debates/debates2025-07-14d conversation_22
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-07-14)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-07-14d conversation_22

Lewis Cocking:Will the Minister outline what new planning powers could be provided to local councils to ensure that my local communities in Broxbourne can say no to houses in multiple occupation—HMOs—where they are not wanted? \p Matthew Pennycook: The hon. Gentleman—who I have great affection for, as we go through our tenure—is a highly experienced former councillor, and he will know that local authorities already have article 4 powers. If he has evidence that those powers are not proving effective, I would really like to have more information. \p Sally Jameson: In the light of the Government’s determination to bring prosperity to coalfield communities like Doncaster, does the Minister share my desire for the fast delivery of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust industrial project? It is also important to transfer any potential funds directly to the CRT, so as not to delay any delivery with bureaucratic processes and bidding. \p Alex Norris: The Government are committed to investing in coalfield communities, and I was pleased to meet my hon. Friend and Mayor Ros Jones to talk about their exciting plans in Doncaster, which we are investing in. We are looking very closely at what the Coalfields Regeneration Trust has sent us; the trust is, of course, a great legacy of the previous Labour Government, and we are committed to working with it. \p Gagan Mohindra: My constituent Ryan from Carpenders Park wrote me with concerns about the lack of community spaces, especially alongside the Government’s housing targets.  Will the Minister reassure the House that the Government will ensure there are community spaces to support any new housing developments? \p Matthew Pennycook: I say two things to the hon. Gentleman. He will forgive me if he knows this already, but we did strengthen the provision for infrastructure in our recent changes to the national planning policy framework. Beyond that, we want to strengthen the existing system for developer contributions—where infrastructure and affordable housing comes through planning agreements—so that local authorities can extract more public gain from that process. \p Alison Hume: Cayton, a village in my constituency, could now become home to 2,500 new homes through the Government’s new homes accelerator. To ensure the success of that project, it is essential that we deliver the appropriate infrastructure, such as GP services, proper drainage and roads, all of which have not accompanied previous developments. What steps is the Minister taking to develop a coastal strategy to ensure that new developments for coastal villages like Cayton are delivered alongside infrastructure? \p Alex Norris: The Government take a similar interest in coastal communities. As Local Growth Minister, I work closely with coastal authorities and have a significant eye on coastal communities. We want to strengthen the system of developer contributions to make sure that the new developments provide that infrastructure, with further details to come. The changes in the national planning policy framework, mentioned by the Minister for Housing and Planning, will support increased provision and modernisation of infrastructure. With regards to the south of Cayton, the new homes accelerator is supporting the delivery of 2,500 homes. \p Matt Vickers: Hard-working traders at Stockton’s historic Shambles shopping centre were shocked to receive letters from Stockton’s Labour council telling them that they were to be evicted and inviting them to a meeting with less than 24 hours’ notice. I have been along to meet them and they are devastated, fearful for their futures and for their livelihoods. Does the Minister agree that councils should be backing small independent businesses, not making them homeless without alternatives? \p Jim McMahon: The hon. Gentleman will know that it is Labour councils that are leading the charge at a local level to regenerate local communities and invest in local businesses—the evidence is there. They are supported by the plan for communities and the community right to buy; there is a real effort in this area. He did not give prior notice of his intention to raise the particular issue that he mentioned, but if he wants to follow up in writing, we will certainly look into it. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. \p Florence Eshalomi: This afternoon, I visited Centrepoint, where I spoke to young people living in self-contained flats  and met the staff who are working to support those young people. The Secretary of State will be aware that a coalition of 150 charities supporting young people are calling for a specific youth-focused section in the ending homelessness strategy; estimates show that would save £8.5 billion a year. Does the Minister agree that it is not only morally right but economically smart to have a youth-specific chapter in that new strategy? \p Rushanara Ali: I commend my hon. Friend for her work on this really important agenda. I met representatives from the youth homelessness sector at a recent roundtable. We are determined to ensure that the concerns and interests of young people experiencing homelessness are integrated into our report on ending homelessness, and we are working with the sector to tackle the root causes of youth homelessness. \p Josh Babarinde: Eastbourne’s streets are being blighted by severely overgrown grass verges that attract litter, antisocial behaviour and crime. Will the Minister join me in urging Conservative-run East Sussex county council to urgently get a grip on verge maintenance in Eastbourne in order to help make our grass great again? \p Jim McMahon: The real issue for most councils is that the Liberal Democrats did not make hay when the sun was shining in their coalition years. Let nobody in local government forget that the seeds of the erosion of local neighbourhood services started in those coalition years, when the Liberal Democrats more than ably abetted the Conservative Government at the time. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call Perran Moon. \p Perran Moon: Meur ras, Mr Speaker. Cornwall is desperate to access the highest level of devolution, but because of our national minority status, Cornwall cannot and will not join a mayoral combined authority. Before this House is asked to vote on a devolution Bill that discriminates against the people of Cornwall, will the Secretary of State meet me and colleagues to discuss a Cornwall-only devolution deal? \p Jim McMahon: My hon. Friend will know that, for the right reasons, we have put a significant amount of energy and time into meeting parliamentarians from across the House to discuss those local issues. Absolutely, we will meet; that will probably be the sixth meeting that we have had with Cornish MPs on this issue. We understand, respect and are investing in the Cornish identity, but we also need to ensure that the devolution agenda moves on at pace and that every part of England can realise its full potential. I am more than happy to meet on that basis. \p Shockat Adam: A new report by Crisis shows that only 2.6% of rental properties in my area of Leicester South are affordable to those on local housing allowance. That is a real-terms cut as rents soar, because the Government have frozen housing benefit until 2026. Will the Secretary of State explain how that freeze aligns with the Government’s aim of  reducing homelessness, and will the Government urgently review the cap so that people can afford to keep a roof over their heads? \p Rushanara Ali: I refer the hon. Gentleman to my earlier answer: this Government have invested nearly £1 billion to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping. As the Secretary of State has pointed out, we are dealing with the root causes of homelessness. That means investing billions of pounds to ensure that some 300,000 social and affordable homes are created over the decade, so that we can get people into the housing that is urgently needed. \p Leigh Ingham: Last week, nearly 3,000 people across Stafford borough were told at short notice that Homes Plus, one of our housing associations, is effectively scrapping the current housing waiting list. It also said that nearly 2,000 people no longer had a housing need, but it has not explained how it has come to that conclusion. People are confused, angry and scared. Does the Minister agree that this is unacceptable, and will he meet me to help me find a way forward for those who have been left in limbo? \p Matthew Pennycook: I will happily meet my hon. Friend about that concerning development. If she could write to me with the details in advance, that would be extremely useful. \p Rebecca Smith: It is my understanding that South Hams district council is in an arguably more sound fiscal position than the neighbouring Plymouth city council. What can the Secretary of State say to reassure me that local government reorganisation will not mimic either a forced marriage or a bad marriage where the fiscally prudent one bails out the other? \p Jim McMahon: We are now in a statutory process for local government reorganisation, and Devon will submit its final proposals to us by the end of November. We do not want to pre-empt those or say anything that will direct them, but I assure the hon. Member that there will be a consultation on the proposals that meet the threshold, and we will hear from that what local people say. \p Dan Tomlinson: I know that reducing deprivation is a cause close to the hearts of all Ministers. What view do they have on the extent to which high housing costs contribute to deprivation and should be taken into account when we consider funding for our local councils? \p Jim McMahon: We are in the consultation period for the fair funding review 2.0 until 15 August. The issue of housing costs being taken into account when we judge deprivation has been raised by Members previously, but I encourage all Members of the House and people beyond it to submit their responses to the consultation. \p Nick Timothy: Can the Deputy Prime Minister guarantee that no Muslim Brotherhood affiliates will participate in the consultation on the definition of Islamophobia? \p Angela Rayner: We have the terms of reference, and we have the consultation that is going on at the moment. I am not going to provide a running commentary on the work of the independent group. The Government have a non-engagement policy with the MCB, and that position has not changed. \p Rachael Maskell: City of York council is the lowest funded unitary authority, but under the fair funding review we do not fare any better. Can the Minister extend the consultation guidelines? These are complex issues. Will he meet our council to look at the impact of the review? \p Jim McMahon: I thank my hon. Friend for the work she has done to champion fair funding across local government, particularly for York. I absolutely understand the issues. The fair funding review is meant to do two things. It takes into account the need—the cost pressures driving local authorities—set against the resource, which is how much local authorities can raise in council tax at a local level. It is the Government’s role to be the equaliser to ensure that every local authority can afford decent local services, but I absolutely take into account her representations. \p Martin Vickers: In reply to an earlier question, the Planning Minister said that he wanted to increase the number of people who engage in the preparation of local plans. He will know that even if that number was doubled, it would still be a small proportion of the local community. When applications are being considered, local communities want them to be decided and determined by local authorities with minimal central input. Will the Minister guarantee that local authorities will continue to have that power? \p Matthew Pennycook: Under our proposals in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill for a national scheme of delegation, it will still be local planning authorities that make recommendations and decisions. As the hon. Gentleman will know if he looks at the consultation, all we propose is a two-tier system in which a set of minor applications go to expert local planning officers. A separate tier can go to a planning committee, where the chair of planning and the chief planning officer decide that that is the case. Again, I encourage the hon. Gentleman to respond to the consultation. \p Catherine Atkinson: We are seeing massive investment in the regeneration of Derby city centre, including the opening of a new entertainment venue and the reopening of our market hall, which is bursting with small and independent businesses. Regeneration also means ensuring that our city feels safe, welcoming and inclusive. Will the Minister tell us how the Department is working with the Home Office to ensure that our cities and towns are thriving and safe? \p Alex Norris: My hon. Friend is tempting a Member of Parliament for Nottingham to say something nice about Derby, which is slightly challenging for my prospects when I go home on Thursday. I do recognise the characterisation of the exciting plans ahead for Derby,  and I share exactly her point on policing. We can have the most vibrant community possible, but people will not participate unless they feel safe. We are talking with the Home Office, and I would tell my hon. Friend to watch this space. \p Alison Bennett: Last week, Hurstpierpoint’s former Methodist church received permission to be converted into flats, despite the parish council registering it as an asset of community value and expressing its sincere wish to purchase it. Does the Minister think that the regulations for assets of community value are fit for purpose? How can they be improved? \p Alex Norris: No, we do not think that the regulations are fit for purpose, which is why we are planning to amend them through the Bill that we published last week. \p Jayne Kirkham: The “New life for city buildings” project in Truro is breathing new life into empty high street buildings and redeveloping them. I would love for the Minister to be able to see this for himself, so will he consider coming to Truro and attending our growth summit on 18 September? \p Alex Norris: I do not have my diary for 18 September in front of me, but I do owe my hon. Friend a visit, and I will definitely make such a visit. \p Ed Miliband: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the climate and nature crisis.

On the day that the Met Office publishes its “State of the UK Climate” report for 2024, the Environment Secretary and I want to share with the British people what we know about the scale of the crisis and explain the actions that we are taking in response. We intend this to become an annual statement to Parliament.

Let me start by setting out what we know from the science. According to the World Meteorological Organisation, the past decade has seen the 10 warmest years on record globally. It says that long-term global warming, assessed by a range of methods, is estimated to be between 1.34°C and 1.41°C above pre-industrial levels, and last year was the first time we saw an individual year above 1.5°C.

Today’s Met Office report shows that, in line with what is happening globally, the UK’s climate is getting hotter and wetter, with more extreme events. The central England temperature series shows that recent warmth has far exceeded any temperatures observed in at least 300 years. Over the past 50 years, the number of days above 28°C has doubled, and the number of days above 30°C has trebled. This spring was the UK’s warmest on record, beating the record broken last year. Meanwhile, warming oceans and melting ice sheets have contributed to sea levels around the UK rising by 13.4 cm over the past three decades, and this is accelerating. The science is unequivocal about why this is happening. As the Met Office said this morning:

“This…is not a natural variation in our climate…human emissions of greenhouse gasses are warming the atmosphere and changing the weather we experience”.

We know that climate change and nature loss are fundamentally linked and contribute to each other. Globally, we are losing species at a much faster rate than at any other time in human history. Here in Britain, a quarter of our mammals and nearly half of our bird species are currently at risk of extinction, with birds such as starlings, turtle doves and grey partridges under threat. The abundance of species in England has fallen by an estimated third since 1970, and Britain has become one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world.

The impacts of extreme weather and nature loss are not simply a future threat to our country; they are already here and having impacts on our way of life. We know that heavy rainfall made last year’s harvest the second worst in at least four decades, costing farmers hundreds of millions of pounds. According to the Environment Agency, more than half of our best agricultural land and over 6 million properties in England are already at risk of flooding. According to the UK Health Security Agency, there were more than 10,000 excess deaths—10,000 people losing their lives—during English heatwaves between 2020 and 2024.

As we know from recent events, rising temperatures place pressures on every aspect of our national life. We have seen this again over the past few days, with incidents of wildfires from Surrey to Scotland, disruption due to trains overheating, and hosepipe bans announced in Yorkshire, Kent and Sussex. The climate crisis is also a  massive threat to our economy; the Office for Budget Responsibility’s “Fiscal risks and sustainability” report, published last week, says that the damage caused by climate impacts in a near-3°C world is forecast to cut our GDP by 8% by the early 2070s. Based on current GDP, that will be roughly £200 billion.

These are uncomfortable, sobering facts, and we should make no mistake: we must act on the climate and nature crisis to protect our British way of life, because no sector or part of our society is immune from those risks. Unfortunately, all the evidence suggests that this is just the start of the threat we face.

I want to acknowledge in particular the anxieties that many young people feel about these issues. My candid message to them is this: yes, there are real reasons to worry about the world they will inherit, but we can do something about it. Every fraction of a degree of warming that we prevent, and every step we take to preserve nature, helps to limit the severity of impacts and protect our country from irreparable harm. It is our generations today who have a unique opportunity to act, because unlike previous generations, we can see the evidence of the climate and nature crisis all around us, yet we still have time to limit the worst effects. The only answer is to reduce emissions, protect and restore nature and adapt to the impacts that are now inevitable. Let me take those in turn.

To those who doubt whether Britain can have any impact on the pathway of global emissions, the lesson of history is that we can. Before the Paris climate agreement was negotiated 10 years ago, the world was on course for 4ºC of global warming. Now, national commitments imply 2.6ºC of global warming, or below 2ºC if countries meet their full climate targets. We remain way off track from where we need to be as a world, but we in this country have helped make a difference across parties.

In 2008, this House came together to pass the world’s first Climate Change Act. That was under a Labour Government, supported by Lord Cameron, the Conservative party and parties across the House. Now, thanks to the power of our example, nearly 60 countries have similar legislation. In 2019, under Baroness May, the UK became the first major economy to legislate for net zero by 2050, supported by the Labour party and parties across this House. Now, in part thanks to the actions at COP26 in Glasgow, including the leadership of Lord Sharma as COP president, some 80% of global GDP is covered by net zero commitments. In 2021, England became the first country to introduce a legal duty to halt species decline by 2030, led by Boris Johnson and supported by parties across the House. Now, 196 countries are signed up to the global biodiversity framework to halt and reverse nature loss.

The lesson is clear. The choices we make as a country influence the course of global action and, in doing so, reduce the impact of the climate and nature crisis on future generations in Britain. To those who say that Britain cannot make a difference, I say, “You are wrong. Stop talking our country down. British leadership matters.”

We also know that climate and nature action has huge potential upsides, and not just for future generations. It has the potential for better lives today in energy security, lower bills, cleaner air, good jobs, better health and wellbeing, and improved access to nature. This Government believe in sticking to our traditions as a country of  climate and nature leadership. Indeed, turning away now, at this moment of all moments, when the threat and opportunity are clearer than ever, would be the greatest dereliction of duty and betrayal of future generations.

That is why one of the Government’s five missions is to achieve clean power by 2030 and to accelerate to net zero across the economy. It is why at COP29 we announced a 1.5ºC-aligned target for 2035, based on legislation passed under the last Conservative Government. It is why we are driving forward on our commitment to protect 30% of our land and seas for nature and to halt species loss by the end of the decade. It is why we made the most significant investment in clean energy, climate and nature in the UK’s history at the spending review, which will drive jobs across the country.

Because the actions we need are not just about Government, we are also determined to help communities take climate and nature action in their own area, whether that is driving the expansion of local and community-owned clean energy projects through Great British Energy or supporting mayors and local government to accelerate action. At COP30 and beyond, we are determined once again to use the power of our example to work with others to uphold the objectives of the Paris agreement, including with ambitious climate targets, action to accelerate the clean energy revolution and the protection of nature and forests.

As I have said, action on emissions is not enough on its own. We must also protect the British people from the impacts that we already see, and sadly, the greater impacts that we are likely to see in the future. This work, led by my right hon. Friend the Environment Secretary, requires action across society, from homes and buildings to critical infrastructure and our natural environment. We are now delivering Britain’s largest ever flood defence programme, investing £7.9 billion over the next decade in flood barriers and nature-based solutions such as wetland restoration. That comes alongside pioneering local nature recovery strategies, with measures such as tree planting and peat restoration, which deliver adaptation and nature recovery together. In my Department, as we drive forward our plan to upgrade millions of homes, we have consulted on expanding the boiler upgrade scheme to include air-to-air heat pumps, which can offer cooling as well as heating.

However, I must be candid with the House: we know that this is just the beginning of the reckoning that we need on how our country needs to adapt across all parts of society in the years to come, and this Government are determined to put climate resilience at the heart of our decision-making.

We have been at our best in the House when we have worked across parties on these issues. I want to thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for introducing the Climate and Nature Bill, and my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake) and for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) for our discussions earlier this year in the run-up to that Bill, as well as the other co-sponsors, who highlighted the need for today’s statement. Let me also take this opportunity to pay tribute to current and former Members across the House for their tireless advocacy on climate and nature.

The safety of our citizens, our natural world and the country that we pass on is not a Labour cause, a Conservative cause, or the cause of any other party; it is a British cause, a cause of us all, and a cause that requires all of us to consider our responsibilities to the generations of today and the generations to come. I commend this statement to the House. \p Andrew Bowie: It is a rare pleasure to see the Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box today, given that he turned down the opportunity to defend his plan for clean power by 2030 or the report from the National Energy System Operator that was published earlier in the year. Perhaps that is why we are being given a slightly longer statement than usual, making up for missed opportunities. However, we welcome the Met Office’s report, which makes for interesting reading. I think we can all attest to the fact that Britain today is warmer than it was before.

We all agree that the challenge of the changing climate is vast, and it is one of many challenges facing the United Kingdom today, but I must tell the House and the right hon. Gentleman that ridiculous statements such as that made this morning by the Environment Secretary, labelling opponents of net zero “unpatriotic”, is as offensive as it is risible, and does nothing to advance the cause. I must also express my growing sense of unease, and that of many others, about the language emanating from those surrounding this Secretary of State, accusing anyone who dares to question the policies or plans being worked on by his Department of being “deniers” or being supportive of an “end to our British way of life”. We need to bring back a sense of rationality, or proportion, to this debate, because out there, language such as this is alienating more and more people from the important cause of ensuring that the planet we pass on to our children and their children is in a better state than the one we have inherited.

The Secretary of State calls this “radical truth telling”, but I am afraid that he is not being honest with the British people about the impact of the Government’s plans on the climate, bills and jobs, or about the sacrifices it demands. The Leader of the Opposition has been very clear: chasing “Net Zero by 2050” is unachievable without making the country worse off. That is the truth. Global warming is a global issue, which we cannot face alone. The global climate challenge will not be solved by the UK alone, and it cannot be solved on the backs of British workers or British bill payers. \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We need to be careful about what we say. I think that the hon. Gentleman has suggested that the Secretary of State was not honest, and I think we are all honest Members here. \p Andrew Bowie: I completely agree, Mr Speaker, and I apologise if I insinuated the opposite in any way.

The UK accounts for less than 1% of global emissions. That is also the truth. In fact, now that I come to think of it, it is rather shameful that the Secretary of State should be using this report from the Met Office as cover, while ratcheting up the language and increasing the shrill criticism of all who question the Department and its policies, all to distract from the fact that the plans mean that Britain will be poorer and that no one  looking at how we are decarbonising could ever claim that this is a model to follow. We are proud to have been a world leader— \p Carla Denyer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p Andrew Bowie: Members do not give way when making or responding to a statement.

We are proud to have been a world leader, but it is not a race if no one else is running. If we are leading the way, we need to make sure that it is a path that others will follow. We must decarbonise in a way that creates energy security and prosperity, rather than forcing industry abroad and impoverishing British people. Why is that so hard for the Labour party to understand?

We see in the Met Office’s report that the demand for cooling has approximately doubled—a strong case for introducing more air conditioning into homes, which would improve comfort and reduce the burden on the health system during heatwaves. Although I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to expand the boiler upgrade scheme to include air-to-air heat pumps, which, as he says, offer cooling as well as heating, may I urge him to speak to the Mayor of London and get the ridiculous restrictions on air conditioning units in newbuilds in London removed? We must move away from this poverty mindset on reducing energy usage. Paying for solar panels to be switched off, while refusing to absorb the excess demand to cool homes, is truly ridiculous.

It is time to take the global scale and nature of this challenge seriously. Offshoring manufacturing, like ceramics, does not solve global warming, but it does make Britain poorer and Brits unemployed. To build this Government’s 1.5 million new homes, we will use more bricks that at any time since the second world war, but thanks to this Government, fewer than ever before will be made here in Britain. While the Secretary of State admired the fast-paced build out of new renewable generation, new nuclear and low-carbon energy on an unseen scale on his recent visit to the People’s Republic of China, perhaps he was able to reflect on the factors enabling that: the opening of two new coal-fired power stations every week, and the cost of industrial energy in China being less than a third of our domestic cost. We cannot innovate, manufacture, and create growth and prosperity while our energy costs are killing manufacturing. I am afraid that this Government’s plans will drive up the underlying cost of energy for industry, and Britain will pay the price.

Only a year ago, Labour candidates were trotting out lines on how they would cut bills by £300. Since then, network charges, which account for 22% of an energy bill, have risen by over £100 as a result of the rush to build out the grid for new renewables. Cornwall Insights, an independent energy analyst, has called for the Secretary of State to be

“transparent about what the money is being spent on”.

Its principal consultant has urged the Secretary of State to be honest with the public about the impact of net zero policy costs on bills.

Of course, a clean, secure and reliable power source exists in the form of nuclear. We welcome the announcements of the commitment to Sizewell C and the small modular reactor programme, but the lack of ambition, the refusal to commit to a third gigawatt-scale reactor—preferably  on Anglesey—the decision to decommission the UK’s stockpile of plutonium, the selection of only one small modular reactor technology, and the refusal to repeat the 24 GW ambition that we set out for the nuclear industry are frustrating. We could do so much more. Will the Secretary of State commit to protecting Wylfa for a new gigawatt-scale reactor in the future?

It is indeed time for a policy of radical honesty. Global warming is a global challenge, and I am afraid the Secretary of State’s plans will have a negligible, or even negative, impact on global emissions. Sadly, he is driven by ideology, not by the practicalities of facing this challenge while growing the economy. We are telling the difficult truths; the Government are running from reality. \p Ed Miliband: I will be honest, Mr Speaker: I just feel incredibly sad when I listen to the hon. Gentleman—and not in a good way. The trouble is that we are now in a situation in which the shadow Secretary of State goes into hiding when there is a statement about the climate crisis, because it is just too embarrassing to try to articulate the Opposition’s position.

The central chasm at the heart of the hon. Gentleman’s response is that he and his colleagues have taken the decision to abandon 20 years of bipartisanship on climate. Theresa May’s promise to deliver net zero by 2050 was one of the great strides forward, but he is now trashing that and saying it was a disaster. Let us be honest: it is grossly irresponsible. We are expected to believe that the Conservatives oppose net zero because they know, 25 years in advance of the target, that it cannot be achieved, but they cannot possibly know that. Indeed, the Climate Change Committee says exactly the opposite in its latest report. The hon. Gentleman says he is worried about costs, but all the evidence suggests that delaying action costs more, not less. The CCC says net zero will cut energy bills and the cost of motoring.

We do not even know whether the Conservatives want a net zero target at all, or no net zero target ever. The hon. Gentleman said something the other week—I read his interviews with care in my spare time—about reaching net zero by 2050 not being based on the science, but he is absolutely wrong. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says:

“In model pathways with no or limited overshoot of 1.5°C, global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030…reaching net zero around 2050”.

The point is that net zero was a target that Theresa May adopted, driven by the science.

What are the Conservatives? They are anti-science, anti-jobs, anti-energy security, and anti-future generations. I have to say that I cannot put it better than Theresa May—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) should be quiet, because he used to work for her. This is what Theresa May, the Conservative Prime Minister just five or so years ago, has said:

“Those of us who advocate accelerating our progress towards net zero emissions are labelled fanatics and zealots. Ironically, the name-calling often emanates from ideologues at the political extremes or from populists who offer only easy answers to complex questions.”

I could not put it better myself. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee. \p Bill Esterson: Select Committees look at the evidence, follow the evidence and make recommendations on the basis of the evidence. Today, we have heard from the Secretary of State the evidence from the Met Office about the seriousness of the threat, the reality of the nature of the crisis and the fact that that will only grow. The shadow Minister missed something because he needs to acknowledge not just the costs of taking action but the costs of not doing so. The Secretary of State read out those costs: £200 billion or 8% of GDP if we get 3° of warming, according to the OBR.

Those opposing climate action in this place can also see the evidence that cheaper driving and home heating are already available to many people, and we should be making them available to as many people as possible. They also know that switching to low-carbon electricity as much and as fast as we can will make this country safer by getting control of our energy generation and supply. Does the Secretary of State agree that the patriotic approach is to work together to cut emissions for financial, security, nature and climate reasons? \p Ed Miliband: My hon. Friend puts it very well. As I have experienced over the last 20 years, we have not had a culture war on climate, because the Conservative party and the Labour party chose to say that this really matters. The Conservative party has apparently abandoned its belief in climate action at precisely the time, as the CCC has shown—in carbon budget 7, for example—that this is the way to reduce costs for people.

I would make another point. I notice there are young people watching in the Public Gallery and elsewhere. What message do we send to them by saying, “Look, we just can’t act on this”? It is such a betrayal of future generations, who have genuine anxiety about what world they are going to inherit from us. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Roz Savage: I thank both the Energy Secretary and the Environment Secretary for today’s momentous statement, which I trust will be the first of many annual climate and nature statements. I also thank them for recognising the role of Zero Hour and the campaigners behind the Climate and Nature Bill—the private Member’s Bill that I am proud to have brought to this House, with cross-party support. I warmly welcome the move to more joined-up thinking between the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and applaud the willingness of the Government to work across the House, even if that willingness is not always reciprocated.

