Commons Chamber

Monday 30th June 2025

(began 4 months, 3 weeks ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:35
None Portrait Oral questions: Defence
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. Order. We Order. We start Order. We start with Order. We start with questions
14:35
None Portrait Q1. What steps he is taking to improve housing for armed forces families. (904891)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. We start with questions to the Secretary of State for defence. Question number one Mr Speaker.
14:35
14:36
14:36
14:37
14:37
14:38
14:38
14:39
14:39
14:40
14:41
14:41
14:42
14:43
14:43
14:44
14:44
14:45
14:45
14:46
14:46
14:47
14:47
14:48
14:48
14:49
14:50
14:51
14:51
14:52
14:53
14:53
14:54
14:54
14:55
14:55
14:56
14:57
14:57
None Portrait Q6. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on the adequacy of legal protections for veterans who served in Operation Banner. (904896)
-

transform our forces in the years ahead.
14:57
14:58
14:59
15:00
15:01
15:01
15:02
15:03
None Portrait Q7. What steps he is taking to maintain the capability of the Red Arrows. (904897)
-

Question number seven please.
15:03
15:03
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:16
None Portrait Q12. What steps he is taking to increase security at military bases in the UK. (904902)
-

valuable piece of military real estate on the planet. This deal keeps it under UK control for the next 100 years.
15:17
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:19
None Portrait Q14. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of regulations on the use of autonomous weapons systems. (904904)
-

Question 14, please.
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:20
15:22
15:22
15:22
15:23
15:23
15:23
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:28
15:28
15:29
15:29
15:29
15:30
15:30
15:30
15:31
15:31
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:32
15:33
15:33
15:33
15:34
15:34
15:35
15:35
15:35
15:36
15:36
15:37
Liz Kendall Portrait Rt Hon Liz Kendall MP, The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Leicester West, Labour)
-
-
Mr Speaker, with permission I will make a statement on the government's welfare reforms. This government believes in equality and social justice. And we are determined to build a fairer society where everyone has the chance to fulfil their potential and achieve their ambitions no matter where they are born or what their parents do. We know, as all labour governments know, that the only way of unlocking the potential of individuals and our the potential of individuals and our country as a whole is when we collectively provide real opportunities and real support.

I am proud of the steps that this government has already taken to deliver on our promise of a better future for all. We are creating more good jobs in every part of the country, including through our Modern Industrial Strategy, and plans for clean energy.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I say to the Frontbench, it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I say to the Frontbench, it has just started. If you are not interested, I know my constituents are. I expect the same courtesy when you speak.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you speak. We are investing in our vital transport infrastructure. In skills, and getting the NHS backlit screen. Our landmark Employment Rights Bill will improve the quality of work, and that increases in the national minimum wage are helping Make Work minimum wage are helping Make Work Pay. Alongside these vital steps, we also need to reform the welfare also need to reform the welfare state. The principles set out in our Pathways to work in Green Paper are Pathways to work in Green Paper are rooted in values I know many MPs share.

That those who can work must work but often need proper support to do so. Those who can never work to do so. Those who can never work must be protected. And that's the welfare state must be fair both for welfare state must be fair both for those who need support and for taxpayers, so it is sustainable for taxpayers, so it is sustainable for generations to come. The system we inherited from the party opposite is inherited from the party opposite is failing on all these fronts.

It incentivises people to define themselves as incapable of work just to be able to afford to live. It then writes them off and denies them any help or support. The result is 2.8 million of our fellow citizens now out of work due to long-term sickness. Almost 1 million young people not in education, employment, or training. It is a staggering one in eight of all our young people. And the future sustainability of the system has also been put at risk the number of people on Personal Independence Payments set to more than double this decade to over 4 million.

With rewards increasing at twice the rate of increasing the rates of prevalence for disabled people in our society adding 1000 people a day. I know MPs on this side of the house have welcomes many aspects of our reforms. Our plan to begin the first-ever sustained above inflation rise to the Universal Credit standard allowance. The first permanent real terms increase in the headline rate of out of work and if it since the 1970s. And a historic change in the direction of public policy.

The biggest ever investment in implement support for sick and disabled people quadrupling what we inherited from the Tories to £1 billion a year. Our plans to ensure that people with severe lifelong health conditions will never be reassessed removing all the unnecessary and unacceptable anxiety this brings. And our plans to legislate for a rights to try. Guaranteeing that trying work in and of itself never lead to a benefit reassessment, giving people the confidence to take the plunge and try work.

Something many organisations have called for four years. Mr Speaker, they have also been real concerns about our initial proposals. We have listened carefully. And we are making positive changes as a result. First and foremost, many members of this House, alongside disabled people and their organisations were have been very concerned about requiring existing claimants to score a minimum of four point to score a minimum of 4.1 at least one activity to be eligible for the daily living component of PIP when they are reassessed after November 2026.

And they have been concerned that the pace of change is too fast. I fully understand that even though 9/10 people claiming PIP in the changes coming would be unaffected by the end of this parliament, that this has caused deep and widespread anxiety amongst existing claimants because they rely on the income from PIP for so many different aspects of their life. So we will now ensure the new four point requirement will only apply to new claims from November 2026.

This means no existing claimants will lose PIP because of the changes brought forward in this bill. An existing claimants of passport it benefits like Carer's Allowance will continue to get them too. Some people have said they are concerned it will create a two-tier system. But I would say to the House, including members opposite, that our benefit system often protects existing claimants from new rates or rules because lives have been built around that support and it is often very hard for people to adjust.

For example some people still receive the severe disabled allowance which was closed to new claims in 2001. When Labour introduced the Local Housing Allowance 2008, existing claimant stage on the old higher rate of Housing Benefit. And many people are still on DLA, replaced PIP in 2013. So we believe protecting existing claimants was beginning to focus PIP on the hire needs for new claims going forward strikes the right and fair balance. The second important question raised by members will see more details of a wider review of the PIP assessment before being asked to vote on the changes in this bill.

And many MPs also want to know the views and voices of disabled people will be heard at the heart of our plans. So we have today published the terms of reference for our wider PIP review led by the Minister for Social Security and Disability. To ensure this vital benefit is fit for the future, taking account of changes in society since it was first introduced. The review will look at the role of the PIP assessment including activities, descriptors, and the associated points, to ensure these properly capture the impact of long-term health conditions and disability in the modern world.

And it will be co-produced with disabled people, their organisations, clinicians, other experts, and MPs before reporting to the Secretary of State by autumn next year and implemented as soon as possible thereafter. The third issue of concern was that our plans to freeze Universal Credit health top up existing claimants and for future claimants with severe lifelong health conditions and those at the end of life would not protect incomes in real terms even with the increase in the standard allowance.

I can today confirm that we will ensure for these groups, the combined value of the Universal Credit standard allowance and the health top up will rise at least in line with inflation. Protecting their incomes from these benefits in real terms every year for the rest of this Parliament. Together with the changes to our proposals for PIP, this will ensure no existing claimant are put into poverty as a claimant are put into poverty as a Finally, well there has been wide spread support for the extra support for sick and disabled people, I know many Honourable members on the side of the house have been concerned that this is not enough.

I can today announce we are putting an additional £300 million into employment support for sick and disabled people, so we will be delivering a total of £600 million for support next year, 800 million the year after, and 1,000,000,028- 29, increasing our total spending on employment support for sick and disabled people to three point the year after, and 1,000,000,028-29, increasing our total spending on employment support for sick and disabled people to 3.8 billion over this Parliament because disabled people who can work should not wait to have the same rights as everybody else.

The measures we are announcing today are costing around £2.5 billion are costing around billion are costing around £2,500,000,000.29-20 -- £2.5 billion in 29-30. Welfare reform is never easy but it is essential. There is no route to equality or social justice based on greater benefit spending alone. The path to a fairer society where everyone can thrive, society where everyone can thrive, Get the support they need anywhere we protect those who cannot were, that is the path we seek to build with our reforms.

Our plans are rooted in fairness for those who need support and for taxpayers. They are about ensuring the welfare state survives so there is always a safety net for those who need it and so it lasts for generations to come. Above all, our reforms are rooted in our fundamental belief that everyone can fulfil their potential and live their hopes and dreams if we provide them with the right help and support. This is the better future we seek to build for our constituents and our country and I commend this statement to the House.

commend this statement to the House.
15:48
Helen Whately Portrait Helen Whately MP (Faversham and Mid Kent, Conservative)
-
-
Secretary of State. -- Shadow Secretary of State.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This is a government in chaos. Open rebellion from their own back benches, unfunded U-turns costing billions and welfare plans that are billions and welfare plans that are not worth the paper they're written on. Their latest idea is a two tier welfare system to trap people in a welfare system to trap people in a lifetime of benefits and deny them the dignity of work while leaving the taxpayer to pick up the ever- growing bill. It is a long held Conservative leaf that those who can Conservative leaf that those who can work should work.

Work provides security and purpose. That's why we launched Universal Credit simplifying complex benefits in simplifying complex benefits in ensuring that work always paid. And it works. During the decade up to the pandemic, we got the number of people on benefits and the benefits bill itself down. 800 jobs were created for every day that we were created for every day that we were in office. Giving millions of people in office. Giving millions of people the dignity and security that work brings. But then during the pandemic, we saw something new.

The pandemic, we saw something new. The health and disability bit of a benefit system started to break. The bill is forecasted 100 billion bill is forecasted 100 billion 100,000,000,000 x 20 30, one in 100,000,000,000 x 20 30, one in every 4 pounds of income tax will be spent on disability benefits, more than the entire defence budget. This is not fair for people who are rich enough and not sustainable for the country. Yet despite Labour having 14 years in opposition and now a year in government, they still don't have a plan to bring down the welfare bill or get people into work.

What we now have before us is a Russian Celtic compromise. It is not reform in any sense of the word. -- Rushed compromise. Thanks to the government's latest climbdown, were left with a plan that will save just 2.5 billion of a of 100 billion plan. To people diagnosed with Parkinson's a week apart will now receive different support. The government's own impact assessment shows that these plans won't get a single person into work. The idea that work as a guiding motivation for these changes is laughable.

And it's not that there are not things the government could do. They could reform the system to which people applying saying they are too sick to work at all. They could make all benefit assessment face-to-face. benefit assessment face-to-face. They could change the system for claims like anxiety, depression and ADHD, which make up more than half of new claims. The Centre for adult social justice found that you could save up to £9 million -- £9 billion... Labour does not have the courage and conviction to grip this problem.

Our welfare bill will only continue to rise. We agree on the need for reform and have set out under what conditions we would support the government. First, the welfare budget must come down. Second, we need to get people back into work. Third, there must not be new tax rises to pay for increases in welfare spending. With the welfare bill ever-growing, unemployment rising and jobs disappearing, the bill fails on all accounts. Will the right honourable lady confirm whether the changes she is announcing today be paid for through borrowing or taxation? Could I ask where are these good jobs she claims to be creating when vacancies are going down and unemployment is going up? Has she read the impact assessment for their Employment Rights Bill which makes it clear it will be harder for people to find work as a result? Why did it take them a year to publish the terms of reference for the PIP assessment review and when can we expect changes if it does not report back until autumn 2026? Can I tried more time to ask what the differences between her right to try guarantee and are chance to work guarantee? And finally, is this it? Are there any more savings? Are they going to get any more people into work? Is these is this the extent -- is this the extent of their reforms to the the extent of their reforms to the welfare system? Is this going to be her legacy? her legacy?
15:53
15:55
15:56
15:57
15:59
16:00
16:01
16:01
16:02
16:03
16:03
16:04
16:05
16:05
16:06
16:07
16:07
16:08
16:09
16:10
16:10
16:11
16:11
16:12
16:13
16:13
16:13
16:14
16:15
16:15
16:16
16:17
16:18
16:18
16:19
16:19
16:20
16:21
16:21
16:22
16:23
16:23
16:24
16:25
16:25
16:26
16:26
16:27
16:28
16:28
16:28
16:29
16:30
Liz Kendall Portrait Rt Hon Liz Kendall MP, The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Leicester West, Labour)
-
-
We want to focus on those with higher needs. I'm really concerned that a doubling of the number of people on PIP over this decade from two point -- 2 to 4 million, I am concerned that risks the sustainability of the system in the future and we have to make sure it is therefore those who really need it. Providing that vital safety net going forward. She talks about things having a reasonable approach. I really do believe that this is Backed by the changes for the Right to Try, stopping the assessment and investment in real employment support, I think that is the fair and right balance for the people who and right balance for the people who need support and for taxpayers.

need support and for taxpayers. My question is about the coproduction proposal. By what mechanism would that be given effect? Hours coproduction here different to consultation? Will disability groups have entitlements

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We are not setting out the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We are not setting out the precise detail because I think that goes against the very essence of it. We are already in discussion with disabled people and their disabled people and their organisations on our Green Paper we have already set out would become collaboration committees, and our reforms to access to work. And our reforms to access to work. And our Pathways to work investment and employment support because we want employment support because we want to get this right. We look forward to those discussions to make sure people have a proper say and are
16:31
16:32
16:33
16:33
16:34
16:34
16:35
16:35
16:36
16:36
16:36
16:37
16:37
16:38
16:39
16:40
16:41
16:41
16:42
16:43
16:43
16:44
16:44
16:45
16:46
16:46
16:47
16:48
16:48
16:49
16:49
16:50
16:51
16:51
16:52
16:52
16:53
16:54
16:54
16:55
16:55
16:56
16:57
16:58
16:59
16:59
17:00
17:00
17:01
17:02
17:02
17:03
17:03
17:04
17:05
17:06
17:07
17:07
17:08
17:08
17:08
17:09
17:09
17:10
17:10
17:11
17:12
17:13
17:13
17:13
17:14
17:15
17:15
17:16
17:17
17:17
17:18
17:18
17:19
17:20
Lisa Nandy Portrait Rt Hon Lisa Nandy MP, The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Wigan, Labour)
-
-
With permission, I would like to make a statement about the offence at last this weekend. Members of Parliament will have seen as I have the appalling and unacceptable scenes at Glastonbury on Saturday where chance of death to the IDF and river to the sea amongst others were broadcast to the nation. I've been in touch with my right and befriend the Home Secretary as to whether there has been any criminal offence committed. The House will know that decisions relating to specific cases are an operational matter for the police.

Haven and Somerset police have confirmed that video evidence is being assessed by officers to determine whether any offences may have been committed. They have just announced in the last few minutes that this is now taking the form of a criminal investigation. So as I hope members will appreciate, it therefore would not be appropriate for the government to comment on an ongoing investigation at this stage. But let me be clear, this government will not tolerate anti-Semitism. It has no place in our society.

It is a poison and a cancer that must be rooted out. And we will be relentless in our work to do so. This government works closely with the police and with community partners to ensure the safety and security of Jewish communities, and we will continue to do so following the enormous impact that these events have had on them over the weekend. Let me turn now to the role of the BBC. On Saturday afternoon just broadcast, I called the director-general to ask for an explanation and what immediate steps the BBC leadership intended to take.

As the Prime Minister said yesterday, it is essential that the BBC explains how these scenes came to be broadcasted. The BBC has rightly apologised and took the immediate decision not to put this content on iPlayer. I welcome that. However key outstanding questions remain, including why this performance was broadcast live, given the concerns regarding other acts in the weeks preceding the festival? Why the feed wasn't immediately cut when the chance of death to the IDF began? And what you diligence was done prior to the decision to broadcast this particular act to the nation? I expect answers to these questions without delay.

I've made that view clear to the BBC leadership, and I will of course update the House as soon as I can. Over the weekend, and this morning, I've also had conversations with members of the Jewish community, including those who are present at Glastonbury -- were present. They raised a number of concerns about imagery and slogans that were on display at the festival this weekend. And I'm told that this led them to establish their own safe space at the festival. As a government, we take this incredibly seriously.

We are urgently looking into the specifics of these alarming reports and reaching out to the festival organisers. Finally, I want to be clear about the government's role. As a government, we strongly support freedom of expression and as culture secretary I will robustly defend the independence of our broadcasters and the right to artistic expression. But we do not accept that incitement to violence, hate speech or anti- Semitism is art. There is a clear difference between speaking out for Palestine, which is the right of everybody in this House and everybody in our country, and anti- Semitism, which is not and will never be.

