debates/debates2025-04-29b conversation_23
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-04-29)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-04-29b conversation_23

Rachel Blake:The Pimlico district heating undertaking was built in 1950, the first ever district heating network in the UK. It used to be cutting edge, but it is in desperate need of replacement, so that my constituents can have heating and hot water. Will the Government work with local authorities such as Labour Westminster city council to make sure that all the costs of replacement do not necessarily fall just on residents? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: Westminster city council owns the network, and we know that it is considering options for refurbishing and potentially decarbonising it. In the round, we are committed to working with district networks to do two things: to increase technical standards, so that they are more efficient; and, critically, to properly regulate them, so that we protect consumers from unfair prices. \p Andrew Murrison: When will the Government decide whether to support the UK-Morocco power project? \p Ed Miliband: I know the right hon. Gentleman has an important interest in this project. We continue to have discussions with Xlinks and obviously we are happy to brief him on those discussions. \p Leigh Ingham: Unlike Conservative Members, I really welcomed the £200 million investment last week. It will be integral to creating the good jobs of the future in constituencies that are developing key technologies for offshore wind, like my constituency of Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages. With that in mind, will the Minister and the Secretary of State visit my constituency to see GE Vernova and the hard work that it is doing there? \p Ed Miliband: Yes is the answer; I look forward to it. My hon. Friend is 100% right: this is about the jobs of the future. Conservative Members might want to turn their back on them; we will not. \p Julian Lewis: As we need some oil and gas while on the road to a clean energy economy, does it not make sense to produce our own, rather than importing it from other countries and thus increasing the global carbon footprint? \p Michael Shanks: A consultation has just closed on the future of North sea energy. We have been very clear that our manifesto commitment was to not issue new licences for exploring new fields, but we will manage existing fields for the entirety of their lifespan. \p Melanie Onn: MPs across the Humber region are united in support for the Viking carbon capture, usage and storage project. Can the Government give an update on any progress with track 2 programmes? \p Ed Miliband: As with Acorn, we think Viking is a really important project. I am very proud of the progress we made on track 1, and we are obviously looking at both Viking and Acorn in the spending review. \p Tim Farron: Will the Secretary of State ensure that GB Energy has a focused plan to deliver, and to help the 1,500 farmers in my constituency to tap the latent energy in their becks and rivers, so that we can support farming as well as the battle against climate change? \p Michael Shanks: The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point about the role that local community energy can play; I think that is what he is alluding to. We are committed to ensuring that. Great British Energy local has already made some announcements in this space, including on local energy funding in England. We will have much more to say in due course, but we want to ensure a partnership, so if the hon. Gentleman writes to me, I will make sure that what he says gets to GB Energy. \p Graeme Downie: The Scottish National party celebrated the closure and demolition of Longannet coal power station in my constituency without having a plan for its future. The former First Minister pressed the button on the charges herself. What conversations do Ministers plan to have with the site owner, Scottish Power, about the future of the site, and what role might there be for the UK Government in bringing investment and jobs to my constituency? \p Michael Shanks: My hon. Friend is right to make the point about Longannet. We have conversations with Scottish Power on a number of issues, including this. He again emphasises the important role that nuclear could play in Scotland in the future. It could obviously be an important site for a range of uses, but if the ideological ban on nuclear by the SNP were lifted, we could look at other opportunities for such sites. \p David Mundell: When I was at the Scotland Office, I was regularly lobbied by retired senior executives from the electricity industry who wanted to state their concerns about how long it would take to reboot the network in Scotland if there was a major outage. Obviously, I sought the necessary assurances from those running the network, but in the light of what has happened in Spain and Portugal, I would be reassured if Ministers sought those assurances again. \p Ed Miliband: My Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), and I regularly discuss this issue, which relates to one of the first duties of Government. I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that not only is this a focus for Government, but we will look at what happened in Spain and Portugal to see if there are any lessons to be learned about our resilience. \p James Naish: As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on fusion energy, I know that fusion technology not only has the potential to create thousands of jobs, but could also be the answer to our long-term clean energy security needs. Does the Minister agree with me that supporting fusion is a good example of the Government’s crowding in private sector investment, creating jobs and winning investment for places like the east midlands? \p Kerry McCarthy: My hon. Friend is a real champion for his constituency, and for the benefits that the development of fusion will bring. We continue to invest and to have discussions with international counterparts. There is a very bright future for fusion, and for his constituents as a result. \p Seamus Logan: The Minister will be aware of the switch-on of Moray West offshore wind farm at Buckie, in my constituency, last week, creating jobs, delivering clean energy and helping our nation to achieve net zero. Does the Minister accept that the current transmission charging regime poses significant and immediate threats to investment in offshore wind in Scotland? Will he meet me and industry representatives to explore that matter further? \p Michael Shanks: We were delighted to switch on the wind farm; the Secretary of State for Scotland was there to push the button last week. It is a fantastic example of the potential of offshore wind. Of course, I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman. I have already met him, and had a very enjoyable conversation, and I am very happy to talk about the issue. The review of the electricity market arrangements that we are going through will look at the issue of transmission charges. It is an important conversation to have, and I am happy to speak to him on the subject. \p Perran Moon: The United Kingdom was particularly susceptible to changes in international gas prices during the energy crisis, and bills and prices soared as a result. Under this Government, GB Energy is installing solar panels in hospitals in my Camborne, Redruth and Hayle constituency, but will the Minister remind us which party presided over the worst cost of living crisis in memory— \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Mr Moon, please. You will not get called again if you carry on like that. I am sure the Minister will know the answer. \p Ed Miliband: I am delighted to remind the House that it was the Conservative party that left us with energy insecurity, and we are never going to leave this country vulnerable in the way that it did. \p James McMurdock: As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) said, the Government seem to have a three-point plan. Point one is to cover farmland in solar panels, and point two is to block out the sun. What is point three? \p Ed Miliband: What is the point of the hon. Gentleman’s party? \p Wendy Chamberlain: I have been contacted by several constituents who have experienced failed ECO4 scheme installations. What support is there for constituents when installations go wrong? Are rogue installers getting paid for work that is not completed properly? What steps are being taken to address such failures? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: We are aware of issues that we have had with ECO4 and the Great British insulation scheme. If constituents have been affected, they should have received a letter from Ofgem. They should be able to contact their installer, who is obliged to fix the work, and there is a clear redress mechanism. There is a wider point: we know that the system for quality assurance and consumer redress is not fit for purpose and we are determined to overhaul it. \p Sammy Wilson: In the 1970s, global warmists wanted to put black dust on the Arctic to block the sun. Now the Minister wants to put black dust on clouds to block the sun again. Is his plan not bonkers? £50 million of taxpayer’s money has been spent, which will only put up energy prices even further. \p Ed Miliband: This is like conspiracy theories gone mad. I feel like we have entered a whacky world. Let us keep our eyes on the prize. As a country, we are vulnerable because of our exposure to fossil fuels. This Government have one mission alone: to get clean, home-grown power, so that we take back control. \p Gurinder Josan: (Urgent Question): Will the Minister make a statement on the killing of 26 people in Pahalgam in Kashmir and the increasing tension between India and Pakistan? \p Hamish Falconer: The horrific terrorist attack in Pahalgam in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir on 22 April was devastating. [Interruption.] \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Members must sit down, because the Minister is on his feet replying. \p Hamish Falconer: Our thoughts are with those affected, their loved ones and, of course, the people of India. This attack left 26 people dead, most of whom, we understand, were tourists travelling to the region. Following the attack, India has announced a number of diplomatic measures against Pakistan, and Pakistan has reciprocated. The official UK travel advice for Indian-administered Kashmir continues to advise against all travel to Jammu and Kashmir, except for travel by air to the city of Jammu, travel within the city, and travel within the union territory of Ladakh.

This is a very sensitive situation, with real risks to regional and wider stability. Understandably, there has been huge interest within UK communities. Kashmir has been a flashpoint for conflict between India and Pakistan many times over previous decades. The Prime Minister spoke to Prime Minister Modi on 25 April to express his condolences on behalf of the British people. The UK condemns all forms of terrorism and the extremism that sustains it, wherever it occurs. The Foreign Secretary spoke to India’s External Affairs Minister Jaishankar on 27 April to pass on the UK’s condolences and to express the UK Government’s support to the Indian people at this difficult time. The Foreign Secretary has also spoken over the weekend to Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, Ishaq Dar.

Heightened tensions between India and Pakistan inevitably raise concerns about escalation. Effective channels of engagement to safeguard stability in the region are essential. The UK supported the UN Security Council press statement on 25 April, which condemned the attack and reaffirmed that acts of terrorism are criminal and unjustifiable. The long-standing position of the UK is that it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting resolution to the situation in Kashmir, taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. It is not for the UK to prescribe a solution. We will continue to monitor the situation closely through our high commissioners in New Delhi and Islamabad. \p Gurinder Josan: I thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing this question, and I thank the Minister for his statement. I have three further points.

First, this is a terrorist attack of the utmost barbarity, and it deserves to be condemned by all. My thoughts are with the families of those killed. The killing took place in a popular tourist location, and most victims were tourists. Among the victims was a man married only the week before, who was honeymooning with his   wife. The manner of the selection of the victims was particularly horrific, with the killers actively seeking out non-Muslims before killing them in cold blood. The Minister will be aware that the Kashmir region has been the scene of previous terrorist attacks that have claimed many innocent lives, including in Chittisinghpura, where 35 Sikhs were killed in 2000. What support can the UK provide to ensure that the terrorists are found and brought to justice, and to ensure that their networks of support are dismantled?

Secondly, there has been a significant escalation of tensions between India and Pakistan, including the measures that the Minister has outlined. India and Pakistan have engaged in large-scale military hostilities in the past in the region, and there is a real risk that the nations could revert to a military conflict again. What can the UK do to encourage a de-escalation of tensions, while ensuring the eradication of the terrorist organisations and their support networks wherever they exist?

Finally, the Minister will be aware that there have been protests in the UK outside India and Pakistan’s high commissions. Those protests have been characterised by provocative language and gestures, including what appears to be a throat-slitting motion by an alleged Pakistan official. Windows have been smashed at Pakistan’s high commission in London, and an individual has been arrested and charged. Does the Minister recognise the importance of proactive work with communities across the UK to ensure that we do not see a downturn in community relations here? \p Hamish Falconer: I thank my hon. Friend for his engagement on these questions. I am sure that the whole House shares his horror at the details of this incident—the targeting of the victims and the way in which it was carried out.

First, I will address the scenes on UK streets. We are aware of reports of the video that my hon. Friend refers to; the Metropolitan police are investigating, so I will not provide any further commentary on that particular incident, but it is obviously concerning. We take seriously our responsibility for the security of all embassies and high commissions under the Vienna convention, so both the Pakistani and Indian high commissions will receive all the support of the UK state to ensure that they stay safe. As my hon. Friend has said, and as I know many in this House feel, these issues have long been discussed with passion on British streets. We call on all sides, all community leaders and all involved to call for calm at a time of tension in the region. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Foreign Secretary. \p Priti Patel: I thank the hon. Member for Smethwick (Gurinder Singh Josan) for securing the question and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who also requested a question on this topic today, for the support he has given to India.

My condolences, thoughts and prayers are with all those affected by the murderous violent terrorism that has taken place in Pahalgam. I recognise that for India and the diaspora communities—those in the UK in particular—this has been a really difficult week. This was an act of terrorism, and we should call it out for exactly what it is. It is part of a long-standing pattern of  attacks on civilians, visitors to the region and minority communities, and the UK must always stand with our friends during times of this nature.

We have a series of long-standing security and counter-terrorism partnerships with India, going back to the New Delhi declaration in 2002 and including the India-UK strategic partnership in 2016, the comprehensive strategic partnership announced in 2022, and the UK-India 2030 road map agreed under the last Government. Under those partnerships, security issues have been absolutely watertight, which is why we must always be in lockstep with our friends in India.

Can the Minister tell us what information the UK Government have on those responsible for carrying out these terrorist attacks? Do the Government believe that Lashkar-e-Taiba, the terrorist group proscribed in the UK, bear responsibility? Are the Government aware of any cross-border links to Pakistan among the perpetrators of this terrorist act? Given that attacks seem to take place at the same time as high-profile US politicians visit India—this is not the first time—do the Government have a view on whether this is a coincidence, or whether it demonstrates a pattern of targeted and deliberately timed attacks?

We know that the Prime Minister spoke to Prime Minister Narendra Modi last week, but has the UK provided any specific support in response to this terror attack or taken any practical steps to assist our friends in India? Have the Government undertaken an assessment of the security implications of this attack for the UK? If Lashkar-e-Taiba or a front linked to them are responsible, it should be noted that disturbing reports are emerging that this terrorist group may have had engagement with Hamas. Have the Government made an assessment of the relationship between groups causing terror and destabilisation in Kashmir and those pursuing violence and terrorism that threaten our interests and global peace and security?

Finally, can the Minister give an update on the actions being taken to prevent tensions from escalating among communities in the UK—including protections for the high commissions, which have already been mentioned—and will the UK leverage its influence to ease tensions between India and Pakistan? \p Hamish Falconer: I thank the right hon. Lady for her questions. India is a friend to the UK, and we have been clear about the depth of our friendship in our response to this incident. She would not expect me to comment in detail on intelligence and security matters in relation to this attack, but I assure her that we are looking at it very closely. She is right that wherever terrorism is found, it is a threat to global peace and security, including in the UK. I will not comment further from this Dispatch Box on links between some of the groups that the right hon. Lady has mentioned, but I assure her that our security agencies take these matters very seriously, as she would expect.

The right hon. Lady asks important questions about the Indian high commission. As I said in my earlier answer, we will offer our full support. There is 24/7 enhanced protection outside the high commission, and it will be a top priority for the Government to ensure that no harm comes to any Indian diplomats or, indeed, any other diplomats here in the UK.

We are playing our role to try to ensure that tensions do not escalate. Many of us in this House are familiar with the tense and storied history between the two countries. We are friends to them both, and we do not want to see an uncontrolled escalation in tensions. \p Preet Kaur Gill: May I pay my respects to those who have lost loved ones in the horrific terrorist attack in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir? My thoughts are with them at this devastating time. Many of my constituents have written to me about the escalation of hostilities here in the UK. Can the Minister say what conversations he is having with Indian and Pakistani counterparts to address this situation? \p Hamish Falconer: This escalation is unsettling for communities within the UK. British Pakistanis and British Indians are valued parts of our community, but we look to all community and faith leaders to spread the message that now is the time for coming together across religious and ethnic differences, not to play out the tensions between two states on the streets of the UK, and we will continue to send that message. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Monica Harding: I associate myself with the comments that have already made, reflecting on the grief of the communities torn apart last week. Tuesday’s horrific murders were utterly devastating, and those responsible must face the full weight of the law. The escalation of tensions between India and Pakistan is alarming, as are reports of incidents of fire being exchanged by soldiers at the border, and it threatens to destabilise the entire region. It is vital that leaders in both countries commit to an open dialogue and wider efforts to de-escalate. We hope that that includes India committing to reinstate the Indus waters treaty, the suspension of which threatens water access for Pakistanis, and Pakistan reopening its airspace to Indian-owned airlines.

The UK must engage with both Governments and encourage a return to dialogue and a retreat from retaliatory action to ensure that decisions taken in the wake of Tuesday’s horrific attack do not endanger more lives. Can the Minister confirm what conversations he has had with officials in New Delhi on reinstating the Indus waters treaty and with officials in Islamabad on reopening its airspace? \p Hamish Falconer: It is vital that effective channels of engagement to safeguard stability in the region exist, and we are encouraging both parties to that effect. There has been a lot of speculation about the diplomatic measures that have been announced so far. As we understand it, international agreements have been put in abeyance, rather than being rescinded. In the long term, the proper functioning of water management in the Indus water catchment area is vital for both sides of the line. \p Imran Hussain: The whole House is united in its condemnation of the horrific attack that killed 26 people in Pahalgam, Kashmir. It has rightly been condemned by all in the region, and we must now see a full and independent investigation where  those responsible are brought to justice. The response from the Indian Government has been somewhat concerning, with unilateral action taken to revoke the Indus waters treaty, risking the lives and livelihoods of millions in Pakistan. We are now hearing reports of crackdowns in Kashmir, with 1,500 people rounded up by the police and bulldozer tactics used on households. Hard-line groups have issued statements promising reprisal attacks, death threats and action against every Muslim in India. Kashmir continues to be a flashpoint between the two nuclear neighbours, so does the Minister agree that the international community must now seriously focus on de-escalation and long-term peace in the region? Can he also set out what the Government are doing to ensure that Kashmiris do not face further persecution or oppression? \p Hamish Falconer: This is clearly a time of heightened tensions, which inevitably invites concern both in the region and here in the UK. We are, as I said, engaged with both states to try to find the most effective way to prevent these terrible incidents from ever being repeated, but also to ensure continued stability in the region. \p Bob Blackman: I asked at business questions last week for a statement on this issue this week, so I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for making sure that we have that statement through this urgent question.

The reality of this terrorist attack, which was well organised and well co-ordinated, is that, despite the Minister’s words, these 26 men who were murdered systematically by being shot in the head were either Hindu or Christian. This was a deliberate Islamist attack on those tourists who were just going about their business in a peaceful manner. These terrorists were well equipped, and they were well co-ordinated.

The sad reality is that while the Government may offer expressions of condolence and support to the people of India, the terrorist bases that exist along the line of control in the part of Kashmir illegally occupied by Pakistan continue to operate across that line of control. Will the Government commit to full support for India in apprehending the terrorists responsible and bringing the backers of those terrorists to justice? Will the Government take all steps to support the erosion and elimination of terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir? \p Hamish Falconer: The hon. Gentleman has come to have an argument, but I am not sure which part of the statement he did not like. Until the investigation is concluded, we should not speculate on the nature of the attack. I say to him that will do everything we can to ensure that those who committed this horrific attack are brought to justice, and India will have our support in that. \p Uma Kumaran: I share in the comments made in this House. We are horrified by this terrorist attack, and my thoughts are with the families, the victims and those in India. We have seen worrying scenes play out in London, as my hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Gurinder Singh Josan) mentioned. We cannot let the situation escalate on to UK shores. We all bear a responsibility to help de-escalate tensions. What steps is the UK taking to support international bodies, especially the United Nations, in their calls for a de-escalation in tensions? \p Hamish Falconer: As I have said, we have spoken at the senior level to both states, and we have made clear the importance of maintaining stability in the region at this time. \p Adnan Hussain: I echo the words of condemnation over the horrific terror attacks in Pahalgam, which took the lives of 26 innocent tourists. I express my heartfelt condolences to all those who have been affected. The rapid escalation of events following this tragedy has been deeply worrying. India’s unfounded claims against Pakistan are a dangerous and irresponsible reaction to the tragedy suffered in Kashmir. The unilateral and illegal decision to suspend the Indus waters treaty threatens to cut the lifeline of 200 million people in Pakistan, and it cannot stand. Will the Minister join me in expressing concern over the knife-edge position that these two nations are in and call for adherence to the guidance set under international bodies of law? Will he make a plea to calm the situation? If it is exacerbated, it will have severe consequences that spread much further than that region alone. \p Hamish Falconer: I think I have set out our views on the importance of stability in the region already this afternoon. I agree with the hon. Member that it is critical for all actors and international partners to ensure the long-term sustainability of the Indus river system. \p Phil Brickell: I welcome the statement from the Minister today. In light of the awful terror attack in Indian-administered Kashmir, what work are the Government undertaking to consult the Kashmiri diaspora here in the UK and identify their concerns? \p Hamish Falconer: Both the Foreign Office and other UK Government Departments engage regularly with the British Kashmiri community—who are an important part of so many communities across the United Kingdom—and will continue to do so. \p Julian Lewis: I am sure the Government recognise that the strategic aim of this sort of terrorist atrocity is to provoke indiscriminate retaliation and undermine peaceful relations between neighbouring countries between which there may be some history of hostility. Will the Minister impress on the Indian Government the necessity of focusing on the actual perpetrators and not on the wider community, and will he impress on the Pakistani Government the importance, in good faith, of tracking down those responsible? \p Hamish Falconer: Too often in the region for which I am responsible, and indeed in this country, we have seen terrorist attacks designed to have exactly the effect that the right hon. Gentleman has described, namely to provoke tension, intercommunal hostility and a breakdown of law and order. As he says, a proper, law-enforcement-led response based on a focus on the actual perpetrators is important in this area, as it is throughout the world. \p Naseem Shah: May I first send my condolences, thoughts and prayers to all the victims of this heinous terrorist attack in occupied Kashmir?

There is a large Kashmiri diaspora in my constituency, and many of my constituents have reached out to me expressing deep concerns. A number of them have mentioned the Indus waters treaty. Pakistan has already been suffering from the effects of floods in past years, from which it has not recovered. At times of escalation and troubles such as this it seems to be communities at large, be they in India or Pakistan, who suffer. What message can the Minister give my constituents to reassure them that the UK is doing all it can to de-escalate, bring things back to normal and hold the perpetrators to account? \p Hamish Falconer: We are focused on holding the perpetrators to account. I am familiar with the issues facing Pakistan in relation to acute natural disaster: I was there during the disastrous floods in 2010, and I recognise the importance of the Indus river system in both India and Pakistan and of co-operation between the two states to manage that vital system. There is a great deal of speculation about what has been decided and what has been agreed, but we understand that diplomatic treaties are being held in abeyance and that there is still space for a long-term answer to some of these questions. \p Luke Taylor: As an officer of the all-party parliamentary group on British Hindus, and with a constituency that contains a considerable Indian and Pakistani community, I was especially shocked and saddened by the news of the horrific murder of 26 people last Tuesday, and I have received many emails from constituents raising their own concerns. Of particular concern are reports of the targeting of Hindus and Christians: such race-based terror is unacceptable anywhere in the world. What steps are the Government taking to encourage both India and Pakistan to investigate these terrible crimes, and to ensure that lines of communication are kept open to avoid a further escalation of the conflict? \p Hamish Falconer: We are encouraging direct lines of communication, and we are of course encouraging Pakistan to provide all possible assistance with the investigation of these horrific crimes. \p Afzal Khan: May I associate myself with the comments of the Minister and other Members who have condemned the killing of 26 innocent people?

Given that tensions between India and Pakistan are running high and resulting in arrests, does the Minister agree with me, and with others who have raised the point, that we must not let this issue boil over into our streets? If anything, we should be working to convey a message of peace and hope to that part of the world. In the light of the tit-for-tat actions being undertaken by Pakistan and India, does the Minister also agree that we need to encourage the holding of an open, independent inquiry to establish the facts, ensure accountability and help to restore calm? That would be far better for the world than India and Pakistan—nuclear powers—going to war. \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend is, of course right: peace and calm are vital for communities here and across the world. The two states are talking to each  other, which is welcome. India’s concerns for its own security are understandable in the light of such a horrific incident. It is clearly taking steps to try to establish the facts as best it can, and it will have British support to do so. \p Gavin Williamson: At a time of such tragedy, language is incredibly important. All of us, in all parts of the House, condemn this terrorist incident, but a number of my constituents have been particularly concerned about the BBC’s describing it as “militance” rather than as what it is—a terrorist attack. Will the Minister use his position to make representations to the BBC to ensure that it understands the importance of the language it uses? \p Hamish Falconer: I resist calls for Ministers to police the BBC’s language too much, but let me be clear: this was a horrific terrorist attack, and that is the view of the British Government. \p Barry Gardiner: We have seen the Kargil incursion, the Chittisinghpura attack, the hijacking of Air India Flight 814, the attack on Gandhinagar, the attack on the Lok Sabah itself, the attack on the Taj Hotel in Mumbai and the suicide bomb attack at Pulwama that killed 44 people, and now 26 tourists have been murdered at Pahalgam. That is just a short list of the activities of Pakistan-based terror organisations such as Jaish-e-Mohammad, Lashkar-e-Taiba and its derivatives, including The Resistance Front, that have taken place since you and I were first elected to the House, Mr Speaker. They destabilise international security between two nuclear states, and cause unwarranted tension in community relations here. Is it not time to make the support that we give to Pakistan conditional on its finally dealing with and closing down the terrorist training camps that it harbours? \p Hamish Falconer: We expect all our friends to work closely on the shared international scourge of terrorism. Pakistan itself has faced a series of deeply damaging terrorist attacks in recent months and years, and we press Pakistan, as we press all our allies in the region, to take the steps that are necessary to investigate not only the terrorist threats that face it, but those that face its neighbours. \p Ayoub Khan: I share the sentiments that have rightly been expressed by all other Members. It is crucial to condemn unequivocally all forms of violence irrespective of their source, and our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families.

The recent incident is a stark reminder of the fragile peace that hangs by a thread in a region that has suffered for too long from recurring cycles of violence. The intricate history of Kashmir requires a diplomatic approach underpinned by international co-operation Does the Minister agree that the role of the UK, as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, must be to encourage and support efforts that prioritise dialogue and reconciliation between India and Pakistan? Does he also agree that the law-abiding people of Kashmir deserve to live in peace and security without the shadow of perpetual conflict, and that will be achieved only if they have the right of self-determination? \p Hamish Falconer: Of course the people of Kashmir, both Indian-administered and Pakistani-administered, have the right to live in safety, and we want to see that right exercised; and of course there must be dialogue between India and Pakistan at this time of heightened tensions. Let me add, however, that in the face of such a horrific attack, India also has the right to investigate, to find the perpetrators and to bring them to justice for these terrible crimes. \p Rachel Hopkins: A number of my constituents have expressed deep concern about the developments in Kashmir, and we all condemn the attacks and growing tensions in the strongest possible terms. Does the Minister agree that advocating for a peaceful resolution in Kashmir is also part of maintaining community cohesion in the UK, given that so many of us have constituents with family members and friends in the region? \p Hamish Falconer: I do, of course. The UK supports a peaceful resolution of the long-standing issues in Kashmir between India and Pakistan. It is a matter for the two countries and we will support them in those endeavours. \p John Glen: I join Members across the House in condemning this act of terrorism. The hon. Gentleman will know that his party’s manifesto pledged to pursue a new strategic partnership with India. I welcome that, but could he explain to the House what steps are being made in regard to that pledge? It will be by concerted diplomatic efforts, but it will also be by leadership from the Dispatch Box around re-characterising our commitment to India, that people will gain strength from this Government’s response. \p Hamish Falconer: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to cast away any doubt there might be. We stand with India in the face of this horrific attack. We have, at the very highest levels, been in direct contact with the Indian Government. This is an absolutely atrocious incident and they have our support in trying to bring the perpetrators to justice. If he will forgive me, I will leave it to the Minister responsible for India to provide an update in the House in slower time on the state of our relationship. It continues to grow from strength to strength. \p Mohammad Yasin: In light of the recent tragic attack on civilians in Kashmir, which we all condemn, what steps are the Government taking to de-escalate tensions, and to urge the Governments of India and Pakistan to engage in a transparent and impartial investigation to establish the facts, while also pushing forward a new diplomatic engagement to address all outstanding issues, including the core dispute of Kashmir, through meaningful dialogue and a commitment to peace that prioritises the lives and rights of all Kashmiris? \p Hamish Falconer: As I said earlier, we have been engaged with both Governments. The long-standing position of the UK is that it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting resolution to the situation in Kashmir. It must take into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people and it is not for us to prescribe a solution. We will continue in those efforts. \p Edward Morello: The Minister outlined that the Government have been in communication with both India and Pakistan, and the risk of escalation. Given that risk, has the Foreign Secretary been in communication with any other regional powers, such as China? \p Hamish Falconer: Honestly, I have not spoken to the Foreign Secretary in the past 24 hours so I am not totally sure, but I will write to the hon. Member and let him know. \p Debbie Abrahams: I, too, associate myself with the condolences for the innocent families who have become victims of this appalling attack. It is important that there is an evidence-based investigation and I hope that, from what the Minister has said, Pakistan is assisting India in identifying the perpetrators and ensuring they are brought to justice. Tensions are certainly high, both within India and Pakistan. I appreciate the Minister’s remarks on the assistance being provided at the moment, but can this be used as an opportunity to also look at the longer- term issues that Kashmir has faced for decades? \p Hamish Falconer: I set out the Government’s position on the core dispute in Kashmir in the previous answer. I repeat that we encourage the Pakistanis to co-operate fully with the Indian Government in their efforts to investigate and we hope that they will provide assistance. This obviously remains a time of great heightened tensions, so direct dialogue on these issues is particularly important. \p Iqbal Mohamed: I join the Minister and other Members in my unequivocal condemnation of this heinous and cowardly act of terrorist violence. My heart goes out to the families and the victims. We stand in full solidarity with them, as well as with the civilian populations of India, Kashmir and wider Pakistan. As has been highlighted, the killings have heightened tensions in the subcontinent. At present, both nuclear-armed countries, India and Pakistan, are on a war footing. The escalation in military action will have ramifications globally, especially in the UK where reactionary bigots and far-right politicians are sowing division among British Kashmiris, Indians and Pakistanis. My Kashmiri diaspora and my Indian family and friends and I would like to know what specific steps the UK Government are taking to help de-escalate the heightened tensions in the region and the increased tensions within our borders. \p Hamish Falconer: As I said, we are seeking to play our full diplomatic role to help manage the heightened tensions between India and Pakistan, and the concerns of the region. It is vital that all of us in positions of influence at a community level here in the UK do everything we can to ensure that those tensions do not play out on British streets. \p Deirdre Costigan: Many of my constituents have contacted me in the past few days to register their horror at the appalling terror attack in Kashmir. I join the Minister in condemning it unequivocally. Will he confirm that the UK stands firm against terror in any form? Will he further confirm what steps the Government are taking to support our long history of community cohesion in the diverse constituencies of this country, such as Ealing Southall? \p Hamish Falconer: I can confirm that we stand against terrorism in all its manifestations. We will be working closely with all communities, including through colleagues in this House, to try to address the concerns that are being raised. \p Nick Timothy: One of the consequences of mass immigration and radical diversity at home is that we see foreign conflicts play out among diaspora communities in Britain. We should all do everything possible to stop this domestic disintegration, including drastically curtailing immigration, but will the Minister take this opportunity to tell Members of this House who have played the politics of communalism to stop playing with fire? \p Hamish Falconer: I think the hon. Gentleman’s question is: will I condemn the existence of British Indian and British Pakistani communities? No, I won’t. There is tension between those communities and I have called for calm. If he is asking me whether I think there has been too much immigration over the last 14 years, yes indeed—[Interruption.] I am very happy to take guidance from Mr Speaker on what the question was. \p Jas Athwal: I thank the Minister for his statement. I would also like to associate myself with the condemnation of this horrific and cowardly attack on innocent people. Ilford South is home to a large diaspora of Indian and Pakistani descent. Following the horrific murder of the 26 tourists, whose only crime was being in the wrong place at the wrong time when the terrorists orchestrated their heinous attack, India points the finger at Pakistan and Pakistan denies any involvement. Both are nuclear powers. What steps are the Government taking to de-escalate this particular situation? \p Hamish Falconer: As I have said, we have been engaged with both states extensively over the past few days. We are taking all the steps we can to ensure that heightened tensions do not lead to the risk of uncontrolled escalation. \p Clive Jones: Many of my constituents have been hit hard by the recent massacre in Kashmir. The perpetrators of the massacre must face the full force of the law. An open dialogue between India and Pakistan is now vital to avoid an escalation of tensions over Kashmir. How are the Government working to support efforts to de-escalate and to prevent cross-border exchanges escalating into a full-blown conflict? \p Hamish Falconer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his important question. We will continue to work with both states on the issues he outlines in the way I have described over the course of the afternoon. \p Stella Creasy: It is our common humanity that unites many of us in this House in our condemnation of a terrorist act and our condolences to the families affected, whether they have community links to this country or not. I hear what the Minister says, and I support entirely his call for an investigation, as many Members do. What is troubling my British constituents who have family in the Kashmir region are the words of the Indian Defence Minister, who has said there will be a “strong response” in the  coming days. In previous crisis moments, we have had missile strikes, airstrikes and special forces action from the Indian Government, and we have seen an explosion in anti-Muslim attacks in India in the past couple of days. What words of reassurance can the Minister offer my British constituents, who are concerned about human rights around the world and concerned about family members, that this Government will always speak up for innocent civilians, wherever they may live and wherever they may find friends? \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We do, of course, stand up for human rights around the world, and we will continue our work to try to address heightened tensions between India and Pakistan. We want to avoid a dangerous spiral of escalation in the region. \p Joshua Reynolds: It is incumbent on us as an international community to engage with leaders on both sides. What have the Minister and the UK Government done so far to promote an open dialogue specifically and to ensure it stays open? \p Hamish Falconer: As I say, we have spoken at a senior level to both Governments and we are encouraging direct contact, which we understand is in place. \p Paul Waugh: My constituents, particularly those from the Kashmiri and Pakistani communities, strongly condemn this terrorist atrocity in Pahalgam. They are also worried about India’s response, in particular its suspension of the Indus waters treaty, but also the bulldozing of homes of those not connected to this attack in any way. Does the Minister agree that the Kashmiri people should not be subjected to collective punishment, as the people of Palestine have been in Israel? \p Hamish Falconer: As I hope has been clear in all my answers, a terrible terrorist attack has been perpetrated, and India has our full support in going after the perpetrators of that attack. We do, of course, expect all our partners to do that in accordance with their domestic standards and laws. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his answers to the questions and for the calm way he has responded, which is appreciated in this House. I travelled to the region in question some four or five years ago as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief; there was tension then, and there is greater tension now, in every sense of the word. The slaughter of tourists in that idyllic meadow in Kashmir can never be seen as anything other than pure, unadulterated evil: people were killed simply because they were Hindus or Christians. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families who mourn their loved ones today. What steps can the Minister take to provide support for the Government to deal with terrorism, and how can we get the message to British citizens that they should under no circumstances whatsoever travel to that region? \p Hamish Falconer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I will reiterate our travel advice: we advise against all travel to Jammu and Kashmir except for  travel by air to the city of Jammu, travel within the city of Jammu and travel within the union territory of Ladakh. \p Sarah Coombes: People in India and around the world were horrified last week by the news of the terror attack in which 26 innocent tourists were killed in Jammu and Kashmir. My thoughts are with all those who have lost loved ones. This was an appalling attack, aimed clearly at destabilising the situation in Kashmir. In my constituency, I have large Pakistani, Indian and Kashmiri communities, and many of my constituents are now very concerned about an escalation of tensions in the region. How are the British Government working with the Indian Government to provide support in the wake of this terror attack, and what more can the Minister say about the constructive role Britain must play in finding a diplomatic resolution? \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend reflects the strength of feeling in her constituency, as in so many of the constituencies represented in this House. We will continue to play our full diplomatic role, and we welcome the efforts of my hon. Friend and many colleagues across this House in engaging right across the spectrum of their constituencies. \p Gareth Snell: The Kashmiri community in Stoke-on-Trent will have condemned the appalling atrocities taking place last Tuesday, but that condemnation will have quickly turned to fear and anxiety about what it means for their friends and loved ones in both the India and Pakistan-administered sides of Kashmir.