However, this statement has missed a trick. The Secretary of State promised collaboration with campaigners, non-governmental organisations and communities. In reality, engagement so far has been very limited. If stakeholders had been involved, he might have acknowledged calls from the Wildlife Trusts and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds to remove the threats to nature protection in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, or the Nature Friendly Farming Network’s concern over the suspension of the sustainable farming incentive. He  told the Environmental Audit Committee that this would be a “public participation issue”, yet there was no consultation of the Climate and Nature Bill campaigners ahead of this statement. If we want to bring communities with us, we have to include them and listen to them. People across the country are already driving change in their communities, schools, farms and businesses, and to build a better, greener future, the Government should be tapping into that Great British human energy—to coin a phrase.

The Liberal Democrats are proud to be doing exactly that, with policies such as an emergency home insulation programme, solar panels on every new build, investment in cheap renewable energy, support for community energy, local nature recovery strategies and an extra £1 billion for nature-friendly farming. People need hope and a role in shaping the solutions. Despair is not a strategy and action is not optional. It is essential and urgent to protect our health, our economy and our national security. So I ask again: when will the Secretary of State meet me, my fellow Liberal Democrats, Zero Hour and the environmental non-governmental organisations to create an annual climate and nature Bill that is bold and ambitious, brings transparency and hope, and shows that the Government are genuinely bridging the gap between policy and delivery? \p Ed Miliband: Let me start off in the spirit of continued generosity by reiterating my praise for the hon. Lady for bringing forward the Bill, and for the Zero Hour campaigners whom I met in a previous incarnation of mine. Their role over a long period, in pushing forward the Bill, has been important. I am very happy to meet her and the campaigners. This will be a continuing process, as I discussed with her, and I am happy to take forward those discussions.

Let me address the substantive point the hon. Lady made about climate and nature, because it is important. What the Government are striving to do is build the low-carbon energy infrastructure that we need in a way that is nature-positive. For example, the nature recovery fund that we are putting in place is absolutely about doing that. Some people do not agree with that approach, but we are trying to do two things: build the clean energy infrastructure required to get us off fossil fuels, which I know she wants to see; and at the same time, protect and restore nature. I am convinced that we can do that.

The point that I will end on is this. I just urge the hon. Lady to think. If we are to fulfil our net zero ambitions—these are stretching targets—we have to build the infrastructure. I say to all Members that the easy thing is to say no, but the right thing to do is very often to say yes to the energy infrastructure we need. \p Polly Billington: I welcome the statement, in particular the importance and emphasis that my right hon. Friend places on how climate change and nature loss are fundamentally linked and contribute to each other. I also remind the House that after the national health service, the thing that this country loves the most is its natural environment. Understanding the vital role that nature itself plays in tackling climate change will be vital in the years ahead. I refer in particular to the importance of saltmarsh. I talk quite often with my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan  an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) about the importance of peatland, but saltmarsh is also vital as a valuable habitat. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in the light of what he has been talking about today, we will have a properly integrated spatial energy plan, national planning policy framework and land use framework, so that such climate-valuable habitats are properly protected? \p Ed Miliband: My hon. Friend speaks with great authority and conviction on these subjects, and she is absolutely right about the role of nature. I add—and I will come on to her question in a second—that the biggest threat to nature that we face is the climate crisis. The figures I read out from scientific authorities show the scale of the threat that is already there to our countryside. As I said in my statement, the threat will only get worse. On the land use framework, we are currently consulting and will come up with a final document later on this year. She makes a crucial point about the need for co-ordination between the land use framework and the strategic spatial energy plan, which together mean that we use our land in a sensible way and that we build the energy infrastructure we need. \p Julian Lewis: I agree with the Secretary of state that it is very important that other countries follow our example. Of the five countries that are the worst emitters of greenhouse gases, emitting over 50% in total—the USA, Russia, Brazil, India and of course China—can he tell us how many have adopted similar legislation? What hope does he have that those five in particular will follow our example? \p Ed Miliband: The right hon. Gentleman asks a good question. Let me give him three examples from those five. India has a target of 500 GW of renewable capacity by 2030, and a target of reaching net zero by 2070. China has nearly half the world’s renewable capacity, is committing to peaking its emissions by 2030, and has a target to reach net zero by 2060, but of course I want it to do more. Brazil has set out an ambitious nationally determined contribution. I think I am right in saying that as of March 2025, fossil fuels accounted for less than 50% of electricity generation in the US. He is right to ask this question. Not every country is going at the same pace, and there are countries that are more sceptical, but there has been a decisive shift across the world on this matter; when I was Climate Change Secretary from 2008 to 2010, net zero was not even talked about. There has been a transformation in the extent to which countries are taking it seriously. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Lindsay Hoyle: I really want to get everybody in—I am sure the Secretary of State wants that—so I need a lot of help from those on the Front Bench to speed things up. A good example will be set by Toby Perkins, the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee. \p Toby Perkins: I share the Secretary of State’s despair at the fact that the consensus on these matters appears to be dissipating. Does he agree that this is incredibly damaging for investment in the sector? Investors really need to see that whoever is in government, and whatever happens in elections, they have a Government who are committed to this agenda.  Does he agree that it is completely wrong to say that Britain is the only country taking this issue seriously? In fact, China is absolutely leading the way in investing in the necessary technologies. We need to catch up and ensure that everyone knows that Britain is open for business in this sector. \p Ed Miliband: My hon. Friend, who speaks with such expertise on these matters, is 100% right. The biggest enemy of investment is uncertainty. That is why I appeal to all parties to stick to what we have legislated for in this country, in order to give that certainty. \p Seamus Logan: I rise not to call the Secretary of State an eco-warrior, as Members of this House are so keen on doing from time to time; in fact, I agree with him on the scale of the climate and nature emergency. I do not want to spoil the cross-party support here, but the fact is that when the Labour party was in opposition, it promised an investment of £28 billion in the just and green transition. Will he apologise to the people of Scotland—no, to the voters in Scotland—for reneging on that promise? \p Ed Miliband: What I will say to the people of Scotland is that the Acorn carbon capture and storage project has been talked about for years, and it is happening because of a Labour Government. We have a publicly owned energy company, Great British Energy, and we have our clean industry bonus. This is a Government who are actually delivering for the people of Scotland, and those across the UK. \p Luke Murphy: I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, not least because I called for such a measure before I was elected to this House, under the previous Conservative Government. This is a really important thing to do, not least because it underscores the Government’s approach to clean energy, and to wider climate action to tackle and mitigate the many climate impacts that we already see; we have just had three heatwaves. This action will also lower bills, strengthen our economy and, in a patriotic way, ensure our national security. Does he, like me, lament the loss of the cross-party consensus that he mentioned? The leader of the Conservatives says that net zero is impossible, and the deputy leader of Reform says that climate science is garbage. One denies urgency, while the other denies reality, and both deny the evidence from the Met Office and climate scientists—and, indeed, the experience of their constituents. Does the Secretary of State agree that when young people and future generations ask who stood in the way of their precious inheritance of cleaner air and local green space, it will be the Conservatives and Reform— \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Please! I need Members to help me get colleagues in. All colleagues from all sides of the House want to get in on this statement. Without your help, that will not happen. \p Ed Miliband: That bit was great, though. My hon. Friend is so right: that is not where the British people are on this issue. The British people want action on climate, not a culture war. Frankly, wherever they live in the country, people want to pass on a liveable country to their kids and grandkids. \p Harriet Cross: Those of us who advocate for the North sea oil and gas sector are not climate change deniers. We are realists who understand that we will need oil and gas for years to come; that we would be replacing our domestic supply with imports that have four times the carbon intensity; that China emits in 10 days what we emit in a year; and that we will not transition to cleaner energy if we make ourselves poorer. I recognise what today’s report says, but does the Secretary of State accept that increasing our use of imported gas will only make us more carbon intensive in the future? \p Ed Miliband: We have to get our use of imported gas down, and that is why we have to build clean energy infrastructure. This is what the Conservatives just do not seem to understand. If they go around the country opposing our clean energy infrastructure, it keeps us stuck on fossil fuels for longer—and look where that took us: to the worst cost of living crisis in generations. \p Melanie Onn: The Secretary of State will know that my constituents know more than most what it means to host clean energy infrastructure. However, the failure of the cross-party consensus is giving rise to quite a lot of concern in my area, where we face job losses at Prax Lindsey oil refinery. Can the Secretary of State reassure the hundreds of workers who face a very uncertain time that this is the result not of a move towards clean energy, but of mismanagement by the company’s owners? \p Ed Miliband: My hon. Friend speaks about an important issue, and I am deeply concerned for those workers and their families. There are serious questions to answer about the running of that company, and how it ended up in this state. On the day that the insolvency happened, I wrote to the Insolvency Service to ask it to look into this matter, because those workers have been badly let down by the company. \p Tim Farron: Nobody knows better than farmers the reality of climate change and the importance of tackling it immediately, so it is bizarre that their expertise is being ignored. We should stand with them. Extreme weather conditions are a threat to animal welfare, agricultural productivity and farming business survival. We desperately need a food security strategy. Already, we produce only 55% of the food that we eat in this country. How will the Secretary of State help our farmers to be resilient against the twin threats of drought and flooding? \p Ed Miliband: The hon. Gentleman speaks with great expertise on these matters, partly because of his constituency. He is right about the threat to farmers’ livelihoods from the climate crisis, which I talked about in my statement, and the need for food security, which my right hon. Friend the Environment Secretary takes incredibly seriously. Indeed, the land use framework is partly about making sure that we have the land we need for our food security. \p Barry Gardiner: I thank my right hon. Friend for this statement; I have waited 14 years for it, and I look forward to such a statement being given to the House in each of the next 14 years. One of the key drivers of climate change is deforestation. One of the key drivers of deforestation is cattle ranching and  soy production. One of the key drivers of cattle ranching and soy production is City of London finance, which is used to bankroll what is happening. What restrictions can he place on the financial giants of the City to make sure that we stop this at source? \p Ed Miliband: My hon. Friend raises an important issue about the role of the City of London. There is also its potentially positive role. We are consulting on a mandatory transition plan for large companies and financial institutions, including in the City of London, precisely so that we can make sure that investment goes to the right places. \p Adrian Ramsay: I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, including what he said about the importance of Britain showing leadership and rebuilding cross-party consensus. Even if we have not quite got cross-party consensus on the need for a transition to a green economy, does he agree that the fact that we have seen hundreds of deaths in London alone in the second heatwave of the year, that our farmers are facing the driest start to a year in my lifetime, and that people around the country have suffered from floods in recent years means that our need for resilience in the face of a changing climate cannot be a political football? If so, would he support a sixth Government mission—a mission to protect the British public from changes in the climate? \p Ed Miliband: On that last bit, that is very much part of our mission to tackle net zero. The first part of the hon. Member’s question was very important. We hear what some folks say in the House, but we see what is happening all around us. It is not like we are gazing into a crystal ball, because some boffins have told us that something bad might happen in the future. This is happening now. If anyone had said 15 years ago that we would have wildfires in Surrey and in Scotland, people would have said, “You’re mad. There’s no way that’s going to happen. We’re not going to have wildfires in Britain.” The hon. Member spoke well about something very important. We need to look with our own eyes at what is happening. \p Ruth Cadbury: I very much welcome the Energy Secretary’s statement. Adequate electric vehicle charging infrastructure, depot charging and onshore power for shipping are all critical to the Government’s net zero challenge, and businesses and providers across the transport sector who are making investment decisions need a route map. What steps is he taking to prioritise grid connections? Will he commit to reforming the grid queuing system, so that projects that are essential to decarbonising our transport sector are brought forward more quickly? \p Ed Miliband: My hon. Friend speaks about an important subject. We are dealing with the grid zombies and the zombie queue. The reordering of the queue is designed to open it up to projects like those she talked about. The energy Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks)—is having a series of roundtables with the Department for Transport on precisely that. \p Esther McVey: The Secretary of State has said that he wants to tell some hard truths, so can he tell the House directly—without spin and waffle, and without dodging the question—how much in cash terms it would cost the UK to get to net zero, who would pay the cost, and how much the UK getting to net zero would reduce global temperatures by? \p Ed Miliband: All those details are set out in the Climate Change Committee report. The right hon. Member can look for herself. [Interruption.] They are set out in carbon budget 7. Actually, the cost of getting to net zero has been coming down. When I set the 80% target, the cost of getting there, according to the committee, was higher than the cost now of getting to net zero. I make the point gently that the costs of inaction are much greater than the costs of action. \p Henry Tufnell: I commend the Secretary of State for his statement. I share his view that we have a responsibility to generations to come, and my constituents want to be part of a just transition. Is he committed to a just transition that protects jobs and prevents decarbonisation through de-industrialisation? \p Ed Miliband: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As we take this journey, we must ensure that we do everything we can to protect existing industries and workers and give them a smooth transition. We do that by ensuring that we have levers that the Government can use, such as Great British Energy, the national wealth fund and our clean industries bonus, to intervene and create the jobs of the future. To give the example of the North sea, 70,000 jobs have been lost there in less than a decade because it is a declining basin. The answer must be to create the jobs of the future, and that is what the Government are determined to do. \p Calum Miller: The impact of climate change is being felt today in my constituency. At Pegtop farm, there is a race to bring in the harvest after such a dry, hot spring, and yields are expected to be less than half of what they would normally be. On 23 and 24 September last year, we had extensive surface flooding, which flooded many homes. What share of the flood defence budget will deal with surface flooding, rather than river flooding? How would the Secretary of State characterise the relevant responsibilities of national and local government, developers, water companies, insurers and householders? \p Ed Miliband: The hon. Member asked a complex question, so I might volunteer my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to write to him on that, so that we get it right. I know—because he was whispering the answer to me—that he takes this seriously. \p Sarah Owen: I thank the Secretary of State not just for his statement today, but for his continued commitment to tackling the climate and nature crisis facing us. He said that this is something we must all tackle together, and there are huge parts of our communities, the faith communities, that want to do exactly that. While we welcome Great British Energy’s roll-out of solar panels on hospitals and on schools, can he outline any support that is available for religious buildings that want to do the same? \p Ed Miliband: Following the successful roll-out to schools and hospitals, we have had a lot of requests to expand the scheme and I am very enthusiastic about doing so. It is something we are looking at. \p Bernard Jenkin: I am as passionate as the Secretary of State about achieving net zero across the world and about the decline in species in our natural environment, but that cannot be the only thing we worry about. I do not know whether he has had time to read the “Fiscal risks and sustainability” report produced last week, but it shows that the cost to the public Exchequer of achieving net zero will be 21% of GDP. We know that an argument is going on inside the Government and inside the Labour party about this very issue. This is a question of balancing the risks, because if the Government run out of money because they are overspending, there will not be any money to spend on reversing climate change. \p Ed Miliband: I have read the report, and the bit that the hon. Gentleman did not mention is where it says that if we end up in a 3°C world, we will add 56% of GDP to net debt. That is the cost of inaction. This is the point. Nick Stern—Lord Stern—produced a report in the 2000s which said that the costs of inaction were greater than the costs of action. This Office for Budget Responsibility fiscal risks report sets out very clearly that we will lose 8% of our GDP by 2070 if we do not act. Of course there is a cost to acting, and the report sets out different scenarios for public and private investment, but the evidence in that report could not be clearer about the costs of inaction, and they are far greater than the costs of action. \p Joe Morris: I was privileged to host a net zero roundtable in my constituency involving many people from a wide variety of backgrounds, who were all appalled to see net zero becoming a political football and part of an ongoing culture war on the right. Will the Secretary of State join me in recognising the important work of organisations such as Humshaugh Net Zero and the North Tyne climate action group in bringing together widespread support for net zero, bringing it into our communities and embedding it across the body politic? \p Ed Miliband: My hon. Friend is a great champion for Hexham and it is with great pleasure that I recognise the role of those groups. He and I have talked on a number of occasions about the importance of climate action to so many of his constituents, and I look forward to working with him on these issues in the months ahead. \p Tulip Siddiq: Last week, 20 of my constituents from the Climate Coalition, the Mothers’ Climate Action Network, Our Grandchildren’s Climate, the Hampstead Neighbourhood Forum and the Camden Fixing Factory came to see me. They were very clear that COP30 will be a pivotal moment to restore momentum on tackling climate change and to tackle the misinformation that is on the rise not just online but in mainstream political parties. Can I ask the Secretary of State what leadership the UK will be showing at COP30 to ensure that we tackle this misinformation? More importantly, what is he doing to ensure that powerful international partners who may not be on the same page as us when it comes to climate change are coming along with us on this journey, because it is only collective action that will solve this serious crisis? \p Ed Miliband: My hon. Friend speaks with great expertise and passion on these issues, and she is absolutely right. This is about what we do to engage with other countries. We had an environment dialogue with the Chinese Minister a couple of weeks ago in London. I engage with China, India and Brazil, all of which are absolutely key; Brazil is obviously the host of COP30. She is right to say that COP30 will be a crucial moment when we will show that we are continuing to take action, and that is what we are determined to do. \p Simon Hoare: As a sponsor of the Climate and Nature Bill, I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement this afternoon. He is right to highlight that this is a national crisis, and many of us across the House are right to point out that it cannot be ignored and that inaction has too great a cost, but he will be aware that the costs are politicising this issue for many people in this country. Legislation is before the House regarding where and how pension funds are invested. Can he assure the House that he is talking to Treasury and local government Ministers to ensure that the maximum amount from those pension funds—particularly, but not exclusively, the local government pension fund—can be invested in green energy projects? That will widen the investment base and therefore hopefully reduce costs, depoliticising the issue and resulting in the greening of our energy generation that we all want to see. \p Ed Miliband: I warmly thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution and his sponsorship of the Climate and Nature Bill. He is the voice of good sense—I hope that is not the kiss of death—on the Conservative Benches. He raises an important issue about pensions and pension investments, and it is one that I will take up. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. I want to get all Members in, so can we please have shorter questions and answers? \p Jacob Collier: I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and the fact that my local hospital will have solar panels on it thanks to this Labour Government, saving thousands of pounds that can go directly back into frontline services. What more can he do to ensure that public buildings like hospitals and prisons have solar panels fitted so that we can lower costs and contribute to our climate goals? \p Ed Miliband: My hon. Friend is completely right, and it is a scheme that we want to expand. It has been incredibly successful, and it is a no-brainer—using the natural resources of the sun to cut energy bills and release money for frontline services. \p Lee Anderson: The statement from the Energy Secretary sounded like a desperate attempt to save his own job, but he is right that the British people need protecting: they need protecting from the Energy Secretary, because businesses that I visit say every single week that his madcap ideas are killing growth, business and jobs. But I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt if he can answer one simple question, which he has already refused to answer: by how much would the Earth’s temperature be reduced if the UK became net zero tomorrow? \p Ed Miliband: The answer, which the hon. Member just does not want to accept, is this—[Interruption.] If he just listens, the answer is this: I believe in British leadership and in Britain’s ability to make a difference. The truth is, as I said in my statement, that when we passed the Climate Change Act 2008, 60 countries followed. When we legislated for net zero, many other countries followed. He talks Britain down; I believe in Britain. \p Stella Creasy: Thank God there is somebody in this Chamber trying to actually save the planet! Net zero makes good common sense for lots of our constituents when they recognise that this is not just about climate security—those of us who have faced floods in our constituencies know how expensive that is—but about national security and the cost of living. Moving towards sustainable electricity would put both Rosebank and Putin out of business, but the Secretary of State will know that, on current plans, bill payers will be wasting £8 billion a year switching off wind farms by 2030 if we do not take action. How can we stop this transfer of wealth from citizens to corporations, so that we can invest in community energy? \p Ed Miliband: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The infrastructure we inherited was in a shocking state, and there was a failure to build grid infrastructure. The best thing we can do is accelerate building that grid infrastructure. If we can do that, we can reduce those constraint payments, and I look forward to support from all parts of the House on this. \p Munira Wilson: The Secretary of State rightly says that British leadership matters and that the choices we make as a country will have an impact on future generations. I do not doubt his personal commitment to tackling climate change and delivering net zero, but is he sure that all his Cabinet colleagues are on the same page as him, not least the Chancellor of the Exchequer given her unwavering commitment to expanding not just Heathrow, but Gatwick, Luton, City and Stansted, despite the advice and concerns of the Climate Change Committee? \p Ed Miliband: Yes. I can tell the hon. Member that we have never had a Chancellor of the Exchequer so committed to these issues because we had the biggest investment in clean, home-grown energy in our history in the recent spending review. \p Andrew Lewin: Welwyn Hatfield stands to be a big beneficiary of the social housing warm homes plan. It won a grant of £6 million, meaning that hundreds of homes will be upgraded and retrofitted, which will see bills and emissions coming down. Our colleagues from Reform have a flair for language, and they talk about “net stupid zero”. I am interested to know what language my right hon. Friend would use to describe a party that opposes a policy that will cut emissions and bills for people living in council homes in my community. \p Ed Miliband: We are just advocating common sense. Why not use our natural resources to have warmer homes and cut emissions? I think that Reform Members are the extremists, frankly. \p Sammy Wilson: The real driver of this statement is the fact that the Secretary of State is losing the argument with his colleagues, who are now challenging the impact of his policies on economic growth. He is trying to cover up the cost, which the OBR revealed last week will be £30 billion per year and £800 billion over the period. Businesses are struggling with power bills that are bankrupting them, and consumers are resisting the net zero demands to fly less, eat less meat and buy cars that they do not want. Does he not see a connection between what he says about young people’s anxiety and his disgraceful scare tactics today, all of which are to enable him to say that Britain is taking the lead? All I say to him is this: since the Paris agreement, emissions have gone up by 30%, so he might be leading, but he does not have too many followers. \p Ed Miliband: The right hon. Gentleman and I have been arguing about these issues for about 20 years, so I think that I am unlikely to persuade him. We usually have good-natured discussions about this, but on the idea that this is scaremongering, we can see with our own eyes what is happening, as the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) said earlier. What the right hon. Gentleman is advocating would be a total betrayal not just of future generations but of today’s generations. \p Alex Sobel: The Secretary of State has been a global leader in this space for 20 years. We all know about the Climate Change Act 2008, but without his singular intervention at COP15 in Copenhagen, the world would not have agreed and would be on a worse climate trajectory today—the whole House needs to hear that. We now need significant afforestation and the repair of the world’s ecosystems—be they peat bogs, permafrost or seagrass—so what plans does he have to lead in that space at COP30 in Belém? \p Ed Miliband: My hon. Friend is very kind. To be frank with him, when I met a group of young people earlier today, I felt a sense of responsibility, because no country is yet doing enough on these issues and we need to do more. They are fearful about the world that they will inherit and look to the Government to show leadership. The issue that he mentions is important, and we will ensure that we make it part of our agenda at COP30. \p Alison Bennett: Hosepipe bans rightly anger my constituents. The bans frustrate them and me because they speak to decades of failure to put in place provisions to prepare so that the changing climate is liveable for our children. How can people be expected to support large-scale house building, which those same children will need, when water companies fail to fix leaks, pollute our rivers and too often fail even to provide clean drinking water? \p Ed Miliband: The hon. Lady raises an important issue. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has commissioned a review of the whole system of regulation of the water companies. I think I am right in saying that a new reservoir has not been built in Britain for 30 years, but we have plans for nine new reservoirs as part of our action to address the issue the hon. Lady raises. \p Alistair Strathern: I had the real pleasure of visiting York Road nursery school in my constituency this morning to celebrate its securing Eco-Schools green flag status—with distinction no less. As well as being a sobering reminder of my inability to hold the attention of four-year-olds for very long, it was a powerful reminder that future generations will bear the brunt of our failure to take this crisis seriously. The truth is that we do not have to look to the future to see the cost—my local farmers are beset by flooding, for example. We in Hitchin are already feeling the pain of the failure to take climate change and the nature crisis seriously and to tackle them head-on. What assurances can the Secretary of State give my constituents that we will not shy away from tackling climate change at source, and that we will invest in mitigation schemes to tackle the issues that we are already facing right across our towns and villages? \p Ed Miliband: I congratulate my hon. Friend’s school on what it is doing and on its green flag status, which is really important. It shows that local action can really make a difference. Globally, I can give him the assurance that he seeks. What is so important—I say this to Members across the House—is that people look to Britain and say, “Are you going to lead? Are you going to show the power of example?” That is what we have done over 20 years, under Governments of both parties, and we need to keep doing it. \p Caroline Nokes: I call Llinos Medi. \p Llinos Medi: Diolch, Madam Ddirprwy Lefarydd. Climate change is a huge threat to food security. In 2018, losses in the Welsh livestock sector due to extreme weather reached £175 million, which is equivalent to 9% of the total Welsh agricultural output. Farmers need support to protect their livestock and crops. Will the Secretary of State listen to the concerns of the farming unions about the removal of the ringfence for Welsh agricultural funding? It could mean less money for climate adaptations, at a time when they are most needed to safeguard food security. \p Ed Miliband: The hon. Lady raises an issue that I believe is essentially about devolved funding, but the wider issue she raises about the costs facing farmers is so important. We are not talking about theoretical events or theoretical future costs; they are happening now. Farmers are facing those costs, and the hon. Lady is right to draw attention to that. \p Rosie Wrighting: When I speak to young people in Kettering, and in fact when I have conversations with my friends, they tell me that they are worried about the future of the world that we have inherited. With that in mind, the climate delay rhetoric coming from the Tories and Reform is both deeply irresponsible and really disappointing. Can the Secretary of State outline that only if we work with urgency to take action will my constituents see the restoration of our natural world—a world that we can pass on to the next generation? \p Ed Miliband: My hon. Friend puts it incredibly well. This is an obligation that we owe to young people. We hold the planet in trust for future generations. The young  people of today speak for themselves, but they also speak for future generations. Frankly, we owe it to them to act when the evidence is before our eyes. \p Sarah Dyke: The Met Office report and the Climate Change Committee have made it clear that we are unprepared for climate change, with progress on food security and nature restoration either insufficient or limited. The Lang partnership in Curry Rivel has proudly championed regenerative farming and nature-friendly farming methods for more than 30 years. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with his colleagues in DEFRA to ensure that farmers like the Langs can farm productively and sustainably and be resilient to climate crisis? \p Ed Miliband: I congratulate the hon. Lady’s constituents on what they are doing to find regenerative ways of farming. My right hon. Friend the Environment Secretary takes the matter incredibly seriously, and we have structures in place that can help to incentivise that, but I think he would say that of course we need to do more on these issues. The hon. Lady has put it very eloquently. \p Rachael Maskell: I thank my right hon. Friend for making such a pertinent statement when the planet is in such a critical condition. I also thank him for his domestic and global leadership. The BioYorkshire project will create 4,000 jobs, helping us to see a green transition but also ensuring that we have future agriculture at the highest level of science. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that this Government, unlike the last, fund that sufficiently so that we can see a real transition in farming and in other areas of climate-mitigating science? \p Ed Miliband: I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising what sounds like an incredibly exciting project. On all sides of the House—well, on a number of sides of the House—we can hear fantastic examples of what local people are doing. In a sense, that should be our inspiration. Government is trying to do its bit, but local people in communities across Britain are doing theirs as well. \p Shaun Davies: Tackling climate change is a top topic among children and young people when I visit schools and colleges across Telford. Switching to renewables is a top topic among employers; it will help to reduce the cost of their energy supply. Renewables companies tell me about the fantastic, well-paid jobs that are available. Climate security, environment security and energy security are national security. Does my right hon. Friend know a single reason why this is not a key mission to rebuild Britain and protect our planet for generations to come? \p Ed Miliband: My hon. Friend is right, and the emphasis that he places on national security is important. Our exposure to fossil fuel markets, controlled by petrostates and dictators, leaves us exposed, and that is what the previous Government did. This is an energy security issue and a national security issue, and that is why we need clean, home-grown power. \p Deirdre Costigan: As the Secretary of State outlined, the climate crisis is also a nature crisis, especially in nature-depleted cities such as  London. In recognition of that, Ealing’s Labour council has imaginative plans for a new regional park from Horsenden hill in the north, to Warren farm in my constituency, creating new habitats, wetlands, and rewilded areas. Does the Secretary of State agree that this Government’s new nature recovery fund could help to support initiatives such as Ealing’s regional park, and that in contrast to the piecemeal approach of the previous Government, the fund will allow a more strategic and effective approach to restoring our natural environment? \p Ed Miliband: My hon. Friend is right, and if we think about the recent hot weather, access to green spaces is a massive issue. It is also a massive issue of inequality, because in certain parts of the country people have such access, and in certain parts they do not, so the project that my hon. Friend talks about sounds incredibly important. \p Tom Collins: I thank my right hon. Friend for placing this issue on the agenda. Nothing could be more existential or vital than tackling our climate and nature crises, because we live within the natural system, not outside it. We and nature are in this together, and nothing could be more important, or better for building the foundation of how we shape our communities and economy into the future. Industry understands that, and I have had the chance to convene industry and bring forward ideas such as the diversification of technologies, which we support, and the build-up of strategic national clean energy reserves. Would the Secretary of State meet me to discuss those ideas that are coming from industry? \p Ed Miliband: We definitely look forward to discussing those ideas, and my hon. Friend is right about the interlocking nature of the climate and nature crisis, and climate and nature solutions. Those things go together. There are big economic opportunities, and my hon. Friend is a great champion of them. \p Anna Gelderd: Does the Secretary of State agree that rural and coastal communities are on the frontline of the climate and nature crisis, and that investment in clean energy, nature recovery, and resilient infrastructure is essential not only for protecting areas such as South East Cornwall, but also for unlocking new jobs, strengthening my local economy, and ensuring our future national security? \p Ed Miliband: My hon. Friend was a fantastic champion of these issues in her previous incarnation, as she is in her current incarnation. I know her constituency, and I could not agree more with the work she is doing. \p John Slinger: Rugby borough council and Warwickshire Wildlife Trust are hosting a “Nature in Focus” event this Sunday, and partnering together to buy trees for farmers to plant. In December 2024, my right hon. Friend joined me to visit the Urban&Civic-led Houlton development, where we saw Francis Jackson Homes fitting air-source heat pumps to its new build homes. We talked of our hope to go further, so does my right hon. Friend agree that through the future homes standard, which ensures that the vast majority of new builds will have solar panels, we are showing that a Labour Government and Labour-led councils believe in  the concept of government and taking responsibility, and that we can change things for the better for future generations? \p Ed Miliband: I wish my hon. Friend luck with the event on Sunday, which sounds important. He is absolutely right: for millions of people the whole warm homes plans is about cutting their energy bills, creating warmer homes and cutting emissions—and they go together. \p Tracy Gilbert: Today’s Met Office report says that we need to put in place a highly localised network of rain gauges, as extreme rainfall can be very dangerous. In July 2021, Stockbridge in my constituency faced flooding after a torrential downpour one afternoon, following several days of soaring temperatures. A network of rain gauges will help to analyse the impact of climate change, and also help communities such as Stockbridge to prepare. Will my right hon. Friend outline the Government’s plans in that regard? \p Ed Miliband: My hon. Friend draws attention to what sounds like an important recommendation, and as somebody whose constituency saw two once-in-100-year flooding events within about a decade, I know from local experience how serious such issues are. I am glad she has drawn my attention to that recommendation, and we will look carefully at it. \p Chris Murray: I welcome this Government’s focus on the urgency of the climate crisis, and I know that many climate activists in my constituency will as well, because the evidence is unequivocal: only sustained reductions in greenhouse gases will slow global warming and the only way to that it is to accelerate the transition to net zero. Will the Secretary of State commit to staying resolute in the face of opposition on the commitment to net zero? Does he agree with me that as the first country to industrialise, the UK has a special responsibility to show global leadership in this area? \p Ed Miliband: My hon. Friend puts it incredibly well. As the Prime Minister says, action on clean energy and net zero is “in the DNA” of this Government. I was in   the last Labour Government, but now we have a Prime Minister and a Chancellor who are more supportive of this agenda, and who have moved it from the margins to the mainstream more than anyone else before. \p Jim Dickson: I warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, particularly his encouragement for Members from across the House to support the Government’s efforts—and those of any future Government who maintain that commitment—to reach net zero by 2050. Does the Secretary of State agree that the announcement by the newly elected Reform county council in Kent that it will axe all investment in net zero is not only a betrayal of my constituents in Dartford and residents across Kent, but particularly of young people, who deserve to inherit a sustainable planet? \p Ed Miliband: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was not aware of that announcement, but it sounds like it is anti-job and a betrayal of future generations and will make people poorer. \p Christopher Vince: I thank the Secretary of State for his important statement. I say to him gently that I was a Mili-fan before it was cool. When I visit schools in my constituency of Harlow, including the wonderful Freshwaters primary academy, which I visited on Friday, and the Downs primary school, where one young child asked me about the declining number of blackbirds, the No. 1 issue that students raise is climate change. What would the Secretary of State say to young people in Harlow about the action he has taken to protect my constituents, who will face the cost of inaction? \p Ed Miliband: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words; I am not quite sure how to deal with them—it is a tough one. It has been so interesting to hear hon. Members from across the House talking about these issues in relation to the strong feelings of their constituents, so I reassure people in Harlow, including young people, that this Government are absolutely committed on these issues, and we are determined to ensure that they inherit a liveable planet. \p Yvette Cooper: With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement to update the House on new joint action between the UK and France to tackle dangerous small boat crossings—crossings that undermine both UK and French border security, put lives at risk in the channel, fuel organised crime, and cause disorder and damage, both here in the UK and in France.

