debates/debates2025-11-17b conversation_22
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-11-17)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-11-17b conversation_22

Bradley Thomas:With the Government looking to impose visa sanctions to tackle illegal migration, why did they vote against including such measures in the Border Security, Asylum and  Immigration Bill, and if Labour MPs will not swallow these plans, what will the Home Secretary do as a back-up? \p Alex Norris: In so many ways, the hon. Gentleman is ahead of his time—I may well be the first person to accuse him of that. He will have the opportunity to hear from the Home Secretary about our plans regarding visa sanctions; he just has to wait a little bit longer. \p Warinder Juss: Crimes committed by grooming gangs are among the most horrific imaginable; victims feel the devastating impact for the rest of their life. Does the Minister therefore agree that the findings of the national inquiry into grooming gangs should be implemented without delay, that the victims must be kept at the heart of our response, and that their voices and experiences must lead the inquiry, so that some justice can finally be delivered for those impacted? \p Jess Phillips: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, and we are working urgently to establish the inquiry. Baroness Casey is supporting that work. She and I recently met some of the people my hon. Friend is talking about, and I look forward to updating the House. \p Peter Bedford: The Home Office has requested transitional accommodation for asylum claimants, following the closure of Garats Hay in my constituency. However, neither Leicestershire county council nor Charnwood borough council has been consulted or received any additional funding for this extra burden. Why are these councils being bypassed, and will they get the funding that they need? \p Alex Norris: All local authorities get an extra payment of £1,200 when someone in the supported estate ends up in their local authority, so I cannot quite understand that characterisation. If I have understood wrongly, I would be keen to meet the hon. Gentleman to understand his point, because we appreciate that there is an impact on local communities. We want to make sure that things go as smoothly as possible for the people who live in them, and we want to get this right. \p Jonathan Brash: Hartlepool police do a magnificent job, but like police in the rest of the Cleveland force area, they are hamstrung by a funding formula that is broken. The victims core grant works out at £7 a crime in my constituency. Down the road in North Yorkshire, the figure is £19 a crime. That is unfair and unjust. Can the Minister please commit to fixing this fundamental unfairness? \p Sarah Jones: My hon. Friend is right that for many of their years in government, the Opposition wanted to look at the police funding formula, but they never did. The Home Secretary will bring forward our police reform White Paper, which will set out the context for our future funding decisions, but the allocations for this year are being looked at as we speak. I hear my hon. Friend. \p Munira Wilson: The Secretary of State will be aware that the Met police recently proposed closing, or scaling back the hours of operation for, a  number of police front counters across London. Those plans were scaled back, apparently in response to public feedback, but the Twickenham police station’s front counter is still earmarked for closure, and only 15 people were invited to an online meeting at which to give that feedback. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Mayor of London and the Met police have a duty to do a full public consultation on these plans? \p Sarah Jones: The hon. Lady is right: there was a consultation, and seven fewer front counters will now be closed than before, and she is right that Twickenham is not one of those that will no longer close. We need to judge the police in London on their outcomes and Sadiq Khan on the work that he has done. We have the lowest number of murders since records began. Fraser Nelson, that well-known socialist, wrote just this week:

“But look past the headlines…the city is winning the battle over violent crime. It’s not a bad time to be a Londoner.” \p Janet Daby: Last month, there was an increase in knife crime across my constituency, and it was carried out not necessarily by younger people, but by older people. I know that the Government are determined to crack down on knife crime. What more are they doing to tackle knife crime? \p Sarah Jones: Nationally, we have taken 60,000 knives off the streets, knife murders are down 18%, and knife crime is down 5%, but every single offence is one too many. We will keep pushing on the policing response—as well as, crucially, the prevention response; we will work with our young people to stop them getting involved in crime in the first place. \p Julian Lewis: It is often reported that a high proportion of people who enter the country illegally do so without any reliable identifying documentation. Can any Minister say, in percentage terms, roughly what the proportions are of illegal immigrants who do and do not have documentation? \p Alex Norris: I will have to follow up in writing with the specific percentages for the right hon. Gentleman, but I assure him and the House that we are doing full biometric checks at the front door. We are checking against European databases, as well as our own databases, to make sure that we know who is here and, if there is any offending history, what that history is. \p Callum Anderson: Returning to rural crime, I pay tribute to the work that the Thames Valley police rural crime taskforce is doing for rural communities and farmers in the Buckingham and Bletchley constituency. Can the Minister set out more detail of how the national rural crime strategy will complement the work already being done by local forces? Will that strategy be complemented by a long-term funding model? \p Sarah Jones: I am seeing Thames Valley police to discuss exactly that subject very shortly, and I will let my hon. Friend know when I am going, so that he can, perhaps, come with me. The crime strategy of the National Police Chiefs’ Council will, of course, build on the work that has already been done in Thames Valley. \p Lee Anderson: One of the major pull factors for illegal migrants crossing the channel is  the fact that they can get jobs quite easily. Does the Home Secretary still support an amnesty for all undocumented workers? \p Alex Norris: That is not the position. We in the Government are resolute in our attempts to tackle illegal working, which does indeed act as a pull factor. The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which will return to this House from the Lords on Wednesday, has important provisions for dealing with the loopholes in the gig economy that can allow for substitution and provide space for illegal working. If we want to stop that, we should get the Bill moving as quickly as we can, and I urge Members to ensure that we do. \p Lincoln Jopp: I understand that the permanent secretary at the Home Office recently appointed a single senior official to be responsible for asylum hotels. Will the Home Secretary please use her good offices to encourage that official to come to the Stanwell hotel in my Spelthorne constituency, so that they can see for themselves how inappropriate it is in the context of the surrounding village, and prioritise it for closure? \p Alex Norris: The hon. Gentleman and I have had this conversation about Stanwell before, and he has pressed the matter with characteristic vigour. I can say to him and his community that we have committed to closing these hotels in this Parliament; they will not be open for a day longer than they have to be. When we close hotels, there will be clear criteria for choosing them for closure, and he has made many very good suggestions of grounds that might be used. \p Shockat Adam: In recent years, there has been a real increase in racist attacks in this country, including on our NHS staff; they have seen a rise of 55% in such attacks. Recently, two Sikh women were not just racially but sexually abused. Does the Home Secretary fear that implementing asylum policies like those in Denmark would exacerbate the problem, and embolden those who would create hate on our streets? \p Alex Norris: The Minister for Policing and Crime recently met a delegation of Sikh colleagues to discuss that very important case. As for the hon. Gentleman’s broader point about Denmark, it is right that, given the challenges we face in this country, our policies seek to draw on best practice from around Europe and the world, and he will not have to wait much longer to see the fruits of that. \p Ben Obese-Jecty: Last week, the Minister for Policing and Crime told me:

“the funding allocation will be made in the usual way before the end of the year…there is more money going into policing this year and we will ensure that it is given to where it is needed.”—[Official Report, 13 November 2025; Vol. 775, c. 344.]

Irrespective of the fact that more money is going into policing, can the Minister clarify for my constituents whether the Government will update the police allocation formula this year to give Cambridgeshire its fair share? The neighbourhood policing guarantee means nothing if our local police forces are underfunded in comparison with neighbouring forces. \p Sarah Jones: I would not say that the neighbourhood policing guarantee, involving an extra £200 million, means nothing. It is a substantial amount for all our communities in England and Wales, and the allocations will be decided in the usual way this year. \p Wendy Chamberlain: As a former police officer, I have policed protests, and I know how important they are. On the issue of cumulative disruption, what evidence has the Minister gathered that demonstrates that a protest that is deemed safe as a one-off would become a public safety risk if it were repeated? \p Sarah Jones: The hon. Lady is aware of these issues, and she is aware of the complexities of policing what are sometimes very disruptive and upsetting protests. We must get the balance right, and that is what we are trying to do, but I am happy to engage in more conversations with her about this. \p Joshua Reynolds: Shopkeepers in Maidenhead town centre tell me how pleased they are to see neighbourhood police officers doing their regular patrols, but those outside the town centre do not see those patrols as regularly and struggle more with shoplifting as a result. What is the Minister doing to tackle that, so that we have more neighbourhood police in communities, and not just in town centres? \p Sarah Jones: The hon. Gentleman has referred to a challenge that the police to do with their resources. Through the White Paper and the reform programme, we are trying to ensure that our police officers can spend all their time doing the things that we want them to do—not dealing with bureaucracy, doing police staff jobs or sitting behind a counter, but fighting crime in our communities. \p Mel Stride: (Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if she will make a statement on briefings to the press about the contents of the Budget. \p James Murray: Every Minister in this Government takes their obligations to this House very seriously. There has been much speculation, as is usual ahead of a Budget, but the Chancellor will come to this House on 26 November and deliver a Budget that will protect the NHS and public services. It will support growth and enable businesses to create jobs and innovate. It will support those struggling with the cost of living, protect families from high inflation and interest rates, and get debt falling, because the less we spend on debt interest, the more we can spend on the priorities of working people.

As you would rightly expect, Mr Speaker, I will not comment on individual measures today. The Chancellor has asked the Office for Budget Responsibility to produce a forecast. The OBR and the Treasury exchange information throughout the forecast process, which is the usual practice, established over many years. The Chancellor will take decisions based on that forecast, and we will set out our fiscal plans at the Budget next week in the usual way. The OBR is making an assessment of the productivity performance of the previous Government, and we will not allow the mistakes of the previous Government to determine our country’s future. The Budget next week will be guided by this Government’s values of fairness and opportunity, and will be focused entirely on the priorities of the British people.

Stability remains at the heart of our approach. By building more resilient public finances with the headroom to withstand global turbulence, we will give businesses the confidence to invest, and leave Government more free to act, when the situation calls for it. We will continue to meet our iron-clad fiscal rules, which allow the Government to invest in homes, transport, energy security and infrastructure. Taking this action means that we can continue to build strong foundations for our economy, because that is the route to securing Britain’s future. \p Mel Stride: Given that response, the right hon. Gentleman might try a bit of stand-up in his spare time. The process around the Budget is meant to be the most closely guarded secret in Government, but in recent weeks, we have barely been able to pick up a newspaper without reading a fresh report of the latest policy movements. On 6 November, The Times reported that the Chancellor had included increases in income tax rates in the measures sent to the OBR for scoring. Then, last Thursday, the Financial Times revealed that those proposals have now been removed from the Budget package.

The Chancellor and her officials may think this is a game that they are playing, but it has real-life consequences and impacts markets, as we saw on Friday. More than that, it shows utter contempt for this House. In this place, questions about the Budget are always met with the same answer: “Decisions on tax will be announced at the Budget”. That is right and proper, but it becomes  hollow and absurd when those same matters are being openly reported in the national media daily. The Chancellor even delivered a pre-Budget address to the country—not in this House, but in the Downing Street press room.

Given that the Chancellor has chosen not to come to the House today, I will ask the Minister the following questions. Has the Chancellor or any Treasury Minister sanctioned any briefings to journalists on potential Budget tax measures or the contents of the OBR’s forecasts? Have any Treasury officials or special advisers conducted such briefings? Has the Chancellor or the permanent secretary launched an investigation into the source of the leaks, and can the Minister explain why the Chancellor seems to have confirmed that the OBR has downgraded its productivity forecasts before the Budget has even taken place?

Either the Chancellor has been knowingly allowing the Budget process to be briefed out, or serious unauthorised leaks have occurred from her Department. That has fuelled confusion and uncertainty, and disrespects this House. \p Lindsay Hoyle: Minister, it is not normal for a Budget to have been put in the press. This is the hokey-cokey Budget: one minute something is in, the next minute it is out. I am very worried. The previous Government also had to be reprimanded for leaking. It is not good policy. At one time, a Minister would have resigned if anything was released. This House should be sacrosanct, and all decisions should be heard here first. Please do pass on the message. \p James Murray: Thank you, Mr Speaker; I can reassure you that every Minister in this Government takes their responsibility to this House very seriously.

I will not engage with speculation or comment on the ongoing Budget process, but everyone in this House and beyond can be very clear of what the Chancellor’s priorities are going into the Budget. We will meet the iron-clad fiscal rules, we will make the public finances more resilient, we will reduce inflationary pressures and we will get the costs of borrowing down, because that is the way to focus on the priorities of the British people, which are to protect the NHS, bear down on the cost of living and reduce the national debt. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee. \p Meg Hillier: There has been either a leak or wild speculation about the Budget, and it would be helpful if the Minister could advise us which it is. In doing so, could he outline—as he will obviously not go into detail, quite rightly, a week before the Budget—what this Budget’s strategic objectives are for the country? \p James Murray: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Regrettably, there is always noise and speculation ahead of a Budget, but I am not going to comment on that speculation. As the Chancellor set out in her speech earlier this month, although we face challenges going into the Budget, we are very clear about the priorities of this Government, which are to make the public finances more resilient, to reduce inflationary pressures and to bring down the costs of borrowing, because that is the way we can focus on the priorities of the British people—the NHS, the cost of living and getting debt down. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Daisy Cooper: These leaks are not just Westminster tittle-tattle; they have a real impact on people’s lives and livelihoods. The cold weather has now reached all corners of Britain, and households do not know if they can afford to put the heating on, because they do not know if their taxes are going up or down or staying the same. It is just five weeks until Christmas, and our high streets are struggling with low consumer confidence. That is precisely why we Liberal Democrats have called for a windfall tax on the big banks to fund an emergency cut to people’s energy bills and a VAT cut for hospitality, visitor accommodation and attractions.

However, these leaks are a symptom, not the cause; the real problem runs much deeper. The Labour Government have no vision for the country and no vision for the economy, and whatever their destination is, they are not taking the country with them. [Interruption.] \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I have had Pinky and Perky chirping all day. Well, that is the last time! \p Daisy Cooper: When people and the markets do not know what the Government are trying to achieve, rumours can and do run rife. It is clear that this Budget is more leaky than our crumbling hospitals.

I should add that the confected outrage from the Conservatives is slightly absurd, because their key Budget announcements were often leaked in advance—in at least one case, almost word for word. Perhaps this House needs to move to the Swedish system in which the Swedish Parliament gets to debate the Government’s Budget, proposes alternatives and amendments before it is finalised, and gets a proper period of scrutiny and accountability in the months that follow. What are the Government doing to stop these leaks, do they recognise that this flip-flopping is incredibly damaging to households and the markets, and will they consider all good ideas, including from the Liberal Democrats? \p Lindsay Hoyle: I remind the Liberal Democrat spokesperson that the time limit is one minute, not one minute and 50 seconds. \p James Murray: Like the hon. Member, I regret the fact that there is always noise and speculation ahead of a Budget, but I am not going to add to that speculation here in the Chamber today. Our focus as a Government is to build the strong foundations that our economy needs, because that is the way to secure Britain’s future. \p Josh Fenton-Glynn: I am often put in mind of that scene in “Casablanca” where the official expresses surprise at gambling taking place in the casino when I hear Conservative Members say that briefing might have taken place. Perhaps in 2017, when the key stamp duty measure in that Budget was leaked, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride) was equally surprised, as he was then the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. While there is always briefing, I am sure the Minister agrees with me that the job of the Chancellor is to get the best deal for this country. \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. That is a toughie that one, and I think we know the answer. It is the worst patsy question so far. I call Steve Barclay. \p Steve Barclay: As the Minister will know, leaks of market sensitive data obviously carry a much higher premium than other leaks that may occur in Government. Again, could he address the shadow Chancellor’s question as to why the Cabinet Secretary and the permanent secretary have not been asked to launch an inquiry into these leaks? \p James Murray: As I said, I am not going to comment on the ongoing Budget process, but what the markets know is that the Chancellor’s commitment to her fiscal rules is iron-clad. They have been met at every fiscal event since this Parliament began, and they will be met next Wednesday. \p Justin Madders: The problem that we have is an insatiable 24/7 media who want stories and will sometimes generate their own. All this speculation has created uncertainty that has hampered investment, which I know is not what the Treasury wants. Will the Minister be clear from the Dispatch Box that any further speculation we read about will not have been authorised by anyone in Government? \p James Murray: Mr Speaker, as I made clear, every Minister in this Government takes their responsibility to this House very seriously and I am not going to engage in further speculation today, but what we are seeking to achieve in the Budget next week is to ensure that, in meeting her iron-clad fiscal rules that the Chancellor has committed to, we provide extra headroom to give more resilience to the public finances, reduce inflationary pressures and get the cost of borrowing down. \p John Glen: Two weeks ago, the Chancellor held a press conference from which everyone inferred that income tax was going to go up. On Friday, every newspaper said that income tax was not going to go up. It is plainly obvious to the general public and anyone who reads any of the papers that everything is being briefed from the Treasury or No. 11. Surely the Minister needs to come to terms with that and face up to the fact that it has a horrendous effect on business and consumer confidence, which is doing the economy a lot of damage. \p James Murray: As I said earlier, regrettably there is always noise and speculation ahead of a Budget. In reference to the Chancellor’s speech earlier this month, the reason she set out the challenges we face as a country was to be straightforward with the British people about the challenges we face and clear about her priorities, which are to protect on the NHS, bear down on the cost of living and get national debt down. \p John Slinger: Does the Chief Secretary agree that the Tories are still as irresponsible as they were under Liz Truss, blindly promising £47 billion of cuts to justify their wacky fiscal policies? Does he agree that that is back of the fag packet territory? Does he agree that the Chancellor will deliver an excellent Budget next week? \p James Murray: I agree entirely that the Conservative party has learned nothing, and nor has it apologised at all for what happened under the short-lived Government of Liz Truss. For the Conservatives to talk about the savings they have apparently identified recently, including  welfare savings, is frankly not credible when the shadow Chancellor is the man who presided over the biggest increase in the welfare bill in decades. \p Lisa Smart: On one level, this is all just a bit embarrassing, is it not? But on another level, this is having a real impact on business confidence and the ability of local businesses to make decisions about investment and their future. Does the Minister agree that this is all just a bit self-defeating? \p James Murray: I am not quite sure what I am supposed to say in response to that question. I would rather this urgent question had not been asked today—there are other things that we could be doing—but it is important to underline to you, Mr Speaker, that every Minister in this Government takes their responsibility to this House very seriously. \p Tulip Siddiq: I was astonished to hear those on the Opposition Benches cheer and jeer as the Chief Secretary made his statement. If I remember correctly, when we first took office after the election, we were told about how they had mishandled the economy, mishandled Brexit, mishandled the pandemic, spent the reserves three times over and promised money for sensitive schemes when they did not have the money, just to try and win the election. Will the Chief Secretary tell the House how decisions are made in the Budget process, and what we were left with when we first took office? \p James Murray: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that our priority is to take the right decisions to provide stability and secure foundations for the long-term future of this country. It is true that we inherited a mess from the Conservative party. Indeed, the Office for Budget Responsibility is now looking at the previous Government’s record on productivity. We have been clear that we will not let the mistakes of the previous Government determine this country’s future. We will take the right decisions for the future of this country. \p Harriett Baldwin: The speculation was inflamed by the Chancellor herself giving a speech at the press conference. Surely one of the most damaging pieces of speculation in the media was that there might be an exit tax on wealthy people fleeing the country. That has only just been ruled out, but many, many people have fled in the interim. There has been a real cost to the Exchequer from all the speculation, so will the Minister confirm that there will be a leak inquiry? \p James Murray: As I made clear, I am not going to comment on the ongoing Budget process, nor am I going to engage in speculation about Budget measures. I note that this urgent question is about speculation, which I am not engaging with. It is actually Conservative Members who seem to be fanning the speculation, and I would discourage them from doing that. \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Can I just say that we have had leak inquiries previously when major statements have come out? The reports may be contradicted within days, but they are obviously coming from somewhere. It is worth while thinking about it. \p Laurence Turner: The Minister said in his response that the Treasury and the OBR are exchanging information, but that did not happen in the period immediately before the last election, when spending pressures were withheld from the OBR in a way that the chair said may have broken the law. Will the Minister confirm that that failure is being corrected under this Government? \p James Murray: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He is right to point out that the process between the OBR and the Treasury has been strengthened to be more robust and transparent under this Government. Of course, it is an iterative process whereby the OBR shares its forecasts with us and we share with it our proposed measures. It iterates throughout the Budget process, culminating in the Budget itself on 26 November. \p Stephen Flynn: There is no doubt that the chaos and uncertainty of this Budget process is having enormous consequences for the credibility of the Labour party, and maybe even for the Minister at the Dispatch Box. I am, surprisingly, less interested in that and more interested in the damage that the Government’s policies are having on my constituents and their livelihoods. I am not asking him to speculate but to clarify: does he acknowledge that if the energy profits levy continues in its current form, more of my constituents will lose their jobs? \p James Murray: I am not going to take lessons on credibility from the right hon. Gentleman. What I will say is that he is inviting me to speculate on Budget measures, and I will not do so. \p Janet Daby: Can the Chief Secretary confirm that this will be a Budget that prioritises economic growth? \p James Murray: I can absolutely confirm that. \p Bernard Jenkin: Can I ask the Minister whether I have got this right? The Chancellor made a speech to try to reassure the markets that she was going to plug the enormous black hole in the Government’s finances. It reassured the markets to an extent, and the forecasted borrowing costs fell. The OBR adjusted its forecasts, and then the Chancellor decided that she did not need to take the measures she had announced in her speech, and the markets have now reacted adversely. This is all against the background of the cost of borrowing being higher today, as it has been all year, than the peak under the supposedly disastrous Budget of Liz Truss. What sort of confidence is that going to give the British economy? \p James Murray: The hon. Gentleman is incorrect to say that the Chancellor announced measures in her speech earlier this month. All measures are announced on Budget day. What the Chancellor set out in her speech earlier this month were the challenges we are facing as a country and the priorities that will guide her—those are to make the public finances more resilient, with more headroom, to reduce inflationary pressures and to get the cost of borrowing down. \p Jacob Collier: The Chief Secretary will be aware of the vital role that beer and pubs play in my constituency, the beer capital of Britain. As the Chancellor finalises the Budget, will she ensure that this sector, which faces significant pressure, receives the support that it deserves in order that it can thrive and continue serving our communities? \p James Murray: While I have made it clear that I will not speculate on what will be in the Budget, I note my hon. Friend’s passionate case for support for the pub sector, which is so important to all of us and our constituents. \p Andrew Mitchell: Does the Minister have any understanding at all of the impact of this incontinent briefing and leaking—the contradictory rumours about pensions, inheritance tax and housing—which is enraging so many of my constituents in the royal town of Sutton Coldfield? Does he not agree that normally an omnishambles happens once the Budget speech has been delivered, not while it is still being crafted? \p James Murray: As I have said, there is always noise and speculation ahead of a Budget, but I will not engage in speculation about what the Chancellor will announce on 26 November, because that is when she will set it all out. \p Christopher Vince: I promise the Chamber that I will not repeat any of the stories about my mum’s career in His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. However, the Minister will know that I take tax evasion very seriously. He will be aware that it costs the Treasury billions of pounds each year. I appreciate that he cannot speculate on what will be in the Budget, but will he commit his Department to looking seriously at how we tackle tax evasion, with serious investment in HMRC? \p James Murray: My hon. Friend is right that I cannot speculate on the contents of the Budget, but I can thank his mother for her years of service to HMRC. I can also reassure her, him and the whole House that tackling tax avoidance and evasion and closing the tax gap is a top priority for the Government. \p Bobby Dean: The Minister is right to point out that speculation ahead of a Budget is not abnormal, but we have had speculation throughout most of this year. I wonder whether he will accept that part of the reason for that is how the Chancellor has both constructed and applied her fiscal rules. She set them up, with good intentions—we do need fiscal rules in place—but left herself with minimal headroom in a pretty volatile global economy, which has driven speculation all year round about how she would fill the gaps that have emerged throughout the year. Does he think that was a mistake? \p James Murray: The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the importance of fiscal headroom to ensure that public finances are resilient. That is exactly why the Chancellor set out that one of her priorities in the Budget, in meeting the iron-clad fiscal rules, is to ensure that we have more resilient public finances so that the Government are freer to act when the situation calls for it. \p Desmond Swayne: Given the blatant breach of pre-Budget purdah, will the Chancellor follow the proper example set by Hugh Dalton? \p James Murray: I fear that my history is not good enough to know exactly what that question means. [Interruption.] I am embarrassed to admit it. I am not entirely clear, but I suspect that I do not agree with the right hon. Member, whatever it was. I will leave it at that. \p Richard Tice: Given the chaos around the Budget, none of us would be at all surprised if the date itself changed. Nevertheless, is the Treasury aware how incompetent it looks in the eyes of the markets, which are utterly aghast, and in the eyes of businesses, which have stopped investing and stopped hiring? \p James Murray: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Budget is next week, on Wednesday 26 November. I can also reassure him that businesses are welcoming the Chancellor’s iron-clad commitment to her fiscal rules. \p Joy Morrissey: Does the Chancellor recognise that her trailing of a mansion tax for houses that are nothing of the sort has caused deep anxiety for thousands of people, including many pensioners in my constituency, who could not afford a potential doubling of their council tax? \p James Murray: As I made clear earlier, the level of noise and speculation ahead of the Budget is regrettable, but I will not engage in further speculation on these measures today. \p Julian Lewis: I am disappointed that the Minister does not know of the example of the Chancellor who resigned from Attlee’s Government for inadvertently or otherwise leaking details of the Budget. Does he at least appreciate that there is a difference between speculating about the contents of a Budget and leaking a Budget, and does he think that there should be any punishment for people who leak a Budget, irrespective of whatever the details were? \p James Murray: I repeat what I said about the approach of Ministers—every Minister in the Government takes their responsibility to the House seriously—and I will not engage in further speculation about the contents of the Budget. \p Al Pinkerton: I have had meetings with businesses and constituents in Surrey Heath who tell me that they have changed their decisions based on the speculation they have heard in recent weeks and months. We have heard about the rage that some people have felt; in my constituency, I have heard anxiety from people who have drawn down their pension pots and perhaps not pursued the house purchase that they were looking at. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, whatever the reality—whether speculation or leaks—this situation is deeply regrettable? If he can do anything at all, will he please ensure that this never happens again? \p James Murray: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that I am not adding to the speculation around the Budget. It is regrettable that there is noise and speculation around the Budget, because the right way for Budgets to be conducted is for those measures to be iterated with the Office for Budget Responsibility in the normal way, with the forecasts and measures being exchanged between the Treasury and the OBR, and for the package of measures in full to be announced by the Chancellor on Budget day. \p Nick Timothy: In some ways at least, this Chancellor is improving: her Budget last year unravelled within a day, and this year the Budget has unravelled before it has been announced. We know why the Chief Secretary is refusing to answer the question about the leak inquiry. It is because the Chancellor knows exactly who leaked the details of the Budget, because she sees that face every day in the mirror. This all goes back to last year’s Budget. Labour said in its manifesto that it would limit spending increases by the year 2028-29 to £9.5 billion a year. In the Budget, the Government increased spending by £76 billion a year. That is eight times higher. Before the Chief Secretary starts spouting about the £22 billion fiction, £9.5 billion plus £22 billion equals a lot less than £76 billion, doesn’t it? \p James Murray: At the Budget last year we took the right decisions to fix the public finances and to get the NHS and public services back on their feet. We could not carry on with public services as they were when we inherited them. We could not carry on with public finances as they were when we inherited them. We have restored stability because that is a prerequisite for functioning public services, for investment and for growth. \p Wendy Morton: Leaks, unauthorised briefing and speculation—or maybe not speculation—are creating instability, chaos, volatility and uncertainty for the markets, for businesses and for households in my constituency, so why will the Minister not answer the shadow Chancellor’s question about having an inquiry into what has actually happened? Let us get to the bottom of this. \p James Murray: As I have said, I am not going to comment on the ongoing Budget process. However, the right hon. Lady mentioned stability, and stability is at the heart of our approach, which is why building more resilient public finances with the headroom to withstand global turbulence is so important in giving businesses the confidence to invest. \p Dr Caroline Johnson: There appears to have been a lot of speculation about this Budget, and it seems to have been the same measures that have been speculated on by a number of different news sources, which leads to suspicions of a leak. The Minister must surely recognise that there was a possibility of a leak, in which case either he knows who the leak was and that is why he does not want to investigate, or he does not know who the leak was, in which case he should want to investigate. I am not asking him to speculate on the contents of the Budget, so he should please not give me that answer again. Why will he not institute a leak inquiry? \p James Murray: A number of the hon. Lady’s colleagues have asked the same question today, and my answer has been consistent throughout, which is that I am not going to comment on the ongoing Budget process. \p Seamus Logan: The chaos and confusion at the heart of this Government are deeply damaging to Scotland, to its economy and to its public services. The constant leaks, briefings and U-turns flowing from the Treasury make the Scottish Government’s task all the more difficult, and this is worsened by the Chancellor’s refusal, to date, to meet the Scottish Secretary for Finance. Can the Minister succeed in persuading the Chancellor to have this meeting, please? \p James Murray: In my role as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, I have met Ministers in the Scottish Government to discuss the fiscal situation. We have a fiscal forum every quarter, with representatives from the Scottish Government as well as from Wales and Northern Ireland, and that is the right way for us to have routine discussions about matters of shared interest. \p Harriet Cross: The Government have clearly lost control of this Budget process. While they have been flying kites, businesses across the UK have been sending up distress flares. The £40 billion of tax from them in the last Budget saw hiring down, confidence down and investments down, and we are now seeing the same again. If any business in this country went to find backing and made as many U-turns as this Government are producing, it would not have a chance of finding an investor, so how can any business across the country have confidence in this Government? \p James Murray: Businesses can have confidence in this Government because when we say we are going to stick to our fiscal rules, we mean it. When we say we are going to have more headroom to make our economy and our public finances more resilient, we mean it. And when we say we are going to get national debt down, we mean it—unlike the Conservatives when they were in government. \p Max Wilkinson: I host a regular business forum with Cheltenham constituents, who tell me that the late date of the Budget and the speculation around it have undermined their ability to make decisions, in particular on investment. They also note that there has been nearly no speculation about pro-business measures for those trying to start or grow a business. Might the Chief Secretary to the Treasury take this opportunity to speculate on something that might be useful for the small and medium-sized enterprises and larger businesses in my constituency? \p James Murray: While the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to speculate on details, I can reassure him that our Budget will support growth by enabling businesses to create jobs, innovate, invest and grow. \p Luke Evans: This urgent question is about Budget press briefings. The Minister has repeatedly said that he takes his responsibilities very seriously. He was asked by the shadow Chancellor whether he could rule out any of the ministerial team or special advisers having leaked any of the information  out to the press. Will he do so from this Dispatch Box in honour of what he has been saying in his answers this afternoon? \p James Murray: I did not say just that I take my responsibility to this House very seriously; I said that every Minister in this Government takes their responsibility to this House very seriously. I am not going to engage in further speculation ahead of the Budget. \p Peter Bedford: In the past year, a record £70 billion has been withdrawn from pension schemes through the tax-free lump sum as a result of the fear driven by the uncertainty of recent months. Does the Minister understand that the constant leaks and policy kite flying are leading to this adverse effect on pensioners’ savings? \p James Murray: As I have said already today, there is, regrettably, always noise and speculation ahead of the Budget, but I am not going to contribute toward that speculation. \p Joshua Reynolds: Businesses in Maidenhead tell me that what they want to see in the Budget—the one bit of speculation that they want to hear at the moment—is for the Chancellor to just leave them alone. That is an outrageous thing for them to have to think, and it is because of what they think the Chancellor will do at the Budget. Given the damage that has been caused by our current Brexit deal, does the Minister understand that we could look to generate £25 billion a year for our economy by negotiating a new EU-UK customs union? It is very simple. \p James Murray: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the Government’s red lines on not rejoining the customs union. I can reassure him that, in approaching this Budget, the Chancellor’s commitment to her fiscal rules will ensure that we prioritise having extra resilience in terms of headroom, reduce inflationary pressures and get the costs of borrowing done. \p Jim Shannon: Last week, VAT was to increase; this week, it is not. Pensions increases were to feature in the Budget; then they were not. Income tax was to feature; then it was not, and then it was again. The one thing that we are sure of is that retailers faced £7 billion in extra costs from the 2024 Budget, with employers responding by increasing prices and slashing jobs. How are the Government and the Chancellor going to breathe life into our high street and not sound the death knell for struggling small businesses? There is a very real fear that this Budget will bring a different kind of Black Friday for businesses across the UK in the form of closing down sales, which can never be allowed to happen. \p James Murray: It does not count as me engaging in speculation if I assure the hon. Gentleman that, as we have already preannounced, we will set out our new business rates multipliers at the Budget, with permanently lower business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, in order to help high streets across the country. That is a really important measure for us to take to support those businesses; more widely, however, it fits within the economic stability that we will provide, which is so important for businesses. That is why, as well as meeting our iron-clad fiscal rules, it is so important that we ensure that the public finances are more resilient, reduce inflationary pressures and get the costs of borrowing down. \p Llinos Medi: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero if he will make a statement on the development of the UK’s first small modular nuclear reactor power station at Wylfa. \p Michael Shanks: I welcome the hon. Lady’s commitment to securing a new nuclear project in her constituency. She and I have had a number of discussions about nuclear power and other energy projects.