When the rights and safety of people and communities are at risk and when our national broadcaster fails to uphold its own standards, we will intervene. In the coming days I will be having further conversations with the BBC and festival organisers who ensure that lessons are learned and action is taken. And I commend this statement

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to the House. Shadow secretary of state Stuart Andrew. I like to thank the second state
17:24
Stuart Andrew Portrait Rt Hon Stuart Andrew MP (Daventry, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I like to thank the second state for her statement and the advance sight of it and for her tone. I have sight of it and for her tone. I have always been a strong advocate for the BBC. It is a cornerstone of British public life with a proud history of cultural contribution. The events of this weekend however have made this incredibly difficult. During the coverage of the festival, the artist as we heard your name has Robson foster led the crowd in a chance of death to the IDF, a moment which extraordinarily was transmitted by the BBC.

Let me be clear, a national broadcaster funded by the licence payers must adhere to the highest standards of impartiality, responsibility and commitment to social cohesion. And I hope we can all agree that in this instance it has failed profoundly. Free speech and political activism are the sign of a healthy democracy, essential to it, but when you cross the line to incitement to violence, then there must be a consequence. However broadcasting is not a passive act. Every second of broadcast transmitted is an active choice.

Airing the hateful rhetoric wasn't just a lapse in editorial judgement. It was a disgraceful affront to the Jewish community and a violation of the BBC's own public charter and to entertain without undermining the fundamental values of our society. As Secretary of State said, let us be clear, hateful rhetoric should never be cloaked as artistic expression. But it also raises fundamental questions about the BBC's institutional culture. This is a broadcaster that has time and again given airtime to supporters of Hamas while clearly refusing to identify the group as what it is, a terrorist organisation.

It repeatedly failed to call anti-Semitic rhetoric when it emerges under the guise of political commentary. And has faced serious allegations of minimising attacks on Jewish communities. The BBC's decision to also broadcast material from Kneecap, a group whose members have openly called for members of Parliament to be killed is as indefensible as it is shocking. We have already seen the devastating consequences of political violence in this country. With the loss and the tragic murder of Jo Cox and Sir David Amess.

For the BBC to amplify voices advocating similar violence is grossly irresponsible. Even more troubling is that a leading member of the group is currently facing a terrorism charge. That fact alone should have prompted an immediate editorial intervention. Instead the BBC gave this group a platform on a publicly funded service. I welcome the fact that the safety of state has spoken to the director-general and I'm grateful to her for coming to the House to report on that exchange. However, I would like to press her further to ensure the gravity of this matter is fully recognised.

If you satisfied with the BBC's explanation that they originally decided that streaming the performance was in line with their editorial guidelines and have now decided they will look at their guidance around life events so they can be sure teams are clear on when it is acceptable to keep output on air? Does she think the BBC's editorial guidelines were not clear enough? Or did she think that the BBC misinterpreted them in the first place? And does she think that this sort of weak response will be of cold comfort to the Jewish community? I welcome the fact she has spoken to the Home Secretary, and I wonder if you could also assess whether the BBC's actions constituted a breach of section 22 of the public order act? And does she believe the BBC's current editorial oversight mechanisms are adequate, specifically across the commercial broadcasting arms like BBC studios? And she think it is still right that the BBC gets to mark its own homework in the first instance before Ofcom gets involved and that an independent enquiry is what is needed? And in light of the repeated failings, will the government commit to a full review of the BBC's impartiality and governance standard as part of the Royal Charter renewal? And could you provide an update the House on why the charter renewal framework and Green Paper have not yet been published? Finally, can I thank her for her work so far? She will have the support of the side of the House, and I welcome her commitment to come back to the House to update us.

us.
17:29
Lisa Nandy Portrait Rt Hon Lisa Nandy MP, The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Wigan, Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful to him, and I think all of those involved in the events of this weekend will hear the very strong feelings across all sides of this House, so I'm grateful to him for that. And share his view about the importance of the BBC. I would say that those of us who do believe in the importance of our national broadcaster are probably more angry than anybody about what has happened over the last few days. It's precisely because we understand the importance of the BBC that we know that the BBC has to do better.

He's asked whether I'm satisfied with the explanation I've heard so far. I'm not. I've been very clear with the BBC leadership about that, and clear that I expect to get a full explanation immediately without delay. He asked about the possibility of an independent enquiry. I would just say to all members of this House that I'm not sure that you need an enquiry to establish that it should have been foreseeable that there would be problems with broadcasts this weekend, that the decision to broadcast live without any delay should have been reviewed.

And that a live feed should have been pulled immediately when the chance death, death to the IDF began. So what I want to see from the BBC, and I know he shares this, is rapid action to make sure this cannot happen again. I promise to update the House in these two elements, but I should say too that I'm still expecting a response from the BBC about an early decision to broadcast a documentary about Gaza, which it was then discovered fell short of the BBC's own editorial standards as well.

So I expect a response quickly and I expect a response quickly and And finally can I thank him for mentioning the Jewish community because having spoken to friends and family over the Jewish community over the weekend I cannot describe how much this has impacted on them. Particularly the members of the Jewish community who were at Glastonbury were extremely distressed to hear that there were organisations whose logo was emblazoned very visibly on T-shirts and banners who are about to be prescribed by the Government I was concerned to hear reports that there were images associated with hummus and others and not see imagery as well.

Most people who go to Glastonbury go for exactly the reasons that I have been in the past and I suspect he has as well, because music festivals are an incredible way to bring people together, to share support and solidarity. To bind the nation and to showcase great British talent. And it is our job, collectively, to ensure that those festivals become, again, and remain, a place where everybody in our country is welcome. everybody in our country is welcome.
17:31
17:32
17:33
17:35
Max Wilkinson Portrait Max Wilkinson MP (Cheltenham, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
and sustainable resolution to that horrors in the Middle East, we are talking about something else. On talking about something else. On this occasion, and there have been past occasions also, this is deeply inappropriate language used by a truck attention seeking decision and public service broadcasters apparent public service broadcasters apparent failure to fulfil its responsibility to uphold its own editorial to uphold its own editorial standards. Bob Vylan's chance this weekend the customer were absolutely appalling and we can never accept appalling and we can never accept eight field chance of death to anyone in our society as a music festival or anywhere else whatever the subject.

It is right that there has been widespread condemnation, including from the organisers of Glastonbury Festival and I associate my party with those words. Of course, the UK must push harder for a ceasefire and we must pressure the Government to push back the campaign and build a sustainable two state solution and of course Democrats believe that this must be in place for debate, but their concept would be no place for hate speech, anti- Semitism, and incitement to violence Semitism, and incitement to violence at Glastonbury or anywhere else.

It seems that an editorial feeling took seems that an editorial feeling took place in the BBC's coverage and the place in the BBC's coverage and the decision to proceed with broadcasting this act is particularly hard to understand, given the BBC's correct decision to take a more cautious but ultimately fruitless approach to the broadcasting of Kneecap. A cursory look through the social media of Bob Vylan raises the question how exact it was this not foreseen? And, of course, we know that Kneecap is a group that in the past has called for death of members of this House.

The failure to effectively use delayed coverage and to remove the coverage in a timely manner is baffling, so can the Minister tell us whether when asking the BBC about this issue the subject of charter renewal was raised and can she give us concrete reassurance that change will happen and that we never have to put up with this kind of dreadful Ami Semitism again.
17:35
Lisa Nandy Portrait Rt Hon Lisa Nandy MP, The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Wigan, Labour)
-
-
Thank you, and can I thank him for his comments and further tone in which he gave them. I think it is the responsibility of all of us, always, to stand up to anti- Semitism. I think it is, sadly, a battle that is never one. The lesson of history is that it. Every generation to fight it and to fight it again. Certainly from our side of the House I can promise that this Government will always do that. But in relation to the specific question about the BBC with apologies to my honourable friend for not addressing that earlier as part of his question, I have not discussed chartered renewal in the context of Kneecap and the other acts that were broadcast from Glastonbury this weekend.

We have, of course, discuss charter renewal, and it is absolutely right to say that editorial standards must be part of that discussion when we release the terms of reference which we are due to do shortly. We will make it clear everyone in this House will see that as part of the ongoing conversation we will have about chartered renewal and can I finally say to him that I really welcome what he has said about death to anyone and chance of death to anyone is not welcome in our society, and particularly pernicious about chanting death to the IDF.

Many colleagues will know that Israel, there is a conscription model. Every young person is required to serve in the IDF which means that chanting death to the IDF is equivalent to calling for the death of every single is really due. That is why one of the many reasons why we take this so seriously, and why it cannot be argued that this did not cross a very dangerous line.
17:37
17:38
17:39
Caroline Dinenage Portrait Dame Caroline Dinenage MP (Gosport, Conservative)
-
-
the earliest opportunity and the earliest opportunity and Thank you very much. I refer you to my register for the members interested. Can I festival thank the interested. Can I festival thank the Secretary of State for that very strong statement and welcome statement on her behalf. The BBC editorial guidelines are actually, on live streaming, quite clear. They on live streaming, quite clear. They said the level of monitoring should be appropriate for the likely be appropriate for the likely content.

A producer should normally be in a position to cut the feed be in a position to cut the feed from a live stream should it be necessary. So, I wonder if the Secretary of State could say what explanation the BBC has given for explanation the BBC has given for why this lifestream was not cut. It cannot be for lack of staff on the cannot be for lack of staff on the ground. A reported 400 people were at Glastonbury at the weekend, what at Glastonbury at the weekend, what were they all doing? But for such a were they all doing? But for such a vast operation with multi- simultaneous live shows all going out across various different parts out across various different parts of the site, I wonder if she has had the opportunity to ask the BBC who the opportunity to ask the BBC who has the final say on what bands are deemed suitable for live broadcast and why on earth they chose this one and who makes the final decision when it becomes necessary to cut a lifestream?
17:40
17:41
17:41
17:43
17:43
Lisa Nandy Portrait Rt Hon Lisa Nandy MP, The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Wigan, Labour)
-
-
This government's view of her mass is clear, there terrorist organisation, they are banned in the UK and there is a good reason for that and we will continue to be outspoken about that and to be robust in relation to that. That is one of the reasons why I was very concerned to hear that there may have been imagery, symbols, graffiti in support of her mass at the festival this weekend, and one of the reasons why we would not hesitate to make sure that we deal with that and get to the bottom of that in order to stand with our Jewish communities and with everybody in this country who stands against her mass and everyone that is with them.

In terms of the BBC licence fee he will not the Government supports the BBC and we believe it is an important institution and that is why we are so disappointed that this has happened. While we have been so exasperated with the lack of account from the leadership, not just about this but about a previous Gaza documentary and a number of other issues as well. The BBC is one of the most important institutions in our country and that is why it is held to the highest of standards, why it is essential that we hold why it is essential that we hold them to the highest standards as we seek to start the process that should safeguard the future of the BBC, not just for the next 10 years, but to put it on solid footing for decades to come.

These are questions that we are determined as a Government, collectively, with the BBC, and all members of this House as a group. as a group.
17:45
17:45
Lisa Nandy Portrait Rt Hon Lisa Nandy MP, The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Wigan, Labour)
-
-
You makes an externally important point about accountability. That's something that is not lost as me as secretary of state and something I've impressed on the BBC leadership as well. When you have one editorial failure, it's something that must be correct. When you have several, it becomes a problem of leadership, and so I very much take his point about that. On the point that he raises though about the parallels between... Not parallels, sorry, but the strength of feeling that people have about this, given that it was happening, this was a music festival, and it was at a music festival on 7 October where so many young people lost their lives, others kidnapped and never returned to their families, and some still being held hostage.

At that moment this would have been the perfect place to express support, love and solidarity with those who are still suffering, and I know that there were those at the festival who were doing precisely that. But they were hindered in that by some of the appalling scenes that we've seen. And that's why we are determined to grip this and to make sure the music festivals are a safe and inclusive space for everybody. As a government we are also reaching out to other music festivals and to Glastonbury to see what more we can do to express solidarity with those who are suffering as a consequence of the appalling events that happened on 7 October and to see what we as a government can do to support those efforts.
17:47
17:48
17:48
17:49
17:49
17:50
17:50
17:52
17:53
17:53
17:54
17:55
17:56
17:57
Lisa Nandy Portrait Rt Hon Lisa Nandy MP, The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Wigan, Labour)
-
-
I could not disagree more. And I would just say to him that of course absolutely I and I think every member of this House will utterly condemn chance of death to all Arabs. It's disgusting and disgraceful. It's a principle by which we hold ourselves. And there was no hesitation from anybody in this House. The reason I brought a statement of the House today is because our national broadcaster, which is funded by the licence fee, which is paid by the public in this country has broadcast something that is deeply deeply offensive to a community in this country that has made many many people feel, and the Edgeley have made them unsafe.

That is the most serious thing that you can imagine. It's rightly a question for government, and that's why I didn't hesitate to bring into the House today. If this had been a broadcast that had led with the chance that he describes, broadcast by the BBC, you would be having the same statement at this despatch box, and you would be getting the same response from other members of the House. And can I just say to him that as somebody who has stood up for the Palestinian cause, for the last best part of two decades in this House, especially when it was hard, and especially when it was unpopular, and especially when it cost me friends and colleagues, and stood alongside many members of this House in order to highlight the plight of the Palestinian people, can I just say to him that is a long-standing supporter of justice for the Palestinians, he does nothing for the Palestinian cause by aligning himself with anti-Semites.
17:59
17:59
18:00
18:01
18:02
18:03
18:04
Michael Shanks Portrait Michael Shanks MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Rutherglen, Labour)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. With permission, I would like to make a statement about the oil refinery Ulster today, its owners have declared that insolvency and the refinery. The Government is urgently acting in response to this deeply concerning news. And I know it will be extremely worrying news for workers of the refinery as well and the wider community in Lincolnshire. And let me say very clearly the Government stands with the workers, the families, and a wider community at this difficult time.

They have been let down by the company. We will ensure that they are supported. Let me first take house through the chain of events leading up to today and then the actions that we will take in response. There have been long- standing issues at the refinery since it was acquired in 2021. At the end of April, the Government was informed of ongoing commercial difficulties and the energy secretary met the Chief Executive on 13 May two see how Government could provide support.

The Secretary of State was reassured by the company that there was no immediate closure risk at the refinery. One week ago, the business change their position and said that they feared it could no longer be a ongoing concern. We repeatedly asked them at man ministerial and Government And to see whether the Government could help them bridge that gap, but the company were unable to show that basic information. As a result of today's decision by the company, and official receiver and administrators have been appointed to take over different parts of the business.

And the Government will ensure supplies are maintained, protect their energy security, and do everything that we can to support the workers, including engaging in trade unions and industry bodies. Let me update the House on the government's response. First, we will work with the official receiver in the coming days and weeks to manage the situation at the refinery site and planned next steps for the official receivable take immediate steps to ensure safe site, ensure continued fuel supply and explore all credible options for sale.

Unfortunately, the refinery has consistently failed to make a profit since it was bought by the current owners in 2021. It has recorded a total of around £75 million worth of losses between its acquisition in 2021 and the financial year ending in February 2024. This has left the refinery in a situation in which it is in very bad shape and the company has left the Government with very little time to act. We are supporting the official receiver to carry out their statutory duties, including managing the situation on site to determine steps.

This will include urgently reporting back on the steps, including potential uses of the site prior to the wind down of the refinery Ulster as to the wider business, there are extensive operational and financial and interdependencies within the group that Mendip parent company State oil Ltd have also been placed into administration today along with a small number of other group entities, however other parts of the group, including the UK retail business have not gone into administration. The retail business will trade as normal while the administrators look to secure a sale in due course.