The new agreement reached at the summit last week means stronger partnership working with source and transit countries to prevent illegal migration; stronger law enforcement action against criminal smuggler and trafficking gangs who profit from this trade in human lives; action to strengthen the border itself along the French coast and in the channel; a groundbreaking new returns arrangement so, for the first time, people arriving on small boats can be sent back to France; and stronger action here in the UK to stop illegal working and to tackle the long-term system failures that are exploited by criminal gangs to encourage people to travel to the UK. I hope that the whole House will welcome each of those important steps.

Global instability continues to drive irregular and illegal migration towards Europe and towards the UK, and it is exploited and encouraged by criminal gangs who seek to make maximum profit from human misery and insecurity. France faces challenges too, with over 150,000 people claiming asylum there in 2024. The most serious aspect that we face is the dangerous small boat crossings that undermine our border security and put lives at risk. Before 2018, we barely saw anyone trying to cross by boat, but in the years that followed a major criminal industry was allowed to grow and take deep hold along our border. In the space of just five years, the number of small boat crossings increased by more than a hundredfold, from less than 400 in 2018 to over 40,000 by 2023, weakening border security and badly damaging public trust in the state’s ability to manage border control.

For too long, Britain’s response has been underpowered and ineffective, and so too has the co-operation across Europe, letting criminal gangs get away with it and leaving the asylum system in chaos. The co-ordinated work across Europe has been far too weak for far too long, and so too has the work between the UK and our nearest neighbours. As we have set out before, smuggler and trafficking gangs make their money by operating across borders, so Governments need to co-operate across borders to take them down. That had not happened for years in the system we inherited.

Securing UK borders is a fundamental part of the Prime Minister’s plan for change. That is why we are building the foundations of a new international approach, working with countries across Europe and beyond to strengthen and secure our borders, to prevent dangerous and illegal boat crossings and to stop criminal gangs, who are putting lives at risk. Let me take each of the five areas of co-operation in turn.

The first area is upstream co-operation. Much stronger joint action is needed with source and transit countries to prevent dangerous journeys in the first place. We have strengthened the key partnerships with the G7 and  the Calais Group, and have established a new joint upstream working group with France—chaired by the Border Security Commander and the Minister of the Interior’s special representative on migration—to target action with source and transit countries, including on prevention campaigns, law enforcement and returns. For example, we are working jointly with the Government of Iraq and the Kurdish Regional Government to tackle the Iraqi Kurdish smuggler gangs that stretch their operations between Iraq, northern France and the UK.

Secondly, we are extending stronger law enforcement action against the criminal gangs. We have already introduced the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill to introduce counter-terrorism-style powers on people smuggling. We have established the Border Security Command to mobilise UK agencies and funded extra specialist National Crime Agency intelligence and investigations officers, including staff stationed across Europe and in Europol. We also brought together representatives from more than 50 countries and international organisations at the border security summit earlier this year.

In comparison with the year before, we have increased disruptions against more high-end, high-harm targets by nearly a quarter; closed twice as many social media accounts—18,000 social media accounts used by smugglers to sell boat crossings are now down; and increased the cost to gangs of boat and engine packages being delivered to northern France, hitting their business model. That is all work done by the National Crime Agency this year. We are now going further, with additional recruitment of NCA officers and, crucially, a new specialist intelligence and judicial police unit in Dunkirk to speed up the arrest and prosecution of smugglers in France.

Thirdly, we are strengthening the border itself. French actions have prevented 496 boat crossings this year, but 385 boats have crossed. Criminal gangs are operating new tactics, increasing the overcrowding of boats so that more people arrive, loading them in shallow waters and exploiting the French rules that mean authorities have not been able to intervene in the water. Those tactics have driven appalling scenes, with people clambering on to crowded boats in shallow waters, disgraceful violence from gang members towards the French police and migrants, and people being crushed to death in the middle of overcrowded boats. We cannot stand for this.

That is why the new action agreed with France includes establishing a new French Compagnie de Marche of specialist enforcement officers, with stronger public order powers to address increases in violence on French beaches and prevent boat launches before they reach the water. It also includes providing training for additional drone pilots to intercept those launches and, crucially, supporting the new maritime review instigated by the French Minister of the Interior so that they can intervene more effectively, pursuing what last week’s declaration describes as

“novel and innovative approaches to intercept boats, and enhanced Maritime co-operation, to ensure we adapt as the criminal gangs change their approach”.

Meanwhile, we are changing our domestic law through the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill to criminalise those who endanger people’s lives at sea, so that we can more easily prosecute those who crowd on to overcrowded boats and put other people’s lives at risk. Action will be taken in both French and UK waters.

Fourthly, we are taking new, innovative approaches to returns. Since the election, we have already increased international returns for those with no right to be in the UK, but until now we have not been able to return people who have made these dangerous and illegal boat crossings to other safe countries they have travelled through. Previous Governments tried to achieve this—indeed, they even promised it—but they never secured an agreement to do so. Under the groundbreaking agreement announced by the Prime Minister and President Macron last week, for the first time individuals who arrive in the UK by small boat can be readmitted to France. That is the right thing to do, and is also an important step towards undermining the business model of the organised crime groups that are behind these crossings.

We have agreed to establish a safe, reciprocal exchange mechanism for individuals in France who apply with appropriate documentation to be transferred to the UK, subject to clear eligibility criteria and stringent security checks. Transfers to the UK under the new route will match the number readmitted to France on a one-for-one basis. Further details of the scheme will be set out in the immigration rules once final arrangements are in place. This innovative agreement means that people who undertake illegal, dangerous journeys to the UK—putting their own and other people’s lives at risk and paying money to fuel an entire criminal industry—will be returned to France, where the boats set off from. In return, we will take people who apply lawfully and pass security checks, with priority given to those who have a connection with the UK, who are most likely to be refugees, or who are most vulnerable to smuggler gangs.

This is the right thing to do. It establishes the principle that, while the UK will always be ready to play its part alongside other countries in helping those fleeing persecution and conflict, we believe this should be done in a controlled and managed legal way, not through dangerous, illegal, uncontrolled or criminal routes. It is also the first step towards undermining the promises made by criminal gangs when they tell people that if they travel to the UK, they cannot be returned to the continent—now, they can be. We will develop the pilot step by step and will trial different approaches as part of it, varying the numbers and seeking the most effective ways to undermine the gangs, reduce boat crossings and help France to deal with the problems it faces in the Calais region. The Prime Minister and French President have set out their expectation that that pilot will be operationalised in the coming weeks.

Fifthly, we will take stronger action on illegal working and asylum failures here in the UK. For far too long, it has been too easy for people to work illegally in the UK and for employers to exploit them, undercutting responsible businesses. Since the election, we have already increased illegal working raids and arrests by 50%, and have more than tripled the value of employer penalties issued to over £89 million. We have also launched a new surge in enforcement linked to the gig economy, and the borders Bill contains changes to the law to compel companies to conduct proper checks on the right to work. We will also bring forward further reforms to the asylum system to prevent its operation being exploited—either by gangs to encourage travel to the UK, or by people who are here illegally to find unfair ways to stay.

We need to be part of the global response to irregular and illegal migration, not separate from it—working in partnership, not just shouting and pointing at the sea.  Everyone knows that there is no single silver bullet to tackle illegal migration and dangerous boat crossings, and that it takes time to unpick the deep roots that gangs have put down and to build the foundations of a new cross-border approach, but that is what we are determined to do. We are committed to stronger borders, to stronger law enforcement in France and in the UK, to increasing returns, and to building the foundations of a new long-term approach where countries co-operate to prevent illegal migration and ensure there is sanctuary for genuine refugees. No one should be making these dangerous boat journeys, which undermine our border security and put lives at risk. That is why this co-operation between the UK and France is so important.

I commend this statement to the House. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the shadow Home Secretary. \p Chris Philp: I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. She comes to the Chamber today sounding rather pleased with herself, but I am afraid she has no reason to. A year ago, she promised to smash the gangs—she said again and again that that was her plan. Indeed, it was her only plan, yet today there is no mention of what was once her favourite catchphrase. That is because her claim to smash the gangs has become a joke—an embarrassment to her and to the Government. We warned that law enforcement alone would not be enough, as did the National Crime Agency, but she did not listen, and what then happened?

The 12 months following 5 July last year have been the worst such period in history, with small boat crossings at 44,359—up 40% year on year. The first 13 days of July have also been the worst in history, with 2,510 in less than two weeks—up 213% year on year. This calendar year so far has been the worst in history as well—up 57% on last year. The Home Secretary is setting records, just all the wrong ones. These boat crossings are now the worst ever. Does the Home Secretary accept that she has lost control of our borders and is failing in her most basic duty to protect the United Kingdom?

The Home Secretary says she has a new deal with France, yet President Macron says it needs EU agreement. Is that true? If so, has the EU provided it? A deal must of course involve an agreed number, yet when the Home Secretary is asked, she is unable to say what numbers are involved. Will she now come clean and tell Parliament what number, if any, has been agreed? If there is no agreement with the EU, and no agreed number as part of the deal, then there is no deal at all, only vacuous spin. The only number we have seen reported is just 50 illegal immigrants a week. That number was put to the Prime Minister last Thursday, and he did not deny it. Fifty a week represents only 6% of illegal arrivals, meaning 94% could stay. Does the Home Secretary seriously think that allowing 94% of illegal immigrants to stay will be any kind of deterrent? Her claim to smash the gangs was a gimmick and so is her 6% returns deal.

The truth is this: the only way to fix this is to remove, without judicial process, every single illegal arrival as soon as they get here, either to their country of origin or to a third country. That would be a real deterrent. We saw that approach work in Australia about 10 years ago and such a scheme—[Interruption.] I am glad hon.  Members mention Rwanda. Such a scheme for the UK was ready to start in July last year. The previous Government had done all the legal and logistical work needed. All the Home Secretary had to do was press go, but she and the Prime Minister cancelled the scheme just days before it was due to start, and as a result we now see record numbers crossing. Will she now admit that she made a terrible mistake, and will she now start a proper 100% removals deterrent?

The damage done by illegal immigration at this scale is immense. Far from closing asylum hotels as the Government promised, there are now nearly 3,000 more people in asylum hotels than at the time of the last election. I have personally witnessed rampant illegal working from the very hotels that the Home Secretary runs. I saw Deliveroo, Uber Eats and Just Eat bikes in the compound of an asylum hotel whose residents have no right to work. Will she at least commit today to ending illegal working from the very hotels that she runs?

We also see reports of migrants based in hotels being charged with serious crimes, including rape and sexual assaults on women and children. Louise Casey has warned that a significant proportion of sexual offences are committed by those seeking asylum—cases like that of 29-year-old Afghan, Sadeq Nikzad, convicted of raping a 15-year-old girl. His defence counsel claimed that he did not understand that was wrong due to cultural differences.

This madness has to stop. The Home Secretary cancelled a proper deterrent plan just days before it was due to start. Her claim to smash the gangs lies in tatters. She has presided over the highest number of illegal small boat crossings in history. Will she now apologise to the House and to the country for her appalling failure? \p Yvette Cooper: The shadow Home Secretary just wants to pretend that the last eight years never happened. He knows that this crisis—this small boats chaos—went on for 340 weeks under the Tories. During that period, when he was in charge as Immigration Minister, overall migration nearly trebled and the number of small boat crossings increased tenfold. During those 340 weeks when the Tories were in charge, 128,000 people crossed the channel, and how many were returned to France? Zero. How many were sent to Rwanda? He said himself it was zero, because he did not even want to count the four volunteers. He keeps saying that somehow it was ready to start, but if it had been ready to start, the Conservatives would not have called the election. They would have introduced the scheme which had, in fact, been running for more than two years, at a cost of £700 million and with just four volunteers sent.

I can also tell the shadow Home Secretary that since the election this Government have returned more than 35,000 people who have no right to be here. That is a 24% increase in the number of enforced returns compared to the last year in which his party was in charge. It is a 28% increase in the number of failed asylum returns compared to the last year in which his party was in charge.

As for the agreement with France, which he does not seem to want to talk about very much, I asked him about exactly that back in 2020, when I was Chair of the Home Affairs Committee and he was Immigration Minister. I specifically asked:

“what chance do you put on being able to get a bilateral agreement, say with France, for them to take back people who have arrived here from France…?”

He said—this was five years ago—that that was what he was working on. Indeed, he told the Committee:

“one of our priorities will be to reach those agreements and…it is, I think, strongly in the French national interest to agree such a returns agreement… That gives me significant cause for optimism.”

Well, it turns out that he should have been optimistic—about the return of a Labour Government, reaching an agreement where he had failed.

He also said at the time:

“We intend to return as many illegal migrants who have arrived—

by small boats—

as possible… we have flights planned in the coming days to return these individuals back to France and we will be looking to ramp up this activity.”

Well, that was five years ago. The flights never went, and the activity was never ramped up. The shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), tried to return people to France. The shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), tried to return people to France, and even called for the UK

“to take one asylum seeker”

from France

“in return for one illegal migrant that we return to them. Or indeed more than one.”

As for interception in shallow waters, the right hon. Gentleman said, when he was Immigration Minister:

“Some boats that are just 250 yards away from the French coast have not been stopped by the authorities. This must change.”

I agree, but that was five years ago, and he did not change a thing. The Conservatives never understood that it is not possible to change things simply by jumping up and down and shouting about them. It needs partnership working and hard graft, and that is what this Government have done. \p Clive Efford: I congratulate the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary on succeeding in agreeing a deal with France. It just shows that treating people with respect can result in positive action, and treating them with contempt, as the Conservatives did throughout this issue, was never going to provide a solution. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that each of those four volunteers whom the Conservative Government paid to be sent to Rwanda was paid, by the British taxpayer, £150,000 to provide free housing, a free university education and free private healthcare? Who approved that funding in the Department? \p Yvette Cooper: I can confirm that the deal that the previous Government did with Rwanda involved paying £150,000 for every single individual, to cover food, accommodation and healthcare for five years. Those bills continue. A concern was raised by the accounting officer, so a direction had to be given, on the basis that Ministers had been advised that it was not value for money but they continued regardless. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Lisa Smart: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement.

We all want to stop these dangerous channel crossings, which first ballooned under the former Conservative Government. Cross-border co-operation will be key to achieving that, and clearly a lot of work is needed after the Conservatives ripped up the returns agreement that allowed us to send irregular migrants back to Europe. I was very interested to hear the shadow Home Secretary quote President Macron, but he was a little selective in doing so—he did not mention the section of President Macron’s remarks that attributed the problem to the Brexit deal that the last Conservative Government cooked up.

This deal is a step in the right direction, and I sincerely hope that it works, but people will understandably be sceptical that such a small scheme will act as an effective deterrent at this stage. Questions still need to be answered about how and when the UK and French Governments will decide to scale up the pilot, so I would welcome more details from the Home Secretary.

Of course, deals like this are only part of the solution. The Home Secretary mentioned placing officers within Europol, but will she commit to negotiating a stronger leadership role for the UK in Europol, to make it easier to crack down on the trafficking gangs behind these crossings? Does she acknowledge that we will not be able to fully take the power out of the hands of the gangs until we provide regulated entry to the UK for genuine refugees?

One of the best deterrents to put people off the idea of coming here in the first place is for all asylum applications to be processed quickly, so that those who are granted refugee status can integrate and contribute to our community, and for those with no right to be here to be sent back swiftly. Can the Home Secretary update the House on the average time it takes to process an asylum application after arrival on British shores, and how has that changed over the past year? Until the Government act on these points, I fear that they risk repeating the Conservatives’ mistakes and failing to get to grips with the problem, which is something we all want them to do. \p Yvette Cooper: The Prime Minister and the French President set out their expectation that we will be able to operationalise this agreement and begin the pilot in the coming weeks. The numbers will vary, and it is a pilot that will need to be developed. We will need to trial different approaches as part of it, and that is the right and sensible approach.

The principle underpinning the agreement is the right one: we should return people who have paid money to criminal gangs in order to come on this dangerous journey in small boats—which puts other people’s lives at risk, as well as their own, and undermines our border security—in exchange for taking people who apply legally, who are more likely to be genuine refugees and who have been through security checks, and prioritising people who have a connection to the UK. It is also a way to help undermine the business model of the criminal gangs, who tell people that there is no way to be returned to France or any other country if they get into one of these dangerous small boats. They use that as part of their advertising, which we should seek to undermine.

The hon. Lady is right to say that we also need stronger law enforcement. We have already been building stronger co-operation, including by setting up the new prosecution and investigation unit in Dunkirk, which  will work with our National Crime Agency and our Border Security Command, and we are significantly speeding up asylum decision making to bring the backlog down. We also need action to speed up the appeals process, because there are delays as a result of the broken system that we inherited. \p Chris Murray: As the Home Secretary points out, we did not have small boat crossings 10 years ago, but we left the EU without incorporating a returns agreement into the withdrawal agreement. On a point of clarification, can the Home Secretary confirm that it is completely unprecedented for an EU country to allow returns from outwith the EU’s external borders? I note that it comes on the back of a highly successful state visit by President Macron. We have come a long way from having a Prime Minister question whether France is friend or foe—Macron is our friend, and our foes are the people smugglers. On the pilot, what are the Home Secretary’s parameters for success, how does she envisage it scaling up, and how does she envisage the UK-EU relationship will have to adapt in the future to accommodate it, if successful? \p Yvette Cooper: I can tell my hon. Friend that we will want to develop this over time, and we will do so in partnership with France. He is right that we will secure this co-operation together and have an impact together, just as successive Governments over the years have strengthened security co-operation with France—through juxtaposed controls, different border security arrangements, and checks for lorries and clandestine journeys—and that co-operation strengthened our border security. That had just not been done on small boats, and that is what this agreement is all about. It is about building the security co-operation we have had in the past, but not on small boats, and that is now so important. We will build that co-operation, because we will best strengthen our border security by working with countries on the other side of our borders who face exactly the same challenges, and that is far better than just standing on the shoreline and shouting at the sea. \p John Glen: I always try to avoid rhetoric in this matter, and I fully concede—this bit is agreed—that my party lost a significant number of MPs because of our failure to deliver on a number of issues prior to the election. I listened very carefully to what the right hon. Lady said about stronger partnerships, stronger law enforcement action and groundbreaking returns agreement, but does she not recognise that the scale of the problem, as evidenced by the numbers since the general election, and the scale of public concern require a much bigger solution than what is proposed? Without a significant deterrent on a much bigger scale much sooner, she is not going to fix this problem to public satisfaction. \p Yvette Cooper: No one should be making these dangerous boat crossings, which undermine border security and put lives at risk. We have seen a change in the way the criminal gangs have been operating over the past six months. First, they have increased overcrowding with a substantial increase in the number of people on the boats, which is putting more lives at risk. Secondly, they have exploited the French rules about not intervening in French waters by loading the boats in French waters, which is why we have seen the disgraceful scenes of people crowding on  to boats from the water. We have to tackle those issues, which is why the UK is changing our law so we can prosecute people who are endangering other people’s lives by climbing on to overcrowded boats, and it is also why France has instigated a French maritime review so that it can intervene in French waters.

The French Interior Minister and I have been working on these developments over several months, and I think it is right that we build that co-operation. It is also right to say that there is no single silver bullet. We need comprehensive action on every single aspect of this, to make a difference, strengthen our border security and save lives. \p Stella Creasy: I am sure that the Home Secretary shares my frustration that we could have been much further along with a returns agreement, because the shadow Home Secretary—the former Immigration Minister—apparently admitted to a Conservative party members meeting in May that, before we left the European Union, his Government had worked out that we would not be able to return people under the hard Brexit deal they were providing.