I have listened carefully to the Minister’s answers on the Government’s position that this is now an issue for India and Kashmir to resolve alone, and I welcome the actions the Government are taking to reduce tensions. However, in the long term, a peaceful settlement for this community will need help and need international facilitation, per UN resolutions 39 and 47. Self-determination for the people of Kashmir is going to take more than warm words from Ministers. Can the Minister therefore set out what actions he will take through the UN and his counterparts in other countries to ensure that we start to move down the path of peace quickly? \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend is a doughty advocate for his constituents in voicing their concerns. The long-standing position of the United Kingdom is that it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting resolution to the situation in Kashmir, taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. It is not for us to prescribe a solution. \p Laura Kyrke-Smith: Like many colleagues in this House, I was appalled by the terrorist attack in Kashmir, and my heart goes out to the victims and their loved ones. What really worries me now is the hatred, threats and incitement we have seen online since the attack, which I know are deeply unsettling for many of my constituents. Does the Minister agree that the incitement of hatred online is completely unacceptable, and can he share what measures the Government are taking to monitor and act against it? \p Hamish Falconer: We are aware of hatred being incited online in relation to events in the region, and we condemn it utterly. Where the threshold is met for police action, it should be taken. \p Kirsteen Sullivan: I share the horror at this despicable act of terrorism inflicted on 26 innocent people, many of whom were on holiday—one young man was on his honeymoon. My condolences are with all those affected. The ripples are widespread and felt by the global Indian community, including my constituents in Winchburgh. They have raised their concerns with me about this incident, but they are also really fearful of what happens next. Can the Minister give my constituents assurances that the Government will work with international partners to support peace and stability in the region, and that community cohesion will remain a top priority for this Government? \p Hamish Falconer: India and Pakistan are our friends. We have historical connections to both states and to communities right across the region, and we will continue to be committed to regional stability. Of course, we also call for calm on our own streets. \p Adam Jogee: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Gurinder Singh Josan) on securing this urgent question, but I do say to the Minister that this really should have been a statement. We are all horrified by the act of terror that we saw just days ago and condemn it without equivocation. I have heard from many of my constituents from both diasporas in recent days, and it is important to note that many people are feeling this act of terror deeply in my community, and up and down the United Kingdom. India and Pakistan are two very important members of the Commonwealth. Can the Minister specifically outline what engagement the British Government have had with the Commonwealth to help to reduce tensions? \p Hamish Falconer: If my hon. Friend would like a statement, he can stay for 45 minutes and he will get another one from me. We have been in direct contact with both India and Pakistan, and we will continue to do so. \p Danny Beales: I thank the Minister for his condolences and for his strong condemnation of this horrific terror attack. In recent days, I have been contacted by hundreds of families in my constituency who have been horrified by these events. It is clear that the awful terror attack in Kashmir has sent shockwaves through the British Indian community and the global Hindu community more broadly. My constituents have spoken overwhelmingly of justice, and understandably so. We all want to see peace and de-escalation, but understanding that people will be held to account for these horrific crimes is vital to getting there.

I would just like to press the Minister a little more to be clear that the UK Government, when they stand with India, are doing all they can to identify the parties responsible for these events and those who support and fund them, so that they can be held to account and justice can be found. \p Hamish Falconer: Of course, we want to see the perpetrators held to justice properly, and we will be supporting India to do so. \p Nick Timothy: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Earlier, I asked the Minister to tell Members of the House who were playing the politics of communalism to stop playing with fire. He not only failed to do so, but attacked me for observing the undoubted tensions and sometimes even violence that take place here as foreign conflicts are played out in this country. Can you advise me on whether the Minister can withdraw this attack? If he simply misheard my question, can he be allowed to answer it now? This is a very serious issue. \p Lindsay Hoyle: Minister, would you like to respond? \p Hamish Falconer: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. As I understood the question, the hon. Gentleman was suggesting that there had been too much immigration from, presumably, both India and Pakistan over the last period, and that that was leading to communalism within constituencies across the country. This Government —[Interruption.] \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) is not going to carry on speaking from a sedentary position. \p Hamish Falconer: I have been absolutely clear from this Dispatch Box that I do not want to see any communal tensions in the UK. I have repeatedly called for calm. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that he believes that too much immigration has led to these—[Interruption.] \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Obviously, we are not going to get anywhere like this. Sit down, Minister. I am not responsible for the answers that the Minister makes. I am sure that this matter will not rest there, but it will have to rest for now because we are moving on to the next urgent question. \p Mark Francois: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on the alleged incitement to murder Members of Parliament by the Irish republican group Kneecap. \p Dan Jarvis: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his urgent question. Let us never forget that we lost two Members of this House, Jo Cox and Sir David Amess, in tragic circumstances. Both Jo and Sir David were passionate advocates for their constituents, and they cared deeply about a range of issues and embodied the finest democratic qualities, traditions and values of this House. I know that the thoughts of the whole House will be with their families today and every day.

I want to reiterate the Home Secretary’s words and fully condemn the comments that have been made. Such remarks are dangerous and irresponsible, and this Government utterly reject the views expressed by this group. Let me be crystal clear: political intimidation and abuse have no place in our society.

I know that the House will want immediate answers on this issue, but as the Minister of State for Policing and Crime Prevention said yesterday, in relation to the urgent question on the Headingley case, the desire for immediate answers is often constrained by the obligation that we have, as Ministers and as Members of this House, not to do or say anything that would interfere in what is a live police investigation.

As Members know, the investigation and prosecution of criminal offences are matters for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to determine, and they are operationally independent of the Government. It is important that the police are allowed to carry out their ongoing investigations free from political interference.

However, for the benefit of the House, let me recap what the Metropolitan police have themselves said about these reports. They said:

“We have been made aware of the video and it has been referred to the counter-terrorism internet referral unit for assessment and to determine whether any further police investigation may be required.”

Although I will not comment further on this specific case, the safety and security of Members of this House, and all those who serve in elected office, is an issue to which I attach the utmost seriousness, as does the Home Secretary and as do you, Mr Speaker.

Elected representatives at all levels and across all parties must be able to perform their duties safely and without fear, and, through the defending democracy taskforce, we are driving a whole-of-government effort to ensure that that is the case. The taskforce has recently agreed a programme of work to tackle the harassment and intimidation of elected Members. The taskforce is also supporting the Speaker’s Conference that is addressing these issues.

Those of us who attend this place are all too aware of the devastating consequences of violence against our colleagues and friends. We may not always agree, but if there is one universal truth to which we would all subscribe it is surely that our politics is better when it is  conducted respectfully and safely. I hope and trust that that will have the support of Members right across the House.

The Home Secretary and I condemn the comments that have been made and we will work tirelessly to ensure the safety and security of all those who step forward to serve in public office. \p Mark Francois: Two MPs—Jo Cox and Sir David Amess—have been murdered within the past decade, in the line of duty while meeting their constituents. Frankly, that could have been any of us. I should like to ask the Home Secretary, albeit in absentia, four specific questions.

First, how long is this counter-terrorist police inquiry likely to take? The video plainly speaks for itself. How could the words “Kill your local MP” possibly have been taken out of context?

Secondly, we now know that Kneecap applied for a £14,000 Government grant, during the previous Parliament, which was vetoed, quite rightly, by my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch). Kneecap then appealed against this decision as “discriminatory”. The incoming Labour Government concluded that fighting the appeal would be

“not in the public interest.”

Can the Home Secretary tell the House which Government Minister approved that absurd decision to effectively surrender to Kneecap over this, and why?

Thirdly, Kneecap are still booked to appear at Glastonbury—the organisers of which, incidentally, received some £1.5 million of taxpayer subsidy during the covid pandemic. Does the Home Secretary agree that it would be unconscionable for Kneecap to appear, at least while the police inquiry is under way? Kneecap should surely be barred today. To be crystal clear, do the Government agree with that—yes or no?

Finally, Kneecap have now offered a “crocodile tears” apology to Katie Amess. Have that family not been through enough already? So, as it is within her gift, will the Home Secretary now seriously reconsider their request to examine potential failures by Prevent that may have contributed to David’s death, via the auspices of the Southport inquiry? Is that not the least we can do? Thank you, Mr Speaker. \p Dan Jarvis: I am genuinely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this matter, because it provides us with an opportunity to discuss these issues, which is something I have been keen to do for some time. Let me gently say to him that he mentioned the name of the band on a number of occasions. I deliberately did not do so, and I will not do so. It is for right hon. and hon. Members to choose what language they use, but my advice is not to give the band or its members any further publicity by naming them. I will not be doing so and I suggest that other Members do not either.

The right hon. Member spoke about the Home Secretary. Let me tell him what she said about this. She said that this is a “total disgrace”. She said:

“It’s dangerous and irresponsible to say these sorts of things, and I hope that everybody involved—not just the band but also those involved surrounding them and those involved in events—also take some responsibility on this and looks very seriously at the consequences of these kinds of remarks, not just what’s been said.”

Let me also say to the right hon. Gentleman that I chair the defending democracy taskforce. Clearly, the Home Secretary has overall responsibility, but the judgment was that I would be here as the person who chairs the taskforce, but we both, of course, take the matter incredibly seriously. He asked about the length of the investigation. As I know he will understand, that is a matter not for Ministers but for the Metropolitan police. He also asked about the funding of the group.

Let me say again, gently and respectfully, that I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the case relating to the group’s funding. I did not raise this point proactively; I refer to it now only in response to his specific question. The truth of the matter is that we inherited this situation from the previous Government. We inherited the scheme and we inherited this situation. After approving the grant, the previous Government then U-turned on it being given. They did not take proper legal advice and ended up in a costly legal battle that they lost. This Government have a duty to bring that situation to an end and protect taxpayers’ money. We are deeply concerned about all the things that made up this case. As the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said yesterday, that is precisely why we are rightly taking the opportunity to review the scheme now.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about Glastonbury. It is for the organisers of the festival to decide who appears. \p Mark Francois: Cop out! \p Dan Jarvis: If the right hon. Gentleman can be patient, he will hear the entirety of my response. It is not for Government Ministers to say who is going to appear at Glastonbury; it is for the organisers of the festival. As I have said, there is a live police investigation ongoing, so the Government urge the organisers of Glastonbury to think very carefully about who is invited to perform there later this year.

For reasons that I completely understand and appreciate, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Amess family. Our thoughts and prayers continue to be with the Amess family, as they are with the family of Jo Cox. The House will be aware, because I have spoken about it previously, that we have published the Prevent learning review to ensure that there is public scrutiny and transparency over the perpetrator’s dealings with Prevent. We will also publish the findings from Lord Anderson’s review.

The Home Secretary and I want to ensure that every avenue has been explored. That is why we will appoint a senior figure to scrutinise all of the previous reviews that have taken place, to see whether any questions still need to be answered or any issues still need to be addressed. We will act as necessary if any such gaps are identified as a result of that process. \p David Burton-Sampson: I thank the Minister for his answer to the urgent question. Nobody but those in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) know what it is actually like when somebody kills your MP. The reverberations are still being felt in Southend West and Leigh three and a half years later by the constituents, never mind the family of Sir David Amess, who will never recover from the loss.  Does my hon. Friend agree that those in the public eye—anyone, in fact, but especially those in the public eye—should be careful with their words, because words have power and can be incredibly dangerous. We should condemn with all force the type of incitement we have seen from this particular group. \p Dan Jarvis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the remarks he has made, and not just today but previously. I totally agree; he is absolutely right that words have consequences. All of us, both in and outside this House, should treat others with respect and dignity. I join my hon. Friend in condemning the words that have been used, and I give him and the House my categorical assurance that we will do everything we possibly can to ensure the safety and security of all who serve in elected office. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the shadow Home Secretary. \p Chris Philp: Our thoughts today are with our dear friends Sir David Amess and Jo Cox. They were brutally murdered on a surgery Friday doing their job on behalf of their constituents. Tragically, they were not the first MPs to be murdered; the crest of Airey Neave is up there above the door, with those of Sir David and Jo behind me. Those who incite the murder of MPs are attacking democracy itself. Will the Minister join me in condemning unreservedly the despicable evil that Kneecap represent in the appalling comments they made?

I would like to ask about the funding. In November 2024, the Department for Business and Trade decided to end its support for the legal challenge—a decision that resulted in the band winning and becoming entitled to the money. Why did the Government make that decision? In the light of what we now know, will they appeal against that decision? Critically, will the Minister give categoric assurance from the Dispatch Box that this band will never, under any circumstances, receive public money again from any source, including the National Lottery and Northern Ireland Screen?

This organisation has also expressed support for Hamas and Hezbollah, which are proscribed terrorist groups. The Minister said that he did not want to comment on the police investigation. However, the Government commented quite extensively on the investigations after Southport, so I would like him to make clear, as the Government did last summer, that they consider it in the public interest that the police investigate and, if there is evidence, prosecute these offences or potential offences. If he is not willing to do that now, he risks the perception of two-tier justice.

Finally, I had a meeting very recently with Sir David’s widow Julia and his daughter Katie, who bear an enormous burden of grief. They want to make sure that the lessons are learned from Sir David’s murder. As the Minister knows, the perpetrator had been in the Prevent programme previously, like the perpetrators in Reading and Southport. Julia and Katie Amess would like Sir David’s murderer and the failings of Prevent to be looked at alongside the Southport case, which is being investigated, and the Reading case. Will the Minister honour his memory by agreeing to that today? \p Dan Jarvis: I am grateful to the shadow Home Secretary for his remarks. He is right that when a threat is made to a Member of this House or anyone who serves in elected office it is an attack not just on that individual but on our democracy. That is precisely why this Government have placed, as the last Government did, so much emphasis and importance on the work of the defending democracy taskforce.

The right hon. Member will know from his time in government that the taskforce is the fulcrum on which all the different bits of Government join together, ensuring that our response to the threats we face is properly organised and that the resources are marshalled correctly and appropriately. It is how we enable all those who wish to serve in public life to do so without fear of the completely unacceptable attacks we have seen in recent years. I agree with him on that, and I hope it is a matter on which we can all agree. I also agree with his points about the remarks themselves. I will not name the band, but I reiterate that the Government unreservedly condemn the remarks that have been made.

The shadow Home Secretary asked specifically about funding. In my earlier response I gave detail about the sequencing of the funding that was agreed under the previous Government. He asked about future funding, so let me be clear with the House: we do not think that individuals expressing the views we have heard should be receiving taxpayer funding. That is a non-controversial thing to say. As the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said yesterday, officials are reviewing the music export growth scheme in the light of the comments that have emerged. I would add—the right hon. Member will probably agree—that it seems strange to me, and I am sure to other Members of the House, that a republican group who are seemingly opposed to the British Government would want to receive funding from them. I find that baffling.

The right hon. Member mentioned proscription and Hamas and Hezbollah; he knows well that those are proscribed organisations. It is a criminal offence to belong to, invite support for, recklessly express support for or arrange a meeting in support of a proscribed organisation. It is also an offence to wear clothing, carry articles in public or publish an image of clothing or any article in a way that arouses reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member or a supporter of a proscribed organisation. The Government are crystal clear: support for proscribed organisations is wholly unacceptable, and where an offence has been committed, the Government trust that the police will use the full extent of the offences available to them.

The right hon. Member’s final point was about Lady Amess and Katie Amess. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take comfort from the response I gave to the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) about the seriousness with which we address these issues. I am acutely conscious that we have with us in the Chamber a member of Jo Cox’s family, and it is right that we conduct ourselves in a way—as we are—that remembers the loss that the families have suffered, and that this House has suffered. The Government will do everything we possibly can to ensure that those families are supported and those terrible events never occur again. \p Patrick Hurley: It is disappointing to see how Conservative Members have approached this question. I would have hoped that this was an issue on which the whole House could remain united. The way in which it has been approached is to be regretted.

I have no desire to pour cold water on the daft political posturings of adolescents given voice in pop music—that has been going on for decades and is somewhat of a rite of passage—but the comments of this band go far beyond what is remotely acceptable in a civilised country. Will the Minister therefore please use his good offices to look to minimise the number of mainstream platforms—not just Glastonbury—across the board on which this band appear? \p Dan Jarvis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. He is absolutely right about the comments that have been made; we unreservedly condemn them. He makes a point that I want to raise about the importance of the way in which we work co-operatively and collaboratively across the House. I chair the defending democracy taskforce on behalf of the Government, but I also chair it on behalf of all Members of this House and the other House and on behalf of those who serve in local government. My approach has always been, and will always be, to work co-operatively with every political party. I am happy at any point to meet any Member or any political party to discuss these matters. My door is always open.

On the point my hon. Friend made about the profile of the band, he will have heard my words with regard to Glastonbury. That is specifically why I am not naming them—I do not want to give them any further publicity—but I agree with the sentiment of his point. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Lisa Smart: The remarks by members of the band are completely unacceptable, and it is right that they have apologised to the families of Sir David Amess and Jo Cox, but clearly those comments should never have been made in the first place. Incitement to violence against Members of Parliament cuts to the very heart of our democracy. The reality is that two MPs have been murdered in the last decade. It is absolutely right that the authorities are looking into other comments relating to encouraging support for proscribed terror organisations.

I want to look at what more the Government can do. What criteria does the Home Office apply when assessing whether artists or performers are promoting harmful or extremist rhetoric, particularly where there is a clear attempt to provoke public outrage? What assessment has the Minister made of the impact that comments like these may have on community cohesion? \p Dan Jarvis: I am grateful to the hon. Member, as I always am, for the sensible and reasonable way in which she framed her remarks. She is absolutely right. Incitement to violence is utterly unacceptable in any context, and it is completely unacceptable in the context of Members of this House and other elected politicians. That is why the Prime Minister recently refreshed the mandate of the defending democracy taskforce, and that is why, as chair of that taskforce, I am working closely with law enforcement, all Government Departments,  the Electoral Commission and a range of different organisations, including the police, to ensure that right around the country we have the most coherent, joined-up and properly resourced response.

Back at the general election last year, I am sure all of us saw things that we consider completely unacceptable. It is my ambition as the chair, and that of the Government, to ensure that electoral events—I am conscious that we are working through one at the moment—are fought in a way that enables and encourages reasonable and robust debate. It is absolutely right that in the cut and thrust of politics there should be the rough and tumble of debate, but I think instinctively we all know where the line is drawn, and this incident went miles over where the line should be drawn.

We will continue to look carefully at the circumstances of this case. As I said, it is ultimately for the police to make an operational decision about where they want to go with it, but I give the hon. Member an assurance that through the DDTF we take these matters incredibly seriously. I would be happy to work even more closely with her, her colleagues and all Members of the House in that endeavour. \p Christopher Vince: May I take a moment to thank the Speaker’s Office for the support it gives new MPs to ensure that we all feel safe? I thank the Minister for his response to the urgent question and equally for his commitment to ensuring that Members of the House feel safe and secure in their work. Does he agree that when we think about the security of MPs we must also consider the safety of MPs’ staff? I think about the staff who work in my constituency and do their jobs solely because they want to help people in my constituency. They should never feel intimidated or unsafe. \p Dan Jarvis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes some really important points. I join him in thanking Mr Speaker, the Deputy Speakers and all the Speaker’s Office for the work they do with the Parliamentary Security Department in ensuring that all Members of the House are safe and secure. The Speaker’s Conference into these matters is an important process that the Government are supporting. A couple of weeks ago, I gave evidence to Mr Speaker along with the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali), who is responsible for elections. We consider the process to be hugely valuable, and we look forward to Mr Speaker’s conclusions. We will want to work closely with him on implementing the findings.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to reference MPs’ staff. All of us will know that often where the rubber hits the road in our constituencies is the extraordinary, dedicated work being done on our behalf by our office managers, our parliamentary assistants and our parliamentary caseworkers. They are absolutely in my thoughts when I think about these matters. The Bridger network around the country is there for them as well as for Members of the House.

It is worth adding that in addition to Members and their staff, we need to ensure that our family members are properly protected. I have been in recent touch with the police specifically about incidents that have occurred on a couple of occasions at Members’ home addresses.  That is totally unacceptable. I have written to the police constructively to remind them of the powers they have in that regard. \p Jeremy Wright: I know that the Minister will agree that part of the service that my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) has done the House today is that he has given us all the opportunity to make a point that really should not need making, namely that incitement to violence against Members of Parliament is no more acceptable than incitement to violence against any other member of our society. The Minister is entirely right to be cautious about prejudicing an investigation into whether the criminal law has been broken, but does he agree that what we can and should say today is that artistic licence is not a defence to a breach of the criminal law? \p Dan Jarvis: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on both counts. \p Luke Akehurst: The concern is not just the glorification of violence against MPs, and the impact that has on the families of MPs who have been murdered in terrorist incidents, including Jo Cox and Sir David Amess; the same band has expressed support for Hamas and Hezbollah, which are proscribed groups, and that has an impact on the feeling of safety and security in the Jewish community. The rhetoric that the band uses represents a return to an ugly rhetoric about communal differences in Northern Ireland—a return that I know will cause fear and pain to hon. Members from Northern Ireland who lost friends and colleagues due to terrorism.

My main concern, however, is about the impact on democracy as a whole. Calls for violence against politicians of any party have a chilling effect on the willingness of any normal citizen to think, “I could run for council,” or “I could run to be an MP.” They think that they will put themselves and their family at threat of violence. Does the Minister agree that it is vital for the future of democracy in this country that people feel that they can engage in public life without putting their life and safety in danger? \p Dan Jarvis: My hon. Friend made two really important points. I completely agree with his remarks at the beginning of his question. He is also absolutely right to raise concerns about the chilling effect that there could well be on our democracy. I am sure that all of us in this place know exceptional people who, for reasons that we all understand, have decided not to step forward to serve in public life. This House, local councils and police and crime commissioners are not getting people who could otherwise make a significant contribution to public life.

It is a tragedy for our country that some people might feel that they should not step forward because of the risks, pressures, harassment and intimidation that go with service in public life. That is precisely why we take the defending democracy taskforce so seriously, and are working with colleagues across Government, in local government and in the devolved Administrations to  ensure that people do not feel that politics is too dangerous for them. It would be terrible for our country if we got to that point. I am absolutely determined, as is the Home Secretary, to make sure that the defending democracy taskforce is as successful as possible in ensuring that nobody feels that they do not want to step forward because of the risks. \p Gavin Robinson: May I thank the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) for making that reference? Although it is natural that we refer to Jo Cox and Sir David Amess, it is important for Members of this House to recognise that there are also four plaques in this Chamber for Ian Gow, Airey Neave, Robert Bradford and Sir Anthony Berry, all of whom were murdered by the Irish republican antecedents to Kneecap. Over the last 24 hours, we have seen crocodile tears and heard confected apologies and whataboutery, but nothing can be said that will mask the naked hatred within those individuals whose balaclavas have slipped.

I have heard the Minister speak about his defending democracy taskforce and his aspiration for coherency across this United Kingdom on the glorification of terrorism. For far too long, a blind eye has been turned to the glorification of terrorism in Northern Ireland. When confined to Northern Ireland, it apparently seems to be quite acceptable, yet it keeps the wounds of our past open and frustrates reconciliation. To my mind, there is no coherency on the application of laws to prevent the glorification of terrorism in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister meet my colleagues and me to ensure that there is? \p Dan Jarvis: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that, and he is absolutely right to refer to all the plaques in this Chamber. We think about all those who have lost their life serving our country. The right hon. Gentleman may be aware that I was in Northern Ireland recently, where I met the Justice Minister to discuss this and other matters. He may also be aware that in the autumn of last year, I wrote to the leaders of all the Northern Ireland political parties, offering a meeting. \p Gavin Robinson: indicated dissent. \p Dan Jarvis: He says that he did not receive the letter. Let me say therefore that I would, of course, be very happy to meet him, and I am keen to do that as quickly as possible. \p David Taylor: Yesterday, I wrote to Glastonbury festival, urging it to remove this music group from its line-up because they have allegedly called for the murder of Conservative colleagues in this House, and because we have seen footage of them appearing to show support for Hezbollah and Hamas, including by waving a flag of a proscribed organisation. Words, as others have said, have tragic consequences. Beloved colleagues Jo Cox and Sir David Amess were tragically murdered, and 16 June 2016 remains one of the worst days of my life. I know many colleagues in this House feel the same. We all have a duty to prevent that from ever happening again.

I welcome the Minister’s comments about Glastonbury. Does he agree that iTunes, Spotify, YouTube and others should strongly consider taking the group’s music off  their platforms until the police investigation is over? May I also note the absence of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who is not present and not involved in this discussion? Will the Minister join me in condemning the right hon. Member for Islington North’s appearance in a photograph with the group, and in calling for him to apologise for that? \p Caroline Nokes: Order. May I remind Members that if they make specific references to a colleague, they ought to give them notice in advance? \p Dan Jarvis: I agree with my hon. Friend about words having consequences; he is absolutely right about that. He is also absolutely right that we all have a duty in this House to do everything that we possibly can to conduct our politics in a responsible and reasonable way, as do others. He mentioned Glastonbury; and I am grateful to him for the care and attention with which he has written to the festival’s organisers. He heard my earlier comments. I heard his remarks about streaming platforms; my sense was that there was a lot of agreement from Members from right across the House. With respect, I am not aware of the other matter he mentions, and I am keen not to annoy Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will not refer to the right hon. Gentleman who is not in his place on this occasion. \p Sarah Dyke: Given the proximity of my constituency to the Glastonbury festival, many local people are concerned to learn that a pop group promoting harmful and extremist rhetoric are scheduled to perform there this summer. What criteria does the Home Office apply when assessing whether artists or performers are promoting harmful or extremist rhetoric, particularly when there is a clear attempt to provoke public outrage? Also, will the Minister work with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) to engage with the Glastonbury festival organisers on finding an appropriate resolution? \p Dan Jarvis: Yes, I am happy to do all the things that the hon. Lady asks.

She mentioned funding. I hope that she heard the remarks that I made earlier, not least about the Government thinking that individuals expressing such views should not receive taxpayer funding. I do not think that is a controversial thing to say. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is reviewing the music export growth scheme.

On the hon. Lady’s point about the Glastonbury festival organisers, I suspect and hope that, as a neighbouring MP, she will have a good and constructive relationship with them. I also very much hope that they have listened to what she has said. \p Josh Dean: The comments made by this group are chilling and disgusting, and they risk dragging our politics and our country to a very dangerous place. I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst). When I go to schools in my constituency, the message I take to young people is: “You have a place in politics. You can represent your community. You can make a change.” Does my hon. Friend agree that incitement to violence, and violence against MPs, have a chilling  effect, particularly on people from under-represented groups in our country? They push those people not to get involved in politics, which is deeply wrong. \p Dan Jarvis: My hon. Friend makes a really important point, and I agree wholeheartedly with it. He is right about the chilling effect. It would absolutely extend to young people, as well as older people and others; it applies to anyone considering stepping forward to serve in public life. The strength of our democracy and our country depends on people who are prepared to step forward and serve their constituents as Members of this House, and we need to ensure that people feel that they can do that without being subjected to completely unnecessary harassment and intimidation. That is why a key theme of the defending democracy taskforce is incidents of harassment and intimidation, and whether there are gaps in legislation. Where there are gaps, we will fill them. \p John Glen: Every time I come to this House, I stand underneath the plaque for Jo Cox, and I look over at the plaque for David Amess. It seems impossible that within 10 years, two of our colleagues could have been murdered. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) for raising this question, because it gives us a moment to reflect. When I read the words:

“The only good Tory is a dead Tory. Kill your local MP”,

and “Up Hamas! Up Hezbollah!”, I cannot see what time interval needs to pass before that is deemed an offence. I entirely recognise what the Minister says about these processes needing to happen independently, but speed of justice contributes to confidence in justice. As a former arts Minister who worked to support masses of creative groups, probably very few of which supported me or my party, I am clear-headed about the use of the music export growth scheme. I hope that the Minister, who I know to be a decent man, will, in his work on the defending democracy taskforce, proactively ensure that no taxpayers’ money goes to any organisation or creative group that uses language that has such a negative effect on the way that politics is conducted, and the way that we in this place are seen. \p Dan Jarvis: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. He is right to say that the urgent question has provided us with a moment to reflect. The words that he repeated—I completely understand why he chose to repeat them—are utterly vile. They make my blood boil. I also agree with the other points that he made. He knows, as a former senior Minister, about the importance of the operational independence of the police, but he made his point in a very reasonable way, and it will have been heard. Finally, on his comments about funding, he is absolutely right again. That is why the Secretary of State, as a matter of urgency, will now look at these matters. \p David Pinto-Duschinsky: It is good to hear that the House is united in its condemnation of the appalling comments by this band, inciting hatred and supporting terrorism, and our thoughts and prayers today are with the families of Jo Cox and Sir David Amess. Does the Minister agree that there can never be any excuse for inciting violence against MPs, or for supporting the vile, antisemitic terrorists of Hamas and Hezbollah, and that a threat to MPs is a threat to democracy itself? \p Dan Jarvis: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There can never, ever be any excuse for these kinds of words. This is not about free speech or artistic licence; it is about incitement. He is absolutely right to frame his question in the way that he has, and I can give him an assurance of the seriousness with which we take these matters. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his answers. Kneecap’s so-called apology simply underlines their hatred and refusal to see that they cannot call for murder simply because they do not agree with political beliefs. We know that they glorify IRA terrorist campaigns, and they make no apologies for that. No one can support a group who are proscribed, and this must be dealt with. I look to the Minister in particular, since the responsibility lies on his shoulders, and ask him how he will send the appropriate message from this House that although we may not agree politically, there is a line, and Kneecap have crossed that line. There is right and wrong, and if someone has done wrong they are accountable in law for it, so no half-hearted, grudging, fake apology will suffice. They need to be brought to justice by the police and taken to court. Better still, put them in jail. \p Dan Jarvis: I agree with the hon. Member, and I think he framed the appropriate message very effectively himself. He is right to say that it is never acceptable to utter the kinds of words that we have heard today, and this Government take these matters incredibly seriously. He will also have heard the agreement I made earlier to meet the leaders of political parties in Northern Ireland—of course, I am happy to meet the political leaders of any party—to discuss these matters. I am grateful to him for his contribution. \p Andrew Murrison: Does the Minister agree that there is no context at all in which it would be acceptable to utter the remarks attributed to this group? Does he hope, as I do, that the criminal justice system pursues them with the utmost rigour, without any thought to mitigations such as so-called artistic licence? Does he share my disappointment as a south-west MP that, as of this afternoon, Glastonbury is still listing this outfit for a performance on Saturday 28 June? \p Dan Jarvis: I certainly agree with the right hon. Gentleman with regard to there being no excuse whatsoever for these remarks. I know that he will understand the limitations placed on me with regard to what is an ongoing live investigation by the police, but the words that he has used are entirely reasonable and appropriate. With regard to Glastonbury, he will have heard the contributions made by other hon. Members and the words that I used earlier with regard to the organisers of that festival considering whether it is appropriate to have in their line-up a group who are currently subject to a live police investigation. I hope very much that they will take that seriously and listen to the concerns that have been expressed by Members right across this House. \p Robin Swann: The phrase, “Kill your local MP,” carries a sincerely sinister connotation right across this House. To my party, which has lost councillors, Members of the Northern Ireland Parliament and Members of this House to republican terrorists,  those words are not clever or smart; they are an incitement to terrorist activity, which this band have glorified in the past. This band present a real danger, through what they call their art, of glorifying the actions that caused the murders and deaths of so many people in Northern Ireland. Can the Minister give a reassurance that the Government will do all in their power to look not just at what has been said in the recent videos that have come to light but at what the band have said in the past? As he looks to Glastonbury and gives the organisers advice, will he also look at a forthcoming event in Belfast and provide Belfast city council with the same advice? \p Dan Jarvis: I can give the hon. Member that reassurance. The words we have heard are chilling anywhere, in any corner of this United Kingdom, but I completely understand the point he makes and the particular significance they will have in his constituency and his part of the world, so I can give him the reassurances he seeks. \p Desmond Swayne: The Minister has a point about the name. An Irish republican band with a name that must send a shudder down the spine of so many in Northern Ireland, and which the hon. and gallant Minister chooses not to use, ought to have raised alarm bells long before they got their hands on any public money. Is there any prospect of getting that money back? \p Dan Jarvis: I agree with the sentiment expressed by the right hon. Gentleman. On the issue of the money, that is something the Secretary of State will be looking closely at. \p Carla Lockhart: In Northern Ireland, the term “kneecap” is related to a violent criminal act. When a grouping take that as their name, express a desire for MPs to be murdered and support proscribed organisations like Hezbollah and Hamas, we have to question why they have been awarded so much UK taxpayers’ money. Yesterday, I took the opportunity to write to the US and Canadian authorities asking them to refuse any visa applications from these hatemongers ahead of their publicised tour of North America to prevent them from spreading their violent message across the world. Will the Minister join me in lobbying for that? \p Dan Jarvis: As the hon. Member may be aware, I am—not to the same extent as herself—intimately familiar with the connotations of the name from my previous professional experience, so I completely understand why she has made the point in the way that she has. Let me undertake to go away and think more specifically about the points she has raised, but I am happy to discuss them further with her or with any of her colleagues should she wish to do so. \p Lincoln Jopp: If this band remain on the bill at Glastonbury this year, will the Minister undertake on behalf of the Government that no Ministers will attend the whole festival? \p Dan Jarvis: I was not intending to attend myself. Let me reflect on the question, not least because I am not responsible for other Ministers’ diaries. However, as I have said previously, I am sure—I am certainly hopeful—  that the organisers of Glastonbury will be listening to the contributions that have been made and will reflect on the decision that they have previously taken. \p Al Pinkerton: I thank the Minister for the tone and manner in which he has answered questions. I am cognisant of the ongoing legal action that may be pursued in this case, so to generalise the point a little, how are the Government ensuring that public funding mechanisms, such as the music export growth scheme, are not inadvertently supporting entities that propagate extremist rhetoric and incitement to violence? This is not just about the money; it is about the official imprimatur that schemes like that offer to the entities involved. \p Dan Jarvis: The hon. Member makes an entirely reasonable and legitimate point about the public funding. I say again that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is reviewing the scheme, and I am sure that she will have more to say about it in the not-too-distant future. \p Gregory Campbell: The Minister has responded to the urgent question and given an unequivocal condemnation, which I am sure is shared across the House. Does he understand, though, that many of us have suffered threats down through the years? We have the plaques in the Chamber for those who have suffered and paid the ultimate sacrifice. Does he agree that while that condemnation is universal across the Chamber, our comments amount to diddly squat for the group concerned, but the actions that follow from the Minister’s words would matter? Will he come back to the House after he has taken the actions he has undertaken to take to update Members and the general public on them? \p Dan Jarvis: I am grateful for and completely understand the points the hon. Member made, which he made in a fair, reasonable way. I give him that commitment to come back and update the House. I give him my personal assurance of the importance that I attach to these matters. I chair the defending democracy taskforce. I have personally invested a huge amount of time and effort working closely with officials not just in the Home Office but right across government. It is an important mechanism that brings together the collective resource of the UK Government, and it is on me to ensure that those resources are properly marshalled in the right place at the right time, so that we can be ambitious about ensuring that people are not subject to completely unacceptable harassment and intimidation. I give him the assurance that I will do everything I possibly can, working with colleagues across Government, and I would be happy to speak to him and to come back and update the House accordingly. \p Liz Saville-Roberts: An apology to the families of David Amess and Jo Cox was the only slim chance for redemption. The use of inciting language is to be condemned when it becomes apparent, just as violence against elected representatives is always to be condemned. Politics is about being alert to the right to use words powerfully and the risks and responsibilities of doing so. Does the Minister agree, therefore, that it is right and necessary to condemn incendiary language and to ensure freedom of speech right across the political spectrum? \p Dan Jarvis: Yes, I agree. I was in Wales recently where I discussed these matters with the First Minister. As I mentioned earlier, it is very much the Government’s intention that our approach and response is not just conducted at the UK Government national level, but is wired through local authorities and the devolved Assemblies. I am acutely conscious of the fact that elections will be taking place in Wales next year, and I want to ensure that everybody who participates in those elections can do so in a safe and secure way. I want to work with the First Minister, the right hon. Member and all her colleagues in Wales to ensure that that is the case. \p Alex Easton: I join in the condemnation from across the political spectrum in this House and from the Minister of the comments from this group, which are abhorrent, evil and twisted. Does the Minister agree that any local government authorities—I think especially of Belfast city council—that are allowing groups such as these to use their property for concerts should rethink that policy? Will he give a further commitment that he will contact Belfast city council to ensure that this group are not allowed to use council property for spewing out sectarian hate and evil comments? \p Dan Jarvis: I am grateful to the hon. Member for the point he has raised. All public bodies have an absolute responsibility to ensure that taxpayers’ money is spent in an appropriate way. I will take away the comments he has made and reflect on them, and I am happy to correspond with him further about them. \p Joshua Reynolds: Is the Minister confident that the existing framework that prevents public funds from being used to platform individuals and groups who seek to stoke division is robust? \p Dan Jarvis: As the hon. Member will understand, these public funds have not been allocated via my Department, so I will look carefully at the points he has made. As I said earlier, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is looking carefully and reviewing this scheme. However, as I have just said to the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton), all public bodies and certainly all Departments have an absolute responsibility to ensure that taxpayers’ money is spent wisely, and that is the approach that this Government will take. \p Jim Allister: With the scale of imprisonment that we have seen in recent months for those who make inappropriate comments on social media, does the Minister agree that confidence in policing and the prosecution services is on the line in this appalling incitement to murder, and that such confidence requires action against this group—a group that have made their hateful career out of advocating and supporting terrorism, be it Hamas, Hezbollah or the IRA? In that regard, will the Minister consider the adequacy of the offence of glorification of terrorism, which has so many let-outs that such groups are adept at exploiting and needs to be tightened up? Will he do that as a consequence of this episode? \p Dan Jarvis: The police and the Crown Prosecution Service have a difficult job to do in general terms, and I am determined not to make it more difficult in these  circumstances. The hon. and learned Gentleman’s second point is reasonable; I will reflect on it and come back to him. \p Sammy Wilson: Every time Members enter this Chamber, they walk through a door that has plaques in memory of Robert Bradford, Airey Neave and Ian Gow, who were murdered by the IRA simply because they served as MPs. This group have, through their music, glorified that kind of terrorism, just as Sinn Féin has done on a regular basis in Northern Ireland, right up to the level of First Minister. To that extent, the group could be called the musical wing of Sinn Féin. Will the Minister assure us that he will encourage the police to investigate this quickly, that the funding formula will no longer allows such groups to obtain funding, and that he will do his best to deny the group any further platform? I suspect that their panicked apology was more about getting visas for their lucrative tour in Canada and America than it was about being sorry for what they have done. \p Dan Jarvis: Incitement to violence is completely unacceptable and there is never an excuse for it. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to mention the former Members of this House who lost their life serving their constituents and our country. I underline again the Government’s commitment and determination to ensure that all of us in this place, and all who serve in public life, can do so safely and securely. He spoke about the investigation. As I have said, that is on the  way, but I take and understand his point about speed. He will understand that I have already responded to the point about funding. The Secretary of State will look at that—as will other Departments, I am sure.