Second, there are questions about how the owners allowed the situation to happen. That is why they have written to the insolvency service to demand an immediate investigation into the conduct of that directors and the circumstances surrounding this insolvency. Third, as we engage in this work to ensure that affected workers of the refinery are supported through this difficult time and the Government believes that the business leadership has a responsibility to the workers and the local community and we are calling on them to do the right thing and provide support to the workers through this difficult period.

The wealthy owner cannot wash his hands of his obligations to workers and their families. That is why we are calling on him to put his hands in his pockets and deliver proper compensation for the workers. The Government will now urgently work with the company and trade unions to explore what further support can be offered for the workforce. And that will include the maximum possible help to ensure because can pursue new job opportunities if the refinery cannot be sold. Fourth, we are committed to ensuring the long-term future of the U.K.'s refinery sector.

It is important to see that the UK has a refining sector with a number of other operators. I met the refining sector earlier this month for a ministerial Roundtable and it'll me that they had not had such a meeting of Government for 13 years. The reality is the previous Government left the U.K.'s refining sector facing significant long-term challenges. And we know there are global challenges to, including competition from larger operations within the Middle East, India and Africa. We have already seen the effects of years of negligence from previous Governments, and this Government has been left to pick up the pieces.

For refining sectors that UK Government is determined to with industry workers and trade unions to ensure that we safeguard our refineries for the future. As for why we are reviewing the methodology for the energy intensive compensation scheme that we heard from the last Government, the refinery sector is not covered by the scheme and this review will help us assess whether sectors like this should be covered in the future and whether more can be done to help their competitiveness. And that is not all. In less than 12 months in office we have invested in CCUS which can help the refinery such as Philip 66 and through Viking and high net.

We have funded projects at Grangemouth and projects that can help refineries make future challenges and we are driving forward with the sustainable aviation fuel mandate to help the sector maximise the opportunities created by the clean energy revolution. From the moment we were informed of these issues, the Government has been focused on securing the future of the prox Lindsey oil refinery site and to its workers. Today, those workers have been badly let down by this company, but we are committed to supporting them and the wider community during this difficult time and the Government is absolutely committed to a long-term future for the UK refinery sector.

We will provide further updates on the steps I have set out in the statements over the weeks and months ahead and I commend this statement to the House.
18:11
Andrew Bowie Portrait Andrew Bowie MP (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, Conservative)
-
-
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. And I think the honourable gentleman for that statement, and for taking the time to speak with me on this issue earlier today. Today, hundreds of jobs are a strategic asset is in jeopardy and the capacity has passed to 35% of British petrol consumption and 10% of British diesel and there are risks in the pipeline. This represents a core strategic interest for the United Kingdom and we are sure that they're not at risk, nor are the petrol stations affected by the announcement today and I would like to reiterate that side of the operation is not at risk and Lindsey oil refinery has been loss-making since acquired from total energies in 2021 and we are aware of and standing financial issues in the group, including the ping able to provide Government.

As such, we support the Government in ordering this and the circumstances surrounding this insolvency, but it is clear, despite any legal management issues facing this and these the Minister has said are multiple, that the refining industry, as a whole, is being driven into the ground by the high cost of energy. In the late 1970s, Great Britain had 17 oil refineries. If this does close their doors, only for will remain. Energy is the single largest cost of operating a refinery. The skyhigh cost of energy to industry in the UK is pushing manufacturers and energy tech like refineries out of business and the chemical sector is facing extinction because of enormously high energy prices and crippling carbon tax bills.

Industry in the United Kingdom is competitive. Two oil refineries closing within six months, it is quite clear that we have to have breathing. If our route or lowering emissions in the UK is the price of the industry's invasion of jobs, economic growth, if it means impoverishing the UK and increasing dependency of import and fragile supply chains and products then we must rethink. If the Secretary of State brings refineries into the scope of the energy intensive industries scheme he is providing only a sticky response.

Exempting industries from policy Exempting industries from policy And payments does not fix the foundations. This piecemeal approach, simultaneously accepts the devastating consequences of relearning from the industry whilst abdicating responsibility to fixing the root problem. We are already seeing the real impact on working well, their livelihoods, and committees if action is not taken. 400 jobs lost, 60 in Moorcroft, over 1,000 in voxel and 250 elected glass and fibre and we can and now for hundred and 40 employed at the oil refinery.

We want the Government that more unions placed on a cliff edge. This Government is driving up the cost of energy, increasing reliance on imports on offshore emissions which is not good for the client and it is very bad for Britain. Refineries have consistently raised the existential issues faced and the cost of the emissions training scheme and high energy bills. Since the closure, no action can be taken by the Government to tackle the fundamental problem to reduce the burden to make UK manufacturing more competitive and to back British industries.

I ask the Minister what is the government's plans for the refinery? Do they expect to find a way out and how well will the Government support the refinery and what plans do they have for the refinery if no buyer is. Them? What actions will he and his Government take to ensure this is not replicated Britain's four remaining refineries and how many petroleum refineries does he expect to have by the time the Labour Government leaves office in 2029? And what will the Government do to take action and bring bills down from all industrial energy consumers and not just those covered by the energy intensive industries compensation scheme.
18:15
Michael Shanks Portrait Michael Shanks MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Rutherglen, Labour)
-
-
And I think the shadow minister first of all for quite rightly I think repeating the fact that not all of the business we have been discussing in the statement has gone into administration, I think that is important to see the uncertainty in other parts of the business, we will be able to outline more of that in the days and weeks ahead. And to thank him also for his party support of the investigation, the Secretary of State has launched into the conduct of the director, clearly something has gone badly wrong here and it is important that we get to the bottom of that.

On his three specific questions, I think first of all, the Government has backed the official receiver who is now running the refinery in the short-term, we will be using that time to see if there is the possibility of finding a buyer. Clearly about very first option would be to see if someone would take the refinery as a growing concern and put every effort into trying to find that. If that is not possible, then we would be looking at what the wider future of the site could look like and what possibilities there are four other industries on that site.

On the wider question, he said fixing the root of the problem. I have to gently say to him that his party oppose the action that would fix the root of the problem which is continued exposure to volatile fossil fuel prices that have driven up the cost of electricity in households and businesses right across the country, he rightly said, are paying the price of that. But while we have got an answer to that to move much faster toward a clean power system with renewables and nuclear in the system that bring down cost and deliver the power here in the UK rather than relying on that for volatile fossil fuels, he And the realities he can't on the one hand call for us to cause the problem.

We have outlined how to deliver cheaper electricity for consumers across the country and we are getting on with delivering it. They opposing all of those initiatives. initiatives.
18:17
18:18
18:19
Pippa Heylings Portrait Pippa Heylings MP (South Cambridgeshire, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Liberal Democrat spokesperson. notice of their statement today, and our thoughts as with many with those workers at the practice Lindsay refinery who had this last-minute news today putting the future and jobs on hold. And we understand this is just one refinery within the products group with the threatened closure sending shockwaves across the refineries, with roughly 200 petrol stations in the UK under their energy brands. Whilst these facilities are outside the insolvency process is as things stand, workers and these upstream businesses and the wider community will understandably be very worried about the impact of the insolvency on their jobs in future.

And there are indeed questions to be asked of the company bosses in both state oil and the practice group, and it's good to hear the Secretary of State's announcement of an investigation into how they have let workers down, and we also do welcome the misters words that the company should also bear some responsibility and accountability for jobs and skills for those workers if it turns out that the company closes. We also welcome the governance proposals to consider adding refineries to the national capacity positions in the inner energy intensive industries.

Once again we've seen UK business buckling under high energy costs, some of the highest in Europe with workers left pay the price. However many in this House will see deja vu following on from the Grangemouth job losses. We heard from the Minister about the state of the refining industries and the fact that you've seen for the first time in 13 years. Situations such as this make it yet clear that the government must set out a comprehensive and strategic plan for workers in the oil and gas industry to support the redeployment of skills and training as part of the just transition.

The recent report by Robert Gordon University warned that the UK risk losing tens of thousands of offshore energy jobs by 2030 unless urgent and coordinated action is taken immediately. Rather than the irresponsible and reckless race backwards to volatile fossil fuel dependency that we've heard today from the Conservatives, their report calls for honest dialogue to settle on a common...
18:22
18:22
Michael Shanks Portrait Michael Shanks MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Rutherglen, Labour)
-
-
In conclusion, many thanks. points down anyway. And importantly I agree with many of them. First of all I would just echo the point she makes that this will be shocking news for the workers as it always is, but I think particularly given how quickly this has happened, it has been as much a surprise to us without quickly a company has come to terms with this but the workers it will be particular shocking news. I do want to reiterate to things the honourable lady said just to be really clear.

On the upstream business that she mentioned, west of Shetland, that's not filing for insolvency and the petrol forecourt is point, this will continue to operate as normal and the administrators are exploring the prospect offer sale, so no need to be concerned about any of that. I think the point of the company taking responsibility for some of this, there is noting here that actually this is critically important whatever the outcome of this that the company takes some responsibility of the actions they've taken up to this point.

And for the workers that were employed in the business that This business running, that they take to responsibly defend them, and I been very clear my statement but we will continue to reiterate this that we expect the owners to put their hands in their pockets and provide the support these workers absolutely ready to serve, and finally in the point around the competitive plan, I was in Aberdeen last week talking to people about this exact point and I will continue to do that because it's right that we put in place a competitive plan for the future of those working in oil and gas.

There is a bright future for that workforce in oil and gas for many decades to come, but increasingly transitioning into new industries. We are determined we will deliver those jobs and our plan is really crucial and I'm working on that at pace.
18:24
Melanie Onn Portrait Melanie Onn MP (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, Labour)
-
-
I'd like to thank the Minister for this statement. He's right this has sent shock reverberating around our local area. I visited the Prax Group site which sits in my neighbours constituency back in April and spoke with staff and trade union reps about the importance of their work and was really impressed at their commitment to the company. There was absolutely no hint of the scale of difficulties beyond how challenging it is in the refining challenging it is in the refining sector anyway about how deep and uncomfortable the financial situation was for the company.

It was astonishing to me that the company can answer basic questions about its finances when the government asked for those details. The decision has been taken by state oil puts over 400 local jobs at risk with around 65% of those workers living in North East Lincolnshire. I do appreciate the efforts the government is making to support our workers and hope to work closely with the government to help perhaps find a new buyer to preserve these jobs and support domestic fuel production as a strategically important asset.

However, as things stand, I understand that state oil are only required to make strategy redundancy payments to those workers. Does the Minister think there is more that the billionaire owner of the refinery could do to better support those workers in the event that they lose their jobs? Surely that is the lease that they could do after what appears to be gross mismanagement.
18:25
Michael Shanks Portrait Michael Shanks MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Rutherglen, Labour)
-
-
I thank my honourable friend for her questions, and she underlines I think in her recent visit to the refinery just the real issues that have come to light in such an incredibly short space of time, although the truth is that uncovering some of this we discover that this has gone back some time, and that's really why my right honourable friend the secretary of state has announced that he has asked for this enquiry into the decisions that have been made because we do need to get to the bottom and learn any lessons we can.

She's right that I think we have to do absolutely everything we can to support the workers. We will continue to do that and will be looking at what support we can provide for them. At the moment of course these are jobs at risk rather than redundancies that have been announced. We are doing everything we can to see if there is someone interested in coming forward as a buyer for the refinery in a going concern, in which case the workers would be retained, but we will do everything we can to support those workers should that not come to fruition.

She is right to point out that under the current process, those workers will be entitled to statutory redundancy only. I think it's clear that the businesses leadership do have a responsibility to those workers not only because it's right and prudent for all owners of businesses like this to take responsibility for the workforce but particularly with the way this business has ended, I think they should take responsibility to the workers and the local community, so you call on them to do the right thing and support the workers through this incredibly difficult period.
18:27
18:27
Michael Shanks Portrait Michael Shanks MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Rutherglen, Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful to the honourable gentleman for his time earlier today. I will say this will be a distressing issue and his constituency, so would be good to speak to about it. He is right, what we need to work through having this decision been made last night and made public this morning, we have not had much time to fully work through the timeline of what comes in the coming weeks. The government is funding the official receiver to continue the operations, the safe operations of the refinery.

The first priority will be to make sure the safe operations proceed but if there is a buyer interested in the site, we will move as quickly as possible. If that's not possible to see what other alternatives there are, I cannot give assurances at this point in time but he can be sure the government is determined to do the right thing here and will do whatever we can to get either a buyer or some sustainable future on the site, but I would just reiterate the House this is a difficult set of circumstances with very little time to prepare.

And with a refinery that has been loss-making since it was taken over from total some years ago. It's a difficult position but we will do everything we can. I'm glad that the root cause of the problems we face have been identified, and we've touched on it so far but this is what happens when so far but this is what happens when private capital is in charge of such a key vital piece of infrastructure. We saw the play out at the Grangemouth refinery in my Grangemouth refinery in my constituency.

And it's good to hear my honourable friend the Minister in my honourable friend the Minister in agreement with me, in combination of the owners of the Prax refinery, so the owners of the Prax refinery, so it gives me hope that the government will indeed learn important lessons and assume at least some form of and assume at least some form of ownership in the future industries that are going to be coming at Grangemouth and potentially other Grangemouth and potentially other sites. Can we get an update on that please? please? I thank my honourable friend for his question.

He is right to highlight the work the government is doing through the £200 million commitment we made. Through the National Wealth Fund to support the future of Grangemouth. With an 84 serious incredible inquiries into that. Be meeting with some of those projects to see what more the government can do to make sure they are delivered, and we will say more in due course, working collaboratively with the Scottish government and with Scottish Enterprise to bring those projects forward. We are determined to deliver a sustainable viable industrial future for Grangemouth as we said since day one.

The difference of course I think just to separate the two slightly is that while we may have issues with owners of various sites across the country, in the Grangemouth site there was an 18 month redundancy package put in place. That's not here, and that's why the government is particularly calling on the owners of this refinery to do the right thing for refinery to do the right thing for
18:30
18:31
18:32
18:33
18:34
18:35
18:36
18:37
18:38
18:39
Michael Shanks Portrait Michael Shanks MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Rutherglen, Labour)
-
-
I thank the gentleman for his questions and promises holding us to account. He is right to reiterate the point I made at the beginning that support the workers is incredibly important. We are calling for the company's owners to do the right thing. On the question of the carbon budget adjustment mechanism, we have looked at three factors in this question. The UK ETS scheme, carbon leakage risk and the feasibility and effectiveness of including the refining sector which does not currently meet all of the above criteria.

It is not included in scope at the moment. But we are looking at this both beyond 2027, whether there is more we can do in the short term. Clearly there are questions around carbon leakage and other things that we need to work through. That is partly why I got the sector together for the first time in 13 years to talk about some of those issues and what the refining sector's views are themselves I'm not going to answer his second question with a specific number that that is the right way to look at anything around business planning in the country.

What I can say that refineries are very important in this country, crucial parts of our energy infrastructure, and important businesses. Businesses do also have to operate a successful businesses. Whilst there are some refineries that are doing that, clearly this one is an example of where that has not happened. We would do anything we can to support the sector I'm not going to put a specific number on how many refineries would have in the future. refineries would have in the future.
18:40
18:41
18:43
18:43
18:44
18:45
18:46
None Portrait Legislation: Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect During Appeal) Bill: Second Reading
-

will give it a few moments for the front benches to swap over. We now
18:46
18:46
Dan Jarvis Portrait Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-
Deprivation of the prompter's -- Deprivation of Citizenship Orders

**** Possible New Speaker ****

(Effect during Appeal) Bill. Minister to move second reading. I beg to move that the bill be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move that the bill be read a second time. Of all duties of government come in on matters more government come in on matters more than keeping our country say. It is an awesome task and one to which we attach the utmost significance as attach the utmost significance as this house and the public would expect. For people to flourish, they must have confidence that they are must have confidence that they are safe as they go about their lives. For a society to excel, its values For a society to excel, its values must be protected from harm and its laws upheld.

For a nation to thrive, laws upheld. For a nation to thrive, its leaders must be unrelenting in the pursuit of these critical aims. That is why the group -- the prime minister has made a foundation for minister has made a foundation for the Plan for Change and it is why the Plan for Change and it is why with our partners in policing and security services can we work around the clock to keep the net kingdom and its people say. -- The United and its people say.