Nuclear energy provides the stable low-carbon baseload we need to keep the lights on and to support our economy. It is central to our clean power mission. That is why we have launched a new golden age of nuclear, committing £17 billion to the most ambitious programme of new nuclear for a generation. Our small modular reactor—SMR—programme, led by Great British Energy Nuclear, is an example of British innovation at its best. These mini reactors are smaller and quicker to build than traditional nuclear power stations, and we have been considering which is the best site to kick off the SMR programme now that we have reached that decision.

Last week, we announced that Wylfa on the north coast of Anglesey—Ynys Môn—is our chosen site for GBE Nuclear’s first SMR project. A written ministerial statement on the matter was made on Thursday. The initial project will see, subject to contracts, the construction of up to three Rolls-Royce SMR units. The site could host as many as eight, subject to future policy and funding decisions. That will deliver the largest industrial investment in north Wales for a generation. It will provide 3,000 good jobs on the site at peak construction. GBE Nuclear already looks forward to working with Welsh communities on the project, with work due to start on the site as early as next year.

We will be progressing the SMR project across this Parliament, working towards final investment decision. Meanwhile, large-scale nuclear power stations will also continue to make a vital contribution to our home-grown clean energy mix, complementing these SMRs. We will continue to act decisively, to invest ambitiously and to work with communities, investors and allies to deliver this golden age for new nuclear. \p Llinos Medi: Diolch yn fawr, Llefarydd, for granting the urgent question.

Last week’s announcement that nuclear power will return to Wylfa is hugely welcome. I am pleased that the Government have backed the site. As I have mentioned several times in this Chamber, Wylfa is recognised as the best site in Europe.

May I pay tribute to the teamwork over decades, by elected Members from all parties, campaigners, businesses and the local community, who have long fought for new nuclear at Wylfa. Ynys Môn has known nuclear for 65 years, with a strong local college and university ready to train a skilled workforce of the future.

To maximise the success of the project, the Government must work with the local authority on behalf of our community to deliver tangible economic and social benefits. That includes maximising opportunities in the  local supply chain. The potential is clear, but the challenge is turning it into reality. After many false dawns and broken promises, my optimism is cautious. We know the cost of failure on Ynys Môn: when the Wylfa Newydd project collapsed, it robbed a generation of the opportunity to live and thrive in their community.

Recent data from the Nuclear Industry Association shows that nuclear jobs on Ynys Môn are at a record low. We cannot afford further setbacks. Clear timelines and transparent decisions are therefore essential. Can the Minister confirm when the Rolls-Royce contract will be signed, the general design assessment completed and the final investment decision made? As it stands, the SMR project is already four years behind the previous Horizon project at Wylfa. The project had a planning application and was approaching a final decision before it collapsed.

Funding the SMR project at Wylfa remains critical. Although the Government’s £2.5 billion for the SMR programme is welcome, most of the costs at Wylfa will currently be funded privately. Given the problems of the past, and that Wylfa will host a fleet of SMRs—these first-of-their-kind reactors—are the Government prepared to demonstrate their full commitment?

We cannot let this historic opportunity slip through our fingers yet again. This is a unique opportunity to create a project that will deliver for our language, our culture and our young people. I urge the Government to work with myself, key stakeholders and developers to provide the best project ever to deliver prosperity and energy security. \p Michael Shanks: The hon. Lady is right that the community in Ynys Môn faced a number of false starts under the previous Government. This is an historic opportunity—a huge moment—as the project moves forward with tangible timelines in place and the £2.5 billion that she mentioned. Rolls-Royce is taking forward three SMRs initially, but there is the potential for more in the future. People will start to see jobs soon. We expect that there will be work on the site as early as next year, including 3,000 jobs when the construction phase is at its peak.

I join the hon. Lady in paying tribute to all those who have worked on this project over a great many years. There have been a lot of false starts and disappointments, but last week was a huge moment not just for realising the potential of the site with the next generation of nuclear, but for the UK to see SMRs actually move forward after years of talking, and, with that, the huge investment coming into the social and economic fabric of communities like hers.

The Prime Minister spoke last week about the investment—in colleges, for example—to ensure that we have the skilled workforce in the local area. Nuclear prides itself on creating many well-paid and sustainable jobs. Of course, the hon. Lady’s community has benefited in that way from previous generations of nuclear. We are determined to ensure that those economic and social benefits are felt by her constituents and for those right across the UK. \p Lizzi Collinge: My constituency hosts Heysham 1 and 2 nuclear power stations, and provides the cleanest energy of any UK constituency, so obviously I am keen that Heysham  continues to be part of our golden nuclear future. Is the Minister, like me, eagerly awaiting the report of the regulatory review—particularly on the outdated semi-urban population density criteria—and will he work with me to ensure that the benefits of the Heysham site are known across the industry? \p Michael Shanks: My hon. Friend rightly highlights the huge economic advantage of nuclear. I grew up in Ayrshire, next to Hunterston, so I know how important nuclear power stations are for the communities that grow up around them. We are considering existing sites. This is not, of course, the end of our nuclear ambitions; we have been clear that we see nuclear as a hugely important part of our energy mix now and in future. Our work to consider the regulatory regime will report in due course to ensure that we have a robust process that rightly recognises the importance of nuclear safety but is also flexible enough to take advantage of the opportunities of nuclear. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State. \p Claire Coutinho: It is no secret that I am a fan of new nuclear in this country, so I welcome the progress on SMRs. If we are to have a strong economy and a good standard of life, we need abundant, reliable and cheap energy. Nuclear works in the winter, can run 24/7 to power artificial intelligence, and is 100% clean to boot. It uses 3,000 times less land than wind and solar energy, and the latest prices around the world show that it can be much cheaper, too.

The Conservative position is that we need a lot more nuclear. We were the party that overturned the complete failure of the previous Labour Government to start any British nuclear plants, so I say this with some feeling. I have been told that there was just one nuclear welder left in the country when we started work on Hinkley Point C. We invested in the supply chain and in skills, which had completely withered under the previous Government. Now the most important thing is to keep building.

I personally signed off on a third large nuclear plant at Wylfa because it is our best site. It could host both large-scale nuclear and small modular reactors. By ruling out large-scale at Wylfa and ditching the 24 GW target, are the Government calling time on new large-scale nuclear? That is what it looks like to the rest of the country. It would be a huge mistake—the same mistake that Labour made last time it was in power. If we want cheap energy and growth in this country, we need to build, build, build when it comes to nuclear.

The Minister talked about power generation from SMRs in the 2030s, but industry is being told that it will be 2042 at the earliest. Who is right, and is that really the best the Government can do? We have plans to make nuclear building much cheaper. In fact, to cut environmental red tape, we tabled radical amendments to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, but the Government voted against them. The nuclear regulatory taskforce will report soon, though; will the Government consider our proposals when it does? Lastly, does the Minister agree that it is fundamentally absurd for the Green party to talk about clean power while it has a policy of dismantling Britain’s nuclear power plants? \p Michael Shanks: Well, let me start at the end, because it is nice when we have a rare moment of consensus in this place now and again. I would add our friends in the Scottish National party to the last question, although I am not quite sure about Plaid Cymru—some of its members support nuclear and some do not, even though we are building in Wales. The right hon. Lady is right to say that nuclear must be the bedrock of our clean power system. It is also an economic opportunity, as we all know. I welcome that brief bit of consensus.

The right hon. Member says “build, build, build,” but all the Opposition did was consult, consult, consult. She talks about signing off new nuclear, but none of it has been built. It is easy to sign things off, but the previous Government committed no money—not a penny of funding. On one of the biggest days for our domestic nuclear industry in a very long time, it was remarkable to hear Opposition spokespeople last week talk down the sector. They talked big for 14 years, but built very little. Not a single new nuclear project was completed in their entire time in office, and that is because they did not put any funding into delivering it.

We have committed almost £20 billion of real money to build real projects, because we are ambitious about our nuclear future, about Sizewell C and about this SMR programme. We have not ruled out any future giga-scale projects, but our ambition is matched by funding to actually deliver them. Wylfa was the absolute best site on offer, which is why we chose it to host this most important, flagship project for the United Kingdom. We are delivering jobs and investment in Wales, and we are delivering the next generation of nuclear after many, many years of disappointment by the Conservatives. \p Torcuil Crichton: Scotland’s Deputy First Minister, Kate Forbes, told the SNP conference that her Government would not allow Labour to turn Scotland into a “nuclear playground”. I guess she knew her audience, but given her reputation as the common-sense member of that Government, she should have known better. That kind of playground politics is an insult to Scotland’s nuclear workers, thousands of whom leave Scotland to work in highly unionised, safe, skilled jobs in England—and now Wales—to build the next generation of nuclear power stations.

Does the Minister agree that Scotland could have these jobs—that Dounreay, Torness in East Lothian, and Hunterston in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Alan Gemmell) could have these jobs—if it was not for the Dr Nos of the SNP and their outdated opposition to nuclear power? \p Michael Shanks: I cannot help but notice that none of the SNP MPs is in the Chamber for this statement, so they are not defending the ideological objection that they seem to have. My hon. Friend, not surprisingly, is absolutely right to highlight the Scottish Government’s playground politics; this is holding back investment right across the country, as well as the necessary energy security.

We know that nuclear power stations across Scotland have delivered generations of well-paid, skilled and sustainable jobs. I recently met people in Torness who had started out as apprentices and who are still there, 20 or 30 years later, working in the nuclear industry. There will be jobs in Scotland in the supply chain for  the SMR programme and Sizewell C, but it is a great shame that the Scottish National party is holding back the full potential of Scotland to be part of this nuclear story. I hope that the people of Scotland will vote for a different Government in May, so that we can get on with delivering the jobs and investment in communities right across Scotland. \p Caroline Nokes: I call Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Charlie Maynard: New small modular reactors have real potential to help reduce our reliance on foreign gas and bring down energy bills, as well as bringing a welcome boost to jobs and investment in Anglesey. SMRs should be where the focus is when it comes to nuclear, not big, expensive nuclear power stations that cost multiples more and take far longer to build.

The Liberal Democrats are pleased to see SMRs coming forward as part of a mix of cost-effective and safe decarbonised power generation, but will the Government please confirm that they will also maintain focus on boosting wind and solar power generation in order to bring down everyone’s energy bills? My hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) has been working closely with constituents who will now be disappointed that the alternative site of Oldbury has not gone forward, so can the Minister clarify what the future is for that site? \p Michael Shanks: The hon. Gentleman is right to say how important this next generation of nuclear is—but alongside other technologies. The Government have been really clear that our clean power mission is about wind, solar and storage, but it is also about nuclear. That combination is how we deliver our energy security and get away from the volatility of fossil fuels, and it is how we create thousands of jobs across the country. We need all of that.

The hon. Member is right to highlight Oldbury, which is a hugely important nuclear site that is owned by Great British Energy Nuclear. We continue to look at the future potential for Oldbury and other sites. This is not the limit of the Government’s ambition on nuclear; it is the next stage of that ambition. Wylfa was judged as the best possible site for the SMR programme and it is right that we put our flagship programme on the best possible site, but we are ambitious about the future of nuclear and Great British Energy Nuclear is looking at a range of sites across the UK—including both Oldbury and sites in Scotland—for potential future projects. \p Charlotte Nichols: Although this announcement is a welcome step forward for the SMR programme and the community on Anglesey, after suffering many broken promises and false starts, it is abundantly clear that the UK will not meet our future clean energy needs without further gigawatt-scale plants alongside SMRs and AMRs. To that end, and with Wylfa having been widely considered one of the best sites, if not the best, in the UK for a full gigawatt-scale reactor, does the Minister grasp the urgency in setting out the road map for wider nuclear industry needs for future gigawatt sites beyond Sizewell C? \p Michael Shanks: My hon. Friend is a huge champion of the nuclear industry, and I have learned a huge amount from her in my time in this post. I am sure the whole nuclear industry is grateful for her work on the all-party group on nuclear energy, and in other activities throughout the House to ensure that these issues are always top of the agenda. Great British Energy Nuclear has been charged with driving forward our ambition for nuclear, and the SMR programme is a key part of that, as are Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C, and we are also looking at what future potential we need.

