh neighbours. Stronger rail links will bring not just better transport connections, but social and economic connections and more choices for families.
Just as importantly, the service will strengthen local journeys, linking Walsall and Wolverhampton through the long-awaited new stations that opened last week at Willenhall and Darlaston. WSMR will support economic investment, regeneration and growth. It will improve access to jobs, apprenticeships and education, and better connect local businesses to wider markets, from north Wales all the way through to our capital.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way when she is making such an excellent and passionate speech. I hope the WSMR bid will succeed, as it would benefit my constituents in Powys and in Wrexham. Does she agree with me that the proposal would be improved by an extra stop at one of the two Glyndŵr stations, Chirk or Ruabon, as Wrexham’s second-busiest of five stations?
Sureena Brackenridge
Yes, I have had the pleasure of visiting my hon. Friend’s beautiful constituency, and I am sure that cross-connections will be incredibly important to his constituents. He is a champion for that.
The proposal will make the current capacity work better and maximise the investment that has already been made. I urge the Minister to back this proposal. It has cross-party support to deliver the connections that my constituents are ready to use and from which they will certainly benefit.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) for securing the debate and for enabling me to speak in it.
I would like to welcome once again the news announced at the spending review last June that funding has been allocated to reinstate the railway station at Cullompton. I was pleased to hear that reaffirmed recently in the Railways Public Bill Committee by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Selby (Keir Mather), who is in his place ready to wind up this debate.
Cullompton and Wellington are the two largest settlements on the line between Exeter and Taunton, so it is right that those towns should be afforded the means to enable the people who live there to walk or cycle to stations, giving them access to London via Paddington. A station at Cullompton will be key to its economic growth, enabling connections for work and education. I am glad the Government recognised that case.
Today, I want to bring to the Minister’s attention the needs of the people of east Devon on the west of England line, which connects Honiton, Feniton and Axminster. Across south-west railways, 82% of trains arrived at their destinations within three minutes of their advertised time, but on the west of England line it was just 61%. Instead of the usual “leaves on the line” explanation, last autumn the culprit was “soil moisture deficit”.
Robert Glen is a professor at Imperial College London who commutes from Honiton. He compares his experience of the west of England line with his experience in Hokkaido in Japan, where he sometimes works. Like Honiton, Hokkaido is also not very populated and far from the capital, but there he travels at 190 mph. We are not asking for the Devon Shinkansen—bullet train—even at HS2 speeds; we just want a route that connects Devon to London Waterloo at the same standard enjoyed by the rest of the country.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would spare a thought for those even further south-west—nearly 1 million people in Plymouth and Cornwall struggle when there is a storm that affects their one line in and out of Cornwall. Would the Minister consider Great British Railways, when it is set up, having recourse to look at transport strategies for local authorities in places like Cornwall, which have such good transport plans, to make that a thing of the past?
Richard Foord
The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. I recognise wholly the vulnerability of the line at Dawlish, which my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) has also been campaigning on. I am sure that together, Devon and Cornwall MPs can keep up the fight.
To conclude, reliable rail links are essential in keeping Devon connected and competitive with a convenient and clean form of transport that is fit for passengers.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) for securing this incredibly important debate. I will never miss an opportunity to talk about how isolated my community is in terms of public transport.
The ability to get to London by train would be transformational for North West Leicestershire, but as my two main towns of Coalville and Ashby-de-la-Zouch, based in a semirural constituency, have not had passenger rail since the Beeching cuts closed the Ivanhoe line, getting a train anywhere would be a massive step forward. I would welcome the Minister setting out what assessment the Department for Transport has made of the economic benefits of connecting rural towns like mine to the rail network and on to London.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
In my constituency, four rural stations are served by just one train that comes every two hours. I have been fighting to get a train every hour for those stations and their communities. That train goes to Doncaster, which is a great gateway to London. Does my hon. Friend agree that while it is great having that hub in Doncaster, if we cannot get people to it, we cannot get them out to the rest of the country? We need to think about that in all our procedures and processes going forward.
Amanda Hack
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is really problematic if nobody is able to get to these hubs.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
Towns across Derbyshire Dales such as Bakewell lack any connection to the rail network, leaving the 13 million people who travel to the Peak district mainly reliant on cars. Reinstating the peaks and dales line would be more environmentally friendly, help young people to get to work and education, and make it easier for millions of tourists to travel to the national park by creating a direct link to Manchester, Derby and then onward to London. Given those major benefits, will my hon. Friend join me in urging the Minister to look closely at the forthcoming feasibility study on the reinstatement of the peaks and dales line?