-- The United Kingdom say. And in the face of complex threats, it is essential complex threats, it is essential that we keep the powers, tools and measures available to us under measures available to us under constant review. Where steps are needed to maintain the safety and security of our country, this government will not hesitate to act. It is with this intention that we have brought forth this bill which well narrow in its scope and intent is vital to our ongoing efforts to protect the United Kingdom.

Before I come to the detail of the bill, I will provide a little bit of background. The British Nationality Act of 1981 provides for the removal of an individual's British citizenship. This is also known as a deprivation of the. Deprivation is an important and effective tool to maintain public safety and preserve national security. It is used in two different situations. Where citizenship has been obtained by fraud or where deprivation is conducive to the public good. This means that it is in the public interest to deprive a person of British citizenship because of their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

conduct and /or the threat they pose to the United Kingdom. I thank the Minister for giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for giving way. As he said, it is a very narrow way. As he said, it is a very narrow bill. I wonder if he is able to give any numbers to the house as to how many individuals are currently many individuals are currently pending an appeal that has not yet been heard that have been deprived of their citizenship to whom this bill would ultimately apply.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill would ultimately apply. I would be happy to do that and if the honourable member bears with if the honourable member bears with me for just a couple of moments, I will provide him with the information he has requested. I was saying in the latter category, saying in the latter category, especially, deprivation is used against some of the most dangerous individuals, including terrorists, individuals, including terrorists, extremist and serious and organised criminals. To summarise the main criminals. To summarise the main effects of deprivation, someone in the UK who has been deprived of their British citizenship no longer their British citizenship no longer has any immigration status.

Steps may be taken to remove them from the may be taken to remove them from the UK and they may be held in an immigration detention in the immigration detention in the interim. And if they are overseas, they cannot three interim -- they cannot re-enter the UK. In both circumstances, this is an effective way to disrupt the threat posed by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

dangerous individuals. There is absolutely no doubt it is necessary. National security is is necessary. National security is paramount. Revoking citizenship is an effective method of promoting an effective method of promoting security. This ensures that no person can bypass that. In Northern person can bypass that. In Northern Ireland, there are many people who Ireland, there are many people who claim both citizenships, as they are able to, Irish and UK. While this able to, Irish and UK. While this bill will make sure that UK citizenship can be revoked, they citizenship can be revoked, they still have a right as an Irish still have a right as an Irish passport holder to travel to Northern Ireland, so it's a very peculiar case.

I'm quite happy if the Minister was to come back to me on this. I want to make sure that no on this. I want to make sure that no one can get around it by any other alternative passport like an Irish alternative passport like an Irish passport or whatever it may be, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

passport or whatever it may be, and ensure that Northern Ireland will be under the same laws as the rest of the UK. I'm grateful to the honourable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the honourable member, as I always am, for his intervention. He is right. It is important to cruise -- close this loophole. He has raised a very interesting example and I'm grateful to him saying he is happy for him -- for me to come back to him. Let me reflect on it further and I will get back to him. Yes, I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Minister keeps referring to it as a loophole. In fact, it has been an important principle in been an important principle in British justice that successful appeal equals vindication. What this appeal equals vindication. What this bill is trying to do is to remove that presumption. That's not a that presumption. That's not a loophole, that a basic judicial right on which we all rely.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

right on which we all rely. If the right Honourable gentleman will bear with me for just a moment, I will come to the specific points I will come to the specific points that he makes in just a moment. If he's not satisfied, I'm happy to he's not satisfied, I'm happy to give way again. I will just make some progress. Deprivation decisions are made following careful are made following careful consideration of advice from officials and lawyers and in officials and lawyers and in accordance with international law.

Each case is assessed individually. Each case is assessed individually. Decision to deprived -- to deprive I personally taken by the Home personally taken by the Home Secretary. The power is used Secretary. The power is used Secretary. The power is used sparingly. it complies with the UN convention. Let me give the House and education of how the powers are used. On average, 12 people a year were deprived of their citizenship aware it was conducive to the public good.

The numbers for fraud -related deprivation is slightly different. On average, there are hundred and 151 cases in that category per year. Let me turn now to the bill, dealing firstly with why it is required, I hope this will go some way to answering the point made by the right Honourable gentleman. In a recent case, the Supreme Court decided that if an appeal against a deprivation decision is successful, that initial deprivation order will have no effect on the person will be considered as having continued to be a British citizen.

This means the people who have been deprived of British citizenship will automatically regain that status before further avenues of appeal have been exhausted by the Home Secretary. I'm just going to make a bit more progress if I may but I will and a moment. I want to address the point that has been raised. There are very good reasons why the government may wish to stop citizenship being regained until all appeals are determined, withdrawn or abandoned. These include to prevent someone who is outside the UK and who poses a risk to our national security from returning when a further appeal might be upheld pending the Home Secretary's decision, or to prevent a person from announcing the other nationality and putting themselves in a position whereby a further appeals are successful, a further deprivation order would not be possible as it would unlawfully render them as being stateless.

I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will give way very briefly. I do thank the Minister for that explanation but hypothetically there explanation but hypothetically there exists a circumstance where the Home Office, the Home Secretary could deprive an individual of their citizenship, that individual could go for appeal and have it go for appeal and have it reinstated. This lot would then prevent them from retaining that citizenship and the Department would citizenship and the Department would choose not to appeal further. How does the department and ensure that does the department and ensure that that individual can access those appeals to regularise their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

citizenship status? I'm not sure whether this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm not sure whether this scenario is based on a particular case study he has in mind. It's not case study he has in mind. It's not a set of circumstances that I have personally dealt with, but I'm happy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

personally dealt with, but I'm happy to look into the circumstances he has risen. I will give way. I thank the Minister for giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for giving way. Southall Community Alliance in my constituency have long been defenders of human rights so would defenders of human rights so would he confirm to them that this bill will mean that we will continue to will mean that we will continue to use the power to deprive people of their citizenship very sparingly, and that there will be no changes to the existing right of appeal or any widening of the reasoning under which we were deprived somebody of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their citizenship in this country? Absolutely. I can give her and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Absolutely. I can give her and the organisation in her constituency that assurance. This is a very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that assurance. This is a very narrowly drawn. It is two clauses. I thank the Minister for giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for giving way. I'm confused. If the individuals in question have done something so bad that their citizenship has to be deprived, why citizenship has to be deprived, why would we not simply jailed? Why do we need to deprive their citizenship? -- jail them.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

citizenship? -- jail them. I hope the honourable lady heard the point I was making just a moment the point I was making just a moment ago. The reason the government has brought forward this legislation is in response to a recent Supreme Court decision were an appeal Court decision were an appeal against deprivation essentially resulted in a requirement to bring forth this clarification of the law. In response to her and the point In response to her and the point made by my Honourable friend, this does not represent any widening of the existing arrangements.

The right of appeal is completely unaffected by this legislation, which is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

incredibly narrowly drawn. I will give way. I'm sure he understands and appreciates that due process is appreciates that due process is important and the appeal process must be respected fully. Can he guarantee that the appeals process will be speeded up and people will will be speeded up and people will have an opportunity to have their case heard so they can have this case heard so they can have this resolved are not hanging over them

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for a long time? The honourable member is absolutely right about the point of absolutely right about the point of due process, and I can say to him and the honourable lady whose point I was responding to is that these I was responding to is that these are powers that are used very sparingly. So in each and every sparingly. So in each and every individual case, it is decided upon by the Home Secretary. I know this by the Home Secretary.

I know this Home Secretary and I'm sure previous Home Secretary's have taken these responsibilities incredibly seriously. Decisions are made carefully and on advice and in carefully and on advice and in accordance with international law and I'm happy to give him and others that assurance. Let me just make a bit of progress and then I'm happy to give way further. The key point to give way further. The key point is that deprivation of the on conducive grounds is rightly reserved for those who pose a threat to the UK or whose conduct involves very high harm.

We are talking about some of the most serious cases handled by any government. So, where a loophole is identified in the processes underpinning it, it is the job of any serious and sensible government to close it, and that is precisely what this government will do. Let me turn now to the substance of the bill. The House will now -- note it's brevity and narrow scope. The bill contains just one substantive close focus solely on addressing the specific issues that have already been discussed.

$$TRANSMIT's primary objective is to protect the United Kingdom from dangerous people which includes those who pose a threat to our national security. The bill will achieve this by preventing those who have been deprived of British citizenship from regaining that status automatically when their appeal is successful, until further appeals have been determined. This will replicate the approach taken on asylum and human rights appeals were the effect of an appeal is suspended up to the Court of Appeal and extended to appeals to the Supreme Court.

The bill does not change any existing right of appeal or widen the reasons for which a person could Should an appeal prove unsuccessful, where there is no possibility of further appeal, British city will be reinstated with immediate effect and retrospectively.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The honourable gentleman keep saying things that are not the case. I don't understand why cannot see that the production of innocent that the production of innocent until proven guilty should apply in this case as any other. And the idea that if I don't win an appeal that if I don't win an appeal somehow that does not mean I'm automatically innocent, which it does in every other case, seems to me to breach of fundamental tenant. He is also not correct to say this power is used sparingly.

Since 2010, power is used sparingly. Since 2010, dozens and dozens of people have been denied on the say-so of the Home Secretary despite there being Home Secretary despite there being nothing proven in court. That is what is different about these cases. This is effectively something that is done in secret behind closed doors, without necessarily the facts being proven in any way. I have a being proven in any way. I have a lot of respect for the honourable gentleman but that is the point where we should be even more reliant where we should be even more reliant on due process rather than doing what we are trying to do today which is legislate judges out of the room.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

is legislate judges out of the room. I know that the right honourable gentleman will understand and appreciate from his own time as appreciate from his own time as minister in the Home Office the huge responsibility that the government invests in the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary of the day has to make an incredibly difficult judgement, they have to make some fine balanced judgements. But I hope that he will agree that we have to ensure that the Home Secretary whoever it is, whichever political party they are, has the necessary powers in place in order to make decisions that safeguard the security of our nation.

I am certain that he and I agree on that. This bill essentially is ensuring that this government continues to have the billeting to do that in precisely the way the government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that he served under did as well. I thank the Minister for giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for giving way. I am completely confused. I still do not understand his very still do not understand his very specific example at the beginning, specific example at the beginning, why if these individuals pose such a huge threat other bits of legislation will not deal with them legislation will not deal with them in terms of keeping the public safe? You did also points to the fact that somebody could actually win their appeal and you still wished to deprive them.

I want to understand under which circumstances someone's appeal could be upheld by a judge and you would still wish to deprive

**** Possible New Speaker ****

them of their citizenship? I don't thing I did say that. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I don't thing I did say that. I think I said the opposite of that. Very happy to discuss this matter Very happy to discuss this matter with her further. I hope that she understands, as I hope that I have understands, as I hope that I have made clear, this bill is incredibly narrow in its scope. This bill seeks narrow in its scope. This bill seeks to take us back to the legal position that we were in a matter of months ago prior to the judgement of months ago prior to the judgement of the Supreme Court.

This does not in any way undermine the right of appeal. She wants to talk about it I'm happy to speak to her further. But I can give her an assurance, and she is very welcome to look at the bill. It won't take very long to read it, it is two clauses, a single substantive clause designed to take us back to the legal position we were in a few months ago. I hope she

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will be reassured by that. I have come into this debate

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have come into this debate without any prior knowledge of what is proposed so I'm making this point is proposed so I'm making this point as a result of what I have heard so far. Am I right in thinking that far. Am I right in thinking that what the Minister particularly has in mind people who might for example in mind people who might for example have gone abroad to fight for a terrorist organisation like ISIS, terrorist organisation like ISIS, who have got dual citizenship.

But there is therefore no requirement there is therefore no requirement that forbids us from removing their British citizenship, and that if they came back, even if they could be convicted of anything at all, be convicted of anything at all, they would be imprisoned only for a relatively short time, if at all, relatively short time, if at all, and then the security services would probably have to spend many years monitoring them. Is that the sort of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

scenario the Minister has in mind? I am always grateful to the right

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am always grateful to the right honourable gentleman. It is and perhaps he did not hear me make that point earlier but specifically I point earlier but specifically I said that amongst other reasons, this would include to prevent someone who is outside of the UK and poses a risk to national security from returning when a further appeal may be upheld by the Home Secretary's decision. So he is right, it is a potential scenario that we have to guard against.

This bill will enable us to do that in the way that governments previously would have been able to do that prior to the ruling of the Supreme Court. I hope you find that reassuring. As I have set out, deprivation is one of the most powerful tools we have in our ongoing efforts to protect United Kingdom and its citizens from harm. For it to remain an effective part of our armoury, we do need to legislate. Before I finish I do want to take the opportunity to pay tribute to world-class law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

In a turbulent and uncertain times, their tireless work to maintain stability and security here at home has never been more crucial. They must be supported at every turn. The safety of our country stands apart from everything else that we do. It is the cornerstone of our society, and primary purpose for everyone involved in public service including in this House. It is the responsibility not just born by those of us on the government benches but by parliamentarians.

It is in that spirit that I urge members to support this bill which is required to preserve our national security. I commend it wholeheartedly to the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is the bill be ready second time. I called the Shadow Minister. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. Keeping our country safe is and must Keeping our country safe is and must be the first duty of any government. That comes with decisions and That comes with decisions and choices that governments must take to keep their citizens safe, our country safe, and our way of life country safe, and our way of life say. That is why we on these benches support this bill.

It is much needed
19:08
Harriet Cross Portrait Harriet Cross MP (Gordon and Buchan, Conservative)
-
-
support this bill. It is much needed to close the recently created a loophole that should be agreed across the house and it must be addressed. The issue tackled by this bill arises from the Supreme Court's decision in a case where the court held that if a person successfully appealed against a deprivation, was the order is withdrawn, they are considered never to have lost their British citizenship. That means that even where the Secretary of State intends to challenge such a decision through further appeals, a person's citizenship is automatically restored in the interim.

In practice, this could allow individuals to return to the UK or announced another citizenship or nationality before the Home Office has exhausted the appeals process. The Supreme Court judgement corrected two on abilities. An unlocked door through which dangerous individuals can return, and an escape route allowing terrorists to regain citizenship, fly back to Britain, and become untouchable. The government's own assessment identifies specific risks. Firstly the immediate re- entry attempts, second a terrorist becoming stateless block future action, and thirdly foreign states interfering in our security measures.

The Supreme Court's interpretation has created a situation which is unprecedented amongst our allies. United States, Canada, Australia, France, the Netherlands, or maintain reservation of citizenship throughout appeals. Until this February's ruling, Britain's framework worked effectively. But now because of this judgement, we face a unique vulnerability that no other comparable democracy tolerate. Removing citizenship is, quite rightly, considered as a serious step and one that is not taken lightly and without thorough consideration. The seriousness of such decisions is reflected in the fact that it is the Secretary of State who personally decides if, based on public good and safety, an individual should be deprived of their British Citizenship Bill the Conservative party absolutely agrees with the importance of depriving citizenship in order to preserve national security.

It is a power that has been used sparingly but necessarily, the previous Home Secretary is widely depriving over 200 individuals of citizenship for being non-conducive to public good. These individuals risk undermining not only our security but our society at large. British Citizenship Bill is a privilege not an unconditional right. Those who choose to shatter their bonds of loyalty through terrorism or heinous organised crime forfeit their right to carry a British passport. That is why successive Conservative government never shrugged away from these powers against terrorists plotting to kill our citizens or members of for example Rochdale grooming gangs for the sickening abuse of vulnerable children.