Our country’s energy needs will clearly only increase in the coming years, and we will be looking at the future of that energy mix, and the mix of renewables with nuclear. The Secretary of State has charged Great British Energy Nuclear to look at what more projects there will be. I take my hon. Friend’s point about a road map to give some certainty to that, and I am sure that the Minister for Science, Innovation, Research and Nuclear, Lord Vallance, will have heard that comment, as well as Great British Energy Nuclear, and I am sure they will work with her on that. \p Graham Stuart: Like the shadow Secretary of State I welcome the announcement on moving forward with SMRs, but like the Minister’s extremely knowledgeable hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), I am concerned about gigawatt scale. Wylfa is truly the best site for a gigawatt-scale nuclear development. When we build in such a way we create a lot of jobs in north Wales, whereas bringing in a modular pre-made SMR will do less of that. Why was the decision made to put SMRs on Wylfa, when Wylfa is practically unique in its attributes for large-scale gigawatt nuclear production, and many sites could host SMRs? Will the Minister please explain that to the House, because I genuinely do not know the answer? \p Michael Shanks: I am grateful for a genuine question in the House of Commons—always appreciated. As I said earlier, the decision was made that Wylfa was the best possible site for SMRs. This is a hugely important project for us, starting with three SMR units, but with potential at Wylfa to increase that, which is a huge opportunity. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that Wylfa would also have hosted at gigascale, but after a great many years of Wylfa being promised lots of things, the option on the table was either a project with funding now, and a clear pathway to delivery on an important site that will deliver the outcomes we need as a country, or a potential wait for another spending review where we might make a decision about future nuclear. We are ambitious about what the future of gigascale nuclear would look like, but right now funding has been confirmed for SMRs. It was right that Wylfa, which is a significant site and has a skilled workforce, takes advantage of that after a significant amount of time of things being promised but not delivered. As I said, we have not set that as the limit of our nuclear ambitions, and we will say more in due course about what future sites might look like. Great British Energy Nuclear is looking at those now. \p Steve Race: I welcome the announcement of the new SMRs at Wylfa. This is British innovation we can be proud of, leading to decarbonisation of our electricity grid, and helping to combat climate change.  It is exactly the sort of policy that my Exeter constituents want from this Government. Does the Minister agree that supply chains at Wylfa and Sizewell C will benefit businesses and workers across the entire United Kingdom, alongside the local areas where they are based? \p Michael Shanks: My hon. Friend is right: we should all be—I know we are, and the consensus has been welcome—hugely proud of this British innovation. We have a huge opportunity to be at the forefront of a technology that I have no doubt will change the energy system of a great many countries around the world, and Britain can be at the leading edge of that. This is a hugely important moment, and we should recognise that. As well as 3,000 jobs in Wylfa for the construction of the site, as my hon. Friend says there is a significant number of opportunities, including thousands of jobs across the supply chain. Great British Energy Nuclear aims to ensure that 70% of supply chain products are British built across the SMR fleet, ensuring that those SMRs are not just a product of British innovation, but that they are clearly stamped with “Made in Britain.” \p Julian Lewis: No one likes to consider the prospect of international conflict, but we have seen from that between Ukraine and Russia how dangerous a situation can be when fuel supply installations are targeted. What thought have the Government given to affording the same level of protection against either sabotage or external attack for these new smaller reactors as those that are already built into the construction of the larger plants? \p Michael Shanks: The right hon. Gentleman asks a typically important question. We take the security of our nuclear fleet in all its forms extremely seriously, and SMRs are a new part of that. The security arrangements will take into account the existing nuclear constabulary, which will look at security as soon as construction starts to ramp up on site. Across Government, we have been looking at the broader question of how we ensure our critical national infrastructure is protected in an increasingly hostile world, not just from physical attack and sabotage, as the right hon. Gentleman points out, but from cyber-attack, which is becoming more of a priority. My Department and the Cabinet Office are working together to come up with a more detailed plan to ensure that we do that, but the security of all our energy infrastructure is a top priority. \p Alan Gemmell: I congratulate the Minister on the announcement and the thousands of jobs that it will create. Is he as disappointed as I am in the SNP’s immature stance on new nuclear in Scotland that would mean that communities like mine in Ayrshire, where we have Hunterston, would not have access to thousands of new jobs? Is there anything that the Minister could do to change the SNP’s mind, short of a stonking Scottish Labour victory next year? \p Michael Shanks: My hon. Friend is right to say that the SNP’s policy on nuclear is immature. Nuclear has been an important part of Scotland’s energy mix for decades. As a result, tens of thousands of people have had good well-paid jobs in his constituency, across Ayrshire  and across the other nuclear sites in Scotland. After almost two decades in power, perhaps the SNP is beyond an explanation about this and so many other things, and the only answer for Scotland is change. \p Joshua Reynolds: The Minister is right to say that we want as many individual components of these SMRs as possible to be built in the UK, as well as the final SMRs themselves, but what work is he doing across Government to ensure not just these SMRs, but the world’s SMRs are built in the UK? \p Michael Shanks: That is a hugely important question. This is a significant moment for British innovation, because we are now moving forward quickly to ensure that we are at the forefront of this innovation, so that other countries that are already looking to the Rolls-Royce designs can benefit from them as well, but made in Britain. The aim of SMRs that is different from gigascale nuclear is to get to a point where their replicability means that we can produce the SMR technology for export market as well as for ourselves. That is important for our allies across the world who want nuclear to be part of their energy mix, and it is a hugely important economic opportunity for this country as well. \p Tom Hayes: In the first nine years of the 14 years of Conservative Government, David Cameron sent Wylfa to the wall, George Osborne begged the Chinese to invest—we are still unpicking that mistake—and Theresa May nearly killed off Hinkley Point C, and with it Sizewell C, and after that things actually got worse. Under Labour, plants are getting off the ground to end our reliance on dictators like Putin, which is to be commended. Will the Minister set out how we will build our nuclear future in all parts of the UK? May I make a particular recommendation for Dorset, because we have Winfrith, which could be a really big part of our nuclear future? \p Michael Shanks: I was expecting every question today to be, “Could an SMR be built in my constituency?” but my hon. Friend is the first to ask, so he wins the prize for that. I will not labour the point, but as he says, we had a lot of promises and a lot of big talk from the Conservative Government on nuclear, but very little actually delivered. The truth is that no money was put forward for any of those things. It is easy to sign and say, “We want to deliver something,” but without putting any money forward, nothing will happen. We have committed almost £20 billion in funding to make Britain’s new golden age of nuclear a reality, which will deliver jobs in my hon. Friend’s constituency and across the country. We are ambitious about the future of SMRs. They can be sited in a great many more places than traditional nuclear facilities. We have asked Great British Energy Nuclear to look at the range of sites across the United Kingdom that are possible, not just the sites that were traditionally designated for nuclear projects. That opens up huge opportunity for the energy mix of the future, and for jobs, investment and training throughout supply chains as well. \p James Wild: In the spirit of consensus, which the Energy Minister untypically just moved away from, I join him in welcoming this announcement. I was advising the then Energy Minister when the Hinkley contract was signed and the Horizon  project was proceeding, before Hitachi withdrew, so I am keen to see development at Wylfa and beyond. Will the Minister confirm what tangible steps are being taken to accelerate approval of Rolls-Royce’s design and other SMR designs, and by how much? When does he expect the first SMR to be operational at Wylfa? \p Michael Shanks: Let me say genuinely that with all the debates we have about our energy mix, nuclear may be a point of consensus. That is important for the industry, so I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments. On the exact details of the timelines, I am afraid that I am not the Nuclear Minister, so I will get my noble Friend Lord Vallance to write to him on that point.

In terms of the overall timeline for the SMR programme, our ambition is that the SMRs will be online in the mid-2030s. There is obviously a significant amount of work to do on the site itself and on the designs, but we want to ensure that we are moving everything possible to get this done quickly. We have a first-mover advantage as a country if we can prove that this technology works, set about expanding it and look at the export market for it internationally. \p David Baines: I strongly welcome this announcement. Nuclear is a growing sector. Just on Friday, in Haydock in my constituency, I helped officially to open the new HQ of Delkia, a relatively new company that does a lot of work in this sector. Will the Minister assure me and small and medium-sized businesses such as Delkia that they will benefit from this growth, supported by this Government? \p Michael Shanks: My hon. Friend makes a really important point. The investment in these projects is felt in his constituency and in communities and small businesses right across the country. It is creating apprenticeships and opportunities for young people to set out in their careers in the energy industry.

As I said earlier, Great British Energy Nuclear’s ambition is that 70% of the supply chain products that will build these SMRs will be built in Britain. That is a hugely important investment right across our economy. Of course, 70% might not be the ceiling of our ambition, but this is an opportunity for communities and businesses to come forward and say, “We can help to build this innovative and hugely important part of our future energy mix, and we are really excited about the opportunities that it presents.” \p Liz Saville-Roberts: I welcome this announcement. Plaid Cymru supports new nuclear at Wylfa unequivocally, as well as at Trawsfynydd. Last week’s statement announced AI growth zones, with two sites in north-west Wales—one at Holyhead and the other at Trawsfynydd. Will the Minister provide further information on the infrastructure required in Trawsfynydd, especially in relation to data centres and energy supply? \p Michael Shanks: I think Plaid Cymru as a party has different views on this matter, but I am grateful to hear of the right hon. Lady’s support for new nuclear. The AI growth zones are all about us trying to designate an area for data centres, which is important for our future economic development, in a way that allows us to plan strategically how power will get to it and what transmission infrastructure is required. It is also about us trying to  give confidence that infrastructure will be in place so that data centres know it is a site that can be invested in, which brings forward significant amounts of private investment. If she has specific questions about the infrastructure, I am very happy to speak to her outside the House. \p Catherine Atkinson: There will be good, well-paying jobs at Rolls-Royce in Derby to get these reactors built. That will not just benefit those doing those jobs, but power up the local economy, putting money in the tills of shops, restaurants and pubs. There is huge pride in knowing the crucial roles being played in powering Britain with clean energy. Will the Minister tell us more about the work being done to maximise the extra jobs and prosperity that will be delivered in Derby, Warrington, Wylfa and other sites as a result of this Labour Government’s investment in this historic project? \p Michael Shanks: My hon. Friend is right to point out the wider impact that investment has in not just the nuclear supply chains, but the local communities that that drives forward. Nuclear tends to have much more sustainable, well-paid and trade-unionised jobs than other parts of our energy system, which means that there are wider economic benefits for those who work in the nuclear industry. We want to see a great many more jobs in nuclear right across the country. We should be hugely proud that Rolls-Royce is taking forward this project in the UK; it is hugely innovative. The UK is at the forefront of this new technology, which will change the future energy system for the UK and across the world, and we are really proud that it will be built in Britain. \p Sarah Pochin: Reform UK believes in investing in nuclear energy and welcomes this news for the north-west region, which will bring jobs and growth, including in my constituency. We are told that the Wylfa SMR will start producing power in the mid-2030s, but the procurement process will be done through Great British Energy Nuclear, a publicly owned Government company. How can the Minister assure us that this will not turn into another HS2, with spiralling costs and missed deadlines? \p Michael Shanks: When I said that this was a moment of consensus in the House, I did not assume for a second that Reform would be part of that consensus, but I welcome its finally taking a serious position on the country’s energy security. We are committed to delivering this SMR programme as quickly as possible; it is important for our energy security and our energy mix, but it is also important to ensure we deliver the programme as quickly as possible on an international level. Great British Energy Nuclear is an expert company, set up by the previous Government to ensure expertise is right at the heart of steering these projects through, with a board made up of nuclear experts. That remains an important part of this programme. It is in the interest of Great British Energy Nuclear for these projects to move forward as quickly as possible, as it is in all our interests. \p Alex Barros-Curtis: I welcome this brilliant announcement for Wylfa, delivering for the people of north Wales after 14 years of failure by the previous Conservative Government. I join in  commending the stakeholders who have helped deliver this, including the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi), my colleagues in the Wales Office, and our brilliant Welsh Labour MPs in north Wales who have been arguing vociferously for this project. It will be central to cutting energy costs and honouring our green energy commitments, so will the Minister assure me that this is just a sign of more great things to come for Wales from this UK Labour Government? \p Michael Shanks: I thank my hon. Friend, and repeat my thanks to all those across the House who have been involved in these projects over many years. I particularly thank colleagues in the Welsh Government and Labour MPs from Wales who have been campaigning on this issue in recent months, as well as the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi), who has campaigned on it as well.

Jobs will come from this project in Ynys Môn, but more jobs will come from the wider energy transition right across Wales, from our investment in transmission infrastructure to our investment in renewables projects, as well as in the Celtic sea and all the jobs that go with it. That will be delivered by this Government’s commitment to clean power—to delivering not just the energy system of the future, but the jobs that go with it. We will have an industrial strategy that creates jobs in Wales, after 14 years of a lack of industrial policy leading to job losses across the country. This is the beginning of great things for Wales; it is leading the way in this area, and with the expertise, skill and commitment that exists in Wales, it will do a fantastic job and make this country proud. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi) for securing this urgent question and giving us an opportunity to discuss this issue. As the Minister will know, I welcome the UK’s first small modular reactor nuclear power station, recognising the strong nuclear heritage and expertise of that area of Wales. It is imperative that we all share that capacity—that we have the same capacity in Northern Ireland, without reliance on an all-island network. Will the Government commit to working with the Legislative Assembly to create a similar project in Northern Ireland that will provide power to homes and businesses throughout the area that I represent, and indeed right across Northern Ireland? \p Michael Shanks: I should have come prepared with a line about whether an SMR could be sited in Strangford, because I should have known that that question was coming—sorry! As always, I welcome our discussions on energy policy; as I always say, I take the relationship with the Northern Ireland Executive very seriously, but energy policy is transferred to Northern Ireland. I do not have any direct responsibility for that, but we have been working with the Northern Ireland Government on their push to clean power, and of course nuclear power that is part of our baseload here in the UK is also important for Ireland. The interconnectors across the sea help to ensure that our energy security is a priority for both Governments, but I am happy to look at Strangford as a future candidate for an SMR. \p Jonathan Hinder: I am delighted to see this Labour Government cracking on with new nuclear in the form of small modular reactors.  When the Rolls-Royce site in Barnoldswick in my constituency was saved from closure during the pandemic, future SMR manufacturing work was specifically referenced in the dispute resolution agreement negotiated by my own trade union, Unite. As this Government are committed to creating clean jobs in all parts of the country, will the Minister and other relevant Ministers impress on Rolls-Royce SMR that some of the jobs created by this project must come to Barnoldswick? \p Michael Shanks: It would be wrong for me to say that I am fully briefed on the particular issues of that settlement, but I am happy to take that away and write to my hon. Friend. Rolls-Royce winning this contract is a hugely important moment for British innovation. There will be thousands of jobs in the supply chains for this project in constituencies up and down this country. \p Jonathan Brash: I welcome this announcement about small modular reactors. Thanks to the landmark deal done back in September, Hartlepool will now lead the world in advanced modular reactors, which will bring £12 billion of economic input and 2,500 jobs, and power 1.5 million homes. The pace in getting that project started is critical, so what will this Government do to ensure that regulatory alignment is in place so that spades are in the ground as soon as humanly possible? \p Michael Shanks: September seems a long time ago, but during the state visit we announced the UK and US partnership—the Atlantic partnership on advanced nuclear energy—with a commitment from this Government to work with like-minded Governments with similar regulatory regimes to build nuclear, as well as to bring in the private sector much more. My hon. Friend mentions the agreement between X-energy and Centrica, with the plan to build up to 12 advanced modular reactors in Hartlepool. Thousands of good jobs will come with that, and it is a great example of where private investment, unlocked by decisions that this Government have taken, will deliver jobs across the country.

I am happy to come back to my hon. Friend on the timeline, but we have said throughout that we want to move as quickly as possible to make sure that the regulatory regime maintains the safety that the British public rightly expect, while also being flexible enough to ensure we take advantage of these opportunities when they come. We are working on that as quickly as possible. \p John Grady: It is brilliant to listen to all this chat about thousands of new jobs and billions of pounds of investment, but we are not getting any of it in Glasgow, because the Scottish National party is against nuclear power. Nuclear power is a source of reliable baseload energy and is essential for security of supply. In fact, we import nuclear energy to Scotland from time to time when the system is short. Against that background, does the Minister agree that the SNP’s anti-nuclear stance defies logic? \p Michael Shanks: Of course I agree with my hon. Friend. Much of SNP policy defies logic, but this one does in particular. His constituents in Glasgow and constituents across Scotland will benefit from supply chain jobs from the SMR project and from the work we  are doing at Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C. However, they are not benefiting anywhere near as much as they would, were we building those projects in Scotland. It is an economically stupid idea to ideologically block new nuclear in Scotland, but it is also a real challenge to Scotland’s energy security. For more than half of the past few weeks, nuclear has been providing electricity in Scotland. Renewables are hugely important, but they have to be balanced with storage and with nuclear. Only when we get that balance right do we deliver secure, clean, home-grown power. We need both parts of it, and the SNP is missing half of it and missing in action as usual. \p John Slinger: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is only thanks to this Labour Government investing at scale in our domestic nuclear industry that we can overturn the disastrous legacy of the Conservatives? Does he further agree that this Government, investing for the long term and working closely with our companies, can deliver the jobs and change to our energy system that constituencies across the country need? \p Michael Shanks: It will not surprise the House that I completely agree with my hon. Friend, but he is right on two fronts. First, it is all fine and good to promise to do things and to talk big and to consult and consult, but at some point money has to be put on the table to deliver it. The previous Government failed to do that. Almost £20 billion of investment has now been brought forward by this Government to make these projects a reality. That is how we deliver a new golden age of nuclear in the United Kingdom, rather than just publishing lots of documents and thinking that is the end of it.

My hon. Friend’s second point is also right. Investment in the UK in the clean power transition is hugely important. We have had more than £50 billion of private investment since we came to power last year. That is because of the certainty and the policy confidence that investors have in the UK. That would be put at risk by the policies of the Conservatives, Reform and others who talk about the future energy mix, but miss out the detail and put that investment at risk. That puts at risk jobs and investment in supply chains across the country, too. We are delivering the energy policy of the future for energy security, for climate leadership and for good jobs. \p Caroline Nokes: I thank the Minister for his responses this afternoon. \p Calum Miller: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the powers, funding and staffing of the Environment Agency to tackle the work and impact of organised criminal gangs illegally dumping huge quantities of waste in the countryside. \p Emma Hardy: Let me first convey apologies from the Minister for Nature, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh). She would have loved to be here for the urgent question, but she is currently attending COP30 in Brazil. In her absence, I will be doing my absolute best to answer all the questions from Members about this important issue.

The British countryside is one of our nation’s greatest treasures. From rolling hills to tranquil woodlands, it is both beautiful and essential to our wellbeing and our health. That is why it is so deplorable when waste criminals scar the landscape with complete disregard, damaging precious ecosystems and undermining our communities. This Government are committed to tackling waste crime, which is a blight on local communities and the environment and damages legitimate businesses. The Environment Agency has a wide range of powers, which it uses in its enforcement work against organised crime in waste and other environmental areas. It has strong powers of entry and evidence gathering, is able to authorise mobile communications data, and has authority to use covert human intelligence sources. It is one of only three non-police agencies to have access to police databases.

The Joint Unit for Waste Crime, hosted by the Environment Agency, brings together the Environment Agency, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the National Crime Agency, the police, waste regulators from across the UK and other operational partners to share intelligence and tasking in order to disrupt and prevent serious organised waste crime. The Environment Agency’s economic crime unit targets the financial motivation behind offending, and uses financial mechanisms to inhibit the ability of offenders, including organised crime groups, to operate.

This Government have also increased the Environment Agency’s funding, including the amount available to tackle illegal waste operators, after years of frozen budgets and real-terms cuts. We have raised the budget for waste crime enforcement by 50% this year to £15.6 million, but we plan to go further still to tighten the net on waste criminals with policy and regulatory reforms to close loopholes exploited by them. We are fundamentally reforming the waste carriers, brokers and dealers system, tightening waste permit exemptions and introducing digital waste-tracking, and we are determined to clean up Britain and end the throwaway society. \p Calum Miller: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to Mr. Speaker for granting the urgent question.

I recently knocked on the door of Billy Burnell, the chair of the Kidlington Angling Society in my constituency. Billy showed me photographs and videos that took my breath away. They revealed the obscene scale of the illegal waste dump in my constituency. The site is approximately 150 metres long, 10 metres wide and up to 12 metres high. It has to be seen to be believed. Over the weekend, the situation has become much more urgent. Heavy rain has caused the River Cherwell to rise by 4 feet or so. Water now laps against the waste that can be seen floating towards the Cherwell. This incident highlights the fact that organised criminal gangs are carefully planning operations to dump industrial waste in the countryside. They gain millions of pounds in illegal earnings without a thought for the health of people or animals, or the damage to soil, water or air. It concerns me deeply that the Environment Agency is not equipped to deal with this unfolding environmental disaster. For example, the agency recently informed those in the other place that six other sites had experienced waste dumping on the same scale as the disaster at Hoad’s Wood in Kent, but the site in my constituency was not on that list.

I have three questions for the Minister. First, and most urgently for my constituents, will Ministers follow the example of the previous Secretary of State—the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), who, on 22 May 2024, issued a directive to the Environment Agency to clear up the illegal dump at Hoad’s Wood—and issue a similar urgent directive for the clearance of the dump in my constituency before it is too late for the River Cherwell? Secondly, will Ministers undertake a root-and-branch review, independent of the Department, of the Government’s response to waste crime? Finally, in the meantime, does the Minister support calls from Liberal Democrats for the National Crime Agency, in the most serious cases, to take over the investigation? \p Emma Hardy: The Government are aware of the appalling case of illegal dumping in the hon. Member’s constituency, and I absolutely share his constituents’ anger. I, too, have seen the photographs and videos, and it is no wonder that he feels moved to bring forward this urgent question. There is a criminal investigation under way, and an Environment Agency restriction order has been served to prevent access to the site and further fly-tipping. The local resilience forum has been notified to explore opportunities for multi-agency support.

I understand that the Minister with responsibility for nature, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), has offered to meet the hon. Gentleman when she returns from COP, and I know that she is keen to fulfil that offer. I do not want to pre-empt the findings of the criminal investigation, but I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Environment Agency is working very closely with local partners, and that the offer of continuing the conversation outside the Chamber is there for him. \p Helena Dollimore: I thank the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) for bringing forward this urgent question. As the Minister knows from her visit to my constituency last week, millions of plastic beads recently washed  up there. After initially denying any involvement, Southern Water has admitted that it was responsible, and that they came from its waste water treatment plant. This is a huge environmental catastrophe, not least because we know that the beads pose a serious risk to wildlife, and we are awaiting further investigation of just how toxic they could be. At my public meeting on this issue last week with over 100 residents, Southern Water admitted that the use of these beads is outdated, and that there are better modern methods. I recognise that the Minister cannot comment on the live investigation by the Environment Agency, but does she agree that the Environment Agency must look at the use of these beads, and at how we can prevent such an environmental catastrophe from ever happening again? \p Emma Hardy: My hon. Friend is formidable and impressive. Frankly, I am delighted and proud to be on the same side of the fight as her, and she has led an incredible campaign. I went to see these beads myself, and they are appalling. They are tiny plastic beads embedded in the sand. People are having to remove them with sweeping brushes and sieves; they are literally sieving the sand to remove thousands of beads, up and down the coastline. She is right to feel angry and upset about the issue.

As for the use of such beads being outdated, I will write to all the water companies to ask them who is still using these beads. If companies are still using them, I will ask what mitigations are in place to prevent them escaping, and what their plans are for looking at alternative methods. I agree with my hon. Friend that we do not want this to happen anywhere else. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the shadow Minister. \p Neil Hudson: My thoughts are with those affected by the floods and by Storm Claudia. We cannot overstate the mental health impact of these events, and I pay tribute to the emergency teams and volunteers for the work that they do when we need them most.

All Members from across the House will have had incidents in their constituencies of fly-tippers dumping waste; sadly, we have seen serious cases in my constituency of Epping Forest. Fly-tipping is a blight on communities, and the shameless people who do it should be punished to the full extent of the law. The hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) is right to raise the issue of the shocking illegal waste dump in his constituency, in which the waste was stacked over 10 metres high. It is positively frightening to think of the effects that will unfold for the environment, ecology and wildlife.