Amanda Hack
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I think the Minister will be incredibly busy after this debate. The tourism connection my hon. Friend identifies is so important. My constituency is home to the heart of the national forest—I think it is an absolute travesty that people have to travel by car to get there. That is something we have to look at.
Coalville is the largest town in the country not connected to the rail network. For someone in Coalville wanting to catch a train to London using public transport, the most suitable route is via Leicester. The longest part of their journey would be from their home in Coalville to the station in Leicester—it is quicker to get from Leicester to London. It takes three hours to get from Ashby-de-la-Zouch to London by public transport; more than half of that time would be spent getting from Ashby to Loughborough to catch the train.
Since the Ivanhoe line closed in the ’60s, it is fair to say that my constituents have been left at a clear disadvantage by the ridiculous and inefficient journeys they now have to make.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
My constituency contains the longest stretch of rail without a station anywhere in the country. In fact, there are only eight stations in Somerset. Langport and Somerton fall right in the middle of that isolated area, despite the Paddington to Taunton line running straight through the towns. A new station could boost access to London and drive economic growth. Does the hon. Member agree that there is a huge opportunity to drive growth in rural areas by boosting access to the railway in underserved rural communities?
Amanda Hack
I absolutely agree. Economic growth and getting people to where they need to go are the most important parts of this debate.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
My hon. Friend will be aware that I used to own a retail shop in the town of Ashby-de-la-Zouch in her constituency. Quite often, constituents of mine in Atherstone ask if they can have a direct bus service to get to Ashby-de-la-Zouch. Will she join me in campaigning for that direct bus service, which would enable her constituents to catch the train at Atherstone station, where they could get to London in an hour and 20 minutes?
Amanda Hack
I thank my hon. Friend, whose constituency almost neighbours mine, for her intervention. I absolutely agree; buses and trains make up the bulk of my constituency casework, as people are struggling to get to where they need to go. I would happily campaign alongside my hon. Friend on that issue.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is being really generous in taking interventions. Every time I have seen an opportunity to make my point, someone else has jumped in. I thank her for giving me the opportunity to talk about Roydon in my constituency, which does have a train line. One of my concerns with Roydon is that the train is often cancelled at peak times, sometimes at short notice. That means that people have to wait around on platforms for long periods of time, which is particularly concerning if they are on their own—a young lady waiting alone, for example. I recognise the points that have been made about the importance of having a connected system and about some of the big towns that need a station. Does she agree that we need a reliable train network where cancellations do not happen, particularly at short notice?
Amanda Hack
I have every sympathy with the point that my hon. Friend is making. My train has been cancelled for six decades, which shows the impact in my constituency.
There is a real issue with connectivity. I would welcome the Minister setting out what assessment has been made of the economic benefits of previous lines in the restoring your railway project since the updates to the Green Book, particularly in the light of the recently opened Northumberland line service, which has smashed its projections on putting more passengers on to the network by 40%.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I am sorry for intervening on my hon. Friend, but as my constituency neighbour, I am sure she will understand why I do so. Many of her constituents use East Midlands Parkway station in my constituency to get down to London, and we are fortunate to have that direct line, but it is not electrified, which means that it is not the quickest line and it creates pollution. The procurement of the next phase of the midland main line electrification was delayed by the 2024 general election and then the spending review, despite it being worth £400 million in socioeconomic benefits. Will she support me and other colleagues here this evening—I know that another Member will be raising this point later—in urging that that decision be looked at?
Amanda Hack
Electrification of that line is long overdue, and it is something that I worked on as a county councillor before I came to this place. It really will be important to the east midlands.
My constituents tell me that if they are getting into their car to drive to the nearest station, they may as well just keep driving, and that is what happens. It is therefore unsurprising that roughly 80% of east midlands commuters drive and that the average number of rail journeys per resident is just seven per year, which is half the rate of the west midlands and a third of that of the east of England. I would welcome the Minister’s views not only on the economic impacts of connecting rural towns to London but on the added advantage of connecting rural towns to each other, which was a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury.