The right hon. Gentleman is right to refer to the fact that Members of this House who have served their constituents in good faith have lost their life in so doing. That is utterly vile. We all have a responsibility to ensure that it does not happen again. That is the body of work of the defending democracy taskforce. I will ensure that it means we are best placed to address the threats that we all know about. \p Ayoub Khan: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My understanding, as a new MP, is that there is a long-standing convention by which a Member who intends to refer to another Member during proceedings—particularly in a critical or contentious manner—should inform that Member in advance. That courtesy gives the Member concerned the opportunity to be present and, if necessary, to respond. Earlier, reference was made to the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) without prior notice. I seek your guidance on whether that is in keeping with the expected standards of conduct in the Chamber. \p Caroline Nokes: I thank the hon. Member for advance notice of his point of order. Had he been in the Chamber at the time, he would have heard me make exactly that point. It is a courtesy of this House that Members referring to others should give advance notice. \p Hamish Falconer: With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the inward visit of Prime Minister Mustafa.

Yesterday, at the invitation of the Government, the Palestinian Authority Prime Minister, Dr Mohammad Mustafa, visited the United Kingdom. Prime Minister Mustafa was accompanied by Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Varsen Aghabekian and Minister of Health Dr Maged Abu Ramadan. The Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary both held meetings with Prime Minister Mustafa yesterday, and I was delighted to meet him again this morning. This visit reflects the UK’s steadfast support for the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian people at this critical juncture in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

During the visit, we reaffirmed our unwavering commitment to advancing a two-state solution as the only pathway to achieving just and lasting peace in the middle east, where Israelis and Palestinians can live side by side in peace, dignity and security. We are clear that the Palestinian people have an inalienable right of self-determination, including to independent statehood. The Government are committed to strengthening our bilateral relations with the Palestinian Authority. The PA are the only legitimate governing entity in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and it is important that Gaza and the west bank are reunified under their authority. The UK is clear that the PA must have a central role in the next phase in Gaza. There can be no role for Hamas in the future of Gaza. We have been clear: Hamas must immediately release the hostages and relinquish control of Gaza. Israelis must be able to live in security next to their Palestinian neighbours, and 7 October must never be repeated.

The Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister Mustafa signed a landmark memorandum of understanding to enhance the bilateral partnership between our two Governments. The memorandum of understanding established a new framework to guide and enhance the strategic partnership, and high-level dialogue across areas of mutual interest and benefit, including economic development and institutional reform. As part of our meetings with Prime Minister Mustafa, we discussed the gravity of the situation in Gaza, the west bank and East Jerusalem. We condemned the appalling suffering of civilians in Gaza and agreed on the urgent need for a return to a ceasefire in Gaza with the release of hostages and unblocking of aid. Aid workers need protection. Only diplomacy, not more bloodshed, will achieve long-term peace.

We also shared our alarm at the heightened tension in the west bank. We reiterated our clear condemnation of Israeli settlements, which are illegal under international law and harm the prospect of a future Palestinian state. We called for an end to settlement expansion and settler violence. We are also clear that Israel must release frozen Palestinian Authority funds.

Prime Minister Mustafa outlined the essential reforms that the Palestinian Authority are currently undertaking. We fully support the implementation of those much-needed  reforms, including through providing technical assistance. The reforms will strengthen financial sustainability and economic development, enhance the transparency and efficiency of governance and service delivery, and promote peaceful co-existence with neighbouring countries. As part of our MOU, the Palestinian Authority underlined their commitment to delivering their reform agenda in full as a matter of priority. As part of the visit, we also announced a £101 million package of support for the Occupied Palestinian Territories. It will be directed at humanitarian relief, support for Palestinian economic development and strengthening Palestinian Authority governance and reform.

As the Foreign Secretary made clear, we will not give up on the two-state solution, with a Palestinian state and Israel living side by side in peace, dignity and security. The visit is a significant step in strengthening our relationship with the Palestinian Authority—a key partner for peace in the middle east—at this critical moment. I commend this statement to the House. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the shadow Foreign Secretary. \p Priti Patel: I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement. The Government’s MOU fails to stand up to credible scrutiny, as it fails to outline in any way how it will help to achieve a meaningful end to the conflict. The MOU says that the PA are the “only legitimate governing entity” across the west bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza and that the UK Government want to see the PA running all three. There clearly cannot be any future for Hamas—we completely agree with that—but how will the Minister and the Government bring this about without a strategy for the removal of the terrorist Hamas regime in Gaza? I have asked this question many times from the Dispatch Box, but the Government simply have no answers.

There is a commitment in the MOU that the Palestinian Authority will hold presidential and parliamentary elections in “the shortest feasible timeframe”. What is that timeframe? Who is dictating that timetable? What mechanisms are being put in place for elections, and has this been supported by Arab partners and neighbours who are signatories to the Cairo plan to rebuild Gaza? Does the Minister believe that the Palestinian Authority, in their current form, are capable of holding free and fair elections? If not, is it the Government’s intention to provide election assistance? How would the Government rule out Hamas being able to run in those elections? There is nothing explicit in the MOU about a plan to ensure that terrorist infrastructure in Gaza is dismantled once and for all, which is inexplicable. What dialogue has taken place with key middle eastern allies since the Cairo plan for Gaza was published?

On the question of recognition of a Palestinian state, the Government’s approach is incoherent, and the MOU provides no clarity on the long-term intentions, conditions or timing of this happening. Does the Minister agree that we are not at the point of recognition, and that recognition cannot be the start of the process?

There is no mention anywhere in the MOU of efforts to build upon the Abraham accords as a way of achieving regional stability, despite the accords providing the framework to support and finance a new future for  Palestine and support a two-state solution. Were efforts to expand the accords discussed with the Palestinian Authority leadership yesterday?

On the economic front, the MOU talks about boosting trade, but what kind of increases are we looking at in value terms, given all the instability in the region? In which sectors are the Government now pursuing trade, and will this involve the UK Government spending money on trade promotion measures?

Why is there no mention of welfare reform in PA-controlled territory, which we know is in dire need of urgent attention? Meanwhile, the reference to education is extremely vague and unsatisfactory. It needs to be much clearer and set proper parameters, so that there are clear plans for educating and upskilling a whole generation who have been poorly served by their political leaders for too long. Can the Minister confirm whether he held discussions with the PA about the urgent need for them to do everything in their powers to banish antisemitism from Palestinian school textbooks? Can he provide any detail on the opaque commitment to

“education, scientific and cultural exchanges”?

What form will those take?

Can the Minister clarify what exactly the £101 million he announced yesterday will go towards? Which organisations will be entrusted with the money and whether UNRWA—the United Nations Relief and Works Agency—will receive any of it? What specific programmes will it fund? The entire document contains only a brief mention of the need to tackle corruption, which is inadequate. What is his assessment of the current corruption levels and the PA leadership’s efforts to deal with it? What is his definition of progress?

The section on security co-operation also needs unpacking and more accountability. Exactly how will security co-operation be enhanced, and which “global challenges and threats” does the Minister envisage jointly countering with the Palestinian Authority?

The MOU also states:

“The Participants commit to action to uphold the rights of women and minority groups and prevent the targeting of individuals in these categories.”

Does the Minister believe that these rights are being sufficiently upheld in the west bank at present? Indeed, the question of full civil liberties, including freedom of expression and media freedom, needs serious attention. The PA have their work cut out to prove their credibility.

There is a section on climate change in the MOU. Can the Minister tell us exactly what is the best practice he is seeking to learn from the Palestinian Authority when it comes to tackling climate change? On the current conflict, what have this Government done since the House last met on this issue to support international efforts to secure the release of those poor hostages who remain in such cruel captivity in Gaza?

Finally, I turn to Iran. If we are serious about sustainable peace, we must address the root causes of this terrible suffering. We still have no clarity from the Government about how they see the UK working with the US Administration, so I will give the Minister another opportunity to answer that question. Will he furnish us  with the Government’s official response on the legal attempt here in the UK to challenge the proscription of Hamas? \p Hamish Falconer: The shadow Foreign Secretary asked many questions. Let me be clear: the British Government see the Palestinian Authority as a vital partner, and they are a vital partner that must go through reform. The new Prime Minister has shown leadership on that reform agenda and has made progress on a range of issues. The right hon. Lady raises a number of important issues. One is the content of textbooks, an issue on which we have discussions with the Palestinian Authority and which I have discussed with other parties who have strong views, understandably, on the importance of ensuring that both communities are raised with a belief in co-existence rather than hatred.

There are a range of other very important reform questions that are at issue. One of them, on which the Prime Minister has shown real leadership, is the so-called “pay to slay” arrangements. Progress has been made on that, and we must encourage the Palestinian Authority in those reform efforts. The memorandum of understanding is intended to provide a framework to upgrade that co-operation, because the Palestinian Authority are the vital partner for peace.

The right hon. Lady rightly asked what we will do to ensure that Hamas leave the Gaza strip and do not play a governance role. One of the most important things we can do is ensure that there is a serious and credible alternative to Hamas, and that must be the Palestinian Authority, which is what our efforts are aimed at.

The right hon. Lady asked two important questions about the UK Government’s position in relation to Iran. We welcome the talks between the United States of America and Iran. I was in Oman after the first stage of the talks and the Foreign Secretary has been there recently. We are talking to all parties and we want to see a diplomatic solution to the nuclear weapon threat that Iran poses not just to the region but to the world. We hope that these talks will prove successful.

The right hon. Lady asked, reasonably, about the allocation of the £101 million. I am not in a position to give a full breakdown of exactly where the money will go, though I will provide the House with that breakdown. I would anticipate that funding is directed to UNRWA and the Palestinian Authority directly, but once we have full programmatic details, we will return to the House with that breakdown. We are talking to partners about those allocations and I am happy to come back in writing on some of the more detailed questions.

Lastly, we support the Abraham accords. I was very pleased, while the right hon. Lady was there, to sign the UK up to an agreement with Bahrain and the US which includes explicit reference to the Abraham accords. We are supporting the Abraham accords not just in our words but in our actions. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. \p Emily Thornberry: At the meeting last night between the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Palestinian Prime Minister and his delegation, it was clear that they were very encouraged by the discussions they had had with the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, and rightly  so, because the memorandum of understanding shows serious thinking about the long-term future of Israel and Palestine and leadership towards peace. Does my hon. Friend agree that now is the time to take the next serious step, which is to finally recognise the state of Palestine? The best time to do that might be alongside the French in New York in June. \p Hamish Falconer: I thank my right hon. Friend for her question and her courteous treatment of the Palestinian Prime Minister last night. The question of recognition is raised repeatedly in this House. Our position remains the same: we do wish to recognise a Palestinian state, and we wish to do so as a contribution to a two-state solution. We will make the judgment about when the best moment is to try to make the fullest possible contribution.

As I said to the Palestinian Prime Minister this morning, our responsibility is for the reality of the situation on the ground—the practical viability of a Palestinian state. Of course, other states have taken a different position from the UK Government and chosen to recognise a Palestinian state. That has not called it into existence. Our job in the British Government is to make a practical contribution to a two-state solution, and that is how we intend to approach this issue. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Monica Harding: I was glad to see the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary meet the Palestinian Authority’s Prime Minister Mustafa and reaffirm this country’s support for a two-state solution. A Palestinian state as part of a wider two-state solution remains the only path to long-term peace and security for both Israelis and Palestinians. The Liberal Democrats have called for the immediate recognition of the state of Palestine. I ask the Minister this question most weeks and will ask it again, and I hope the position will change one week: following yesterday’s meeting, will the Government now take this vital step and commit to working with international partners such as France on issuing a joint recognition statement?

Now is the time for a restoration of the ceasefire, the release of the hostages and a return to the political process. This Government have pledged a £101 million package of support for the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including for humanitarian relief. That is welcome, yet for more than 50 days Israel has blocked aid from entering Gaza and shuttered border crossing points. As a result, the food stocks of the UN World Food Programme, which previously reached half of Gaza’s population, have entirely run out. The risk of starvation, disease and death is very real, even as 116,000 tonnes of food aid languishes at border checkpoints. In a joint statement with French and German counterparts, the Foreign Secretary called this “intolerable”, and rightly so, but what are the Government doing to end the blockade and ensure that aid can flow into Gaza?

The International Court of Justice has opened hearings on Israel’s responsibility to facilitate humanitarian relief in Gaza. Will the Government commit to abiding by the court’s judgment? Two weeks ago, the Government said that they continue to consider the ICJ’s opinion on the OPTs. Can the Minister update the House on when we can finally expect the Government’s response?

The Government have also reaffirmed their condemnation of violent west bank settler activity, but what concrete steps are being taken to pressure Israel to act on illegal settlements? Finally, will the Government now consider sanctions on those Israeli Ministers, such as Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, who encourage settler violence? \p Hamish Falconer: I have set out the position on recognition in a previous answer, and I am afraid that I will have to test the hon. Lady’s patience because on sanctions I will also set out the position, which is very familiar: we do not comment on sanctions in advance, as to do so might impact their effectiveness. I can confirm, however, that we have raised these issues, including the blockade of aid. As she has identified, we issued a statement with our European partners last week, and the Foreign Secretary raised this with his counterpart on 15 April. \p Alex Ballinger: I welcome the work that special envoy Sir Michael Barber will be doing in the Palestinian Authority. When I was working in Pakistan as a diplomat, I saw the excellent work they were doing in building the public sector. Does the Minister agree, however, that that work will be futile if Israel continues to undermine the PA by taking steps towards the annexation of the west bank, and what steps are the Government taking to ensure that this does not happen? \p Hamish Falconer: I join my hon. Friend in what he says about Sir Michael Barber. We were both in Pakistan at a similar time and both saw the excellent work he did on girls’ education there, and I welcome his vital role in relation to the Palestinian Authority. I have been clear, as has the Foreign Secretary, about our position on settlements. They are illegal under international law and we oppose completely any annexation of the west bank. \p Andrew Murrison: The Foreign Secretary rightly said in his statement yesterday that Hamas have no future in any of the possible ways forward for Palestine and for Gaza. That is a statement of the obvious, but what is the Government’s strategy for Palestine? In particular, given that the Minister avoided the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), what discussions has he had with the Americans, because it seems to me that the Trump plan for Gaza, in particular, is very different from any conceivable plan that the UK Government might have? \p Hamish Falconer: The right hon. Gentleman, one of my predecessors, asks what our plan for Palestine is. Our support to the Palestinian Authority is an important element of our work in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. They must be at the centre of the efforts to ensure that there can be a future for both Palestine and Israel that involves two safe and secure states side by side. We of course speak regularly to our US counterparts across the whole range of issues in my area—in many areas we may diverge, but we continue to have a very close relationship and discuss these matters closely. \p Uma Kumaran: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) mentioned, members of  the Foreign Affairs Committee met the Palestinian Authority Prime Minister yesterday. He was steadfast in his comments to us on his advocacy for peace for the people in Gaza, in the west bank and the occupied territories and in Israel. Those of us on the Labour side of the House stood on a manifesto that stated:

“Palestinian statehood is the inalienable right of the Palestinian people. It is not in the gift of any neighbour and is also essential to the long-term security of Israel.”

The Minister has been asked this question before, but the time to recognise the state of Palestine is long overdue; the time is now. When will the UK finally recognise the state of Palestine? \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend is committed to these issues. I know that she has travelled to the region recently and has a long history of advocacy, as do so many in this House. As I said in my previous answer, the role of the British Government must be to try and practically bring about the safety and security that two states can provide, and we will consider recognition in that context. \p Edward Morello: As has been mentioned by colleagues on the Foreign Affairs Committee, yesterday we met the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority. He outlined to us their plans for the running of Gaza once the conflict is over. However, the Palestinian Authority are also in desperate need of long-overdue reform. Hamas’s rule of Gaza has been an absolute disaster for the Gazan people, but the future of Gaza cannot be for the Palestinian Authority to run Gaza in the same fashion in which they have been running the west bank. What guarantees do the Government have that the PA are going to undertake those reforms to their governance, to the corruption issues, and to the rule of law that are desperately needed so that the people of Gaza have a better future? \p Hamish Falconer: A central element of our discussions with the Palestinian Prime Minister is that reform agenda. The Palestinian Prime Minister is relatively new in his position and, as I said to the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), he has made some important commitments and important practical changes, and we must support the Palestinian Authority to reform in order to best serve the Palestinian people. \p Phil Brickell: May I put on record my thanks to the Minister for his statement today and commend him and the Foreign Secretary for securing this landmark memorandum of understanding with the Palestinian Government? Following my meeting yesterday with Prime Minister Mustafa, can the Minister tell this House how the MOU and the £101 million for the Occupied Palestinian Territories will allow the Palestinian Authority to reform and provide crucial public services to the Palestinian people? \p Hamish Falconer: It was a sign of the Palestinian Authority’s commitment to some of these practical questions of service delivery that their Health Minister travelled with the Prime Minister for discussions. The MOU provides a framework through which we can have that reform discussion, including strategic dialogues on a whole  range of questions such as the important education questions that the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) raised earlier. \p Desmond Swayne: For how long does the Minister think he will be able to recognise a Palestinian state that retains sufficient economically viable land to actually be a goer? \p Hamish Falconer: The right hon. Gentleman raises an important question about the economic viability of the Occupied Palestinian Territories and what any future state of Palestine would rely on for its economy. There clearly are very important questions to be considered about energy, water and the areas themselves. Clearly, many of these issues have been considered as final-status determination issues envisaged for the end of a two-state solution conference. We are doing everything we can to try and support the most practical measures possible to enable the Palestinians to live the most dignified lives that they can. \p Naseem Shah: May I place on record my thanks to the Minister for all the work that he and the Secretary of State are doing on the MOU, which is very welcome?

On the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I appreciate that we stood on that manifesto, and rightly so, but things have since changed. The Government’s position was that we would continue recognition as part of the peace process, but Israel has been blocking aid to Gaza for 50 days now, people are starting to die of starvation, settler violence is increasing in the west bank and we now have an MOU, so is this not the right time to review our position? Will the Minister at least commit to going away and reviewing the decision and give the Palestinians the state recognition that they are way overdue? \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend is very committed to these issues, and raises them with me here and elsewhere. I will not restate the position, but I will once again confirm from the Dispatch Box our commitment to our manifesto and that we consider recognition an inalienable right of the Palestinian people. However, it must be part of the practical steps taken to bring the violence to an end and a peaceful resolution to the region. \p Suella Braverman: I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Given that the horrific attacks of 7 October were perpetrated by Hamas, that hostages still remain in captivity in Gaza, that those attacks were carried out with the support and participation of many Gazans, and that there were senior Palestinian Authority diplomats who openly celebrated those attacks, does the Minister not think that unilaterally recognising Palestinian statehood at this moment would constitute a reward for terrorism, rather than the fruit of peaceful negotiation? \p Hamish Falconer: The right hon. Lady refers to the conditions of the hostages. Last night, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick), I attended a presentation by Eli Sharabi, who has British family members and was taken by Hamas on 7 October and held in the most unimaginably cruel conditions. He was  released, only to discover that the British passports that were held by his family as a source of protection were not enough to save them, and were not enough to prevent the killing of his brother 300 metres from him in a tunnel. The whole House remains focused on the hostages who remain in unknown conditions, probably deep underground. Anyone who had anything to do with that can have no role in the future of Gaza. It is, in part, out of our determination that Hamas must leave the strip that our support for the Palestinian Authority is so important. \p Paul Waugh: I welcome the significant strengthening of ties between the UK and the Palestinian Authority, not just in trade and extra funding from the UK, but because, as the Foreign Secretary said last night,

“The UK is committed to urgently advancing Palestinian statehood as a key part of a two-state solution.”

It was my pleasure last night to meet not just Prime Minister Mustafa but Basel Adra, the director of the Oscar-winning documentary “No Other Land”, who made clear that recognition is his central demand too. Does the Minister therefore agree with me that President Macron was right when he said last month that

“We must move towards recognition, and we will do so in the coming months”? \p Hamish Falconer: I welcome my hon. Friend’s engagement and commitment to these issues. I will not rehearse the position that I have set out already on recognition. \p Chris Law: Two weeks ago, I had the privilege to speak on behalf of the UK Parliament at the Inter-Parliamentary Union, where over 1,200 MPs from 188 countries passed a resolution supporting a two-state solution. No one voted against it. There was plenty of notice of the UK not recognising a nation state. Last night, I asked the Palestinian Prime Minister what difference it would make if the UK recognised a Palestinian state, and he replied that

“it would be a paradigm change, a new platform. It all starts with that recognition.”

Given the crucial meetings between the UK Prime Minister and the Palestinian Prime Minister as equals, what practical impediment stands in the way of now recognising Palestine as a nation state? I hear repeatedly that we are looking for a practical solution, so will the Minister explain that to the House? \p Hamish Falconer: Owing to time constraints, I will not rehearse the vital questions about security and governance that will clearly need to underpin a two-state solution in which both states are able to live in peace, security and co-operation. Those final-status determinations have long been vexed. While we are committed to the inalienable right of the Palestinians to a state as part of a two-state solution, let us not pretend that there are not vexed issues at the centre of what a Palestinian state would look like. That is one reason why so much diplomacy has been focused on these issues over the years. \p Zubir Ahmed: I warmly welcome the Minister’s statement and thank him for bringing an extensive range of expertise to his role. Does he agree with me that it is only right for a British  Government Minister to ask searching questions of both the PA and the Israeli Government? Will he reassure me that he will continue to ask questions about accountability for the killing of humanitarian workers who are trying to perform their duties? \p Hamish Falconer: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words and for his dedication to these issues. Clearly, there has been an absolutely tragic loss of life among aid workers who are delivering vital services in Gaza. We all remember that a year ago a tragic incident killed seven aid workers from the World Central Kitchen, including James Henderson, John Chapman and James Kirby, three British nationals who remain in our thoughts. It has been more than a year and we expect an update on the investigation by the Israeli military advocate general. We want to see full justice and accountability for British nationals affected by violence, including in relation to the strike in March on a UN building, in which a British national was seriously injured. Over the course of this devastating conflict, more than 400 aid workers have been killed. Our demands are driven by nothing other than a desire to protect the lives of humanitarian workers and demand accountability for those who are killed. \p Alistair Carmichael: If our Prime Minister can meet the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority, and if the United Kingdom Government can enter into a memorandum of understanding with the Government of the Palestinian Authority, what barriers can remain to the United Kingdom recognising the state of Palestine as a matter of logic? \p Hamish Falconer: I gently suggest to the right hon. Member that that logic does not wholly follow. There are complex final-status determination issues that would underpin any recognition. No two-state solution will be straightforward without significant negotiation, diplomacy and agreement on both sides. As I have set out, recognition remains our goal, but let us not pretend that it is a straightforward decision without complexity. \p Imran Hussain: In his remarks yesterday, the Palestinian Prime Minister quite rightly reminded MPs of the UK’s historic, moral and legal obligations to the Palestinian people. The importance of our actions to uphold international law today cannot be underestimated, so I must ask the Minister why the UK is still reluctant to sanction Israel for its war crimes against the Palestinians? Why are the Government deepening our trade ties with Israel, as the International Court of Justice warns countries not to assist or aid illegal occupation? Finally, I ask the Minister to listen to the growing calls in this Chamber and announce when the Government will finally recognise the state of Palestine. \p Hamish Falconer: Our position is clear on international humanitarian law and on the importance of accountability. I will not test your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, by again going through the points about recognition. \p Martin Vickers: In 2014, I was one of 39 Conservatives who voted in this House for recognition of Palestine. Since then, Governments  have come and gone, and thousands of lives on both sides have been lost. The Minister said a few minutes ago that he could not go into the full details, but I am sure it would be helpful—if not today, in the very near future—to Members from across the House for him to provide a detailed analysis of what needs to change before recognition can take place. \p Hamish Falconer: I am confident that I will be back in this House to talk about the details of recognition soon. \p Stella Creasy: As another Member of this House who voted in 2014 to recognise the state of Palestine in a motion that this House passed, I will say that progress on this matter is long overdue. I hope the Minister has heard loud and clear the message from many of us that continuing to delay that is problematic.