The Labour Government’s action so far on dumping and fly-tipping has been somewhat lacklustre, despite the fact that 36 of the 50 local authorities with the highest fly-tipping rates—a staggering 72%—are Labour-controlled. What are the Government doing to help join up police forces to tackle this issue? In the case of huge, catastrophic dumps, such as the one in Oxfordshire that we are discussing, what support do the Government give the Environment Agency and the local authority? Will they work with the Home Office, the Cabinet Office and the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government to tackle this? What analysis of  reform are they proposing to the Environment Agency? Would they consider a review, as we have proposed? With police numbers dropping under Labour, how do the Government propose that rural and, indeed, urban police forces tackle fly-tipping more effectively? With regard to this catastrophic Oxfordshire case, are the Government conducting an assessment of the potential public health and environmental impacts of this horrific waste dump? \p Emma Hardy: I point out to the hon. Gentleman that this Government increased funding for waste enforcement by the Environment Agency by 50%, after that funding had been frozen for years under the previous Government. Not only are we increasing the funding to the Environment Agency, but we are going much further. We are reforming the carrier, broker and dealer regime by moving waste management and transport from being subject to a light-touch system to coming under the environmental permitting regulations. We are reforming the rules for waste permit exemptions. We are using digital waste tracking, so we can see where the waste ends up. We are looking at extended producer responsibility for packaging, to reduce the amount of pollution and what needs to go into the waste system, and at reforms to ensure simpler recycling. My hon. Friend the nature Minister has, ever since being appointed, been working hard to deal with the legacy that she inherited of problems in the waste environment. \p Jessica Morden: Newport council is prioritising tackling waste crime and fly-tipping, and we have seen a drop in incidents this year, as more fixed penalty notices are handed out. As others have said, much of the waste is dumped by rogue traders posing as legitimate businesses, often using false number plates. Can the Minister remind the House of some of the tools that the police and local authorities already have, and what more can the Welsh and UK Governments do, working together, to help Newport council? \p Emma Hardy: I congratulate my hon. Friend and her council on the work that they are doing to deal with illegal waste. On fly-tipping, there are all the measures that I mentioned in my response to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson), and we have also made an announcement about crushing vehicles. We are carrying out a review of council powers to seize and crush the vehicles of fly-tippers. We want councils to work with the police and use the latest technology, such as drones, to help catch fly-tippers, and to crush more vehicles. I will provide guidance about what more we can do in the new year. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Sarah Dyke: Waste crime on an industrial scale is blighting rural communities across the country and costing the UK economy £1 billion a year. It has even been described as the “new narcotics” by a former chief executive of the Environment Agency. The Environment Agency needs the resources to both investigate the criminal activity that leads to the waste dumping, and to prevent environmental damage and toxic run-off, not just one or the other. Waste crime is significantly under-reported. Criminal activity is widespread, and there is little chance of prosecutions being brought.  Will the Government back Liberal Democrat amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill, tabled in the other place? They would designate serious and organised waste crime as a strategic policy threat, establish a national action plan, ensure that waste crime data was collected and published quarterly, and establish an independent review of serious and organised waste crime. Will she support the National Crime Agency in preventing and effectively prosecuting serious and organised waste crime? \p Emma Hardy: Again, I share the hon. Lady’s anger about what is happening in our beautiful countryside; we see more and more evidence of illegal dumping. As I have mentioned, the Environment Agency’s total budget for 2025-26 has increased, and it includes £15.6 million for waste crime enforcement, which is a 50% increase. Overall, the Environment Agency has been able to increase its frontline criminal enforcement resource in the joint unit for waste crime and in environmental crime teams as well. It has a wide range of powers, but of course we are always keen to look at what further could be done. \p Chris Hinchliff: Alongside our people, our natural heritage is the most important part of our national identity, yet every week, profiteering corporations and organised criminals treat it as a giant dumping ground for pollution and waste. It is these enemies of our countryside, not asylum seekers escaping hardship and persecution, who are the clear and present danger to our nation. Notwithstanding what the Minister has said, the status quo is clearly failing, so how will she ensure that we finally start holding to account all those who trash our environment? \p Emma Hardy: Again, I share my hon. Friend’s upset and anger about the state in which waste criminals leave our countryside. We are taking forward many measures, but one that I think will be particularly important—the nature Minister was keen for me to mention it—is the digital waste tracking system. This will replace outdated methods of monitoring waste movements in and outside the UK. It will be an excellent way of digitally tracking where waste ends up. Waste holders will record waste movements digitally at each transfer point, making it easier to share with regulators and improve timely compliance checks. This is just one of the many reforms that we will introduce. \p Wendy Morton: The number of fly-tipping incidents per day is 3,157. That is equivalent to one every 27 seconds. We see fly-tipping all too often in the west midlands. In my constituency, despite the council’s great efforts to rid us of the scourge of piles of mattresses and fridges, what we see is absolutely shocking. The situation is not helped, of course, by the Birmingham bin strikes, which continue. Will the Minister support the introduction of penalty points on driving licences for those convicted of fly-tipping, to send a really strong message that those involved in organised waste crime will pay for the misery that they impose on our communities? \p Emma Hardy: I agree about the appalling state in which fly-tippers leave our environment. We are looking at reviewing council powers to seize and crush the vehicles of fly-tippers. We want councils to work more  closely with the police, and to use the latest technology. We will be providing more guidance on what they can do, but I will ensure that the nature Minister hears the right hon. Lady’s other ideas. \p Josh Newbury: My constituency is on the edge of the west midlands conurbation, and has plenty of country lanes and quiet beauty spots. Communities in my constituency, and particularly in my home village of Norton Canes, know all too well the impact of fly-tipping and organised waste crime. We Labour Members have not forgotten the deep cuts made to the Environment Agency under the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. Can the Minister assure us that this Government will ensure that the Environment Agency has the resources and powers that it needs to go after those who make a living out of exploiting people and businesses, and destroying our precious environment? \p Emma Hardy: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have introduced a 50% increase in the Environment Agency’s total budget for waste crime enforcement, so that it has the powers and resources to go after the waste criminals who are ruining our countryside. \p Bradley Thomas: I think we are probably all agreed that illegal fly-tipping is a scourge on many of our constituencies. I praise Bromsgrove district council for its work to clear up illegal fly-tips. I am particularly concerned about the impact of cross-border crime. My constituency is adjacent to the west midlands, which is in a different police authority. What assurance can the Minister give me and my constituents—particularly those in villages on the northern fringe of the constituency, from Romsley to Wythall—that the Government are doing every single thing they can to empower all authorities to get to the bottom of the issue, and to put illegal fly-tipping to an end, once and for all? \p Emma Hardy: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. On sharing best practice, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is chairing the national fly-tipping prevention group. It includes representatives from a number of councils, the Environment Agency and the National Crime Agency. They share good practice, look at the practical tools for tackling fly-tipping, and hopefully encourage everybody to learn from the best. \p Warinder Juss: Penn cricket club in my constituency allegedly had contaminated soil illegally deposited on its grounds. That not only caused an eyesore, but prevented the club from playing cricket on its grounds. The EA put a stop notice on the club in July 2022. Despite investigations continuing, there is no end or resolution in sight. What support can the Government give to prevent such delays in the EA pursuing its investigations? \p Emma Hardy: We certainly do not want to get in the way of a good game of cricket. The weather does that enough; we certainly do not want our regulators to do that. I think the best thing in this instance would be for my hon. Friend to write to the nature Minister with more information, and I will see that she meets him to discuss this issue. \p Vikki Slade: I am sure that we were all shocked to see the images from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller). Rural police forces are the worst-funded in the country, with Dorset rock bottom. That is made much worse by the amount of additional visitors. We welcome them, but 25 million day-visitors and many millions of staying holidaymakers make it really hard for the police to work on this kind of countryside crime. How is the Department working with colleagues in the Home Office to ensure that rurality is properly considered? Will she work with the Home Office on including tackling organised waste crime as a strategic priority for the National Crime Agency? \p Emma Hardy: The hon. Lady raises an important point. It is important that we have all the money that the Home Office needs, so I hope she will be supporting our Budget next week. \p Sean Woodcock: I thank my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller), for securing this urgent question. The River Cherwell runs right through the heart of Banbury, so this issue and the images and footage from the weekend have concerned a number of my residents as well. Can the Minister reassure them that the Government are supporting local authorities as best they can so that they can fulfil their obligations to tackle environmental crime? \p Emma Hardy: My hon. Friend raises an important point. It is appalling to see in the pictures how the pollution is right next to the river, and it is very concerning. Obviously criminal investigations are ongoing, and work is happening on the ground. The Environment Agency is working closely with all local partners, but my hon. Friend is right that we need to make sure that this is joined up across all the different authorities. I can assure him that that is happening. I can also offer him a meeting so that he can get more detail on what is happening in this particular case. \p Andrew Murrison: On the dumping of waste across the countryside, what assessment has the Minister made of the ability and capacity of the Environment Agency to adequately control and regulate the dumping of toxic emissions by wholly unwanted and unnecessary waste incinerators that are being foisted on our communities, including in Westbury in my constituency? \p Emma Hardy: As I understand it, all waste incinerators are tightly permitted. If there are problems with permitting or if the right hon. Member believes that permits are being broken, I encourage him to contact the local Environment Agency office so that it can be urgently investigated. \p Lauren Sullivan: I welcome the Minister’s clarification on organised crime and fly-tipping. From the fields to the streets, Gravesham borough council works tirelessly to investigate, fine and take to court these criminals, but as well as councils being given the powers and resources to investigate and keep our streets clean, they need a better legislative framework to make prosecution more efficient. Fundamentally, the taxpayer should not be paying for this organised crime; the criminals should be punished. Does the Minister agree? \p Emma Hardy: I absolutely agree that waste criminals should face the full force of the law and be punished and fined for their activities. \p Rachel Gilmour: It is not just my opinion that Tiverton and Minehead is the most beautiful constituency in the country. It contains Exmoor national park, the Brendon hills, the Blackdown hills and the Quantock hills, all of which are areas of outstanding natural beauty. These are criminals who effectively run corporations that decimate our countryside. Please can the Minister make sure that the fine meets the crime and that they are penalised in their pockets, where they deserve it most? \p Emma Hardy: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. One of the ways to tackle this is to go after the criminals with all the legal powers we have. The legal powers we have in this particular case could include an unlimited fine. \p James Naish: There were 868 cases of fly-tipping in 2023-24 in my constituency. We saw a particular rise in on-street fly-tipping, and in Nottingham there were over 30,000 incidents of fly-tipping within the urban space. What work will be done to help bolster the power of local authorities to make sure that both urban and rural fly-tipping is addressed? \p Emma Hardy: My hon. Friend raises an important point. It is as appalling to see waste dumped along the streets in urban environments as in rural ones. We are seeking powers through the Crime and Policing Bill to provide statutory enforcement guidance to increase consistency across the country in how fly-tippers are dealt with, wherever they may be. \p Katie Lam: Hoad’s Wood, which was mentioned earlier by the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller), is a patch of semi-ancient bluebell woodland in my constituency where criminal gangs have dumped 30,000 tonnes of waste. It took about six months for them to fell ancient trees and bring in lorry after lorry. My constituents are really concerned that something like this might happen again. Over that whole period, the criminals were not stopped or apprehended. Have the Minister and the Secretary of State come to an understanding on who is responsible in such scenarios for stopping it from happening, and have they met the Environment Agency, police and local authorities to make sure that criminals will be stopped in the act if they do this in future? \p Emma Hardy: The hon. Lady raises an important and serious case; I know that the nature Minister has been having many meetings about it. It is the location of a live investigation, so I will not say too much about that, but the hon. Lady is quite right that lessons need to be learned and the criminals need to be brought to justice for the damage they have done. I am grateful to her for raising that matter. Of course, when there is any further information, she will be contacted with an update. \p Kevin McKenna: On Raspberry Hill Lane in my constituency near the village of Iwade, there is one of these mega illegal dumps. It has started metastasising, sprouting accessory  dumps nearby, all in an attempt to evade the police and the Environment Agency. It is not just putting pressure on and destroying the countryside, but putting strains on legitimate waste processing businesses in my constituency such as Sweeep, Countrystyle, MVV and DS Smith, which are key to recycling the waste that we produce. Will the Minister tell my constituents how we are not only increasing the capacity of the Environment Agency and the police to handle this problem with extra resources, but boosting the capability of those agencies—particularly with the skills and the cross-agency working that is needed—to get to the bottom of this serious organised crime? \p Emma Hardy: I am horrified to hear that such an appalling thing has happened in my hon. Friend’s constituency. He is right, and we should praise the legitimate waste businesses who do a proper job and work within the confines of the law. I reassure his residents that as well as increasing funding, we are looking at increasing the powers available to the Environment Agency and local authorities to ensure that we do not continue to see these appalling acts right across our country. \p Victoria Collins: In my constituency, a 200-tonne illegal dump has left a farmer with a £40,000 clean-up bill and the risk of criminalisation if he cannot afford to clear it quickly, yet a cross-agency meeting clarified that no single agency takes responsibility for investigating these large-scale incidents on private land. When perpetrators are caught, the fixed-term penalty is a pitiful £1,000—that is for a crime that costs the economy £1 billion. Does the Minister agree that the enforcement gap, where victims shoulder the costs of organised crime while the penalties remain pitiful, is completely unacceptable? Will the Government help to establish a single accountable authority to investigate waste crime on private land and ensure that penalties reflect the true cost of these offences? \p Emma Hardy: The hon. Lady raises an important point. I am sorry to hear about the impact on a farm in her constituency. One of the most important reforms we can make is to the carrier, broker and dealer regime, to go from the current light-touch system to environmental permitting so that we can better track exactly when waste transfers from one place to another. That will mean tougher background checks for operators and tougher penalties for those who break the law. \p Lauren Edwards: Brambletree wharf in Borstal in my constituency has been blighted by an illegal tip for years. A council enforcement notice recently expired without the site being cleared, yet I have recently been informed that unfortunately the Environment Agency will not be prosecuting those responsible but will instead leave it to the local council. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that the Environment Agency uses all the powers at its disposal to tackle such criminal activity? \p Emma Hardy: My hon. Friend raises an important issue. I am sorry to hear that there will not be a prosecution. She might want to write to the nature Minister with more details and information, as perhaps we could look at that in more detail than we have. \p Graham Stuart: Correlation is not causation, but no one has so far mentioned that our environmental levies on legal waste disposal go up and up, in correlation with rises in criminal dumping. Is it possible that we have gone too far in that direction? Regardless of the enforcement we do, we are creating an incentive, and if there is enough money in it, we will have criminals doing it. There is no point wringing our hands in this Chamber and urging greater enforcement if we have created the fundamentals of an economy that we can never fix. \p Emma Hardy: Of course we need to have a legal operating system, and it needs to be based on the cost of enforcement. We cannot have a legal system that ends up costing the Government and the taxpayer more. There needs to be a system that is fair and that operates well, but one of the fundamental problems we have with waste crime is that the Environment Agency was previously so badly underfunded. \p Gareth Snell: While the dumping and the criminal gangs that perpetrate the dumping are one part of this, the other part is the businesses that seek to circumvent the legitimate routes for getting rid of their waste by passing it on to those companies that are illegally dumping in the first place. Can the Minister say a bit more about what action might be taken to educate businesses on their responsibilities for their waste, and what this Government can do to prosecute not just the dumpers but the people who are producing the waste and not dealing with it themselves? \p Emma Hardy: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There needs to be greater education on who we are giving our waste to. Digital waste tracking will make a big difference, because we will be able to see whether the waste ends up in the place where it is meant to end up. \p Iqbal Mohamed: In 2023-24, there were 1.15 million fly-tipping incidents across England, with about 47,000 classified as tipper-load lorry sized or industrial. A tip fire occurred at an unauthorised waste dump in Dewsbury in early 2012. It burned for four weeks, causing significant disruption and house evacuations, and it cost over £1.2 million to manage and to clear the waste. There is no excuse for fly-tipping, and perpetrators must be made to pay for the clean-up. What resources are the Government providing to Kirklees council to help keep waste and recycling centres maintained and open, and what enforcement action is the Environment Agency taking against illegal dumping? \p Emma Hardy: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. As I have mentioned, the national fly-tipping prevention group is sharing best practice through local authorities coming together to look at how we are tackling this issue across the country. Unfortunately, it is one that seems to be everywhere at the moment. \p John Slinger: I commend the Government’s action in this space. A contact of mine who used to work in environmental health tells me that there is a misplaced perception that in our covert surveillance regulation—the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000—“directed surveillance” prohibits  surveillance of fly-tipping hotspots, yet surveillance of a “place” is not directed surveillance. The statutory code of practice makes this clear, with in-practice examples, but it simply needs updating to give fly-tip surveillance examples. That could liberate the enforcement agencies to catch far more criminals and produce a much-needed deterrent. Could my hon. Friend look into that? \p Emma Hardy: The Environment Agency is able to authorise mobile communications data and has the authority to use covert human intelligence sources, but if there is more that can be done, I urge my hon. Friend to write to the nature Minister with further details, and maybe even request a meeting with her. \p Bobby Dean: Residents in the Woodcote area of my constituency have been living with the misery of being opposite an illegal waste dump for years. Despite all the photographic and video evidence that they produce, nobody seems to be able to shut the site down. Can the Minister look into what level of proof is required to take action, because it seems obvious to everyone that what is going on is wrong, but nobody seems to be able to put an end to it? \p Emma Hardy: I urge the hon. Gentleman in the first instance to request a meeting with the local Environment Agency area director and to ask what further evidence is required to enable them to seek a prosecution. Of course, if he is not satisfied after having that meeting, he should write to the nature Minister. \p Sojan Joseph: It took four years before statutory bodies did anything about the waste dumping in Hoad’s Wood near my constituency after it was originally reported. Can the Minister tell us more about how she hopes to work with local authorities such as mine in Ashford to ensure that immediate actions are taken against people committing these appalling crimes? \p Emma Hardy: My hon. Friend is right to be angry about the incidents that he is seeing in his constituency, and this is one of the reasons we have increased the Environment Agency funding for waste crime enforcement by 50%. Of course, we are always keen to work with all local authorities and to share best practice to ensure that all of them are going after these waste criminals. \p Richard Foord: Devon county council received almost 5,000 reports of fly-tipping last year. The police rural affairs team has supported East Devon district council and the Environment Agency in a fly-tipping engagement event, which saw examples of tyres and plastic wrap. Will the Minister please speak with her counterparts at the Home Office about bolstering rural affairs teams in police constabularies such as Devon and Cornwall? \p Emma Hardy: As luck would have it, the Home Affairs team happens to be on the Front Bench just now, and they will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s question. \p Steve Race: Residents in Exeter have raised with me the appalling fly-tipping in the glorious countryside around our city, particularly in Stoke Woods.  As we have heard, it is rarely individuals; this is about dodgy cowboy operators who are ruining our countryside. I am pleased that the Government are cracking down on them, but we have to break the business model. How is the Department working cross-Government to tackle the financial incentives of waste crime, which would also support the many legitimate, responsible waste companies that do exist? \p Emma Hardy: My hon. Friend is quite right to highlight that there are legitimate companies out there, but there are also waste criminals. That is why the Environment Agency has launched its economic crime unit, which targets the financial motivation behind offending and uses financial mechanisms to inhibit the ability of offenders, including organised crime groups, to operate. \p Ayoub Khan: We have a serious fly-tipping issue in my constituency, but it is not just an issue in Birmingham Perry Barr; all of Birmingham has this issue because of the bin strikes. Residents are calling for CCTV cameras, but the city council says it has no funding available. I have two questions for the Minister. First, does she feel that the Labour-run city council should re-enter negotiations with the bin workers, given that agency staff are now also striking? Secondly, will this Government give additional resourcing to Birmingham city council for enforcement, such as CCTV cameras? \p Emma Hardy: I think it is a shame that while the hon. Gentleman raises this issue here, on the ground he unfortunately does not seem able to work cross-party to actually deal with it. I encourage him to put party politics to one side and work with the people in the local area to bring this issue to an end. \p Dave Robertson: In January, criminals dumped two lorry loads of rubbish on Watery Lane, just outside the city of Lichfield. The dump was so large that it blocked access to the road and, in the process, stopped emergency services being able to access nine properties. One of the residents of those properties requires chemo and has issues with his blood pressure, and occasionally he needs to call an ambulance. Given that these incidents are having such a serious impact on people’s lives, are the Government looking to introduce an aggravating factor for such situations, so that if fly-tips prevent access to a property, the risk to life is treated as an aggravating factor, and the waste criminals receive larger sentences? \p Emma Hardy: I am so sorry to hear about the issue my hon. Friend raises. It is shocking that his constituents were unable to access the treatment they needed because of the appalling waste criminals. I assure him that we will go after the waste criminals with every power we have to ensure that they are brought to justice for all their crimes. \p Shockat Adam: We all agree that fly-tipping is a national scourge. In addition to causing dismay, it causes a lot of disunity between communities. Furthermore, according to a 2018 report, it costs us £392 million to clear up. Will the Minister agree to give more resources to our local councils to fund enforcement measures such as cameras and to  implement a zero-tolerance policy, prosecuting offenders and imposing custodial sentences on those who break the law? \p Emma Hardy: The hon. Gentleman is right to mention the issue he is having in his constituency and, of course, the need for more powers. He also requests more funding, which is why I am sure he will be supporting our Budget next week. \p Lizzi Collinge: My constituents are quite rightly appalled by fly-tipping. It is a particular problem in the west end of Morecambe, but it also affects the beautiful countryside in my area. What action are the Government taking to tackle this appalling crime? \p Emma Hardy: Fly-tipping is a serious crime. It blights local communities. It blights both our beautiful countryside and, as we have heard, our urban environments. Dealing with it costs taxpayers and businesses a huge amount of money. We are supporting councils to seize and crush the vehicles of fly-tippers, forcing fly-tippers to clear up their own mess and taking steps to provide statutory fly-tipping enforcement guidance to help councils to make full and proper use of their enforcement powers. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for her answers. Nobody in this House doubts her commitment to addressing this issue, and we very much welcome that and thank her for it. The discovery of the Mobuoy illegal dump in Londonderry in 2013 revealed an enormous operation involving criminals who buried vast amounts of waste. It showed the scale of the problem and the finance available. It is clear that the Northern Ireland Environment Agency has been historically underfunded and so cannot thoroughly investigate reports of incidences, which leads to more environmental waste crime. Indeed, illegal waste has been dumped in Northern Ireland through cross-border organised crime. The matter is devolved, but will the Minister commit to liaising with the Northern Ireland Assembly on how better to work together with the investigatory bodies for these crimes throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? \p Emma Hardy: I thank the hon. Member for, as ever, raising an important issue for his constituents. I am sure the nature Minister meets the Northern Ireland Assembly regularly and that she can get back to the hon. Member and update him on those conversations. \p David Williams: In Stoke-on-Trent, under the leadership of Councillors Wazir and Ashworth, we have had the successful IDIOT—illegal dumping in our towns—campaign. As a result, we have seen the number of fines go up and the amount of fly-tipping reduce. Does the Minister agree that the IDIOT campaign is an apt title? \p Emma Hardy: We perhaps could call many things in here idiot campaigns, but let us not get diverted into discussing those. I pay full tribute to my hon. Friend’s local council for the work it is doing to tackle this hugely important issue, and full credit goes to him for raising it here. \p Caroline Nokes: Before I call the Home Secretary to make her statement, I am sorry that Mr Speaker has once again had to ask me to remind Ministers of the requirement in the Government’s own ministerial code that major new policy announcements should be made in this House in the first instance and not to the media. This afternoon’s statement has already been the subject of very extensive media coverage, both over the weekend and this morning, including a lot of policy detail. Hon. and right hon. Members on the Government Benches were very quick to criticise Ministers in the previous Government for this kind of behaviour, but the Home Office seems to have a particular problem with making media announcements before Ministers come to make statements to the House. I know that the Committee chaired by the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) is looking at this matter, and I look forward to reading the Committee’s recommendations. I call the Home Secretary. \p Shabana Mahmood: With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement about how we restore order and control to our borders. I do so as this Government publish the most significant reform to our migration system in modern times.

This country will always offer sanctuary to those fleeing danger, but we must also acknowledge that the world has changed and our asylum system has not changed with it. Our world is a more volatile and more mobile place. Huge numbers are on the move. While some are refugees, others are economic migrants seeking to use and abuse our asylum system. Even genuine refugees are passing through other safe countries, searching for the most attractive place to seek refuge.

The burden that has fallen on this country has been heavy: 400,000 have sought asylum here in the past four years. Over 100,000 people now live in asylum accommodation, and over half of refugees remain on benefits eight years after they have arrived. To the British public, who foot the bill, the system feels out of control and unfair. It feels that way because it is. The pace and scale of change have destabilised communities. It is making our country a more divided place. There will never be a justification for the violence and racism of a minority, but if we fail to deal with this crisis, we will draw more people down a path that starts with anger and ends in hatred.

I have no doubt about who we really are in this country: we are open, tolerant and generous. But the public rightly expect that we can determine who enters this country and who must leave. To maintain the generosity that allows us to provide sanctuary, we must restore order and control.

Rather than deal substantively with this problem, the last Conservative Government wasted precious years and £700 million on their failed Rwanda plan, with the lamentable result of just four volunteers removed from the country. As a result, they left us with the grotesque chaos of asylum seekers housed in hotels and shuttled around in taxis, with the taxpayer footing the bill.

My predecessor as Home Secretary picked up this dreadful inheritance and rebuilt the foundations of a collapsed asylum system. Decision making has been restored, with a backlog now 18% lower than when we entered office. Removals have increased, reaching nearly 50,000 under this Government. Immigration enforcement has hit record levels, with over 8,000 arrests in the last year. The Border Security Bill is progressing through Parliament, and my predecessor struck an historic agreement with the French so that small boat arrivals can now be sent back to France.

Those are vital steps, but we must go further. Today, we have published “Restoring Order and Control”, a new statement on our asylum policy. Its goals are twofold: first, to reduce illegal arrivals into this country, and secondly, to increase removals of those with no right to be here. It starts by accepting an uncomfortable truth: while asylum claims fall across Europe, they are rising here, and that is because of the comparative generosity of our asylum offer compared with many of our European neighbours. That generosity is a factor that draws people to these shores, on a path that runs through other safe countries. Nearly 40% come on small boats and over perilous channel crossings, but a roughly equal proportion come legally, via visitor, work or study visas, and then go on to claim asylum. They do so because refugee status is the most generous route into this country. An initial grant lasts five years and is then converted, almost automatically, into permanent settled status.

In other European countries, things are done differently. In Denmark, refugee status is temporary, and they provide safety and sanctuary until it is possible for a refugee to return home. In recent years, asylum claims in Denmark have hit a 40-year low, and now countries across Europe are tightening their systems in similar ways. We must act too. We will do so by making refugee status temporary, not permanent. A grant of refugee status will last for two and a half years, not five years. It will be renewed only if it is impossible for a refugee to return home. Permanent settlement will now come at 20 years, not five years.

I know that this country welcomes people who contribute. For those who want to stay, and who are willing and able to, we will create a new work and study visa route solely for refugees, with a quicker path to permanent settlement. To encourage refugees into work, we will also consult on removing benefits for those who are able to work but choose not to. Outside the most exceptional circumstances, family reunion will not be possible, with a refugee able to bring family over only if they have joined a work and study route, and if qualifying tests are met.

Although over 50,000 claimants have been granted refugee status in the past year, more than 100,000 claimants and failed asylum seekers remain in taxpayer-funded accommodation. We know that criminal gangs use the prospect of free bed and board to promote their small boat crossings. We have already announced that we will empty asylum hotels by the end of this Parliament, and we are exploring a number of large military sites as an alternative. We will now also remove the 2005 legislation that created a duty to support asylum seekers, reverting to a legal power to do so instead. We will continue to support those who play by the rules, but those who do not—be that through criminality or antisocial behaviour—can have their support removed.

We will also remove our duty to support those who have a right to work. It is right that those who receive support pay for it if they can, so those with income or assets will have to contribute to the cost of their stay. That will end the absurdity that we currently experience, in which an asylum seeker receiving £800 each month from his family, and who had recently acquired an Audi, was receiving free housing at the taxpayer’s expense, and the courts judged that we could do nothing about it.