At my Ivanhoe line debate in Westminster Hall at the start of the year, the Minister told me to keep holding the Department’s feet to the fire, and I will continue to do that.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I will make a very brief intervention, as I want to make sure that the Minister has ample time to respond to the many points that have been raised. I must congratulate the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) on securing this debate, and I thank her for telling us about her wonderful constituency. It is indeed a very attractive constituency, but I am afraid it is second best to mine in west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly—we will no doubt have further debates about that. Nevertheless, I did not stand purely to make that competitive point.
It is to an extent justified for west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly to be engaged in all rail debates as the very first steam locomotive ran in Cornwall and the first steam rail service ran as a goods service from Angarrack to Hayle in west Cornwall, so we were there at the beginning of the story of rail and of rail services across the country. I am proud of the heritage that Cornwall has contributed to the United Kingdom in that respect.
My constituency is at the end of the Paddington to Penzance line, and the primary point that I wish to get across to the Minister is that we should not be mesmerised by speed. The whole High Speed 2 debate has been about cutting a certain amount of time off rail journeys to certain destinations. However, in the case of services from Penzance to Paddington and back, journeys generally take five or five and a half hours, and we have a sleeper service that takes eight hours. The issue in our part of the country is not speed, but reliability, comfort and competitive pricing.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
Yesterday I, alongside many constituents, was trapped on the main line—the one line we have between Cornwall and London—as a fire on the line caused havoc for businesses and constituents. I pay tribute to the emergency services, who responded so well to that incident. However, I want to highlight how a journey that should take a couple of hours became much longer—people were trapped, faced disruption and had to take taxis—which is a real indicator of how vulnerable we are in Cornwall. We need resilience built into that line. I look forward to hearing more about that in the debate.
Andrew George
I am enormously grateful to the hon. Member for making that point about vulnerability. At a number of points where the line is singled out—not just at Dawlish—a fire can have catastrophic consequences for the thousands of people seeking to travel on that day. One of my members of staff attempted to travel from Bristol down to the Lizard yesterday afternoon, and instead of that journey taking three hours it took over 11 hours. So often we hear those stories, especially about travelling to the far west of Cornwall—the further west we go, the more affected we are by those vulnerabilities.
My message to the Minister is that if we are to invest in the future of rail, what we really want is reliability, comfort, low pricing and space for people’s luggage. I know that the business community in Plymouth has previously lobbied to say, “If only we could take half an hour off the journey, it would change the economic perception of the city,” but taking half an hour off a five-hour journey means nothing to people in the far west of Cornwall. We also want reliability on the services so that the toilets do not constantly break down and people do not have to sit in the vestibule.
Jayne Kirkham
Of course, superfast satellite wi-fi has been tested on our part of the line. Although we have slow trains, we have the opportunity for fast wi-fi to be rolled out, so that while people will be sat on their trains for five and a half hours, they can at least work or watch a film.
Andrew George
Indeed, I was going to come to that point. Busy Members of Parliament, or other people engaged in busy lives, sat on that train do not want those five hours to be dead time in the working day. Reliable wi-fi services can allow people to continue their working days with online meetings and communication as they travel. However, at present, on the vast majority of services the wi-fi is often interrupted and is very unreliable. In contrast to the many billions of pounds required to achieve the HS2 standards set by successive Governments for north-south connectivity, in many parts of the country it would cost significantly less—many millions of pounds—to achieve the kind of comfort, resilience, reliability, superfast wi-fi and competitive pricing that I have described to the Minister this evening.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) for securing this important debate. She has spoken passionately, as she always does, about the benefits of a new route to link towns and cities from Wrexham through the west midlands to London. The proposed route would make a real difference to my constituents, particularly those living in Coleshill and the surrounding villages, who currently do not have a direct link to London. For them, that lack of connectivity represents not just an inconvenience, but a barrier to opportunity.
For too long, parts of the west midlands have been left disconnected from each other because of poor planning and under-investment. We are rightly encouraging more sustainable travel and balanced regional development, and the importance of strong local rail connections cannot be overstated. Constituents in Coleshill and the surrounding villages, such as Curdworth, Lea Marston, Nether Whitacre and Shustoke, deserve rail routes that take them directly to London and to other west midlands towns and cities, opening up opportunities for work and leisure, particularly in the motor manufacturing supply chain across the Black Country.