The right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) might be surprised that I agree with him: there is a concern about what will be left of the state of Palestine. Despite the existence of thermographic technology, Israeli forces are now burning to the ground the agricultural fields in northern Gaza in apparent pursuit of the tunnels that Hamas are using for their terrorist attacks. We know that nearly 4,000 children in Gaza have been diagnosed as suffering from acute malnutrition. We all desperately want to see aid resuming to Palestine, because we know that there is no future for any state if people are starving to death. Will the Minister update us on the practical details he discussed last night with the Palestinian Authority about how we will get food back into Gaza and get movement in this process? \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend raises important questions about the viability of the Palestinian state. The Occupied Palestinian Territories must not be reduced either geographically or by forced displacement, and I am happy to reiterate that point at the Dispatch Box. There is clearly an urgent crisis. The World Food Programme has said that it has now run out of food in the Gaza strip. The single most important measure that can be taken to address that crisis is an end to the blockade of aid into the Gaza strip, and that is what we continue to call for. \p Jeremy Corbyn: Can I invite the Minister to bring a greater sense of urgency to the situation? There are children starving to death in Gaza and dying for lack of medicines. There is no water and hardly any power going in. The hospitals are not functioning. That is all a disaster made by the deliberate action of the Israel Defence Forces. What action is the Minister taking to ensure that the blockade ends and that food, medicine and all the necessities for life go in? Those people who are dying of starvation can see food over the fence in Israel, but they are being deliberately starved to death. \p Hamish Falconer: As I said in my previous answer, we are clear that the single most significant contribution that can be taken on that problem is ending the blockade of Gaza. We have been clear with the Israeli Government at the highest levels, including on 15 April, in the meeting between the Foreign Secretary and his Israeli  equivalent, that that blockade must be lifted. On the longer-term questions of health and some of the other basic social services, I will say that of course we discussed those issues with the Palestinian Authority and relevant Ministers over the past two days. As the right hon. Gentleman says, this is very urgent, and the World Food Programme has been clear. That is why we made the statement over the weekend. \p Rachael Maskell: It was sobering yesterday listening to Dr Mustafa, the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority, not least as he stressed the UK Government’s leadership role and the importance of the recognition of the state of Palestine. Bearing in mind that leadership role and the fact that 147 jurisdictions already recognise that state, will the Minister explain to the House today the reasons for the impediment to that recognition? It is really important that we hear that, because we are here to hold the Government to account. \p Hamish Falconer: Some 147 states have recognised a Palestinian state, yet no Palestinian state is fully functioning. That underlines the importance of taking the practical measures that will be absolutely vital not only to support Palestinian life, but to ensure that two states can co-exist peacefully, side by side. Many Members have referred to some of the practical impediments, whether it is the removal of Hamas from the Gaza strip or the economic challenges that face the Palestinian territories in both the west bank and Gaza. Let me be clear. An extremely violent conflict continues. Without a ceasefire, it is hard to imagine the creation of a state. I am sure that we will continue to discuss the merits of recognition, but let us not pretend that there are not serious practical considerations to bear in mind before the practical establishment of a Palestinian state is possible. The British Government are focused on changing the actual facts on the ground. That is the approach that we will take. \p Vikki Slade: Other hon. and right hon. Members have talked about what might be left in Palestine, but I will ask about who might be left. Some 20% of the 55,000 pregnant women there—that is 11,000 pregnant women—are so malnourished that their pregnancies are now high risk. That really undermines the future of Palestine’s population. What assurance can the Minister give us that the £101 million will be directed to those people who really need it? \p Hamish Falconer: As I have said already, once we have fully allocated the funding, we will return to the House to outline how it has been prioritised. \p Tulip Siddiq: I was pleased to see that the Foreign Secretary, along with France and Germany, strongly condemned the use of humanitarian aid as a political tool. The Minister will know very well that the only way to bring peace and stability to the region is by working together with our network of allies. Bearing that in mind, what conversations has he had with our European and international allies about the Palestinian-led planning of recovery and reconstruction in Gaza, as outlined in yesterday’s excellent memorandum of understanding? \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend asks important questions. The Foreign Secretary and I, and the whole ministerial team, are engaged with our international partners. We have made a number of statements with European partners; with the Qataris on Sunday, when the Foreign Secretary travelled to Qatar; and in Oman, to which the Foreign Secretary and I travelled recently. We are engaged with many other important partners in the region, including Egypt, Israel and many others. \p Iqbal Mohamed: We have heard Members across the House ask about recognition and sanctions. Yesterday, I joined a private briefing organised by the Palestinian NGO Network, Medical Aid for Palestinians, Oxfam International, Save the Children, the Norwegian Refugee Council and the Association of International Development Agencies. The message I took away, which is burned into my brain, was that, on the ground, food, water and medicines—the essential of life—have all run out, as the Minister said. Baby milk and the water needed to make it are not available. Would the UK Government’s response be the same if the people who were starved, and denied water and medicine, were in Ukraine, God forbid, and if Russia was the perpetrator? \p Hamish Falconer: The UK seeks to play its full role in every humanitarian crisis. We have conducted important conferences on Sudan, and have attended to issues in Ukraine and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. We act wherever we can to try to avert humanitarian suffering. \p Tahir Ali: I welcome the Minister’s statement, in particular the announcement of £101 million for humanitarian aid and the signing of the memorandum of understanding. The Minister has reconfirmed his commitment to a two-state solution. However, in order to have a two-state solution, we need to recognise both states. What criteria are being used to assess when the time is right to recognise Palestine as a state? If the Minister is not able to provide a detailed response today, I am happy to receive one in writing. \p Hamish Falconer: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. There is no end of detail to discuss in relation to recognition, and I am sure that we will return to this House to discuss it further. Of course, when we talk of a two-state solution, we envisage two recognised states living peacefully together, providing for their joint safety and security. That is implicit in our long-standing support for a two-state solution. \p Lee Dillon: In his statement, the Minister said that there could be no role for Hamas in the future of Gaza. I support that, but there can be no future for Gaza unless the killing and destruction ends. That is why, in September last year, it was welcome that the Government suspended 29 arms export licences, following concern that there was a risk that they could be used by the Israelis to break international law in Gaza. However, a further 34 export licences to Israel were granted between September and December last year—more than were originally blocked. Can the Minister explain that decision, and provide the latest number of arms licences to Israel that have been approved? \p Hamish Falconer: In September, we set out the basis on which we chose to suspend arms licences, and that basis remains. There is not a full restriction on providing licences; many licences are provided either for dual-use goods, or for goods that could not possibly be used for the activities that have caused concern. For example, licences would be issued for body armour used by non-governmental organisation workers in Gaza. There are also items for the legitimate defence of Israel, such as components that could enable its missile defence system to defend it against Iranian drones. I do not have the exact number of licences; it tends to change relatively regularly, given the nature of the flow between the two countries. \p Alex Sobel: I too welcome the MOU and the funding we will provide to the Palestinian Authority. When I went to Jerusalem last year with other Members, we talked to the NGO community—an absolutely vital community in both Israel and Palestine, working for democracy and human rights. On 5 May, the Knesset is planning to vote on another law that will clamp down on the activities of NGOs working to help build a two-state solution. The law will impose an 80% tax on donations from foreign state entities, including the United Kingdom, and ban access to courts for NGOs. What discussions has the Minister had with counterparts in Israel to ensure that our state funding can go to towards building that two-state solution with both Israeli and Palestinian NGOs? \p Hamish Falconer: We support efforts by both Israeli and Palestinian civil society actors to build links across communities, and I know that many in this House have engaged with organisations of that kind. We are aware of the draft legislation in the Knesset, and we are engaging with colleagues in Israel on these questions. \p Adnan Hussain: Today, the International Court of Justice heard that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza under the world’s watchful eye. All of us are witnesses to the most horrific crimes against humanity, which are being carried out in plain sight. A million children have been cut off from the basic necessities for survival for well over a month. They are at risk of starvation. I repeat those words: a million children are at risk of starving to death. I fear that once this is over and done with, and all is said and done, we will make mere memorials to mark the most horrific war crimes of our time. This is a tragedy that the world has the power to stop but is refusing to. What more can the Government do to ensure that the civilian population of Gaza, including a million children, are not starved to death, and why is it not being done? \p Hamish Falconer: The Government are in no doubt about the severity of the humanitarian situation in Gaza. That is why last week, we made statements—both with our allies and alone—about the politicisation of humanitarian aid and the urgent situation that the UN agencies are reporting. More than 90% of Gaza’s population has been displaced, and many have been displaced repeatedly. Many Members of this House have heard harrowing tales of residents of the Gaza strip simply trying to survive, returning to their home only to find it totally destroyed, or trying to find medical assistance as  hospitals across the strip go out of operation. The Government are in no doubt about the severity of the situation, and we raise it with the emphasis that the hon. Gentleman would expect. \p Debbie Abrahams: I commend my hon. Friend on all the work he is doing—I know that a huge amount is going on behind the scenes—and particularly on the memorandum of understanding and the additional funding. When I hosted a meeting of the Britain-Palestine all-party parliamentary group last night, it was quite clear how grateful Prime Minister Mustafa was for the stance that the UK was taking, and that he saw it as part of a sequence of steps towards recognition. Yes, he wanted that as soon as possible, but he recognised the steps that needed to be taken, because of the difficult international context, to ensure that recognition would make a difference. However, who among our other allies, either the E4 or the Five Eyes—except the US, obviously—has provided a similar sort of MOU that can be built on? \p Hamish Falconer: I will have to revert to my hon. Friend on whether others have a memorandum of understanding. The European Union and others have done important work with the Palestinian Authority, but I was very grateful for the words of the Palestinian Prime Minister last night in Parliament. He has particularly recognised the importance of the UK’s work on the reform agenda and on many other things, for which I am very grateful. \p Ayoub Khan: More than 15,000 children have been murdered, more than 15,000 women have been murdered, and more than 15,000 innocent men have been murdered. The Minister used the word “contribution” when making reference to a two-state solution. I ask him whether the contribution of all those who have been murdered—the blood that has been spilled—is not sufficient for Palestine to be recognised as a state. \p Hamish Falconer: As I said in my last answer, we are incredibly conscious of the suffering in Gaza. We want to see a ceasefire, we want a political process, and we want two states living securely side by side, and all our diplomatic efforts in relation to this question are focused on that. \p Richard Burgon: In his meeting with MPs, the Palestinian Prime Minister was clear that Israel will change course only if there is real action from states. He stressed that, in line with the International Court of Justice ruling, states have a legal responsibility to impose sanctions—including ending all trade in settlement goods—and to cease any aid or assistance that sustains Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian territory. Those measures are backed by a significant number of MPs across this House. When will the Government finally impose meaningful sanctions in order to hold Israel accountable and apply the pressure needed to stop it trampling all over international law without any consequences? Rightly, the Government did that for Russia; wrongly, they will not do it for Israel. \p Hamish Falconer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, but I would gently correct him; as he knows, this Government have taken steps since we became the Government, including sanctions. He also knows that we do not comment on sanctions in advance of issuing them. \p Jim Shannon: The Minister is a good man and his answers indicate just that, so I read with interest the release on the Government website regarding the visit. I saw the language referring to the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Does the Minister not agree that Government language must be considered and unbiased? While we welcome dialogue and we hope for peace, to achieve that we cannot and must not roll over and use narratives that are not helpful and useful. We must be careful that the Government do not sow division and distrust with our Israeli allies. \p Hamish Falconer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. The term Occupied Palestinian Territories has long been the language of the British Government under multiple different Governments, and it reflects our legal view of the position. \p Matthew Patrick: I welcome the Government’s commitment to securing a peaceful future for the region, but that future feels far away for the families of the hostages still held by Hamas. As the Minister mentioned, yesterday he and I heard from Eli Sharabi, who talked about the horrors of his experience and how he lost absolutely everything. He is working tirelessly to secure the release of all hostages, including Avinatan Or, who has British links. Does the Minister agree that the first step in securing the peaceful future we all want to see is the immediate release of all the hostages? \p Hamish Falconer: I do, and I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend, who has been a tireless supporter of hostage families, including Emily Damari, her mother Mandy and, of course, Avinatan Or, who is an Israeli citizen with a British mother. He is very much in my thoughts, as are all of those left in tunnels for phase 2. They are awaiting a ceasefire that cannot come urgently enough. I join my hon. Friend in calling for the immediate release of all hostages. \p Luke Akehurst: I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The Palestinian Authority are key to a two-state solution and should be the basis of the viable Palestinian state we all want to see. I welcome the Minister’s focus on practical steps to build up the Palestinian Authority. I think those are a lot more important than statements that might be interpreted as a little performative. Can the Minister update the House on the Government’s work with the PA to improve the situation on the ground in the west bank, including tackling the recent increase in Iranian-backed terrorism there and the expansion of Israeli settlements, both of which represent major practical barriers to a two-state solution? \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend raises important points, and he has a long history of engagement on these issues. The security challenges in the west bank are important and he is right to raise them. I have set out our position on settlements clearly already from the Dispatch Box,  and I reiterate that. We are talking to the Palestinian Authority about those practical challenges and the importance of being able to demonstrate the effectiveness of the Palestinian security forces to prevent violent disturbances within the areas they control. It is vital that settlements are restrained and that the terrible increase in settlement activity is reduced. It is vital, too, that Israel enables the Palestinian Authority to function effectively, which includes paying salaries, having electricity and all the other basic fundamentals that a nation state would require. \p Laura Kyrke-Smith: It was a real honour to join the meeting with Prime Minister Mustafa in Parliament yesterday. I welcome the Minister’s hard work in the signing of the MOU. I desperately want peace for Palestinians and for Israelis, and I was touched by Prime Minister Mustafa’s gracious remarks that the way forward has to be peace for all, dignity for all and justice for all. Does the Minister agree that while we work through the short-term practical considerations of recognising the state of Palestine, we have to keep our eyes on that long-term prize of peace, dignity and justice, and that a state of Palestine is a vital part of that? \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend is right. Those are the principles for long-term peace for both parties, and that is what we will need to work towards. \p John Martin McDonnell: The memorandum of understanding is significant, and the message to the Minister about the recognition of the state of Palestine is equally significant. Member after Member has raised the famine in Gaza and its implications.   We are seeing pictures of children who, as a result of malnutrition, are not surviving the hospital treatment they are getting. Historically, our country has been faced with this situation before, and we have overridden blockades. We have not allowed other countries to veto humanitarian aid. Are we not near that stage now? We cannot allow Israel to veto the delivery of aid. Should we not be looking with our partners at the logistics we have on the ground in that region to deliver the aid by sea and by air, whatever statements Israel makes? \p Hamish Falconer: With and without our partners, we have looked at a range of mechanisms whereby aid might be brought into Gaza, but the truth is that without effective deconfliction mechanisms, aid workers are at real risk, as we have seen in recent months and weeks. There is also a question of scale. There have been airdrops and sea movements of aid into Gaza, but nothing can equal the scale required other than lifting the blockade, and that is what have been focusing on. \p Peter Prinsley: After 570 days, 59 hostages remain. Does the Minister agree that their unconditional release is a key to the ceasefire? What did Prime Minister Mustafa have to say about that yesterday? \p Hamish Falconer: I thank my hon. Friend for his doughty advocacy in this regard. Prime Minister Mustafa told me that he wanted hostages to be released, and I am sure my hon. Friend will have seen some of the other commentary from the Palestinian Authority on these questions. This is critical: the hostages must be released as soon as possible, and I know the whole House continues to share that view. \p UNKNOWN: Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23) \p Rosie Wrighting: I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require new maternity units to have a bereavement suite; and for connected purposes.

For anyone experiencing the loss of a baby, that is already one of the most difficult times in their life. It is made more difficult when they experience it in a hospital maternity ward, surrounded by mothers and families celebrating new life. No number of new facilities can take the pain away, but parents whose local hospital has a dedicated bereavement suite away from the main labour ward can process that pain in privacy and peace.

I am often inspired by my constituents in Kettering, and today I am especially proud to introduce this Bill, inspired by the Twinkling Stars Appeal, which campaigned for a new maternity bereavement suite at Kettering general hospital. I pay tribute to the Northamptonshire Health Charity, which has dedicated so much time and care to this appeal, and also to Sands, which works to make sure that anyone affected by pregnancy or baby loss has the care and support that they need. I also want to recognise the work that the NHS is already doing. Day in and day out, staff at Kettering general hospital help people who are going through one of the most difficult experiences that anyone can imagine. They continue to do that despite years of underfunding and understaffing, which is a testament to our hospital staff. Finally, I want to thank all the families who have been involved in this campaign, and anyone who has donated, helped out at a fundraising event, sold masks during the pandemic to raise money, or even done a skydive.

The Rockingham wing, which is the maternity ward of Kettering general, is where I was born as a premature baby, eight weeks early. It is where my mum fought for her life after a complicated and traumatic birth, which was made even more difficult as she was surrounded by happy, healthy mothers and their babies. There are many people in Kettering whose lives, like mine, started in the Rockingham wing, so it was very alarming to hear in 2023 that it was crumbling because of reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete. I am pleased to say that the RAAC is now being mitigated, and a two-storey extension will be built behind the existing maternity unit to help the team to improve the care that they deliver each year to about 3,000 families and their babies. This will be particularly important in Northamptonshire, where we have a growing population and many new families moving into the area.

On a recent visit to Kettering general, I walked the grounds of the new maternity ward. I saw plans for the new bereavement suite and, thanks to the campaign by the Northamptonshire Health Charity and the efforts of local people, I saw the place where it will be built. Before the appeal, families in Kettering who had lost a baby, either during pregnancy, during the birth itself or through compassionate induction, stayed in a room within the labour suite where mothers could be close to their babies but not next to them, and where partners   walked through the maternity ward to reach them, surrounded by the sounds of new life and delighted parents, making a heartbreaking experience even harder.

Kettering general hospital cares for up to 100 families a year who lose a baby. They will now be cared for in a suite that has a private bereavement room, with en suite facilities and a cold cot for precious time with their baby. It will have a dedicated family room with a kitchenette, a sofa bed, a peaceful private space for families to gather to support each other, and a quiet office space for bereavement midwives, where sensitive conversations can be conducted with care and privacy.

At Northampton hospital, where some of these facilities were already in place, the Daisy suite appeal aims to create somewhere for follow-up care with specialist bereavement nurses that is not on the maternity ward, so that when bereaved parents who have experienced unique trauma return to the hospital, they will not have to walk back through the same maternity ward again, which could trigger painful memories. A bereavement midwife at Northampton hospital wrote to me in support of the campaign, stating:

“Coming to hospital to give birth to a baby who is known to have died or will die is unimaginable. The grief and devastation can never be fully understood as each circumstance will be different. What we can do as a hospital is try our very best not to add to these feelings and make such an awful situation even worse by not providing a supportive and understanding environment. We want them all to feel supported, heard and truly cared for.”

She explained that her team are currently based in the maternity ward, but are not easily accessible for families to drop in for support and are difficult to find for staff members who are looking for support themselves. A bereavement suite would allow them to see more families, allow parents to return after discharge and spend more precious time with their baby, and provide a separate space where families do not come face-to-face with other pregnant women and new-born babies while going through such a heartbreaking time.

These campaigns are based on real-life experiences. The changes being made to our maternity units in hospitals in Northamptonshire are the result of what families have noticed after experiencing bereavement themselves. They want to make a positive difference for future parents. I cannot even begin to express the admiration I have for parents who are taking their pain and channelling it into making things better for those who come after them. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Some of the parents who contacted me mentioned the importance of “quiet care” when going through a time like this. They told me that every parent who is going through the worst time of their lives should have the opportunity to receive care in private.

When I spoke to the Northamptonshire Health Charity, it highlighted the importance of hearing families’ voices in this conversation and spoke about how dedicating time and experience to the campaign can have a healing impact for some of the families who have been involved. It is really important that parent consultation is right at the heart of the Bill. The Government are building an NHS fit for the future, and a big part of that is listening to service users and taking on board their feedback. I believe that this is particularly important in spaces such as bereavement suites, where changes that might feel small, such as the feel of the space or the access to the room, can make a huge difference to parents and families.  In Northamptonshire, bereaved parents have met nurses and walked through the maternity ward, pointing out where changes can be made to better support parents in future.

Currently in the UK, 13 families a day lose their baby before, during or shortly after birth. That is around 4,500 babies a year, so this issue is bigger than Kettering or Northamptonshire. When I was researching bereavement suites for the Bill, I looked on the JustGiving website and found it full of appeals from every corner of the country for funding for new facilities, specialist counselling and trained midwives for bereavement services. A collaboration of charities working to support people affected by the death of a baby have developed the national bereavement care pathway to improve the quality and consistency of bereavement care received by parents after pregnancy loss or the death of a baby.

As of 2024, every NHS trust in England has signed up to the national bereavement care pathway, but we know there is still work to do. Not all hospitals are currently able to provide a properly equipped or suitable bereavement room; some are in the middle of the labour ward, and some are not sound-proofed. The Twinkling Stars suite at Kettering general hospital is a perfect example of how when we welcome contributions from families and parents with experience, we spot things we did not know we needed.

At the moment, it is families, communities and charities who are raising money so that parents can face such a difficult time with a little more privacy and comfort. Nobody can take away the pain of losing a baby, but we can ensure that in that pain, families are met with compassion, dignity and privacy, and that begins with a bereavement suite in every newly built maternity ward.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Rosie Wrighting, Jen Craft, Dr Marie Tidball, Michelle Welsh, Mr Richard Holden, John Cooper,  Lee Barron, Mike Reader and Charlie Dewhirst present the Bill.

Rosie Wrighting accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 May, and to be printed (Bill 226). \p UNKNOWN: Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee \p UNKNOWN: “(1) The Social Security Administration Act 1992 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 109A (authorisations for investigators)—

(a) before subsection (1) insert—

“(A1) An individual who for the time being has the Secretary of State’s authorisation for the purposes of this Part is entitled—

(a) for any one or more of the purposes mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (2), to exercise any of the powers which are conferred on an authorised officer by section 109BZA;

(b) for any one or more of the purposes mentioned in paragraphs (c) and (d) of subsection (2), to exercise any of the powers which are conferred on an authorised officer by section 109BZB;

(c) for any one or more of the purposes mentioned in subsection (2), to exercise any of the powers which are conferred on an authorised officer by section 109C.”;

(b) in subsection (1) for “Secretary of State’s” substitute “”Scottish Ministers’”;

(c) in subsection (2)(d), after “offences” insert “or, for the purposes of subsection (A1), other DWP offences”;

(d) in subsection (8), for “109B and 109C below” substitute “109B to 109C”.

(3) In section 109B (power to require information), in the heading, after “information” insert “: officers authorised by Scottish Ministers”.

(4) After section 109B insert—

“109BZA Power to require information about entitlement etc: officers authorised by Secretary of State

(1) An authorised officer may give a person (“P”) a written notice (an “information notice”) requiring P to give an authorised officer the information described in the notice where the officer has reasonable grounds for suspecting that P—

(a) is a person falling within subsection (2) of section 109B, and

(b) has or may have possession of or access to any information about any matter that is relevant for any one or more of the purposes mentioned in section 109A(2)(a) or (b) (entitlement to benefits etc).

(2) Information may be specified in an information notice only if it is reasonable for the authorised officer to require the information for one or more of the purposes mentioned in section 109A(2)(a) or (b).

(3) An authorised officer may require P to give specified information only if the officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that P has or is able to access the information.

(4) Subsections (2E) to (4) of section 109B apply to an information notice under this section as they apply to a notice under that section.

(5) Nothing in this section limits the powers conferred on the Secretary of State by Schedule 3B.

109BZB Power to require information about suspected fraud etc: officers authorised by Secretary of State

(1) An authorised officer may give a person (“P”) a written notice (an “information notice”) requiring P to give an authorised officer specified information where the officer—

(a) has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has committed, is committing or intends to commit a DWP offence, and

(b) considers that it is necessary and proportionate to require the specified information for a purpose mentioned in section 109A(2)(c) or (d) (investigating compliance with the relevant social security legislation etc).

(2) Information may be specified in an information notice only if it relates to a person who is identified (by name or description) in the information notice as—

(a) the person suspected as mentioned in subsection (1)(a), or

(b) a member of that person’s family (within the meaning of Part 7 of the Contributions and Benefits Act).

(3) An authorised officer may require P to give specified information only if the officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that P has or is able to access the information.

(4) An information notice must set out—

(a) the identity (by name or description) of the person to whom the information requested relates;

(b) how, where and the period within which the information must be given;

(c) information about the consequences of not complying with the notice.

(5) The power under this section to require P to give information includes power to—

(a) take copies of or extracts from information;

(b) require P to provide information in a specified form;

(c) if any specified information is not given to an authorised officer, require P to state, to the best of P’s knowledge and belief, both where that information is and why it has not been given to the authorised officer.

(6) Subsection (2E) of section 109B (communications data) applies to an information notice under this section as it applies to a notice under that section.

(7) In this section—

“information” means information in the form of a document or in any other form;

“specified” means—

(a) specified, or described, in the information notice, or

(b) falling within a category that is specified or described in the information notice.

(8) Nothing in this section limits the powers conferred on the Secretary of State by Schedule 3B.”

(5) In section 109BA (power of Secretary of State to require electronic access to information)—

(a) in the heading, omit “of Secretary of State”;

(b) before subsection (1) insert—

“(A1) Subject to subsection (2) below, where it appears to the Secretary of State—

(a) that a person keeps any electronic records,

(b) that the records contain or are likely, from time to time, to contain information about a matter that is relevant for one or more of the purposes mentioned in section 109A(2)(c) or (d), and

(c) that facilities exist under which electronic access to those records is being provided, or is capable of being provided, by that person to other persons,

the Secretary of State may require that person to enter into arrangements under which authorised officers are allowed such access to those records.”;

(c) in subsection (1), for “Secretary of State”, in both places it occurs, substitute “Scottish Ministers”;

(d) in subsection (2)—

(i) in paragraph (a), after “subsection”, in the first place it occurs, insert “(A1) or”, and

(ii) in paragraph (b), for “section 109B above” substitute “—

(i) in the case of arrangements entered into under subsection (A1), section 109BZB;

(ii) in the case of arrangements entered into under subsection (1), section 109B.”;

(e) in subsection (3), after “subsection” insert “(A1) or”;

(f) in subsection (4)—

(i) after “subsection” insert “(A1) or”, and

(ii) for “section 109B” substitute “—

(a) in the case of arrangements entered into under subsection (A1), section 109BZB;

(b) in the case of arrangements entered into under subsection (1), section 109B.””.—(Andrew Western.)

This new clause would replace clause 72. It revises the amendments to the Social Security Administration Act 1992 made by clause 72 so that the powers of the Scottish Ministers under the Act are substantially unchanged.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the clause be read a Second time. \p Nusrat Ghani: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 18—Consequential amendments to the Social Security Fraud Act 2001.

Government new clause 19—Devolved benefits.

Government new clause 20—Powers of Scottish Ministers.

New clause 1—Recovery of overpayments of Carer’s Allowance—

“The Secretary of State may not exercise any of the powers of recovery under this Act in relation to a person who has received an overpayment of Carer’s Allowance until such time as—

(a) the Secretary of State has commissioned an independent review of the overpayment of Carer’s Allowance;

(b) the review has concluded its inquiry and submitted a report containing recommendations to the Secretary of State;

(c) the Secretary of State has laid the report of the independent review before Parliament; and

(d) the Secretary of State has implemented the recommendations of the independent review.”

This new clause would delay any payments being taken from people who the Government may think owe repayments on Carer’s Allowance until the independent review into Carer’s Allowance overpayments has been published and fully implemented.

New clause 2—Impact of Act on people facing financial exclusion—

“(1) The independent person appointed under section 64(1) of this Act must carry out an assessment of the impact of this Act on the number of people facing financial exclusion.

(2) The independent person must, after 12 months of the passing of the Act—

(a) prepare a report on the review, and

(b) submit the report to the Minister.

(3) On receiving a report the Minister must—

(a) publish it, and

(b) lay a copy before Parliament.”

This new clause would look into the impact of the Act on people facing financial exclusion.

New clause 3—Audit of algorithmic systems used in relation to Carer’s Allowance overpayments—

“(1) An independent audit of algorithmic systems used in the assessment, detection or recovery of Carer’s Allowance overpayments must be conducted at least once every six months.

(2) Any audit under subsection (1) must be conducted by persons with relevant expertise in data science, ethics and social policy who have no direct affiliation with—

(a) the Department for Work and Pensions, or

(b) any person or body involved in the development or operation of the algorithmic systems under review.

(3) An audit conducted under this section must consider—

(a) the accuracy of the algorithmic systems in identifying overpayments, and

(b) the fairness of the systems’ design, application and operation, including any disproportionate impact on particular groups.

(4) After every audit a report on its findings must be—

(a) published;

(b) laid before both Houses of Parliament within 14 days of publication; and

(c) made publicly available in an accessible format.

(5) If any audit identifies significant inaccuracies, unfairness or biases in any algorithmic systems, the Secretary of State must, within 30 days of the publication of the report outlining these findings, present an action plan to Parliament which outlines the steps which the Government intends to take to address the identified issues.”

This new clause would provide for an audit of algorithmic systems used in relation to Carer’s Allowance overpayments.

New clause 4—Inclusion of systems within the Algorithmic Transparency Reporting Standard—

“(1) For the purposes of this section, “system” means—

(a) algorithms, algorithmic tools, and systems; and

(b) artificial intelligence, including machine learning;

provided that they are used in fulfilling the purposes of this Act.

(2) Where at any time after the passage of this Act, the use of any system is—

(a) commenced;

(b) amended; or

(c) discontinued;

the Minister must, as soon as reasonably practicable, accordingly include information about the system in the Algorithmic Transparency Reporting Standard.”

This new clause would require the use of algorithms, algorithmic tools, and systems, and artificial intelligence, including machine learning, to be included within the Algorithmic Transparency Reporting Standard.

New clause 5—Duty to consider domestic abuse risk to account holders—

“(1) Before any direct deduction order under Schedule 5 is made, the Secretary of State has a duty to consider its effect on any person who—

(a) is a victim of domestic abuse, or

(b) the Minister reasonably believes to be at risk of domestic abuse.

(2) In this section “domestic abuse” has the meaning given by section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.”

New clause 6—Review of whistle blowing processes in relation to public sector fraud—

“(1) Secretary of State must, within one year of the passing of this Act, conduct a review of whistle blowing processes in relation to fraud in the public sector.

(2) A review conducted under this section must consider—

(a) the appropriateness and efficacy of existing whistle blowing processes;

(b) barriers to reporting fraud and reasons for under reporting of fraud; and

(c) recommendations for change.

(3) The Secretary of State must publish a report containing—

(a) the findings and conclusions of the review, and

(b) a timetable for the delivery of any recommendations for change within six months of the completion of the review.”

New clause 7—Overpayments made as a result of official error—

“(1) Section 71ZB of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), for “The” substitute “Subject to subsection (1A), the”.

(3) After subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) The amount referred to in subsection (1) shall not include any overpayment that arose in consequence of an official error where the claimant or a person acting on the claimant’s behalf or any other person to whom the payment is made could not, at the time of receipt of the payment or of any notice relating to that payment, reasonably have been expected to realise that it was an overpayment.””

This new clause would provide that, where universal credit overpayments have been caused by official error, they can only be recovered where the claimant could reasonably have been expected to realise that there was an overpayment.

New clause 8—Offence of fraud against a public authority—

“(1) A person who-

(a) commits,

(b) assists or conspires in the committal of, or

(c) encourages the committal of,

fraud against a public authority commits an offence.

(2) A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable-

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.”

New clause 9—Application of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to investigations conducted by the Department for Work and Pensions—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, introduce regulations for the purpose of applying certain powers of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, subject to such modifications as the order may specify, to investigations of offences conducted by the Department for Work and Pensions.

(2) The powers to be applied must include–

(a) the power of arrest;

(b) any other such powers that the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(3) Regulations made under this section shall be made by statutory instrument.”

New clause 10—Liability orders—

“(1) Where a person–

(a) has been found guilty of an offence under section 1 or section 11 of the Fraud Act 2006, or the offence at common law of conspiracy to defraud,

(b) that offence relates to fraud committed against a public authority, and

(c) has not paid the required penalties or not made the required repayments,

the Secretary of State must apply to a magistrates’ court or, in Scotland, to the sheriff for an order (“a liability order”) against the liable person.

(2) Where the Secretary of State applies for a liability order, the magistrates’ court or (as the case may be) sheriff shall make the order if satisfied that the payments in question have become payable by the liable person and have not been paid.

(3) The Secretary of State may make regulations in relation to England and Wales—

(a) prescribing the procedure to be followed in dealing with an application by the Secretary of State for a liability order;

(b) prescribing the form and contents of a liability order; and

(c) providing that where a magistrates’ court has made a liability order, the person against whom it is made shall, during such time as the amount in respect of which the order was made remains wholly or partly unpaid, be under a duty to supply relevant information to the Secretary of State.

(4) Where a liability order has been made against a person ("the liable person"), the Secretary of State may use the procedure in Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (taking control of goods) to recover the amount in respect of which the order was made, to the extent that it remains unpaid.”

New clause 11—Publication of results of pilot schemes—

“Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish the results of any pilot schemes run with banks to test the provisions in Chapter 1 of Part 2.”

New clause 12—Report on cost implications for banks—

“The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, publish a report on the expected cost implications of the provisions of this Act for banks.”

New clause 13—Annual reporting of amounts recovered—

“(1) The Secretary of State must publish an annual report detailing the amount of money which has been recovered under the provisions of this Act.

(2) A first report must be published no later than 12 months after the passing of this Act with subsequent reports published at intervals of no more than 12 months.”

New clause 14—Impact of Act on vulnerable customers—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament an assessment of the expected impact of the Act on vulnerable customers.

(2) For the purposes of this section, “vulnerable customers” means someone who, due to their personal circumstances, is especially susceptible to harm, particularly when a firm is not acting with appropriate levels of care.”

New clause 15—Publication of an Anti-Fraud and Error Technology Strategy—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish an Anti-Fraud and Error Technology Strategy.

(2) An Anti-Fraud and Error Technology Strategy published under this section must set out–

(a) how the Government intends to use automated technologies or artificial intelligence to tackle fraud against public authorities and the making of erroneous payments by public authorities, and

(b) a series of safeguards to provide for human oversight of decision making that meet the aims set out in subsection (3);

(c) how rights of appeal will be protected;

(d) a framework for privacy and data sharing.

(3) The aims of the safeguards in subsection (2)(b) are—

(a) to ensure that grounds for decision making can only be reasonable if they are the result of a process in which there has been meaningful human involvement by a human of adequate expertise to scrutinise any insights or recommendations made by automated systems,

(b) to make clear that grounds cannot be reasonable if they are the result of an entirely automated process, and

(c) to ensure that any information notice issued is accompanied by a statement—

(i) setting out the reasonable grounds for suspicion that have been relied on, and

(ii) confirming that the conclusion has been formed on the basis of human involvement.”

New clause 21—Offence of encouraging or assisting others to commit fraud—

“(1) The Social Security Administration Act 1992 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 111A (dishonest representation for obtaining benefit etc), after subsection (1G) insert—

“(1H) A person commits an offence if they—

(a) encourage or assist another person to commit an offence under this section, or

(b) provide guidance on how to commit an offence under this section.

(1I) An offence under this section can be committed where the encouragement, assistance or guidance happens online.

(1J) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or an unlimited fine.”

(3) In section 112 (false representations for obtaining benefit etc), after subsection (1F) insert—

“(1G) A person commits an offence if they—

(a) encourage or assist another person to commit an offence under this section, or

(b) provide guidance on how to commit an offence under this section.

(1H) An offence under this section can be committed where the encouragement, assistance or guidance happens online.

(1I) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or an unlimited fine.””

New clause 22—Impact of Act on people with protected characteristics—

“The Secretary of State must, prior to making regulations under section 103 to bring into force any provision of this Act, lay before Parliament an assessment of the expected impact of the Act on people with protected characteristics who are in receipt of social security benefits.”

This new clause would ensure any impact of the Bill on people with protected characteristics in receipt of social security benefits was examined prior to the Act’s implementation.

New clause 23—Report on public sector fraud during COVID-19 pandemic—

“(1) The Minister for the Cabinet Office must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report evaluating the extent of public sector fraud that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic.

(2) The report must include—

(a) an account of fraudulent or erroneous payments made by or on behalf of public authorities, including but not limited to the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England,

(b) a review of how public procurement practices in place between March 2020 and December 2021, including—

(i) the use of high priority and expedited contracting for suppliers, and

(ii) the role of political appointments and personal connections in procurement decisions,

may have contributed to fraud against public authorities,

(c) the cost to the public purse of fraud against public authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic, and

(d) an assessment of the adequacy of Government oversight and other measures then in place to prevent fraud against public authorities.

(3) Where the report finds or concludes that there were—

(a) failings in Government oversight and other measures then in place to prevent fraud against public authorities, or

(b) any action or inaction by the Government which enabled fraud against public authorities,

the Minister must make a statement to the House of Commons acknowledging these findings and setting out actions planned to ensure any failings are not repeated.”

Amendment 15, in clause 3, page 3, line 10, leave out “10” and insert “28.”

Government amendments 23 and 24.

Amendment 16, in clause 4, page 3, line 33, leave out “Minister” and insert “First Tier Tribunal”.

Amendment 13, page 3, line 33, after “notice” insert

“or of the duration of the period mentioned in section 3(4)(a)”.

Amendment 80, page 3, line 34, leave out “7” and insert “28”.

Amendment 17, page 3, line 36, leave out “Minister” and insert “First Tier Tribunal”.

Amendment 18, page 3, line 38, leave out “Minister” and insert “First Tier Tribunal”.

Amendment 14, page 4, line 2, after “notice” insert

“, including by extending the duration of the period mentioned in section 3(4)(a) where satisfied that the person is reasonably unable to comply with the requirement to provide the information within the time required by the notice”.

Amendment 19, page 4, line 3, leave out “Minister” and insert “First Tier Tribunal”.

Amendment 81, page 4, line 10, at end insert—

“(7) Where a person has applied for a review of an information notice, the period mentioned in section 3(4)(a) is to be treated as beginning on the day after which the outcome of the review is notified to the person to whom the information notice was given.”

Government amendments 25 to 29.

Amendment 1, in clause 64, page 34, line 15, at end insert—

“(1A) Prior to appointing an independent person, the Minister must consult the relevant committee of the House of Commons.

(1B) For the purposes of subsection (1A), “the relevant committee” means a committee determined by the Speaker of the House of Commons.”

This amendment would provide for Parliamentary oversight of the appointment of the “Independent person”.

Government amendments 30, 31, 76, 75, 32 and 33.

Amendment 2, page 40, line 36, leave out clause 74.

This amendment removes the requirement for Banks to look into relevant claimants’ bank accounts.

Amendment 3, in clause 75, page 41, line 21, at end insert—

“(1A) Prior to appointing an independent person, the Minister must consult the relevant committee of the House of Commons.

(1B) For the purposes of subsection (1A), “the relevant committee” means a committee determined by the Speaker of the House of Commons.”

This amendment would provide for Parliamentary oversight of the appointment of the “Independent person”.

Government amendments 34 to 43.

Amendment 8, in clause 89, page 55, line 6, leave out from “unless” to the end of line 14 and insert—

“(a) the liable person agrees, or

(b) there has been a final determination by a court or tribunal that it is necessary and proportionate to exercise a power under Schedule 3ZA.”

This amendment would mean that the Secretary of State can only exercise powers to recover amounts from a person where the person agrees or where a court or tribunal has determined that such recovery is necessary and proportionate.

Amendment 10, page 56, line 16, leave out clause 91.

Government amendments 79, 78, 77, 74, 73 and 44.

Amendment 4, in clause 103, page 63, line 29, leave out from start to “following” in line 32 and insert—

“Subject to subsections (1A) and (2), this Act comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office may by regulations appoint.

(1A) No part of this Act may come into force until the recommendations of a report commissioned under section [Recovery of overpayments of Carer’s Allowance] have been implemented.

(2) Subject to subsection (1A), the”

This amendment which would delay the implementation of the whole Act until the findings of the independent review into Carer’s Allowance overpayments has been published and fully implemented.

Amendment 20, page 64, line 1, at end insert—

“(3A) Before bringing into force any of the provisions of Part 1 of this Act, the Secretary of State must consult with banks as to the costs which will be incurred by banks upon application of the provisions of Part 1.

(3B) Where consultation finds that the expected costs to banks are at a disproportionate level, the Secretary of State may not bring into force the provisions which are expected to result in such disproportionate costs.”

Government amendments 72 and 45.

Amendment 5, page 73, line 6, leave out schedule 3.

This amendment is related to Amendment 2 and removes the requirement for Banks to look into relevant claimants’ bank accounts.

Amendment 11, in schedule 3, page 73, line 25, leave out from “accounts” to the end of line 31 and insert—

“which belong to a person who the authorised officer has reasonable grounds to suspect has committed, is committing or intends to commit a DWP offence.”

This amendment would limit the exercise of an eligibility verification notice to cases where the welfare recipient is suspected of wrongdoing.

Amendment 22, page 84, line 12, at end insert “(d) housing benefit.”

Amendment 6, page 84, leave out line 12

This amendment would remove pension credit from being a “relevant benefit” for the purposes of the Act.

Amendment 71, page 84, line 13, leave out from “to” to end of line 17 and insert—

“remove types of benefit from the definition of”.

This amendment would mean that benefits could not be added to the list of “relevant benefits” by regulations.

Amendment 7, page 84, leave out lines 13 to 17.

This amendment ensure that the bill can only be used in relation to benefits listed in the Bill.