The measures are designed to tackle the pull factors that draw people to this country, but reducing the number of arrivals is just half of the story. We must also enforce our rules and remove those who have no right to be here. That will mean restarting removals to countries where they have been paused. In recent months, we have begun the voluntary removal of failed asylum seekers to Syria once again. However, many failed asylum seekers from Syria are still here, most of whom fled a regime that has since been toppled. Other countries are planning to enforce removals, and we will follow suit. Where a failed asylum seeker cannot be returned home, we will also continue to explore the possibility of return hubs, with negotiations ongoing.

We must remove those who have failed asylum claims, regardless of who they are. Today, we are not removing family groups, even when we know that their home country is perfectly safe. There are, for instance, around 700 Albanian families living in taxpayer-funded accommodation having failed their asylum claims—despite an existing returns agreement, and Albania being a signatory to the European convention on human rights. So we will now begin the removal of families. Where possible, we will encourage a voluntary return, but where an enforced return is necessary, that is what we will do.

Where the barrier to a return is not the individual, nor the UK Government, but the receiving country, we will take action. I can announce that we have told Angola, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Namibia that if they do not comply with international rules and norms, we will impose visa penalties on them. I am sending a wider message here: unless other countries heed this lesson, further sanctions will follow.

Much of the delay in our removals, however, comes from the sclerotic nature of our own system. In March of this year, the appeals backlog stood at 51,000 cases. This Government have already increased judicial sitting days, but reform is required, so we will create a new appeals body, staffed by professional independent adjudicators, and we will ensure that early legal representation is available to advise claimants and ensure their issues are properly considered. Cases with a low chance of success will be fast-tracked, and claimants will have just one opportunity to claim and one to appeal, ending the merry-go-round of claims and appeals that frustrate so many removals.

While some barriers to removal are the result of process, others are substantive issues related to the law itself. There is no doubt that the expanded interpretation of parts of the European convention on human rights has contributed. This is particularly true of article 8: the right to a family life. The courts have adopted an ever-expanding interpretation of that right. As a result, many people have been allowed to come to this country when they would otherwise have had no right to, and we have been unable to remove others when the case for  doing so seems overwhelming. That includes cases like an arsonist, sentenced to five years in prison, whose deportation was blocked on the grounds that his relationship with his sibling may suffer. More than half of those detained are now delaying or blocking their removal by raising a last-minute rights claim.

Article 8 is a qualified right, which means we are not prevented from removing individuals or refusing an application to move to the UK if it is in the public interest. To narrow article 8 rights, we will therefore make three important changes, in both domestic law and to our immigration rules. First, we will define what, exactly, a family is—narrowing it down to parents and their children. Secondly, we will define the public interest test so that the default becomes a removal or refusal, with article 8 rights only permissible in the most exceptional circumstances. Thirdly, we will tighten where article 8 claims can be heard, ensuring only those who are living in the UK can lodge a claim, rather than their family members overseas, and that all claims are heard first by the Home Office and not in a courtroom.

We will also pursue international reform of a second element of the convention: the application of article 3, and the prohibition on torture and inhuman, degrading treatment or punishment. We will never return anyone to be tortured in their home country, but the definition of “degrading treatment” has expanded into the realm of the ridiculous. Today we have criminals who we seek to deport, but we discover we cannot because the prisons in their home country have cells that are deemed too small, or even mental health provision that is not as good as our own. As article 3 is an absolute right, a public interest test cannot be applied. For that reason, we are seeking reform at the Council of Europe, and we do so alongside international partners who have raised similar concerns.

It is not just international law that binds us. According to data from 2022, over 40% of those detained for removal claimed that they were modern-day slaves. That well-intentioned law is being abused by those who seek to frustrate a legitimate removal, so I will bring forward legislation that tightens the modern slavery system, to ensure that it protects those it was designed for, and not those who seek to abuse it. Taken together, these are significant reforms. They are designed to ensure that our asylum system is fit for the modern world, and that we retain public consent for the very idea of providing refuge.

We will always be a country that offers protection to those fleeing peril, just as we did in recent years when Ukraine was invaded, when Afghanistan was evacuated, and when we repatriated Hongkongers. For that reason, as order and control are restored, we will open new, capped, safe and legal routes into this country. These will make sponsorship the primary means by which we resettle refugees, with voluntary and community organisations given greater involvement to both receive refugees and support them, working within caps set by Government. We will also create a new route for displaced students to study in the UK, and another for skilled refugees to work here. Of course, we will always remain flexible to new crises across the world, as they happen.

I know that the British people do not want to close the doors, but until we restore order and control, those who seek to divide us will grow stronger. It is our job as a Labour Government to unite where there is division,  so we must now build an asylum system for the world as it is—one that restores order and control, that opens safe and legal routes to those fleeing danger across the world, and that sustains our commitment to providing refuge for this generation, and those to come. I know the country we are. We are open, tolerant, and generous. We are the greater Britain that those on this side of the House believe in, not the littler England that some wish we would become. These reforms are designed to bring unity where others seek to divide, and I commend this statement to the House. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Leader of the Opposition, Kemi Badenoch. \p Kemi Badenoch: I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement, most of which I read The Sunday Telegraph. I am pleased that she is bringing forward measures to crack down on illegal immigration. It is not enough but it is a start, and a change from her previous position in opposition of a general amnesty for illegal migrants.

I praise the new Home Secretary. She is bringing fresh energy and a clearer focus to this problem, and she has got more done in 70 days in the job than her predecessor did in a year. She seems to get what many on the Labour Benches refuse to accept, and she is right to say that if we fail to deal with the crisis, we will draw more people to a path that starts with anger and ends in hatred. We will also allow our English channel to operate as an open route into this country for anyone who is prepared to risk their life and pay criminal gangs. That is not fair on British citizens, it is not fair on those who come here legally, and it is not fair on those in genuine need who are pushed to the back of the queue because the system is overwhelmed.

Anyone who cannot see by now that simply tinkering with the current system will not fix this problem is either living in la-la land or being wilfully obstructive. It is a shame that it has taken Labour a year in office to realise there is a borders crisis—[Interruption.] I don’t know why Labour Members are chuntering. What was their first act in government? The first act of the Home Secretary’s predecessor was to scrap the Rwanda plan, which was already—[Interruption.] Yes, they are cheering. It was already starting to act as a deterrent before it even got off the ground, and before it started, Labour Members threw away all our hard work and taxpayers’ money—they are the ones who have wasted that money, not us.

The statement is an admission that the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill of the Home Secretary’s predecessor will not work, but I am glad to see Labour Members now changing course. The powers they are using in the Bill are ones they all voted down when we were in government, and they would not be able to do that if we had not got those measures through. None of them know the work that was done; they are just cheering nonsensically, but we know what has happened since Labour came to office. The Home Secretary will know that 10,000 people have crossed the channel in the 70 days she has been in office, and we have seen record  levels of asylum claims in the last year. The problem has got worse since Labour came into office, and it is getting worse by the day.

I am afraid that what the Home Secretary is announcing will not work on its own, and some of these measures will take us backwards. I say that to her with no ill will, and I hope she believes me when I say that I genuinely want her to succeed. Conservative Members are speaking from experience: we know how difficult this is— [Interruption.] We do, and we will not take any lectures from the people who voted down every single measure to control immigration. Some of the measures that the Home Secretary is announcing today are undoubtedly positive steps—baby steps, but positive none the less. We welcome making refugee status temporary, and we welcome removing the last Labour Government’s legislation that created a duty to support asylum seekers—she is right to do that. However, some of what she is announcing simply does not go far enough.

Conservative Members believe that anyone who arrives illegally, especially from safe countries, should be deported and banned from claiming asylum. Does the Home Secretary agree that anyone who comes to this country illegally should be deported? I would like to know, and I think the country would like to know, because this announcement means that some people who arrive will be allowed to stay—they just need to wait 20 years before getting permanent settlement. That does not remove the pull factor. The main problem is that for as long as the UK is in the European convention on human rights, illegal immigrants and those exploiting our system will use human rights laws to block anything she does to solve this. I know that because I saw it happen again and again over the last four years, and I know she has seen it too. We even saw it this year with the Prime Minister’s one in, one out scheme, which has seen people return to France and come back on small boats yet again.

I guarantee that the Home Secretary’s plan to reinterpret article 8 will not work. We tried that already, and Strasbourg and UK case law will prevail. I agree with her that the definition of “degrading treatment” is over-interpreted, but renegotiating article 3 internationally will take years—years we do not have if it were even possible, but the fact is that it is not. We know that because a small group of EU countries tried that earlier, and they were dismissed by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe. Her Government did nothing to support them, so I am not convinced it is the Prime Minister’s negotiating skills that will sort out that problem.

We have looked at this issue from every possible direction, and any plan that does not include leaving the ECHR as a necessary step is wasting time we do not have. Just like the Government’s plan to “smash the gangs”, or the one in, one out policy, it is timewasting, and it is doomed to fail because of lawfare. We have seen this all before. The tough measures will be challenged in the courts and blocked, the new legal routes that the Home Secretary is talking about will be exploited, and the numbers arriving on our shores and disappearing into the black economy will keep on rising. If the Home Secretary is serious about reducing these numbers—I do believe that she is—she must be bolder. She must take steps to deter illegal immigrants from coming to Britain, and deport them as soon as they arrive. Our borders plan does just that, and I know that she has studied it in detail. I have seen the looks, and I know that she knows  that we would leave the ECHR and the European convention on action against trafficking to stop the Strasbourg courts from frustrating deportations, and establish a new removals force to ensure that all illegal arrivals are deported. We would end the use of immigration tribunals, judicial review and legal aid in immigration cases, as those are the things that are slowing us down, and we would sign returns agreements that are backed by visa sanctions to ensure that we send illegal arrivals back to their place of origin. I welcome what she says about Angola and Namibia, but we all know that those countries are not the ones that are creating the biggest problems.

We need to be bold, serious and unafraid to do what the British people demand: secure our borders. That is what is in our borders plan, so I urge the Home Secretary to take me up on my offer to work together, not just because we have some ideas that she might find useful, but because judging by the reaction of her own Back Benchers today, she may find our votes come in handy. Earlier this year, we saw what happened when the Government tried to make changes through the welfare Bill: the Prime Minister was defeated by his own Back Benchers and ended up passing legislation guaranteeing that more money would be spent on welfare. It does not appear that his grip on the party has improved since then, so we can be sure that Labour Back Benchers are already plotting to block any serious changes that she tries to make, so we can help her with that—[Interruption.] Why are Labour Members shaking their heads? We have seen them do that time and again.

Our offer to work together is a genuine one and in the national interest. We will not play the same game that Labour Members did by voting things down for no reason. However, the Home Secretary must be clear with the House on these questions: how many people will be able to take advantage of the new work and study visa routes? What will be the level of the cap? Will it be 10,000 people or 100,000 people?

The Government have separately confirmed that they will allow Gazan students to bring dependants. We oppose that, but can she clarify how the Government will ensure that people brought to the UK from a territory under Hamas control are not a risk to our security? If she finds that the Human Rights Act 1998 and the ECHR prevent her from enacting those proposals, will she use primary legislation to resolve that? Has Lord Hermer agreed? By her own admission three weeks ago, the Home Office is not yet fit for purpose, so why are we creating a new legal route for the Home Office to run?

Will she take me up on my serious, genuine offer to meet and to discuss how we can work together to resolve the asylum crisis—yes or no? I urge her to put party politics aside, meet me and my shadow Home Secretary, so that we can find a way to work together— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. I was very generous with the time I allowed the Leader of the Opposition. I call the Home Secretary. \p Shabana Mahmood: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for her response to the statement. I see that the shadow Home Secretary has been subbed out after his performance at Home Office oral questions, but whether it is the  shadow Home Secretary or the Leader of the Opposition herself, I am very happy to take on the Conservative party any day of the week.

Let me start by saying that we will not take any lessons from the Opposition on how to run an effective migration or asylum system. As the Leader of the Opposition knows, when the Conservatives were in Government, they gave up on governing altogether. They gave up on making asylum decisions, creating the huge backlog that this Government were left to start to deal with. In our first 18 months in office, removals are up 23% compared with the last 18 months that the Conservatives were in office, so I will take no lessons from anyone on the Conservative Benches on anything to do with our asylum system. They simply gave up and went for an expensive gimmick that cost £700 million to return four volunteers and was doomed to failure from the start.

The Leader of the Opposition had a lot to say about the European convention on human rights, but I do not recall the Conservatives ever bringing forward any legislation to deal with the application of article 8, the qualified right to a private life. A Bill that sought to clarify the way that article 8 should apply in our domestic legislation or in our immigration rules was never introduced, so I am not going to take any lessons from the people who never bothered to do that in the first place. This Government are rolling up our sleeves, dealing with the detailed, substantive issues that we face, and thinking of proper, workable solutions to those matters.

The position on article 3 has changed across Europe. In my previous role as Lord Chancellor, I was at the Council of Europe just before the summer recess earlier this year, and I was struck by the sheer range of European partners who want to have this conversation. It is important that the British Government lean into that conversation and seek to work in collaboration with our European partners. The one thing that will not work is simply saying that we are going to come out of the European convention altogether. That is not and will never be the policy of this Government because we believe that reform can be pursued and that this is an important convention, not least because it underpins some of our own returns agreements, including the one with France. The right hon. Lady talked about how many years it would take for us to think about reform of the convention, but as she well knows, it would take just as many years to start renegotiating lots of international agreements that would be affected by us coming out of the convention, so I am afraid that, once again, her solution will not work.

I am always up for working in the national interest because nothing matters more to me than holding our country together and uniting it, but if the Conservatives really wanted to work together in the national interest, they could have started by voting for the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, currently going through the House, that they have voted against at every opportunity. Forgive me if I do not take this newfound conversion to working together in the national interest with much seriousness, but the Conservative party’s track record suggests that it should not be taken seriously.

To not be taken seriously sums up the position of the Conservatives: these are the people that left this Government an abject mess to clear up. They gave up on governing, they gave up on running an effective asylum system,   and now they turn up without so much as an apology to the British public, thinking that they have got anything to say that anyone wants to hear. \p Caroline Nokes: Before I call the first Back-Bench contribution, may I remind Members that in order to expect to be called to speak in response to a statement, they should have been here from the start of the Home Secretary’s statement? There may be Members bobbing quite unnecessarily. \p Florence Eshalomi: The reality is that we need an asylum and immigration system based on fairness and consistency. My constituency of Vauxhall and Camberwell Green is a testament to that, as it is a place that has been made richer because of the people who have come there from all over the world. Some of them have fled persecution and have made a home in my constituency over many years. I meet these people every week in the community, including in schools, where I see those children excited about their future. When this Government came into office last year, they were right to say that their priority was to tackle the huge backlog of unprocessed asylum claims left by their predecessor. Clearing that backlog is a big task, but it is right that we identify who has the right to be here, although introducing more assessments of those who have been here for many years and making new judgments about the safety of a country, will take considerable resources. Is the Home Secretary confident that these changes will not have the unintentional consequence of making it harder to achieve her goal? \p Shabana Mahmood: I assure my hon. Friend that there will be both the administrative system and the resources needed to underpin the asylum changes that we are making. At the end of the five-year leave to remain period, there is already meant to be an assessment about whether the country of origin remains a safe country or not, but in practice there has ended up being an almost automatic pathway to permanent settlement, and that it what we are changing. I would ask her to look carefully at our protection work and study route, because we will be encouraging those who have sought asylum here and been granted refugee status to go into work or to study. That supports their integration and means that they are making a contribution that will retain public support for the system overall. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Max Wilkinson: It is right that the Government are looking for ways to bring order to the asylum system, which was left in total disarray by the Conservatives. Sadly, the Government have been too slow to act.

Britain has a long and proud history of responding with compassion to people fleeing unimaginable horrors. That should continue in a way that is fair and sustainable, so we welcome some of what the Home Secretary has said on that score. However, it is not helpful for the Home Secretary to claim that the country is being torn apart by immigration. Acknowledging the challenges facing our nation is one thing, but stoking division by using immoderate language is quite another.

I welcome the news about safe and legal routes. The Liberal Democrats have called for such routes since they were scrapped by the Conservatives, leading to more small boat crossings, but we have some concerns about the far-reaching detail behind the proposals, which seems to be missing.

The Home Secretary is revoking the legal duty to provide asylum seekers with accommodation, and says that asylum seekers should support themselves and contribute to our society, yet she is still banning them from working so that they can support themselves and contribute to our society, which makes no sense. The Home Secretary relies a lot on Denmark as an example. Denmark lets asylum seekers work after six months, so will she? Can she guarantee that the burden to house asylum seekers will not fall on already struggling local councils? Can she also guarantee that we will not see a wholesale transfer of asylum seekers from hotels to the streets?

The Minister for Border Security and Asylum has announced to the media that asylum seekers could have jewellery confiscated. Is the Home Secretary doing that to raise money or to deter people? Either way, does she acknowledge that many British people will see it as unnecessary and cruel? State-sponsored robbery will certainly not fix a system that costs taxpayers £6 million every day in hotel bills.

If the Government plan to keep their promise to end hotel use, they must process the claims of the 90,000 asylum seekers in the backlog. The Liberal Democrats have a plan to do that within six months using Nightingale-style processing centres. Does the Home Secretary seriously believe that an overstretched Home Office that is yet to clear the existing backlog can also undertake reviews of every refugee’s status every two-and-a-half years?

The UK must continue to lead international efforts to manage large migratory flows. Because the flow of people comes from Europe, the Home Secretary will need to work with the EU on a solution. The Oxford Migration Observatory has identified a clear Brexit effect. That means that people refused asylum in the EU make a second attempt here—a consequence of the Brexit delivered by the Conservatives and the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). The Minister for Border Security and Asylum refused earlier to answer whether Brexit has harmed our immigration and asylum system, so I will ask the Home Secretary now. Does she think that Brexit has made it easier or more difficult for this country to control its borders and asylum system? Does she think that reductions in overseas development spending will reduce or increase migratory flows?

We have already made it very clear that we think leaving the ECHR will make no difference to securing our borders and will tear hard-won rights away from British people. It is encouraging that the Home Secretary has said that that is not part of the Government’s plan. We urge the Government to tread carefully and act with fairness, efficiency and compassion for local communities in the UK who want this issue resolved, but also for asylum seekers. \p Shabana Mahmood: I wish I had the privilege of walking around this country and not seeing the division that the issue of migration and the asylum system is creating across this country. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, unfortunately, I am the one who is regularly called a  “fucking Paki” and told to “Go back home”. I know through personal experience and through the experience of my constituents just how divisive the issue of asylum has become in our country.

I wish it were possible to say that there is not a problem here—that there is nothing to see and that in fact these are all extremist right-wing talking points—but the system is broken. It is incumbent on all Members of Parliament to acknowledge how badly broken the system is and to make it a moral mission to fix this system so that it stops creating the division we all see. I do not think it is acceptable or appropriate for people in this place not to acknowledge the real experience of those who sit outside this House. We are supposed to be in this House to reflect that experience, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will approach the debates that we will no doubt have on all these measures in that spirit.

The hon. Gentleman accused this Government of being too slow to act. I have to say that removals of those who have no right to be in our country are up by 23% in the first 18 months of this Labour Government compared with the last 18 months of the former Tory Government. We are a Government who are getting on with the job. We have made 11,000 enforcement raids, 8,000 arrests and, as a result of those raids, more than 1,000 people with no right to be in this country have been removed from this country. This is a Government who are getting on with the job, and this is just the next phase of our work as we deal with the broken migration system we inherited from the Conservatives.

The hon. Gentleman said he thought that people who are waiting on their claim should be given the right to work. I think he knows that would be a huge pull factor and increase rather than decrease the number of channel crossings. That would be our experience in this country, and that is why we are not pursuing that policy. We have said that those who are granted refugee status in this country who can and want to will be able to switch into the protection work and study route, so that they can start contributing to society. That will help them to integrate, and it will help the communities they are living in.

The hon. Gentleman knows full well that it is not the policy of this Government to confiscate jewellery from those who are accessing asylum accommodation. Asylum accommodation is provided to asylum seekers by British taxpayers, and it is right that if people have high-value assets, they contribute to the cost of that asylum accommodation. In my speech, I gave the example of a man who was in supported asylum accommodation, paid for by taxpayers in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and mine. He received £800 a month from his family and had enough money to acquire an Audi. It is right that the British state should be able to say to such an individual, “Contribute.” We are not saying that we will take everything away and leave that individual destitute, but contribution is a fair principle here. I would be very disappointed to discover that the Liberal Democrats do not support people contributing, when they can afford to, to the cost of their asylum accommodation.