We have already seen the benefits of improved rail connectivity for constituents in Atherstone, who can now travel directly to London from the town’s station every hour, although it would be good to have a later service back home, so that we could enjoy the theatre and still get back. It has removed the need to drive to neighbouring stations such as Nuneaton or endure long indirect journeys with multiple changes and cold waits in platform shelters. It has made travel simpler, quicker and more accessible. I intend to work with constituents to ensure that everyone can benefit from that route by improving bus routes from Polesworth and villages in the north of the constituency.
My constituents who use Coleshill Parkway deserve the same quality of rail service—a direct, reliable connection to London. They should be able to travel easily to nearby towns and cities across the west midlands, such as Walsall and Telford, as well as Shrewsbury, without the need to travel into Birmingham only to come back out again. That kind of inefficiency discourages rail use and, as other Members have said, once people are in their cars, they will stay in them to make relatively local journeys.
Helen Morgan
One reason people use their cars instead of the railway is that they cannot access the platform because there are steps and no lift. Does the hon. Member agree that restoring step-free access to stations such Whitchurch in my constituency is critical to making sure that people can benefit from using the railway and do not get in their cars?
Rachel Taylor
Absolutely. I have disabled constituents and disabled friends who want to use the railway, but sometimes just getting on to the platform is too difficult unless they have pre-booked assistance, and sometimes that assistance is not there when they need it, so I absolutely agree with the hon. Member.
At a time when town centres across the country face unprecedented challenges, strong transport links are more important than ever. For people looking to move into the west midlands, this route will make Coleshill an attractive prospect for anyone who needs to regularly commute to London. It will also provide opportunities for away football fans from Wrexham, which is in the same league as Coventry City, who are also hoping to be promoted—perhaps, unlike Coventry, it will not be an automatic promotion.
Coleshill’s businesses stand to benefit enormously from improved rail connectivity as well. A direct link to London would support growth, attract investment and encourage tourism to this lovely historic town.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
Connections to market towns in my constituency are vital for our tourism and hospitality industry. We have a great branch line service, but patrons of the much-lauded Gunton Arms and Suffield Arms will know that Gunton station quite often suffers from having trains only every two hours. Does the hon. Member agree that the frequency of train services is just as important to supporting our rural hospitality and leisure industries?
Rachel Taylor
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I have used that very service myself on many trips to Cromer and Sheringham. I used the service from West Runton either to get into Cromer or to go all the way to Norwich, and also the other way to Sheringham, so I absolutely know what he means. I think I might have had to get a taxi from the Gunton Arms one night because of the lack of trains back from the station there.
This Government have already done so much for rail users, including freezing rail fares for commuters, lowering the cost of getting to work and nationalising West Midlands Trains so that we can put passengers above profit. I hope that this proposal is considered carefully. I wish my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury all the best with the campaign, and I will continue to support her and my constituents to get the rail routes they deserve.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) has secured this debate about connections between London and rural towns by rail because many of the issues on which she touched apply to my own constituency in Derbyshire.
This morning I was at Broomfield Hall college, an agricultural college with a fantastic equestrian centre, to launch the findings of my survey of young people. Over 500 young people in Derbyshire contributed to the survey. It has given me some rich insights into issues that I must take forward in this place on their behalf. One of the issues that came through in that survey was a lack of good transport links for rural and semi-rural towns in Derbyshire. When I come to London every week, it never ceases to amaze me how extensive, resilient and cheap the transport is and how late it runs. That is not the experience of many people around this country, and we must address that so that opportunity is in the hands of people wherever they live and whatever their background, not concentrated in London and the south-east.
I know how serious this Government are about the railways. Great British Railways is a significant intervention, and we are pleased that it will be hosted in Derby, because although there is some contention about this, I contend that Derby is the home of the railways. We have the largest rail manufacturing cluster in Europe, and George Stephenson’s final resting place is in Derbyshire too. Despite its railway pedigree, there is no electrified line through Derbyshire—it stops in Leicestershire, and then that section of the Midland main line, all the way through Derbyshire up to Sheffield, remains unelectrified.