Amendment 21, page 84, line 25, after “money” insert

“or such an account which is held by a person appointed to receive benefits on behalf of another person.”

Government amendments 46 to 67.

Amendment 9, in schedule 5, page 98, line 10, leave out from beginning to end of line 24 on page 99.

This amendment would remove the requirement for banks to provide information to the Secretary of State for the purposes of making a direct deduction order.

Government amendments 68 and 69.

Amendment 12, page 111, line 18, leave out schedule 6.

Government amendment 70. \p Andrew Western: It is my pleasure to bring this Bill back to the House. I start by thanking all Members who have made contributions so far, and extend a special thanks to Members of the Bill Committee, some of whom are present today, for their detailed scrutiny.

This Government have an ambitious plan for change. To deliver everything we want to achieve, we must spend taxpayers’ money wisely, which is why we committed in our manifesto not to tolerate fraud or waste anywhere in our public services. The Bill delivers on that commitment. It is part of the biggest crackdown on fraud against the public purse in a generation. Nothing less will do, given the appalling position we inherited. \p David Davis: Does the Minister recognise that the Government’s own assessment of the effectiveness of the Bill is that it will recover a tiny 1.8% of losses? \p Andrew Western: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that we lose a total of £55 billion a year to fraud across the public sector; the Bill will recover £1.5 billion. However, it is part of broader measures—certainly on the Department for Work and Pensions side of the Bill —to save £9.6 billion across the forecast period. By the very nature of the changes that we are making with the Public Sector Fraud Authority, we are designing them to be scalable. As the PSFA becomes more familiar with the work it is undertaking, we think that it will be able to save a significant amount more.

As I was saying, Madam Deputy Speaker, with benefit fraud alone costing £7.4 billion in 2023-24, this is a major problem that is getting worse, not better. We cannot afford to ignore it, and we certainly do not accept it. Fraud against the public sector is not a victimless crime. Our public services, everyone who depends on them, and the taxpayers who fund them, all suffer. And they are increasingly suffering at the hands of fraudsters who use ever more sophisticated techniques to steal money meant for the public good.

The private sector has evolved and adapted its tools and tactics to respond, but, as the scale of the losses that I have just outlined make clear, the same cannot yet be said for the public sector. With this Bill, we will put that right. There will be new powers for the Public Sector Fraud Authority to investigate and deal with public sector fraud outside the tax and social security systems, and new powers for the DWP to modernise its response to fraud and error in the benefit system.

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said on Second Reading, this Bill is tough and it is fair. It is tough on the dodgy business people who try to defraud our public services and it is tough on the criminal gangs and individuals who cheat the benefit system. It is fair to claimants who make genuine mistakes, by helping us to spot and prevent errors earlier. And it is fair to taxpayers, who deserve to know that every single pound of their hard-earned money is being spent wisely. \p Ian Lavery: The Human Rights Act 1998 was one of the best pieces of legislation ever passed by a Labour Government. Can the Minister assure the House that this Bill in no way contravenes the secrecy part of the 1998 Act? \p Andrew Western: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance and, indeed, that all of our legal obligations have been satisfied as part of the consideration of this Bill. The imperative thing for me as a Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions is that we are supporting those who need the social security safety net, not the fraudsters who pick holes in it. \p Luke Evans: One concern that we have is the change in the way that people conduct benefit fraud. Through the use of key buzzwords, they help people to navigate the system so that they are able to take out of it what is not theirs. Does he think that there is scope in the Bill, particularly in some of the new clauses, to include specific legislation to prevent people from using words and buzzwords,  or from teaching other people how to cheat the benefit system? \p Andrew Western: The hon. Gentleman is correct that we have a problem with so-called “sickfluencers”, but as we will hear in the debate more broadly, the Government do have existing powers through the Fraud Act 2006 and the Serious Crime Act 2007 to take action in those areas if necessary. He is right to suggest that we should be doing more, and I encourage Conservative Members to reflect on what they did in this space during their period in power. He will be reassured to know that I have commissioned work within the Department to look at what further we can do, but in legislative terms—[Interruption.] I do believe that we have somebody crossing the Floor, Madam Deputy Speaker. \p Nusrat Ghani: Just for the record, in case Hansard did not pick that up, that was Jennie the dog crossing the Floor, not a Member of Parliament. \p Andrew Western: I am sure the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) is grateful to you for that clarification, Madam Deputy Speaker, even if I am not, as Jennie would always be most welcome on this side of the House.

I hope that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman that we do have the legislation required to act. \p Andrew Murrison: The Minister said that powers exist, but, plainly, they are not working, because we know that “sickfluencers” are doing their deeds and people are responding to them, particularly in the mental health sphere, where many of the claims are made. Indeed, we know that officials, or those acting on behalf of officials, are looking out for buzzwords, because, if there is a buzzword in there somewhere, they can bank the case and move on to the next one. Therefore, something plainly needs to be done to stop this. Will he look again at the Opposition’s new clauses 8 and 21, which would ensure that “sickfluencers” are targeted specifically, and say what, in the Government’s amended terms, they would do to deal with this particular group that are contributing significantly to the failure identified by my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) in relation to the amount of money that we are able to claim back from the huge sum that is lost to fraud every year? \p Andrew Western: I very much agree with the right hon. Gentleman that more needs to be done; what we differ on is the need for specific legislation in that regard. Where we are falling down at present is in the scale of the activity we are undertaking. We could be doing significantly more at the moment, but as I said in response to the previous intervention, I have commissioned work to ensure that that happens. We already routinely contact social media companies to ask them to take down specific posts that could help people to commit fraud against the welfare system. I am very happy to consider practical points, but I am convinced that we have the legislative weaponry required to take the necessary action to deal with people who are encouraging others to commit fraud, both online and elsewhere.

Government amendments 23, 24, 39 and 40 bring into scope the kind of information necessary for fraud investigations and enable the PSFA and DWP to compel certain types of special procedure material, including banking records or records of employment, in line with the policy intent. Requesting this type of information is not new for DWP and occurs under its existing powers. The amendments ensure that the PSFA and DWP can compel this information to support fraud investigations, while also ensuring that important exemptions are in place, such as those for excluded material and journalistic material.

Government amendments 30 and 31 seek to address two separate issues in respect of clause 67. Government amendment 30 includes a provision in the Bill so that the powers granted to the PSFA under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—or PACE—by clause 7 of the Bill are exempt from the application of clause 67(5). This will ensure that the clause does not interfere with existing PACE provisions in relation to legal professional privilege, enabling the Bill’s PACE measures to function as intended.

Government amendment 31 removes subsection (6) in clause 67, which currently overrides existing self-incrimination protections on the PSFA’s information-gathering powers and PACE powers. This allows the  common law principle of the privilege against self-incrimination to apply in the usual way—under the information-gathering powers—and ensures that the proposed PACE powers align with established PACE practices. The amendments ensure that clause 67 provides essential safeguards for the PSFA powers in the Bill related to the processing of information. \p Joshua Reynolds: I am sure the Minister will accept that there is growing concern about issues of automated decision making, artificial intelligence and algorithms. While wanting to ensure that we get the best results, is the Minister able to commit to the transparency we need when it comes to AI and algorithms in relation to the Bill to ensure that the most vulnerable in our society are not unfairly hit? \p Andrew Western: The hon. Member will be pleased to know that I can give him that assurance and that we comply with all the Government’s required standards around the publication of such information.

Government amendments 25 and 26 relate to clause 9, which amends the Police Reform Act 2002 to extend the Independent Office for Police Conduct director general’s functions to include oversight of public sector fraud investigators, enabling them to consider PSFA’s use of PACE powers and associated investigations. Clause 9 also enables the Minister for the Cabinet Office to issue regulations conferring functions on the director general in relation to these investigations. Section 105 of the Police Reform Act 2002 sets out requirements for such regulations made under that Act.

However, section 105 only applies to regulations made by a Secretary of State. As the Cabinet Office has no Secretary of State, this section would not include the regulations that the Minister for the Cabinet Office can make under clause 9. Government amendment 26 corrects that technicality so that section 105 also applies to that Minister. In addition, Government amendment 25 simply removes reference to part 2 of the Police Reform Act 2002 within clause 9(1), as the Bill will refer to the Act more widely, rather than just part 2.

Government amendments 48 and 72 provide a clear legislative framework for how the DWP and the PSFA will handle and transfer seized evidence to the most appropriate law enforcement agency, including the National Crime Agency and the Serious Fraud Office. The amendments will ensure that evidence is handled by the organisation best equipped to deal with the specific nature of the alleged crime, fostering inter-agency collaboration and reducing delays to investigations.

Government amendments 27 to 29, 68 and 69 clarify the maximum amount to be deducted from a debtor’s bank by the PSFA and the DWP via a regular direct deduction order under clause 17 and in schedule 5 respectively. The amendments will ensure that the cap is set at a percentage of what the person would reasonably be expected to receive each month, and they provide flexibility to amend that. They will ensure that any deductions are still fair and affordable and do not exceed the maximum percentage set out. Other factors such as the ability to repay will be considered and mean that in most cases the deduction amount will be lower than those rates.

Government amendments 75 and 76 will allow the PSFA to investigate and pursue enforcement action in respect of the offences in sections 6 and 7 of the Fraud Act 2006. Those offensives involve possessing, making and supplying articles for use in fraud against a public authority. The amendments will enable the PSFA to tackle the widest range of influencer-style offences, which we discussed earlier, in the same way that the DWP already can, which was a matter of concern to some Bill Committee members.

Government new clauses 17, 19 and 20 and Government amendments 32, 35, 42, 43 and 46 seek to ensure the correct application of the powers in part 2 of the Bill to devolve benefits. In 2020, full responsibility for devolved benefits was transferred to the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government. However, the DWP continues to deliver some benefits to claimants in Scotland under agency agreements on behalf of Scottish Ministers until the Scottish Government are able to administer those benefits themselves. The DWP delivers those benefits in line with how it delivers equivalent benefits in England and Wales. The intent is that the measures in part 2 of the Bill will apply to those devolved benefits that the DWP delivers under agency agreements in line with equivalent benefits in England and Wales.

Government new clauses 19 and 20 clarify that the Secretary of State can exercise the new investigatory powers in the Bill with devolved benefits only where those are administered by the Secretary of State on behalf of Scottish Ministers. They also clarify that Scottish Ministers’ existing powers under the Social Security Administration Act 1992 are not changed by this part of the Bill.

Government new clause 17 and Government amendments 32 and 46 ensure that the existing information gathering powers contained under sections 109A to 109C remain unchanged by the Bill for Scottish Ministers. That has resulted in some reordering and redrafting in clause 72, where the DWP’s new information-gathering power under the Bill is held. Government amendment 35 clarifies the position in relation to devolved benefits in clause 85, ensuring that the exemptions contained in proposed new section 109H do not impact Scottish Ministers’ powers under the 1992 Act. \p Andrew Murrison: The Minister is presumably keen to determine how much money is lost to fraud in Scotland, and I imagine he will require the Scottish Government to report back to the UK Government on their progress in clamping down on benefit fraud, but the same should apply in the rest of the country. That, of course, is the purpose of new clause 13, which would require an annual report on the amount of money recovered through the processes that he has outlined. Will he accept new clause 13? Will he also assure me on the point about the Scottish Government’s reporting of fraud? \p Andrew Western: I assure the right hon. Member on his point with regard to the Scottish Government. However, I will resist new clause 13 because the publication of the DWP’s annual accounts will provide sufficient information about our performance on fraud and error.

Government amendment 42 specifies that the functions of the independent person who can be appointed by the Secretary of State in clause 87 do not apply to devolved benefits unless those are delivered by the Secretary of  State under agency agreement. Government amendments 60 and 67 will amend the time required for compliance with a production order served in Scotland. That is to match normal conventions in Scotland. Government amendment 43 ensures that the new debt recovery powers taken by the Secretary of State under the Bill apply only to devolved benefits, while the Secretary of State recovers devolved debts under agency agreements.

Government new clause 18 and Government amendment 33 are consequential amendments to the Social Security Fraud Act 2001 and ensure that the powers of Scottish Ministers under the 2001 Act are unchanged by the Bill. Government amendments 36,  37 and 38 seek to clarify exemptions in the DWP’s information-gathering powers to deliver the intended policy outcome.

A key safeguard in the new DWP information-gathering powers is the exclusion of personal information about users of particular types of free services, such as advocacy and advice services that offer crisis support, for example when someone is fleeing domestic abuse. The intent of the safeguard is to ensure that nobody is deterred from seeking the support they need when they need it. However, the current drafting of that exemption in the Bill as “not for profit” is too broad. That excludes certain information that is very likely to be relevant to a DWP fraud investigation. For example, it prevents the Department from compelling information from housing associations, such as an individual’s address or tenancy, which can be instrumental in proving or disproving a suspicion of fraud. \p Siân Berry: The independent person is required to produce an annual report on the use of the new powers, which, as the Minister has just laid out, are quite extensive. However, there is no requirement for the DWP to adopt the report’s recommendations. In cases where it does not accept the recommendations, will the Government consider committing to at least explaining why they have reached that conclusion? \p Andrew Western: I would be very happy to report to the House on the reasons why we would not do that. I am sure the hon. Lady will allow me to write to her separately to set out how I intend for us to do that. It seems to be a reasonable request.

Returning to my original point, the current drafting would mean that DWP can compel information of that kind from private landlords or estate agents, but not from housing associations. There is an inequity there that we are seeking to address with the amendments, clarifying the drafting and continuing to protect the personal information of service users of crisis support or advocacy services.

The Bill also brings forward new information-gathering powers that govern how DWP-authorised officers can compel information to support an investigation into fraud. It also sets out where information must not be compelled—for example, to protect the long-standing principle of legal professional privilege. Separately, the Bill brings forward powers of entry, search and seizure for DWP-authorised investigators, those tasked with investigating the most serious cases of fraud. It does that by bringing those authorised investigators under the remit of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 in England and Wales, and by creating similar powers in  Scotland for DWP-authorised investigators. That ensures that those investigators are governed by a similar legal framework to other law enforcement bodies that are granted access to use those types of powers.

Government amendment 41 seeks to ensure that the exemptions to information that DWP-authorised officers can compel are not applicable to authorised investigators when using powers of entry, search and seizure. Government amendment 45 mirrors that provision for the PSFA. Those amendments will support effective fraud investigation, as without access, crucial evidence might remain out of reach, slowing down our response to fraud. Those exemptions are important, but the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which applies in England and Wales, already provides such restrictions and safeguards by only enabling that information to be compelled with the approval of the courts, coupled with similar conventions that apply for Scotland. The amendment ensures that there is no duplication. The powers in the Bill remain in line with existing conventions, as set out in PACE, and correctly reflect the norms of the Scottish legal system.

Turning to Government amendments 61 to 66, paragraph 10 of schedule 3ZD currently refers to definitions within PACE in relation to special procedure material, confidential professional material, excluded material and items subject to legal privilege.

Government amendments 63 and 51 set out specific definitions to avoid linking provisions that relate solely to Scotland with existing legislation that applies to England and Wales. This also ensures that legal privilege and “items subject to legal privilege” references contained in the schedule are correctly defined for Scotland. Government amendments 61, 62, 64, 65 and 66 are consequential to amendment 63.

Government amendments 47 and 48 ensure that the powers for the DWP under PACE taken by the Bill in schedule 4 are aligned with those of the police and other Government Departments, such as HMRC, and provide a clear legal framework for what evidence can be seized and how it should be handled. Government amendments 47 and 48 mean that DWP-authorised investigators, such as the police, can seize items that  are reasonably believed to be evidence of an offence,  not just DWP-related offences, when undertaking entry, search and seizure activities in England and Wales. This will mean that potential evidence of any other offence, if discovered in the course of a search, can be preserved and may be seized where it is considered necessary to prevent it from being destroyed or moved. The amendments ensure that the law is clear on how it must be handled and transferred to the most appropriate law enforcement agency in England and Wales. Government amendments 49, 50 and 59 make similar provisions for authorised investigators in Scotland to those I have just described for England and Wales.

Government amendments 57 and 58 clarify how authorised investigators can prevent access to seized evidence from any offence if it may prejudice criminal proceedings in Scotland, by amending the definition of “offence” in schedule 3ZD inserted by schedule 4 of this Act. This mirrors the same provisions that are already in the Bill as it applies to England and Wales.

Government amendments 53, 54, 55 and 56 are all minor and technical amendments to correct inconsistencies in terminology. Government amendment 34 is a minor  and technical amendment to provide the correct reference to powers in the Social Security Administration Act 1992, to ensure that the powers in Scotland align with those in England and Wales. Government amendment 52 amends the period of time in which a warrant must be exercised to Scotland from three months to one month. This corrects the Bill to ensure that it is consistent with the usual practice in Scotland.

Government amendment 70 ensures that the court has the power to order a person, having been disqualified, to provide their NI or EU driving licence, as is already the case for those holding a GB licence, under the new debt recovery powers. The Bill as drafted would allow a DWP debtor who evades payment and holds an NI or EU licence to be disqualified from driving. However, it inadvertently limits the court’s ability to order that person to produce their licence unless it was issued in Great Britain, undermining the power and causing administrative difficulties for the court and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. Government amendment 70 corrects this and ensures parity between GB, NI and EU driving licences under the powers in schedule 6.

Government amendments 73, 74, 77, 78 and 79 ensure that the application and limitation period in clause 99 follows the policy intention that the PSFA can investigate fraud and recover debt in England and Wales. Government amendment 44 also ensures that the DWP’s debt recovery powers in this Bill are not limited in Scotland to the usual five-year time limits in the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973. This makes it clear that the longer 20-year recovery period in Scotland applies to such provisions introduced or amended by this Bill. As I have set out, the intent behind these amendments is to ensure the delivery of the intended policy intent or to ensure the correct territorial application of the Bill. \p David Davis: I thank the Minister for giving way, and I hope he will forgive me for waiting till what appears to be the end of his list. When the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) asked him about the application of the Human Rights Act in this context, he said that the Bill did not breach it, in effect. My advice is a little different, and I waited to hear about his amendments to see whether anything in them changed that. My advice is that suspicionless financial surveillance could breach article 8, which covers the right to privacy, and article 14 on the prohibition of discrimination. Will the Minister make his legal advice on this available to the House? This is incredibly important and it is central to the major criticism of this Bill. \p Andrew Western: I have already made clear that I am satisfied with the advice I have received. We will make available all the information we are required to make available, but the right hon. Member will appreciate that I am not able to give an undertaking to release all legal advice at this stage. What I can say to him is that I am very confident that there is no breach of article 8 in particular. That has been explored at length as we have gone through the process.

I welcome the ongoing engagement with industry and key stakeholders. We have made a significant effort to engage all interested parties and listen to their views. That feedback has been important in shaping our approach to the Bill to date and will continue to be so as it moves to the other place.

Before I finish, I will make some quick remarks  about the non-Government amendments on the DWP eligibility verification measure and debt recovery powers. Amendments 2 and 5 from the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) would remove the eligibility verification measure entirely. I must resist that. We have a fundamental disagreement about the proportionality of the measure, and I think his concerns continue to be misplaced. We explored this at length in Committee. I appreciate where he is coming from and his perspective, but I disagree with him.

When fulfilling our duty to protect public money, we must also balance individuals’ rights to privacy. These powers will include robust safeguards, reporting mechanisms and independent oversight to give confidence that they will be used fairly and effectively. The Information Commissioner himself has welcomed the changes made to previous iterations of the eligibility verification measure, which addressed many of the concerns he had had with the previous Government’s Data Protection and Digital Information Bill. I must also highlight the importance of the measure from a fiscal perspective. It alone will save £940 million over the next five years and £500 million annually once fully rolled out.

Similarly, amendment 11 from my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) seeks to restrict the eligibility verification power for use only when there is a suspicion of fraud. That would undermine the measure entirely, as there are existing information gathering powers sufficient to deal with such cases. We require the power because it will enable better data sharing between the private and public sector to help check that claimants are meeting the criteria for their benefit and to detect incorrect payments at an earlier stage before any suspicion of wrongdoing has arisen. It is not a power to be used to respond to suspected fraud. Information will not be shared with the DWP under the assumption that a claimant is guilty of any wrongdoing. The DWP must look into why the account has been flagged by the bank and ascertain whether an incorrect payment has been made. That is why, following receipt of the information from banks, the DWP will make further inquiries to determine whether a benefit has been incorrectly paid and whether that is due to fraud or error. It would be impossible for the DWP to suspect fraud before it has even established that a benefit has been incorrectly paid.

Amendments 8 and 9 from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) would reduce the effectiveness of the proposed debt powers within the Bill. The Department can already apply to the court for a third party debt order, and a key reason for introducing the direct deduction order is to recover more public money without unnecessarily using the court’s time. It is also highly unlikely that debtors who have repeatedly refused to engage with the Department and repay voluntarily will suddenly agree to recovery taking place directly from their bank accounts.

I remind the House that obtaining information from banks, including relevant bank statements, under this measure is a vital safeguard to establishing an affordable deduction rate where someone has refused to engage. It will prevent further issues for a debtor than the use of courts could bring about—for instance, a county court judgment or court costs—and it will enable the Department   to use regular as well as lump sum deduction orders. I look forward to the debate and to responding to colleagues’ contributions in my closing remarks. \p Rebecca Smith: I echo the Minister’s comments about the work of the Bill Committee. We had a constructive few weeks getting into the nitty-gritty.

I have no doubt that the House will agree that fraud is unacceptable, whether against individuals, organisations or the state. The money taken does not belong to those responsible. When it comes to defrauding the Government, money is taken from every single taxpayer. At the same time, however, errors do unfortunately happen. They might be made accidentally by the claimant or by the Department. Although there is no ill intention, errors can still be costly to the taxpayer, and that impacts some of the most vulnerable people in our country.

The question, then, is how best to tackle fraud and error in the welfare state and the public sector. Although we welcome many of the principles behind the Bill—much of which builds on the work of the Conservatives before the general election, as I am sure will be mentioned many times this afternoon—we are concerned that it has been rushed through. On one hand, there are gaps where the legislation is not tough enough. It is not a strong deterrent to make potential fraudsters think again, and it does not sufficiently safeguard public money. On the other hand, parts of the Bill have not been sufficiently prepared, and are incredibly vague and unclear on their implications for those involved and on whether the benefit justifies the cost.

This issue must be considered in the context of a sickness benefit bill that is forecast to hit nearly £1 billion by the end of the decade—even after the Government’s questionable welfare reforms—which is vastly more than we spend on defence, and more than we spend on schools and policing. We have tabled a number of amendments to address those points.

New clauses 21 and 8 seek to tackle the rise in so-called sickfluencers on social media, such as those on TikTok and YouTube who post videos showing people how they might be able to make fraudulent claims for benefits, including the personal independence payment, which requires not medical evidence but self-assessment. As we have heard, the advice offered includes specific buzzwords, template claims and guidance on passing questions at interview stage to inflate the value of claims fraudulently. We do not want to target people who provide genuine advice and guidance to people about how the welfare system and public authorities work, but that is very different from providing assistance and encouragement to commit fraud, which is not acceptable.

We recognise the vital work of not-for-profit organisations such as Citizens Advice—which works right across the country, including in South Hams and Plymouth in my constituency—and groups such as Improving Lives Plymouth. They do much to support those seeking to claim what they are entitled to. However, online sickfluencers must be tackled.

In Committee, the Minister queried our new clause and asked why it provided only for a seven-year prison sentence when similar offences carry a 10-year sentence. We have addressed that in new clauses 21 and 8, which, as the Minister will see, propose a 10-year sentence to bring them into line with similar offences. \p Luke Evans: In their response to my question about sickfluencers, the Government said that relevant legislation is already in place. If that is the case, how many convictions have there been under that legislation? We could infer from that number whether or not the system is working and what we need to do. My suspicion is that we need these measures to be able to hold people to account. \p Rebecca Smith: I echo my hon. Friend’s concern that the existing powers are not being used enough. I ask the Minister to give us further information on how those powers are being used and an assurance that they will be used further should our new clauses be unsuccessful.

We believe that creating a specific offence to target such online fraud would send the clear message to sickfluencers that what they are doing is not only morally wrong but illegal—something that clear gives them no alternative than to realise that they will be caught. If the Government continue to oppose our amendments because they believe the powers already exist to tackle such crime, I would be grateful if the Minister set out, at the very least, how the Government will ensure that that legislation is used to the fullest, particularly with regard to the DWP, given that Government amendments 75 and 76 refer to the PFSA specifically. We are keen to see how those powers can be used fully used as the deterrent we need to tackle DWP claims. I want to know that, after today’s debate and vote, sickfluencers will be left in no doubt that the full weight of the law will be used against them, as they actively defraud the state.

Our new clause 9 is on powers of arrest. We welcome measures in the Bill—first announced by the previous Government—to give DWP investigators greater powers to aid with their investigations, such as search and seizure, and there must be appropriate safeguards around that. This will bring benefit fraud investigations into line with tax fraud investigations in His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which is very welcome, but we want to go further and address other shortfalls in the DWP powers. New clause 9 would add the power of arrest to the powers given to DWP investigators and resolve the seemingly illogical current position: the Government want to give DWP investigators the power to enter and search a premises, seize, retain and dispose of material, obtain sensible material and use reasonable force, but not to arrest someone if the evidence shows that it is necessary.

In Committee, the Minister highlighted that the police would be able to carry out the arrest function on behalf of the DWP should it ever be necessary, but we question whether that is a sustainable position and believe that our new clause would ensure we do not place an additional burden on the police. This is not without precedent and would bring the DWP into line with the approach taken to serious and organised crime across Government, such as at HMRC and the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority.

Our new clause 10 is on liability orders, because we are concerned about the seizure of assets. We want to ensure that the DWP does everything it can to recover funds fraudulently claimed, even when that money is no longer sitting in a bank account. It cannot be right that someone can use that money to buy expensive cars, flat-screen TVs or other luxury assets, which the state  cannot then recover from them. Our new clause 10  would give the Secretary of State powers to apply to the courts to seize assets where someone has been found guilty of fraud and the funds have not been recovered in order to repay the state. In a similar vein to our sickfluencers new clause, we believe these additions are needed to send the strongest message to those who are knowingly defrauding the system that they will be caught and will have to pay.

New clause 10 does not just give powers to seize assets to the Secretary of State; it says that she must use them. The DWP has said that it can already do this, but we know through written parliamentary questions that those powers have not been used in the last five years, albeit the DWP could make use of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. We believe there must be an explicit expectation that assets will be seized, and we need new clause 10 to ensure this is achieved. \p Neil Coyle: It is great to hear that the hon. Member’s party is committed to taking tougher action against benefit fraud after 14 years of failing in office. Does she also welcome longer sentences for fraud in other areas of Government such as covid corruption, including for those Tory donors who committed the crime? \p Rebecca Smith: I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but that is not what we are debating; it is certainly not part of my speech.

Our new clauses 11, 12 and 20 are on the impact on banks. We have concerns about the lack of detail in the Bill when it comes to the eligibility verification mechanism and the requirements that will be put on banks and other financial institutions. We do not have the statutory code of conduct. We do not know what it will cost banks. We do not know the results of any pilot schemes, and we do not know whether the amount recovered will be more than what it costs to administer. Madam Deputy Speaker, had you been in our Committee, you would know that the code of conduct was probably the thing most frequently commented on, and the Ministers did a huge amount to reassure us that it was forthcoming— \p Neil Coyle: And cheesecake! \p Rebecca Smith: And cheesecake as well—I did not want to say it from the Front Bench, but I have now. Madam Deputy Speaker, you will have to look back at Hansard, but I will never look at a cheesecake in the same way.

The code of conduct was regularly raised in Committee, and we got assurances continually from the Ministers, but we still lack that detail. We have therefore tabled a number of amendments to get clarity, including to require the Government to publish their statutory code of conduct, information on the testing completed to date and an impact assessment on the cost implication of the Bill for banks, as well as an amendment to allow banks to challenge the expansion of these powers if the costs that would be incurred exceed a pre-agreed amount. We know that banks and financial institutions want to help tackle fraud, but measures must be proportionate and not unduly burdensome, or they risk diverting resources from tackling other types of financial crime   to meet these requirements. We cannot simply assume that the banks and financial institutions will do what is right; we need to give them an incentive to do it, too.

Our amendments 16, 17, 18 and 19 refer to the need for a first-tier tribunal. The Bill takes significant powers for the Secretary of State, giving them the power to review decisions that they, the Cabinet Office or the Public Sector Fraud Authority made. Amendments 16 to 19 change the appeal body from the Minister for the Cabinet Office to the first tier tribunal, ensuring that there is not just independent oversight but an effective independent channel of appeal against information notices that does not just lead back to the organisation that issued the notice.

New clause 6 is on whistleblowing. If we are serious about cutting fraud and error, we need to have confidence in our whistleblowing procedures for civil service staff. I experienced at first hand at the very beginning of my career what it is like to see public sector fraud being committed, and to feel the pressure of wanting to act, while not knowing what would happen to me or my career if I did the right thing; that is perhaps one of the biggest regrets of my life.

In December 2023, the National Audit Office published a report investigating whistleblowing in the civil service and setting out what further improvement is required. The election came before the Conservatives were able to act, but we hope the new Government will take forward new clause 6 to review the whistleblowing processes for public sector fraud. Elsewhere in Government, new protections have been proposed for NHS whistleblowers, but that should not be the end of the Government’s ambition. They must have their own house in order when they come after fraud and error on the part of the general public, and I would at least like to hear a commitment to addressing the National Audit Office report.

I turn to new clause 14. Throughout all this, we must not forget to consider the impact of fraud, error and recovery on vulnerable people. In the absence of details being provided to banks about how their eligibility verification mechanism would work, we have concerns about the potential risks of debanking for vulnerable customers and those in receipt of benefits. New clause 14 would require the Secretary of State to consider the impact of the Bill on vulnerable customers’ access to banking, and would ensure that their access was protected. I note our support for the principles behind several of the amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), including those that consider the impact on financial exclusion and those at risk of domestic abuse.

Overall, while the Bill comes with the right intention of tackling fraud and error—indeed, eye-watering sums have been mentioned today—we have significant concerns, which our amendments seek to address, and we hope that the Government will support them. However, even if this Bill passes, it will not on its own be enough to bring fraud and error to zero, and the Government must set out what further action will be taken on enforcement, the use of artificial intelligence and technology, and social media. They must keep pushing, and must  make it clear to fraudsters that they will not succeed, while protecting vulnerable people from error. If they become complacent and fail to address these issues, I fear that the Bill will not deliver the results that we—and not least the hard-working taxpayer whose money is being stolen—all need. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Caroline Nokes: Before I call the next speaker, may I make it clear that I will come to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson immediately afterwards? \p Gill German: I welcome the return of this Bill to the House. I was happy to speak on it on Second Reading, when I welcomed the Government’s crackdown on fraud, because every pound lost to fraudulent claims is a pound that could be spent on the vital public services on which my constituents in Clwyd North rely. It is extremely good to see the recognition of the issue, and the action taken in response to the £7.1 million of fraud and error payments in 2022-23 in Wales alone—that figure is up by £600,000 on the previous year.

The fine-tuning of this Bill is important, and that fine-tuning is done through the Government amendments, which speak to the correct application under devolution settlements, policy intent, the application and limitation of part 3, and the consequential amendments proposed to parent Acts. I was glad to be a member of the Public Bill Committee that considered the Bill in more detail, and I throw my weight behind the comments made about how the Bill Committee progressed, and how helpful that was to Committee members. The explanations and expansions by the Ministers served us well and have brought us to where we are today.

I spoke on Second Reading about the distinction between intentional fraud and accidental individual error, and I am pleased that Government amendments speak to reservations relating to that, and to proportionality. Crucial safeguards will be strengthened to ensure that no one is pushed into undue financial hardship because of debt recovery. Those safeguards include strict affordability checks on recovery payments, and checks on vulnerabilities. \p Edward Morello: I take the hon. Lady’s point about the need to strengthen safeguards, but passing the Bill would mean that we would be extending the powers of the Department for Work and Pensions before we had the opportunity to look at the independent review of the carer’s allowance overpayments scandal and see what reform of the Department was necessary. Does she share that concern? \p Gill German: The Bill will protect vulnerabilities where we see them and it is very much a Bill of last resort. It is aimed at people who are not engaging with the DWP on fraud and error cases. Now that carers are aware of the problems that have occurred in the system, we hope that they engage, so I do not believe that the Bill will impact them in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. Indeed, the Bill will protect claimants by enabling early dialogue, which will stop errors sooner and prevent debt building up through genuine mistakes; I initially had a reservation on that point.

It is clearer than ever that the measures are powers of last resort for those who have refused to engage and are able to pay—it is important to emphasise that point. The measures put DWP powers in line with those that already exist for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Child Maintenance Service, and put the importance of the public money spent by those bodies on an equal footing.

The behaviour change that is expected to come as a wider benefit of the Bill is welcome. The Bill encourages debtors to negotiate a repayment plan ahead of using the measures of last resort. Importantly, as has been said, it deters organised fraudsters and those looking to become involved in fraud by ensuring that it is not framed as a victimless crime. It is anything but, because it robs us all of vital money for public services. We are not willing to shrug our shoulders at that, as the Conservative party did at the rising tide of fraud during the covid pandemic and beyond. We must all reinforce the narrative that benefit fraud is not a victimless crime, and our tackling it through the Bill is long overdue.

Throughout the passage of the Bill—in Committee and now on Report—I have been reassured that those who have genuine difficulty navigating the social security system have nothing to fear from the Bill. Indeed, it will raise awareness of the importance of early dialogue. However, I still have concerns about the complexity of the system and how it is administered, as I voiced at Second Reading, but that is for another day. As a member of the Work and Pensions Committee, I will continue to focus on that, as well as having regular dialogue on the subject with my constituents.

To conclude, I welcome the Bill and the fine tuning that has come about through Government amendments passed in Committee. I was pleased to serve on my first Public Bill Committee, and thank the Chairs, Ministers and all involved for its smooth running. I am happy to support the Government amendments put to the House today. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrat party. \p Steve Darling: I start by assuring the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) that my office has talked me out of mentioning the Waitrose cheesecake that was a hot topic throughout Committee. On a more serious note, I would like to explore the challenges in the Bill. As we have heard, fraud can only be a bad thing, as it robs the public purse, but we need to ensure that our approach is proportionate, and that is where the rub is for us, as Liberal Democrats.

First, I want to focus on the covid crisis. We all lived through that, and some of us were in hot seats. I was leader of Torbay council at the time, so it felt as if I was in the eye of the storm for some of those challenges. I am afraid to say that for many of us in this Chamber, it feels as if the Conservatives were asleep at the wheel, given the level of fraud that we saw taking place during the pandemic. The fact that £10 billion-worth of fraud occurred around personal protective equipment is shocking. Some £16 billion of fraud occurred around support for businesses. While it was extremely important that we supported businesses appropriately, the safeguards were   extremely limited. One businessman in Torbay said to me that it was as if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had got handfuls of £50 notes, filled carrier bags across the town centre, and said to the criminal element, “Come and help yourselves.” The reality is that the money could and should have been put to good use. In my constituency, Torbay hospital is crying out for investment. We have a sewage scandal, and the Environment Agency could be supported in tackling that issue. We also have the cost of living crisis; we could support people in ensuring warmer homes. All that money could help with those things.