The hon. Gentleman made his remarks on Brexit. I do not have any more to say about that; I am living in the world as it is today. If he has things to say about that, I am sure that the House will continue to hear them. \p Caroline Nokes: The Home Secretary should know that language that is not acceptable in this House does not become acceptable if it is attributed to others. She might like to apologise for the language that she used. \p Shabana Mahmood: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I did not mean any discourtesy; I was merely reflecting the truth of words that are used to me. \p Caroline Nokes: I think we all appreciate that, but I urge Members to keep their language acceptable in the House. \p Graham Stringer: I fully support the Home Secretary and her statement. It is a fundamental duty of Government to protect our borders and to know who is coming into this country—something that we have not known for some time. She has set herself a difficult task. Will she agree to publish targets for all the areas that she outlined in her statement, and particularly for a reduction in the number of undocumented and illegal entrants to the country, so that we can check whether the plan is working? If it is not, she may need to alter some of the policies. \p Shabana Mahmood: What we will not do is set arbitrary targets or caps. We have learned the lessons from previous Governments, and setting a number in that way actually costs public confidence. The better thing to do is to get on with passing the necessary legislation in this House, to deliver the reforms out there in the country, and to assess them as they go. I have no doubt that there will be much debate and scrutiny in this place and others about the success of these reforms, and I look forward to answering questions over the coming months and years. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. \p Karen Bradley: I am sure that my Committee will want to look closely at the very significant number of announcements that the Home Secretary has made today. She referred on a number of occasions to asylum seekers contributing when they are given support. Has she given any consideration to setting up a deferred payment scheme, much akin to the student loan scheme, so that when people are granted asylum and are in work, they can start to pay back the generosity that they have received? \p Shabana Mahmood: I very much look forward to my first appearance before the right hon. Lady’s Committee, which I hope we can arrange very soon. I am sure that we will discuss in detail all these proposals, as well as other matters relating to the Home Office. On the point about further contribution, we are exploring that; it is not part of the package of measures that I am announcing today, but I will happily update the House in due course. \p Jo White: I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. Does she agree that enforcing the immigration rules, including on removals, is in the public interest? Will she provide greater detail about the action that the Government will take to balance the public interest against individual rights? \p Shabana Mahmood: We will bring forward legislation in the next Session on the specific ways that we will deal with the application of article 8 to immigration cases, and on updating our immigration rules. I am happy to discuss with her how that legislation will be developed over the coming weeks, but the intention is to do exactly as I said in my statement. In particular, we will define “family”; set out how the public interest test is to be used, and that it is to be used only in the most exceptional circumstances; and tighten the “who” and “where” of how article 8 claims can be made. Taken together, we believe that those measures will ensure that article 8 is applied exactly as was intended when the European convention on human rights was first agreed to. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Father of the House. \p Edward Leigh: We Conservative Members genuinely wish the Home Secretary well, because otherwise, in her own words, the country will start falling apart. It is a good effort—seven out of 10. She clearly has strong conservative instincts, but does she fear that the misery in many of these countries is such that asylum seekers are not really worried about how long they have to wait for their claim to be processed? Does she fear that unless we arrest, detain and deport people very quickly, this problem will just go on and on? The Home Secretary mentioned return hubs; could she say a bit more about those, and will she have an open mind about schemes such as Rwanda? \p Shabana Mahmood: On Rwanda, no. Turning to the substance of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I do not think he can be right, because claims are down in Europe but up here. I hope that he will approach the debate that we are having with an open mind, ditch the failed policies of his party, and maybe consider more workable solutions proposed by this Government. \p Lewis Atkinson: We want to continue the UK’s proud history of offering sanctuary, while simultaneously reducing illegal channel crossings. Refugees fleeing persecution should seek safe and legal routes that are subject to full security checks and controls, not pay people-smuggling gangs to cross the channel in an uncontrolled and unsafe way. I therefore welcome the Home Secretary’s announcement that such routes will be created. How quickly does she envisage them being implemented? \p Shabana Mahmood: It is absolutely through safe and legal routes that we should seek to bring people into our country, not through the people-smuggling route that originates in the north of France and crosses the channel. I have made an explicit policy choice to disincentivise people from coming through that route; they are paying thousands of pounds to organised immigration criminals to do so. We will privilege those who come through our safe and legal routes. As we get order and control into the system we have inherited, those routes will become more generous over time. They will start modestly—the numbers will be in the low hundreds—but they will grow. We want them to grow, because we want people seeking sanctuary to be able to find safe harbour in this country. We are proud of that position as a Government, so those routes will grow over time. I hope that Members from across the House will support that, but we have to get order and control into our system first. \p Christine Jardine: I think there is general agreement that we have chaos in the immigration and asylum system, and that the Government should be looking for new ways to discourage people from crossing the channel in small boats. Given what the Home Secretary has said today, though, is there a danger that the people we need to come to this country legally—people with the skills that we need to fill the employment gap, and who will keep our NHS working and work in the social care sector—will look at this country now and say, “No, I don’t want to go there”? \p Shabana Mahmood: I disagree with the hon. Lady—there is no reason to believe that. The people who come into this country on small boats constitute about 40% of all asylum claims. About the same number of people come through a legal route—a visit visa, a work visa or a study visa—and then apply for asylum when that visa comes to an end. I hope that she will recognise that it is important that we stop that abuse of the asylum system, so that we can retain public confidence in the legal migration system that I think we can all agree this country needs. \p Chris Murray: I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Over the past few years, three times as many people have come to this country from Ukraine and Hong Kong, fleeing war or persecution, as have come in small boats, and there has been no public outcry about that. The lesson is that the British people are compassionate and generous to refugees when the system is controlled, fair, and gripped by the Government. Over the 15 years that I spent working on asylum issues before being elected, I saw the dysfunction that this Government have inherited. There is nothing progressive about ducking asylum reform and allowing public support for refugees to drain away. How will these reforms address the manifest unfairness in the asylum system, and rebuild public support for the system, and for immigration overall? \p Shabana Mahmood: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. This country is an open, tolerant and generous place, but there are conditions for that openness, tolerance and generosity—there must be order and control in the system. When people can see that a system is not working, and that rules are being abused and not enforced, they rightly feel angry. It is important that this Government deal with those problems, so that we can have public consent, not just for a new system that works better, but for the safe and legal routes that I know my hon. Friend and others in this House want. The two principles that underpin all the reforms that I am announcing today are fairness and contribution. Those are quintessential Labour values, but they are also quintessential British values. \p Desmond Swayne: As the Home Secretary struggles to find these return hubs, she should reflect on the fact that it was her Government who wasted £700 million by giving up an opportunity to Germany and the United States before we got the chance to use it. \p Shabana Mahmood: Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker; in all the finger-wagging, I sort of missed the question. I think it was something about Rwanda, which I think  we can all agree was a totally failed scheme and a waste of money. There are good, ongoing negotiations about return hubs, and I very much hope that we can update the House in due course. \p Sarah Owen: I hope we can all agree that a strong immigration system does not have to be cruel. When the Tories painted over murals for refugee children, the number of small boat crossings still went up. When they threatened deportations to Rwanda, guess what? The number of crossings still went up. What evidence does the Secretary of State have that taking personal belongings, such as jewellery, from refugees and selling it off actually works as a deterrent? Would it not be a much better use of all our time to focus on the new plans for safe and legal routes that she has outlined? \p Shabana Mahmood: We are not taking jewellery at the border; I cannot say it any more clearly than that. As my hon. Friend knows from the example I used in my speech, the sort of cases we are going after are those in which people have assets and access to money and can afford quite expensive cars. Those people should make a contribution to the cost of what is currently free asylum support. The two things are not the same, and I urge my hon. Friend to not conflate them. We will not, and never will, seize people’s jewellery at the border; we are not going after their sentimental items, such as wedding rings. We are talking about those who have high-value assets and, having claimed asylum in this country, but before they have been granted refugee status, receive free accommodation on the state. If those people have assets, they should contribute to the cost of that accommodation, as I explained through the example that I used in my speech. That is the sort of case we are talking about, and I hope that my hon. Friend will not perpetuate what is being said about jewellery, because I have clearly ruled that out in the House today. \p Ashley Fox: I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. Labour’s change of course is most welcome, and she has outlined some useful steps. My constituents want to see the Holiday Inn in Bridgwater emptied of migrants and returned to commercial use. To achieve that, she will have to be bolder, so does she agree that anyone who arrives in this country illegally should be detained on entry and deported automatically? \p Shabana Mahmood: Again, forgive me, but I am not going to take any lessons from the party that gave us hotel use in the first place and is now lecturing me about hotel exit. It is a manifesto commitment of this Government that we will get out of hotels by the end of this Parliament. I hope to do so before then, which is why we are exploring large sites, including military sites. I know that will give rise to more debate in this House over the coming weeks and months, which I look forward to, but the hon. Gentleman is a member of the party that started hotel use; I hope that he will reflect on that fact first. \p Daniel Zeichner: I support my right hon. Friend’s statement, and particularly her announcement about safe and legal routes. She will know that cities like Cambridge have a long tradition—going back to the Kindertransport—of welcoming people, including those from Syria and Ukraine. I very much  hope that she will work closely with authorities like Cambridge city council on measures that can make those routes work. \p Shabana Mahmood: We will work with local partners, councils, philanthropists and other charitable organisations as we develop safe and legal routes. As I said in my statement, they will take three primary forms: community sponsorship, because we believe that is the best model for integrating refugees into our communities; a route for talented students; and a route for skilled workers. We want to play our full part as a country in providing sanctuary to those truly in need. We need to move to a better system. Safe and legal routes will be the way to do it in the future. \p Marie Goldman: I am sure that all of us across the House can agree that a key aspect of dealing with the asylum system is to deal with the crisis of the backlog, which is enormous. The Home Secretary said in her speech that the Government are looking at a number of large military sites as an alternative to asylum hotels. One large military site already in use is RAF Wethersfield in Essex. I understand from Essex police that Braintree district council has been given funding to the tune of about £2 million to help with community cohesion, because that facility is nearby. However, buses are taking asylum seekers from Wethersfield to such places as Colchester and my constituency of Chelmsford several times a day. That is placing extra strain on Essex police in those areas, yet they are unable to access those funds. Will the Home Secretary commit to providing extra funds to Essex police in those areas to help police them? \p Shabana Mahmood: I think there were two questions. The first was on the backlog of appeals, which I recognise is far too high. That is why we will create a new independent appeals system so that we can run through these cases more quickly, while fulfilling our obligations to have an independent process and provide early legal advice. On the specific point on Wethersfield and pressures on councils, we work closely with local councils and provide funding to assist with community cohesion and other issues. I will look carefully at the example the hon. Lady has raised if she writes to me. \p Derek Twigg: The Home Secretary’s statement is most welcome. The proposals that she set out today are a significant step in the right direction. The comments that she made about the damage to the social fabric of this country are important. I have a specific question about asylum seekers who have committed crimes and are deported, but are then allowed to make a second application to come back to this country. Will she look at the law to see how that can be addressed? \p Shabana Mahmood: On those who are convicted of crimes, the combination of the Sentencing Bill changes and what I have said today should lead to the earlier deportation of foreign national offenders from this country. It is important that those individuals face the full force of the law, but we have made a policy decision as a Government that for the vast majority of foreign national offenders, the appropriate thing to do is to move to immediate deportation wherever possible. \p Saqib Bhatti: The Home Secretary said that she was exploring

“the possibility of return hubs, with negotiations ongoing.”

Can she tell the House which countries she is negotiating with and how much it will cost? \p Shabana Mahmood: No. I do not think the hon. Member would expect me to comment on live negotiations with other countries, but those negotiations are ongoing. I hope we will have announcements to make soon. \p Catherine West: The Hornsey and Friern Barnet constituency has a long tradition as boroughs of sanctuary, and just today I had an excellent briefing from the Jewish voice for refugees, HIAS+JCORE. Does the Home Secretary agree that there is a real problem with the cliff edge for failed asylum seekers who end up street homeless or rough sleeping, particularly in the Finsbury Park area of my constituency? Will she redouble her efforts to understand the connections between homelessness and the asylum process, so that all people can have shelter as we go into the winter? \p Shabana Mahmood: I understand the point that my hon. Friend is making. The reality is that there are a lot of failed asylum seekers within the asylum accommodation system, and I am sure she would accept and agree that where somebody has a failed claim and no right to be in this country, the best thing to do is to voluntarily leave the country. We already provide packages to help people make that decision. I do not want to see people homeless in this country, but I know she cannot possibly think that the answer to that is essentially for there to be no consequence of a failed asylum claim. We need to run a system where the rules are enforced, as uncomfortable as that might occasionally be. We recognise that we do not want people in destitution; that is why we make financial packages available for people to voluntarily leave the country, and that will always be the case. \p Pete Wishart: In its manifesto, Labour promised to defend migrants’ rights and build an immigration system based on compassion and dignity. Instead, we have a policy that is welcomed by Reform UK and has even found favour with Tommy Robinson. Throwing refugees into destitution, denying any meaningful route to citizenship and forcible evictions—where exactly is the compassion and dignity in that? \p Shabana Mahmood: Given that Tommy Robinson does not even think I am English, he will certainly not be supporting anything I have to say, but let us just leave that there. We do not need to hear any more about what vile racists have to say about anything.

Let me say to the hon. Member that it is not a surprise to find a Scottish National party Member of Parliament defending a broken status quo; that is what they do with the Scottish Government under the SNP every day, and it is what he is doing now. I hope he can agree that good, much-needed reform of a broken system is the best way to retain public support for having an asylum system at all. \p Chi Onwurah: My right hon. Friend is right to seek to bring order to the chaos at our borders—chaos instituted by the Tories—which undermines trust in our  state and imposes such costs on communities. She is also right to address the pull factors that lure migrants to their deaths in our channel, with claims of cushy lives in five-star hotels. She is right to insist that our proposals must reflect British values and work in practice. On that, will she say a bit more about how reviewing refugee status every two years will work in practice, particularly in regard to Home Office capacity and in regard to integration? \p Shabana Mahmood: I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. We are moving from a situation where refugee status is effectively permanent and the most attractive of all routes into the country to one where it has a more temporary status. I will ensure that the administration and funding are available to run the new system as it is being designed. We are creating the protection work and study route because we believe that the best integration outcomes happen when people are in work and able to contribute. That is how we will retain popular support for having an asylum system. People will transfer, we hope, into the protection work and study route, but if they do not, they will still receive sanctuary from this country under the core protection model, and it will be more regularly reviewed. I hope we can all agree that where a country is safe for an individual to return to, a return should in the normal run of things take place. If people have switched into a work route and are making a contribution, we will set out plans in the coming days for how they can earn their way to an earlier settlement that is longer than what is available to people today—and still longer than what will be available to people on safe and legal routes—but shorter than for those who remain on the core protection model. \p Nick Timothy: Most on the Government Benches disagree with us, but I share the Home Secretary’s admiration for the Danish model. The Danish Finance Ministry publishes data regularly on the fiscal contribution of different profiles of migrants. It shows in Denmark that migrants from MENAPT—the middle east, north Africa, Pakistan and Turkey—are net recipients over the course of their lifetimes. Will the Home Secretary ensure that the Treasury publishes the same data in the same way in this country? \p Shabana Mahmood: We keep all statistics under review, as the hon. Member knows and as was the case when he was an adviser to a former Home Secretary. The principle that underpins all these reforms is fairness and contribution. We believe that most people want to be able to contribute to this country, because refugees recognise that it is the best way for them to have stability and security in their lives, and it is what is needed for the wider community, too. We think that all refugees, if they are on the protection work and study route, will have that opportunity. I am not interested in models that start separating out different nations from one another. Once somebody has got status in our country, they are on a path to becoming one of us if they are working and contributing. \p Kerry McCarthy: I agree about the need for a fairer asylum system in which the public can have confidence, but everything that the Home Secretary has proposed today is predicated on decent legal advice being available to people, and we know—I know from 20 years as a Member of Parliament—that that is  simply not the case. Despite the best efforts of the advice sector in Bristol, which is proud to be a city of sanctuary, there is a dearth of decent immigration lawyers, and I see too many constituents fall into the hands of dodgy lawyers who will help them to falsify and fabricate claims. What will the Home Secretary do to ensure that that decent legal advice is there? \p Shabana Mahmood: I agree with my hon. Friend, in that many people have turned up at my advice surgeries believing that there are things I can do as a constituency MP to assist them with their migration claims which I cannot do. They have been completely misled and robbed by unscrupulous individuals. Under the new appeals system that we will set up, legal advice will be available from the start. We believe in access to justice, and people need to have the right legal advice, but providing it early, right at the start of claims, means that we can run a system whereby there can be one claim and one appeal rather than the merry-go-round and whack-a-mole of claims that we see today. \p Danny Kruger: I welcome the rhetoric in the Home Secretary’s announcement. In fact, I recognise her rhetoric. We have our plan for restoring justice, and she has announced a plan to restore order and control. However, before she puts in her application to join Reform UK—and I would very much welcome her doing so—may I just draw out the difference between our parties?

Unlike the Government, we do not propose to give illegal immigrants the right to stay here for two and a half years after arriving; we do not propose to give them the right to study and work here; we do not propose to allow them to bring their families here; and, crucially, we are not going to contort our law to comply with and fit into the European convention on human rights. The derogations announced by the Home Secretary will not work to stop the lawfare, just as the derogations announced in the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 would not have stopped the lawfare, which is why I opposed that Bill as well. She talks about— \p Judith Cummins: Order. \p Shabana Mahmood: I do not think there was a question in there, Madam Deputy Speaker. As for the hon. Gentleman’s invitation to join his party—hardly any of whose Members appear to be present—let me say to him, “Over my dead body.” \p Liam Byrne: I commend the Home Secretary for getting the balance absolutely right. I think that her announcement will be widely welcomed throughout our diverse community in Birmingham, because we know that our generosity of spirit is upheld by our rule of law and the kindness that we show is protected by the justice that we share. Will the Home Secretary confirm that while we will always give sanctuary to those who need our protection, what she is advancing today is in effect a form of earned citizenship, and that only those who step up to the full responsibilities of citizenship will enjoy the full rights of citizenship of this country? \p Shabana Mahmood: My right hon. Friend has made a powerful point. We are constituency neighbours, and both of us have engaged in many community meetings  over the years in which these issues have been discussed, not just by those who are white but by those who are ethnic minority Britons. What unites all Britons, regardless of their background, is a desire for fairness and for a good system in which people can have confidence. My right hon. Friend is entirely right about the concepts of earned citizenship, earned settlement, contribution and fairness. As I said earlier, those are quintessential Labour values, and they are quintessential British values as well, which is why I know that this plan will have support from people throughout the country. \p Bradley Thomas: These steps are definitely a move in the right direction, and I am pleased that the Home Secretary has rejected the Liberal Democrats’ proposal to allow those who arrive in the UK illegally to work, which would, I think, be a ludicrous magnet that would attract more illegal migrants. However, she will be aware that the vast majority of removals from the country are voluntary rather than enforced. What is she planning to do to ramp up enforced removals from the UK, in respect of visa sanctions, and why did the Government vote against their inclusion in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill? \p Shabana Mahmood: Let me just say gently to the hon. Gentleman that voluntary removal is the outcome that we should be aiming for. Enforced removals cost more money and are more likely to result in a failed removal, especially if there is such disruption that the pilot in charge of the plane says that he or she will not take the individual concerned. That often costs the British taxpayer much more. It is value for money for voluntary removals to take place wherever possible, but we will pursue all types of removal, voluntary as well as enforced, along with deportations of foreign national offenders. Our track record over the past 18 months shows that we got those numbers up by 23% to just over 48,000, doing better than the Conservatives did over their last 18 months in government. As for the issue of visa sanctions, all I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that these were powers that the Conservatives acquired but did not use. \p Preet Kaur Gill: I commend my right hon. Friend for the measures that she has introduced to tackle abuse of our asylum system and clamp down on those who are taking advantage of this country’s generosity. The Government have already closed 200 hotels since coming to power, but can my right hon. Friend confirm that her Department is expediting the measures that she has announced so that we can restore public confidence? \p Shabana Mahmood: I can assure my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour that we are moving at pace on the exit of hotels. We have already made good progress, having closed a number of them. The number of hotels that remain has fallen from the peak that we inherited to just under 200, but we will go further and faster. We are looking at large sites, including military sites, and there will be more announcements about that in due course. As for the wider proposals, some require consultation while others require legislation—I know that they were debated with real vigour in the House—but we will aim to pass these measures as quickly as possible, because I agree with my hon. Friend about the need for us to make a rapid transition to a better system in which we  can all have more confidence, to introduce the safe and legal routes that are the viable alternative and the right alternative, and to persuade people not to get on to a dangerous boat in the north of France instead. \p Josh Babarinde: The Home Secretary has spoken a great deal about contribution, but one of the most powerful forms of contribution to our country is getting a job and paying taxes, which the Home Secretary will not allow people seeking asylum to do, despite the fact that it can be done in Denmark. She has said that pull factors cause an aversion to that, but a study conducted by the University of Warwick, which looked at 30 other studies, found that there was no long-term correlation between labour market access and destination choice. Will she therefore review her decision not to offer people seeking asylum the right to work, so that they can pay their own way in our country? \p Shabana Mahmood: What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is what I said in response to a question from another Liberal Democrat earlier today. It would be a pull factor, because we know that the ability to work in this country illegally is already a pull factor, which is why we are clamping down on illegal working—we have seen 11,000 raids, 8,000 arrests and the removal of 1,000 people with no right to be in this country. Let me also say to the hon. Gentleman that I have had the misfortune of having to look through the TikTok accounts and the various other ways in which the organised immigration criminals advertise their packages for people to get on to a boat in the channel in the north of France, and it is in all those marketing materials as well. We also know from the intelligence that we gather that that is one of the pull factors, and we have to deal with it. \p Gurinder Josan: I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, which I fully support. My constituency, like hers, is incredibly diverse, with people originating in countries across the world settled and contributing to our communities. One thing that people from all backgrounds have in common is that they detest the unfairness that the Conservative party allowed to creep into our asylum and immigration system. They also detest the demonising of their neighbours by members of Reform. Does the Home Secretary agree that the choice is clear: a choice between the chaos, handed over by the Conservatives, of a system taken advantage of by those who can pay the people smugglers, and a system of fair and safe legal routes for those who need them? \p Shabana Mahmood: My own parents were migrants to this country in the late ’60s and ’70s. Migration is woven into the story of my family, and those of thousands of people I represent in my constituency of Birmingham Ladywood. I agree with my hon. Friend that ethnic minority Brits are just like every other kind of British: we value fairness and contribution as well. That is why those principles sit underneath all the policy announcements that I have made today. \p Carla Denyer: It is not people seeking sanctuary who are tearing our country apart; it is toxic, racist narratives and the scapegoating of migrants and asylum seekers for what is nothing to  do with them. The chronic housing crisis and the running down of public services are not caused by migrants; they are caused by political decisions and by the grotesque inequality in this country. Does the Secretary of State understand that attempting to out-Reform Reform is actually just boosting this baseless, far-right narrative and will only deepen divisions, when we urgently need leadership and hope instead? \p Shabana Mahmood: Let me tell the hon. Lady that I could not care less about what any other political party has to say about these matters. I do not care what other politicians are saying on the television. I do not care what other activists are saying either. I care about the fact that I have an important job to do, and I can see that there is a problem here that needs to be fixed. If there was not a problem, I would not be pretending there was one. There is a genuine problem in the asylum system and we need someone to sort it out, not to pretend that it does not exist, which I am afraid is one of the things that fuels division in the first place.

Since I have been Home Secretary, my own constituents have been telling me directly of abuses in the visa system that they can see with their own eyes, long before any officials in Whitehall have ever clocked on to those things. When we see something broken, we have a moral responsibility to fix it and to make sure that the fact that it is broken is not fuelling division in our country. Let me also say to the hon. Lady that it is Green party politicians who are absolute hypocrites, because they talk great language in here and then oppose asylum accommodation in their own constituencies. \p Naseem Shah: I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. As the Member for Bradford West, I am really proud that Bradford is a city of sanctuary. The Home Secretary is aware that I am a former foster parent to an Afghan refugee, and my concern is about the reform of article 8 that the Home Secretary suggests. Had somebody like my foster son come to this country and not had a parent, he would not be able to apply for his only sibling to come over. The same would potentially apply to a Ukrainian woman who has young children and cannot contribute because of the trauma that she has experienced. Will the Home Secretary meet me when she is doing her consultation on safe passage for refugees and asylum seekers? \p Shabana Mahmood: Of course, I will always happily meet my hon. Friend. We made it clear in the asylum policy statement that these measures do not apply to unaccompanied children and other vulnerable groups. We will set out our specific policies in relation to vulnerable groups, including unaccompanied children, separately; these measures do not apply to them. She will know that the scheme for Ukrainians is a bespoke temporary scheme that was brought in by the Conservative party when it was in government and supported not just by our party, but across this House. I expect the rules of that scheme to apply in the normal way, but I will of course discuss with her the issues that she raises. \p Luke Evans: I thank the Home Secretary for a copy of her speech. It states that

“the public rightly expect that we can determine who enters this country, and who must leave,”

and I agree. One thing that is missing, though, is verifying the people who come in. We Conservatives put forward the idea of age verification, which many other countries have. Is that part of her plan? If not, would she consider putting it back in the plan, so that we know that those coming in are who they say they are? \p Shabana Mahmood: If the hon. Gentleman reads the asylum policy statement, he will know that, on age verification, we are pursuing artificial intelligence as a more effective and workable model, unlike that suggested by the Conservative party, which was all about MRI scans and bones. We believe we have a much more effective way of ensuring that age verification is available and that the methodology for it actually works. \p Sarah Russell: I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. There is currently a loophole in UK employment law that means that people who are self-employed are not subject to right-to-work checks, which means that many people work illegally in the gig economy, with no potential risk to their “non-employer”. Will the Home Secretary discuss how we can close that loophole while simultaneously ensuring that we uphold rights for British workers, but also the rule of law and the remainder of our rights within the UK? \p Shabana Mahmood: We are closing that loophole through the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, and it is important that colleagues support us when that is debated again on Wednesday. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that closing loopholes and ensuring that everyone is subject to a right-to-work check, thereby building support for a rule-of-law approach to the way that people access employment in this country, is incredibly important. I hope that all colleagues, even Opposition Members, will support those measures later this week. \p Jeremy Corbyn: Nowhere in the Home Secretary’s statement does she put this into any kind of global context. Millions of people have become refugees or homeless all around the world, and more than two thirds of them are housed by the southern countries—the poorest countries in the world—with the least resources to do it. She is putting in draconian measures against refugees trying to come to this country, failing to recognise that more than 6,000 of those who have crossed the channel this year come from Afghanistan, a war-torn country that we helped to make into a war-torn country. She is instead trying to appease the most ghastly right-wing, racist forces all across Europe in undermining and walking away from the European convention on human rights—a convention created by the post-war Labour Government. Does she not recognise that history is going to be a harsh judge of this Government for undermining the global humanitarian principles behind the ECHR and the universal declaration of human rights? \p Shabana Mahmood: Not for the first time, I am a little mystified as to what the right hon. Gentleman is talking about. He starts with the global context. I guess my starting point is different from his, because I start with our domestic context first. He ought to know that in this country there have already been bespoke schemes for the resettlement of people from Afghanistan, so perhaps he could read up on those schemes. He should  also have heard from what I said in my statement that we remain absolutely committed to offering sanctuary to those who are fleeing conflict abroad. We think that the best way to do that is not to encourage people to get on a boat in the channel by paying thousands and thousands of pounds to people smugglers.

By the way, it is not just smuggling that is a vile crime; those individuals are involved in all sorts of other, disgusting organised crime. They should not be in receipt of money from vulnerable people. I want to disincentive people from making that choice, and I want to incentivise people to come on safe and legal routes instead. If the right hon. Gentleman had actually read the asylum policy statement, he would know that it is the policy position of this Government to provide more safe and legal routes. Once he has done more reading, I will be happy to answer more of his questions. \p Richard Burgon: I remember when the Prime Minister pledged an

“immigration system based on compassion and dignity”,

yet now we have an immigration Minister tweeting

“Deport, Deport, Deport”

and this policy announcement, which I am afraid scrapes the bottom of the barrel. If we are being frank, is this not just a desperate attempt to triangulate with Reform? Like some of the other terrible policy errors that have been made in recent months, it is not only morally wrong but another policy that is set to push away Labour voters. Why not recognise that now, rather than recognising it in a few months’ time and making a U-turn? \p Shabana Mahmood: I really caution my hon. Friend not to defend a broken status quo. He should know that it is foreign national offenders who are deported from this country, and I hope he can agree that foreign national offenders should be deported from this country. We should not be keeping convicted criminals in our nation for a day longer than is absolutely necessary. I say to him that the thing that is morally wrong is knowing that we have a broken system and then either pretending that it is not broken or defending a broken status quo. I will never tolerate that.