That is why we are happy to support the government in their attempts to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

close the loophole today. I called Josh Symons.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I called Josh Symons. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. In this island, citizenship is an In this island, citizenship is an idea still in its infancy. When Great Britain was forged in the act Great Britain was forged in the act of Union in 1797, which is people were not citizens but subjects. Equals with each other by virtue of
19:11
19:13
19:13
Josh Simons Portrait Josh Simons MP (Makerfield, Labour)
-
-
mind, we live in an age where political imagination is needed more than ever. The recent experiment with politics as bureaucratic management is over. Now we are returning to politics with a long returning to politics with a long history in this country, forging the future through imagination and creativity, exercising the creativity, exercising the collective power to change the values and systems by which we are all. In a moment like this, the all. In a moment like this, the relative infancy of citizenship in Britain should encourage us to pause to examine an idea which we often to examine an idea which we often glide over.

So I hope you will forgive me for doing just that. Because citizenship is connected, as is the motivation behind this bill is the motivation behind this bill to one of the great challenges of our time. Controlling our borders and establishing systems of legal migration and asylum that are ordinary managed, humane, and in the national interest. Let me start by what my constituents tell me. They want to feel that they and their want to feel that they and their family belong in that community they live in.

But their neighbours feel live in. But their neighbours feel they belong there too. That is why high street full of vaping shops, and dog muck and smashed glass matter. They are visible and constant reminder that others seem not to feel they belong. To treat your community with respect and love is to show that you feel you belong. Citizenship is belonging on a bigger scale, a larger us. It is the unchosen love you feel for your family, even your town, projected onto the story of a country and its people.

Monarch, the flag, the industrial skylines of my home town in northern England and the cobbled streets of Cornwall. Citizenship is a feeling. Like any feeling it carries response abilities. It is not only about what we are owed but will be over. Responsibility, contribution, duty. We live in uncertain times. Europe is at war. The Middle East crisis and the world order is being remade at a connect speed. In such times I believe we should celebrate and nurture citizenship far more than we do.

Because now we hide it away. We bury citizenship and make the test of those who obtain it the capacity to pay thousands for the privilege not their commitment to our country and our values. For me this is what citizenship should be about. I believe citizens of this country should speak our language and no history, and share our commitment to fairness, tolerance, creativity, and freedom. Those who wish to become citizens must in the end be willing to stand shoulder to shoulder with their fellow citizens to defend our freedom in a world where it really is threatened.

That takes me to the specific measures in this bill. While I voted to remain, did so after much thought. It was always true that the European Union change the capacity of elected representatives to control our borders and places clear constitutional constraints on what Parliament can do. But I am always suspicious of those who blame forces beyond Parliament for their own failings to use its immense powers. My constituents understand a simple truth about this country's constitution, our politicians can act almost any laws they please and governments with strong majorities can do almost whatever they want.

If they choose not to use that power, rarely is it because of some external force, Strasbourg or arm's-length body, it is because they are frightened to use their own power or lack the imagination to use it well. That is why I strongly support the measures in this bill. It is not about making people stake less or subverting judges. It is about what this place is supposed to do. Asserts the view of this place as Parliament on which citizenship means and how it should be enacted.

To value citizenship requires being clear about when and under what circumstances it should be taken away. To be a full part of our society means to share our values. British Citizenship Bill is your part in our country and must be away to remove those who threaten it If the Home Secretary has decided in narrow and prescribed circumstances that it is in the public interest to remove the person citizenship because they threaten our security, that is what, in my view, should happen.

Of course, we must have an appeals process. No one must ever be above the law in this land but an appeal should not mean that the will of elected officials is thwarted. Changing the process of judicial review to ensure that the fewer -- the few cannot hold up investment and infrastructure that benefits the many. Reforming the charter so it reflects the 21st century and strengthens national security and enhances control over our borders. The British people are fed up with politicians passing the buck.

Blaming someone else for their own failure to act. If we don't create a modern citizenship are -- regime, establish digital ID or radically reform the British state, it is nobody 's fault but ours. I'm sick of politicians throwing up their hands and blaming others for their own failures. I will always support a government that takes responsibility for using Parliament to deliver radical change that this government -- this country needs. That's why I support this bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The United Kingdom employs deprivation of the more frequently deprivation of the more frequently than almost any other country in the than almost any other country in the world -- deprivation of citizenship or more frequently than almost any other country. The processes lack... This bill is designed to make sure This bill is designed to make sure that if the government takes away someone's citizenship, that person stays deprived of that citizenship were any appeals are still ongoing.

In practical terms, if the government deprives someone of their citizenship and that person appeals, the deprivation order remains in the deprivation order remains in effect of -- through the entire appeal period. That means they won't appeal period. That means they won't get their citizenship back until all get their citizenship back until all the appeals are finished or the time limit for the government has passed. The Home Secretary has described The Home Secretary has described this bill as a necessary step to close a legal loophole, a description that has already had description that has already had some debate.

Even if it is a loophole, doesn't mean these provisions deserve any less scrutiny. The power to deprive an individual of their citizenship is an exceptional one which in any democratic society should be exercised only in the most limited in extreme circumstances, and should be subject to rigorous oversight by Parliament. We need to see proper reform of the whole citizenship deprivation process, not a piecemeal approach like we are seeing today. This principle has underpinned LibDem policy on the deprivation of citizenship: most recently updated in 2019 when a party leader -- our party leader set out principles that
19:20
Lisa Smart Portrait Lisa Smart MP (Hazel Grove, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
should govern its use. These principles are that deprivation should only occur in the most should only occur in the most extreme circumstances, that its use must never be political, and that must never be political, and that legislation conferring this power must only be used with transparency and should be the subject of and should be the subject of continuous and meaningful parliamentary scrutiny. On the specific issue of transparency, Parliament 's Joint Committee on Parliament 's Joint Committee on Human Rights has echoed these concerns.

Earlier this year, it concerns. Earlier this year, it informed the government that its current approach to the deprivation of the fall short of the U.K.'s of the fall short of the U.K.'s human rights obligations. The committee called for significantly greater oversight of these powers, greater oversight of these powers, including periodic, independent reviews of their use and regular reviews of their use and regular reports to Parliament. Already, the current regulations around the deprivation of citizens citizenship deprivation of citizens citizenship place too much power in the hands of place too much power in the hands of the Home Secretary.

The Liberal the Home Secretary. The Liberal ... Only where the person is ... Only where the person is in something seriously prejudicial to the interest of the are taking them. It must be a proportional response to such conduct. Furthermore, we are firmly of the view that no individual should be rendered stateless the government's actions, except in cases where British citizenship was acquired by misrepresentation or fraud. The powers conferred by this bill will transfer even greater authority to the Secretary of State.

It is therefore essential that these powers be subjected to ongoing rigorous scrutiny and I would welcome further details from the Minister regarding plans to ensure this oversight takes place. Or the government for example consider reforming the deprivation of the process to require the Secretary of State to apply to court to make deprivation order, thereby obliging the Secretary of State to demonstrate that all requirements are met? With a commit to publishing annual reports detailing the use of powers and facilitating a review of the exercise of these powers by the independent reviewer of legislation, at least once every three years? And finally, will the Minister confirm when the government intends to ratify the 1997 European Convention on nationality, thereby introducing an additional layer of national , particularly where there is a risk of rendering an individual stateless.

The power to deprive individuals of their citizenship engages fundamental rights and must be exercised with appropriate safeguards, transparency and oversight. Deprivation of the must be the strict exemption, never the norm. This bill risks concentrating power in the hands of the executive with too few safeguards to prevent I agree that the most important role of any government is to keep its citizens safe but I do not believe that citizenship is a privilege. I believe it is a right. I also don't believe that the Minister answered my questions adequately earlier.

I want to understand why if somebody was such a huge threat to this country, we could not deal with them under other pieces of legislation, and if that is the case, are there not other pieces of legislation that require our attention in this regard? I worry because it feels like this could turn due process on its head. I hope the Minister understands that following the winter scandal in the case of Shamima Begum, there is a sense of worry among communities when any legislation that touches citizenship is brought to this house.

It's with good reason. It disproportionately goes against people of colour are goes against people of colour are people whose heritage or ancestral links are outside of Europe. The links are outside of Europe. The idea that their citizenship could be revoked because they could be eligible potentially for another eligible potentially for another nationality is problematic, and that is a fear that any hold. I always worry about legislation that seems worry about legislation that seems to circumvent the judiciary. I would ask the Minister to consider these concerns and please answer my concerns and please answer my questions.

I understand that he was talking about a very specific case but he does need to be able to apply but he does need to be able to apply it to the many different examples that people have put before him in that people have put before him in this house. Deprivation of the is a very serious thing to do and we want to make sure it is only happening in the most extreme cases.
19:24
19:25
19:26
19:26
Ben Spencer Portrait Dr Ben Spencer MP (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
-
-
privilege. Those who receive this privilege to our immigration system or the rice, we must be clear that comes with duties and responsibilities. We welcome those responsibilities. We welcome those who come to the UK lawfully both ready to participate in the freedoms we offer an equally ready to take on the obligations that go hand in hand with them. But when an individual with them. But when an individual who has the privilege of citizenship bestowed on them uses this to threaten our national security, that privilege should be rightly revoked until the Secretary of State has until the Secretary of State has exhausted all powers of appeal.

That is because citizenship of our country should be priced, not abuse. country should be priced, not abuse. Not reduced to some transactional process or tick box citizenship process or tick box citizenship text, test or life in the UK test. The poverty of knowledge that is required... And we shouldn't just be required... And we shouldn't just be defending the importance of citizenship at the point the person has it removed. Every person, has it removed. Every person, whether a citizen by birth, should receive an education on how precious this covenant between country an individual is.

Promoting an understanding and appreciation of our value system, the right to equality before the law, the duty of loyalty to United Kingdom or as an absolute minimum a deep and abiding respect and commitment to the conventions and values that make up the British way of life. Of course, the right to freedom of enterprise and aspiration. But not only to create wealth and opportunity but also to look at how our talents can be harnessed by making a contribution within families and communities, whether this is through performing care obligations for young children, or caring for elderly family members, or volunteering for local charities.

These values form part of our social contract, the ties that does as communities, societies and nations. These values have supported us for centuries. Those who reject these values should not be citizens of our country. So while I agree with the measures contained in this bill, my challenge for the government is to ensure there is respect for national values at the very heart of the forthcoming review of our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

immigration system. As I hope the Minister knows, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As I hope the Minister knows, I have devoted much of my adult life to keeping the entire country safe to keeping the entire country safe but I have to confess that I've never been entirely comfortable with never been entirely comfortable with the deprivation of the -- deprivation of the regime. deprivation of the regime. Unfortunately, his bill which is trying to pass off as an innocuous correction has sparked of that sense correction has sparked of that sense of unease. The reason I'm uneasy is because I think while the objectives
19:29
Kit Malthouse Portrait Rt Hon Kit Malthouse MP (North West Hampshire, Conservative)
-
-
because I think while the objectives , the corrosive as to our sense of citizenship and judicial process are perhaps too high. I don't want to detain the house to them. I just wanted to raise three point in particular. The first is that he thinks his sense is that the Supreme Court has created a loophole. My view is that they have corrected an anomaly. As I said to him, it has long been a tenet of the protections that the judicial process provides me and is -- me as an individual that an appeal equals vindication.

It is for my accuser to appeal on the basis that I remain innocent, even prior to the first action taken against me. This regime reverses that. The second point I wanted to raise that is alarming is that this legislation is retrospective. There will be a number of cases that are going through the courts or there may be a number of cases going through the courts on which this will have a highly prejudicial impact. The government is effectively moving the goalposts made litigation to get what it wants.

That again is not something that we would normally tolerate and it is a further development of this it is a further development of this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He says the government is moving the goalposts but would he accept that what we are actually doing is that what we are actually doing is ensuring we have got the same powers in order to deprive that he had when he was in the Home Office as a minister?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

minister? That I have exercises powers but he is quite right. In my view the Supreme Court have corrected an anomaly which the previous government, yes absolutely, took advantage of, and that they did. I'm advantage of, and that they did. I'm not saying that is correct. What he is proposing today is that in the face of a Supreme Court decision, the Supreme Court decision which he the Supreme Court decision which he doesn't like, he's going to change the law. To say that the court was the law.

To say that the court was in effect wrong and that is fundamentally right since the fundamentally right since the Supreme Court has decided, and courts basically decide our rights within the legal framework, is within the legal framework, is somehow not to be tolerated.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have some sympathy with the argument but surely the effect of argument but surely the effect of this change is only going to kick in this change is only going to kick in if in the end the government's appeal succeeds. Therefore it will be the case that the court previously was wrong because otherwise governments appealing against the decision won't succeed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The right honourable gentleman is right. But what it does mean is the right. But what it does mean is the state can render someone stateless by inaction. They can take many years to work their way through the courts. It also means, as I said courts. It also means, as I said this is highly judicial because it means for the duration of that legal action, the person will not be able to come to the UK. And therefore will have to litigate from outside our borders.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

As I said in my first intervention I'm new to this whole debate. I thought I heard from the Minister that the idea was that the Minister that the idea was that the Minister that the idea was that the government had to either win, this would only stand until the government appeal was resolved, or government appeal was resolved, or until the government ran out of time to appeal. So how long would that period be? I don't see how that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

period be? I don't see how that would put things off for the amount of time he suggests? The right honourable gentleman

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The right honourable gentleman knows there are various levels of appeal right up to the Supreme Court that can be taken. This legislation is saying is that, throughout that period, as long as the government continues to pursue appeals, the person remains deprived of their citizenship. Rather than what the Supreme Court is saying which is, if the person wins any one of those appeals, they immediately become in effect innocent and their citizenship is restored as if it was never removed in the first place.

So in the same weather if I'm accused of a crime and I am found innocent, and the prosecutors decide to appeal my conviction, I remain innocent until that appeal is heard and decided against me. If it is appeal beyond that I remain innocent then still. What the government is doing now is reverting to what was previously the erroneous situation as determined by the Supreme Court and my view is they are moving the goalposts on an individual who seems to have won a case of fair and square in our highest court in the land.

Finally I want to raise a more fundamental issue about this entire process. Call me an old romantic, but my view is once you are a citizen, you are a citizen. Once you are in, you are in. Unfortunately the development of this power over the last whatever it is years since the 1981 act brought it in the first place has created two classes of citizens in this country. The honourable lady from the Frontbench who is no longer in her place said citizenship was a privilege not an unconditional rights.

That is not true. It is an unconditional right for me. I am a freeborn Englishman of two English parents going back I don't have the years. I have no claim on any other citizen anywhere else in the country, it is my undeniable and equivocal rights have citizenship in the country and cannot be removed from me by any means whatsoever. That is not true of my children. I am married to a Canadian citizen. They have a claim on Canadian citizenship. The Home Secretary so decides, they can have their citizenship removed.

That is true of every Jewish citizen of the United Kingdom who has a right to citizenship in Israel. There will be millions of British people of South Asian origin who feel that they have a second-class citizenship. This law only applies to certain of our citizens. It does not apply to me. I don't know whether it applies to you Madam Deputy Speaker. Maybe it is making other people in this House thinking about whether it applies to them as well.

While the Minister has been clear that we should trust, and he has given us lots of undertakings that we should trust them, we don't make the law on the basis of the Minister we like and trust and respect we make it on the basis of this law might fall into the hands of someone who we are not that keen on who may be more cavalier with the powers that are bestowed upon them. The honourable lady for the Liberal Democrats said, you're a country that uses this power disproportionately more than any other Western country.

We have been very free in our history despite the fact that minister after Ministers stood in this house to use it sparingly, we don't. Dozens and dozens of people have been excluded. We have to be honest about why. Sometimes it has been for safety and sometimes on balance it has been to please the papers. It has been because it looks good, plays well, and we never ask ourselves the cost to our sense of cohesion. The audible gentleman opposite gave a very lyrical and poetic view of citizenship but if a very large proportion of our fellow citizens believed that they have a second- class citizenship, that I am undeniably and unchallengeable a a citizen, but you are not, so what yourself, what does that do to society?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does the honourable Member believe that just by looking at me, and by honourable Friend next to me, the people who this particular piece the people who this particular piece of legislation would apply to could look like us?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

look like us? The honourable lady makes it quite powerfully. I don't know, but quite powerfully. I don't know, but she does. And what this legislation leaves people, yes people from minority backgrounds or second or third generation immigrants or, like third generation immigrants or, like my children, children who are of two parents of different nationalities, it leaves it with a lingering sense it leaves it with a lingering sense of doubt. But how secure they are in the station.