A colleague and good friend has already alluded to the carer’s allowance crisis, and the real challenge that it poses. More than 136,000 people—the population of the Torbay unitary authority area—are affected by it. There is some £250 million of cost on those people. We Liberal Democrats fear that the powers in the Bill could make things even tougher for those who have challenges to do with the carer’s allowance.

Members do not have to take it from me that the benefits system is broken; the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister have said that it is. If there is such agreement in Government that the benefits system is broken, why are we adding to this edifice? It is built on a foundation of sand, yet we are looking to pile more responsibilities on to it, without looking for the true, positive culture change in the DWP that we need.

Colleagues have alluded to the areas of debate around the Bill. I will touch on a few major concerns that we Liberal Democrats have. The opportunity that the Bill presents for Orwellian levels of mass surveillance of those who get means-tested benefits causes me grave concern. \p David Davis: The hon. Gentleman has got to a point on which I wholeheartedly agree with him. Something like 9.8 million people will fall directly under the reach of this Bill; if we include their carers, landlords and a variety of other people, it is more than 10 million people. I would think that the number of fraudsters in that number is very small, but not vanishingly small, so we will put probably more than 9 million people under unnecessary surveillance. He is right to call that Orwellian. \p Steve Darling: I concur strongly with the right hon. Gentleman.

Also of core concern to us is the lowering of the bar for being able to take money out of people’s bank accounts, and the opportunity to withdraw driving licences from offenders. However, as colleagues have said, the best practice document is missing. That was alluded to on a number of occasions. It is difficult to understand the true nature of this Bill if we do not know what that guidance will look like.

We also have real challenges around Henry VIII powers. Elements of the Bill should be written into it, but are not, so there are real issues there. We welcome the independent reviewer of the Bill, but the Secretary of State will be able to appoint their own independent reviewer; we do not welcome the Secretary of State effectively marking their own homework by making the appointment themselves.

Big Brother Watch, Age UK and a multitude of other charities have highlighted concerns about the Bill, such as the breakdown in trust that it could cause and the risk of amplifying the challenges faced by people with disabilities. It could also impact on some of the most vulnerable people in our society, such as those with learning disabilities. That causes us great concern; Liberal Democrats would like to see a real culture change. In our manifesto, we talked about co-design, which involves working with people who are benefits claimants and people with disabilities to make sure that the system is a better fit and more fit for purpose. As far as we are concerned, taking a more relational approach, rather than an adversarial one, is the way forward.

The carers investigation is ongoing. It is not set to report until later this summer, yet the Government are rushing ahead with the proposals in the Bill. I suggest to colleagues that they do not back these proposals until we hear that investigation’s findings and see what lessons can be learned. \p Neil Duncan-Jordan: I rise to speak in support of amendments 10, 11 and 12, which stand in my name. I would like to start, though, by placing on record my thanks to the Minister for Transformation, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western), including for his willingness to engage in a discussion on the terms of this Bill. It has been extremely helpful, so I wanted to place that on record.

I also make it clear that my amendments do not in any way seek to undo or frustrate the Government’s legitimate aim of recovering public money from fraudsters and criminals. We absolutely need to do that to ensure that criminal behaviour does not undermine the benefits, legitimacy or standing of our welfare system. The Bill rightly seeks to tackle organised crime and online fraud, but worryingly it also ushers in dangerous new powers compelling banks to trawl through financial information. \p Jon Trickett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I support his amendments. The fact is that millions of innocent people whose behaviour has attracted no suspicion at all will be subject to intrusion into their bank accounts. Is it not odd that there is also access to bank accounts for the £40 billion of tax unpaid by tax avoiders, but that power is rarely used? In the last year for which I have seen figures, 300,000 people were suspected of tax avoidance, but only 1,000 had their banks investigated. Is it not the case that this legislation appears to treat wealthy tax avoiders differently from the poor? \p Neil Duncan-Jordan: I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. It is the very poorest in our society who will be most affected by this legislation. Banks will be able to trawl through financial information even when there is no suspicion of wrongdoing—that is the key point in this debate. The very poorest, including disabled people on PIP, older people on pension credit, carers and those on universal credit, will effectively have fewer rights to privacy than everyone else. I am also deeply concerned about the slippery slope of compelling banks to act as an arm of the state. \p Ayoub Khan: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for tabling his amendments. We have the finest legal system in the world, and one of its principles is the presumption of innocence. As drafted, the Bill undermines that fundamental principle, which will raise stress and anxiety and undermine vulnerable people in our society. Does the hon. Member agree that that is the current position with the Bill? \p Neil Duncan-Jordan: Yes, and I am going to address that point shortly.

It is not the purpose of banks to act as an arm of the state, and compelling them to do so sets a very dangerous precedent that we in this House need to be aware of. We also know that organised crime groups, which are responsible for more than £7 billion of large-scale fraud, will evade detection by spreading funds across multiple accounts, beyond the reach of the algorithmic scanning that will be used to flag overpayments. It will be welfare recipients who are caught up in the net of bank surveillance, regardless of whether they are suspected of fraudulent activity. \p Richard Burgon: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his eminently reasonable and common-sense approach to this debate and on amendment 11. Does it seem to him, as it seems to me, that this legislation takes place in a wider context? Along with the proposed tightening of eligibility for personal independence payment, it moves us towards a hostile environment for benefit claimants, particularly disabled benefit claimants. We will end up treating them as suspects automatically. Does he agree that it was right for us to oppose this measure when the Conservatives wanted to do it? I tabled an early-day motion, signed by nearly 50 MPs, to that effect. We have to oppose this measure now. The best way to resolve it is by the Government accepting his eminently reasonable— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. That was a very long intervention. Perhaps we would be better off going back to Neil Duncan-Jordan. \p Neil Duncan-Jordan: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I will cover the connection between this piece of legislation and the Green Paper shortly. \p Neil Coyle: Will the outcome for the individual disabled people my hon. Friend is concerned about—the vast majority of whom commit no fraud—be any different if these measures are implemented? They will not be affected, because they are not committing any crime. \p Neil Duncan-Jordan: As I have tried to explain, the Bill introduces fundamental changes to the nature of our welfare system and its use. \p David Davis: I am a signatory to amendment 11. In answer to the point that has just been made to the hon. Gentleman, if the banks use algorithms, they will have an error rate of at least 1%. That means 10,000 or more innocent people will be dragged through the system by this proposal. \p Neil Duncan-Jordan: The right hon. Member brings me to my next point, which is the risk of a Horizon-style scandal on a massive scale, given the sheer volume of  accounts that will be scanned. That is glaringly obvious. These new powers also strip those who receive state support of that fundamental principle of British law, the presumption of innocence, as the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) said earlier.

Amendment 11 would ensure that the Government can tackle fraudsters, but would limit the use of an eligibility verification notice to cases where a welfare recipient is suspected of wrongdoing and not merely of error. That proportionate and necessary safeguard would prevent the corruption of our welfare system, which will turn it from a safety net—meant to offer dignity and support to those in need—into a punitive system, where accessing help comes at the cost of someone’s privacy and civil liberties.

The Bill grants the Department draconian powers to apply to a court to have people stripped of their driving licence if they have an outstanding debt, whether for overpayment, fraud or error. Amendments 10 and 12 would remove that power from the Bill. There are fairer and more effective ways to enforce the law. Analysis of the Bill has shown that where assessment deems that a financial deduction would cause hardship, the debtor can face losing their licence. That is not justice in my view, but a penalty for being poor.

I have heard the claims that this measure will be a last resort when the debtor has failed to engage over a period, but that overlooks the fact that non-engagement can be a symptom of hardship rather than wrongdoing. Many welfare recipients, including those with mental health conditions and caring responsibilities, find it difficult to navigate the complex bureaucracy of our social security system, and may be unfairly deemed not to have engaged with the DWP. \p Jim Shannon: It is important and necessary to have better legislation to look after people. I doubt that anyone in the Chamber has not been confronted by a constituent who has made an inadvertent mistake. Given the complexity of the paperwork and the reams of questions, it is beyond the ability of most people to respond. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern, and that of many others, that if the system continues to be so complicated, it will inadvertently drive people into a position for which they are not responsible? \p Neil Duncan-Jordan: I agree. I think that the complexity of our system lends itself to errors on the part of individuals who find it extremely difficult to navigate. In Committee, several witnesses explained that people avoid repayment for a variety of reasons, including not knowing where to get help, simply being overwhelmed by the whole process, or facing multiple debts. I hope that the Minister will provide further reassurance on that specific point relating to amendments 10 and 12.

All these challenges will only be made worse if the Government proceed with the planned cuts in disability benefits outlined in the recent Green Paper, which will affect more than 3 million families. The last Government stripped our welfare state to the bone during 14 years of deep cuts—disabled people are already far more likely to be in destitution and to rely on food banks—but spying on millions of people or piling cuts on to a failed system will not repair our welfare model. The Government must pause for thought, meet representatives of disability  organisations, and build a fairer system with their consent and confidence. Our welfare state needs to provide support for those who need it, and the change that we promised as a Government must lead to a more compassionate and caring society—one that enables rather than penalises. These are the values that make us different from the last Government, and we should not forget that. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. It would be helpful if Members tried to confine their speeches to five minutes or so, but I do not propose to introduce a formal time limit yet. \p Esther McVey: I wish to speak in support of new clause 11, entitled “Publication of results of pilot schemes”. Make no mistake: this Bill allows for a massive expansion of state powers. It will permit mass financial surveillance of the public. It is a massive overreach by the state, so of course it requires close scrutiny. It requires the publication of those results, and then they must be analysed.

Let me put this in context. Before the covid years, fraud and error across the tax and benefit system were at an all-time low. Then, in 2020, after a state-imposed lockdown—another massive state intervention—unprecedented financial support was set up for millions of people, in a rush of panic, with the full support of Members on both sides of the House. I exclude myself from that, but very few Members opposed the arrangement, and it opened up all sorts of new vulnerabilities in the system.

This support was set up only because of a blanket stay-at-home mandate from the state. It was the state that opened up those fraud vulnerabilities, and it was the state that saw, as a result of those impositions, many millions more people claiming universal credit. Let me give the House the figures. In March 2020, 3 million people were receiving universal credit. By November that year 5.8 million were receiving it, and in January 2025 the number was 7.5 million. Just as the heavy-handed state intervention of lockdown left the public paying a very high price, I am concerned that the Bill, another heavy-handed state intervention, will also leave the public paying a very high price. As Big Brother Watch states, the Bill will introduce

“an unprecedented system of mass financial surveillance; create a second-tier justice system for people on the poverty line; undermine the presumption of innocence; result in serious mistakes risking the freedoms and funds of our country’s elderly, disabled and poor; and turn Britain’s once-fair welfare system into a digital surveillance system.”

I have said it before and I will say it again, lockdown was an experiment inflicted on the British people without their consent and that experiment failed. The Bill will be another such experiment on the British public.

We should not be surprised that we saw such an increase in the amount of money lost to fraud in the system. The truth is that when there is a knee-jerk reaction to a moment of crisis, there will be serious repercussions. When the state takes extra powers and the powers of the state go unchecked, many inequities flow. The Bill is another example of that. There seems  to be an unwillingness to talk about it. There is a collective denial about the reality of what lockdown did to our country and the dire consequences we are all suffering. We need to admit our mistakes and learn from them. That is the only way we will not repeat such mistakes of mass state intervention again. That state intervention, a one-size-fits-all approach, exacerbated by haste and rapid deployment, lacks the detail of planning. It lacks tried and tested vehicles of delivery, and it lacks safeguards. The massive intervention proposed by the Bill at the very least needs further testing and piloting, and, most importantly, the publication of the results and an analysis of them.

I am sorry to have to say it, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I have no faith that the Government have done the homework required to implement the scheme, and not without good reason. This is a Government who do not have a good track record on doing impact assessments or on doing their homework before major legislation is introduced, such as: the removal of the winter fuel payment from pensioners and the fallout from that; the impact of VAT on schools; the devastation to the farming community and to food security caused by the taxes on farms; and the impact on business and employment of the increase in employers’ national insurance contributions.

We are seeing the failure of not doing tests, impact assessments and thoroughly working out how things will work. Much more detailed work needs to go into a change of this enormity. This extraordinary power is ineffective and entirely disproportionate to the revenue the Government expect to raise via its use. The Government’s own estimate is that it will get back less than 1.4% of the estimated annual loss to fraud and error. Talk about a hammer to crack a nut. This is power for power’s sake, an absolutely unnecessary power grab from the people. Today sees the threat unchecked, untested and coming forward. Looming on the horizon are other forms of state intervention and global intervention, with the World Health Organisation’s new international health regulations. Now is the time for Members to have a conversation about massive state interventions and why we do not want them.

In conclusion, it is ironic, is it not, that a massive state overreach and the draconian legislation used for lockdown led to high levels of fraud, error and millions more people on benefit? It will, supposedly, now be solved and corrected by yet another massive state overreach and draconian legislation. It was wrong then and it is wrong now. \p John Martin McDonnell: Sometimes in these debates, we are trying to influence those on the Front Bench; to be honest, on this legislation, I have given up on that. I just want to get on the record, for my constituents, why I am concerned about this piece of legislation and why I support amendment 11.

We have all prefaced our speeches by saying that we all want to tackle fraud. To follow on from the speech by the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), in that process during covid, I think I was the first MP to raise the issue of the massive fraud that was going on with bank loans. When I wrote to the then Chancellor and to various Ministers, I received responses that had almost been dictated by the banks, saying that all the security measures had been put in place and that it was being administered effectively; we then discovered that  it was, I think, £13 billion, although we recovered an element of that, so I am very wary about ensuring that public expenditure avoids the levels of fraud that we saw during that time.

I am concerned about this Bill, which takes huge steps constitutionally, legally and on civil liberties. Others have made similar points. Our tradition is that someone is innocent until proven guilty—that has been the legal principle from Magna Carta onwards. The investigation powers are usually triggered by some element of suspicion. This legislation rides roughshod over that long 1,000-year tradition.

On privacy, whatever assurances we are given about the Bill’s compliance with human rights legislation— I have my doubts—it introduces, for the first time that I have seen in this country on an issue like this, mass surveillance. \p David Davis: The right hon. Gentleman goes right to the point I tried to make with the Minister. There are  25 NGOs supporting amendment 11. It is almost certain that if we go down this route, it will end up in court. I think the Government will lose on article 8, on the question of individual privacy. \p John Martin McDonnell: Following the right hon. Gentleman’s track record on issues like this—he has been proved right on virtually every occasion—I agree. In addition to the mass surveillance, the extent of the information that can be sought and interpreted from the Bill is extremely wide-ranging and open to challenge.

What has annoyed me is that we are now introducing legislation in advance of what we were promised by way of codes of conduct and operation. We have no idea how this will work out in practice without those codes. Members may recall that the codes set out detail on how the system would operate at every level, with the information seeking, investigatory powers and so on. We do not have those, but we are being told not to worry, because the other place will receive them—well, that is not our responsibility as MPs. Our responsibility is to deal with the matter here.

We also do not know how the “independent persons”, as they are described in the legislation, are to be appointed or how they are going to operate. The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) raised the question of how their reports and recommendations will then be implemented. There is also the question of whom they will be accountable to and whether there is any accountability for those independent persons to this House.

Time and again, when we have introduced legislation like this in the past that has short-circuited the traditional protective constitutional and legal mechanisms, it has led to debacles and miscarriages. I warn Ministers that that is exactly what we are facing here. Reference has been made to issues with regard to the use of computers, models and algorithms. We seem to have learned nothing from where we have made those errors.

As I also raised on Second Reading, what is happening here is discriminatory. We are choosing a class of people—largely working-class people—who are claiming benefits, and we are targeting them. If there is a class of people we should be targeting who have a record of fraud and of claiming things that they should not, well, here we  are. As the expenses scandal demonstrated, if there is one group of people we should be examining more closely, it is Members of Parliament.

I want to talk very briefly about the impact of these measures from a constituency point of view. As an MP for 28 years and a councillor for over 12 years—40 years in total—I have met lots of people who do not claim benefits to which they are entitled. They are often older people, but there are others as well. Why do they not claim? In my experience, it is because of the stigma attached to claiming benefits. With this Bill, we are adding a bit more stigma, which will act as a disincentive to those who genuinely qualify for benefits and should be coming forward. It is that terror of making an error, that fear of risking being penalised for claiming a benefit they may not be entitled to—or of being paid too much. There is a real fear among my constituents about such miscarriages.

Most of the constituents who come to our constituency surgeries have tried everything else by the time they get to us. They are the ones with the most chaotic lives. And they are the ones who get sanctioned time and again, not because of any deliberate act, but often because they have mental health issues, or because something in their life, prevents them from attending that interview, or from applying for enough jobs in time. What will happen to them? They will be dragged into this system again. At the moment, they come to us—this is largely the case in my constituency—because most of the advice agencies have been closed down thanks to the cuts that have taken place, and they come to us in desperation. This Bill will make people even more desperate. It will deter people who qualify for benefits from claiming, and it will cause real hardship and impose severe penalties on those who least deserve it. That is why I think this is a poor piece of legislation, and it will not be long before we are back here again to amend it, to restore some elements of civil liberties and protection for the poorest in our society. \p Caroline Nokes: I shall impose, with immediate effect, a four-minute time limit. \p John Milne: When it comes to public money, everyone accepts the importance of preventing fraud; there is no dispute about that. The mere thought that our benefit system could be exploited loosens the cement holding our welfare system together. However, if we look back in history, there has been a track record of fraud recovery measures not delivering what was hoped. This measure will also probably never save the £1.5 billion that is expected of it, so I ask: will the alleged rewards of this legislation ever match the scale of the imposition on our civil liberties, and are we really going after the right targets?

We all want to catch deliberate and professional fraudsters, but they are precisely the people who are astute enough to change tactics, set up separate bank accounts, and avoid suspicion. Instead, it will be the innocent and the accidental claimants who fall into the trap. The implicit assumption is that we should trust in the DWP as a completely error-free organisation across the entirety of its massive operation. But the DWP does make mistakes. It makes mistakes all the time. And even when it knows that it has made a mistake, and it has been told so, it is very capable of making the same mistake all over again.

In my constituency of Horsham, Anthony and his husband were accused of providing misinformation to the DWP and were overpaid £10,000 as a result. Anthony protested without success. After a long fight the case went to appeal. The tribunal wasted no time deciding in his favour—it was an open and shut case. But then, earlier this year, Anthony and his husband were migrated over to universal credit. After confirming all details were correct, the DWP overpaid them again, and then sought to claw the money back over the following months. The DWP’s mistake, but Anthony pays the penalty.

The DWP has its rules, but real life does not run in straight lines. Real life is messy. How can we possibly rely on the DWP to mark its own homework when we know that there are just four fraud advisers per regional office to handle cases flagged by frontline staff?

Yes, there are some checks and balances within this legislation, but what is really needed is a profound cultural change within the DWP, and that is much harder to achieve. The common experience of people who have to deal with the DWP on a daily basis is that they feel that it is always looking to catch them out. Years and years of inflammatory rhetoric under a succession of Conservative Governments have convinced people to regard the DWP as their enemy, not their friend. If anything, the Bill digs that hole a little deeper.

What concerns me most about the Bill is its extreme overconfidence. It assumes that Government agencies always get things right and that individual citizens are to be automatically treated as objects of suspicion. In Committee, the Government were resistant to any amendments except their own, so I very much hope that they will reconsider today and accept the Liberal Democrat amendments. \p David Pinto-Duschinsky: I rise to speak against amendments 2, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9, and new clauses 12 and 15.

Fraud in the benefit system affects us all. It costs us as a country almost £1 million an hour. It takes money from the most vulnerable in society and undermines the legitimacy of and public support for our social security system. However, many of the amendments proposed simply do not recognise the vital need for this legislation. Some, such as amendments 2 and 9, would hamstring the Bill by preventing us gathering key information. Others, such as amendments 8, 5 and 6, would limit the effectiveness of the Bill and make its powers more difficult to use. Others, such as amendments 4 and new clauses 12 and 15, would seek to delay its effects.

These amendments, however differently proposed, all suffer from the same pathology: they fail to take fraud seriously. We have heard a number of speeches today from opponents of the Bill, but we are yet to hear from them any serious practical suggestions about how we might tackle fraud. These opponents say that they are concerned to protect the vulnerable, but I say gently that they can offer no proposals on how to prevent the fraud that is stealing from the neediest in our society.

Many Members are coming from a genuine place of concern about how to strike the right balance between protecting the public purse on the one hand and the  privacy and rights of claimants on the other. I think the Bill gets the balance right. The powers it provides are proportionate. \p Rebecca Smith: Will the hon. Member give way? \p David Pinto-Duschinsky: I have limited time, so I will make progress.

The powers the Bill provides are proportionate, measured and ringed with safeguards. It is a mark of this that, as we heard from the Secretary of State on Second Reading, the Information Commissioner has stated that the Bill as currently drafted has addressed their previously stated concerns.

As well as being proportionate, the powers are necessary to fight the ever-more sophisticated frauds that we are facing. Over the past decade, financial institutions have extensively overhauled their use of technology and data and their approaches to the evolving fraud threat, yet the Government have not. It is illuminating, but perhaps not surprising, that while social security fraud has risen dramatically post covid, fraud volumes and losses in the financial services sector, including credit card fraud, have fallen according to UK Finance. The public sector has paid a steep price for not modernising its anti-fraud approach and failing to adopt industry best practices. It is a gap that this Bill seeks to address.

Most of all, the measures in the Bill are crucial for protecting the vulnerable and safeguarding the legitimacy of the system itself. Our social security system rests on public consent and a belief that money is fairly spent. Fraud and error chips away at this social contract, and it takes money from those who need it most. The public in Hendon and across the country expect us to take action. There is nothing progressive whatsoever about permitting fraud. The only people who benefit are the criminals who exploit our system and those who wish to undermine its role as a cornerstone of a civilised and fair society.

For the sake of the most vulnerable, the taxpayer, fairness and the system itself, I hope the House will join me in supporting the Bill and voting down those amendments. \p Kirsty Blackman: There continue to be many problems with the Bill, but I recognise that the Minister and his team have had extensive conversations with the Scottish Government and made a number of amendments as a result. I welcome the communication between the two Governments and urge the Minister to ensure that the DWP team have extensive conversations in advance of the coming welfare Bill so that it will not need so many Government amendments on Report for how it interacts with Scottish legislation and Scottish systems.

I turn to new clause 1 on carer’s allowance. It would be completely fair to wait until a review has been done—there needs to be a significant look into that—as clawing back money from people without seeing the results of that review would be incredibly problematic. I am therefore happy to support the new clause.

On sickfluencers, I am concerned that although the shadow Minister has tried to draft new clause 21 to exclude people giving advice, it might unintentionally   catch some of those people. On that basis, I am not keen to support it as I would be worried about people who offer genuine advice being caught up in that. However, I understand that she attempted to draft it carefully to try to avoid that.

I would be more than happy to support amendment 11 —the SNP will support it—on the suspicion of wrongdoing. I am thinking in particular about the speech made by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). I was not going to mention the propensity of former MPs to claim things fraudulently, but in looking at who actually costs the taxpayer significant amounts of money, if the Government were to say, “We know that people who hold millions of pounds in offshore trust funds often dodge tax, so we are going to survey all their bank accounts,” I imagine that there would be some sort of uprising, particularly from some wealthier people we are aware of. But because the Government are saying, “It’s cool; it’s just poor people who will be impacted,” we are all expected to assume that this surveillance is fine. It is not fine; it is an absolute imposition on people’s lives. As many have said, it is treating everybody as though they are fraudsters.

Let us look at the amount of money set to be saved. The Government will save less money annually than the DWP makes in overpayments. Rather than imposing on so many people’s civil liberties, surely cracking down on DWP official error overpayments, which would save more money, would be a better place to begin. It is absolutely daft.

I completely agree with new clause 7, tabled by my colleagues the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), particularly in relation to the reasonable expectation that people could understand that they had been overpaid. A constituent contacted me recently because they had a letter telling them that they are to be migrated to universal credit. They are terrified that they will be deported because the word “migrated” was used in that letter. They do not understand the language used by the DWP. Given that universal credit is so complicated to calculate, so many people could not reasonably have been expected to understand that they were being overpaid. The DWP should take that into account before looking at mass surveillance. \p Peter Bedford: The Bill addresses the serious issue of fraud and error in our public services. I welcome the Government’s continuation of the work of the previous Government to protect taxpayers’ money and uphold the integrity of our welfare system. The amendments proposed by the official Opposition would not undermine the Bill; they would enhance it. Our amendments would preserve the fundamental principles of fairness and proportionality while strengthening the tools at our disposal to tackle wrongdoing.

In that spirit, I rise to speak in support of new clauses 8 and 21. New clause 8 is a measured and necessary proposal that would simply bring the Department for Work and Pensions in line with other Government bodies, such as HMRC and the Child Maintenance Service, which already have the power to issue arrest warrants for cases of serious fraud against the state. Why should it lack those enforcement capabilities when the crimes that it deals with are just as serious?

The taxpayer enters into a social contract with the state—a contract based on trust, responsibility and accountability. My constituents pay their taxes and quite rightly expect that those who cheat, lie or exploit the system will face the consequences. We in this House are the guardians of that social contract. If the public believe that we are turning a blind eye to fraud or failing to act decisively, that trust begins to erode and the social contract will be put at risk. Illegal actions must have legal consequences. In supporting new clause 8, the Government could send a clear and unequivocal message: fraud and deceit have no place in our society.

Turning to new clause 21, it has recently been highlighted that individuals are using social media to promote ways of defrauding the system, including through the Motability scheme. That is deeply troubling. Although Ministers have previously responded positively to my questions on that, the current version of the Bill does not go far enough. Unless the Government support our amendments, they will fail to take the concrete steps needed to address that evolving form of deceit.

This House has an opportunity today to work across party lines to further strengthen the Bill and reaffirm our commitment to protecting the social contract between the Government and those governed. Let us act with unity and resolve to reduce fraud, restore public trust and ensure that our systems work for those who truly need them and not for those who seek to abuse them. \p Sarah Olney: Under the previous Conservative Government, fraudsters got away with claiming billions of pounds of covid support funds, as an eyewatering £39.8 billion went uncollected due to tax evasion and other criminal activity. While vulnerable members of our society have seen their benefits cut and our public services are in need of investment, it is not right that public spending has been misplaced into the pockets of fraudsters. I am therefore grateful for many of the measures in the Bill that will work to reduce instances of fraud. However, I have concerns about some of the broader measures regarding the powers the legislation would give the Department for Work and Pensions and the potentially intrusive impact that could have on the civil liberties of citizens.

I speak in support of new clause 23, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), which would require a report to Parliament within six months on the causes and cost of public sector fraud during the covid-19 pandemic. The report would include an account of any fraudulent payments and a review of procurement practices during covid, including contracting for suppliers and the role of political appointments and personal connections in procurement decisions, as well as an assessment of the adequacy of Government oversight to prevent fraud against public authorities. Much of that work has already been undertaken by the Public Accounts Committee—I am a member, as I was in the previous Parliament—and it would be worthwhile for the Minister to take a look at some of our reporting on those topics.

If failings are found, the new clause would require an outline of corrective actions, including a statement to this House to acknowledge the findings and to set out actions planned to ensure that any failings are not repeated. With public trust in politics at alarmingly low levels, we must take all possible steps to ensure integrity  and the highest possible standards in governance. The cronyism, rule breaking and sleaze scandals of the last Conservative Government did huge damage to public trust in politics and politicians in this country. The new clause would lead to an increase of accountability and I urge the Minister to accept it.

Even though I am glad to see the Government introduce measures that would crack down on instances of fraud, I have grave concerns about some of the broader measures in this legislation that would lead to an unacceptable increase in intrusion on individual privacy. That is why I speak in favour of amendment 2, which would revoke clause 74 and remove the requirement for banks to look into relevant claimants’ bank accounts. Some measures in the Bill raise significant concerns regarding the privacy of individuals, and I have heard from constituents who are alarmed at some of the powers that could be introduced with this legislation. I believe that fraud must be rooted out and that more should be done to prevent fraud from happening in the first place. However, clause 74 is an unnecessary and invasive step that I urge the Government to refrain from taking.

I have heard from people who are concerned about the powers granted in the Bill because it enables the Government to have direct access to individuals’ bank accounts and even enables the DWP to withdraw funds or revoke driving licences. That concern is particularly serious when it comes to vulnerable groups, such as the elderly, disabled people and those living in poverty, who could face devastating consequences as a result of wrongful penalties.

I welcome the Government’s commitment to cracking down on fraud. There were clear failures by the previous Conservative Government during the covid pandemic, which we saw highlighted in the PPE procurement scandal and the bypassing of the usual procurement rules via the VIP lane. It is essential that proper rules are in place to ensure that public spending is carried out in an effective, efficient and transparent way, and I am glad to support new clause 23, which would strengthen transparency and accountability on this issue. However, grave concerns about the intrusive powers that this legislation could introduce have been expressed across the House today, particularly those that allow the Government to require banks and other financial institutions to share client data, and as such, I urge the Minister to accept amendment 2 to revoke clause 74. \p Siân Berry: There is a lot I could say, but I will mainly just commend to Members my new clause 7, which would remove official error from the most punitive measures in the second part of the Bill. I spoke against the whole suite of intrusive legislation in the second part of the Bill on Second Reading, and Green MPs still oppose it now. I was pleased to serve on the Public Bill Committee, and I will be supporting a number of other amendments that I also backed there, alongside the hon. Members from both sides of the House who proposed them. On Second Reading and in Committee I described how the Bill treats already stigmatised benefit claimants as suspects, not citizens, through blanket intrusion and surveillance. It is absolutely wrong that this legislation should go through in this form. I think the first part works, but the second part is absolutely out of order.

New clause 7, tabled in my name, is about fair play. It would bring a test for the recovery of universal credit overpayments caused by official error into line with regulation 100(2) of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006, so that they could be recovered only where the claimant could have reasonably been expected to realise that there was an overpayment. Let us be in no doubt, mistakes by the DWP can have huge financial and psychological impacts on people who are receiving benefits, and the risk of harm is particularly acute with official error overpayments, which individuals have no way of anticipating. I point out that new clause 7 is equivalent to an amendment proposed by Labour Front Benchers during the passage of the Welfare Reform Act back  in 2012, when the Government first started to recover universal credit overpayments.

Turning to a few of the other important amendments before the House today, I restate my support for amendments 2 and 5, in the name of the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling). These seek simply to remove the totally indefensible bank spying powers. I express my support for amendments 10 and 12, in the name of the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan), which rightly seek to do away with the driving disqualification powers, which I have previously opposed. I also put on record my support for amendment 11, also in the name of the hon. Member for Poole, which rightly limits the banks’ spying powers to cases with existing suspicion of wrongdoing. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) has taken forward amendments 8 and 9, which I tabled in Committee. My Green party colleagues and I will also be voting for new clause 1, in the name of the hon. Member for Torbay, on carer’s allowance and lessons learned.

It matters when we treat people who need a safety net as suspects. It matters when Governments invade privacy with a blanket intrusion that affects older people, disabled people and other minorities in a disproportionate way. And it matters that the powers proposed today extend to impoverishing citizens and punishing them for our own Department’s mistakes. Treating people with humanity and due process should be the default setting, not these intrusive new blanket laws, and I hope that Parliament will ask Ministers to dial up the competence, dial down the stigma and think again. \p Ann Davies: Over the past few months, it has been one thing after another for the vulnerable, the sick and disabled people. The recently announced cuts to welfare will affect 6% of the population in Wales, according to Policy in Practice, punishing the sick and disabled. This Bill adds to that punishment by increasing state financial surveillance of welfare recipients. It is full of intrusive measures, from granting access to three months of bank statements, to allowing direct deductions from bank accounts without court orders and providing police with powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to enter and search a property. That is not just my opinion: numerous charities and organisations from Age UK to the Child Poverty Action Group support Big Brother Watch’s recommendation to oppose eligibility verification powers under clause 74, for example.

Similar powers were proposed by the previous Conservative Government and considered a potential breach of privacy under the Human Rights Act. Labour  MPs at that time were among critics of those powers. It is disappointing to see so few Labour MPs here today, but I thank those who have once again spoken up. I am glad to see amendments, including amendments 8 and 9 tabled by the hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) and amendment 11 tabled by the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan), that seek to address such concerns, including by limiting or removing powers to compel banks to provide sensitive financial information.

Even the thought of this provision is causing real anxiety and distress, such as for my constituent Simon Mead and his family. Mr Mead’s daughter, who receives PIP due to the long-term effects of brain cancer as a child, and his son, who suffers from psychosis and schizophrenia, are extremely worried about the Government accessing their private financial decisions. It is already affecting their day-to-day life and decisions. When I wrote to the Government outlining Mr Mead’s concerns before the Bill was published, I was told that the Bill is

“not designed to cause distress or to undertake covert surveillance of disabled people, or any benefit claimant”.

Well, that is obviously not the case, is it?

Combined with restricting winter fuel payments, the refusal to abolish the two-child cap and the sweeping welfare cuts, many vulnerable and disabled people genuinely feel that they are being disproportionately targeted. This is a reality that the Labour Government must accept and address. The Bill further stigmatises people who we are supposed to protect—those who are entitled to state support—who are already suffering following recent UK Government decisions. As Members of Parliament, it is our job to better people’s lives and ensure that everyone in our community feels supported. We are here to serve and to serve all our constituents, which includes the vulnerable, the elderly, the disabled and the infirm. We are not here to cause further distress and hardship. We need to ensure that constituents have access to the help and services they need. Sadly, this Bill does the opposite. \p Nusrat Ghani: That is the end of the Back-Bench contributions. We come to the Front Benches and first the shadow Minister. \p Rebecca Smith: With the leave of the House, I will make a few additional comments. This is the perfect opportunity to respond to some of the points made about Conservative amendments and new clauses.

The hon. Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky) was on a short time limit and was not able to take any interventions, but I want to speak to the points he made on including our new clauses—for example, new clause 12. He rattled off the other amendment numbers quickly, so I hope he will forgive me if I did not hear them all, but I believe that new clauses 12 and 15 were included. His implication was that the new clauses we tabled would delay the Bill being put into law. That would not be the case, because each of them is worded for after the Act comes into force. The new clauses would be additional safeguards on the cost implications for banks, annual reporting and the publication of an antifraud and error technology strategy that would make the Bill even better, rather than essentially being wrecking amendments. Regardless of the other amendments included in the hon. Member’s list, ours are certainly not in that vein.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) said that she was slightly unhappy about new clause 21 because those who genuinely help benefit claimants get what they are entitled to may inadvertently be caught by it. That is not our intention. We want only those who push people towards committing fraud to be caught. Citizens Advice and Improving Lives Plymouth, for example, which help people claim what they are entitled to, would not be caught by the new clause, because they would be involved in error only if a mistake were made, rather than through fraud. I appreciate what she said, but that was not our intention. The wording of our new clause covers that.