Given the progress we have made by getting a returns agreement, could the Home Secretary outline for us what this will mean for somebody applying from France? This is going to be a safe route, and it is therefore very welcome movement for those of us who recognise the horrors in Calais and the limbo we leave people in. It is important to use this to dissuade people from getting on to a dangerous boat, because there is a legal mechanism they can use to be reunited with their families. \p Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend’s question is an important one. Once the final arrangements are ready to operationalise, we will set out in the immigration rules the precise detail of the way in which people will be able to apply from France. They will need to have proper identification and to go through security checks. Once people have applied, we will set prioritisation decisions, including on whether people have connections to the UK, and on the countries from which people are most likely to be refugees or to be targeted by smuggler and trafficking gangs. We will set out that detail in due course. Part of the reason for the one-for-one arrangement is that it has to go alongside returns to France for people who get on illegal boat crossings and end up paying huge amounts of money to fuel the criminal smuggler industry, which will make sure that we simultaneously strengthen our border security and save lives. \p Pete Wishart: This is a grubby, grotesque little deal, which in itself trades in lives with the selection of who qualifies for this one in, one out basis. This gimmick means we will now have different classes of the wretched, and it does nothing to address the crisis that compels so many people to make these dangerous journeys in the first place. It is a gimmick doomed to fail and it simply will not work. But there is one thing that could smash the gangs in one simple blow: establish the safe and legal routes, which have worked so perfectly in the past, for people to come to this country. \p Yvette Cooper: The small boat crossings are dangerous and put lives at risk. We have seen people drown and people crushed to death on overcrowded boats. That is  being driven and organised by criminal gangs who will do anything they can to profit from these dangerous journeys. The whole point of having the one-for-one approach with France is that we have an agreement that means we will return people who come on those dangerous boat crossings, who pay money to the criminal gangs, and who, frankly, should be returned or should be part of the returns arrangements. In return, we will take those who apply lawfully through the application process and who have had security checks. I think that principle is the right one. The UK, as we have shown through the Ukraine and Hong Kong schemes, will always do its bit to help those fleeing persecution and conflict. However, we also think there should be much stronger enforcement, and we should not have the illegal migration that undermines border security and puts lives at risk in the channel. \p Jacob Collier: Under the Tories, we had Liz Truss question whether France was actually an ally, so it was nice to hear in President Macron’s words last week that Britain has friends once again. In the 340 weeks that the Conservative party was in charge of the small boats crisis, it sent no one back to France and just four people to Rwanda with cash stuffed in their pockets. Does the Home Secretary agree that the way we get results is by working with international partners, not berating them? \p Yvette Cooper: I do think we should be working with international partners; that is how we will get co-operation. If criminal gangs operate across borders, then of course we need Governments and law enforcement to co-operate across borders to take those gangs down and to get returns in place. The Conservatives claimed that they were going to get bilateral returns agreements in place: that is what they claimed in 2020; that is what they claimed in 2021; that is what they claimed for years; and that is what they claimed they would seek to do again in 2023. But they failed to do it year after year, because all they did was shout at France and other countries, instead of doing the hard graft to get agreements in place. \p John Hayes: This is about principle and practice. The principle is that every country has the right and indeed the duty to secure its borders, and in practice ours have become porous. I agree with the Home Secretary that global instability continues to drive illegal migration, I agree with her that we need co-operation upstream and I agree with her that previous Governments have done far too little, but the scale of the problem requires more than she is offering today. The trend is up. If it continues, 85,000 people will cross, each one knowing that they are coming here illegally. This requires much more emphatic action. Everyone who comes should be incarcerated and all those who can be returned should be. We must recognise that the asylum system is being gamed on an industrial scale. Will she answer this very straightforward question: what evidence does she have that hostile states and organised criminals are using this as a route to get people to this country to do still more harm? \p Yvette Cooper: Let us be clear: we need action right across the board, from strengthening prevention—working in partnership with countries like Iraq—right through to law enforcement and increased action on the criminal gangs.  We are taking action on border security itself, with action along the French coast and in the channel in French waters, and strengthening the returns arrangements. We are also taking action here in the UK, whether on illegal working or on reforms to the asylum system. We need to be clear that there must be strong standards on issues of criminality: anybody who comes to the UK through whatever route needs to abide by our laws, and that must be enforced. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have put in place new measures to strengthen the criminality checks in the asylum system and to have much stronger action as part of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. I hope he will support that legislation rather than voting against it. \p Jo White: I welcome the fact that we have a Home Secretary who is willing to do what it takes to stop the small boats. The French claim that the ability to work illegally in the UK is what motivates those who are willing to take the dangerous journey across the channel. Does the Home Secretary agree, and will she outline the actions she is taking to crack down on illegal working and destroy those incentives? \p Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. It has been way too easy to work illegally in this country for far too long. That is why, since the election, we have already increased illegal working raids by 50%, increased arrests for illegal working by 50%, and increased the penalties for employers that exploit illegal migration, which undercuts responsible and respectable businesses, by a third. However, we have to go further. We know in particular that illegal migration is being exploited in the gig economy, where there are not proper checks in place. We will therefore bring in new legislation to crack down on illegal working in the gig economy, alongside a surge of immigration enforcement activity and biometric checks that will enable us to use fingerprints to check who people are on the spot. We must have stronger enforcement and stronger rules in place. It is a real shame that the Opposition parties—the Conservatives and Reform—voted against those illegal working rules. \p Andrew Murrison: Does the Home Secretary agree with President Macron’s analysis last week that the reason people want to come here is that the UK is perceived as being attractive to illegal migrants—what President Macron referred to as “pull factors”, with one of his MPs referring to Britain as “El Dorado”? If the Home Secretary does agree with the French President, what is she doing to reduce those pull factors? \p Yvette Cooper: As I just set out in the previous answer, I think that it has frankly been too easy to work illegally in this country for too long. We know that the criminal gangs tell people it will be easy to get a job here; they even give people discounts if they will work for those same criminal gangs operating in the UK. We know that that is part of the way the criminal gangs try to advertise and promote their dangerous and illegal business. That is why we cannot stand for illegal working. It is why we are increasing not only the raids but the arrests, which are up by 50% just in the space of this year compared with the previous year, when the right hon. Gentleman’s party was in power. We are also strengthening the law. I really hope he will urge his party to support our Bill, rather than continually voting against it. \p Sally Jameson: I welcome the work the Government and the Home Secretary have done to get this arrangement with France and on the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which introduces anti-terror-style powers to tackle the crossings. As the Home Secretary has outlined, it is critical that we deal with the delivery companies that continue to hire people who arrive on the boats. She has said that she will introduce legislation to do that and to make that illegal. Can she confirm that that will be robustly implemented? It is these delivery companies—we all know who they are—that are incentivising the boat crossings and, ultimately, threatening our national security. \p Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. We know that although some delivery companies have said that they will do stronger checks, in practice it is just not happening. There are too many cases of our immigration enforcement teams doing raids and finding that the rules are being broken and that people are working who have no right to do so and who are here illegally. That is why we are increasing raids and arrests, and it is why we must change the law so that whether it be delivery companies or other organisations in the gig economy, they have to take responsibility and do not just find that they are making a profit from exploiting illegal migration, which in the end fuels the work of criminal gangs. \p Liz Saville-Roberts: War, persecution and climate change mean that more and more people are fleeing their homes for their own safety. The Home Secretary talks of the need for comprehensive action on every single aspect of this, yet her Government have cut international aid by £6 billion, while the US Government have cut their aid budget so drastically that it could result in 14 million preventable deaths by 2030. Does the Home Secretary not agree that without adequate international aid and co-operation to tackle such factors at their source, we are simply setting ourselves up for more humanitarian crises and more migration pressures? \p Yvette Cooper: The right hon. Member will know that we had to take a difficult decision on overseas aid to ensure that we can increase our defence investment, which we need to keep our country safe. She is right that we need to work internationally to prevent dangerous journeys and to make sure that people can get sanctuary and support so that they do not have to make those dangerous journeys in the first place. It is that kind of international co-operation that matters, whether through resettlement schemes such as the one we ran for Ukraine or much more targeted work closer to home. \p Oliver Ryan: I welcome the Home Secretary’s action today. She is taking this problem seriously and is producing serious solutions and a serious strategy. It is now 80 days since the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) told the world on social media that,

“The Reform UK policy unit has drafted a comprehensive strategy for the deportation of illegal migrants.”

Has the Home Secretary seen that strategy yet, or indeed any detail of Reform’s plans? The Frenchman Jules Verne wrote that Phileas Fogg travelled the world in 80 days. Does she think that the leader of Reform has  perhaps been too busy travelling the world, flogging gold and selling Cameos to produce any such strategy at all? \p Yvette Cooper: Certainly, the hon. Member for Clacton has been travelling around the world, and sadly he is once again not here in Parliament when we are discussing these issues. If Reform Members are serious about taking action against the criminal gangs, why on earth did they vote against the counter-terrorism powers to go after them in the first place? Sadly, their one in, one out approach seems to simply be about their parliamentary party. \p Kit Malthouse: I have been a bit taken aback by the lack of humility shown by the Home Secretary in the face of what has been a catastrophic first 12 months in terms of crossing numbers. It might have been better for her to acknowledge that “smash the gangs”, which she was always told was going to be a complete failure, has indeed been so. I suppose we should be grateful that she has finally reached for the briefing notes left in the Home Office and No. 10—not about a returns agreement but about a swaps agreement. I suppose I offer her congratulations on getting that deal over the line with the French. However, I disagree with her about it not being a silver bullet; I think this has always been the only solution. But she will know that it will be effective only if we can get to a very high percentage of returns to France.

I have two questions. First, what further incentive could she offer to the French to go beyond this relatively small pilot? Given that we are offering swaps and the theory is that no one will then cross, would she be willing to go for a two-for-one swap? Secondly, as she pointed out, the gangs will react, so does she plan to cut a similar deal with the Belgians? \p Yvette Cooper: I disagree with the right hon. Member about the criminal gangs. Whatever we do, we must have much stronger enforcement on the criminal gangs; otherwise, if they are given free rein to do whatever they want, they will find other ways around any arrangement and other ways to make money. It is crucial that stronger enforcement is part of any action we take against them. The National Crime Agency has delivered a 36% increase in high-impact disruptions in the last 12 months compared with the year before, and has been building that partnership with other European countries to be able to go further.

The right hon. Member has argued previously, when others were not doing so, for one-for-one returns, as well as for innovative approaches. I agree with him, and we want to develop that, but we need to start with a pilot arrangement that allows both the UK and France to trial things that we have never done before. The previous Government always made grand claims that somehow everything would be solved in the next three days, and repeatedly failed because they did not build up the credibility, the plans or a systematic approach, working in partnership. That is what we need to do. \p Olivia Bailey: I applaud the shadow Home Secretary for his valiant attempt to sound outraged. Is not the truth that while  the Conservatives picked fights on the world stage, the Government have rebuilt relationships and delivered a groundbreaking returns agreement that they would have given their eye teeth for? Does the Secretary of State agree that while sound and fury may make Conservative Members feel better, it is the Government who are systematically getting on with the job of stopping the boats? \p Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. The previous Government tried at different stages to do the kinds of things that we are setting out, but they allowed the relationship with France to deteriorate to the point of diplomacy by tweets and social media, which did not get practical agreements in place. The work that we have done provides practical arrangements that we can build on, and we can trial different approaches. That is the best way to strengthen our border security, and it is what successive Governments had done until recent years. \p Lee Anderson: I have never heard such pathetic drivel in all my life as I have from the Home Secretary and her Back Benchers. It is not the people smugglers bringing illegal migrants over the channel but the French warships who transport them halfway and give them to British border security, who bring them to our shores, put them in buses and take them to hotels. The real people smugglers are the French and British authorities. Does the Home Secretary agree that the British Border Force should take these illegal migrants straight back to France? \p Yvette Cooper: No one should be making these dangerous boat crossings; they undermine border security and put lives at risk. If the hon. Member really cares about stopping boats and stopping the criminals who organise them, why have he and his party repeatedly voted against bringing in counter-terrorism powers to go after the gangs? Why have they repeatedly voted against the new laws on illegal working to clamp down on people in the gig economy? Why has he repeatedly voted against laws to have stronger and higher standards against criminality in our asylum system? Time and again, they vote against because they want not to solve the problem but just to moan about it. They do not actually want to change anything with France—to work to get France to intervene in French waters as the Government have been doing. Instead, all they want to do is shout at the sea. \p Paul Waugh: On Friday,  the BBC interviewed an Egyptian economic migrant named Obaida in Calais who said that he had tried  and failed four times to cross the channel but, since the Prime Minister’s agreement with President Macron, he was giving up:

“I don’t want to go to Britain any more, because they are making it much harder for us. Every time we try, they deflate our boats and remove the engine. If they make it even harder, I’ll stop trying.”

Does that not prove that this new deal to send migrants back to France can be a genuine deterrent, unlike the last Government’s pathetic attempt to claim credit? \p Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. What we need is action on the boats in shallow waters as well as action against the criminal gangs and to prevent people reaching the French coast in the first place. We also need the ability to return people to France—as part of  this new agreement—and stronger action to stop people working illegally in the UK. We need action in each of those areas at every stage. That is hard graft—it is not about gimmicks—but that is how we will strengthen our border security and save lives. \p Harriett Baldwin: The Home Secretary is an intelligent woman, and she must realise that this UK-France migration co-operation is a drop in the ocean, given that since it was announced, another 1,375 people have made that dangerous and illegal crossing. She might not like Rwanda, but can she confirm that one of the other things she is working on is finding another safe third country where 100% of people who cross the channel illegally can be processed? \p Yvette Cooper: The agreement that we have reached is a fundamentally different approach; it is groundbreaking. It is something that I have discussed with the Interior Minister in France for many months. It is also something that UK Governments have been working to try to do for around five years but without achieving it. This is a first step, but it is an important one in terms of establishing the principles around returns and around stronger law enforcement co-operation. We have also said that we will work with other European countries on looking at different approaches, including returns hubs and other innovative and novel approaches. There are other European countries who are interested in working with us on similar and different kinds of approaches, and we will continue to do that. \p Connor Naismith: In her earlier remarks, the Home Secretary referenced the memo that the shadow Justice Secretary wrote in March 2023, proposing exactly the kind of one in, one out deal that this Government have now secured. I was struck by the assertion in that memo that that kind of scheme would

“quickly break the business model of the smugglers”.

Does the Home Secretary agree that the Conservatives look utterly partisan, petty and two-faced as they now decide to oppose in public exactly the kind of deal that they were arguing for in private when in government? \p Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is exactly right. There are things that the Conservatives tried and failed to deliver when they were in government that they now suddenly want to oppose. In the end, that is the hole they have got themselves into. Instead of wanting to be practical and serious about measures that can make a difference, taken step by step, they just want to oppose everything. They fail to solve the problem, and just moan about it instead. \p Christine Jardine: I welcome these important first steps announced by the Home Secretary, as well as her commitment to working with wider European partners, but what safeguards have been put in place to ensure that international law is respected and that the rights of genuine asylum seekers are protected? \p Yvette Cooper: As the hon. Member will be aware, France is a country that abides by international law and with which we have a long history of co-operation in a  whole series of areas around security and different policy issues over very many years; all of them are compliant with international law and we will continue to ensure that that is the case. \p Chris Webb: I applaud the Home Secretary for the months of hard work and serious negotiation that have resulted in this deal. We now have the real deterrent that the Conservatives failed for many years to secure for my constituents and others across the country. These deals make it more important that we keep pushing the strength of our domestic response to the smuggling gangs and illegal working, so I have two questions. First off, can the Home Secretary confirm to my constituents that the Metropole hotel in my constituency will be closed as an asylum hotel by this Government before the next election? Also, can she confirm when she expects the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill to become law, and would it help if the Conservatives and Reform supported the Bill so that we can get the job done? \p Yvette Cooper: We are committed to ending asylum hotels over the course of this Parliament. We will also continue to roll out this pilot programme so that it can be developed to tackle both returns and dangerous boat crossings. As for the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, it is really important. It contains a whole series of really important measures, and we would be able to get it through Parliament much, much faster if the Conservatives decided to support it. \p Julia Lopez: I fear it is another week, another fig leaf from this Government on small boat crossings, which are up 40% under Labour. I hope this French deal works, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) says, the numbers of returns need to be very substantial, not just a modest pilot. We are also now waiting to hear from the EU about whether it will approve this very modest UK-French migration deal. We know from experience that the EU tends not to give such approval without extracting a heavy price, so can the Home Secretary guarantee that the UK will not sign up to any element of the EU pact on migration and asylum, when it launches next year, that could see us accepting much larger asylum transfers from the continent? \p Yvette Cooper: We have been working with the EU Commission, as has France, and we have shared details on these proposals over many months as we have been developing them. The EU Commission has been very supportive. Indeed, that is why the UK-EU reset explicitly says that the EU Commission—the EU—will support action to tackle the dangerous boat crossings in the channel and to prevent illegal migration. This is something that we have worked on for some considerable time. We will continue to develop those partnerships with France and to ensure that we work closely with other countries, because the same challenges with criminal gangs operating are shared across Europe. That is why we need to act together. \p Christopher Vince: I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. It was a real pleasure to hear President Macron’s address last week with Members from across this House and the other place. Does she  agree that it does not take Jules Maigret to realise that to tackle this issue effectively and humanely, we must work with our French allies? I think back to the terrible image of that boy dead on that beach. We should not forget the human cost of these small boat crossings. \p Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. One of the stories that still haunts me is of a little girl who was crushed to death in one of the small boats because of the scale of overcrowding and the way these boats are, frankly, dangerous. As well as the risk of drowning, we have seen people crushed as a result of overcrowding. That is why we must do everything we can to prevent these dangerous crossings and ensure that across the world there are systems of sanctuary for those who have fled persecution. The criminal gangs exploit people’s desperation and they should not be allowed to do so. \p Carla Denyer: Will the Secretary of State explain to us what happens if one in, one out works? If the goal is to stop small boat crossings and it is successful, the outside of the equation drops to zero, which means the inside of the equation also needs to drop to zero and the UK will have got rid of the small sliver of a safe and regulated route scheme that it has just created. Does the Secretary of State not think that, if we did that, it would be more likely to push people back to the small boats and people smugglers? \p Yvette Cooper: I am not fully sure about the logic of the hon. Member’s argument. She seems to be arguing that if the scheme works, it will not work. \p Carla Denyer: indicated assent. \p Yvette Cooper: That is what she seems to be arguing.

Look, I think we should be doing everything to prevent these dangerous boat crossings. We will continue, as we have done through the Ukraine scheme and through the support for Hong Kong, to ensure that the UK does its bit to help those fleeing persecution. For example, we made reference in the immigration White Paper to refugee study opportunities at our universities. These dangerous boat crossings are so damaging; they really undermine our border security and the credibility of the whole system, so we must ensure we take action to prevent them. \p Caroline Nokes: I thank the Home Secretary for her statement this afternoon. I shall allow a few moments for the Front Benchers to swap over. \p Gareth Thomas: With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the Green Paper that we are publishing today on the future of the Post Office.

Post offices have stood as a cornerstone of British national life for generations, serving constituents in every part of the UK. They are a lot more than just places to send letters or collect parcels; they are hubs of economic and social activity. They are a lifeline to small businesses, provide access to essential services, including everyday banking services, and are a critical part of our high streets. They also have a unique role in rural areas, particularly permanent branches, and act as the beating heart of communities.

In recent years, however, the need for change has become clear. Twelve months ago, we inherited a Post Office in crisis—declining financial sustainability, unstable leadership, a network struggling to maintain services, and a reputation shattered by the Horizon scandal and its appalling treatment of sub-postmasters, as Sir Wyn Williams’s first report last week underlined only too clearly. This Government are determined to strengthen the Post Office network, and today’s Green Paper begins a national dialogue on the future of the Post Office so that we can create a modern, resilient and financially sustainable organisation.

We recognise that the Post Office, just like other postal services around the world, faces significant challenges that are driven in no small part by changing consumer habits fuelled by the digital transition, changing high streets and a changing economy. We want a Post Office network that the public uses, values and, above all, trusts. We want branches to be visible on the high street, in rural and urban areas, and in all communities, offering a wide range of in-person services.

I do not believe that people are ideologically wedded to a smaller or bigger Post Office; they just want a Post Office that works for them, their businesses and their communities. Our preferred approach is for the overall size and shape of the Post Office network to remain the same so that we minimise the impact on communities. We want to strengthen branches to modernise them and expand what they do. There are, though, a range of strong views on the Post Office network, so we will carefully consider all the views put to us about its future.

We need a Post Office that not only preserves its role in providing vital services to communities, but embraces the needs of modern Britain. The challenges are significant. Many branches are not profitable for the postmasters running them. Average weekly customer sessions have declined by 34% since 2007, and the shift to online services continues. While some services, such as parcel drop-offs and banking transactions, are growing, others, such as Government services, have seen significant decline. But we are also seeing innovation across the network. Drop and collect branches are being rolled out to meet the growing demand for parcel services. Over 160 banking hubs are now operational, with a commitment to roll out 350 by the end of the Parliament. As the banks continue to close branches, we are keen to support the Post Office to improve and develop the banking services  it provides. Working with our Treasury colleagues, we will host joint discussions on this issue with the Post Office and the banking sector in the coming months.

Above all else, we know the Post Office needs stability, which we are committed to providing. We are backing that commitment with over £500 million investment during this Parliament, including up to £136 million in this financial year to invest in new technology and replace Horizon. Horizon should have gone long ago. Instead, it will be many months yet before it is replaced. Fujitsu should only be part of the Post Office’s grim past, not its current and immediate future. We are determined to end the use of Horizon and draw a line under Fujitsu’s involvement with the Post Office. The task of replacing Horizon is hugely complex. It has been embedded in the Post Office network for more than two decades and remains critical to the delivery of the essential services that many of our constituents depend on from the Post Office. Never again must we allow the Post Office to put blind faith in its technology.

We will support the implementation of the Post Office’s transformation plan, which aims to make the company more efficient, enabling it to continue offering cash and banking services in the coming years. We will also fund innovative equipment for postmasters to help customers beat the queues. Indeed, this plan aims to achieve operational and financial stability by 2030 and includes a commitment to boost annual postmaster incomes by £250 million by the end of the decade. Already, a £20 million uplift has been delivered in 2024-25, with £66 million planned for this financial year.

After all the Post Office has put its people through, it is now essential that it reorientates its culture towards postmasters, involving them in central decision making. The first steps have been taken with the creation of a consultative council and the election of postmaster non-execs. I am acutely aware that there are those who say that more is needed and, indeed, that is why in this Green Paper we are exploring options for further strengthening those structures.

In the longer term, we are open to more fundamental reforms. Two ideas that have been put to us include the potential mutualisation of the Post Office—giving postmasters and communities a much greater stake in the organisation—and a charter model that separates the Government’s role in setting the purpose from the board’s role in running the business. We will assess other suggestions for the Post Office’s long-term future, including on its future commercial direction, such as closer working with Royal Mail. These are perhaps not decisions for the moment, but we want to begin the debate and conversation now, so we are ready to act when the time is right.

The Green Paper is an important step towards rebuilding trust in the Post Office and embedding a culture of transparency, accountability and compassion. It is important to stress that no decisions on changes to governance arrangements will be made until after the inquiry’s final report to allow us all to consider Sir Wyn Williams’s recommendations on governance issues together with Green Paper responses.

This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reimagine the Post Office. The Green Paper is ambitious but grounded in reality. It asks difficult questions about how we ensure long-term sustainability while protecting essential services. We want to hear from everyone with a stake in  the Post Office’s future. The Post Office must be modern, resilient and trusted. The Green Paper will be, I hope, the first step in delivering that vision, and I commend this statement to the House. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the shadow Minister. \p Harriett Baldwin: I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. The Post Office really is the Heineken of Government services: it reaches parts of the UK that other arms of government do not. The Post Office is much more than a business; it is a vital part of the UK’s social and economic fabric. It connects communities, supports local economies and ensures access to essential services across the country. From rural villages in constituencies like mine to inner cities, postmasters are trusted figures who provide a lifeline for people who rely on face-to-face services, particularly the elderly, the digitally excluded and small businesses. The network plays an increasingly important role delivering banking services and hubs as the traditional bank network continues to close. While the number of letters sent has declined and more Government services are online or direct to bank accounts, there are areas where the Post Office has seen strong growth: bank deposits to post offices are up by 68%, parcels up by 68% and tracked priority mail has risen by 72%.

The Minister promised that the Government would publish the Green Paper on the Post Office in the first half of 2025, so I will give him that—it was nearly there. The Government clearly want to get this consultation out before recess when there is arguably less parliamentary scrutiny. I would like to take this opportunity to encourage the public to respond to the consultation over the summer.

The Green Paper seeks to reduce the taxpayer subsidy over time, but of course, with 50,000 workers throughout Britain, the Post Office itself faces a £45 million hike in its bill from the national insurance jobs tax. The post offices that are eligible for retail, hospitality and leisure business rates relief have seen a 140% increase in their business rates. The Employment Rights Bill will cost the Post Office another £8 million. It is no wonder that Nigel Railton, the Post Office chairman, blamed the autumn Budget for increasing costs and said that it was why the Post Office needs a fresh start.

The Minister told the House on 8 April that

“access criteria have already been published that commit the Government to provide 11,500 post offices.”—[Official Report, 8 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 750.]

He says in the Green Paper that his preference is to maintain the size of the network. Will he commit today to there being 11,500 post office outlets at the end of this Parliament? Did the Government consider reducing the branch requirement in the Green Paper? If so, why did they change their mind? Was he advised by his officials that it would take the closure of one in five post offices to end the network subsidy? If that is not what he was told, what was he told? Where is the cut-off point for that subsidy?

The Minister says that the Government will consult on a change to access requirements as it could be argued that they are too stringent, but for rural areas they are not. Approximately 14% of post office branches are the last shop in the village—there are many such branches  in my constituency—so will the Minister confirm that rural branches will not be closed just to be replaced by others in city centres? Does he not realise that for many rural areas, the post office is the only shop for miles around and is therefore the only place one can access free cash?

How much did the Post Office get from the framework agreement with the banks? Should it not get a better and more long-term agreement? How much will the Government ask Fujitsu to pay towards the £2 billion estimated cost of compensating the postmasters who were wrongly accused over the Horizon system? The Minister appears to have kicked Post Office mutualisation into the long grass. I can see why he would not want to do it during the time of the inquiry, but could there be a pilot during this Parliament?

Post offices and the postmasters who run them are the backbone of our local communities, so I urge the public to take this opportunity to champion their local post office and reply to this summer consultation. \p Gareth Thomas: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for encouraging sub-postmasters and anyone who is interested in the future of the Post Office to contribute their views to the Green Paper.

As the hon. Lady rightly set out, and as I hope I underlined in my statement—the Green Paper is certainly very clear on this—we think that branches up and down the country are a vital part of our country’s economic and social fabric, and we are determined to strengthen the post office network so that they can play a continuing and even more effective role in our economic and social lives.