Two,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the station. Two, He is portraying the United Kingdom as an exception to a global rule in which citizenship is a straightforward binary and a right. I am of Jewish ancestry and have a right to claim citizenship in Israel though I have not. My wife is American and our children are dual citizens to this very much pertains citizens to this very much pertains to me. I would gently point out the United States has a similar regime. When you are a naturalised citizen in America, if you break certain laws and if you are demonstrated to be a national security threat to the United States, you too can have that naturalised citizenship revoked.

It is not accurate I wouldn't say to paint the United Kingdom as a complete exception to a rule in which citizenship whether it is by birth or by naturalisation is treated differently by the state, by the courts, by the legislature.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I understand the point he is making but I'm not interested in comparisons with United States. I would hold us to a higher bar. We are a more ancient country that should have as he rightly pointed out a better developed sense of how you build a cohesive society. And I would challenge whether the United would challenge whether the United States could be held out as paradigms of virtue on societal paradigms of virtue on societal cohesion or whether actually it is a very divided country and whether after that division is a sense that after that division is a sense that there are first, second, and maybe even third class citizens there.

At the moment they're going through a the moment they're going through a period of challenge to what it means to be a United States citizen. And to be a United States citizen. And we have seen litigation under their we have seen litigation under their own, what you call it, it has slipped from my mind, constitution, slipped from my mind, constitution, that is the word. Senior moment! But they are seeing a legal challenge under the constitution on these grounds. What does it mean to be a citizen? All I would say to the citizen? All I would say to the House, I don't want to detain the House much longer as we need to think carefully about the impact think carefully about the impact this regime has beyond the people on whom it is targeted.

We may say that cases like Shamina Begum, what she did was completely appalling and she deserves to be punished, and obviously the decision was taken to revoke her citizenship. I'm not sure that was the right thing to do. I do think she needs to be punished. Many ways I would rather she was brought in this country, punished and jailed here. She is nobody else's problem but ours. But by promoting this regime, as I say, I think we undermine the value of what it means to be a British city because it is, once acquired, it should be a right.

It should mean something. It is not the keys to the executive lavatory. To be just removed when you lose the village and right in your positions to something you require that is fundamentally there when you are in the club. We should be aware of its wider impact. I have one final suggestion to the Minister. I listen I am in a minority here and therefore the House is not going to comply and you will get it legislation. By asking to think carefully about the value of the judiciary this process will stop would it be possible to amend the process such that when an appeal is one by an individual, and the government wishes to continue to deprive that person of citizenship, that permission of that judge should be sought for that pending a further appeal will stop the government will have to seek permission to appeal in all circumstances.

I would ask him to consider seeking also the maintenance of the condition as part of that condition to appeal. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for his work and approach today and everyday. It is a pleasure to work across from him but against our enemies and in defence of our great country and its people. Sometimes fulfilling our duty to
19:42
Katie Lam Portrait Katie Lam MP (Weald of Kent, Conservative)
-
-
Sometimes fulfilling our duty to keep our country safe means taking action which we might otherwise wish to avoid. But it is completely right that depriving people of their citizenship under certain circumstances is a tool available to the Home Secretary. Those who hate our country and what it stands for new work against the interests should not be able to hide behind a British passport. Membership of a nation does not just imply right and also confers responsibilities. When British citizens engage in terrorism, support for terrorism or serious organised, clearly disregard those responsibilities.

It is clearly true that we cannot supply these people of citizenship in all cases particularly given that a worrying number of extremists are now homegrown. Where we can, we should. If we accept the deprivation of citizenship as an important tool in keeping our country safe, we should also accept this power should be exercised pragmatically with the safety of the British people coming first. Allowing potentially dangerous individuals to retain their citizenship while appeals are ongoing is absurd. This is not a power exercised likely by any government.

The idea that dangerous people might escape accountability by exporting procedure is frightening. The current system also opens up the worrying possibility of dual citizens renouncing on UK citizenship during the appeals process making it impossible subsequently to remove their British Citizenship Bill without rendering them stateless. We therefore, as the member for Gordon and Buchan said earlier, support the bill before us today. It will ensure the deprivation of citizenship orders will did have affect still the entire appeals process is complete.

The honourable Member when speaking today rightly placed disabilities wider context, both historically and politically, and I agree with him on the desperate need to restore our broken border and to make British Citizenship Bill extremely precious. He speaks of the citizenship ceremony. My grandmother swore allegiance to the king when she became a citizen and also it often. I know it was one of the proudest moments of her life. You're a member for Clapham and Brixton Hill said she considers citizenship rights rather than a privilege.

On this I'm afraid she and I disagree. As indeed the member for Runnymede and Weybridge said afterwards, he zaps it right that citizenship is to be prized not abuse. The right honourable Member for West Hampshire is right to point out there's a balance to be struck. Deprivation has a cost to those who are deprived. I say that cost in the scenarios which the Home Secretary may exercise deprivation powers is more than worth paying to protect this country and her people. And similarly and more specific to this bill, the cost of maintaining deprivation until the conclusion of the process is also a price worth paying.

And I say that as a British is who is entitled to several other citizenships. Finally, this bill is not just a good example of decisive action taken in the interests of national security. It is also good example of Parliament's role in Unlike in other countries, judges are not the highest safeguards of our constitution. In Britain, that task is given to and must remain with the British people themselves. And so, when the judiciary makes the decisions -- the decision which runs contrary to the decision of Parliament, Parliament is perfectly entitled to overturn that decision.

In fact, it must do so if our political system is to work as it should. In the United States, the Supreme Court's job involves working out the intention of long dead statesman. That is not the case in the United Kingdom where Parliament is a living institution embodying the sovereignty of British people. It can issue new guidance. This kind of institutional dialogue is healthy, indeed it is the lifeguard -- lifeblood of our politics. We welcome the approach taken by the government on this matter.

We have seen ministers and MPs behave as if the law is an entity unto itself, and authority above all others, entirely separate from the political process. This could not be further from the truth. We must never forget that the supreme authority in this country's parliament, and that the job of Parliament is to legislate in the interest of the British people. With the legal process produces a result which is not in the interests of the British people, not only is this house well within its rights to overturn it, it must do so.

overturn it, it must do so.
19:47
Dan Jarvis Portrait Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-
With leave of the house, the Minister. been raised. It is a pleasure to follow on from the Shadow Minister. Can I thank all right Honourable members have spoken in this debate. As I mentioned right at the beginning, this bill is extremely narrow in its scope and in its intent, focusing solely on closing a loophole in the existing deprivation of the process. As I outlined in a recent case, the Supreme Court decided if an appeal against a deprivation decision is successful, or if a deprivation of the is withdrawn, that initial order will have had no effect and the person will be considered as having continued to be British.

This means that people who have been deprived of British citizenship will automatically regain that status before further avenues of appeal have been exhausted. Therefore, this bill will protect the UK from people who pose a threat to our national security by preventing those who have been deprived of British citizenship and our overseas from returning until all appeals have been determined. It will also prevent a person who has been deprived Robert deprived of citizens are -- a person who has been deprived of citizenship whilst an appeal in their cases ongoing by renouncing their nationality and putting themselves in a position where a deprivation order would render them stateless.

The bill does not change any existing right of appeal or widen the reasons for which a person could be deprived of their citizenship. It is crucial that our world-class law enforcement and intelligence agencies have a responsibility to protect the public and secure our borders. Let me reflect on the contributions that have been made during the course of this debate. Let me again say that I'm grateful to the Opposition to -- for their support today. It was always my intention that national security should never be a party political issue.

That was the basis on which I approached it in opposition and that is the basis on which I approach it in government. I'm grateful for the constructive and reasonable way in which the opposition have presented the points today. I'm grateful also to the Liberal Democrats spokesperson for her contribution. She took the opportunity, as is absolutely her right to do, to call for wider reform and she raised specific concerns both about the process but also about transparency. Now, I can say to her that the government believes the measures contained within this bill are necessary and proportionate.

I did listen very carefully to the point that she made a run transparency. I can say to her that the government believes there is sufficient oversight and transparency of the use of the deprivation power. The Home Office publishes data in relation to the number of deprivation of the owners number of deprivation of the owners orders -- orders and the ICIBI has the power to review the power. I also just wanted to take the opportunity to further reassure her that deprivation decisions are made following a very careful consideration of advice both from consideration of advice both from officials and from lawyers, and under this government, and I'm sure it was the case under the previous government as well, strictly in accordance with international law.

Each case is assessed individually by the Home Secretary and decisions to deprive, where it is conducive to the public good, are taken by the Home Secretary and the Home Secretary alone. The power is used sparingly and it does comply with the UN Convention on the reduction of statelessness and always comes with a right to appeal. Now, the honourable member for Makerfield made a very thoughtful speech, including about what citizenship means, and I know that house will be grateful to the contribution he made this evening.

The honourable member for Clapham and Brixton Hill did raise a number of specific concerns and I want to respond to those. Let me say to her and to the house that the deprivation of the -- of citizenship is rightly reserved for those who pose a threat to the UK or whose conduct involves a very high harm. Deprivation on foregrounds is for those who obtained their citizenship fraudulently and so were never entitled to it in the first place. Decisions are made following a very careful consideration of advice from officials and when -- in respect of advice from lawyers and in accordance to law, including the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.

Hope she will understand we have to ensure we have the powers necessary to keep the public safe. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for giving way. I hope he understands the assurances I've been asking for. Again, this will be the third time I ask this. I genuinely want to understand why someone who is of such danger to our public cannot be dealt with under other pieces of legislation. Quite obviously, because at the moment it seems we because at the moment it seems we cannot even stop them from coming into the country, because of the legislation as it exists.

I also want to say, he keeps saying this doesn't widen the situation under doesn't widen the situation under which people can be deprived of citizenship. It actually does. It citizenship. It actually does. It does on the basis that someone can win an appeal and then be told they will not be given the citizenship will not be given the citizenship act because the government has act because the government has further decided not to grant it. I want to understand why such dangerous people cannot be dealt dangerous people cannot be dealt with under other pieces of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

legislation. I have to say I don't agree with the second point she has made. This the second point she has made. This bill has been very carefully and very narrowly drafted, and I don't think it does the things she has said it does. In terms of why the government would seek to use these powers, I hope she understands this government, as I'm sure was the case with the previous one, will do everything we possibly can to keep the public safe and protect them from high harm individuals including extremist, terraced, organised criminals.

This government, as was the case with the previous government, considers that this is an appropriate necessary and proportionate way in which to do that. I hope the house will understand why we are progressing in the way that we are. The honourable member for Weybridge made a thoughtful speech. He has clearly thought about this matter long and hard and has done the house a great service. I want to reflect on the contribution made for the right Honourable gentleman for north-west Hampshire. I enjoy debating these matters with him.

Genuinely, I'm grateful for his contribution. He suggested that he might be an old romantic. Well, I couldn't possibly comment, but I could possibly say that I think he has advanced some interesting points. There not points that the government agrees with and I hope he doesn't mind me saying that they are not points that the majority of members of this house agree with. I think he has contributed to ensuring this debate is richer than it otherwise would have been, had he not made those contributions.

I hope that he acknowledges that the government is acting in good faith, and in order to ensure that we are best placed to keep the country safe. I know he is not satisfied with the measures we have brought forward and does not agree with them, and that is absolutely his right. I respect his right to make his case in the way that he has. I would just ask him briefly to consider an alternative scenario, a scenario where the government of the day, regardless of which political party they were, did not put in place the necessary powers to keep the public safe.

One can only imagine the criticism any government would face were we not to do that. I will give way one more time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the Minister. I can imagine the situation. As the can imagine the situation. As the honourable lady said, I have been an enthusiastic supporter of lots of powers to protect the public from people from whom he cannot remove people from whom he cannot remove citizenship. For example, control citizenship. For example, control orders which were designed to put restrictions on individuals who restrictions on individuals who present dangers to the country of, from whom he cannot remove citizenship. If they are good enough citizenship.

If they are good enough for those people, why are they not good enough for the people on whom he is conferring second class he is conferring second class citizenship? He must say that this legislation only applies to certain legislation only applies to certain citizens and they are not the only ones who present a danger to this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

country. I'm grateful to him for his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to him for his contribution. I don't doubt that if he and I and others sat in a room he and I and others sat in a room and sought to design a system, we probably would not end up with the one with God. Again, I hope you understand that with the constraints understand that with the constraints on parliamentary time and the bandwidth of government, which we are seeking to do is to go back to are seeking to do is to go back to the position that we had a number of months ago and I know he did not I just want to come back to the honourable member for Strangford because I give him assurance I would do so.

I could say to him that a British Irish national could be deprived of citizenship. They would then require leave to enter. I hope that response to the query he made. that response to the query he made. This bill, well short in that, will have an impact on the safety of those in our nation. It will ensure that those posing a threat to the safety and security of our country do not have their citizenship restored until all appeals have been determined.

Safety and security for those in our country is the foundation on which everything else is built, and as I have remarked in this house before, this government -- for this government, nothing will matter more. With that in mind, I commend this bill to the house.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the bill be set -- that the bill be read a second time. As many of that second time. As many of that opinion, say "Aye". Those in the contrary, say "No". I think the Ayes have it. The Ayes have it. The have it. The Ayes have it. The question is as on the Order Paper. As many of that opinion, say "Aye". Those in the contrary, say "No". I Those in the contrary, say "No". I think the Ayes have it.

The Ayes have it. We now come to motion
20:00
20:00
Ashley Dalton Portrait Money Resolution: Rare Cancers Bill: Money Ashley Dalton MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (West Lancashire, Labour)
-
-
of money provided by Parliament of one, any expenditure incurred by virtue of the act or the Secretary of State, and two, any case of State, and two, any case attributable by virtue of any other act. I pay tribute to my Honourable act. I pay tribute to my Honourable friend, the member for Edinburgh South West for bringing forward this important bill. The government supports this bill and is committed to making a real difference for patients with rare cancers. Very patients with rare cancers.

Very patients with rare cancers. Very In relation to money set aside, I want to make sure that when it comes to Northern Ireland, rare cancers that account for one quarter of all cancer cases, that the money set aside will be monies, because health is devolved, that the monies will be extra for Northern Ireland it comes to dealing with the rare cancers that we have. It is not just about those who have the rare cancers, it is the families have to deal with as well.

So respectfully to you I asked

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that question. Thank you. I thank the honourable gentleman for his intervention. As he rightly for his intervention. As he rightly said, health is devolved and I'm happy to write him further on the very details of how we expect this Private Members' Bill to work with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Private Members' Bill to work with devolved governments. Thank you. The question is as on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. The question is as on the Order Paper. As many are of that opinion say, "Aye". And of the opinion say, "Aye". And of the contrary, "No". The ayes have it.
20:02
None Portrait Motion on behalf of the Committee of Selection: Education Committee; National Security Strategy (Joint Committee); Procedure Committee; Committee of Public Accounts
-

contrary, "No". The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Motion number four on Exiting the European Union minister to move. The question is as on the Order Paper as many are of that opinion say, "Aye". And of the
20:03
20:17
None Portrait Motion on behalf of the Committee of Selection: Education Committee; National Security Strategy (Joint Committee); Procedure Committee; Committee of Public Accounts
-

have it. The Ayes have it. We now come to motion number six relating to the Education Committee. Jessica to the Education Committee. Jessica Morden. The question is as on the Order Paper. As many of that Order Paper. As many of that opinion, say "Aye". Those in the contrary, say "No". I think the Ayes have it. The Ayes have it. We now have it. The Ayes have it. We now come to motion number seven relating to National Security Strategy joint

**** Possible New Speaker ****

committee. Jessica Morden. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is as on the Order Paper. As many of that opinion, say "Aye". Those in the contrary, say "Aye". Those in the contrary, say "No". I think the Ayes have it. The Ayes have it. We now come to motion number eight, relating to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

number eight, relating to the procedure committee. Jessica Morden. About to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

About to move. The question is as on the Order Paper. As many of that opinion, say "Aye". Those in the contrary, say "Aye". Those in the contrary, say "No". I think the Ayes have it. The Ayes have it. We now come to motion number nine relating to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

number nine relating to the Committee of Public Accounts. Jessica Morden. I beg to move. The question is as on the Order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is as on the Order Paper. As many of that opinion, say "Aye". Those in the contrary, say "No". I think the Ayes have it. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

"No". I think the Ayes have it. The Ayes have it. Petition, Richard Burgon. I rise to present this petition

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to present this petition own cuts to disability support own cuts to disability support following on from a petition signed by 77,000 people. This petition by 77,000 people. This petition declares that a 2% tax on assets could generate an additional £24 could generate an additional £24 billion a year. It adds that it is considerably more than the government plans to save by cutting key financial support for disabled people. The petition -- the petitioners request that the House of Commons urges the government to take into account the request of the petitioners and consider the
20:18
20:19
20:19
Sam Rushworth Portrait Adjournment: Road safety powers of parish and town councils Sam Rushworth MP (Bishop Auckland, Labour)
-
-
speech, may I begin by paying my respects to constituent of mine, Curtis Davies, who was a resident of Curtis Davies, who was a resident of Shildon and who worked for Durham police who sadly died yesterday in difficult circumstances, and I know that he will be missed by his colleagues in the police force and by his family and my thoughts and prayers are with all of them. Like many in this space, I spent a lot of my time knocking on doors and listening to President, and one of the things that has never ceased to impress me about the people in my constituency is the way they love their community and their neighbourhoods.