I have to say to my hon. Friend that, as I have said to Opposition Members today, I do not care for what other parties are saying on these matters or for what other politicians have to say either. First and foremost is my moral responsibility to the people of this country as I fulfil my duty as Home Secretary. I have a series of reforms that are underpinned by the values of the Labour party and the values of the British people: fairness and contribution. I hope my hon. Friend will reflect on that as he reads up on the detail of these reforms. \p Ben Obese-Jecty: In February, at Second Reading of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, I raised the issue of the generous financial and accommodation package that is advertised on the Government’s own website under “Asylum support: What you’ll get”, which outlines the provision of an asylum support enablement—ASPEN—card with £49.18 of cash loaded on to it each week, on top of free accommodation, even if someone has been refused asylum. The cards can be used for gambling and have been over 6,000 times, according to a freedom of  information request. In May, I raised this issue again when I asked the previous Home Secretary what she planned to do to address the pull factors of free cash and a free home. Can this Home Secretary now commit to address my previous calls that these pull factors must be mitigated to create a deterrent, and will those on section 4 or section 95 support have the benefit withdrawn under these measures? \p Shabana Mahmood: I urge the hon. Member to look at the detail of the asylum policy statement, the whole point of which is to deal with the pull factors that we know are drawing people to get on a dangerous boat and cross the channel illegally. The upshot of the reforms will be to deal with those pull factors, and he will know that we have said in the asylum policy statement that a relatively small number—just under 10%—of those in asylum accommodation already have the right to work, and in future we will expect them, where they have the right to work, to work. \p Stella Creasy: The Home Secretary is arguing that what will heal this divided nation is to get somebody who we have agreed is a refugee, with a well-founded fear of persecution, to feel a permanent sense of limbo because they will never be able to plan for the long term for them or their family, because their status will always be uncertain because they could still face deportation. Her consultation document, which I have read, talks about using enforced return for families. Last year alone, 10,000 children, many of whom are with their families, were granted refugee status in this country. I know she plans to consult, but given that this involves children, can she be clear with us about whether she intends to incarcerate children with their families as part of enforced return, or to separate children from their mums and dads as part of this policy? How will we continue to uphold the UN convention on the rights of the child in terms of education? \p Shabana Mahmood: I encourage my hon. Friend to look at the detail of the asylum policy statement on our intentions for the protection “work and study” route, which in future will be the route by which refugees can contribute and earn their way to settlement in this country. Of course, it is the express intention of this policy statement to disincentivise people coming on dangerous channel crossings, and to incentivise and to push people towards what will, over time, become more generous, safe and legal routes of entry into this country, with more privileged status when it comes to earning permanent settlement.

Let me say to my hon. Friend on failed asylum-seeking families, because I think that important context was missing from her question, that there are 700 Albanian families at the moment who have made asylum claims and whose asylum claims have failed. The only reason they have not been removed from the country is the policies on not removing families—that is, parents with their children. We are not going to separate parents and their children, but we are going to consult on the removal of support and how we effectively and safely ensure that those individuals are returned. However, we will of course want to see most of those people return voluntarily instead. \p Liz Saville-Roberts: Stoking fear and division through the kind of performative cruelty trailed in the media this weekend has consequences. We saw that in Caerphilly last month in that where Reform UK spread information, Ukrainians spoke of intimidation. When the Home Secretary speaks of unity, surely the lesson from Caerphilly is that imitating Reform does not create unity and does not win trust, but that standing firm on values does. \p Shabana Mahmood: I am sorry, but that is just unserious from the right hon. Lady. I am sorry to find that the Reform party is living rent free in so many people’s heads, but I can assure hon. Members that it is living nowhere near mine.

These policy proposals are designed to fix what we all know to be true, which is that we have a broken system that is driving division across our country. I see that in my own constituency, and I hope the right hon. Lady is not suggesting otherwise. I have seen that with my own eyes and it is my own experience in my own constituency, where over 70% of people are not white and most of them have a migration story just like my own. These are matters of great interest across our country—across every type of community in our country—and it is incumbent on any Government who want to make sure we can run a decent system and not fuel division in our country to pursue the sorts of reforms that we are talking about. They are underpinned by what I would have hoped were values her party could have signed up to as well—that is, fairness and contribution. \p Lauren Sullivan: I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, which I support. This reform of the system is long overdue. It is about reforming safe and legal routes, and cracking down on illegal working and those abusing the asylum and immigration system, yet it maintains support for those that need our support, such as those fleeing war in Ukraine and others who come here legally. It is about fairness. When will these reforms be in place so that residents can see the outcomes of these actions? \p Shabana Mahmood: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. We will pursue the consultation on measures that require it as quickly as possible, and there will be legislation in the coming months—certainly in the second Session—which we will obviously seek, subject to the agreement of the House, to pass as quickly as possible. \p Joe Robertson: The Home Secretary’s asylum plans still have a gaping hole in the middle of them in that she does not know what to do with failed asylum seekers who cannot be returned home. Her statement says that she is exploring possibilities with third countries. Can I suggest that she swallows her pride, and speaks to a third country that we know is willing: Rwanda? \p Shabana Mahmood: I say to Conservative Members that they are going to have to ditch their addiction to Rwanda. The scheme did not work, and nobody in the country supported it. As the hon. Member and Opposition Members well know, when we are negotiating with other countries about possible agreements, the one thing we do not do is publicise them before an agreement is reached. \p Rebecca Long-Bailey: The Home Secretary is aware that, in the absence of safe and legal routes, the law forces a refugee to set foot on UK soil to seek asylum, which has led to dangerous journeys and no checks or vetting taking place. She has referenced sponsorship as the primary safe route. Could she clarify whether this can be applied for from outside the UK, and what consideration has she made of recommendations by Safe Passage to implement a visa refugee scheme, so that applications can be done from outside the UK, with cases assessed, vetted and decided before a refugee embarks on a dangerous journey here? \p Shabana Mahmood: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. The whole purpose of the new safe and legal routes is that those individuals are accepted as refugees before they enter the United Kingdom. The point is that they never pay thousands of pounds to illegal smugglers along any sort of route on which they may travel. In fact, exactly as she says, we want to accept people as refugees before they set foot on UK soil, and once they are here on a safe and legal route, they will access permanent settlement more quickly than on any other route in this country. It is good that the Government are seeking to incentivise people to come through safe and legal routes, not pay thousands and thousands of pounds to criminals along the way. \p Andrew Murrison: It was a genuinely good statement—as far as it went—from which we learnt that countries could be determined to be safe at some point in the future and refugees from them returned home. What would be the Home Secretary’s criteria for safety, and which countries does she have in her sights? For example, would they include the Council of Europe and NATO member, ECHR signatory and EU candidate, Turkey? \p Shabana Mahmood: I am not going to provide a running commentary on countries. The right hon. Member will know that I referenced Syria specifically in my statement. Many thousands of Syrians were making claims related to the regime that was in place before, during the conflict, but it has fallen and there is a new regime, so we have already made a small number of voluntary returns to Syria. Other countries are exploring enforced returns to Syria, given the change in circumstances there, and we will of course look at doing the same. In the normal run of things, when it comes to considering whether a country is safe for a person we will keep such matters under review, as I know he would expect us to do. \p Olivia Blake: Yes, we have a broken system, but does the Home Secretary really believe that people having to flee violence, war and persecution means they have won a golden ticket if they are lucky enough to get refugee status here? Does she understand that such rhetoric is deeply offensive and feeds division? Does she accept that shutting down routes for settlement will damage integration in our communities, and will only strengthen Reform, not beat it? Would not a better way of measuring contribution be to allow people to work and pay taxes? \p Shabana Mahmood: I gently point out to my hon. Friend that we have a large number of failed asylum seekers—that is to say, people whose claims have not succeeded and  who do not have the right to be in this country who are still here, despite their home country being safe. Many people who claim asylum in this country have passed through multiple safe countries across Europe before they end up in the north of France. We have seen claims go down in Europe and increase here in the UK. I would just encourage her to remember that we are opening safe and legal routes. The whole point of the reforms is to disincentivise the journeys that lead to criminals earning a lot of money and people being in the north of France, and to move to a system where we have safe legal routes and we accept people as refugees before they set foot on UK soil. That way, when they come here they can earn, contribute and be fully integrated through models such as community sponsorship, which we know work. \p Martin Wrigley: I thank the Home Secretary for sharing her experiences earlier and thoroughly condemn the sort of behaviour she described. It is unacceptable in any case.

The Secretary of State described rapid decisions on appeals. Does she also believe, as I do, that rapid decision making on the initial application of asylum seekers should be promoted and highlighted? Will she consider putting a timescale target for decision—a matter of weeks, not years—in place in her Department?

In her remarks over the weekend on our Ukrainians guests, she described them going home when peace breaks out. May I remind her that peace will not mean safety? Please can she assure the House that a more considered and considerate response may be found? Will she meet me and Ukrainian guests to resolve that issue? \p Shabana Mahmood: Let me just make a point about Ukraine that I think was not understood fully by those who were questioning me at the weekend. It is a bespoke scheme created only for Ukrainians, with its own rules. It is not subject to what we have set out in the asylum policy statement. The hon. Gentleman will know, as is the position in relation to our discussions with the Ukrainian Government, that those individuals are welcome in our country so that we can keep them safe. They are not classed as refugees, because they are here temporarily on that scheme. We will always uphold our obligations under that scheme—we supported it in Opposition, too.

The hon. Gentleman is right on the point about rapid decisions. It is important that decisions made at first instance, but also through an appeals process, are of high quality. That is one of the ways we have to ensure that they do not get constantly appealed. Our current system means that even though we have made huge progress on decreasing the backlog on initial decisions, the appeals backlog has grown. Over time, as people sit in the appeals queue, more rights are accrued. Unlike with any other type of legal order in this country, the order to leave this country not being complied with still allows people to accrue more rights in the interim. We do not run a good and effective appeals system at the moment, which is why we are going to create a new one, but I can assure him that at its heart will be early legal advice and truly independent adjudicators making the decisions, but doing so in a way that allows them to fast-track claims that have a low chance of success and make sure that the right decision is made quickly— one claim,  one appeal—with a certain outcome at the end, not subject to years and years of a merry-go-round around the courts. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Judith Cummins: Order. Before I call the next Member, can I just make a plea that we keep questions and answers concise? \p Luke Akehurst: I wholeheartedly welcome the measures which I believe will tackle a failure by the previous Government to maintain one of the most basic fundamental functions of government: control of our borders. My constituents are worried and angry about the proliferation of houses in multiple occupation to house asylum seekers in towns and villages that already have significant social and economic problems. Will the measures lead to lower demand from the Home Office for that type of housing for asylum seekers and the return of HMOs over time to use as family homes for local people who need affordable housing? \p Shabana Mahmood: The totality of the reforms will, we believe, lead to less pressure on accommodation, so I think the short answer to my hon. Friend’s question on HMOs is yes. I recognise the problems he notes, because HMOs are a big problem in my constituency too. \p Lewis Cocking: I really do thank the Home Secretary for her statement. This is a tiny step in the right direction, but it does not go far enough. To truly show that the Home Secretary is listening to the British people, does she agree with me that if you enter this country illegally, you should never be allowed to stay? \p Shabana Mahmood: We will always abide by our obligations under the refugee convention and we do believe in offering sanctuary, but we make no apology for the fact that those who enter illegally by crossing the channel will have a longer path to settlement. We are deliberately incentivising other safe and legal routes into the country to show that that is the proper way to seek sanctuary in this country—rather than paying criminals a lot of money and put lives at risk. \p John Martin McDonnell: When we introduce new legislation and new procedures, it is important that we calculate the implications and where they could lead us. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), I have worked—for decades, to be frank—with asylum families, and in particular children. What I find is that the children are extremely traumatised. What we try to do is give them security and peace of mind for the family. Now what will happen is that every 30 months that security could be undermined and they could face removal. Could I ask my right hon. Friend whether she has consulted the Children’s Commissioner, education psychologists or others about the implications of what she is saying today?

The other issue is that in the past, she has mentioned the forced removal of families. I just remind my colleagues that in the past that was happening and families were often detained in Harmsworth detention centre. I used  to visit the children. It was one of the most distressing experiences I have had as an MP. Can she give me the assurance that no child will be placed in detention as a result of this policy change? \p Shabana Mahmood: Let me tell my right hon. Friend first that there will, in the usual way, be a full equality impact assessment for all these measures. As the consultations take place and as the legislation is drafted and then debated in this House, I am sure all the individuals he mentions will have their say—I would expect them to, as well. I gently remind him that when we are talking about the asylum system today, we are not just talking about those who arrive illegally on small boats; we are also talking about people who arrive on visitor visas, student visas and work visas who, the minute those visas come to an end, immediately claim asylum. We know that the relative generosity of that route—the effective automatic permanent settlement after five years—is one of the things that attracts that behaviour. It is right that we clamp down on that and disincentivise people trying to stay in this country in that way, and instead incentivise people who will come through safe and legal routes. As we get order and control in the system, the safe and legal routes will start relatively modest, but I anticipate them growing more generous over time because this country is fundamentally open, tolerant and generous. [Interruption.] \p Sammy Wilson: I welcome the honest and realistic assessment the Secretary of State has made today in relation to the broken asylum system and the division that immigration is causing across the United Kingdom. She has been innovative in some of the proposals she has made. Only time will tell whether the potential loopholes will undermine the honourable objective she has set, namely to cut back on illegal immigration. In my view, the only way of doing that is to make sure that people who enter this country breaking the law get returned immediately. On the ECHR and the expanded interpretation, can she give us an assurance that whatever changes she makes will apply fully to Northern Ireland, where, unfortunately, the previous Government embedded the ECHR in the Windsor framework, which has proven already to be a means of undermining immigration policy? \p Shabana Mahmood: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Minister for Immigration has met his counterparts in the devolved Administrations. We will keep all those conversations going, because this is a reserved matter rather than a devolved one.

Madam Deputy Speaker, if I can just say that, in case the microphone did not pick up my answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on the detention of children, I can give him the assurance he sought in his question. \p Rachael Maskell: I urge caution. We are in this predicament because the very people who championed Brexit failed to warn of the consequences of leaving the Dublin agreement. Since then, the EU has moved on and will introduce its asylum and migration management regulations next summer. Instead of creating insecurity, what discussions has the Home Secretary had with the EU on how we  can explore working with the regulations to protect our human rights and responsibilities through this progressive and pragmatic approach? \p Shabana Mahmood: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Countries across Europe are tightening up their rules, and it is important that we do not become or remain an outlier. In fact, it is a regular complaint of many of our counterparts in Europe that at least 30% of those who travel across Europe are seeking ultimately to come to the United Kingdom. It is something that has come up in all the conversations I have had with multiple counterparts across Europe, and it is one of the reasons why we have to ensure that we have a system that works and that we get our own house in order. \p Lincoln Jopp: A constituent wrote to me asking whether I could get a wriggle on with his EU settlement scheme application. We checked with the Home Office and it turned out that he was subject to a live deportation order. It was issued in 2017, and we did deport him. Somehow he got back into the country and made his application. I said to the Home Secretary’s predecessor that if she was prepared to, with a stroke of her pen, re-enact that deportation order, then I was prepared to drive him to the airport myself. Now that we have a Home Secretary who is going to get a grip of this situation, I offer the same thing again. \p Shabana Mahmood: I look forward to welcoming the hon. Member’s application to join immigration enforcement. If he wants to write to me about that specific example, I will look into it. I know that the systems at the Home Office need a lot of tightening. It is work that my predecessor started when she brought a new permanent secretary into the Department to make the necessary changes, and it is work I will continue. \p Ian Lavery: I agree with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that this system is absolutely smashed to smithereens. It is smashed to smithereens because of 14 years of destruction from the Conservatives. Of course we all want to see the control of our borders. We want to stop the boats, and we want to see better and safer legal routes. But I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench this: when the opposition parties—the Tories, Reform UK, not to mention that odious racist chancer who is bankrolled by the world’s wealthiest man—are championing our policies, is it not time to question whether we are actually in the right place? \p Shabana Mahmood: I have a lot of time and high regard for my hon. Friend. What I would say is that he should not allow mischief making by those he names to throw him or our party off course, and I hope he has heard the support from our own Back Benchers today who can see that these changes are necessary to fix the broken system that he agrees we have. I would also ask Members to please not keep repeating the name of a man who does not even think I am English. I find that very offensive, and I would ask everyone to refrain from mentioning him. We do not need to do that. We do not need to go there. Do not fall for the mischief that others are making here. We know that there is a broken system, and it is our solemn responsibility as a Labour party and a Labour Government to fix it. \p Charlotte Cane: I agree that the asylum system is broken, and I welcome the commitment to safe and legal routes for people to seek asylum, but there is much in these measures that I think is cruel, impractical and will not work. One example is making people have reviews every two-and-a-half years for 20 years. It is cruel because those people are not going to be able to get a sense of security and safety, and it is counterproductive because they will struggle to get good-quality, secure and high-paid jobs and contribute to our society. It will not work.

We know that the Home Office cannot cope with what it currently has to do. My casework is full of people whose papers get lost when they are trying for immigration status. The digital right-to-work system does not work properly, and we have a backlog of asylum claims. How is the Home Secretary going to make this work? \p Shabana Mahmood: Let me assure the hon. Member that I am making changes that I will ensure will work. I make no apology for disincentivising routes into this country that basically make people smugglers very, very rich men and fuel other disgusting crimes across Europe and in this country. It is right that we reserve a privileged status for those who get into work and education, as refugees on core protection will be able to do, as well as those who come via safe and legal routes. That should be the proper way that people come into this country and it has better integration outcomes as well. \p Nadia Whittome: Earlier the Home Secretary advised that I wait for the detail of the reforms before criticising them. Now the detail is out, and I am afraid it does not reassure me in the slightest. It is hard to know where to begin when so much of what has been announced flies in the face of decency and compassion, but I will focus on family reunion. Limiting access to family reunion for refugees will force children and spouses into the hands of the very people smugglers that the Home Secretary is seeking to smash. It will push them into unsafe dinghies, risking their lives. Would she be comfortable with this? \p Shabana Mahmood: I urge my hon. Friend to look at the proposals on protection work and study and on safe and legal routes. It is right that we try to pivot to a more humane system that privileges those who come not via paying people smugglers a lot of money. On family reunification, British citizens at the moment have to meet thresholds and various qualifying tests before they can apply for family reunion. I think it is right that we bring the position in relation to refugees through the protection work and study route to the same level. \p Judith Cummins: Order. Members will have seen how many Members are on their feet. I will need to finish this statement by 8 pm, so please bear that in mind, because I want to get everybody in. \p Paul Kohler: I welcome a sizeable amount of what the Home Secretary has said and is trying to do. Earlier this year the immigration and asylum chamber of the upper tribunal in the case of IX reiterated the established administrative law requirements that Government decision making in asylum cases be proportionate and reasonable and not expose individuals  to prolonged or indefinite uncertainty—something that the Home Office used to criticise, under the Tories in fact, as a lengthy limbo period. Can the Home Secretary clarify how her proposal to require a 20-year period before someone granted asylum may obtain a permanent right to remain complies with these fundamental principles? \p Shabana Mahmood: I do believe it complies with those principles. At the moment at the end of the five years there is already supposed to be a safe country review. We will bring that forward and make the safe country review a real thing. As I have said, we will also create, alongside the core protection route, the protection work and study route, because we want to encourage people to make a contribution to this country. \p Emma Foody: In a previous life I was a 999 call taker with the ambulance service and had the awful experience of answering a call from a distraught family desperate for help. I could not help them save their loved one because they could not understand the life-saving instructions I was trying to give them over the phone due to the language barrier. Does the Home Secretary agree that there is nothing progressive about defending a status quo where vulnerable people are unable to access emergency services due to an inability to speak our language? \p Shabana Mahmood: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I endorse every word that she said. \p Robin Swann: The common travel area allows movement across the UK, Northern Ireland and to the Republic of Ireland. It has been reported in the Irish media that a UK Home Office official briefed the Irish Department of Justice in regard to what the Home Secretary is bringing forward. Can I ask her what is the Irish Government’s response to the proposals? \p Shabana Mahmood: I am afraid I do not recognise the briefing the hon. Member refers to. \p Clive Efford: I can recall a predecessor of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary describing the Home Office as not being fit for purpose. I have never known a time when there was not a backlog of cases with the Home Office. This set of proposals will require people’s cases to be reviewed every 30 months. Is that a realistic aim, and is the Home Secretary clear that she can make the Home Office fit for the purpose she has set out today? \p Shabana Mahmood: We are already supposed to do safe country reviews, and we will ensure that they are done every two-and-a-half years. We will also ensure that wherever possible refugees can move into the protection work and study route instead. I do recognise the phrase “not fit for purpose”. I have been clear that I do not think the Home Office is fit for purpose yet. There is new management at the Home Office, and they are getting on with making the changes that are necessary. I will ensure that it is both fit for purpose and able to enact the reforms I have set out today. \p Zarah Sultana: Sivanandan warned:

“What Enoch Powell says today, the Conservative Party says tomorrow, and the Labour Party legislates on the day after.”

Seizing valuables belonging to asylum seekers, making refugees wait 20 years before they can apply to settle permanently, and deporting entire families, including children who have built new lives here, because their country of origin is deemed safe—these measures are straight out of the fascist playbook. The Home Secretary has described herself as a child of immigrants, so I ask her: is she proud to introduce measures that punish and persecute desperate and vulnerable people seeking sanctuary? How does it feel to kick away the ladder and be praised by fascist Tommy Robinson? I must add— \p Judith Cummins: Order. [Interruption.] Order! \p Shabana Mahmood: I will clarify a point of fact. The hon. Member said that I describe myself as a child of immigrants. It is not a description; it is just a statement of fact. Everything else she said is beneath contempt. \p Afzal Khan: Migrants make immeasurable contributions to our communities. In Manchester Rusholme, Wendy, who has Jamaican heritage, is a community health champion; Najma, from Somalia, leads local initiatives to tackle knife crime; and Hafsa, who grew up in the middle east, leads nature improvement projects. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the language we use to talk about immigration must reflect the important role that immigrants play in the functioning of our nation? \p Shabana Mahmood: I absolutely agree about the contribution that migrants and refugees make to our country. I am making these reforms precisely because I can see a broken system that is creating deep division across our country, and it is important that we not only fix the system but retain public consent to having an asylum system at all. \p Jim Allister: The Home Secretary said that nothing matters more to her than “holding our country together”. Does she accept that, to succeed, her reforms, including her adjustments to article 8 of the European convention, must apply equally across the whole United Kingdom? If so, how will that be secured in Northern Ireland, given the impeding effect of article 2 of the Windsor framework? \p Shabana Mahmood: All the measures in the asylum policy statement are compliant with the Windsor framework. \p Apsana Begum: Deporting families after they have resettled here because their country is deemed safe is simply wrong. Will the Home Secretary tell us how the Government determine what a safe country is? Will she publish the criteria? She mentioned the DRC; is she really saying that it is a safe country? Will she publish all existing returns agreements, so that Members of this House, and indeed the British public, can properly scrutinise them? I have done the reading, and that is not in the detail. \p Shabana Mahmood: We already do safe country reviews, and we would seek to continue that. Those reviews, and our position on different countries, are publicly available; in fact, most pass through the House, in secondary legislation. I make no apology for a system that will privilege those who come to this country through a safe and legal route, rather than those who paid people smugglers thousands of pounds to end up in the north of France.