The hon. Lady rightly underlined the significance of banking services going forward. As an aside, she mentioned the decline of other traditional post offices—letter volumes have halved since 2011. That helps to underline the significance of banking to the future of the Post Office. We are clear that the Post Office could offer more if the banks are willing to work with it. The successful completion of the banking framework negotiations was an encouraging sign in that regard. As I set out in my opening remarks, we are, alongside Treasury colleagues, determined to sit down with the Post Office and the banks to see what more we can do together. There is a commitment to 350 banking hubs over the lifetime of this Parliament, but if we can improve the way in which the banks work with the Post Office, we could see a much more significant role for the Post Office in the provision of banking services on far more high streets up and down the UK.

On national insurance contributions, I gently say to the hon. Lady that difficult decisions had to be made in the Budget because of the financial situation that we inherited, but we have taken a range of decisions to steady the network. I am sure that she is grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the additional finances put aside to invest in the future of the Post Office.

The hon. Lady quite rightly underlined the broader point that Fujitsu has a moral obligation to contribute towards the cost of the scandal. As I have said, we need to wait for the final report by Sir Wyn Williams to understand the full sense of Fujitsu’s culpability.

Lastly, on mutualisation, as the hon. Lady alluded to, we think it right to concentrate in the short term on prioritising the financial and operational stability of the Post Office, given its significant challenges. In the longer term, it may well be possible to make serious and sustained governance changes. I have a genuinely open mind on that question and will look carefully at the views we receive on it in the Green Paper. \p Clive Efford: I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement and the consultation on the Green Paper. Does he agree that we should see the withdrawal of banks from high streets like mine in Eltham as an opportunity for the Post Office to expand what it can offer, not just to individuals but to small businesses in local communities? That is an opportunity rather than a burden for post offices, and we should seek to maintain them wherever possible. \p Gareth Thomas: I agree with my hon. Friend about the even greater role that banks could play on our high streets by working with the Post Office. It is one area that Post Office senior management has identified as key to the Post Office’s commercial future. We have set aside significant sums of money to invest in new technology to make it easier to work with the banks and do even more. I hope that banks and the financial services community will recognise that they have a considerable opportunity to do more in providing services to all our constituents by working with the Post Office. I look forward to sitting down with the Post Office and the financial services industry, alongside Treasury colleagues, to see whether we can take advantage of that opportunity. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Sarah Olney: I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. The Liberal Democrats welcome today’s announcement about putting local post offices on a more sustainable footing.

Post offices are an important part of our communities, providing a number of critical services on our local high streets, from community banking and foreign exchange to the provision of Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency services. Often their services act as a lifeline, especially for the elderly, those with limited transport options and those in areas without reliable access to online services. Currently 99.7% of the population live within three miles of a post office, and 4,000 branches are open seven days a week. In the past three years, nearly 2,000 high street bank branches have closed across the UK, resulting in local post offices being the only place where local communities can access banking services.

As the Government bring forward their necessary reforms, it is vital that essential local services and post office jobs are protected. Will the Minister assure me that under this proposal no post office will be closed until a consultation with each local community has been undertaken? Although we welcome the increased digitisation of services, which will boost accessibility for those who cannot use face-to-face services, as well as productivity across the public sector, how will the Government ensure that post offices remain financially viable? \p Gareth Thomas: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her welcome for the Green Paper. She rightly underlines the significance of the Post Office, particularly to the digitally excluded, to the elderly and to people in rural areas. Given the other part of my ministerial brief, which is on small businesses, I recognise just how important the Post Office is to small businesses up and down the UK.

The hon. Lady also underlined the significance of banking services for the Post Office. I hope I have made it very clear today that we think that there is an opportunity to go even further to bring more banking services to all our communities through the Post Office.

The hon. Lady asked about what happens when individual post office changes are being contemplated. A set of consultation arrangements has been in place for some time, and we are not seeking to change it. Whenever an individual post office changes, I recognise that it can be unsettling for local communities; there is always an appetite for that branch to be put back in place as quickly as possible. It is therefore important that whenever such a change is contemplated, the Post Office moves quickly to engage with local communities, including the hon. Member who represents the community.

On financing, we have set aside at least £500 million over this Parliament to invest in the Post Office. More than half of the network is loss-making; not enough was being provided to the Post Office to fund the network, which is why we increased the funding to cover the loss-making part of it last year. We have done so again this year and will continue to do so. \p Christopher Vince: I thank the Minister for his statement. As a fellow Labour and Co-op MP, I welcome the inclusion of mutualisation among the long-term ideas for the Post Office. Does he agree that post offices, particularly in rural communities like Little Hallingbury in my constituency of Harlow, are a vital part of the community and that they therefore lend themselves to that model of business? \p Gareth Thomas: I commend my hon. Friend for championing the Post Office branches in his constituency. He rightly underlines the importance of branches in rural communities; they have an essential role in communities up and down the UK.

As my hon. Friend will recognise, I have some history in the area of mutualisation. I am sympathetic to mutuals; I do think that it is important that we address the immediate challenges that the Post Office faces in its financial and operational sustainability before we contemplate long-term changes. There are risks with mutualisation, so we need to consider the pros as well as the cons before making any long-term change, but that is why the Green Paper is important: it will allow that debate to begin. \p Christine Jardine: A number of semi-rural and suburban communities across my constituency—Newbridge, Blackhall, Ratho—have lost their post offices recently. Their banks have also gone, so there is a dearth of local facilities. At the same time, the Horizon scandal has undermined public trust across those communities. Does the Minister agree that one of the main problems in protecting the Post Office and making it sustainable will be that lack of public trust? How will he overcome it? \p Gareth Thomas: The hon. Lady is absolutely right that the reputation of the Post Office has taken a huge hit as a result of the Post Office scandal, and it will take a long time for trust to return. There is a series of steps that we have to take to rebuild that trust. There is the obvious challenge, which the House considered last week, of delivering redress to the victims of this appalling scandal, but there are also things we have to do to improve the trust between the existing postmasters in every community and the senior management of the Post Office from now on. The Post Office’s establishment of a consultative council and a postmaster panel and its commitment to improving postmaster remuneration are important first steps in that regard. The Green Paper provides an opportunity to think about what else the Post Office can do. \p Katrina Murray: This is an issue that has been highlighted by others in the Chamber, and my constituency is no different: it has been subject to a significant number of bank closures and ATM removals. In Cumbernauld, the precincts or the surrounding villages, the post office is the one place where people in local communities can access cash. Given that so many small businesses are still cash-first, what will the Minister do to ensure that access to cash remains within a post office setting? \p Gareth Thomas: I commend my hon. Friend for championing the post office in Cumbernauld and the communities around her constituency that depend on it and on the Post Office more generally. The most significant thing that we can do to help small businesses to access and deposit cash close to where they operate is to continue to try to improve the banking services provided through the Post Office. I hope that the banking industry will seize the opportunity of the Green Paper to work with the Post Office and with the Government to explore what more we can do collectively in that regard. \p Claire Young: In rural areas such as my Thornbury and Yate constituency, it can be difficult to travel to post offices in towns because of the lack of buses. If the Government are considering relaxing the distance and access criteria for post office provision, will they take that issue into account in setting new criteria? \p Gareth Thomas: As I hope I made clear in my opening statement, and as the Green Paper certainly makes clear, our preference remains keeping the current size of the network and maintaining the access criteria. I say gently that there are strong views on that question, including some within the sub-postmaster community, but our preference at the moment is to maintain the current size of the network and the existing access criteria, because of the significance of the post office to every rural and urban community. \p Julie Minns: I thank the Minister for his statement and his clear recognition of the importance that the post office plays in rural constituencies such as mine. Sadly, residents in some of the remotest parts of my Carlisle constituency have been adversely impacted in recent months by the sudden closure of post office outreach services. However, the closure of an outreach service is not currently subject to the same consultation requirements as the closure of a permanent branch.  As part of the proposals for the future of the Post Office, will the Minister consider strengthening the requirements relating to the closure of outreach services? \p Gareth Thomas: I am happy to consider any submission that my hon. Friend wants to make to the Green Paper. Indeed, I am happy to consider the thoughts and ideas of hon. Members across the House. My hon. Friend mentioned a particular issue in her constituency; if it is helpful, I am happy to meet her to discuss it in more detail. \p Pete Wishart: Scotland has seen an 8.3% decline in post offices, while London has seen an increase of 9.3% across the past decade. The Minister will know that outreach offices help people in rural areas and post offices to thrive. The Green Paper recognises that, but the Government seem to dismiss it. What is he going to do to help rural post offices? Will he reconsider his attitude and his views towards outreach offices? What will he do to reduce the number of post office closures in Scotland? \p Gareth Thomas: The most important thing that we can do to help Post Office branches in rural areas in Scotland, and indeed across the UK, is to prioritise improving the commercial future of the Post Office. In that regard, it is important to invest in new technology—a replacement for Horizon is critical—and in technology to enable the banks to provide more banking services to all our communities using the Post Office, as I hope they will. The key priority for Governments across the UK, if we are to improve the opportunities for every branch to better serve every community across the UK, is to improve the commercial fortunes of the Post Office. The Green Paper sets out plans to do so, but I welcome views from across the House on what more we can do. \p Luke Akehurst: I thank the Minister for his statement. He knows from previous questions I have asked that I am concerned for the future of the Chester-le-Street post office, which is moving from having directly managed branch status to franchise status. I also welcome what is going on with the post office in Stanley, which has become a much-needed banking hub. Does the Minister agree that with a little more commercial flair and imagination about what services are provided, the Post Office should not be a business in retreat but could play a significant role in increasing footfall on high streets up and down the country, helping to reverse their decline and encourage regeneration? \p Gareth Thomas: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; with good will on all sides, and with financial and operational stability, which I think we are beginning to see, there is a significant future ahead for the Post Office. As he says, the Post Office can continue to play an important role in reviving our high streets. The opportunity for banks to work with the Government and the Post Office to provide more banking services to all our constituents through the Post Office, could play a key role in helping to revive the high street and meet the needs of our constituents. \p Caroline Voaden: Since the election, three post offices in my constituency have closed—in Churchstow, Aveton Gifford and Dittisham—through the resignation of postmasters and, in one case, the death of the local postmaster. Each time, the Post Office says that it is carrying out a review, and each time it quickly decides to close the post office and, as the Minister himself said, the beating heart of those communities is then lost. Dittisham residents must now travel nearly 5 miles to the nearest branch. There is no bus, so elderly residents who do not drive cannot get to the nearest post office. Will the Minister guarantee that while the consultation is ongoing, no more rural post offices will be lost, and that as part of the Government’s thinking, more flexibility could be built into the Post Office’s business model, so that innovative and enthusiastic potential postmasters who want to reopen post offices in some of these villages can be allowed to do so? \p Gareth Thomas: One crucial issue that we considered when we developed the Green Paper was how to address postmaster remuneration, because in some communities the Post Office has struggled to find people who are willing to take on the running of a franchise. It is important that Post Office senior management have improved postmaster pay, with £20 million last financial year, a commitment to £66 million this financial year, and a plan to go even further. I hope that will make a significant difference to the ability to find people to take on franchises, and not just in urban areas but in the rural areas the hon. Lady describes. She will forgive me for not knowing her constituency as well as she does, but if she wants to contact me about particular issues with branch closures, I would be happy to look at those. \p Jo Platt: I welcome the Minister’s statement, and the announcement of a national dialogue about the future of our Post Office. As a fellow Co-operative party Member, I welcome the model of mutualisation, which would also suit our local branch. Given the decline of Leigh’s high street, the announcement of changes to our main post office was a major concern. Can he reassure staff in Leigh that they will not lose their jobs as a result of franchising? Will he confirm whether the Communication Workers Union has been fully consulted on the changes affecting our community? \p Gareth Thomas: My hon. Friend has long been a proud member of the Co-operative party and is interested in mutualisation, and I look forward to discussing these issues with her in due course. Discussions on the franchising of the remaining Crown post offices are still ongoing, both with franchisees and local communities, and specifically regarding arrangements for staff. The Post Office and the Communication Workers Union are continuing to talk to each other about how to manage the transition, and I welcome the positive dialogue that has taken place between them both. \p Helen Morgan: I was pleased to hear the Minister say that the overall size and shape of the post office network should remain the same so that we can minimise the impact on communities, but in my constituency the size and shape of the Post Office is rapidly shrinking because of the fundamental fragility of the way it is set up. The retirement of a single sub-postmistress, because of rents going up on her shop,  has led to the closure of outreach services across the constituency. The access criteria consider someone to be within three miles of a post office if that post office is an outreach service and open for a single hour a week. That is not acceptable for rural communities, many of which do not have a bus for many hours during the day. Will the Minister commit to looking at a sustainable model for rural post offices, so that people can genuinely access cash and the other services they need, particularly if they do not have a car? \p Gareth Thomas: I completely accept the significance of the Post Office in rural communities in particular, but it is equally essential that we have access to Post Office services in urban areas. The hon. Lady references the fragility of the Post Office, and that has certainly been the case in certain communities when finding postmasters who are willing to step forward and take on the role of running a Post Office franchise. That is why the initial steps that the Post Office management have taken to increase postmaster remuneration are important, by helping to make the role more attractive. It is also important that the Post Office has established a consultative council, to look properly at the way that postmasters are consulted and involved in big decisions about the future of the Post Office. If the hon. Lady thinks it would be useful, I would be happy to speak to her separately about the specific issues that her constituents face, and to understand a little more about the specific problems she has raised. \p Tom Gordon: I thank the Minister for his statement, and I add my thanks to our postmasters, including Andrew Hart in my constituency. Last year, residents in Knaresborough faced a prolonged period without a Post Office service. I had extensive communication with Post Office officials about service continuity, minimum standards, types and awards of contracts, and I found them evasive when I asked them questions about that. As the Minister says, such issues of governance will be addressed in the inquiry, but how might that feed into the Green Paper consultation? Will he meet me to address some of my concerns about the issues that we are facing locally? \p Gareth Thomas: In principle, I am very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the issues with post offices in his constituency. He gives me the opportunity to put on the record my appreciation for the work that all our postmasters do. They are hugely important servants of all our communities, and they play a crucial role for our constituents—I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that opportunity. The Green Paper is an opportunity for people in rural areas as well as urban areas to come forward with their views about the future of the Post Office. I hope that all hon. Members will encourage their constituents to think about taking that opportunity, and take a moment to send in their comments. \p Andrew George: I am pleased that the Minister has announced that the overall size and shape of the network will remain the same, and he has also indicated that remuneration must be part of the consultation. As he will know—I have corresponded with him on this matter—the towns of Porthleven and Newlyn in my constituency have been without post offices for a number of years, because no one is prepared  to take them on at the remuneration levels that are available. Is the Minister prepared to consider whether he sees those post offices more as Government offices, and to expand their role in terms of information, connectivity, and feedback across a number of Government Departments, to build up the services available in post offices? If he is meeting people, will he meet me to discuss how we can resolve the situation in my constituency? \p Gareth Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is right that we need to make the task of running a post office more attractive. That is why improving both the culture, so that postmasters feel listened to, and the remuneration are hugely important immediate tasks. The best commercial opportunities for post offices lie in the provision of banking services, rather than Government services. I hope that the banks and the financial services industry will have heard the message from Members from all parts of the House: we want them to do more to work with Government to take advantage of the potential opportunities. As I have committed to meeting other hon. Members to discuss local issues, I had better do the same for the hon. Gentleman. \p Sarah Dyke: I thank sub-postmasters across Glastonbury and Somerton, and across the country, in particular Jim Gordon from Martock. Many post offices in my constituency have closed in recent years, including those in Somerton, Butleigh, Charlton Adam, Charlton Mackrell, Keinton Mandeville and Sparkford, depriving their communities of a vital service. I recently met Mr and Mrs Thievendran from Somerton Stores, who are interested in opening a post office on their premises but are unable to do so because of the prohibitive costs involved. The owner of the Baltonsborough Village Store was considering doing the same but told me that the costs are extraordinary. What steps will the Minister take not only to put existing post offices on a sustainable footing, but to help rural towns and villages without a post office to regain one? \p Gareth Thomas: As I have said, in our view we should retain the current size of the network and the current access criteria, which are key to ensuring that every community, whether rural or urban, has good access to post office services. I encourage the hon. Lady to reach out to the Post Office to discuss the particular issues facing the businesses to which she has referred, which are interested in running post office branches but feel unable to do so, to see whether anything can be done to ease those local challenges.

More generally, the issue the hon. Lady raises partly speaks to the challenge of increasing postmaster remuneration. Post Office senior management clearly recognise that: there was a £20 million uplift in postmaster remuneration in the last financial year, there will be a £66 million increase this year, and Post Office management are committed to looking to go even further. I hope that will make the opportunity to run a post office much more attractive, and may address some of the financial challenges she raised. \p Martin Wrigley: I was slightly concerned that the franchising of Crown post offices, such as the one at Teignmouth in my constituency, has already gone ahead, prior to the consultation. Turning to a different issue, Royal Mail is obligated to provide a post box within half a mile of any house, but many new  estates in my constituency have no access to a post box—they are just not there. Will the Minister put pressure on Royal Mail to ensure that post boxes are provided? \p Gareth Thomas: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that specific matter. I will happily draw the attention of the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), who is responsible for Royal Mail, to that issue. The hon. Gentleman will have to forgive me, but I am not aware of the details of the issue in his constituency, but he may want to write to us at the Department so that we pass the details directly to Royal Mail. \p Esther McVey: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are elected to this House to hold the Executive to account and to ask questions on behalf of our constituents. The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, in common with many Ministers, is treating this House and our constituents with contempt by not even attempting to answer the questions asked of him, probably because those answers would be embarrassing to him. There is getting to be very little point in asking questions of Ministers at the Dispatch Box. What can you do, as Deputy Speaker, to encourage Ministers to answer the questions that are asked of them? \p Nusrat Ghani: I thank the right hon. Lady for prior notice of her point of order. Has she notified the Secretary of State of it? \p Esther McVey: indicated assent. \p Nusrat Ghani: Ministers are responsible for their answers, not the Chair, but the point has been made by the right hon. Lady and Ministers on the Treasury Bench will no doubt relay it back to the Secretary of State. \p Nusrat Ghani: The hon. Members for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) and for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) have tabled a motion for debate on a matter of privilege, which Mr Speaker has agreed should take precedence today. \p Simon Hoare: I beg to move,

That

(1) the transcript of unreported oral evidence taken from Mr Baxter by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in private session on 11 November 2009 be referred to the Committee of Privileges;

(2) the Committee consider the petition from the Secretary to the Omagh Bombing inquiry in relation to that evidence and take any advice it considers necessary;

(3) the Committee’s powers, including the power to report and publish evidence if it considers it appropriate to do so, shall apply in respect of that evidence;

(4) the Committee report to the House on the actions it has taken and any other matters it considers relevant by 30 October 2025; and

(5) if the Committee considers the evidence should remain unreported, the Committee’s report should include a recommendation on the desirability or otherwise of the release of the evidence to the Omagh Bombing Inquiry.

I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing this debate today. I raise the matter as a former Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, a current member of that Committee and the current Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which by dint of shadowing the Cabinet Office overlooks the Inquiries Act 2005. I have worked closely with the current Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), on the motion. We simply hope to take the procedural step needed to enable the important work of the Omagh bombing inquiry to be effective, while in tandem respecting the rights of the House.

On Wednesday last week, my hon. Friend for Gower—for she is a friend in respect of this work, as well as in many other respects—presented a petition from the secretary to the inquiry asking for access to unpublished Committee evidence. We must not forget what lies behind this motion, so let me quote from the 2008 report of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee into the Omagh bombing:

“On Saturday 15 August 1998, a 500 lb car bomb exploded in Market Street, Omagh, County Tyrone, killing 29 people and two unborn children. The bombing caused more death than any other single atrocity committed during, or since, the Troubles in Northern Ireland. More than 250 people were treated in hospital and hundreds more were also injured. The Real IRA claimed responsibility for the attack three days later. No one has been convicted of causing the bombing.”

Like colleagues across the House, I think it is important that we remember and honour those innocent people who were killed and injured that day. Questions still remain and the inquiry seeks to answer them—let us hope that it does so. \p Jim Shannon: I was born in Omagh a long, long time ago—70 years ago, to be precise. I do not remember very much about it, but Omagh has always been dear to my heart. I remember well the event  as it took place, the people that day and the tears we all shed for the people of Omagh, and we seek justice. Families have suffered for too long and I support their quest for justice. Does the hon. Member agree that justice should be at the forefront of the minds of all right hon. and hon. Members during this process? \p Simon Hoare: I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman. If this place is not a champion of justice and its pursuit as a high court of Parliament, what is it? \p Gavin Robinson: I have had the privilege of sharing time on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee with the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), in the names of whom this motion has been laid. It is crucial that the Omagh inquiry gets the information it requires, and we have raised concerns about the Irish Government and their reluctance. It would be useful for the Privileges Committee to hear very clearly from me and, I hope, from the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) that it would be entirely incongruous if in an inquiry set up under the Inquiries Act 2005, which was passed by this Parliament, to seek answers for the Omagh bombing families and construed in their names, information that Norman Baxter gave to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee was available and could assist the inquiry, but was refused because of privilege. That would be an intolerable situation. I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree that having gone through this process and agreed this motion, the information will be made available. \p Simon Hoare: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I endorse it entirely. My hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) and his Committee will look at the motion, if the House decides to pass it this evening, and I know he will have heard that. I echo what the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) has said. I hope that if the House agrees to this motion, the Privileges Committee will look favourably on the request and do so in a timely manner.

The inquiry was established in February 2024 by the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Its task is to investigate whether the bombing in the town of Omagh in August 1998 could reasonably have been prevented by UK state authorities. As part of its terms of reference, the inquiry was specifically asked to look at

“the allegation made by Norman Baxter”—

a former senior investigating officer in the investigation into the Omagh bombing—

“in the course of his evidence to the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee on 11 November 2009, that police investigators into previous attacks in Moira (20 February 1998), Portadown (9 May 1998), Banbridge (1 August 1998) and Lisburn (30 April 1998) did not have access to intelligence materials which may reasonably have enabled them to disrupt the activities of dissident republican terrorists prior to the Omagh Bombing.”

I quote that because I think it is germane to our considerations.

The inquiry has established that some of the evidence taken from Mr Baxter by the Committee has not been reported to the House, so it remains unpublished and inaccessible. That is effectively the kernel of this motion. The petition asks for access to that evidence. We find ourselves in the strange position whereby in setting up the inquiry, specific reference is made to that piece of evidence submitted, but because of a procedural problem  here it was not published and is therefore not on the public record. That is why the inquiry has asked for the evidence.

At this stage, I express my gratitude to both Mr Baxter and the inquiry team. They immediately realised that if the evidence had not been published, it belonged to this House. They sought advice from the House authorities and received it. They have been careful to ensure that they have acted properly throughout.

There are two issues here. The first issue is that if a Committee wants to publish evidence, it must report it to the House and obtain an order to publish that evidence. If it wants material to be available to Members but no one else, it can simply report the evidence to the House. Evidence that is reported but not published is available to Members in subsequent Parliaments, but unreported evidence is accessible only to the Committee to which it belongs and in the Parliament in which it was taken. Once that Parliament is over—which, clearly, it is—no one has access to unreported evidence until the archives are open. There is no wriggle room here, hence the reason for this motion and the detailed explanation—I am sorry to detain the House.

If a Committee wishes to see unreported evidence from its counterpart in the previous Parliament, the House must refer it to that Committee. If anyone outside the House wants that evidence, they must petition for it, as the secretary to the inquiry has done. That is what this motion seeks to advance. It is very hard for the House to decide whether to release evidence that it has not seen and cannot see before the decision is made. It is particularly difficult in this case, as that evidence may contain sensitive information.

Accordingly, the motion invites the House to refer the evidence to the Committee of Privileges. That Committee can undoubtedly consider the matter and probably take advice. If it is advised that there is no reason not to publish the evidence, which was taken more than 15 years ago, it might simply decide to publish it—I hope that it can and does. Otherwise, it can consider the matter and report to the House with a recommendation on what would be appropriate. The House can then make an informed decision subsequent to the work of the Committee of my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire.

The second issue is that article 9 of the Bill of Rights says:

“That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament.”

That means that courts should not evaluate what is said in this place. That is not simply a matter of us being free to speak freely in Parliament; it extends to all those who participate in our proceedings, including our witnesses. It is clearly important that people should be free to give evidence to the House and its Committees without fear of legal consequences.

This is also a matter of the constitutional separation of powers between Parliament and the courts. A “Place out of Parlyament” does not mean anywhere outside Parliament: it has been taken to mean something with powers like those of a court. The ban on impeaching and questioning means not that no use can be made of parliamentary material, but that the use must be careful.  The Omagh statutory inquiry is like a court: it has power to take evidence on oath, and its Chair may direct people to attend as witnesses and/or to produce documents if requested to do so. The House authorities consider it a “Place out of Parlyament”. For that reason, the House authorities regularly contact statutory inquiries to draw their attention to the important provisions of article 9.

I am delighted to note that the petition is clear that

“the Inquiry has taken advice on the application of Article 9 of the Bill of Rights to its proceedings and will be mindful of the privileges of the House.”

I am confident that Lord Turnbull, who has the onerous task of chairing the inquiry, and his team recognise the issues; their behaviour demonstrates that. I expect that if the Privileges Committee considers the petition should be granted, the key issues that the inquiry is invited to consider will be informed by the evidence without impeaching and questioning. I trust it will be possible for us to assist the inquiry in its work.

I hope that I have made as clear as I possibly can the genesis and importance of this motion, the lacuna that it seeks to fill and the requirements that this House has quite rightly guarded jealously for a long, long time on how evidence submitted to it is treated. I hope I have made clear and impressed on the House the importance of its passing this motion, and I urge it to do so. As I said in answer to the right hon. Member for Belfast East, we set a timeline in the motion to the Privileges Committee, but I know that it will tend to it with expedition.

I hope colleagues will agree to this motion, which will allow informed consideration of all the issues. It will hopefully bring justice or clarity to justice, as we have discussed with regard to the inquiry, which is looking into that terrible crime that blighted the lives of so many and ended the lives of so many prematurely, including two unborn children. \p Alberto Costa: My comments will be necessarily brief, given the role that I play as Chair of the Committee of Privileges. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) for the comments he has made and the respect with which he is conveying this motion to the Committee.