The pride that people take in the little things, like the physical appearance, the beauty, the local environment, but also the safety of our roads. I want to use this adjournment debate to highlight some examples of where people in villages and towns across my constituency are fed up and frustrated and feel disempowered by the number of occasions that they ask for simple changes to road safety to enhance their community, but are knocked back by bureaucrats who tell them that they apparently know better than the people living on those streets.

I will take an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

intervention. I thank my honourable friend for taking my intervention so quickly. taking my intervention so quickly. When you ask for these changes, what When you ask for these changes, what we need to do is be more proactive rather than reacting to these

**** Possible New Speaker ****

problems. I hear that same anecdote far too

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I hear that same anecdote far too often for it not to be true. That is not how we risk assess. We don't wait for someone to die before we ascertain that there is a risk.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ascertain that there is a risk. Thank you for giving way. Highway safety is something I've been safety is something I've been working on for a number of years now, particularly around the now, particularly around the communities around the A167 and communities around the A167 and Neville's Cross. In the city of term, they have been told again and again that nothing can and will be done despite other areas with less road accidents seeing road improvements.

What he agree with me that one of the biggest barriers to road improvements in County Durham is the arbitrary and rather baffling decisions of County Durham Council

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Highways Department? I 100% agree with that assessment. It doesn't -- it seems assessment. It doesn't -- it seems like it doesn't matter who is in like it doesn't matter who is in power. The councillors do not get to power. The councillors do not get to it. It is a democratic problem that it. It is a democratic problem that there are so many people saying the same thing, only to be ignored again and again, so I welcome that intervention. I'm so grateful that intervention.

I'm so grateful that so many colleagues have joined tonight, and I think that is a testament to the frustrations that testament to the frustrations that we all feel because the experience the member for the city of Durham the member for the city of Durham just expressed is probably one we will hear several times. I've deliberately kept my own speech short so I can take interventions. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

short so I can take interventions. I will give way. I thank the honourable member for inviting intervention. In my inviting intervention. In my constituency, road safety is a huge concern and this is despite the fact that in London, London boroughs to that in London, London boroughs to have the power to set speed limits and in fact, most of Ealing is a 20 and in fact, most of Ealing is a 20 mph area. The council do not have the power to enforce the speed the power to enforce the speed limit, only the Metropolitan police do.

Does my honourable friend agree that it is important that we also consider whether councils that already have the right to set speed limits should also have the power to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

enforce them? That is an excellent point. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That is an excellent point. I welcome that intervention. I may just say to the Minister as well just say to the Minister as well that there will be a lot of interventions tonight but perhaps we could have some sort of arrangement that we can take this debate further. How could I not?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

further. How could I not? Can I commend the Honourable gentleman for bringing this forward. gentleman for bringing this forward. gentleman for bringing this forward. We don't have... The councils in Northern Ireland are not the enforcers of road safety but they do enforcers of road safety but they do have... It is clear that local have... It is clear that local knowledge is imperative when considering wide-ranging road safety considering wide-ranging road safety issues. Does the honourable member not agree that joined up thinking between branches of government is essential to ensure that people essential to ensure that people

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I welcome his point about joined up thinking. I will just make some brief progress in my speech and say that at the heart of what I'm asking for is for town and parish councils to -- is for town and parish councils to be listened to. They are the closest to the people that live in those neighbourhoods and so often they are asking time and time again for the same basic things are not being listened to. If I may just give some examples.

I want to start with the village of high Grange in my constituency. Has two 60 mph country lines run the country lanes running -- country lanes running on either side of it. For the pensioners on the other side of the village who want to get across the road to the allotment but they don't feel safe crossing to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

allotment... I will give way. Thank you and thank you so much

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you and thank you so much for bringing tonight's debate. Chris and Nicole lost their daughter Vicky and Nicole lost their daughter Vicky 18 years ago and on losing her, they discovered a postcode lottery for grievance services. Sum provided grievance services. Sum provided them and some. It's important we discussed road safety measures today discussed road safety measures today but hopefully my honourable friend will agree that it is important that will agree that it is important that lottery is available for everyone who loses a loved one.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

who loses a loved one. Thank you. That is difficult to disagree with. I will give another disagree with. I will give another example. As well as high Grange example. As well as high Grange village, there is another area in my village, there is another area in my constituency where I spoke to a gentleman who told me he no longer feels safe going out in his electric feels safe going out in his electric scooter and going on the road because of the speed of the traffic that comes hurtling down the bank.

that comes hurtling down the bank. The people there have been asking for traffic enforcement measures, as has just been measured. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

way. Thank you. First of all, I'd like to congratulate the member on securing this very important debate. We can see how many people this affects across the country. On the point of speeding in our communities, does the honourable member agree with me, with my sentiments when I became a borrow -- borough counsellor that the parish were -- the parish council was doing excellent work. Can be integral to ensuring that the councils do listen, that the county councils or unitary councils do listen and collect the data that can be so important to make the changes in local communities to speed limits, to break safety measures that are so

**** Possible New Speaker ****

important for us to have? I thank her for the intervention. I think that parish councillors do I think that parish councillors do sterling work. Nonetheless, they get frustrated that often that data is not taken where they want it to. In not taken where they want it to. In the village of Hammersley in my constituency, the traffic is often constituency, the traffic is often the cause of concern. Villagers have asked if the village could not be asked if the village could not be made a 20 mph zone? That sounds like a reasonable request to me.

I've often heard them asked me -- ask me, often heard them asked me -- ask me, why can't we be more like Wales? They get frustrated they don't have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that option. I pay tribute to former

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I pay tribute to former councillor Lesley Hinds. You've never met a more humble Labour never met a more humble Labour councillor. Back in 2016, she rolled out in Edinburgh citywide 20 mph out in Edinburgh citywide 20 mph zone. Peer-reviewed research showed that slight injuries had reduced by that slight injuries had reduced by 37%, serious injuries had reduced by 33% and fatalities had reduced by 23%, through the leadership of one person, lives have been saved and we should be doing this right across

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the country. Was he not agree? That is very important data that gives force to this argument. We are gives force to this argument. We are not talking about killing people's joy here. We are talking about joy here. We are talking about enhancing the joy in people's lives by allowing them to feel safe.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In South Derbyshire, we have created a network between my office and that of the parish council's, and that of the parish council's, right across the constituency. Server councillors have raised the issue of safety with me. They have carried out community speed watch carried out community speed watch is. Even carried out a recommendation on how we can make roads safer, including having a crossing across the road from the school. We have vehicles that go up school. We have vehicles that go up and down the road that is unsuitable for it.

Does the honourable member for it. Does the honourable member agree with me that the best people to make recommendations that should be carried out in their local communities are those parish councillors?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

councillors? That is exactly the point I'm making and I welcome that intervention. I will move on. Go on, I will take one more.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will take one more. I thank him and pay tribute to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him and pay tribute to him for raising this important matter. I offer my deepest condolences to people who lost their lives in road accident in Redding recently. I don't want to comment on anyone under police investigation. I'd like to say that I commend what he is doing. Many smaller unitary local councils have -- are often held back because they are not able to enforce traffic offences such as speeding, even when 20 mph zones It could be wonderful if the powers

**** Possible New Speaker ****

delegated to them rather than the police who are very busy. Again excellent intervention.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Again excellent intervention. I've mentioned high Grange in way in Hamsterley. We are only in H. Cauthen Kate in my constituency, the Cauthen Kate in my constituency, the residents they have to put up with 60 mile an hour traffic driving past 60 mile an hour traffic driving past just 2 m from their front windows. And that's an area where they have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

asked for some traffic calming. I thank you deeply for bringing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank you deeply for bringing this debate forward. It's actually something which came up on the first visit I had to a school in my constituency, Baltimore the Academy constituency, Baltimore the Academy which is actually on a stretch of six to Molnar Road. And parents find six to Molnar Road. And parents find incredibly stressful taking the ICN D might send my children to and from school when they are trying to get school when they are trying to get them out, the young people they're trying to do a campaign to get the speed limit changed but they are hitting brick walls basically, with difficulty getting the highways difficulty getting the highways authority to listen.

So does my honourable friend agree with me that communities, schools and young

**** Possible New Speaker ****

communities, schools and young people particularly should be supported by that I was authority and listen to on matters like this? I think she makes next point about communities where there are schools. I have one tough hill schools. I have one tough hill premised on the A6 tier. Cocktail is another area where children are having to cross the road in difficult conditions. They lost

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their lollipop person who was helping the children to cross. He's been very generous with his time and many honourable members time and many honourable members have said, such a testament to the importance of this issue that we are all here this evening. The Minister all here this evening. The Minister can relax on this occasion I will not talk about the A1. I will in the future, but I will talk about the northern bypass in Morpeth which has northern bypass in Morpeth which has this problem with a 16 -- 60 mile an hour zone, and the local parish hour zone, and the local parish council make the case to the county council that a safer crossing was necessary for the that was in 2023, necessary for the that was in 2023, and she hasn't moved on, so it was simply to ask if he would agree with simply to ask if he would agree with me that local parish and town councils who understand the circumstances better and they should be listened to even more power in this regard?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this regard? Can you comment on the issue of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can you comment on the issue of parish councils, I met recently with members of Staindrop Council who have been asking for more than a decade simply to have two crossing points at the entrance and exit of their village. As a beautiful village that sits between Bishop village that sits between Bishop Auckland and Barnard Castle. On the main road. An traffic often doesn't drop it speed down to 30, and pensioners in Staindrop have said that something as simple as crossing the road to attend a social function is something that they actually feel put off doing because of fear crossing the road.

And it is a travesty to me that Staindrop Parish Council can ask for the same thing over and over again and the highways

**** Possible New Speaker ****

authority just keep saying no. I thank him for giving way, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for giving way, and as a proud Cornish MP I was as strong in Africa as anyone for the strong in Africa as anyone for the role of parish and town councils in having their eyes and ears on the ground and understanding where for ground and understanding where for example those most serious needs for crossings are so eloquently described in his constituency. But described in his constituency. But does my honourable friend agree with me on the huge importance of the me on the huge importance of the need for a crossing in uncertain in my constituency? -- Non-Ms Leadsom.

my constituency? -- Non-Ms Leadsom. Where we've seen a new strategic

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Where we've seen a new strategic road built but with little consideration for the flow of traffic coming into the village. I don't know if he needs a crossing in his constituency in crossing in his constituency in truth, but isn't this the point because I'm not local to his constituency. But to tell you who constituency. But to tell you who does know, his parish council and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the people who live there will now come and if that's what they are asking for, they should be listened to. I think in for giving way. He's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think in for giving way. He's been incredibly generous with his time. And the point he is advancing time. And the point he is advancing is so important, and actually it's not just about people's safety, although that is really important. Just this week we've seen a horrible incident in my constituency where some geese have been run over, a very traumatic incident for residents. So the sea agree that it's a vital this Government sets out a new national road safety strategy, and will he also agree that it's important that they listen to their local voices from communities like mine and like his as they draw up that vital piece of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

work? All of us here, and we have all

**** Possible New Speaker ****

All of us here, and we have all stayed late because we all, the voice of the people that we represent and clearly they all represent and clearly they all telling us the same thing. And it does fall to the government to do something about the challenges that something about the challenges that we are raising. I just want to quickly mention two or three other places because I love my constituents, but they are jealous. And I know that I will get grief if And I know that I will get grief if I neglect to mention places like Fleet Street in Bishop Auckland Fleet Street in Bishop Auckland where there is just no road markings at a four-way stop, and where people don't know who to give way to.

And don't know who to give way to. And it's a regular source of concern for parents in the Cockton Hill area. Or parents in the Cockton Hill area. Or if I don't mention Stanley Crook, and a lot of the hilltop villages where the traffic just doesn't want where the traffic just doesn't want to slow down as they pursue their journey through people's residential areas. Or if I don't mention can areas. Or if I don't mention can envy where to years ago a car crashed into someone's dining room, crashed into someone's dining room, and the family was lucky not to be and the family was lucky not to be in the dining room at the time, but that's an area where people have been saying for donkeys years that that is a dangerous junction.

People have known it, and eventually a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

serious accident happened. I thank the Member for giving way and for bringing this really and for bringing this really important debate into the House today. My community, there is an today. My community, there is an area that is called ref Dan, and actually those residents have been trying for years and years to have something happen to their local something happen to their local community. One of the things that's interesting is about the benchmarks. interesting is about the benchmarks. Local knowledge goes over and above that.

Not a lot of the accidents get reported nowadays, and they agree reported nowadays, and they agree with me that actually we need to be looking at local knowledge that goes much further than reported accident

**** Possible New Speaker ****

incidents? I think it's an excellent point about local knowledge. I think back to the high Grange village I was to the high Grange village I was talking about words and in the local people who understand the importance of the allotments in the park and the difficulty crossing the road because both of those are just

**** Possible New Speaker ****

because both of those are just outside the village on the other side of the main road. I thank him for giving way, and is a testament to its popularity is a testament to its popularity that we all here this evening in what is really important issue, but whether it's Banbury Street or whether it's Banbury Street or Newcastle Lane in Penn core Owen Fenton, that no call local knowledge Fenton, that no call local knowledge he points to hasn't come from me by a parish council but actually through diligent hard-working residents associations who often in urban constituencies provide the very same function he's pointing out, so perhaps with a minister is answering, we can encourage not only to give proper consideration to the views of parish councils but also to those residents associations and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

urban communities that do so much for where they live. I think that's a fair point. Again I pay tribute all the people Again I pay tribute all the people that serve at that level of government, particularly people who give their time freely to serving residents associations just to make residents associations just to make life better for their neighbours and people around. I will mention two people around. I will mention two more places before I move on. The forward, Chapel Lane, where residents often complain about residents often complain about speeding.

As well as high Everly, and we have a bypass running through and we have a bypass running through Bishop Auckland. A year ago, we had Bishop Auckland. A year ago, we had a new shopping area on one side of it, and for a year now people have been dangerously crossing the bypass been dangerously crossing the bypass from one side to the other. It's in the 106 agreement that there is supposed to be a safe crossing point, but it seems to be the last point, but it seems to be the last thing on the developer's minds with everything else coming first.

And everything else coming first. And every week, people taking risks as they cross over at the bypass. We have a petition out about that, and have a petition out about that, and further up the bypass the Bracks farm as well as a place a lot of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

children are crossing the road. I thank him for giving way. He's been most generous with his time and thank you for securing this really thank you for securing this really important debate. There is a busy bridge on the A1 71 in my constituency, and it is by year seven and eight pupils based at the airy Hill site of the school as well as parents and pupils who attend the airy Hill primary school, and tourists photographing the steam trains that can be seen below.