The benefits of introducing electrification are significant. We can reduce air pollution and journey times, and improve reliability. Studies indicate that there is potential to add £500 million to the regional economy by pursuing electrification. It is a project that has been kicked into the long grass too many times. I know that money is tight, and we do not have a golden inheritance as a Government, but I urge the Minister to consider the benefits of Midland main line electrification, because we could actually improve the connections to some of our smaller and more rural stations. There are three in my constituency: Belper, Duffield and Spondon.
James Naish
I just need to reinforce the point that my hon. Friend makes, because the east midlands already receives the lowest level of transport spending per head of any UK region or nation—just 56% of the UK average. Although I do not want to undermine the campaign of my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley), which is extremely important and which I support, would my hon. Friend agree that the east midlands in particular has to be looked at, because places such as his constituency and mine have not had the money they deserve?
Jonathan Davies
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am glad that the Government have begun to address this shortfall. The investment of £2 billion into the East Midlands combined authority under Mayor Claire Ward specifically to be used for transport will go some way towards addressing that, but there is a lot more to do because the east midlands has historically been left behind.
The merits of electrification of the east midlands railway will benefit our rural and semi-rural towns. Belper is a town of nearly 25,000 people. It is in the heart of the east midlands and has the region’s only UNESCO world heritage site: the Derwent Valley mills. I very much hope that it will be England’s, or the UK’s, next town of culture —it makes a good case for that. But to help people get to Belper when it is the town of culture, as I am sure it will be, we need to ensure that the rail connections are there. At the moment, there is only one train in each direction on the Midland main line that stops. People have to go to Derby or change, or they drive to Derby and get on the express train from there. I plead with the Minister to please take forward the benefits of Midland main line electrification, because it would benefit rural and semi-rural stations too.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
It is a pleasure to respond to this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) on securing it and for speaking so ardently about the critical importance of rail connections in rural areas. She also set out a strong case for the historic yet modern and classic yet avant-garde town of Shrewsbury, and all that it has to offer people across the United Kingdom.
It would be remiss of me not to reflect on the fact that a debate that began with Shrewsbury grew into a fascinating tour of the rail challenges and opportunities in rural towns the length and breadth of our beautiful country.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
My rural constituency is lucky enough to be only 21 miles from London, but the train from Dorking travels at 21 mph, which, according to my arithmetic, means that it takes one hour to get there. Some 1,900 people have signed a petition calling for a faster train, and the director of South Western Railway is interested. Will the Minister meet me to discuss faster trains to Dorking?
Keir Mather
I am very glad that the hon. Member managed to sneak in before the end of the debate. I cannot fault his maths on the challenge that he describes. I will ensure that his request for a meeting is passed on to the Rail Minister, who, I am sure, will be very glad to meet him.
Colleagues must forgive me, because although I have reflected closely on their points during the debate, and shall feed them into Department for Transport processes on improving rail connectivity between rural towns and London, the substance of my remarks will focus on rail connections to Shrewsbury. My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury worked so hard to secure the debate and deserves a full response to the issues that she raised.
Members from across the House, including my hon. Friends the Members for Wolverhampton North East (Sureena Brackenridge), for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham), for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) and for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher), and the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton)—I could go on, Madam Deputy Speaker, but you will be pleased to know that I will not—made the crucial point that good rail connections are vital for connecting people to job, service and leisure destinations. They are catalysts for economic growth. People deserve access, irrespective of where they live, to all the benefits that the railway has to offer. That is why it is so important that we deliver on our promise to bring the railway back into public ownership under Great British Railways.
GBR will bring 14 separate train-operating companies and Network Rail into a single organisation that will be able to plan a fully integrated train service on which passengers can rely. GBR will be better able to offer the fast and frequent connections to, from and between major economic centres. When people need to change trains—for example, when they change from a rural connection to an inter-city service—GBR will be far better able to make connections dependable, as they are for passengers on the world’s best-performing railways. Of course, in a system that needs to cater for many needs, and to connect many towns and cities across the country, while improving performance and reducing costs for taxpayers, some compromise is necessary. Although it may not be possible in every instance to provide direct services to all places, we are determined to ensure that GBR offers people excellent access to their nearest major economic centre, for jobs and services, and to major rail hubs for onward connections.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
I thank the Minister for giving way right at the end of the debate. My constituency does not contain a single mainline station. The six Cornish MPs would also love to meet the Rail Minister. We have a plan called “Kernow Connect”, and we have huge economic potential, with critical minerals and one of the world’s deepest ports in Falmouth, but we do not have the capacity for freight on our railway. I would appreciate the Minister’s help in setting up that meeting and moving this forward.