The Committee stands ready to deal with this matter, should the House decide shortly to refer it to us. I note that the motion asks us to report our conclusions back to the House by the end of October. We stand ready to carefully consider any issues arising from the release of the unreported evidence from the Northern Ireland Committee’s 2009 inquiry. We should also wish to consider issues arising from the inclusion in the terms of reference of a public inquiry of a document that is—as has been acknowledged—rightfully the property of the House. The principle established in the Bill of Rights xx-xxxx-xxxx that proceedings of Parliament ought not to be questioned or impeached in any place out of Parliament is potentially infringed by such a provision. I am mindful, however, that the solicitor to the Omagh bombing inquiry has very properly included in his petition to the House a respectful recognition of the constitutional principle involved, and is mindful of the privileges of the House. I put on record my gratitude to him for that consideration.

Finally, whatever the constitutional principles involved—and the Committee will take advice—it must be the case that we all wish the Omagh bombing inquiry well in its endeavour to establish whether anything could have been done to prevent a despicable terrorist act that killed 29 people—including a woman pregnant with twins, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset said—and irrevocably affected the lives of many more. Our thoughts must ever be with the victims of that atrocious action, both living and dead. If it is within our power to be of aid to the inquiry, I am certain that my Committee and I would wish nothing other than to do so. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the shadow Minister. \p Alex Burghart: I put on record my gratitude to the Minister for reaching out to me earlier to explain her position; to the Clerk of the Journals for briefing me this afternoon; and to my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) for talking me through this issue over the weekend. I will be unusually brief, because I wish to return to the debate in Westminster Hall—a lot of hon. Members who would otherwise be in the Chamber for this debate are currently engaged in another debate on Northern Ireland.

The Conservative party strongly supports the motion as worded on the Order Paper. The Omagh bombing inquiry was set up by my former right hon. Friend Chris Heaton-Harris in 2023 to deal with one of the very worst atrocities of the troubles, in which the Real IRA attempted to derail the peace process and, in doing so, killed many innocent civilians. As my right hon. Friend understood when he set up the inquiry, it was critical to  have a process that could compel witnesses and take evidence under oath to get to the bottom of exactly what happened. Consequently, it is of acute importance that that inquiry has access to all available information in reaching its conclusions. As the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) made clear in his remarks, anything else would make a mockery of the process. On that note, and on a point that the right hon. Member made, it is essential that the Republic co-operates fully with this inquiry. We have had encouraging signs that it will, but the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.

I was reassured to hear the remarks made by the Chair of the Privileges Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa). I look forward to hearing that Committee’s conclusions, but its members should be in no doubt that the Conservative party wishes to see this information handed over to the inquiry for its consideration. \p Fleur Anderson: I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for bringing this matter before the House. I am also grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing the motion to be debated, and to the hon. Member for North Dorset for his careful explanation of the procedure involved. I thank everyone who has worked together to enable this motion to come before this House, with nothing but a desire to support the Omagh inquiry.

The Government are very supportive of the motion. Should it be agreed, the Government will await the work of the Committee of Privileges with interest.

Question put and agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Considered in Committee \p Nusrat Ghani: I remind Members that in Committee, Members should not address the Chair as “Deputy Speaker”. Please use our names when addressing the Chair. “Chair” and “Madam Chair” are also acceptable. \p Kit Malthouse: I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 9, at end insert—

“(2BA) But a judge may determine that an order does not continue to have effect for a person “P” during the appeal period if, on granting leave to appeal at any stage, they are satisfied that—

(a) “P” faces a real and substantial threat of serious harm as a result of the order,

(b) continuation of the order would significantly prejudice their ability to mount an effective defence at a subsequent appeal, or

(c) the duration of the appeal process has been excessive because of an act or omission by a public authority.” \p Nusrat Ghani: With this it will be convenient to consider:

Clauses 1 and 2 stand part.

New clause 1—Independent review—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within one year of the passing of this Act, commission an independent review of the effects of the changes made to section 40A of the British Nationality Act 1981 by section 1.

(2) The review must be completed within two years of the passing of this Act.

(3) As soon as practicable after a person has carried out the review, the person must—

(a) produce a report of the outcome of the review, and

(b) send a copy of the report to the Secretary of State.

(4) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a copy of the report sent under subsection (3)(b) within one month of receiving the report.” \p Kit Malthouse: I am pleased to be opening this debate, although, given the turnout in the Chamber, it seems to be a minority interest among Members of Parliament, notwithstanding the fact that the legislation affects some of our most basic freedoms and rights. Before I address amendment 1, I hope you will forgive me, Madam Chair, if I briefly indulge in a preamble. There are a couple of issues that I want to impress on the Minister in the hope that he will respond favourably and, if not accept my amendment, agree to consider the principles it raises in the other place. Given the number of senior lawyers there, this legislation will be examined by some pretty stringent legal eyes.

First, Madam Chair, I hope you will agree that we established on Second Reading that this Bill is highly discriminatory. One of the truisms we always utter in  this House is that we all stand equal before the law, but I am afraid that where this legislation is concerned, that is just not true. The Minister would be unable to wield against me the powers he is seeking to bring in under this Bill; it would not be countenanced because I have no right to citizenship elsewhere. However, there are Members of this House against whom the Minister could wield that power. Although he could not wield it against me, he could wield it against two of my children, although not against the other one—I have three. He could wield it against the children of the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak); against the children of the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt); and against the children of the former Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden). I am trying to illustrate to the Minister that this legislation is highly discriminatory, and unusually so. He is tampering with some of the basic tenets of British justice through this Bill—a principle has been established in the Supreme Court that he is attempting to reverse—and I want him to have in mind that he is trying to embed that discrimination in law. I hope and believe that that is not his primary motivation, but he must comprehend that before he takes this step.

Secondly, I say to the Minister, who has a distinguished record of service in the defence of this country and now serves as Security Minister, that much of the Bill is, let us face it, focused on those accused of committing terrorism here or overseas. Terrorists win in two ways: first, by the physical injury that they inflict and the fear of that physical injury that they are likely to inflict by exploding bombs, killing people and all the horrors we have seen in our lifetimes over the past 30 or 40 years, if not longer; and secondly, by a long, slow undermining of our way of life and by sowing division within our society. Their long game is to force us to twist ourselves in knots around the freedoms that make us different, which they despise, and slowly to erode our standard of living and the atmosphere in which we live, and we have seen that before in this country.

The Minister is old enough to remember the evolution of the Diplock courts in Northern Ireland, where hearings were held without juries. We dispensed with the basic freedom of the right to a jury trial in Northern Ireland for a while, largely because of accusations of violence towards juries. It was proven later that this was part of a known strategy by the IRA to make the Six Counties ungovernable, other than by military colonial means, so the IRA saw that move as a triumph. What terrorists want in the long term is a twisting of our natural freedoms. They want us to make compromises in our legislation that undermine our sense of belonging in our nation and create a division not just between the governed and the Government, but within society. This legislation, I am afraid, starts to do exactly that.

On Second Reading I pointed out, as I have possibly already done today—I hate to be repetitive—that this legislation and this power create two classes of citizenship in the UK. There are those who can have the order removed and those who never can have it removed. As use of the power has accelerated over the past two decades, and we are using it now more than we ever did, it creates a feeling of unease among those whose citizenship is conditional.

I will explain to the Minister why I tabled amendment 1. As I said on Second Reading, my view is that he is undermining some of the basic tenets of British justice with what he is attempting to do with this legislation. With this amendment, I am attempting to swing the pendulum back a little in the cause of fairness before the law. As he will know, individuals subject to this power have the right to appeal on a number of bases, and courts will decide whether to allow their appeal. Broadly, there are three areas on which they can appeal: the first is whether the decision was proportional; the second is whether it was procedurally fair; and the third is whether the Minister or the Home Secretary has made a mistake over whether the person has a right to citizenship elsewhere and so may in fact be rendered stateless. As he knows, that is not allowed under the legislation.

If I have had my citizenship deprived essentially at the stroke of a pen by the Home Secretary, and I win an appeal, it seems unfair, given that I have won that appeal on the basis of fact, that the Government can continue to deprive me of my citizenship pending a further appeal by them. Ordinarily, I would have got rid of this legislation, but the Minister seems insistent, and he won on principle at Second Reading, and that is fine. I am therefore appealing to his sense of good old British fair play to say, “This individual has won their first appeal on the basis of fact. Unless we have some profound reason to dispute that fact, we will not appeal, in which case they get their citizenship back.” On the basis of the fundamental British value of “innocent until proven guilty”, that person should get their citizenship back, particularly if a judge decides that the three conditions outlined in my amendment are satisfied.

I have not spoken to the Minister about my amendment —rather disappointingly, he has not approached me to discuss it—but given that he is a man with a strong sense of fair play—[Interruption.] He is scoffing slightly, but normal practice when somebody puts down an amendment is that they are approached to discuss the nature of that amendment, if the Government think it will be spoken to. This is a small Bill with only two amendments tabled. Nevertheless, I assume he will oppose the amendment. I am trying to appeal to his sense of fair play. \p Dan Jarvis: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? \p Kit Malthouse: By all means. I know he is a busy man, and I do not mean to be critical. \p Dan Jarvis: I have huge respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but I think he is being a little unfair. He would have been entirely welcome to discuss his amendment with me. Had he chosen to do so, I would have happily sat down with him to discuss the detail of it. \p Kit Malthouse: The Minister is a fair man and a fair-minded man. He is quite right, and I am willing to countenance his appeal and give him the benefit of the doubt, and that is exactly what I am asking for the individuals subject to this legislation. He will know that  we have certain inalienable constitutional rights as British citizens, which this legislation contravenes. The first is that we have a right to a fair hearing and that any action the Government take must be exercised fairly. That right has been established in the common law again and again, and most recently in 1994, in the case of ex parte Doody, when the court decided that Ministers must exercise their powers fairly.

The second inalienable right, which has been decided in the Supreme Court, is that we all have a right to access to the courts, and that cannot be unfairly restricted. As that has been decided by the Supreme Court, the Government cannot put up artificial barriers to our access, such as raising fees or making sure that we cannot physically get to the court. Indeed, as the Minister will know, I have an absolute right to defend myself in person at every stage of legal action, whether that is at first hearing or at subsequent appeal. All those powers or rights that I have as a citizen are affected by the legislation he is attempting to put through.

My amendment essentially says three things. If the Government failed to win an appeal, but wished to continue to deprive me of my citizenship pending a further appeal, they must, when seeking leave to appeal from the judge, also ask the judge for leave to continue the deprivation of citizenship. The judge basically could say no in three circumstances. First, the judge could say no if there is a real and substantial threat of serious harm to that individual if they were denied access to the United Kingdom. Some of these people will be living or operating from extremely dangerous places. If that person is likely to be killed pending further appeal on the denial of their citizenship, it would seem grossly unfair, their having already won an appeal, to deny them access to the country.

The second ground would be if their exclusion from the UK and the continuing of denial of citizenship would be deeply prejudicial to the conduct of their defence in an appeal that the Government subsequently decided to bring. In such a case, it would be impossible for me to defend myself at appeal in person, which should be my inalienable right as a British citizen. It would be impossible for me to do that remotely in some God-forsaken part of the world where I cannot Zoom in or I do not have the ability to communicate. It would be the same if I am unable to communicate with my legal team. I am sure the Minister can see that it would be unfair to interfere with someone’s ability to mount a proper defence—we should not forget that that person has already won an appeal—through the continuing denial of citizenship.

The third ground, which we covered on Second Reading, is the Government’s taking their time, achieving their objective merely by dragging their heels and playing for time, hoping that something, perhaps something untoward, will turn up. A judge should then make a judgment—the clue is in the name—on whether they are being efficient in their use of the legal system, rather than, as I am afraid happens from time to time, gaming it to their own advantage. \p Simon Hoare: As my right hon. Friend knows, I have a huge amount of respect and affection for him, and he is right to refer to the inalienable rights that a British citizen has in terms of access to justice and so forth, but surely he must accept that  individuals facing deprivation of citizenship will have crossed a threshold of behaviour, or allegiance, so alien to our traditions, so alien to all the rights and responsibilities accrued over the decades of British citizenship, that in essence, in the court of public opinion, they will put themselves way beyond the pale when it comes to those issues. It would be an extreme hypocrisy for those who most seek to undermine our way of life to demand all the rights and privileges that they have sought to undermine, and possibly destroy, through their actions or foreign allegiances. \p Kit Malthouse: I understand my hon. Friend’s point, but I would have more faith, or confidence, in his view if it applied to me as well, which it does not. What we are saying is that we can have two British citizens who commit the same heinous acts but receive two different kinds of treatment. One can have his or her citizenship removed and be expelled from the country, but another—say I were to do that—cannot. My view is that this is highly discriminatory, and tramples over some of the inalienable rights that my hon. Friend has mentioned. We currently have plenty of British citizens in high-security prisons who have committed acts as heinous as those committed by people whom we have deprived of British citizenship, but we have decided to deprive them of British citizenship purely because of their heritage and background—purely because they may be second-generation immigrants.

As I pointed out on Second Reading, this legislation applies to every single Jewish member of the United Kingdom citizenry. They all have an inalienable right to Israeli citizenship, and as a result, in my view, they all have second-class citizenship. I do not think that that is right. I do not think that it is fair. I think that it drives a wedge into our society, and sows a seed of doubt at the back of everyone’s mind.

This is the point that I was trying to make at the start. Those who perpetrate such heinous acts overseas absolutely should be punished. As my hon. Friend will know, over the past 10 years I have been at the forefront of trying to ensure that as many criminals as possible end up behind bars, whatever the criminality might be, but the fact is that there is a principle in British law—we are all supposed to be equal—and the Bill breaches that principle very significantly. Moreover, what the Government are attempting to do not only reinforces that breach, but aims to twist and skew fundamental tenets of British justice that have been our right for centuries. \p Simon Hoare: Surely the fact that a remedy is not available to all does not mean that it is not a remedy. If we wish to argue for the two-tier approach, we can think of instances in which mental capacity has come into play, particularly in respect of capital offences, when those existed here. In abstract theory, that was a two-tier approach to justice, determined on the grounds of mental capacity or lack thereof. Surely remedies do not have be applicable universally to be applied fairly and within the law. \p Kit Malthouse: I am not sure that I accept the hon. Gentleman’s logic. The test of mental capacity in the judicial system applies to everyone equally. If I were being prosecuted for an offence, I would be assessed for  mental capacity, just as my hon. Friend would. The court would accept that there might be mitigations for his actions, or a requirement for a different disposal if he lacks mental capacity, but that is an external influence on him. It may come about owing to mental illness or some other kind of disability—who knows?

The point is that this comes about through no reason other than birth. My citizenship, or my lack of citizenship, is conferred on me by reason of my birth—my parentage, or my heritage. I cannot do anything about it. I cannot be treated for it, as I can be for mental illness. This is purely because my parents may have come from another country, my skin may be of a different colour, or the country of the origin of my DNA may offer particular rights of citizenship. It is something arbitrary, about which I can do nothing. We might as well have a piece of legislation that says that people with red hair receive different treatment under the law, because there is nothing they can do about that. \p Bell Ribeiro-Addy: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this whole notion of heritage is not even an exact science? My first black ancestor to be born in this country was born in 1806, in Twyford; I have no idea where that is, but I know it is not that far from here. He was the son of a formerly enslaved person and a white domestic servant living in the house of his former master. I do not know what that particular ancestry is, but it goes quite far back. Just because someone called Thomas Birch-Freeman, who was living in the UK and would be deemed British by this legislation, travelled to Ghana as a missionary and settled there, and that is where my lineage comes from, I am now treated differently under the law, despite, perhaps, having heritage that may be similar to that of the right hon. Gentleman. \p Kit Malthouse: The hon. Lady has made a very good point. My problem with this legislation is that it places a question mark over certain citizens. I am not suggesting that the legislation is on everyone’s lips every day, but when it is used with increasing frequency, it does place a question mark over people’s status as citizens of the United Kingdom, and that, I think, should be a matter of concern. \p Dan Jarvis: The right hon. Gentleman is making his points in a very considered way, but he is levelling quite serious charges against the Government. May I say to him, in absolute good faith, that our intentions here have nothing to do with someone’s place of birth and everything to do with their behaviour? \p Kit Malthouse: I understand what the Minister is saying, and, as I said to him on Second Reading, I am not concerned about this power falling into his hands, but we do not know who will be in his position in the future, and we are never quite sure how the power might develop. As I have said, over the years we have seen an acceleration and an increase in what is a very draconian power that we should be taking extremely seriously. To deprive people of their citizenship is a profoundly serious thing to do, which may well—indeed, will—affect them for the rest of their lives. No doubt it will be done in the face of extremely serious offences on the Minister’s watch, but I am not sure that that will necessarily always be the case.

Given that under the power that is being created people can be expelled on the basis that their presence is not conducive to the public good, we could see its being used in combination with other powers that have been expanded recently. Just last week, in controversial terms, the Minister proscribed a particular organisation operating in this country. I am sure he will be able to explain, but in my experience—I think he referred to this at the time—proscription has been reserved for terrorist organisations. As the Minister has indicated, this power is reserved for those who are terrorists. Could it be used against individuals who are convicted of crimes under that proscription? That is the danger that I am trying to illustrate to him, and this is an area of law where I urge him to tread carefully and to think about the compromises that he is creating against our basic freedoms that we need to maintain, at the same time—I do not dispute his motivation—as protecting the United Kingdom in the best way he possibly can. I am just worried that he is taking a step too far. \p Bell Ribeiro-Addy: I rise to speak in favour of amendment 1, in the name of the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), who is definitely on the other side of the House but who I am very much allied with in seeing the clear flaws in this Bill. Like him, I remain uncomfortable about the Bill as a whole, which I am sure will come as no surprise to the Minister.

I was quite clear on Second Reading about my concerns, which unfortunately the Minister failed to adequately respond to. Under the Bill, someone who successfully appeals against an order taking their British citizenship away will not get it back until it is no longer possible for the Government to challenge that appeal. At present, the length of time is indefinite, making this a measure that is effectively designed to circumvent the judiciary, and I want to fully understand why.

On Second Reading, I repeatedly asked the Minister to specify what act a person must commit to fall into the particularly unique situation in which the Government would want to revoke their citizenship, and why there is no existing legislation that can be used to take criminal proceedings against, or imprison, them as someone who is extremely dangerous. I would really like him to give a clear example—beyond the one case that has sparked this knee-jerk response—of where this legislation would be required. He has to recognise that, once law, it can be used in more than one way and in more than one case, as the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire has clearly laid out. Surely the Minister can understand the apprehension that many people will have if this legislation is being brought forward to address only one specific example, yet potentially has implications for dual nationals and for those with eligibility for citizenship elsewhere.

I mentioned on Second Reading that certain communities are often wary of legislation that touches on citizenship, because it almost always—whether it is the stated intention or not—disproportionately impacts them. To be clear, I am talking about people from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, and those with parents or grandparents who may have been born elsewhere; they will be particularly alarmed by this legislation. Those of us who are entitled to citizenship of other countries for no other reason than where our parents or grandparents may have been born,  or simply because of our ethnic origin, know that we are at a higher risk of having our British citizenship revoked. When such legislation is passed, it creates two tiers of citizenship. It creates second-class citizens, and we have known that since the Shamima Begum case.

As far as I am concerned, this Bill goes beyond keeping people safe and beyond a technical adjustment. It sends a message that certain people and certain communities are forever second-class citizens, and that no matter how long someone has contributed to this country, their citizenship is conditional, revocable and disposable. It seems that we have learned nothing at all from the Windrush scandal, because we continue to go through this cycle of creating pieces of legislation that may impact certain communities, noticing that they may impact those communities and passing them anyway.

As far as I am concerned, the power to remove someone’s citizenship has its roots in colonial logic, whereby belonging is granted or revoked at the whim of empire, but there is no more empire. That logic has no place in a modern democratic society. Citizenship should never be a privilege to be granted or withdrawn based on the political agenda of the day. Citizenship is and should be a right, and it is the foundation of equality before the law; and even though this may not be the intention, the Bill undermines that right for some people while safeguarding it for others.

I am against this Bill not just because of what it does, but because of what it says. Why has the Minister not seen it fit to conduct an equality impact assessment? I know the Bill has an incredibly narrow scope, but its potential implications are vast and the potential impact is limited to specific communities. Steps should have been taken to understand the impact that this legislation might have.

I hope the Government will consider amendment 1. We know that these cases are lengthy and can last several years; I point again to the Shamima Begum case as an example. Leaving somebody essentially stateless as the Government exhaust the appeals process risks their freedom and safety. Although the Government may wish to wash their hands of the individual whom they are seeking to deprive of citizenship—as evidenced by the very nature of appeal—that person and their safety is and absolutely ought to be, by law, the responsibility of their Government. If rendering them stateless throughout their appeal, regardless of whether it lasts a few months or a few years, risks harm to the individual, then it is only right that a judge can rule that the order does not continue to take effect until the appeals process is exhausted.

Ultimately, I believe that this legislation is reactionary and has been born out of frustration at the failures of the existing legislation. If someone is deemed to pose a severe threat to public safety and the existing legislation does not allow the Government to deal with the matter appropriately, we must amend the existing legislation.

As I said before, I am against this Bill not just because of what it does, but because of what it says about who we are and whose rights matter, and about whether justice in this country is truly blind or whether it sees skin colour and migration history before it sees the individual and the citizen. I genuinely do not believe that this knee-jerk approach is the answer. Creating second-class citizens is not the answer. There surely has to be another way. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Lisa Smart: I rise to speak in support of new clause 1, in my name. As I said on Second Reading, the Liberal Democrats believe there is a need for proper reform of the entire citizenship deprivation process. A transparent and accountable system for citizenship deprivation would ensure that this extraordinary power was used only in the most extreme circumstances, was never deployed for political reasons, and was consistently subjected to thorough parliamentary scrutiny. Sadly, the Bill before us falls short of that standard.

As I also said on Second Reading, the Home Secretary’s description of this Bill as merely closing a legal loophole does not mean that its provisions should escape robust scrutiny and review—quite the opposite; any expansion of powers to deprive individuals of citizenship demands the highest level of oversight. Earlier this year, even before this Bill was introduced, the cross-party Joint Committee on Human Rights concluded that the Government’s current approach to citizenship deprivation falls short of the UK’s human rights obligations. It called for significantly greater safeguards, including stronger oversight and enhanced parliamentary scrutiny of these powers. The Liberal Democrats fully echo that call.

New clause 1 seeks to embed essential safeguards within the framework of these new powers in the same way. Specifically, the new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent review of the effects of the changes made to section 40A of the British Nationality Act 1981 by clause 1 of this legislation. The review must begin within one year and be completed within two years of the passing of the Act. A report of the review must be produced and sent to the Secretary of State, who must then lay it before Parliament within one month.

New clause 1 recognises that although the Bill may appear narrow in scope, its consequences are substantial. The power to deprive someone of their citizenship is one of the most significant powers the state can wield, engaging fundamental rights and liberties. It is particularly serious given that under the current legislation, deprivation can—in some circumstances—leave an individual stateless. This is especially important in the UK, which uses citizenship deprivation orders more frequently than almost any other country. The Home Secretary already needs only to be

“satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good”

in order to strip someone of their citizenship—a threshold that is far too low. New clause 1 would simply ensure that any further power granted to the Secretary of State is at least balanced by proper oversight and transparency in its application. \p Jim Shannon: To be honest, I think many of us have sympathy for the hon. Lady’s new clause, but I am concerned about the security of this country, for which the Minister and the Government have responsibility. If someone contravenes that in any way or leads to any insecurity for the rest of the citizens, should they forfeit their right to citizenship? \p Lisa Smart: The hon. Gentleman is right that one of the most serious jobs of any Government is to keep their citizens safe—I completely agree. There is, though, a need for robust scrutiny. The Government must have confidence that the legislation they are putting forward  has the support of this House and of the country, including that that legislation does what they say they want it to do and does not accidentally do something else. I think the most confident legislators are those who are open, transparent and welcoming of scrutiny, so I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s comments.

The Liberal Democrats support amendment 1, tabled by the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), which would empower the courts to prevent the Secretary of State from issuing a deprivation order in cases where doing so would place an individual at risk of harm or undermine their ability to mount an effective defence, or in cases where a public authority has caused unreasonable delays in the appeals process. This is a measured and sensible proposal that places essential limits on the excessive powers currently wielded by the Secretary of State in matters of citizenship deprivation, and we will support the amendment if the right hon. Gentleman pushes it to a vote. \p Kit Malthouse: To refer back to the intervention by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), would the hon. Lady be interested to comment on this point? My understanding is that, under the terms of the Good Friday agreement, every UK citizen resident in Northern Ireland has a right to claim Irish citizenship. This Bill in effect means that every UK citizen resident in Northern Ireland can be deprived of their citizenship—have it removed by the Home Secretary—if that is conducive to the public good. That is another example of a whole group of people who would have a second class of citizenship. \p Lisa Smart: I have listened very carefully to the right hon. Gentleman’s comments this evening and on Second Reading, and I have a great deal of respect for him and the way he lays out his arguments. I am very much looking forward to the Minister’s comments from the Dispatch Box shortly. \p Bell Ribeiro-Addy: Further to the intervention by the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), is the hon. Member aware not only that Commonwealth countries allow people to claim citizenship from the birth of their parents or grandparents, but that some countries—notably Ghana and Kenya—specifically allow people to claim citizenship purely by being of African heritage, because they may not be able to trace their lineage due to enslavement? \p Lisa Smart: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for those comments. We Liberal Democrats believe that the whole deprivation of citizenship regime needs fundamentally looking at and reviewing, and we would welcome any co-operation across the House with hon. and right hon. Members who want to work with us on that.

The Liberal Democrats are clear that deprivation of citizenship must remain an absolute exception, and never be a routine tool of Government policy. New clause 1 would provide the necessary guardrails to help ensure this remains the case, even as further powers are placed in the Secretary of State’s hands. Ultimately, the integrity of British citizenship and our commitment to fundamental rights must never be compromised by practicality. New clause 1 would uphold those principles  and ensure that such a grave power was exercised only with full accountability and the closest scrutiny of this Parliament. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the shadow Minister. \p Katie Lam: I thank all Members for their contributions, Members who tabled amendments, and the Minister for his work and approach.

As has been set out, the Bill represents an important step towards tightening the existing rules on the deprivation of citizenship, as we discussed on Second Reading. This is a crucial tool that Home Secretaries must be able to exercise as part of their broader efforts to keep our country safe. Membership of a nation does not just imply rights; it also confers responsibilities. When British citizens engage in terrorism, support for terrorism or serious organised crime, they clearly disregard those responsibilities. We cannot deprive such people of citizenship in all cases, but where we can, we should.

Put simply, the intent of this Bill is to make sure that the Home Secretary’s use of deprivation powers is effective. More broadly, it also intends to make it clear that, when considering the use of the deprivation powers, politically accountable Ministers must ultimately be responsible for the final decision. The amendments must be viewed in that light.

First, I thank the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) for her new clause 1. She is right to highlight the need to keep the use of deprivation powers under review, particularly when changes are made to the scope of those powers. However, we do not believe that needs to be in the Bill.