It's a very noisy and windy bridge. It has heavy rating for traffic, and its high above the estuary. Despite this, there are no zebra crossings or raised curbs command the speed limit is 40 miles an hour, and understandably local residents are really worried. They've tried to lower the speed limit to 30 miles an hour, but North Yorkshire council isn't interested, so they've raised the petition themselves. Would my honourable friend agree with me that this is exactly why parish and town councils should be given road safety powers, including the ability to introduce speed limits?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I mean that is what I'm calling for tonight. It's for parish for tonight. It's for parish councils to be able to have and town councils to be able to decide the speed limits on the roads within speed limits on the roads within their boundaries. They represent the voice of the people in those areas. voice of the people in those areas. As I move on from the tour of my constituency, which you are all welcome to visit some of these welcome to visit some of these lovely villages sometime, anyway you lovely villages sometime, anyway you want to come.

I must say this want to come. I must say this started out for me as sort of hearing one anecdote, and then I would hear another later and then another until it became obvious that this is a serious issue. And it's not just about fatalities. I accept not just about fatalities. I accept that fatalities are actually low, thank goodness, but it's about the quality of people's lives, about the fact that there are teeny children fact that there are teeny children missing out on play.

And there are too many older people missing out on social activities because they don't social activities because they don't feel safe crossing their roads. So I feel safe crossing their roads. So I look to what other regulations that these faceless bureaucrats are using when they so regularly say no to when they so regularly say no to people, and it turns out that the Road traffic regulations act came into effect in 1984, the year I was born, so it's as old as me. And it doesn't give powers to parish and town councils.

They have no statutory role beyond advisory

**** Possible New Speaker ****

consultation. I thank you very much for giving way and I echo the comments of other colleagues and he is being very generous with his time and thank you for calling this to be and giving us for calling this to be and giving us the opportunity to debate the role of parish councils. I think it's in the resort and you should do a lot more often. In my constituency of Cannock Chase an issue which is raised really frequently with me is the concept of road safety, parking on double yellow lines and in the absence of enforcement by local residents always looking for creative solutions for the in my home village, a neighbouring village, both parish councils have village, both parish councils have asked highway authority Staffordshire County Council to allow them to pay for extra allow them to pay for extra enforcement activity, really pragmatic solution which is been refused repeatedly by the previous Conservative administration full- time encouraging those councils to try again now we have a new Reform administration to see whether this fresh thinking they keep promising us will extend to parking us will extend to parking enforcement.

With my own befriend agree with me whether it's traffic calming, speeding or parking, our parish and town councils can play much greater role in keeping their residents safe?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

residents safe? I welcome his extension of the debate parking, which is also a great safety issue. I've lost track great safety issue. I've lost track of how many times residents in different villages and towns I represent talked to me about represent talked to me about ambulances they couldn't make their way up a street because there was because people are respecting traffic rules -- are not. And it's another way people feel they don't have control. Over the very street that they live on.

I will make some progress. Parish and town councils operate under the local act and they have no highway or transport powers unless these are explicitly delegated. So powers could be delegated to them. They can raise local issues but they can't initiate or enforce any regulatory changes, so my asks of government are simple. One is could we not look at primary legislation to grant town and parish councils the power to set enforceable speed limits? And if that is a step too far, could we not at least provide stronger statutory consultative powers that they have the powers to raise, to force a review of speed limits? And stronger powers to appeal decisions that get made and to demand explanations for the amount of times that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

computer says no? On that point... I thank the honourable member for giving way. The Member for Bishop Auckland has temperamentally won tonight, been so temperamentally won tonight, been so generous with his time. I'm fortunate enough in Leeds South West and Morley to represent two parish councils, one-time cows and numerous councils, one-time cows and numerous residents groups, and across my constituency I've got dozens of councillors in the area who obviously have the expert knowledge, obviously have the expert knowledge, the street by street knowledge in some cases the House by House knowledge to make these decisions for themselves.

I appreciate he will accept they should have the power to accept they should have the power to change speed limits in their area, so perhaps you would like to comment and maybe the Minister would too in her summing up on the mean average her summing up on the mean average speed tests that are often used to restrict speeding checks, to restrict speeding checks, to restrict speeding limits. I have been tired, my residents are tired too of being told that the mean too of being told that the mean average speed is too low to change things, even though the lived experience of people on that road experience of people on that road note that the outliers are causing all of the problems.

Does he agree?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

all of the problems. Does he agree? Order. Just before we proceed, I think I'm right in saying that now every member present who is likely to intervene has done so. So well I would not wish Honourable Members to do so ordinarily, you are likely to get away with the length of interventions you have gotten away with tonight. This is an important issue, I understand that. There are constituency issues that need to be raised and placed on the record.

I understand that. But do not take the leniency of The Chair for granted. And do there in mind, as one honourable lady has not, that if you intervene, you are expected to stay until the end of the debate and hear the Minister's response.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you for your wisdom. I will move towards the end of my speech. move towards the end of my speech. It is a simple ask. It is about the power that we give, but it is also about funding. I recognise that sometimes the reason why the answer sometimes the reason why the answer is no yes because decisions have to be taken and I have two thoughts on that. One is we look at ways to make the decision-making process less expensive.

One of those ways could expensive. One of those ways could be to simply trust local knowledge be to simply trust local knowledge more than we do. And, if necessary, could we not mandate that councils could we not mandate that councils could we not mandate that councils put aside more funding for this? Because it is clearly evident we see from the inventions tonight it is one of the top issues that our constituents raise. They have the right at all levels of Government, from this place down to their parish from this place down to their parish councils, to know the residents speak with a collective voice, that voice gets heard with respect.

voice gets heard with respect. Councils are democratically elected, Councils are democratically elected, the council woman rooted in their communities. Residents lived experience offers better long-term insight than one-off traffic monitoring snapshots and the crisis and prioritising administrative thresholds and community empowerment should apply to road safety and I genuinely welcome this immense commitment to giving back control to the British people over many parts of their lives, but this is another area where we are asking to have more control and just to put one more road safety issue having successfully gone through two ruts of traffic and the Spending Review to raise with the Minister the future of the 866 which is an important part of national not decided by councils but decided by the Treasury and I would be grateful to know what the timeframe is forgetting a response on that because it is the future of the 866 and it is an important part of infrastructure for the north Amendment, across the Pennines, east to west, that reduce the time it takes to get to the Lake District, far fewer road closures that impact on people's lives and it is an area where they have far too many fatalities, so I will just steal the last few seconds to put that on record as well.

Thank you for your time this evening.
20:49
Lilian Greenwood Portrait Lilian Greenwood MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport) (Nottingham South, Labour)
-
-
Well, thank you, Mr Deputy Speakers. I would like to begin by congratulating my honourable friend for securing this debate and making such incredible good use of the extra time that we have had, and of course for speaking so passionately about road safety. Clearly it is a powerful advocate for his constituents and we really did have tools across the many villages and communities that he represents. I enjoyed his efforts to name check I think every single one of them.

I am pleased to be back here again for the second debate about road safety in less than a week and the reason I am happy to be discussing this is not just because I am the Minister further future of roads which, of course, should be a safer future, but because this issue matters to all of us. We are families my friends, colleagues, all use our roads. Whether it is drivers, riders, pedestrians, cyclists, or passengers, buses, taxis, and we all deserve the right to go on our journeys and know that we will get home safely.

Unusually for this adjournment debates we have heard I think from 19 Honourable Members this evening, not only for my honourable friend from Bishop Auckland but the Honourable Members in France for Harlow, City of Durham, Ealing, Strangford, Northallerton South, it bra south- west, South Derbyshire, Reading East, Stafford, North Northumberland, Bracknell, North West Leicestershire, Stoke-on-Trent, Central Scarborough the mechanic chase, Leeds, I very much hope I chase, Leeds, I very much hope I have not missed anyone on that list.

No one, and we all agree, it is clear that we all agree that no one should be killed or injured on our should be killed or injured on our roads. Improving road safety is one of my department's highest priorities. There were 1624 fertility is in reported road collisions in Great Britain in 2023, and more than 28,000 people were seriously injured, which I have not done the numbers, but I suspect that means that in the time we have been debating this there will have been someone seriously injured somewhere on Great Britain's roads.

Fatalities and injuries from road traffic collisions are simply an acceptable, and this Government is working hard to prevent these tragedies for all- round users. Road safety is fundamental to everything this Government stands for. Safer roads underpinning our national missions, driving economic growth, enabling greener journeys through active travel. This impression on the national health service and ensuring everyone can travel safely, and that is why my department is developing our road safety strategy, the first in over a decade and we will set out more details in due course.

Now, honourable members talked about implementing road safety at a local level and local Government is the main delivery body for road safety. Local authorities have a statutory duty under section 39 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to take steps to both reduce and prevent collisions. It is for local authorities to determine what measures are appropriate in individual cases because they have the local knowledge and many Honourable Friends have talked about that tonight, the importance of local knowledge. And it is right that they focus on the areas of highest risk which may be why tragic collisions have occurred, but let me be clear there is nothing to stop them implementing road safety measures elsewhere.

Indeed, it is entirely right to consider what action can be taken to prevent collisions from happening in the first place. I will, of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Although she lives in Edinburgh South West, Amanda from my Edinburgh South West, Amanda from my constituency wrote to me about a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

constituency wrote to me about a power English councils do not have an it comes to road safety, and that, of course, is payment parking. Is this something the Minister has considered? I think my honourable friend for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think my honourable friend for once again raising the issue of pavement parking, as I hope he knows pavement parking, as I hope he knows this is something that I am very keen that we address, it has been far too long since the 2020 consultation on options to address consultation on options to address parking and I look forward to the opportunity to set out to publish that consultation and set out next that consultation and set out next steps in due course.

I hope that no local authority claims that road safety measures can only be considered at locations where there considered at locations where there have been fatalities. This is simply not the case. I understand the importance of using resources effectively and where they are most effectively and where they are most needed. They should never be arbitrary. This Government is arbitrary. This Government is committed to the devolution of powers at a local level, and as we have shown through the publication have shown through the publication of the devolution white paper it is important that the right powers are held at the right level.

Highways and traffic responsibilities sit at county councils or unitary level and this enables local authorities to deliver services in an efficient and consistent way across their areas. Whilst we have no plans to devolve these powers further to parish councils, it is nevertheless crucially important that local highway authorities engage with local partners, including parish movement and town councils, when deciding on measures to take, as they can play an absolutely critical role in identifying road safety issues in their areas.

They are often the first to hear about near misses or dangerous incidents acting as a vital link with local residents day-to-day experiences. As we have heard time and time again this evening, local parish and town councils and, indeed, residents associations my honourable friend from Stoke-on-Trent said, and indeed other local community groups and may be groups of schoolchildren or parents or a wide-ranging groups have incredibly valuable knowledge and they need to be listened to and engaged with. Numerous Honourable Members talked about the need for action to reduce speed, including lower speed limits and to enforce speed limits such as police action and speed cameras.

Honourable Members one that the enforcement of road traffic law and how available police resources are is the responsibility of individual chief constables and Police and Crime Commissioners, taking into account the specific local problems and demands with which they are faced. When it comes to this, local authorities have the power to set speed limit under roads. It is important that this is done in partnership with town and parish councils and in consultation with the residents affected. I was really sorry to hear that in my honourable friend's constituency local calls for lower speed limits on specific stretches of land have not been responded to by Durham County Council.

And I would urge him on the town parish councils and Durham County Council to discuss this matter as a matter of priority and try to find a way forward. As my honourable friend described so vividly, dangerous roads do have very real impacts on the lives of his constituents, perhaps especially children, older people and disabled people and this debate I think will send a clear message to Durham County Council and perhaps to other authorities about the strength of feeling is not only from his constituents but from my honourable friend local communities about road safety issues and the need to be accountable to local residents about the decisions that they take to fulfil their duties.

Now, local authorities have a range of traffic management measures available to them to help improve safety in residential areas and outside streets and these include pedestrian crossings, traffic coming measures, school crossing patrols, and the introduction of a school Street, where appropriate. Street design can help improve road safety and I keep piece of guidance and it advocates the street are designed to support appropriate vehicle speeds from the outset. To build the right roads that encourage that rather than having to deal with problems when they arise later.

That reduces the commissions and reduces the severity of those collisions that do happen. We expect local authorities to adopt this in setting their own design standards but, ultimately, it is a choice for them. Working to update the manner to ensure it is still relevant and allows them to do so in a way that contributes to sustainable, healthy, and active communities. It is for local authorities to determine what measures are appropriate in individual cases because they have that local knowledge, but any authority that wishes to install schemes to improve this has my departments for backing.

Obviously, they will want to make those decisions in consultation with local communities. And I very much welcome the support expressed by so many Honourable Members this evening and sharing local knowledge and working in partnership can be very helpful. Now, my department gave councils updated guidance on setting 20 miles an hour speed limit in March 2024, reminding them to reserve the lower limits for appropriate location such as outside schools with safety and local spot at the heart of decisions.

I would like to emphasise that we support 20 mile an hour speed limits in those places, as well as improving safety it can enhance quality-of-life, the environment, but 20 miles an hour zones are best considered on a road by road basis based on that specific case to ensure local consent rather than specific measures and local councils want to make these decisions about local implementation, again, as I say, in consultation with local communities and police. They know their roads best and I simply cannot and should not dictate to them from Westminster.

Now, local authorities are free to make their own decisions, provided that they take account of the relevant legislation and guidance, they are rightly comparable to local people for those decisions stop my honourable friend and his constituents will rightly expect the County Counsel not only to listen to their concerns, but to be held accountable for the decisions that they make. Whether that is a decision to install their traffic measures, or without the decline to do so, and I think that applies to all the Honourable Members who have made the case today Of course the safe system to road safety acknowledges that even careful drivers can make statesman and should be killed or seriously injured as a result of a mistake, and whenever collections at high speeds are much more likely to have tragic outcomes.

That's why the argument holds for reducing speed limits in particular circumstances. Now the Department will look at what we can do to support local authorities, and we stand ready to work with all those looking to improve road safety at the local level. My Department recognises the excellent work that parish and town councils do to improve the safety of local roads, including their involvement with community speed watch schemes, and I'm grateful to my honourable friend the Member for Amber Valley for highlighting this valuable volunteering this evening.

Community speed watch schemes are police run and enable local volunteers to work with police and other agencies to address identified road policing issues in their particular localities. Drivers who have detected speeding sent letters and the police may take further action if a drive is detected multiple times. Of course decisions on when to adopt community speed watch schemes are operational matters for Police and Crime Commissioners and chief constables in conjunction with local policing plans. Now the responsibility for keeping our roads safe cannot fall solely to central or local government.

All road users have a part to play, and they must all comply with road traffic law in the interests of their own safety and that of other road users. Asset out in the highway code, the hierarchy of road users places those road users most at risk in the event of a collision right at the top of the hierarchy. The objective of the hierarchy of road users is not to give priority to pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders in every situation, but rather to ensure a more mutually respectful and considerate culture of safe and effective road use that benefits all users.

This doesn't detract from requirements for everyone to behave responsibly. There is both a legal and a moral duty to all road users to obey the law, both in terms of safety and creating a culture of respect and consideration for all road users. There will also place to ensure that unsafe and dangerous behaviour has no place on our roads and should be dealt with appropriately. With the most effective sanctions and including educational interventions. Enforcement of the law is a matter for the police and will decide on the evidence of each individual case whether an offence has been committed and the appropriate action to take.

I'd like to conclude by thanking my honourable friend again securing this timely and important debate. As I said at the start, the government treats road safety with the utmost seriousness. And we are committed to reducing the numbers of those killed and injured on our roads. My department is developing our road safety strategy. It's vitally important. For too long we have tolerated a lack of progress and this government is determined to act. I look forward to setting out more details in due course as indeed we will on my honourable friends

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ambitions for the A66. Thank you. The question is that this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House do now adjourn. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." The ayes have it.
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page