Concern was raised in Committee about the extent of bank account searches. In our view, other bank accounts used by those who commit fraud would not be checked under the Bill, so we probably need to go further to ensure that fraud is properly tackled. To be more light-hearted for a moment, if I may, anybody reading the report of the debate will see plenty of references to cheesecake, and I think I should explain why. Concern was raised in Committee about the fact that, under the Bill, an account’s individual transactions could be assessed and judged, so everybody would feel terrible if they bought a cheesecake from Waitrose—other shops are available—and that would be a problem in future. If anybody was wondering why we were talking about cheesecake, it related to concern about transactions being checked. At the time, the Minister kindly reassured us that the Bill would not provide for individual transactions to be checked; it would deal just with benefit payments and whether someone has capital that they should not have while claiming benefits. I hope that that is helpful. \p Andrew Western: With the leave of the House, I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. In the time I have, I will try to respond to some of the points raised. I have listened closely to the concerns set out by Members from across the House, and I will of course ensure that they are taken forward as the Bill progresses to the other place, but today I will resist all non-Government amendments. I will make initial comments in response to several Members, before turning specifically to the nature of the amendments and new clauses.

The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), and the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford), said that the Bill builds on the previous Administration’s work to tackle fraud and error. I have to say, I think that is a fairly generous interpretation of that work, not least because, as far as I can see, the previous Government introduced absolutely no powers for the Public Sector Fraud Authority to tackle fraud across the public sector, and, moreover, nothing on debt recovery. The only evidence we can find of any new powers the previous Government sought to introduce is in the eligibility verification space. I accept that they sought to do that, but they did so in a rather botched fashion, which was subject to significant criticism, and with none of the safeguards and oversight in place. We have now built those into the Bill. I absolutely agree with the Opposition spokesperson that the Government cannot be complacent in tackling fraud—and we will not be—but I say gently that, having allowed fraud and error in the welfare system to spiral to £9.7 billion at the time of the last election, the same cannot be said of the previous Government.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), spoke of a broken welfare system. I do not want to be drawn into a debate on that, but a broken approach to tackling benefit fraud and error is certainly part of any problem that the Department faces.

I want to address the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) made about the eligibility verification measure in relation to his amendment 11. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) spoke of the impact this would have on the poorest, giving them less right to privacy than everybody else. I understand their concerns, but that is not my interpretation, because we have already established in this place the right of Government to receive information or data from private organisations, including banks and building societies, that points to financial standing. HMRC already receives data on every interest-bearing account in the country, so this is not an unprecedented power. HMRC sends out 550 notices to data holders covering 130 million accounts, and 100 notices to card-acquiring service providers. It receives 20 million lines of data on card sales. I understand Members’ concerns, but I challenge gently the extent to which the measure is unprecedented.

My hon. Friend the Member for Poole and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington alluded to the risk of a Horizon-type event. I want to assure the House of a very clear difference. The Horizon scandal emerged because evidence was taken from a single source. That will not be the case here. We will receive flagged information from banks of a potential breach of eligibility criteria. However, that will not be a sufficient source of evidence to prove fraud. That will trigger a look at the account, and if there is not an obvious reason why somebody is potentially in breach of eligibility criteria, a human investigation will be triggered that looks at a range of sources of evidence to establish the reason. Only then would there be any suggestion that fraud or error has occurred. There can be legitimate reasons for somebody having an amount of capital above that allowed by their benefit. For instance, if somebody on universal credit received a payment of more than £16,000, which is the maximum amount of capital allowed, as a result of the Horizon scandal or the infected blood scandal, they would be exempt. I understand the concerns, but I think this is distinct from the Horizon scandal. \p Kirsty Blackman: Can the Minister reassure us that no action will be taken to stop social security payments until the human investigation has happened? \p Andrew Western: I am happy to provide that assurance; the hon. Member has stolen my next line. I can say categorically that this is a data push only. No decisions will be taken as a direct result, other than a decision to look further into an account, and potentially initiate a human investigation, if needed.

I want to say a little more about amendments 10 and 12, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole, which relate to driving licences. He rightly said that welfare recipients may not be able to engage with  the Department. For the record, nobody in receipt of benefits or paid through pay-as-you-earn employment will be in scope of the debt recovery powers and therefore of the power to suspend driving licences. Where we do seek to suspend someone’s driving licence, it is worth remembering that this is after we have made at least four attempts to contact them through our debt management team, and at least four further attempts through our debt enforcement team, and we have established their ability to repay by looking at three months’ bank statements. If, when we seek to deduct from that bank account, an individual has removed the funds that we know they have, it is only then that we would look into the possibility of suspending their driving licence. Even then, because this is very much a last resort power, we would seek to agree a repayment plan with them right up until the end. The court would set repayment terms if a driving licence was suspended. It is also worth saying that it is always a suspended decision, subject to compliance with an affordable repayment plan set by the court. As I say, this is a power of last resort. I hope colleagues are reassured to hear of the many steps before we reach that point and, most importantly of all, to hear that the power does not apply to current benefit recipients or anybody paid through PAYE employment.

The right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) mentioned new clause 11 and the publication of pilot scheme results. I would like to clarify for the House that we are not proposing any further pilot schemes as a result of introducing this legislation. Two pilot schemes have already taken place, so we know that our proposals work. We will be adopting a test-and-learn approach so that we can scale things up. The question of whether this mechanism will yield information that is helpful to us in our inquiries was settled by the previous Government. \p Esther McVey: Have all the details and all the information from the only pilot schemes that the Government are prepared to run been published in their entirety? \p Andrew Western: Information of that nature was published prior to Second Reading and is available to Members.

I turn to the amendments and new clauses that attracted the most attention in today’s debate. New clause 1, tabled by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay, pertains to the carer’s allowance. I pay tribute to the millions of unpaid carers across the country. This Government value carers highly, and recognise the vital and valuable contribution they make every day. Like others, I see that in my constituency work, week after week, and I am in awe of all that carers do.

This Government inherited a system in which  busy carers, already struggling under a huge weight of responsibility, have been left to repay large sums of overpaid carer’s allowance, sometimes worth thousands of pounds. We need to understand exactly what went wrong, so that we can set out our plan to put this right. That is why we launched an independent review of earnings-related overpayments, and we were delighted that Liz Sayce agreed to lead that review, which will investigate how overpayments of carer’s allowance have occurred, what can best be done to support those who   have accrued them, and how to reduce the risk of these problems occurring in future. The independent review is under way and is anticipated to conclude this summer.

But we are not sitting back; we are taking action now. We continue to review and improve our communication with carers to make it as easy as possible for them to tell us when something has changed in their life that could affect their carer’s allowance entitlement. Moreover, this Government introduced the largest ever increase in the earnings limit since carer’s allowance was introduced; the weekly carer’s allowance earnings limit increased to £196 from 7 April this year. It is now pegged permanently to 16 hours. \p Anna Dixon: Clearly, many carers have been affected by overpayments. Overpayment comes as a shock to many who are trying to work in order to bridge the gap between carer’s allowance and their family’s costs, and it has a significant impact on their mental health. Does the Minister share my gratitude to Liz Sayce for the work that she is doing to hopefully provide clarity for the many carers who are trying to juggle unpaid family care and work? \p Andrew Western: I absolutely agree. Liz Sayce is doing excellent work, and I look forward to seeing the conclusions of her review in due course.

Turning to new clause 1, as I have said, the independent review that has been commissioned is expected to arrive at its conclusions this summer. It would be irresponsible for me to commit in advance to implementing all recommendations. As the House will understand, the recommendations will need to be given careful consideration when they are provided to the Department. Moreover, I do not believe that the new clause would have the effect intended. \p Iqbal Mohamed: Will the Minister give way? \p Andrew Western: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will not, as I am short of time. New clause 1 would prevent recovery of carer’s allowance overpayments via the new recovery powers in this Bill, but the DWP would still be able to recover carer’s allowance overpayments through deductions from benefits or through deductions from PAYE earnings. This would place carers in an unequal position in regard to overpayment recovery, with recovery depending on whether they were in receipt of benefits or in PAYE employment. Even if I believed that that was what the amendment intended, suspending recovery of all carer’s allowance overpayments until the independent review has concluded would be disproport-ionate. There are safeguards and protections for those with overpayments, including appeal rights, affordable repayment plans and, in exceptional circumstances, the option to waive the debt.

I turn to new clause 21, which the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for South West Devon, spoke to, and I will refer to new clause 8, which proposes to introduce a new offence of fraud against a public authority. In my view, that is already covered by existing offences, making the amendment duplicative and unnecessary. Fraud is already an offence under the Fraud Act 2006, and the common law offence of conspiracy to defraud, regardless of whether the fraud is against public authorities or anyone else, is already in existence.

The Government amendments to clause 70 bring together the offences in sections 6 and 7 of the Fraud Act 2006 of

“possessing, making or supplying articles for use in frauds”,

with the offences of “assisting and encouraging” that are found in sections 44 to 46 of the Serious Crime Act 2007. That allows us to tackle the issue that Committee members were concerned about—influencer-style offences, in which a person provides the knowledge needed to commit a fraudulent act through internet videos or manuals. \p Luke Evans: On that point, will the Minister give way? \p Andrew Western: I will not. I took an intervention from the hon. Gentleman on this subject earlier, but I am short of time. [Interruption.] Had he stayed for the whole debate, I might have been more willing to do so, but I responded to his earlier invention.

In my view, we simply need to enforce existing law. Similarly, new clause 21 seeks to amend the Social Security Administration Act 1992 to introduce an offence of encouraging or assisting fraud. Again, in my view this is unnecessary, because that is covered by the Fraud Act 2006 and the Serious Crime Act 2007. The hon. Member for South West Devon asked for assurance that we would use the powers that we already have. As I said in response to interventions, I have commissioned work in the Department to look at how we can further use the powers that we have; in my view, historically, we have not taken best advantage of them. \p Iqbal Mohamed: On that point, will the Minister give way? \p Andrew Western: I am sorry, but I will not.

Turning to new clause 10, we want to ensure that the Government have access to a wide, appropriate and proportionate range of debt recovery powers, so that we have multiple methods of recovering money from those who have the means to pay but refuse to do so. However, new clause 10 is not required, as equivalent action is already provided for through existing legislation for the DWP, and by clause 16 of this Bill for the PSFA. Clause 16 clarifies that the PSFA is able to seek alternative civil recovery through the civil courts. In addition, there are direct deduction orders and deduction from earnings orders in the Bill, which could include liability orders.

I have largely covered amendment 11. In closing, I want to make a few observations about amendments 8 and 9, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker), but spoken to by other Members. In my view, those amendments would reduce the effectiveness of our debt recovery powers as proposed in the Bill, so I cannot agree to them. I recognise the importance of dialogue with customers all the way through the journey of debt recovery. As I set out in response to the concerns about the revocation of driving licences raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole, we will seek to engage with people at all stages of the journey. If we identified any vulnerabilities, we would cease recovery, and at all stages we would look to agree an affordable repayment plan.

I hope that I have addressed the majority of the points raised by right hon. and hon. Members, and I thank them again for their contributions. I thank the witnesses who gave their time to the Committee, and  those who provided written evidence. Finally, I extend my thanks to the Clerks, the House staff and civil servants who have contributed to the passage of the Bill.

For too long, too little effort has been made to get a grip on public sector fraud, resulting in the totally unacceptable levels that we see today. With this Bill, we are taking the powers needed to act and to finally take the fight to the crooks and the con artists, from criminal gangs attacking our welfare system to covid fraudsters who stole from hard-working people in a time of national emergency.

This Bill is critical. It will save us billions of pounds, and it is part of a broader package in the Department to save £9.6 billion for the DWP by 2030. I hope that all Members feel able to support it today.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 17 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, 3 February).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E). \p UNKNOWN: “(1) The Social Security Fraud Act 2001 is amended as follows.

(2) Section 3 (code of practice about use of information powers) is amended in accordance with subsections (3) and (4).

(3) Before subsection (1) insert—

“(A1) The Secretary of State must issue a code of practice relating to the exercise of the powers that are exercisable by an authorised officer under section 109BZB of the Administration Act.”

(4) In subsection (1), for “Secretary of State” substitute “Scottish Ministers”.

(5) Section 4 (arrangements for payments in respect of information) is amended as follows.

(6) Before subsection (1) insert—

“(A1) The Secretary of State must ensure that such arrangements (if any) are in force as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate for requiring or authorising, in such cases as the Secretary of State thinks fit, the making of such payments as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in respect of compliance with relevant obligations by any person.

(A2) In subsection (A1), “relevant obligation” means an obligation to provide information, or access to information, under section 109BZB or 109BA of the Administration Act.”

(7) In subsection (1)—

(a) for “Secretary of State” substitute “Scottish Ministers”;

(b) for “he thinks”, in both places it occurs, substitute “they think”;

(c) for “he considers” substitute “they consider”.

(8) Omit subsection (4).”—(Andrew Western.)

This new clause would replace clause 73. It ensures that the amendments to sections 3 and 4 of the Social Security Fraud Act 2001 reflect the changes made by the Bill to the Secretary of State’s powers to require information under the Social Security Administration Act 1992 and continue to operate effectively in relation to the Scottish Ministers’ powers to require information under the Social Security Administration Act 1992.

Brought up, and added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: “In the Social Security Administration Act 1992, after section 121D, insert—

“121DZA Devolved Benefits

(1) Subject to subsection (3), powers of the Secretary of State under this Part (including powers of an individual who has the Secretary of State’s authorisation for the purposes of this Part as mentioned in section 109A) are not exercisable in relation to a devolved benefit.

(2) A benefit is a devolved benefit if functions under this Part are exercisable in relation to the benefit by the Scottish Ministers by virtue of section 53 of the Scotland Act 1998, read with section 32 of the Scotland Act 2016.

(3) The powers referred to in subsection (1) are exercisable in relation to a devolved benefit where arrangements made under section 93(1) of the Scotland Act 1998 (agency arrangements) have the effect that the Secretary of State is to exercise any functions of the Scottish Ministers under this Part on behalf of the Scottish Ministers in relation to the benefit.

(4) See also section (Powers of Scottish Ministers) of the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Act 2025.””—(Andrew Western.)

This new clause means that the powers of the Secretary of State under Part 6 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (enforcement) cannot be exercised in relation to a devolved benefit except where the Secretary of State administers that benefit on behalf of the Scottish Ministers under agency arrangements.

Brought up, and added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: “(1) Nothing in this Part is to be taken as adding or removing functions of the Scottish Ministers under the Social Security Administration Act 1992.

(2) Accordingly, those functions continue to be the functions that are exercisable under that Act by the Scottish Ministers by virtue of section 53 of the Scotland Act 1998, read with section 32 of the Scotland Act 2016 (including where an amendment made by this Part has the effect that a provision of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 refers to the Scottish Ministers expressly).”—(Andrew Western.)

This new clause provides that the functions of the Scottish Ministers under the Social Security Administration Act 1992 continue to be exercisable by virtue of section 53 of the Scotland Act 1998, read with section 32 of the Scotland Act 2016, despite any amendments made to that Act by Part 2 of the Bill.

Brought up, and added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: “The Secretary of State may not exercise any of the powers of recovery under this Act in relation to a person who has received an overpayment of Carer’s Allowance until such time as—

(a) the Secretary of State has commissioned an independent review of the overpayment of Carer's Allowance;

(b) the review has concluded its inquiry and submitted a report containing recommendations to the Secretary of State;

(c) the Secretary of State has laid the report of the independent review before Parliament; and

(d) the Secretary of State has implemented the recommendations of the independent review.”—(Steve Darling.)

This new clause would delay any payments being taken from people who the Government may think owe repayments on Carer’s Allowance until the independent review into Carer’s Allowance overpayments has been published and fully implemented.

Brought up.

Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 73, Noes 255.

Question accordingly negatived. \p UNKNOWN: (1) Where a person–

(a) has been found guilty of an offence under section 1 or section 11 of the Fraud Act 2006, or the offence at common law of conspiracy to defraud,

(b) that offence relates to fraud committed against a public authority, and

(c) has not paid the required penalties or not made the required repayments,

the Secretary of State must apply to a magistrates’ court or, in Scotland, to the sheriff for an order (“a liability order”) against the liable person.

(2) Where the Secretary of State applies for a liability order, the magistrates’ court or (as the case may be) sheriff shall make the order if satisfied that the payments in question have become payable by the liable person and have not been paid.

(3) The Secretary of State may make regulations in relation to England and Wales—

(a) prescribing the procedure to be followed in dealing with an application by the Secretary of State for a liability order;

(b) prescribing the form and contents of a liability order; and

(c) providing that where a magistrates’ court has made a liability order, the person against whom it is made shall, during such time as the amount in respect of which the order was made remains wholly or partly unpaid, be under a duty to supply relevant information to the Secretary of State.

(4) Where a liability order has been made against a person ("the liable person"), the Secretary of State may use the procedure in Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (taking control of goods) to recover the amount in respect of which the order was made, to the extent that it remains unpaid.”—(Rebecca Smith.)

Brought up.

Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 101, Noes 258.

Question accordingly negatived. \p UNKNOWN: “(1) The Social Security Administration Act 1992 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 111A (dishonest representation for obtaining benefit etc), after subsection (1G) insert—

“(1H) A person commits an offence if they—

(a) encourage or assist another person to commit an offence under this section, or

(b) provide guidance on how to commit an offence under this section.

(1I) An offence under this section can be committed where the encouragement, assistance or guidance happens online.

(1J) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or an unlimited fine.”

(3) In section 112 (false representations for obtaining benefit etc), after subsection (1F) insert—

“(1G) A person commits an offence if they—

(a) encourage or assist another person to commit an offence under this section, or

(b) provide guidance on how to commit an offence under this section.

(1H) An offence under this section can be committed where the encouragement, assistance or guidance happens online.

(1I) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or an unlimited fine.””.—(Rebecca Smith.)

Brought up.

Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 95, Noes 257.

Question accordingly negatived. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 23, page 3, line 22, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—

“(a) journalistic material, or

(b) excluded material,”

This amendment allows an information notice to require a person to give to the Minister information which amounts to special procedure material under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 but not any information that amounts to journalistic material or excluded material under that Act.

Amendment 24, page 3, line 25, leave out “14” and insert “13”.—(Andrew Western.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 23. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 25, page 6, line 11, leave out “Part 2 of”

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 26.

Amendment 26, page 8, line 2, at end insert—

“(4) In section 105 (powers of Secretary of State to make orders and regulations), after subsection (5) insert—

‘(6) In this section, references to the Secretary of State include references to the Minister for the Cabinet Office for the purposes of section 26G (power to make regulations about public sector fraud investigators).’”—(Andrew Western.)

This amendment means that section 105 of the Police Reform Act 2002 (powers of Secretary of State to make orders and regulations) applies in relation to the power of the Minister for the Cabinet Office to make regulations under new section 26G of that Act (inserted by clause 9 of the Bill), with the result (among other things) that such regulations would be subject to the negative procedure. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 27, page 14, line 27, leave out from “the” to “and” on line 28 and insert “relevant amount,”.

This amendment, together with Amendment 28 and Amendment 29, would mean that the maximum amount to be deducted under a regular direct deduction order under clause 17 in relation to any period of 28 days is to be calculated by reference to the amount the Minister expects to be credited to the account in a month.

Amendment 28, page 14, line 29, leave out from first “the” to end of line 30 and insert “relevant amount.”

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 27.

Amendment 29, page 14, line 35, leave out subsection (5) and insert—

“(5) For the purposes of subsection (3), the “relevant amount” is the amount that the Minister reasonably expects to be credited to the account in question in (or in respect of) a typical month during the period for which the order will have effect, having regard to all statements given to the Minister in relation to the account (see sections 19(2) and 31(1)).”—(Andrew Western.)

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 27. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 30, page 36, line 14, at end insert—

“(5A) Subsection (5) does not apply in relation to the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 as applied by section 7.”

This amendment has the effect that clause 67(5) does not apply in relation to the PACE powers given to authorised investigators in relation to investigating suspected fraud against public authorities. Those powers contain their own safeguards around material that is legally privileged.

Amendment 31, page 36, line 15, leave out subsection (6). —(Andrew Western.)

This amendment removes the statutory provision that a person may not be required under a provision in Part 1 of the Bill to give information which tends to incriminate themselves or their partner. This means that the normal rules on self-incrimination will apply. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 76, page 37, line 14, at end insert—

“(aa) the offences in sections 6 and 7 of that Act (possessing, making or supplying articles for use in frauds), and”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 75.

Amendment 75, page 37, line 34, at end insert—

“( ) For the purposes of applying this Part in relation to the offences in sections 6 and 7 of the Fraud Act 2006 (possessing, making or supplying articles for use in frauds), references in this Part to fraud against a public authority are to be read as including the commission of those offences by—

(a) in relation to section 6 of the Fraud Act 2006, possessing or having control of an article for use in the course of or in connection with a fraud against a public authority, and

(b) in relation to section 7 of that Act, making, adapting, supplying or offering to supply an article—

(i) knowing that it is designed or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with fraud against a public authority, or

(ii) intending it to be used to commit, or assist in the commission of, fraud against a public authority.”—(Andrew Western.)

This amendment, together with Amendment 76, means that the PSFA can investigate and pursue enforcement action in respect of the offences in sections 6 and 7 of the Fraud Act 2006 (possessing, making or supplying articles for use in fraud) where those offences involve articles for use in fraud against a public authority. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment made: 32, page 38, line 24, leave out Clause 72.—(Andrew Western.)

See the explanatory statement for Amendment NC17. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment made: 33, page 40, line 29, leave out Clause 73.—(Andrew Western.)

See the explanatory statement for Amendment NC18. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment made: 34, page 46, line 10, after “2” insert “(1)(e) and (f)”.—(Andrew Western.)

This amendment narrows the reference to the powers in paragraph 2 of new Schedule 3ZD to the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (inserted by Schedule 4 to the Bill) to those in paragraph 2(1)(e) and (f), which are the powers relevant for section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 35, page 49, line 21, at end insert

“so far as the provision applies in connection with the exercise of powers by or on behalf of the Secretary of State”.

This amendment limits new section 109H so that it only applies in relation to a provision for the processing of information so far as the provision applies in connection with the exercise of powers by or on behalf of the Secretary of State.

Amendment 36, page 50, line 9, leave out

“on a not for profit basis”

and insert “free of charge”.

This amendment and Amendment 38 mean that the exception in clause 85(8) to the requirement to provide information applies only in relation to services provided free of charge.

Amendment 37, page 50, line 10, leave out

“the provision of temporary accommodation” and insert “services that involve the provision of accommodation”.

This amendment means that services that involve the provision of any accommodation free of charge are covered by the restriction on the disclosure of personal data in clause 85(8).

Amendment 38, page 50, line 12, leave out

“the recipients of the services”

and insert

“persons receiving such a service free of charge”.

See the explanatory statement to Amendment 36.

Amendment 39, page 50, leave out lines 14 and 15 and insert—

“(a) journalistic material, or

(b) excluded material,”.

This amendment allows authorised officers to require information which amounts to special procedure material under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, but not information that amounts to journalistic material or excluded material under that Act, to be given to them under the provisions of Part 6 (enforcement) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992.

Amendment 40, page 50, line 17, leave out “14” and insert “13”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 39.

Amendment 41, page 50, leave out lines 18 to 22 and insert—

“(10) But subsections (5) to (9) do not apply in relation to—

(a) the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 as applied by section 109D, and

(b) Schedule 3ZD.”—(Andrew Western.)

This amendment has the effect that section 109H(5) to (9) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (inserted by clause 85 of the Bill) does not apply in relation to the PACE powers, and equivalent powers in Scotland, given to authorised investigators in relation to DWP offences. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment made: 42, page 50, line 37, at end insert

“by or on behalf of the Secretary of State”.—(Andrew Western.)

This amendment means that the independent review function applies in respect of the exercise of functions by or on behalf of the Secretary of State, and therefore not in connection with the exercise of functions by the Scottish Ministers. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment made: 43, page 54, line 31, at end insert—

“other than an amount or a penalty relating to a devolved benefit.

(2A) For the purposes of this Part—

(a) a benefit is a devolved benefit if functions under this Part are exercisable in relation to the benefit by the Scottish Ministers by virtue of section 53 of the Scotland Act 1998, read with section 32 of the Scotland Act 2016, but

(b) powers of the Secretary of State under section 80B (and Schedule 3ZA) and section 80C (and Schedule 3ZB) are exercisable in relation to the recovery of an amount or a penalty relating to a devolved benefit where arrangements made under section 93(1) of the Scotland Act 1998 (agency arrangements) have the effect that the Secretary of State is to exercise any functions of the Scottish Ministers under this Part on behalf of the Scottish Ministers in relation to the benefit.

(See also section (Powers of Scottish Ministers) of the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Act 2025.)”.—(Andrew Western.)

This amendment means that the new powers of recovery are not available in relation to a devolved benefit, except where the Secretary of State exercises functions of the Scottish Ministers in relation to that benefit under agency arrangements. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 79, page 62, line 10, leave out “an England and Wales” and insert “a relevant”.

This amendment, together with Amendments 78 and 77, replaces references to “an England and Wales public authority” with references to “a relevant public authority” (but this does not affect the substance of the references).

Amendment 78, page 62, line 18, leave out “England and Wales” and insert “relevant”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 79.

Amendment 77, page 62, line 22, leave out “an “England and Wales” and insert “a “relevant”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 79.

Amendment 74, page 62, line 24, leave out

“or a devolved Welsh authority”.

This amendment, together with Amendment 73, means that the extension to time limits for bringing claims in relation to fraud against public authorities in connection with covid applies to claims brought by devolved Welsh authorities (as well as other English, Welsh or UK-wide bodies exercising reserved functions).

Amendment 73, page 62, line 30, leave out paragraph (c).

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 74.

Amendment 44, page 62, line 40, at end insert—

“( ) In the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973, in Schedule 1 (obligations affected by prescriptive periods of 5 years under section 6), in paragraph 2(fb)(i), at the end insert ‘, including as amended by the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Act 2025’.”

This amendment ensures that the reference in paragraph 2(fb)(i) of Schedule 1 to the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 to Part 3 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 is to that Part as amended by this Bill.—(Andrew Western.) \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 72, page 66, leave out lines 20 to 22 and insert—

“’(2A) Subsection (2B) applies where an authorised investigator—

(a) has seized something or taken something away following a requirement made by virtue of section 19 or 20 on the basis that it is evidence of an offence, and

(b) considers that the thing may be evidence that is relevant to an investigation of an offence (whether or not the offence mentioned in paragraph (a)) in relation to which another person has functions.

(2B) Where this subsection applies—

(a) an authorised investigator may transfer the thing to that person,

(b) where that person considers that the thing may be evidence that is relevant to an investigation in relation to which that person has functions, that person may accept and retain the thing, and

(c) any provision of an enactment that applies to anything seized or taken away by that person applies to the thing as if it had been seized or taken away by that person for the purposes of the investigation of the relevant offence.

(2C) In subsection (2B)(c), “enactment” includes an enactment contained in subordinate legislation within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978.’;”.

This amendment allows an authorised investigator to transfer something seized in the exercise of PACE powers to another person with functions in relation to an offence to which the thing is relevant.

Amendment 45, page 66, line 27, at end insert—

“(5) Schedule 1 (special procedure) is to be read as if—

(a) in paragraph 1, for ‘one or other of the sets of access conditions’ there were substituted “the first set of access conditions”;

(b) in paragraph 2(a)(ii), for ‘and does not also include excluded material’ there were substituted “, or consists of or includes excluded material,”;

(c) paragraph 3 (second set of access conditions) were omitted;

(d) in paragraph 12—

(i) in paragraph (a)(i), for ‘either set of access conditions’ there were substituted “the first set of access conditions”;

(ii) paragraph (b) were omitted.”

This amendment means that the Minister can obtain material that is excluded material under Schedule 1 to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 as applied by clause 7 of the Bill.—(Andrew Western.) \p UNKNOWN: Amendment proposed: 11, page 73, line 25, leave out from “accounts” to the end of line 31 and insert—

“which belong to a person who the authorised officer has reasonable grounds to suspect has committed, is committing or intends to commit a DWP offence.”—(Neil Duncan-Jordan.)

This amendment would limit the exercise of an eligibility verification notice to cases where the welfare recipient is suspected of wrongdoing.

Question put, That the amendment be made. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 85, Noes 238.

Question accordingly negatived. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment made: 46, page 87, line 3, leave out “109B and 109BZA” and insert “109BZA and 109BZB”.—(Andrew Western.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment NC17. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 47, page 88, line 16, after “for” insert—

“(a) the reference to any other offence in section 19(3)(a), and”.

This amendment allows a DWP authorised investigator in England or Wales, while searching premises under a warrant, to seize anything they reasonably believe to be evidence of any offence (not just a DWP offence) if they reasonably believe it is necessary to do so to prevent the evidence being concealed, lost, altered or destroyed.

Amendment 48, page 89, leave out lines 18 to 20 and insert—

““(2A) Subsection (2B) applies where an authorised investigator—

(a) has seized something or taken something away following a requirement made by virtue of section 19 or 20 on the basis that it is evidence of an offence, and

(b) considers that the thing may be evidence that is relevant to an investigation of an offence (whether or not the offence mentioned in paragraph (a)) in relation to which another person has functions.

(2B) Where this subsection applies—

(a) an authorised investigator may transfer the thing to that person,

(b) where that person considers that the thing may be evidence that is relevant to an investigation in relation to which that person has functions, that person may accept and retain the thing, and

(c) any provision of an enactment that applies to anything seized or taken away by that person applies to the thing as if it had been seized or taken away by that person for the purposes of the investigation of the relevant offence.

(2C) In subsection (2B)(c), “enactment” includes—

(a) an enactment contained in subordinate legislation within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978, and

(b) an enactment contained in, or in an instrument made under, an Act of the Scottish Parliament.”;”.

This amendment allows an authorised investigator to transfer something seized in the exercise of PACE powers in England and Wales to another person with functions in relation to an offence to which the thing is relevant.

Amendment 49, line 24, at beginning insert “Subject to paragraph (2A),”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 50.

Amendment 50, page 91, line 26, at end insert—

“(2A) The power to seize and remove a document, equipment or other item or material on the premises may be exercised if the person has reasonable grounds for believing—

(a) that it is evidence in relation to any offence, and

(b) it is necessary to seize it in order to prevent the evidence being concealed, lost, altered or destroyed.”

This amendment allows a DWP authorised investigator in Scotland, while searching premises under a warrant, to seize an item they reasonably believe to be evidence of any offence (not just a DWP offence) if they reasonably believe it is necessary to do so to prevent the evidence being concealed, lost, altered or destroyed.

Amendment 51, page 91, line 31, leave out “or material”.

This amendment corrects a reference to an “item subject to legal privilege”, which is a defined term.

Amendment 52, page 92, line 10, leave out “three months” and insert “one month”.

This amendment requires a warrant under paragraph 1 of Schedule 3ZD, which applies in relation to Scotland, to be executed within one month rather than three months. This is consistent with the usual practice in Scotland.

Amendment 53, page 92, line 30, leave out “of items” and insert “under paragraph 2(1)(d)”.

This amendment corrects an inconsistency in terminology.

Amendment 54, page 93, line 6, leave out “an item” and insert “something”.

This amendment corrects an inconsistency in terminology.

Amendment 55, page 93, line 7, leave out “item” and insert “thing”.

This amendment corrects an inconsistency in terminology.

Amendment 56, page 93, line 11, leave out “item” and insert “thing”.

This amendment corrects an inconsistency in terminology.

Amendment 57, page 93, line 14, leave out “a DWP” and insert “an”.

This amendment ensures that an authorised investigator does not need to give a person access to something that has been seized if the investigator believes that doing so would prejudice the investigation of any offence (not just a DWP offence).

Amendment 58, page 93, line 15, leave out “a DWP” and insert “an”.

This amendment ensures that an authorised investigator does not need to give a person access to something that has been seized if the investigator believes that doing so would prejudice criminal proceedings relating to any offence (not just a DWP offence).

Amendment 59, page 93, line 15, at end insert—

“(7) Sub-paragraph (8) applies where—

(a) the power in paragraph 2(1)(d) has been exercised to seize and remove something on the basis that it is evidence of an offence, and

(b) an authorised investigator considers that the thing may be evidence that is relevant to an investigation of an offence (whether or not the offence mentioned in paragraph (a)) in relation to which another person has functions.

(8) Where this sub-paragraph applies—

(a) an authorised investigator may transfer the thing to that person,

(b) where that person considers that the thing may be evidence that is relevant to an investigation in relation to which that person has functions, that person may accept and retain the thing, and

(c) any provision of an enactment that applies to anything seized or taken away by that person applies to the thing as if it had been seized or taken away by that person for the purposes of the investigation of the relevant offence.

(9) In sub-paragraph (8)(c), “enactment” includes—

(a) an enactment contained in subordinate legislation within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978, and

(b) an enactment contained in, or in an instrument made under, an Act of the Scottish Parliament.”

This amendment allows an authorised investigator to transfer something seized in the exercise of entry, search and seizure powers in Scotland to another person with functions in relation to an offence to which the thing is relevant.

Amendment 60, page 94, line 13, leave out “7” and insert “10 working”.

This amendment replaces the reference to 7 days with a reference to 10 working days, which is the standard time for complying with a production order in Scotland.

Amendment 61, page 94, line 24, after “records” insert “within paragraph 9B(1)(a)”.

See my explanatory statement for Amendment 63.

Amendment 62, page 95, line 42, after “records” insert “within paragraph 9B(1)(a)”.

See my explanatory statement for Amendment 63.

Amendment 63, page 96, line 7, at end insert—

“Meaning of “items subject to legal privilege”

9A In this Schedule, “items subject to legal privilege” are—

(a) communications between a professional legal adviser and their client, or

(b) communications made in connection with or in contemplation of legal proceedings and for the purposes of those proceedings,

which would be protected in legal proceedings from disclosure by virtue of any rule of law relating to the confidentiality of communications.

Meaning of “excluded material”

9B (1) In this Schedule, “excluded material” means—

(a) personal records which a person has acquired or created in the course of any trade, business, profession or other occupation or for the purposes of any paid or unpaid office and which the person holds in confidence;

(b) human tissue or tissue fluid which has been taken for the purposes of diagnosis or medical treatment and which a person holds in confidence;

(c) journalistic material which a person holds in confidence and which consists—

(i) of documents, or

(ii) of records other than documents.

(2) A person holds material other than journalistic material in confidence for the purposes of this paragraph if the person holds it subject—

(a) to an express or implied undertaking to hold it in confidence, or

(b) to a restriction on disclosure or an obligation of secrecy contained in any enactment, whenever passed.