Secondly, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) is absolutely right to point out, with amendment 1, that there is a balance to be struck. It goes without saying that deprivation of citizenship has a cost—in some cases, a very large one—for those who are deprived of their citizenship. Used improperly, it also has a cost for the rule of law, trust in our system and the delicate balances involved when we welcome people to make this country their home. He is right to counsel us to take this extremely seriously, as I believe the Minister does.

The hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) is similarly right to point out that the question of citizenship deprivation—I know that we are not today debating that principle in relation either to the amendments or to the Bill more broadly—goes to the heart of who we are and wish to be as a nation.

However, I believe that the Bill already strikes the right balance, and we should be very cautious about creating a situation in which judges are asked to apply subjective tests about when Ministers can or cannot exercise powers, particularly in such serious and time-sensitive circumstances. I am confident that no Home Secretary would use these powers lightly, and I am also confident that the only sustainable way to ensure that these powers are exercised properly is through the political process, including proper parliamentary scrutiny. \p Dan Jarvis: I have listened very carefully to this debate, and I thank all hon. and right hon. Members for the points they have made. As I have said in this Chamber  many times, there is simply no greater priority than the safety of all those in the UK, and this Bill will help ensure the integrity of a vital tool in our ongoing efforts to protect the UK. As ever, I will endeavour to respond to the themes that have been raised.

I start with the Bill’s sole substantive clause. Clause 1 inserts into the British Nationality Act 1981 proposed new section 40A, which will prevent those who have been deprived of British citizenship from automatically regaining citizenship if their appeal is successful. This will be in effect until onward appeals have been determined, and that extends up to the Supreme Court. It replicates the approach taken on asylum and human rights appeals. If all appeals have been determined and the Government prove unsuccessful, British citizenship would be reinstated with immediate and retrospective effect.

This clause and the Bill in its entirety do not change any existing right of appeal or widen the reasons for which a person could be deprived of their citizenship. I also reassure the Committee that the Government have to demonstrate a genuine case for an appeal in order for courts to allow the appeal to proceed. The courts carefully assess whether any appellant has a reasonable prospect of success, or there exists some other compelling public interest, before granting permission. Rules of court exist to prevent superfluous or unfounded appeals being pursued.

Clause 2 is necessary to make the Bill operational. The provisions are retrospective and will come into effect on Royal Assent. This is necessary to mitigate effectively the risk of cases currently in the system. The Bill extends and applies to all of the UK, the Crown dependencies and overseas territories, and I am sure that hon. Members will be glad to know that we have engaged closely with colleagues in the devolved Governments, Crown dependencies and overseas territories. \p Bell Ribeiro-Addy: The Minister has made very clear exactly where the Bill will apply, but will he be clear about exactly who it will apply to? We have asked this question in different ways when talking about who we think will be disadvantaged, but can he be clear that those of British nationality who have no other claim to a nationality cannot be subject to such an order? \p Dan Jarvis: My hon. Friend is right about that specific point, but I will return to the points she has raised once I have responded to amendment 1, tabled by the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse). I am genuinely grateful to him—he is looking a bit cynical as to the extent of my gratitude—for providing an opportunity to address the important issues, and they are important, he raised and for the considered, measured and thoughtful way in which he approached this debate and the Second Reading debate a couple of weeks ago.

The right hon. Gentleman made the case for his amendment in his own typically considered way. I listened very carefully to it, as I am sure did other hon. Members. He made the claim that the Bill will create a two-tier citizenship, and my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) reinforced that point. He claimed, I think somewhat unfairly, that the Government, through these measures, are seeking to undermine fairness. I say to him and to other hon. Members that we are not trying to do that. What we are  trying to do, very simply, is ensure that the Government have the powers and the tools they need to keep the country safe. I know that he would acknowledge—I have made this point to him quite recently—that these are powers that existed under all 14 years of the previous Government. We are seeking to ensure that we have the same powers to be able to do what we need to do to keep the country safe.

I say to the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend that deprivation on conducive grounds is used very sparingly and against those who would pose a serious threat to the UK. It is essential that our legal framework protects our national security—I hope he would agree with that—but he made an interesting point about some of the fine balances and judgments that have to be made. I hope he would accept that, ultimately, deprivation of citizenship and matters relating to national security are matters for the Home Secretary.

The Supreme Court has been clear that the right to a fair hearing does not trump all other considerations, such as the safety of the public. I understand and respect the motivation behind the right hon. Member’s amendment, but it does not take into account the impact of the Court’s decision on national security. These are judgments and decisions that have to be taken by the Home Secretary. The fact that a court may have allowed an appeal against a deprivation decision does not mean that the person does not pose a threat to the UK, for example where the appeal is upheld on procedural issues. Furthermore, it is not controversial to delay the outcome of a lower court on a civil order while any further appeal is determined. It has nothing to do with being found guilty. As I mentioned earlier, the approach in the Bill is in line with the approach taken on asylum and human rights appeals.

Turning to the specific conditions set out in amendment 1, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that decisions to deprive are taken in accordance with our international obligations. It is also assessed whether deprivation would expose a person to a real risk of mistreatment, which would constitute a breach of articles 2 and 3 of the European convention on human rights, were those articles to apply. Additionally, an appeal can already be paused until a person is in a position to effectively take part. The timings for appeals are agreed by both parties and the courts can order case management reviews to resolve disagreements between the parties. For the reasons I have outlined, I respectfully ask the right hon. Gentleman that the amendment be withdrawn. \p Kit Malthouse: I am very grateful to the Minister. I have just a couple of points to make, if I may. He is quite right that timetables are agreed and there can be case management reviews, but there is nothing the court can do to restore someone’s citizenship even if the Government do drag their heels. If he could explain to us, perhaps in a little more detail, what recourse I would have were I somebody who had won an appeal, was awaiting a further appeal by the Government against me and mounting a defence but the Government were dragging their heels and basically ignoring the case management reviews. I do not think it is the case that the judge would just dismiss the appeal out of hand. The Government could effectively take their time.

I have a second question, if I may. Can the Minister tell the House whether, in his view, given that it is a subjective judgment by the Home Secretary, membership of a proscribed organisation would be prima facie grounds for the deprivation of citizenship? \p Dan Jarvis: The right hon. Gentleman undoubtedly makes some important points, but he makes them from a stance and a point of view that is slightly different from the position of those of us who have to serve in government. He spoke about the Government seeking to drag their heels. This Government and, I am entirely prepared to accept, the previous Government are not seeking to drag our heels; we are seeking to keep the country safe. That is what this is about. It is about ensuring that we have a legal framework that provides the tools we need to make difficult decisions, yes, but also to keep the country safe. He will forgive me if I do not seek to move into a slightly separate debate about proscription, not least because I think I would be in trouble with you, Ms Ghani, but I also want to come back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill.

My hon. Friend made the point that deprivation raises concern among certain communities. I am grateful to her for making that point and I am grateful for the opportunity to respond directly to it. Let me say to her and to other hon. Members that the power to deprive a person of British citizenship does not target ethnic minorities or people of particular faiths. It is used sparingly where a naturalised person has acquired citizenship fraudulently or where it is conducive to the public good. Deprivation on conducive grounds is used against those who pose a serious threat to the UK or whose conduct involves high harm. It is solely a person’s behaviour that determines if they should be deprived of British citizenship, not their ethnicity or faith. Finally, my hon. Friend asked about an equalities impact assessment. I can say to her that the impact on equalities has been assessed at all stages of the legislation.

Turning now to new clause 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), I appreciate the intention behind the amendment, specifically to ensure accountability in the use of deprivation powers. I recall that she is very consistent in raising her concerns about that. However, I must respectfully submit that the hon. Member’s amendment is not necessary, for two reasons. First, the role of the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration already provides a well-established framework for independent oversight. She may recall that I mentioned that to her previously. The role was created under the UK Borders Act 2007, which sets out its statutory function. That includes the exercise of deprivation powers by the Home Secretary and by any person acting on their behalf. The independent chief inspector has the authority to conduct inspections, publish reports and make recommendations, ensuring that the powers are subject to rigorous external scrutiny.

Secondly, the Secretary of State already publishes annual statistics on the deprivation of citizenship. Those figures are publicly available and provide transparency on how often the powers are used and the grounds for deprivation. That data enables Parliament and the public to monitor trends and assess the proportionality and fairness of the system. Taken together, the statutory oversight by the independent chief inspector and the  routine publication of deprivation statistics already provide a comprehensive framework for accountability. The amendment, therefore, duplicates existing oversight and reporting mechanisms. It would introduce unnecessary bureaucracy without adding meaningful value.

I would again like to thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. I hope for their continued support in ensuring that these important changes can be made. \p Nusrat Ghani: Mr Malthouse, do you wish to withdraw the amendment? \p Kit Malthouse: In the hope that the Minister will do the right thing, yes. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Third Reading \p Dan Jarvis: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Third time.

I thank all Members across the House who have contributed to the debates on this Bill for their incisive and helpful contributions and their considered scrutiny. I know that hon. Members understand the importance and necessity of the Bill. Unfortunately, there are those who seek to do harm to our country and those within it. The deprivation of citizenship is an important tool to help us to maintain the safety and security of our country, and the Bill will ensure that it retains its effectiveness.

I thank the hon. Members for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) and for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) for their work on the Opposition Front Benches and for the collegiate way in which they have worked with the Government on the Bill. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Keir Mather), who has done such an excellent job in whipping the Bill through this place.

I also take this opportunity to pass on my thanks to the officials who work very hard in the Home Office and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel for their work in developing this legislation and supporting its passage through Parliament. I would particularly like to thank those who serve in our police, law enforcement and intelligence services, who work around the clock to keep us safe. Finally, I thank the fantastic House staff for their work in supporting the logistics of the Bill, in particular the Doorkeepers and the parliamentary Clerks’ team.

To conclude, this small but vital Bill has passed through the House swiftly and with cross-party support. As it moves to the other place, I trust that colleagues there will agree with us on the Bill’s importance and necessity and will work to ensure it continues its passage as smoothly as possible. I commend the Bill to the House. \p Bell Ribeiro-Addy: I rise simply to ask the Minister if he might publish the assessment. He has said continuously that the Bill is fair, but I want to impress upon him that it cannot possibly be fair that should such orders be brought about, they would impact me and not him. I do not think that is fair at all.

I would also like the Minister to address his statement that the Bill is not discriminatory. He must understand that some communities may have these provisions applied against them more than others, even though they may be used sparingly, and that fact makes it discriminatory. He has to accept that.

I would also be grateful if the Minister thought specifically about the fact that no matter how sparingly the legislation is applied, it is being used more than in the past, and that is giving people much cause for concern. As the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) pointed out, the Minister and the Secretary of State may not always be in this place, and there may be others who wish to use the legislation in a way that is not intended. I would be very grateful if the Minister could address those points and see exactly where our concerns remain. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the shadow Minister. \p Katie Lam: I start by thanking the Minister for his work on the Bill. It is always a pleasure to work across from him in defence of our great country and its people.

Keeping our country safe sometimes requires taking difficult decisions, including the decision to deprive a person of their British citizenship. Working flagrantly against our country’s interests as, say, a terrorist does clearly demonstrates a disregard for the responsibilities of citizenship. Such people should not be able to hide behind a passport, and it is therefore right that the Home Secretary retains the power to deprive them of citizenship where it is possible to do so. It is also right that this power remains effective. We believe that the Bill is an important step towards ensuring that efficacy and clarifying Parliament’s intention on how those powers can be used.

Given that we are in agreement on the substance of the Bill itself, I would like to briefly make a broader point about what the legislation represents in terms of our constitution and Parliament’s role within it. As I mentioned on Second Reading, the main role of the judiciary in our system is to interpret and apply Parliament’s will; it is not the highest arbiter of our constitution. In most cases, with the exception of some prerogative powers, its only role in reviewing ministerial powers is to ensure that they are exercised according to the guidelines set out by Parliament. When the judiciary makes a decision that runs contrary to the will of Parliament, Parliament is therefore perfectly entitled to overturn that decision and to clarify its will. This is a living and breathing institution, which should be at the centre of our political system, because Parliament is ultimately answerable to the British people themselves.

The Bill before us represents one such clarification. At a time when it can seem that many on the Government Benches are happy to defer to the judiciary as a matter  of course, it is heartening to see the Minister take a different approach—one that recognises the fact that Parliament is the cornerstone of our system—and I thank him for that. We must never forget that the supreme authority in this country is Parliament. When the legal process produces a result that is not in the interests of the British people, not only is this House well within its rights to overturn it, but it must do so.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed. \p UNKNOWN: Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Question (8 July) again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

[Relevant documents: A statement on behalf of the promoter of the Bill in support of the Second Reading of the Bill is available on the Bill’s webpage and in the Vote Office; and, a supplementary document additional to the Explanatory Memorandum on the face of the Bill is also available on the Bill’s webpage and in the Vote Office.] \p John Whittingdale: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I am delighted to present this Bill on behalf of one of our great national institutions, the Corporation of the Hall of Arts and Sciences, known to most of us as the Royal Albert Hall. I do so as someone who has enjoyed many performances in the hall, ranging from artists like Muse and Eric Clapton to acts such as Cirque du Soleil, through to the Last Night—and many other nights—of the Proms concerts. I also speak as a previous trustee of the hall, a position I was appointed to between 2018 and 2020, having stepped down as Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport; it was a great pleasure to take on the role of trustee, and I was disappointed that I then had to give it up because I was reappointed to the position now held by the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism. Nevertheless, I have maintained a close interest in the affairs of the hall, and I strongly support the measures that are being brought forward tonight. As a trustee, I was able to see in detail how the hall operates and how it pursues its charitable purposes.

It is worth saying a word about the hall, because it is a unique organisation. It was the brainchild of the late Prince consort, Prince Albert, before his death at just 42 years of age in 1861. The corporation was established by royal charter not long afterwards, in 1867, under the chairmanship of the Prince of Wales. The foundation stone of the hall was laid by Queen Victoria in 1867, when she apparently announced without any prior warning that it would not be called the Central Hall of Arts and Sciences, as had been proposed, but would instead be known as the Royal Albert Hall of Arts and Sciences.

Since that time, for more than 150 years, the hall has been a beacon in the cultural life of our nation. It is a place of celebration, entertainment, enlightenment and indeed commemoration. It is one of the most recognisable and famous venues in the country, and attracts thousands, if not tens or hundreds of thousands, of visitors to the United Kingdom every year. I know that the Minister, who represents the interests of the creative industries and the arts, will also be aware of that fact in his capacity as the Minister responsible for tourism.

The building of the hall was not without difficulty. Initial funding came from the commissioners of the Great Exhibition of 1851, who also provided the site, but the actual cost of construction still needed to be raised. The remaining balance was raised through public subscription, which worked by selling seats in the hall prior to it being built; the potential seat owners agreed to invest their money in the building of the hall and,  in exchange, would own a seat in the hall for a lease of 999 years. I understand that over 1,000 seats were sold for roughly £100 each on that basis, 20 of them being taken up by Queen Victoria herself.

That unique model has sustained the hall throughout the period since. It is a public-private partnership, which is unique to the hall, I think—I certainly do not know of any others—and it has worked remarkably well. During that time the hall has thrived, despite some extraordinary challenges, including obviously the covid pandemic. The way it works is that the seat holders, who are in many cases either descendants or those who have purchased the seats from the original people who invested their money, are an integral part of the support for the hall. They obviously enjoy access to the seats that they have purchased, but at the same time they hold the hall in trust and have shown remarkable generosity in continuing to promote it. \p Sharon Hodgson: While I recognise that a lot of the seats have been bequeathed down through the generations, a lot of them are now sold on the open market for much more than what that £100 would fetch in today’s money, keeping pace with inflation. They are now assets because of the amount of money that can be gained from reselling them on the open market. \p John Whittingdale: Of course, the hon. Lady is right. Essentially a seat in the hall is a property asset—in the same way, if one’s grandfather purchased a property and the descendants eventually decided to sell, it is highly likely that they would receive an amount of money way greater than the original investment. That is a very important point. These are essentially property assets, without which the hall could not have been built. It was built on that understanding and on a 999-year lease, and those who own that lease are entitled to do what they wish with it.

As for those who buy seats in the hall, in my experience of talking to many of them during my time as a trustee, they did not regard it as a financial investment to obtain a huge return; they love the hall in the way that many people do. They wanted the pride of owning an asset while at the same time contributing to the upkeep of the hall. As I will come on to explain, I think that seat holders contribute far more towards the upkeep and maintenance of the hall than they might ever get in return for selling tickets, and they have their right to the use of that seat for events where they are able to do so. \p Sharon Hodgson: On that basis, if it is not about making money off their assets, would they not therefore return the tickets to the hall for the hall to resell, which they can do? There is also a conflict of interest if they are a seat holder as well as a trustee of the hall. Would it not be better for the ticket to be returned to the hall for the hall to sell, which is what this Bill seeks? They would still get their face-value money back. \p John Whittingdale: I think the hon. Lady raises two separate points. There is the ticket return scheme, which the hall itself has put in place, but that operates on a basis where the sales are all pooled together and then distributed among the seat holders. A lot of seat holders prefer to use that, but they take a slight risk because it may be that not all the seats will be sold, and therefore they will not get the face value on their seat.

Essentially there is a matter of principle involved. If someone owns a property, it is certainly my view that they are entitled to do with it as they wish. The hon. Lady has rightly championed the cause against the exploitation of consumers through secondary ticket sales. I share her concern about bots buying up all the tickets for an event and those tickets appearing on a secondary ticket site 10 seconds later, but that is not the same thing. What we are talking about in this instance is tickets that are already under ownership. They have not been bought up in a primary market; they are owned by the seat holders, and the seat holders can choose how they handle them. As I say, a large number will choose to use the ticket return scheme, but one should not require them to do so. First, that would fly in the face of the principle that these are property assets belonging to the individuals. Secondly, it undermines the operation of the way in which they support the hall.

I want to continue setting out why the hall is such an invaluable institution to this country. It has about 500 employees. Some 400 events take place each year in the main auditorium and many more in other parts of the hall. As I said, there are something like 1.7 million visitors each year. The hall makes itself available on very favourable terms to a wide range of other organisations, such as Imperial College for graduation ceremonies, the Royal Navy for the Mountbatten Festival of Music, and the Teenage Cancer Trust for its fundraising concerts. It also has an engagement programme that reaches out to some 180,000 people of all ages in local communities and schools, giving them opportunities to learn about performing arts and experience live music.

There are something like 5,500 seats in the hall. As of the end of last year, 1,256 of those—roughly a quarter—were privately owned by 315 seat holders. They are people who have either inherited the seats or purchased them from the original owners of the seats. Under the constitution that was drawn up at the time of Queen Victoria, those seat owners are the members of the hall’s corporation. Some may be private individuals, but there are also companies and charities. There is a strong and enduring bond between the hall and those members.

Of the board of trustees, which governs the hall, some 18 out of the 23 are seat holders, as was originally set down. There are five external trustees, one of whom—I was fortunate to hold this position—is appointed by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. Then there are the commissioners of the 1851 Exhibition, a representative of Imperial College, another from the Royal College of Music, and another from the Natural History Museum.

As I sought to explain, those who hold seats actually do put a lot back into the hall. Even though they own the seat, they nevertheless contribute on top of it to the maintenance of the hall. The first way is by paying an annual contribution known as the seat rate. This is voluntary but is paid by members every year. An independent committee recommends the amount—I think I sat on the seat committee for a time—and it is roughly a pro-rata proportion of the hall’s maintenance costs. This year the seat rate, which members choose to pay, is £1,880 plus VAT per seat, amounting to about £2.3 million plus VAT.

The second way in which members support the hall—this is the crux of the Bill—is by agreeing to forgo their tickets for events on over 100 days each year. Originally when  they purchased their seats way back in 1871, members could attend any event in the hall by sitting in the seat they had purchased, but over time, in order to support the hall, members have agreed to give up that entitlement for a set number of days each year, and that currently stands at over 100 events each year. By giving up the right to use their seat, they give it back to the hall, and obviously those tickets can then be sold. It also helps the hall to attract high-quality artists. Each time, a negotiation takes place with somebody wishing to perform at the hall as to how many events will be held on what is called an exclusive basis, for which seat holders will not have the right to utilise their seats. That method of support for the hall, which has evolved over the years, has been extraordinarily successful.

There is also a review of the constitution governing the hall. A working group has identified a range of potential reforms. The hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) referred in her intervention to the concerns expressed by the Charity Commission that there might be a conflict of interest because seat holders both own seats and sit on the council, but I think that is a misinterpretation of the position. As far as I am aware, there has never been any evidence of seat holders abusing their position. Indeed, there is a committee of the hall with a majority of independent members called the conflicts committee that considers whether there is any potential conflict. I was a member of that committee during my time as a trustee.

The Bill contains reforms to the position, which can be achieved only by Act of Parliament. I would therefore like briefly to run through the Bill’s clauses. First, clause 3 removes the six-yearly cap on the amount that can be levied through the seat rate. In the interests of equivalence, it transfers the voting threshold of three quarters from the six-year cap to the annual seat rate. If anything, the six-year cap has sometimes prevented seat holders from contributing as much as they might—particularly during covid, when members were obviously unable to take up their rights because the hall was not available for public performance. None the less, members continued to pay the seat rate in support of the hall.

Secondly, clause 4 provides a mechanism whereby members can agree to exclusives—performances where they will not take advantage of their ownership of seats—in excess or of a different kind to those originally permitted by the Royal Albert Hall Act 1966. There is already statutory provision to allow some performances to be exclusive where members have given over their rights, but the hall has gone beyond the 1966 Act such that now a number of events above and beyond those covered by that Act are agreed to by members through voting. That is a way in which they have increased their support for the hall.

That has been agreed through the council and a majority of members—it is done by majority. The question as to whether that has a legal basis is what needs to be clarified through the Bill. Three members have commenced a challenge in the High Court, which, if it were to be successful, would prevent the hall from having as many exclusive events. That would obviously have a damaging effect on the income not of seat holders but of the hall itself. If the challenge were to be successful, the hall  could either continue with its practice—potentially in breach of a legal challenge—or decide that it was no longer possible to continue the practice, and therefore then lose the benefit, or it would no longer be able to contract some of the most attractive and valuable events that are staged there at the moment. The purpose of the clause is therefore to resolve the issue in order to allow the hall to proceed—as is the current position—without the risk of legal challenge.

The third clause that I want to address is clause 5, which was added to the Bill by amendment in the House of Lords. It was not part of the original Bill as agreed by the members and it was not sought by the hall. It is certainly the hall’s view that its provisions, which cover both a requirement that extensions to exclusive events need to be agreed by a committee not without a majority of seat holders, and a requirement use the ticket return scheme, which the hon. Lady identified in her intervention, demonstrate a lack of understanding of the way in which the hall works and would be detrimental to the hall. It could mean that seat holders will no longer be able to support the Bill, which is an essential requirement if it is to become law. I know that the hall is very happy to discuss potential ways of addressing the concerns identified through the passage of that amendment when the Bill gets to Committee, which, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think you will be involved with.

At this stage, I ask that the House agrees to the Bill’s Second Reading. We can return to address any particular concerns once it has been through Committee. \p Sharon Hodgson: I am thrilled to follow the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), who I would like to call my right hon. Friend. We do a lot of work together on the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. He is a former leader of the British delegation—that role has now passed to me—and we still attend delegations together. He made a good opening speech in support of the Bill.

As Members will know, since 2010 I have served as the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on ticket abuse, which I also set up in 2010. As the right hon. Gentleman highlighted, I have also fought tirelessly against touts scalping tickets away from fans to sell at massively inflated prices online. I was therefore horrified when tickets for events at the Royal Albert Hall—one of our country’s most recognisable and cherished institutions—started appearing on sites such as Viagogo. That included, to name but one, Ed Sheeran tickets being listed online for just under £6,000 per ticket. I was even more horrified when I learned that those tickets belonged to seat holders, some of whom also sit on the council of trustees.

As we have heard tonight, and all know well, the Royal Albert Hall was opened in 1871 by Queen Victoria in commemoration of her husband Prince Albert and the furtherment of arts and sciences. As a thank you, some of the wealthy benefactors who financed the hall’s construction were gifted seats in the hall on a 999-year lease to attend as many events as they wished. Those seats have passed down through the generations.

Fast-forward to today and things are very different. Seat holders can sell their seats for huge amounts of money—I will come to that in a moment—and sell their tickets for events they receive as seat holders but do not wish to attend personally. They could give those tickets to friends and family to use at no charge, and I know that some do. Many choose to return their tickets to the box office via the hall’s ticket return scheme, receiving the face value of the ticket minus a small fee that goes towards the hall. That would obviously be the preferential option for the hall, because it would make a little bit of money from that. Increasingly, however, seat holders are choosing to sell their tickets through third party websites such as Viagogo and Hoorah Tickets—in some cases for sums that are many, many times their face value. This includes tickets for Roger Daltrey’s annual Teenage Cancer Trust fundraising concert being sold for seat holders’ personal gain.

These seats therefore represent a massive investment, and the seats themselves have been bought and sold over the years, with some individuals or families now amassing over 50 seats. Again, that was not the original intention of those altruistic benefactors funding the hall. Most recently, one 10-seat box was listed online for £3 million. The advertisement claimed that there were 12 seats in the box—pre-empting this Bill, which originally contained proposals to increase the number of seats in a box from 10 to 12, which would boost the portfolio of the box owners. Those clauses have fortunately been removed in the other place.

I understand that the Royal Albert Hall has said that it needs this Bill to pass in order to make necessary changes to its constitution and safeguard the future of the hall economically. The hall holds charitable status and received a £20 million loan out of public money as part of the covid-19 culture recovery fund, which I am aware it is paying back at the rate agreed. Part of this legislation would reasonably allow the hall to increase and formalise the number of exclusive events from which seat holders are excluded, which the right hon. Member for Maldon spoke about. The hall can then make that vital profit from all the seats, instead of the seat holders selling them on the open market. Obviously, I support that.

However, the main reason I support this Bill is the common-sense amendment introduced in the other place by my very good friend and namesake—although no relation—Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, supported by a cross-party majority of Lords. As the right hon. Member for Maldon explained, the Royal Albert Hall is controlled primarily by a council of 25 trustees, a majority of 19—equivalent to 75%—of whom, including the chairman of the board of trustees, must be seat holders, according to the hall’s governance statutes. The council has a say over which acts are booked and decides how many and which events will be for the exclusive benefit of the hall. The seat holder majority of trustees, whether this has happened or not, can therefore prioritise booking and securing tickets to events that will maximise their income.