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I will ensure that his request is put through to the Rail Minister.
Let me turn to the matter of direct services between Shrewsbury and London. I fully understand the desire of my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury for a direct connection to London. I reassure her and the community she represents that the Government are determined to improve rail services across her constituency and elsewhere. We will set out some of our ambitions in more detail in our forthcoming integrated national transport and long-term rail strategies later this year.
We have been clear that GBR must be a railway for everyone, and it will be required to engage widely with local leaders on delivering the best service for their area, supporting local growth in a way that is affordable, and supporting a high-performing railway for everyone. I welcome the advocacy of my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury, and that of other Members, and I look forward to GBR working in partnership with them to reshape services so that they meet the needs of the communities they serve.
Wendy Morton
Is there definitely space for open access in GBR? The Wrexham, Shropshire and midlands railway, which the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) talked about, is an open-access bid.
Keir Mather
I thank the right hon. Lady for her contribution. She has made similar ones about open access, and I fully agree about how important it is. We believe that when GBR manages capacity across the rail network, it might create more opportunity for open-access services when the railway is run in a more cohesive way. Open access can absolutely be part of the picture in a dynamic railway system.
The majority of passengers from Shrewsbury choose to go to Birmingham, or to other stations along the same route, and very few passengers used the Avanti service that was referenced. When Avanti withdrew its service, West Midlands Trains significantly improved its service by adding a new, limited-stop service to Birmingham, between WMT and Transport for Wales areas. Shrewsbury residents currently have three direct trains per hour to Birmingham. This is an improvement to the most popular services, and it also insulates local train service performance from issues that may occur further down the line. Since the direct service was withdrawn, Avanti has increased the number of fast services between London and Birmingham, improving interchange options for those travelling between London and Shrewsbury. I appreciate that that might not go far enough for my hon. Friend, and I am happy to take the conversation forward.
Such steps represent meaningful progress, and it is not just rail services that are being improved for local communities. We are consolidating and simplifying local transport funding for all local transport authorities. Shropshire county council will receive £8.7 million from the bus services fund, which the council can use however it wishes to deliver better bus services for local people. Shropshire county council will also receive £219 million in integrated transport fund allocations between 2026-27 and 2029-30.
I recognise my hon. Friend’s determination to pursue the open-access application from the Wrexham, Shropshire and midlands railway. The Department for Transport agrees that it would provide important connectivity for communities along the proposed route, including Shrewsbury. That is why we have provided conditional support for WSMR’s application, subject to the Office of Rail and Road and Network Rail being satisfied that services can be accommodated without compromising network performance, and without adversely affecting the rights of other operators. I hope my hon. Friend will appreciate that under the current system, access to the rail network is a matter for the ORR, as the independent regulator for the rail industry. The Department for Transport is unable to direct the ORR’s decision making directly. However, capacity remains constrained on the west coast main line, and that was a major factor in the ORR’s rejection of WSMR’s original application. Improving capacity across our rail network is a long-term priority for this Government. We are establishing GBR precisely to put in place the strategic planning and sustained investment that is needed to secure better connectivity and opportunity for communities in every part of the country.
Once it receives Royal Assent, the Railways Bill will establish a new access framework. GBR will in future be responsible for decisions about access to its network, as the single directing mind for the railway. GBR will be required to determine the best use of the network in line with its statutory duties, which include promoting the interests of railway passengers, and delivering the social and economic benefits derived from railway services. Open access will continue to play a role in offering innovative solutions and improving connectivity where it represents best use of the network. The new capacity allocation framework will embed strategic planning, and under the infrastructure capacity plan, GBR will be able to provide greater clarity and long-term certainty for open-access operators in a way that the current system does not. The Government have committed to honouring all existing access rights under GBR, including for open-access operators, for the duration of those access agreements.
In conclusion, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury for her thoughtful and constructive contributions on behalf of her constituents, and all other Members across the House who have raised the transport challenges in their constituency, have sought to hold the Department for Transport to account, and have asked how the Department can go further, faster, in delivering on its aspirations. I have listened to the points raised this evening, and I reassure my hon. Friend and other Members that the Government will reflect carefully on all of them.
Question put and agreed to.