(3) A person holds journalistic material in confidence for the purposes of this paragraph if—

(a) the person holds it subject to such an undertaking, restriction or obligation, and

(b) it has been continuously held (by one or more persons) subject to such an undertaking, restriction or obligation since it was first acquired or created for the purposes of journalism.

Meaning of “personal records”

9C In this Schedule, “personal records” means documentary and other records concerning an individual (whether living or dead) who can be identified from them and relating—

(a) to the person’s physical or mental health,

(b) to spiritual counselling or assistance given or to be given to the person, or

(c) to counselling or assistance given or to be given to the person, for the purposes of the person’s personal welfare, by any voluntary organisation or by any individual who—

(i) by reason of the person’s office or occupation has responsibilities for the person’s personal welfare, or

(ii) by reason of an order of a court has responsibilities for the person’s supervision.

Meaning of “journalistic material”

9D (1) In this Schedule, “journalistic material” means material acquired or created for the purposes of journalism.

(2) But material is only journalistic material for the purposes of this Schedule if it is in the possession of a person who acquired or created it for the purposes of journalism.

(3) A person who receives material from someone who intends that the recipient is to use it for the purposes of journalism is to be taken to have acquired it for those purposes.

Meaning of “special procedure material”

9E (1) In this Schedule, “special procedure material” means—

(a) material to which sub-paragraph (2) applies, and

(b) journalistic material, other than excluded material.

(2) Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph, this sub-paragraph applies to material, other than items subject to legal privilege and excluded material, in the possession of a person who—

(a) acquired or created it in the course of any trade, business, profession or other occupation or for the purpose of any paid or unpaid office, and

(b) holds it subject—

(i) to an express or implied undertaking to hold it in confidence, or

(ii) to a restriction or obligation such as is mentioned in paragraph 9B(2)(b).

(3) Where material is acquired—

(a) by an employee from the employee’s employer and in the course of the employee’s employment, or

(b) by a company from an associated company,

it is only special procedure material if it was special procedure material immediately before the acquisition.

(4) Where material is created by an employee in the course of the employee’s employment, it is only special procedure material if it would have been special procedure material had the employer created it.

(5) Where material is created by a company on behalf of an associated company, it is only special procedure material if it would have been special procedure material had the associated company created it.

(6) A company is to be treated as another's associated company for the purposes of this paragraph if it would be so treated under section 449 of the Corporation Tax Act 2010.

Meaning of “confidential professional material”

9F In this Schedule, “confidential professional material” means material to which paragraph 9E(2) applies.”

This amendment, together with Amendments 61, 62, 64, 65 and 66, would replace references in new Schedule 3ZD to definitions in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 with free-standing definitions. The free-standing definitions are the same as those in the 1984 Act, except that the definition of “items subject to legal privilege” reflects the usual language in relation to legal privilege in Scotland.

Amendment 64, page 96, line 8, at the beginning insert “Other”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 63.

Amendment 65, page 96, leave out lines 12 to 21.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 63.

Amendment 66, page 96, leave out lines 29 and 30.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 63.

Amendment 67, page 96, line 30, at end insert—

“‘working day’ means a day other than—

(a) a Saturday or a Sunday, or

(b) a day which is a bank holiday in Scotland under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971.”—(Andrew Western.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 60. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 68, page 101, leave out line 18 and insert “relevant amount.”

This amendment and Amendment 69 mean that the maximum amount to be deducted under a regular direct deduction order under new Schedule 3ZA (to be inserted into the Social Security Administration Act 1992 by Schedule 5 to the Bill) in relation to any period of one month is to be calculated by reference to the amount the Secretary of State expects to be credited to the account in a month.

Amendment 69, page 101, leave out lines 19 to 22 and insert—

“(4) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (3), the “relevant amount” is the amount that the Secretary of State reasonably expects to be credited to the account in question in (or in respect of) a typical month during the period for which the order will have effect, having regard to all statements given to the Secretary of State in relation to the account (see paragraphs 3(2) and 15(1)).”.—(Andrew Western.)

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 68 \p UNKNOWN: Amendment made: 70, page 114, line 26, at end insert—

“( ) For the purposes of this paragraph, “driving licence” includes any document by virtue of which a person is authorised under Part 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to drive a motor vehicle in Great Britain.”—(Andrew Western.)

This amendment means that the definition of “driving licence” in paragraph 5 of Schedule 6 includes any document by virtue of which a person is authorised under Part 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to drive a motor vehicle in Great Britain.

Third Reading

King’s consent signified. \p Liz Kendall: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

This Labour Government were elected on a mandate for change—to create more good jobs in every corner of the country, to drive up living standards for working people and to get our vital public services back on their feet. Delivering our plan for change means ensuring that every single pound of taxpayers’ money is wisely spent and goes to those in genuine need. That is what this legislation will help to deliver, with the biggest-ever crackdown on fraud against the public purse.

It is unacceptable that the Conservative Government allowed fraud against the public sector to spiral to £55 billion a year. That includes a staggering £7.4 billion a year of benefit fraud alone. It is unforgiveable that they failed to ensure that the Public Sector Fraud Authority was fit  for purpose, or to properly update the DWP’s anti-fraud powers for 14 long years. When we think of all the new ways in which fraudsters and scam artists rip people off, including by using data and technology, that simply beggars belief. Today we say: no more.

Our Bill updates the powers of the Public Sector Fraud Authority so that it can effectively fight fraud across the public sector on behalf of Government Departments and public authorities. It also makes vital upgrades to the DWP’s fraud powers and sets out new powers to investigate fraud, so that for the first time, our serious and organised crime investigators can apply to the court for a warrant to enter and search the premises of suspected fraudsters, and can seize evidence such as computers and phones. There are updated powers to gather information, so that we can compel third parties such as airlines to give us information, and can require it to be delivered electronically, so that we can tackle fraud as quick as possible. Our new eligibility verification measure will enable us to get crucial data from banks and financial institutions to check if people are getting money they are not entitled to, and if they have more savings than the rules allow, or are fraudulently claiming benefits abroad when they should be living in the UK.

The Bill extends financial penalties to people who have fraudulently claimed any type of DWP payment, including grants and loans, not just benefits, and it gives us new powers to get money back from people who can pay but who have repeatedly failed to do so, bringing our powers in line with those of other parts of Government, such as the Child Maintenance Service and HMRC. All this is being done in a fair and proportionate way; the measures are tightly defined in the legislation, and there are strong safeguards and independent oversight, including through annual reports to Parliament and codes of practice, which we will bring forward in Committee in the other place.

I thank the Minister for Transformation and the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, for steering the Bill through its Committee and Report stages, supported by excellent civil servants and House of Commons staff. I thank all members of the Public Bill Committee from right across the House for their detailed questions and thoughtful scrutiny of the Bill. They have done this country a good service, because this Bill provides us with the tools we need to tackle modern fraud in the benefit system and across the public sector, helping to save £1.5 billion over the next five years as part of the DWP’s wider action to save a total of £9.6 billion from benefit fraud and error.

People who work hard and play by the rules, and people who depend on our public services and vital benefits, deserve to have trust and faith in the system, and they are rightly angry when they see people abuse it. Our message is clear: if you knowingly defraud the benefit system or cheat our public services, whether you are a large or small company, a criminal gang or an individual, we will find you; we will stop you; and we will get our money back. This Labour Government will restore trust and fairness in the system and ensure that every pound of public money delivers for the British people and our country. I commend this legislation to the House. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the shadow Minister. \p Helen Whately: Every penny of taxpayers’ money lost to fraud or error is money wasted, so we Conservatives support many of the measures outlined in the Bill, not least those that continue the hard work done by my colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions prior to the general election. The Government have a responsibility to ensure that every penny they raise in taxation is spent well. That is fair to taxpayers, who have worked hard to earn that money. When it comes to welfare, at the heart of our system must be the principle that Government support should go only to those for whom it is intended. Every penny that does not undermines the entire system. It erodes public trust and support. That has put support for some of the most vulnerable people in society at risk. That is why, in government, we did the groundwork for the clauses of the Bill that enable banks to help crack down on fraudsters, recognising that while the state should never be able to see what someone spends their money on, it should be able to check whether they are entitled to the money that they are claiming.

The amendments we have tabled to the Bill are constructive, so I am disappointed that the Government have chosen not to support them. Videos from sickfluencers are hard to avoid when searching online about benefits, but rather than helping people to claim something that they may need and should rightly receive, the videos tell people how to game the system. We want taxpayers to get their money back, even if it has already been spent. Why should we tolerate people using social media platforms to help others commit fraud, and to help them cheat the tests that are there to ensure that support goes to those who need it? Why should someone who has committed fraud be able to keep their high-end television or luxury car, just because they spent their ill-gotten gains before the Department got to them? We are clear that both those things should be tackled, but sadly Labour has shown itself to be on the side of the fraudsters.

As I said at the outset, we back the overall purpose of the Bill and much of its content, but I hope that the Secretary of State’s colleagues in the other place will take note of the constructive approach we have taken and the arguments made, particularly those made so  articulately by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) today and in Committee. I look forward to seeing the Bill improved before it may become law.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Forensic Science Regulator Draft Code of Practice 2025 (Version 2), which was laid before this House on 20 March, be approved.—(Sir Nic Dakin.)

Question agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Ordered,

That, at this day’s sitting, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister relating to Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England (Appointment) not later than one hour after their commencement; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; and proceedings may be entered upon and may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption.—(Lucy Powell.) \p UNKNOWN: [Relevant document: Second Report of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, Re-appointment of the Chair of the Electoral Commission, HC 829.]

Ordered,

That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that His Majesty will re-appoint John Pullinger CB as the Chair of the Electoral Commission with effect from 1 May 2025 for the period ending on 30 April 2029.—(Lucy Powell.) \p UNKNOWN: [Relevant document: First Report of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Appointment of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, HC 781.] \p Georgia Gould: I beg to move,

That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that His Majesty will appoint Paula Sussex CBE to the offices of Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England.

The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman has an important role in holding public service providers to account and achieving justice for complainants. I thank Rebecca Hilsenrath KC, who stepped in as acting ombudsman following Sir Rob Behrens’s departure. She provided leadership and stability for the PHSO, ensuring a continued focus on the experience of its service users, while considering how to maximise the impact of the organisation in improving public services for the long term. On behalf of this House, I praise her for her hard work over the past 12 months, and wish her all the best for her future as the PHSO’s chief executive officer.

Following the formation of a new Parliament, the process of recruiting a new ombudsman was relaunched in January. I thank the House and the recruitment panel, particularly the chair, Liam Laurence Smyth, for their speed in conducting the recruitment; they made a recommendation to the Prime Minister in March. The Government support Paula Sussex’s appointment to the role, as we believe that she has the ability and experience to lead the PHSO, bringing insights from her time in the public and private sectors. In accordance with section 1 of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, and section 1 of the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, I commend Paula Sussex to the House for the role of Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England. \p Richard Holden: I am pleased to speak in support of this important motion concerning the appointment of the next Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England—collectively known as the ombudsman. That office is one of the cornerstones of accountability in our democracy. It exists to ensure that when individuals are let down by Government Departments or the NHS, their voice is heard, their complaints are fairly investigated and, where appropriate, redress is delivered. In short, the ombudsman plays a vital role in protecting the rights of ordinary citizens, especially the most vulnerable among us. I am sure that, if they have not done so already, Members on all sides of the House will at some point refer constituents to the ombudsman— I certainly have.

This appointment comes at a critical moment. Our public services, particularly the NHS, are under real pressure. Complaints relating to delays, miscommunication and administrative failures are unfortunately becoming  more common. In that context, the role of the ombudsman is not just reactive; it must be proactive in identifying systemic failings and recommending improvements to prevent harm before it occurs. We Conservatives have carefully considered the proposed candidate, and believe that she brings a strong track record to the role, a deep understanding of institutional accountability and a proven ability to lead with integrity. It was great to have the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), involved in the selection process.

We must have confidence that the next commissioner can act independently of Government and party politics, guided only by the principle of fairness and the interests of the public.

The effectiveness of this role lies not in its visibility but in its vigilance. The ombudsman must be diligent, thorough and fearless in pursuit of justice, particularly for those who may feel powerless in the face of large institutions. This role is not an easy one. It requires judgment, patience, empathy and a readiness to confront uncomfortable truths. We believe the nominee has those qualities and will serve the public with distinction. We therefore support this motion for the sake of those who rely on these services and for the sake of good government. \p Simon Hoare: I echo the Minister in thanking Rebecca Hilsenrath for the work she has done in stepping into an interim role and fulfilling that job with great distinction. I also thank the Prime Minister and the wider Cabinet Office for the speed with which they responded to the recommendation from the interview panel, which I had the great pleasure of sitting on as the representative of the House, as Chairman of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.

I want to bring two things to the attention of the House. Paula Sussex underwent a pre-appointment hearing by the Committee last week, and the Committee was very impressed with her. She reports to our Committee; we scrutinise the work of the ombudsman. I recused myself from that role for obvious reasons, but I want to assure the House—and this has been echoed by the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden)—that I am convinced we selected the standout candidate in a very competitive and well-qualified field. I think she will fulfil the job with great distinction, use the data available to drive improvements to public service and, as everybody recognises, represent and champion the interests and concerns of our constituents. \p Georgia Gould: I will respond briefly to echo the thanks to the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) for his role on the panel, which was critical. It is important that this role has cross-party support and that this appointment has the confidence of the House, to ensure that this important role can be fulfilled with rigour and independence, that our citizens always have a voice in public services and that public service providers are accountable to Parliament. I recommend this appointment to the House.

Question put and agreed to. \p Ben Goldsborough: I rise to present a petition concerning the future of allotments in Wymondham, signed by 391 residents of South Norfolk. These signatures reflect the strength of feeling in the town about the importance of these much-loved growing spaces. The decision by Anglian Water to end the lease of this land risks tearing up decades of community gardening, friendship and pride. It is clear from the response of local people that this is not just about soil and sheds—it is about the social fabric of Wymondham. It is vital that this issue is brought before the House, so that those in positions of power understand what this land means to those who tend it.

The petition states:

The petition of residents of the constituency of South Norfolk,

Declares that the allotmenteers of Wymondham are saddened by the ending of the lease of the land by Anglian Water to Wymondham Town Council, which will result in the loss of allotment plots.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Anglian Water to uphold its corporate responsibilities to local people and areas, including the allotmenteers of Wymondham.

And the petitioners remain, etc.

[P003057] \p John Lamont: I rise to present this petition from my constituents to the House of Commons, which was put together by the Wild Goat Conservation Group, particularly David Braithwaite and Gail Brown. It calls for the cull of wild goats on Langholm moor and Newcastleton hill to stop. I want to record my thanks to the more than 4,300 people from across the United Kingdom who have signed a similar online petition on this matter and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for his support.

The petition

“Declares that wild goats have been roaming Langholm Moor and Newcastleton Hill for hundreds of years and play an important part in the biodiversity and natural history of the Scottish Borders… Oxygen Conservation who own the land they roam have”

—callously—

“started to cull this ancient animal without…consideration to the historical and emotional significance they carry for the local community… The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to make representations to the Scottish Government on their behalf, to encourage them to stop  the cull of wild goats on Langholm Moor and Newcastleton Hill and ensure the survival of this ancient animal in the Scottish Borders by granting them national protected status.

And the petitioners remain, etc.”

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The petition of residents of Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk,

Declares that wild goats have been roaming Langholm Moor and Newcastleton Hill for hundreds of years and play an important part in the biodiversity and natural history of the Scottish Borders; further declares that, despite this, Oxygen Conservation who own the land that they roam have started to cull this ancient animal without any consideration to the historical and emotional significance they carry for the local community; and notes that over 4,300 people have signed a similar petition to the Scottish Parliament on this issue.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to make representations to the Scottish Government on their behalf, to encourage them to stop the cull of wild goats on Langholm Moor and Newcastleton Hill and ensure the survival of this ancient animal in the Scottish Borders by granting them national protected status.

And the petitioners remain, etc.]

[P003064] \p Peter Swallow: The Acoustic Couch is a fantastic, inclusive community-run grassroots music venue in the heart of Bracknell. Grassroots music venues play a huge role in communities across the country but have faced substantial difficulties in recent years, and I know the Government recognise the need to protect them.

The petition states:

The petition of residents of Bracknell and supporters of the Acoustic Couch,

Declares that the Acoustic Couch is a community-run grassroots music venue that contributes richly to the culture and economy of Bracknell; further declares that the current venue which houses the Acoustic Couch is under a carpark that is no longer structurally sound, and will therefore be closed from the end of 2025; notes that Bracknell Forest Council has been working with the Acoustic Couch to identify possible alternative venues, but an affordable and accessible location has yet to be identified; and further declares that grassroots music venues across the country have faced substantial difficulties in recent years, and recognises the need to protect their invaluable contribution to our shared music heritage.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to consider what support can be made available to secure the future of the Acoustic Couch in Bracknell.

And the petitioners remain, etc.

[P003065] \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Sir Nicholas Dakin.) \p Monica Harding: No issue in my constituency demonstrates more the inertia and failure of the previous political leadership than the problem of overstayed, wrecked and abandoned boats that have been left to proliferate along the banks of the Thames for the last decade. I am pleased to have the opportunity today to bring this issue to the attention of the House and the Minister.

Esher and Walton is a river community. The Thames forms our boundary with London; its waters have brought Vikings to raid Walton and kings to live in Hampton Court, and it is loved by my constituents. We have rowing clubs in Molesey and Walton that generate home-grown Olympians, the Ajax and Viking sea scouts, and wild swimming groups. We have riverside businesses that contribute to our local economy and provide residents and tourists with access to the most famous river in our land. All these activities have been impacted by the sunken, wrecked and abandoned boats, alongside unlicensed overstay boats. They line the entire length of my constituency, from the Dittons through Molesey and down into Walton-on-Thames.

There are wrecked vessels, half sunk and rusting, on the banks opposite Hampton Court Palace, visible to the hundreds of thousands of tourists who visit. Next door, there are overstay boats which one constituent described as a “small village”; it is Dickensian. The overstay boats are almost always unregistered. They turn up, moor, and then stay for months, sometimes years. In addition to this impunity, they generate litter and waste. Some boats apparently operate as Airbnbs. Others have erected fences: they have fenced off public land on the towpath, put up “Keep out” and “Private” signs, and intimidated residents. Stretches of land—our riverbank, enjoyed for centuries by my constituents—have become no-go areas characterised by drug use and antisocial behaviour. \p Jim Shannon: I commend the hon. Lady for introducing this debate. I spoke to her beforehand to hear her thoughts on what she hopes to achieve. I represent a constituency that is equally as nice as hers, and I can well understand the desire to stay and take advantage of the lovely locations on the River Thames. However, the people she describes are taking advantage and preventing others from having enjoyment that is meant for all. Does she agree that we must have regulations in place that allow for reasonable enjoyment, without people taking advantage? \p Monica Harding: The hon. Gentleman makes the main point that I want to make today: I will speak about regulations and who is accountable.

One resident told me:

“In the past few years, my neighbours and I have been subjected to constant harassment, including threats of physical harm, theft of property, firing of catapults, fly-tipping, dog fouling and antisocial behaviour.”

That is profoundly unfair on my constituents. Residents who pay their taxes have lost the river as they know it.

Rowing clubs and boat hire and paddle board companies are unable to launch. Residents with boats who want to take them out and moor alongside riverside restaurants and cafés are unable to do so. The Molesey regatta, which has been a fixture of my community since 1867 and in which I declare an interest as an honorary president, has been required to alter the course of its race.

In October, a single clean-up of one stretch of riverbank populated by these boats yielded more than 1 tonne of waste. The Environment Agency has failed to get to grips with the situation over a period of years, meaning that the number of such boats in Elmbridge has risen steadily. At the last count, the tally was approaching 250. \p Joshua Reynolds: In Maidenhead, the local authority and generous individuals have taken matters into their own hands and have been able to get rid of many sunken boats along our stretch of the Thames. The EA has regarded owners of land as being responsible, but lots of riverbank owners are not known—we do not know who lots of the mooring owners are—and that causes significant delays and costs. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time for the Environment Agency to step up and take responsibly? It should be supporting our community, rather than trying to pass on responsibility to unknown landowners. \p Monica Harding: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In my constituency, the sense of frustration and disappointment with the Environment Agency is palpable. When a highly visible problem goes unaddressed year after year, as it has for a decade, and when a situation is allowed to deteriorate, it creates a deep sense of disappointment and frustration, and it undermines the faith that people have in the Government to deal with the things that affect people’s day-to-day lives. \p David Chadwick: I recognise the frustrations and problems that my hon. Friend is having getting the relevant supervisory authorities to pay heed. In Brecon, we have a similar issue: the canal might run dry following Welsh Water’s decision to start charging the Canal & River Trust for the water it extracts, yet none of the relevant authorities have responded to our request for a meeting. Does my hon. Friend agree that in instances like that, it would be helpful for the Minister whose Department is implicated to pay attention? They should come to Brecon and help us to find a solution. \p Monica Harding: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, but I would like the Minister to come to Esher and Walton first, although I appreciate his desire for her to visit his constituency as well.

My predecessor in Esher and Walton, a previous Deputy Prime Minister, brought the former Environment Secretary to see the problem for herself. They committed to the permanent removal of these boats, but nothing happened: yet another broken Conservative promise. Either my predecessor was uninterested or he was ineffective. Like many, I had hope that the new Government would bring change. I wrote to the newly appointed Secretary of State and the chief executive of the Environment Agency as soon as I was elected, asking for action. At that point, there were 180 boats. I was pleased with the Minister’s reply, which acknowledged that the EA, as  the navigation authority along the non-tidal Thames, was committed to managing the situation and to delivering a detailed action plan laying out clear steps for enforcement. I was assured that EA officials wished to regain the trust of the community.

As a result of that letter, the EA towed away two of the largest and longest staying boats during an enforcement day—hooray! Elmbridge borough council housing department joined the operation and modelled a joined-up approach with the police and the Environment Agency to respond to any homelessness issues. My local council is ready and willing to play its part, but it is frustrated that the EA is not playing its part.

The enforcement success in the autumn should have marked the beginning of renewed energy and action, with a long-term plan to finally get to grips with the problem. Instead, it was followed up with almost nothing, and the situation has since deteriorated.

That is despite months and months of advocacy and regular meetings with the EA, in which I have heard again and again about its intention to clear the boats. It has consistently overpromised and underdelivered.

I was promised a survey of abandoned vessels before comprehensive removals and a long-term strategic enforcement plan as a prelude to making progress in the spring. Well, it is spring now, but both documents were endlessly delayed. Last month, the EA finally produced the survey, but it was presented so confusingly that the council found it almost useless, and I am now told that the EA cannot resource any of it. When the plan came, it was manifestly insufficient.

In today’s letter, the Minister referenced that document—the Thames waterways compliance and enforcement plan for Elmbridge—which I have read. It runs for 10 pages and makes one minor mention of taking action to reduce the number of unauthorised and unregistered boats, which should have been the central focus. As one of its tactical objectives, the plan promises to develop a clear and tactical plan. We have yet another promise, but no plan.

All in all, the document marked a dramatic roll- back of previous ambitions. It has an almost complete  lack of measurable targets, metrics and accountability mechanisms. In other words, there is no way to assess the progress of the EA in delivering outcomes against agreed objectives or on key concerns, such as the number of boats removed, the number of registration offences or the rubbish cleared. In fact, at our last meeting, the area manager suggested that the problem had become so big that it was too expensive to fix. \p Lincoln Jopp: I am grateful to my constituency neighbour for giving way—rivers have two banks, and we share one of them. I congratulate Spelthorne borough council, the EA and the police on doing such a good job on the Spelthorne side. I offer my support to the hon. Member in her endeavour to make her side of the river better. If we can give any assistance, we will of course do so. \p Monica Harding: I am grateful to my constituency neighbour. I would love to work with him, the Environment Agency, our relevant borough councils and the police in order to fix this problem. \p Ben Spencer: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way in such an important debate. I entirely share her frustrations about progress with these boats. This issue affects many of my constituents not just in Weybridge, but across my constituency. I am sure that she will come on to this point. Given the nature of rivers, does she agree that a positive step forward would be working with me, my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) and the Minister to try to get a group together so that rather than pushing the boats on, we can tackle the issue once and for all? \p Monica Harding: I thank the hon. Member, my constituency neighbour, for that point. I have no intention at all of pushing the boats down to his constituency: I want them gone. There can be nothing more powerful for our constituents than us working across parties in order to fix this problem.

The BBC picked up on this story this morning. The EA gave a statement to BBC Radio Surrey in which it claimed to be taking

“firm, lawful and proportionate action”.

That is manifestly not the case: the action is not firm or proportionate. It also said that the current situation highlights the need for a “more sustainable, systemic response” and pledged a “longer-term approach”. This is the same hot air that we have heard for years and years, waffling on about the need for long-term plans while the situation deteriorates.

All in all, this is a sad indictment of the poverty of ambition, application and competence in a body charged by taxpayers with protecting our waterways. Indeed, it is hard to overstate the disappointment of my constituents at the seeming inability of the Environment Agency to deliver results, even against objectives that it or the Secretary of State has set. This is the endless cycle:  the most basic promises made to residents, the council or me are jettisoned after months of prevarication;  the goals that remain are without measurement or accountability.

I worry from the Minister’s letter to me this afternoon that, regrettably, nothing will change, apart from her very kind ask of the Environment Agency to review its enforcement approach and her commitment to strengthening the EA’s approach. I am keen to hear how she intends to follow up on those points. I was deeply frustrated that much of the letter repeated what I, my residents and the council have being hearing from the EA for months and years: promises of new plans and more joined-up working, and recognition of past disappointments and the need for change. The Environment Agency says that it wants to regain the trust of my constituents. That trust is at rock bottom. What is needed now is far greater oversight—ministerial if necessary —and accountability against specific and deliverable goals.

I recently attended a public meeting with residents of Hurst Park and Molesey on a Friday night that was packed to the rafters with constituents deeply upset and justifiably angry with the situation. The essence of what people call broken Britain is the sense that the public realm is incapable of solving problems, even the most egregious and obvious ones—those that people and businesses see and feel every single day. The Prime Minister and members of the Government have spoken  repeatedly about the need to rebuild trust in the state, rebuild its capacity, and show the people that systems can work and achieve things. Something that my residents and I have found particularly frustrating is the difficulty of attaching any accountability at all to anyone at any point, despite failure after failure. A failure to act deprives these people who I am privileged to represent—those who play by the rules and pay for public services—of the land, peace and natural beauty that they have always enjoyed.

I ask the Minister to give this matter her personal attention, and to work with me to solve it as a matter of priority. I would like her to work with me to show the people of Esher and Walton that good politics makes things better. Boats listed by the Environment Agency as wrecked or abandoned can, and should, be cleared immediately. Doing so quickly and forcefully, rather than piecemeal, removes one of the permanent risks of those boats—namely, that a change in river conditions could dislodge vessels and transform them into immediate hazards. Clearing overstayed boats requires taking legal steps, and it is vital that this work is consistently and properly resourced. Taking a start-and-stop approach is not an option, because many enforcement mechanisms unlocked by serving initial notices on boats must be completed within a certain period of time. Letting opportunities disappear sets everything back to square one.

The local police and the local council are ready and eager to help, and have put resources aside to do their part. As such, will the Minister commit personally to driving forward meaningful action on this issue through the Environment Agency and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; to providing the necessary energy and resources; and to giving me a point of contact with officials in her department to co-ordinate our work? Will she also commit to meeting me, either in this place or in my constituency—where the problem can be seen and believed—to discuss the progress that we can make together? The problem of overstayed and sunken boats should not be intractable; everyone can see the problem, and the solution is obvious. It is time to show that collectively, we can deliver. \p Emma Hardy: It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) on securing this important debate, and welcome the contributions from the hon. Members for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) and for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) as well. In an Adjournment debate, it is very nice to see cross-party working on an issue of local importance. [Interruption.] I also thank the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds). \p David Chadwick: The Minister will have heard the points we have made about the lack of supervisory authorities. Will she write to the Welsh Minister responsible and ask him to look into the case of the Brecon canal? \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. The hon. Gentleman is very quick on his feet. I call the Minister. \p Emma Hardy: Obviously, water is a devolved matter. I do not want to get into an issue for which power is devolved, or I would be instructing a Welsh Minister about what they should or should not be doing. I encourage the hon. Member to write back to the Welsh Minister, and maybe copy in the Secretary of State for Wales. That might be one way forward, rather than a Minister in this place being seen to tell a Minister in a different Government what they should or should not be doing. That would be stretching the confines of this debate, to which I will now return.

We have heard much this evening about the benefits that our rivers and canals bring to so many people in our constituencies—benefits that have been very eloquently articulated by hon. Members. We have heard about the Vikings, about Olympians and about how important waterways are to everyone in our areas. I was pleased to hear about the enforcement success in the autumn, but obviously disappointed to hear that progress has not been what it should have been. I will come on to that issue later.

Our inland waterways are an asset to our country. They are important to our national heritage and provide many public benefits—people live on them, enjoy being by them and use them for leisure and recreation, as well as their historical value. They form an important part of our natural environment by providing green corridors along which biodiversity can flourish, as well as contributing to the growth of local economies, such as through domestic tourism. We have heard quite a lot about that this evening.

The hon. Member for Esher and Walton has eloquently spoken of the beauty and tranquillity of the river in her constituency, and it is indeed one of our most majestic rivers as it winds its way along. Our navigation authorities have an important role to play into the future, and I pay tribute to them all as they maintain our waterways for the benefit of all users. I pay tribute to their staff, who deal with many varied situations on a daily basis, sometimes in difficult circumstances. Those authorities will help to ensure that a significant element of our nation’s key infrastructure is resilient to climate change, and they will help us to meet our net zero targets through sustainable transport and energy generation. They will also contribute to water security through flood mitigation measures and water transfers.

The hon. Member has spoken in detail about overstayed boats in Elmbridge and about boats that are illegally moored or derelict, abandoned or sunk. She has drawn particular attention to the adverse impacts that that is having on the use and enjoyment of the river by other waterway users, including those walking along the Thames path. I was concerned to hear accounts of antisocial behaviour and abuse directed at people trying to enjoy the riverways. She has also described her interactions with the Environment Agency as the navigation authority for the non-tidal River Thames and with other local authorities in the area in seeking to find a satisfactory resolution. I was pleased to hear the comments about the willingness of the local council and the police to work together on this issue.

I recognise the seriousness of the issues in Elmbridge and neighbouring constituencies, the understandable strength of feeling locally and the need for co-ordinated action to address them. I assure the hon. Member that the Environment Agency, which I have spoken to, also  understands that and is looking to develop specific actions towards resolutions. I note the point she made about it having a deliverable plan and being seen to be taking action.

In fairness, let me mention the wider context in which the Environment Agency is working when it comes to enforcement. Any enforcement has to be within the law and careful and proportionate. It has discretionary landowner powers, not statutory duties, creating limitations for action on private land and where enforcement would cause disproportionate harm. \p Ben Spencer: I have had countless meetings with the EA linked with Elmbridge and in trying to deal with this problem, particularly in Desborough cut and Weybridge. Does the Minister think that the EA has sufficient powers in statute to be able to tackle this issue? She just mentioned discretionary powers. Do we need to change the law so that this can be dealt with once and for all? \p Emma Hardy: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention. I am informed by the Environment Agency that it does have the powers, but I want to take that point away and question the EA about that. Is it a question of needing different powers, or are the powers there through the council and perhaps the police working together? \p Monica Harding: I have brought up those points with the Environment Agency and the council. They appear to have the statutory powers to act. Whether they have the will and resourcing to do it is the sticking point. \p Emma Hardy: I hope to come on to address some of the things that the EA wants to do. Where a boat is a home, especially in cases of potential vulnerability, the Environment Agency needs to work with local housing and safeguarding teams to assess welfare concerns. That is why it is so important—I welcome the hon. Lady’s comments on this—that the council is willing to work together. The question is about whether the powers are available to remove the boat, but if there is a risk of people becoming homeless, the situation becomes more complicated. \p Monica Harding: I thank the Minister for giving way again. As I described, when the two largest overstayed boats that had occupants were removed, Elmbridge borough council was there providing support for those people. The police were also there. There was no problem with the manoeuvres that took place on that day. \p Emma Hardy: I am really pleased to hear that. I was also pleased when the hon. Lady mentioned that in her speech as an effective example of agencies working together to achieve the same aim. The Environment Agency must use its resources to ensure effective enforcement along the entire 144 mile length of the river—the point has been made about not wanting to move a problem somewhere else—where similar pressures exist, balancing cost and benefit against other priorities. When a removal is necessary, it must be carried out within the safety parameters of the river, and when the river is flowing fast, the removal may be temporarily suspended.

I completely accept the point made this evening that the Environment Agency’s progress in taking appropriate action is not as fast as the hon. Lady would like it to be, but it is none the less positive, and looks to the long term rather than a series of short-term measures. The agency has deployed time, staff resources and financial investment in Elmbridge, although, as I have said, I recognise that it has not done so with the speed that the hon. Lady would like. It has used specialist officers, legal teams and contractors, with more than £150,000 spent in 2024-25 on enforcement operations, ongoing legal action and vessel removals in the Elmbridge area. Several derelict or sunken vessels have been removed between Hampton Court and Shepperton, and legal proceedings continue following a court ruling covering part of the Elmbridge bank downstream of Sunbury Lock, which is being appealed against.

Trespass notices have been issued where necessary, and advice has been given to boaters on registration, conduct and waste responsibilities—the hon. Lady gave some examples of awful behaviour, including littering— and the Environment Agency has also removed boater waste accumulations from agency and local authority land. On 1 April it published a strategic framework for enforcement throughout the 144 mile stretch of the river, and it tells me that it has developed an Elmbridge-specific compliance and enforcement plan that has been shared with local partners for the purpose of their input.

However, in the light of the concerns raised by the hon. Lady and her constituents, and by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), the agency is developing a longer-term land management strategy to reduce reliance on enforcement and create more sustainable outcomes instead. It includes the feasibility of additional lawful mooring agreements for registered boaters, supporting local authority duties for homelessness and housing, and biodiversity enhancements to deter trespass in sensitive areas. The agency will be strengthening collaboration with Elmbridge borough council, Surrey police and community partners on necessary enforcement actions, as well as continuing current enforcement deploy-ments over the coming months. In a wider context, it is certainly true that the legislative landscape surrounding navigation management is complex, and that this is a largely historical legacy. With the changing use of waterways over time, new challenges have emerged in relation to, for instance, residential mooring, and they should be taken into account in the shaping of future regulation and planning.

We heard a helpful suggestion about the possibility of Members forming a group to discuss this matter. If such a group were to be convened and if I were to be invited to join it, I would be happy to attend a meeting to discuss what more can be done in this regard.

I hope I have reassured the Members who have attended this debate that we as a Government greatly value our inland waterways and the work that the navigation authorities do to bring so many benefits to so many people. I hope I have also reassured them that the Environment Agency is determined to ensure that its approach to enforcement is fair and proportionate, and will deliver tangible, lasting outcomes where the impact is most acute.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.