Those in the other place have taken the reasoned view that charity trustees must not benefit, or be seen to benefit, from decisions they take as trustees. Lord Hodgson’s amendment first sets out that any power to exclude members from the hall can be exercised only when

“approved by a sub-committee of the council of which the independent members of the council will form a majority”.

Secondly,

“any tickets for seats received from the exercise of the power to alter the number of events from which seat holders are excluded must only be sold by the trustee or relatives of the trustee through a ticket return scheme operated or approved by the Corporation.”

I believe that this is a moderate change that still gives seat holders a lot of freedom to resell their tickets. However, those who wish to govern the hall will receive only the face value of their tickets.

I genuinely believe that this is a vital step in bringing the hall into line with every other reputable charitable institution. There are obviously those at the hall who oppose this Bill, and it would be massively shameful if they took this opportunity to withdraw the Bill. Like many others, including the right hon. Member for Maldon, who spoke of it so fondly, I hold the hall in high esteem and have many fond memories of times enjoyed there. I really want it to survive and to thrive for future generations, so I hope that this serious conflict of interest in the running of this beloved charity comes to an end, and that the Bill is given safe passage. \p Judith Cummins: I call the shadow Minister. \p Stuart Andrew: Marking its 150th anniversary in 2021, the Royal Albert Hall continues not only to host world-class performances but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) mentioned, to do a tremendous amount of outreach work and to do so, crucially, without drawing on public funding for its operational costs—other than in the covid situation, which of course was exceptional. That is something for which it should certainly be commended and celebrated.

This Bill seems to have been going round and round for some time. I know that I was trying to deal with it when we were in government. It has been promoted by the hall, as we have heard, and seeks to provide legal clarity to an existing arrangement in which members, who own rights to approximately one quarter of the hall’s seats, forgo their right to attend events and, when not attending, make those seats available for sale. As we have heard, the hall argues that without statutory backing, this arrangement remains vulnerable to legal challenge, which could have acute impacts on its financial stability.

During its consideration in the other place, the Bill attracted extensive scrutiny and was amended, as we heard. Concerns were raised by a number of Members, including Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, particularly in relation to the governance of the hall and the role of seat-holding trustees. He noted that although the hall has held charitable status since 1967, the current arrangements may allow some trustees to benefit financially from the reselling of tickets on the open market—sometimes at significant profits, as the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) said.

In response to the concerns, an amendment was passed that provides that any power to exclude members from the hall under the Bill’s provisions can only be exercised by a sub-committee with a majority of independent members. It also requires that tickets made available under those provisions be sold through the hall’s ticket return scheme, thereby seeking to address concerns over  potential personal financial gains by trustees. I also note that Lord Harrington of Watford, a trustee of the hall, expressed the hall’s position, stating that the Bill’s primary objective is to formalise existing practices and mitigate legal uncertainty, rather than to reform governance structures. He also raised concerns that the amendment may place undue limitations on members, including financial disadvantages and restrictions on charitable donations of tickets.

In the light of these developments, it is evident that the Bill faces significant challenges in its current form. It also raises a broader issue relevant to many historic charitable institutions: the difficulty of updating foundational documents and governance arrangements under existing legislative mechanisms, which often require the introduction of private Bills. It may also beg the wider question of how many of our great establishments, which were founded in the Victorian era, can operate in a more modern era, but I accept that these are not easy issues to address.

In conclusion, although His Majesty’s Opposition absolutely support the aim of securing operational clarity for the Royal Albert Hall, the concerns raised about governance and potential conflicts of interest are of some significance. We will therefore be abstaining on Second Reading. I know that this will certainly be an interesting Bill in Committee. I look forward to following it with great interest, and I hope that some of the concerns that are legitimately being raised can be ironed out. \p Chris Bryant: Well, this is a rum old affair, isn’t it? I think we can definitely put this down as one of the recondite moments of parliamentary democracy. A number of people have asked me today, “What on earth is all this about?” and then said, “What is an opposed private Bill?” or “What has the Chairman of Ways and Means got to do with it?” and all the rest of it—so, yes, it is a strange little moment.

It is nice to see the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), who listed about a fiftieth of all the things he has sat on in his time, and it still added up to rather a large number of things that he has been involved in at some point or other, including virtually every committee at the Royal Albert Hall, apart from selecting the music— \p John Whittingdale: It would have been very difficult. \p Chris Bryant: Yes—well, it would have been endlessly hard rock, wouldn’t it, if it was just to please him?

Of course, this debate is timely because the Proms are about to start. The Proms are one of the most renowned British cultural institutions in the UK, where the BBC meets the public in a more open way than in any other. The concerts are broadcast all around the world, and everybody knows about them—not just the last night, but the first night, the penultimate night and all the different bits that have tradition attached to them.

Of course, the Royal Albert Hall, as everybody has referred to, is one of the great cultural institutions of the UK. It is a phenomenally versatile space, apart from  anything else. People have mentioned concerts they have been to. Dua Lipa, of course, had a wonderful concert there last year. I think my husband has been to see Kylie there—well, he has been to see Kylie nearly everywhere. I have been to see Kylie nearly everywhere, too—it is always nice to live up to a stereotype, isn’t it? What is amazing is that wrestling and so many other different styles of events can take place there—the right hon. Member for Maldon mentioned Cirque du Soleil, for example.

The Royal Albert Hall is a great part of the British cultural sector, and it is unique in the way it is structured financially and constitutionally. I do not think that anybody has said this evening that it is precisely how one would probably want to constitute it if one was starting from scratch. [Interruption.] I noted a slight Gallic shrug from the right hon. Member for Maldon, so I think he is sort of agreeing with me. I think most of the people who own the seats at the Royal Albert Hall would agree that it is not quite what anybody would design if they were starting again today.

It is worth reminding ourselves of precisely what we are doing with a private Bill, because it is different from a public Bill. “Erskine May” does not get to private Bills until page 1,024 or something, so we can tell that they are unusual. It states:

“In giving any bill a second reading, the House approves the general principle, or expediency, of the measure. There is, however, a distinction between the second reading of a public and of a private bill. A public bill is founded on public policy, and the House, in agreeing to its second reading, accepts and approves that policy; whereas the expediency of a private bill is founded upon allegations of fact which have not yet been proved, so that the House, in agreeing to its second reading, affirms the principle of the bill conditionally, subject to the proof of such allegations before the committee.”

I am sure the Committee stage will be interesting, as the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew) said, because these allegations of fact will have to be proven. That takes us to the several points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), who is one of the most redoubtable experts on the issue of ticket sales in this country. I very much hope that we will be able to put the biggest smile on her face later in this Parliament when we come up with legislation to tackle the issues around the secondary ticketing market, which we are determined to do.

I take issue slightly with something that the right hon. Member for Maldon said. He said, “Private property is private property and we never want to interfere with it.” In one sense I agree with him, of course, but when it comes to the sale of tickets, I am not sure that that quite applies as cleanly as it might in other forms. If the value returns to the artists or the venue, I do not have a problem, but when the value from the secondary ticketing market simply disappears into the trousers of online touts and bots, many of which are not even based in this country, I think that that is a problem. \p John Whittingdale: rose— \p Chris Bryant: Oh dear. \p John Whittingdale: The Minister and I will undoubtedly debate the Government’s proposals for secondary ticketing at a future date, but I want to make it clear that what we are talking about here is not touts  or bots, but people who own a seat and the right to sit in that seat and who choose to sell it to somebody else, which is a very different prospect from the one that he outlines. \p Chris Bryant: Of course. I was merely responding to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South. If we had a debate in which there was a venue mentioned and she were not to stand up and make a speech about ticket touts, we would think that something was wrong; we would go and search all the A&Es in the country to find out what had happened to her. She said that she supports clauses 4 and 5. I think that the right hon. Gentleman supports clause 4, but he is not quite so keen on clause 5 because it was inserted in the House of Lords. As he knows, we are doing a very simple thing tonight: deciding whether to give the Bill its Second Reading. For a private Bill, it is traditional for the Government—as for the Opposition—not to stand in the way, nor to urge people one way or the other.

I repeat a point made in the House of Lords by my noble Friend Baroness Twycross, however: we are disappointed that some concerns about the potential conflict of interest between the hall’s charitable objectives and the private financial interests of individuals have yet to be met. The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Charity Commission has taken a view in this space. I think that some of those issues still need to be addressed more fervently; whether it happens through this Bill or through other means, at some point we will have to address them.

The right hon. Member for Daventry said that the Bill had been hovering around for some time, but it was interesting to hear the right hon. Member for Maldon say that people at the Royal Albert Hall are wondering what other constitutional changes should be brought about. One would hope that if we are to have a private Bill on the Royal Albert Hall, we can do it just once in a  Parliament, or in a decade—or in a lifetime, frankly. It would be good if we could address all the issues in a single Bill.

Nevertheless, as is the tradition with all private Bills, the Government neither support nor oppose this Bill. That sounds like a strange moment in British politics, doesn’t it? But the last time I went to the Royal Albert Hall was for Emeli Sandé. I think one of her songs might be apposite at this point. [Hon. Members: “Don’t sing!”] No, I am not going to sing. What’s wrong with Emeli Sandé? \p Stuart Andrew: Nothing—it’s you! \p Chris Bryant: I think I will make sure that gets into Hansard now. The right hon. Gentleman is taking objection to me personally. Well, there we are. \p Stuart Andrew: Go on, then—sing. \p Chris Bryant: I am not going to sing. Do behave! The right hon. Gentleman is almost as bad as I used to be when I sat where he is sitting now. \p Esther McVey: Never! \p Chris Bryant: And the former Minister for common sense has now completely abandoned common sense, clearly.

Anyway, Emeli Sandé sang:

“You’ve got the words to change a nation

But you’re biting your tongue,

You’ve spent a lifetime stuck in silence

Afraid you’ll say something wrong.”

Since the Government do not have anything to say on this business, that is where I shall end.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Anna Turley.) \p Aphra Brandreth: I am grateful to have secured today’s Adjournment debate on an issue that affects communities across the country: the condition of our roads. Although I will focus on the situation in Cheshire and in my constituency of Chester South and Eddisbury, and on what I believe is a failure by local authorities to get to grips with the issue, I will begin by setting the context and reflecting on the broader systemic problems with how we repair and maintain our road network.

The Public Accounts Committee recently published a report on the condition and maintenance of local roads in England. It shows that this problem is widespread; that the Department for Transport does not have a good grasp of the real condition of local roads in England; and that funding arrangements to local authorities are likely to be pushing them to focus spending on short-term, reactive work. In my view, this reactive rather than proactive approach to road maintenance in Cheshire urgently needs to change. Instead of neglected routes being identified and tackled, particularly in rural areas, we see a pattern of piecemeal patch-ups on individual potholes rather than long-term, cost-effective repairs that offer real value for money. \p Jim Shannon: I commend the hon. Lady for securing the debate; I spoke to her beforehand. I am reminded of the old wee rhyme that my mother used to say to me: a stitch in time saves nine. Does the hon. Lady agree that a pothole repaired in time can save lives? The Government must be more proactive in ensuring that we deal with the small issues and save money before they become costly, large issues. \p Aphra Brandreth: That is exactly the point I am making—the hon. Gentleman says it very well. As I outline the issue in more detail, I urge the Minister to consider how local authorities might be encouraged to take a more strategic, preventive approach. I have lost count of the number of times that frustrated residents have asked me why a white circle of paint has been drawn around one pothole, while another right next to it is left untouched because it does not meet the criteria for repair. We all know that within a week or two a team will have to return to fix the one that was missed. \p Connor Naismith: The hon. Member—my constituency neighbour—talks about residents. Does she agree that it is often our residents who know their areas best, because they live and breathe them every day? They are residents such as those on East Avenue in Weston, who I consulted widely over road repairs and traffic-calming measures, or those from Stewart Street in Crewe, which is a key arterial road that has been neglected for some time. Does she agree that our residents should be listened to as part of any plans to repair our roads? \p Aphra Brandreth: The hon. Member makes an important point. This is about voicing the views of residents, and they know their area best. Residents have seen how a  short-term mindset has consequences. The condition of our roads is worsening, and the national repair backlog has grown, from estimates of between £7.6 billion and £11.7 billion in 2019, to over £15 billion today. That backlog in road repairs has rightly been called a “national embarrassment”, and it is a sign that the system we have in place is simply not working.

During her time on the Public Accounts Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) rightly made the case for a more strategic approach to road repair and maintenance, alongside greater funding certainty and a simplified allocation process. I echo those calls today, both to the Minister and to Cheshire West and Chester council and Cheshire East council. This is not a partisan point—I know that Members across the House share frustrations with how local authorities manage road repairs. My intention is to offer a constructive perspective on how we might improve things in my constituency and across the country.

Cheshire is the best county to drive through. We have outstanding countryside, beautiful villages and scenic routes, but what should be a pleasure is too often spoiled by potholes. In my constituency, where public transport is minimal and key amenities such as a GP or post office are often too far to reach without a car, that is not just an inconvenience but a real barrier to daily life. Businesses depend on those roads, and crumbling surfaces damage vehicles, endanger road users, and hold back our local economy. \p Sarah Russell: I thank the hon. Lady—she is being very collegiate, as she always is. Does she agree that it is incredibly important in our beautiful Cheshire towns that our roads are maintained in good condition? I am thinking in particular of a stretch of road in Alsager, which is lovely and has a fantastic local café, but it is a major part of the town centre, and the degeneration of the road is making it look less attractive than it otherwise could be. Does she agree that those are important points, not simply for the state of the road, but for the whole local economy? \p Aphra Brandreth: That is an important point. This issue is having an impact on that road, but also on a village, and on businesses and people who are trying to use that area. That is why we need a better system—one that delivers better roads and better value for the taxpayer. We must not settle for the status quo piecemeal approach that councils such as Cheshire West and Chester, and Cheshire East currently seem to take.

Potholes are one of the top issues in my inbox, as they are for many right hon. and hon. Members, yet as Members of Parliament we do not have direct control over local roads. Highways are a devolved responsibility, so when constituents raise concerns, I encourage them to report issues to the council, and work with them to follow up with officials and draw attention to where repairs are urgently needed. But people are rightly frustrated and, as we have heard, local voices need to be heard. That is why I have secured this Adjournment debate, to do what I can in Parliament to raise this issue, highlight its severity in Cheshire, and push for a better approach to tackling our county’s, and the UK’s growing roads crisis. \p Lee Pitcher: In common with what the hon. Lady hears from residents in Cheshire, I often hear from my constituents  about the problems caused by potholes. The Government have recently committed £6.7 million to South Yorkshire and £9.8 million to north Lincolnshire, which is a huge step forward, but strategic leadership at a local level from Mayor Ros Jones has meant that significantly more than that has been put towards pothole repairs. Some 144 streets have been resurfaced and we have the lowest ever level of streets needing to be looked at in that area. Does the hon. Lady agree with me that that strategic leadership at a local level is vital, and that we must not focus only on potholes in roads, but on what our pavements look like, particularly for people who have access issues? \p Aphra Brandreth: I thank the hon. Member for his point, and I will go on to say that it is not just an issue of funding, as there are serious issues about how that strategic approach is taken.

As I was saying, this is a crisis. Whether from knocking on doors or through people contacting my office, I have dealt with hundreds of cases relating to road maintenance, from potholes to overgrown hedges, poor road signage and other highways issues. To really understand the impact on people locally, I want to take a few moments to share some personal stories from those affected by the poor state of the roads in Chester South and Eddisbury.

David Doyle runs a taxi company just outside Tarporley, and he came to see me at one of my mobile advice surgeries to share his growing concerns about the state of our roads. As someone who drives across Cheshire all day, every day, for a living, he sees the problem daily. We all know how frustrating, and at times dangerous, it is to dodge potholes, or that moment when we wince because we have hit one and we feel the jolt through the car. But for David, the issue is not just about inconvenience or even the rising cost of repairs, for new tyres or suspension; it is also about lost income. If his car is damaged, he cannot work—he may even have to cancel bookings or leave passengers stranded—so someone’s livelihood is being put at risk by the failure to maintain our roads properly.

It is not just motorists who are affected by poor road conditions. Paul Kerr, a keen cyclist, came to see me recently at a surgery in Huxley. He cycles over 1,000 km a month across the UK, and he told me that the worst roads he has ridden are in Cheshire. Potholes are inconvenient and sometimes dangerous for drivers, but they pose a serious safety risk for cyclists. The issue is often made worse because repairs tend to be done with motorists in mind. Potholes near the edge of the carriageway may be ignored or dismissed as too shallow to bother with, yet for cyclists, who are more exposed and ride closer to the verge, even a small defect can be hazardous. Of course, when drivers instinctively swerve to avoid a damaged section of road, they can unintentionally put cyclists at greater risk. We must do more to recognise cyclists’ right to safe, well-maintained roads, especially in Cheshire, where cycling is not only good for our health and the environment, but one of the best ways to enjoy our beautiful countryside.

Those two examples come from constituents living in the Cheshire West and Chester part of my constituency, but the roads are no better in Cheshire East. I recently went with Councillor Janet Clowes, our excellent councillor for Wybunbury ward, to see the state of the Newcastle Road, leading up to the roundabout serving the Wychwood  Village and Wychwood Park estates. Councillor Clowes described the inaction of Cheshire East council to fix the deteriorating road surface and intermittent potholes, where the speed limit on Newcastle Road is 60 miles per hour. Traffic weaving in and out of this pothole slalom on the approach to the roundabout has led to multiple accidents.

Despite repeated requests over a two-year period for the road to be top-dressed, or at least to have sections of level 2 patching to make this section safer, her requests have been denied, with funds being channelled to more urban areas elsewhere in Cheshire East. Herein lies another issue: some £53 million has been allocated to Cheshire East’s highways department this year, but not a penny is being spent in the Wybunbury ward in my constituency. \p Esther McVey: I completely concur with what my hon. Friend and neighbour has said about Cheshire West and Cheshire, but the roads in Cheshire East are a disgrace. As for the money—the £53 million that my hon. Friend mentioned—I have tried to get to the bottom of where that money has been spent. In fact, I have had to resort to freedom of information requests to find out where Cheshire East is spending the money—the council supposedly does not know the location, the area or the postcode; it has merely a job number. I find that hard to understand, because how do the council tell the contractors where to go? Does my hon. Friend share my concern that this money is being spent neither properly nor fairly across the council area? \p Aphra Brandreth: My right hon. Friend makes such an important point and really hits the nail on the head.

It is just not acceptable that wards such as the large ward of Wybunbury in Cheshire East in my constituency are consistently neglected, with funding being diverted elsewhere—as my right hon. Friend points out, we do not know where. Cheshire East council may forget the rural areas of the borough, as its counterpart in Cheshire West does, but I will not stop speaking up for Wybunbury, and neither will Councillor Clowes.

Let me briefly share one more example from Cheshire East. Wrenbury-cum-Frith was temporarily renamed “Wrenbury-cum-Pothole” by locals. The main issue in Wrenbury was on Station Road, a 650-foot thoroughfare leading into the heart of the village and therefore used frequently by residents. Frustration with the state of the roads ran so high that villagers actually amended their own welcome sign and erected another on the road, warning drivers that the condition of this road would

“break your vehicle and your soul.”

On 650 feet of road, there were 174 potholes and countless reports to Cheshire East council, and campaigns led by Councillor James Pearson and the parish council followed. Only after the issue got national coverage did Cheshire East council finally commit to repairing the road.

In those examples, we can see three clear issues emerging with the current approach to road maintenance in Cheshire. First, while both councils seek to follow the national “Well Managed Highway Infrastructure” code of practice, it has resulted in maintenance strategies that are reactive, rather than proactive, leading to wasted council tax and Government highway maintenance and  pothole allocations. Secondly, there has been a failure from the councils to think about the wider impacts that poor roads have on individuals, businesses and communities. Thirdly, there is a failure fully to understand the need to more effectively prioritise rural roads, often where public transport is not viable or simply non-existent, across constituencies such as Chester South and Eddisbury, where there is a far greater social, educational and economic dependency on the rural highway network.

As I begin to conclude my remarks, I will reflect briefly on the funding allocated to Cheshire West and Chester council and Cheshire East council and how it is being used by their respective highways departments. Frankly, I do not believe that a lack of funding justifies the poor performance we have seen, and the figures tell their own story. Over the past few years, both councils have significantly increased the number of potholes being filled; in Cheshire West and Chester, the number of potholes being repaired has more than tripled since 2021. That might sound like progress, but I suggest it points to something else: that repairs are not being done to a lasting standard and that the “patch it up” strategy means the wider network is deteriorating at a faster and faster rate. In one case alone, a single pothole on the A51 at Blakenhall had to be repaired nine times in just 18 months.

In addition, the focus primarily on urban networks has exacerbated a culture of managed decline on rural carriageways, where repairs are too often delayed or overlooked altogether. The specific challenges faced by rural roads are often ignored—the wear and tear caused by heavy vehicles such as tractors and HGVs, the lack of alternative transport options and the need to travel greater distances just to access basic amenities. I urge the Minister to ensure that all councils are considering not just our urban streets, but the needs of the rural road networks.

What makes that even more frustrating is that Conservative councillors in Cheshire West and Chester have repeatedly put forward reasonable, fully costed proposals to improve the highways network that would have made a meaningful difference, particularly for rural areas. Over the past two years alone, they included more than £3 million in additional investment for core maintenance, gully clearing, pavement safety and public rights of way, and every single one was rejected by the Labour-led council. At the same time, the council has steadily reduced its own funding contribution to highways maintenance, cutting it from £4.5 million under the previous Conservative administration to just £2.05 million in 2023-24. Had it simply maintained earlier spending levels, it could have invested an additional £14 million in the network by now. That is not a funding problem from central Government—it is a political choice at a local level, and residents are paying the price.

The situation is made worse by outdated guidance from the Department for Transport, which lacks clear direction from local authorities on the use of new technologies for assessing road conditions and repairing potholes, as well as on how to adapt to the challenges posed by climate change. As the condition of our roads has worsened, we have seen large sums paid out in compensation; Cheshire West and Chester paid out over £200,000 last year alone. Meanwhile, Cheshire East has faced more than 2,500 legal claims related to  pothole damage since 2021, but only a fraction of those claims have been accepted. Astonishingly, tens of thousands of pounds have been spent on legal fees just to review those applications. That is not an efficient use of public money.

All of this points to a system that is reactive, wasteful, and deeply frustrating for residents. According to the industry, it costs around £57 to repair a pothole as part of a planned, proactive approach—that is a fraction of the cost of dealing with compensation claims, not to mention the inconvenience for drivers and the damage to vehicles. I am certain that my constituents would far rather see durable, well-maintained roads than have to battle with the council for months to claim compensation for damage that should never have occurred in the first place.

I hope I have made clear just how strongly my constituents and I feel about the state of our roads in Cheshire. The answer is not endless pots of money, but a fundamental change in approach, one that tackles the problem proactively and makes sustainable, long-term, value-for-money repairs. People do not want their council tax or Government grants to be wasted on crumbling repairs and short-term fixes. Many Members in the Chamber today will have had similar experiences, so with collaborative and constructive intent, my ask of the Minister is for the Department to recognise that Cheshire’s roads are in an unacceptable condition. I ask for his support in advocating for a better approach to road repairs, so that all my constituents, whatever their mode of transport, can have confidence in Cheshire’s roads. \p Simon Lightwood: I congratulate the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) on securing this debate on the condition of roads in Cheshire, and on her admirable efforts to highlight her constituents’ concerns. I also thank all hon. Members who have contributed to this debate.

Like everyone else in the Chamber, I appreciate that this country is suffering from a plague of potholes and poor road conditions. Not only are those a costly nuisance to drivers, but they are a great risk to all road users, including cyclists and motorcyclists, who are more vulnerable. The public are the ones facing the repercussions of our poor roads and the maintenance backlog that has built up everywhere over the past decade, and I believe we are all in complete agreement that this must stop. This Government are up to that challenge, and are determined to improve conditions for all road users.

We are already putting our money where our mouth is by providing £500 million of extra funding for highway maintenance this year, taking overall spending through the highways maintenance block to nearly £1.6 billion this year. That is the largest ever amount of funding for local highway maintenance in England in one year, and means a huge increase in funding for nearly every local highways authority in England, including in Cheshire. In the hon. Member’s area, Cheshire East council will receive up to an additional £5.54 million of highways maintenance funding this year on top of around £15.5 million in baseline funding, while Cheshire West and Chester council will receive an additional £4 million of highways maintenance funding this year on top of  around £11.4 million in baseline funding. The Government are determined to transform the condition of the country’s highways.

The hon. Member will also note that 25% of this year’s funding uplift is contingent on each local highway authority meeting the requirements announced by the Secretary of State in March this year. We are making sure that road users, such as the people of Cheshire, have full transparency from local authorities over how this investment will be spent in transforming their roads. All 154 highway authorities were required by 30 June to publish clear information about the condition of their networks and their plans for how they will use the additional funding.

I am pleased to confirm that both Cheshire highway authorities have returned their reports. The hon. Member’s constituents will be able to see that last year in Cheshire East, for example, the council estimated that the number of potholes they filled increased by nearly 50% compared with the year before. In Cheshire West and Chester, the council is committed—the hon. Member talked about the issues with continuous patching-up—to delivering 12 major resurfacing schemes during this financial year, including on the A559 Chester Way in Northwich and the B5153 in Kingsley.

Everyone in England should now have access to these reports by logging on to their council’s website. I was reliably informed that Cheshire East council has an interactive map, and I am sure that the hon. Member, as soon as she leaves the Chamber, will be heading straight to a computer to take a look at that. Everyone will be able to log on to their local council’s website to understand more about what their local highway authority is doing to improve their roads and to see at first hand the   difference that this Government’s funding is making. Crucially, it will also help people to challenge their local authority if it is not delivering.

However, our funding for local roads does not stop there. The hon. Member should already be aware of the results of the spending review, where it was announced that the Government will provide £24 billion in capital funding between 2026-27 and 2029-30 to maintain and improve motorways and local roads across the country. That funding will allow National Highways and local authorities to invest in significantly improving the long-term condition of England’s road network, delivering faster, safer and more reliable journeys. We will announce allocations for individual authorities in due course.

The capital funding for highways also included a £1 billion investment to enhance the road network and create a new structures fund, which will inject cash into repairing roads and rundown bridges, decaying flyovers and worn-out tunnels across the country. Further funding of more than £6 million has been granted for active travel schemes for Cheshire West and Chester and for Cheshire East, for a total of 13 schemes. I am also delighted that on 8 July the Department confirmed that it will provide £48 million of funding towards Cheshire East council’s important Middlewich eastern bypass scheme, which is intended to help tackle congestion and safety concerns in the town centre.

To conclude, this Government are dedicated to supporting local highway authorities to improve and maintain roads for all users, and we will continue to prove our dedication through funding, transparency and support for local highway authorities.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.