The point on visa sanctions is related to the fact that many countries do not comply with us when we seek to return people lawfully to their country. That is just one of the tools we have at our disposal to ensure compliance from those countries, so that they take their people back. \p Iqbal Mohamed: The UK has historical and ongoing involvement in unlawful military interventions, alongside allies such as the United States and Israel. How does the Home Secretary assess the correlation between these foreign policy actions and wars, and the displacement of populations, resulting in increased numbers of refugees and asylum seekers arriving in the UK? What steps will her Government take towards proactive peace-building initiatives and the restoration of overseas humanitarian aid, which could address the root causes of displacement and reduce the long-term pressures on our asylum system? \p Shabana Mahmood: The Government always play their full part in peace processes wherever we can, and we have put our shoulder to the wheel on the delicate diplomatic efforts required to bring conflicts to an end, but that is not relevant to what we are discussing today. We have a broken system today. We have thousands of people stuck in the system today, and thousands of people coming on boats through the north of France, for reasons that have nothing to do with the British Government. We still fulfil our international obligations, and will do so going forward as well, but I make no apology for wanting to move to a system in which we incentivise safe and legal routes instead. \p Paulette Hamilton: I agree with the Government that we desperately need to tackle illegal migration. I hear that on the doorsteps, and I see it in my mail each week in Birmingham Erdington. How quickly after the changes come into force will the Government ensure that safe and legal routes are in place? That will be key to stopping the boats. How will the Government deal with those who claim to be minors but are clearly not? That is another massive issue. \p Shabana Mahmood: We are moving to a system of age verification, based on artificial intelligence modelling, which we believe is effective in verifying someone’s true age. Let me assure my hon. Friend that we will move to consult and legislate on these measures as quickly as possible. I am seized of the need to move quickly to restore public confidence. As we get order and control into the system, we will start opening up the safe and legal routes. They will be modest to begin with, but they will grow and be more generous over time, as we restore order and control. \p Sarah Pochin: The Daresbury asylum hotel in Runcorn has been emptied, thanks to my by-election campaign. What assurances  can the Secretary of State give my constituents that the many houses in multiple occupation in Runcorn will be emptied of illegal migrants and criminals under her Government, and that they will be deported without delay, never to be allowed legal entry into the UK? \p Shabana Mahmood: It is this Government who are exiting hotels. We will do so—it is a manifesto commitment —by the end of the Parliament, and I intend to bring that forward as much as possible. Let me say to the hon. Member that we will always fulfil our international obligations, but I make no apology for wanting to privilege safe and legal routes over illegal entry into the country. \p Samantha Niblett: Every single day that I campaigned in South Derbyshire while a candidate and since becoming an MP last July, immigration has been the No. 1 issue dividing my communities. They—we are talking about Labour voters—have been pushed either to apathy or towards Reform. I cannot thank the Home Secretary enough for the statement, because finally my constituents feel heard. How frequently can they expect an update, so that they can see that the promises being made today will result in delivery sooner, rather than later? \p Shabana Mahmood: I thank my hon. Friend for her comments and her question. Let me assure her that I know that the way to build public confidence in the new system is not just to announce the reforms here, but to get on with legislating, and with implementing the reforms, so that her constituents and mine, and people across the country, can see the impact. and how we can fix the system. Then public confidence in having an asylum system at all can be retained. \p Adnan Hussain: Stripping people of the very few belongings that they have left after fleeing war and persecution runs contrary to the very principle of asylum, which is rooted in protection and compassion. How do such measures help address the real root causes of displacement and the refugee crisis, which are war, destabilisation and persecution, and dangerous crossings? \p Shabana Mahmood: I should not be surprised to see the hon. Gentleman indulging in misinformation. In my statement I gave the example of somebody who has £800 a month from their family, has enough money to acquire an Audi and is not expected to contribute to the cost of his asylum support at all. It is right that we change that. British citizens have to give account of their assets before they access benefit support. I do not think that the individuals we are talking about should be in a privileged position if they have such access to money, or assets of high value. I made it clear that this is not about taking jewellery—wedding rings and so on—off people at the border; that will never happen, but it is right that those who have assets be asked to contribute to the cost of their asylum accommodation. \p Abtisam Mohamed: Under the previous Government, we had hostile policy after hostile policy, from the “go home” vans to the Windrush scandal and Rwanda, all of which failed to deter people from making dangerous crossings and failed to fix the asylum system. What is dividing communities is the  constant anti-refugee rhetoric pumped into our politics. That has resulted in the vile racism that the Home Secretary, I and my mother have been subjected to. Let us be clear: some people will never be appeased, and will constantly stir up hatred in our communities.

The new proposals that will force refugees to reapply every two years will just add huge costs and pressure to an already overstretched system. Has the Home Secretary assessed the cost to the Home Office of processing thousands of repeated applications? This is an area of law in which I used to practise. How that will impact an already overstretched system facing huge backlogs? \p Shabana Mahmood: What I think is dividing our country, and communities all over it, is an unfair, out-of-control system that is putting pressure on communities across the whole nation. It is incumbent on me as Home Secretary and on this Government to fix that system, and to retain public consent for having an asylum system. It is also my job to make sure that we have the administration capacity and the funding to enact these reforms, which we will. \p Gareth Snell: If we look at a heat map of asylum dispersals, we see that they tend to be in inner-city London, and then the towns and cities of the midlands and the north-west, which have the least resources to help them. Thankfully, in Stoke-on-Trent, organisations such as our citizens advice bureau and Asha are doing what they can. When the Secretary of State looks at this policy in the round, as she will, will she look at that dispersal mechanism to ensure that everyone is giving the support that they should? Also, the national referral mechanism for modern slavery is one of the most difficult things to access for somebody who has been trafficked into this country, because they need to be referred by a national first responder, through a third party. What will her changes be, and can she give an assurance that those national first responders will not be removed from the process, because they do a very good job in vetting people before they get access? \p Shabana Mahmood: I thank my hon. Friend for his two questions. Let me assure him that we already run a dispersal model that is designed to ensure that the burden is spread out across the country, and we will carry on doing so. We have already consulted on modern slavery legislation, and that consultation has closed. I will look carefully at the responses. It is well-intentioned and much-needed legislation, and it is important that we crack down on modern slavery in our country, but it is being used to frustrate the legitimate removal of people from this country. I saw that within my first few days as Home Secretary; I had to change policy very quickly to prevent people from thwarting their removal to France under the “one in, one out” deal. That is what I have in mind, and those are the changes that we will make. \p Connor Naismith: I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and for taking the bold action necessary to tackle the chaos and lack of control that we inherited in our asylum system. Does she agree that these changes are as much about incentivising the right behaviour by creating capped  legal routes to asylum as they are about taking tough action to break the status quo, which sees thousands of people crossing the channel in a dangerous, uncontrolled and unfair way? \p Shabana Mahmood: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I endorse every word that he said. \p Sonia Kumar: What measures is the Home Secretary taking to dismantle the criminal gangs that are exploiting both legitimate and illegitimate businesses to facilitate illegal channel crossings? Can she give us details of the regulatory action that is being taken to prevent the use of assets such as shops on our high streets, and to prevent the supply of life jackets, boats and other components needed for dangerous crossings by illegal immigrants and criminal gangs? \p Shabana Mahmood: I can assure my hon. Friend that we are engaging in intense law enforcement work through the National Crime Agency, and we are working collaboratively with our partners in Europe, especially in France. There have already been 350 disruptions of organised immigration crime activity. We have confiscated numerous small boats ourselves, and we are also working with our European partners to do that. The sum total of all those efforts has been to prevent 20,000 illegal crossings across the channel already, and we will grow this work, because we know that it is an important part of how we deal with the problem of small boats. \p David Williams: This is about fairness. My constituents across Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove are good, kind and compassionate people, and we have a proud tradition of supporting those who need our help the most, yet they know, as we all do, that the immigration system is broken. Does the Secretary of State agree that, unlike the previous Government, who were more concerned about campaigning on the matter, we must take action to bring back the fundamental British value of fairness, so that we can resolve these issues at our borders? \p Shabana Mahmood: I agree with every word my hon. Friend said. Fairness and contribution are Labour values and British values, and they underpin the totality of these reforms. \p David Smith: I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and particularly for the commitment to new, safe, legal routes. There has been a lot of talk of morality, and there absolutely should be. This is too important to get wrong, so does she agree that tolerating a system where men, women and children are encouraged on to flimsy rubber boats to risk their life in the English channel, when they are already safe where they are, is not a moral choice? \p Shabana Mahmood: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Fixing this broken system is a moral mission for me, because I do not believe that we can look the other way and pretend that it is just talking points from our political enemies that are driving division in our country. The broken system is what is driving division in our country. I am determined to put that right to make sure that we do not divide our country and that we retain public consent for having an asylum system. \p Daniel Francis: I thank the Home Secretary for her statement on controlling our borders, which I know will be welcomed by the majority of constituents across Bexleyheath and Crayford. In recent months, we have seen our police and enforcement officers, particularly in Crayford, carrying out raids and working to arrest people working here illegally. Can the Home Secretary set out how the measures announced today will continue that work to tackle people who are working here illegally? \p Shabana Mahmood: Cracking down on illegal working is crucial to all these reforms, and to ensuring that we can retain public consent not just for our asylum system but for our legal migration system. We have already seen a record number of raids—over 11,000 since this Government took office—leading to 8,000 arrests and over 1,000 removals of those with no right to be in this country. We will build on all that work. \p Charlotte Nichols: Warrington has one of the largest communities of Hongkongers in the country, many of whom I met this weekend when they reiterated their profound concern that the British national overseas 5+1 scheme was at risk as a result of the Government’s wider agenda on tackling issues in the asylum and immigration system. Will the Home Secretary give a clear commitment to Hongkongers that the UK is their home, that the British state will keep its promise to BNOs and Hongkonger refugees, and that the 5+1 scheme is safe? \p Shabana Mahmood: We are committed to, and have always supported, the repatriation of Hongkongers. The consultation on earned settlement will be announced to this House very shortly—later this week, I believe—and I look forward to discussing that in detail with my hon. Friend. \p Cat Eccles: As a delegate to the Council of Europe, I will always defend the European convention on human rights and its institution and treaties, and that is why it is important to talk about it in the correct context. In the last 45 years, the Strasbourg Court has ruled against the UK on immigration rules only three times, and in the latest year for which figures are available, the number of successful human rights-based appeals represented 0.73% of all sentenced foreign national offenders. The last time article 8 was successfully applied to block a deportation was in 2020, so why does the Home Secretary believe that articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR are blocking the UK from controlling its borders, when the data simply does not back that up? \p Shabana Mahmood: I do not think the data relating to the Strasbourg Court is necessarily reflective of what we are seeing in our own courts here at home. My hon. Friend knows that article 8 is a qualified right, and it is absolutely appropriate for Governments to dictate how that right is applied in their individual countries. We will do that by bringing forward second Session legislation. There is a case for reform of article 8, and there is absolutely a case for continuing the discussions with our European partners at the Council of Europe on article 3, because we are not the only country that is seeing the expansion of article 3 having implications for the deportation of, in particular, foreign national offenders.  The case for reform is strong and we have the right solutions, but we are signatories to the ECHR and we will always be so under this Government. \p Liam Conlon: I thank the Minister for her statement. I was really proud of how my Beckenham and Penge constituency came together to welcome Ukrainian families after the conflict there, through schemes such as Homes for Ukraine. I am pleased that the Government have announced today that they will expand such safe and legal routes, recognising the UK’s responsibility and desire to support those in need, and removing the need for refugees to make dangerous journeys. Can the Home Secretary set out how quickly we can expect these safe and legal routes to start operating? \p Shabana Mahmood: I would hope that we can move very quickly indeed. As I have said, though, we will do so as we restore order and control to the broken system that we have. To be candid with the House, the safe and legal routes will be modest to start with, but they will grow over time. As we restore order and control to the system, we will see those routes grow. We will work with partners from across the philanthropy sector, the UN Refugee Agency and other stakeholders as we design the new community sponsorship models that will in future bear the load of helping to bring refugees into this country, to settle them and, ultimately, to integrate them successfully into this country. \p Tony Vaughan: I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I acknowledge the gargantuan task that the Home Secretary has to regain public confidence in our asylum system. We must ensure that reflected in our asylum system is not only fairness and contribution, but compassion, which is also a quintessentially British value and is reflected in the work of charities like Napier Friends in my constituency, which supports those staying at Napier barracks.

My question is about the appeal reforms. What is the rationale for the professionally trained adjudicators when we already have a specialist judiciary with expertise to decide these cases? What is it about the adjudicator model that will mean that adjudicators are in a better position to decide these cases than those under the current system? \p Shabana Mahmood: My hon. and learned Friend mentions compassion. The compassion of our reforms will be reflected in the safe and legal routes, through which we will accept refugees into our country under a community sponsorship model and resettle and integrate them successfully; that is what will bear the load of fulfilling our international obligations. I know that people across our country will be proud to do so because, as he rightly says, compassion is a fundamental value of all our people, along with fairness and contribution. Taken together, these reforms strike the right balance.

The appeal system is completely shot to pieces at the moment. It is riven with backlogs and even increasing judicial sitting days will not make the difference. It is absolutely appropriate that we design a new appeal system that is independent and has early legal advice available right at the start, and it is proper for the Government to set the framework for the speed at which cases can be heard, including fast-tracking claims  that have no chance of success or are from countries with low grant rates in the first place. My hon. and learned Friend knows that listing within the current system is a matter for the independent judiciary, and we would never seek to interfere with that. With a new appeal system, the Government will be able to set the framework for the speed at which cases are heard, as well as providing legal advice at the start so that we have one claim, one appeal and certainty at the end of the process. \p Jonathan Brash: I welcome this statement and can say clearly to the Home Secretary that she will have my complete support in implementing the measures within it and in doing whatever it takes to fix our broken asylum system and secure our borders. One of the consequences of the broken system is what can only be described as the targeting of deprived communities like Hartlepool by private companies charged with providing asylum accommodation. We have started to bring the numbers down. Does the Home Secretary agree that that process must continue to put fairness back into our system? \p Shabana Mahmood: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to bring fairness back into the system and to resolve the problems with supported asylum accommodation. Taken together, these reforms and this Government’s plans on exiting hotels and getting into large sites instead will relieve the pressure in my hon. Friend’s community and across the country. \p Laura Kyrke-Smith: I take great pride in our country’s track record of offering sanctuary to people fleeing conflict and persecution, and I know Afghans, Syrians, Ukrainians and many others who are now settled here and making great contributions to our economy and society in our hospitals, schools and businesses. I therefore welcome the Home Secretary’s commitment to getting the proposed safe and legal routes working urgently. Will she ensure that the right incentives and support are in place so that people arriving in this way can integrate successfully? \p Shabana Mahmood: I agree with my hon. Friend. As I have set out, we will seek to encourage those on the core protection route to move on to the protection work and study route so that they can start to contribute and integrate more effectively into this country. That will also get them to a slightly earlier settlement period. The bulk of these reforms will focus on safe and legal routes, which will be the most privileged route to settlement in this country. It is right that that is the case; it is the best way to integrate people into this country. The community sponsorship model is the way forward. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend and others in the House as we design that and move forward. \p Ben Goldsborough: South Norfolk expects to have a robust and compassionate asylum process. I welcome this statement. One of the aspects that I am most interested in is the penultimate paragraph on page 28 of the document, which states:

“The new model will give greater say to communities and support refugees”

to settle and become self-sufficient. Will the Home Secretary expand on the mechanisms that could be put in place to ensure that that happens? \p Shabana Mahmood: In designing the new system, we will take into account all the learnings from the Homes for Ukraine scheme and other models. We will work closely with the UN Refugee Agency and other international partners, as well as philanthropist and community organisations, local councils, universities, businesses and others here in this country. We know that there are people who want to be able to sponsor refugees and play their part in offering sanctuary to those most in need. People recognise that the current system is broken. As we get to grips with the broken system, we will be able to increase the number of people who come here on safe and legal routes in the medium and long term, which is the right future and the right compassionate answer, and will enable us to fulfil our international obligations. \p Jacob Collier: The Home Secretary has outlined common-sense measures to ensure that the British public are no longer asked to fund or accommodate foreign national offenders. At the same time, she is right that our country has a proud, long-standing tradition of offering sanctuary to those fleeing persecution. Can she therefore confirm that the United Kingdom will send no individual back to a place where they may be tortured, killed or persecuted? \p Shabana Mahmood: We will never send someone back to a country where they will be tortured—we will always abide by our international obligations in that regard. We believe that the totality of the reforms I have set out today strikes the right balance between ensuring that we continue to fulfil our international obligations and having an asylum system that retains public support for having an asylum system at all. \p Steve Race: Exeter is a proud city of sanctuary and has welcomed communities of Hongkongers, Ukrainians and Afghans over recent years. Many of my residents will be pleased with and welcome this re-establishment of safe and legal routes for refugees, which were long forgotten by the Conservatives. Does the Home Secretary agree that safe and legal routes are an element of a system that has control and order, and can she set out how the system will be flexible when geopolitical factors change? \p Shabana Mahmood: We will always retain the flexibility to respond to particular crises, as we have done in the past, which we supported even when the previous Government were in power. We will design these routes alongside international and domestic partners to ensure that the community sponsorship model learns all the best lessons from previous schemes and is a world-class system, so that we can play our full part in offering sanctuary to those who need it most. \p Sojan Joseph: I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement on how the Government will make our asylum policy fit for this country. The broken immigration and asylum system under the Conservatives created an unprecedented backlog, which hindered the Home Office’s ability to process legitimate cases, including those of nurses and care workers working in the NHS and care homes who were seeking to extend their work visas. How will the Home Secretary ensure that the measures she has announced will be properly enforced so that we can restore order to our borders? \p Shabana Mahmood: I can assure my hon. Friend that it will fall to me to ensure that the system we have is capable of implementing all these reforms. We will consult and legislate as quickly as possible, and it will be on me to ensure that the Home Office can handle the work that is coming its way. I assure him that getting the administration right is part of the picture, but getting these reforms passed and implemented across the country is the most important thing that we can do. \p Luke Myer: The measures that the Home Secretary has set out to restore order and fairness will be very welcome in Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland, but the overriding sentiment will be that we will believe it when we see it, I am afraid—trust is so low after years of broken promises. What assurances can the Home Secretary give that she will not only talk the talk, but walk the walk? \p Shabana Mahmood: I can assure my hon. Friend that I do not believe in doing anything other than walking the walk. I totally hear what his constituents will tell him. It is what I hear from my constituents, too—we will believe it when we see it. It is a low-trust environment; over many years, trust in the immigration system overall has been degraded, which is why it is causing such division today. It is on me to ensure that this package of reforms is implemented and that the Home Office is able to implement them effectively. I ask my hon. Friend’s constituents and people all over our country to judge us on what we deliver through these reforms. \p Steve Witherden: The proposal to raise the threshold for indefinite leave to remain from five years to 20 years is deeply concerning. At a time when far-right groups are exploiting fear and spreading misinformation, our Government should lead with compassion and fairness, instead of forcing some of the most vulnerable in our society to live in limbo for two decades. Will the Minister explain how denying people security and rights for two decades reflects the British values of justice and humanity, and what access to services will look like for people during that time? \p Shabana Mahmood: I tell my hon. Friend not to defend a status quo that sees people paying a ton of money—thousands of pounds—to people smugglers in order to get on a boat and make a dangerous crossing of the channel, putting at risk their own lives and those of others. I urge him not to defend a broken status quo, but to engage with the detail of the proposals, which reflect a new protection, work and study route that will be open to those offered core protection in this country. We will also open new safe and legal routes. \p Lloyd Hatton: Does the Home Secretary share my concern that the scrutiny from the Conservative Benches is somewhat sparse this evening? On a more serious note, can she reassure my constituents that one of the key outcomes of this statement is that we will finally bring down the taxpayers’ bill for asylum accommodation? Time and again, this concern is raised with me by constituents. Reducing that bill will help many feel that there is far greater fairness in our asylum system. \p Shabana Mahmood: I suspect that the lower numbers on the Conservative side are down to the fact that there are not that many of them any more. My hon. Friend is absolutely right on the cost. Fairness and contribution are the principles that underpin this asylum policy statement, and I hope that as we bring costs down, we can retain public support for the asylum system overall. \p Brian Leishman: Quite a few things in this statement need to be challenged. First, there is the suggestion that Britain has always been a welcoming, generous and warm place for immigrants and people seeking asylum. There will be many people from an Irish background whose ancestors faced prejudice, as will there be many Jews and Muslims who have been victims of antisemitism and Islamophobia, and let us not forget about the Windrush scandal. With what we have heard today, I am afraid that the Government have surrendered to past discriminations and the vile rhetoric of Reform that we hear today. Does the Home Secretary not see that removing the legal obligation to support asylum seekers who would be otherwise destitute is as far away from Labour party principles and values as we can get? \p Shabana Mahmood: Again, I would urge my hon. Friend not to defend a broken status quo and people who commit crimes and are funded by the British taxpayer while they do so. \p Jonathan Hinder: Having gangsters control who comes into our country is intolerable. It is not fair, humane or socialist. My constituents say to me that they just want control. They want the politicians they send to this Chamber to make the decisions on who comes into this country, not the gangsters. Can the Home Secretary reassure my constituents that she will not rest until every migrant, refugee or otherwise, comes to this country through a safe and legal route? \p Shabana Mahmood: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is nothing humane or socialist—or, indeed, any other group that people might want to put themselves into—about paying people smugglers a lot of money to get into a boat in the channel. It is a dangerous thing to do. It fuels further crime. It is not the way that people should seek to come to this country, and I will not rest until the way that people come to this country to seek refuge and be granted refugee status is through a safe and legal route instead. \p Amanda Martin: I fully support the Home Secretary’s statement and the need to get the balance right. In Portsmouth North, we have seen how quickly immigration misinformation can spread on our high streets and local forums. It has even forced businesses to put up signs on developments to say who will be living there. This chaos took hold because the Tories never got a grip, gave up on governing and allowed division to reign across our country. Does the Home Secretary agree that our new enforcement plans and streamlined appeals system are essential not only to enabling much-needed action, but to restoring trust and giving clarity to stop refuelling misinformation and division in our communities? \p Shabana Mahmood: I agree with my hon. Friend and endorse every word she said. \p Carla Denyer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State accused one of my Green colleagues of hypocrisy when in fact she had been objecting to the warehousing of asylum seekers in military barracks, which is a position in line with Greens in the Chamber and, in fact, all major refugee rights organisations. I wonder whether the Secretary of State would like to withdraw her grossly misleading remarks and baseless accusation of hypocrisy. \p Judith Cummins: I call Adnan Hussain, who I understand also has a point of order that relates to remarks made by the Home Secretary. \p Adnan Hussain: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. After my earlier intervention, the Home Secretary stated that she “should not be surprised to see the hon. Gentleman indulging in misinformation” in here. I take my responsibilities in this House extremely seriously. I am confident that every point I have raised was made in good faith, based on publicly available information, and was neither misleading nor inaccurate. May I therefore seek your guidance on how a Member may respond, or have the record clarified, when a Minister makes such characterisation without providing any evidence, clarification or correction, in particular where it risks implying dishonesty on the part of a Member who had no opportunity to respond further at that moment? \p Shabana Mahmood: I am happy to say to the hon. Gentleman that it was not misleading; it was just wrong, so I can clarify that for the record.

I say to the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) that I think it is a fair point of debate to point out that the Green party often indulges in hypocrisy. I shall look carefully at what her colleague has said in relation to the large military sites, but I say to her that the Green party never seems to offer any solution, only commentary that does not work. \p Judith Cummins: I thank both Members for their points of order. Their comments are now on the record. \p UNKNOWN: Considered in Committee

[Judith Cummins in the Chair] \p Judith Cummins: I remind Members that, in Committee, Members should not address the Chair as “Deputy Speaker”. Please use our names when addressing the Chair. “Madam Chair”, “Chair” and “Madam Chairman” are also acceptable. \p UNKNOWN: Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. \p Judith Cummins: With this it will be convenient to discuss to following:

Clauses 2 to 6 stand part.

Amendment 4, in clause 7, page 5, line 4, at end insert—

“A single report may be submitted for the purposes of sections 5(2)(c) and 6(3)(c), provided that any such single report meets the requirements in sections 5(3) and 6(4).”

This amendment would permit a single report to be provided to the Secretary of State for the purposes of fulfilling reporting requirements under clauses 5 and 6.

Clauses 7 to 11 stand part.

Amendment 5, in clause 12, page 9, line 2, at end insert—

“(aa) relating to the charging of fees under section 11(3)(c),”.

This amendment would require that any regulations enabling the Minister to set fees are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.

Clauses 12 and 13 stand part.

Government amendment 1.

Clause 14 stand part.

Government amendment 2.

Clauses 15 to 23 stand part.

Government amendment 3.

Clauses 24 to 26 stand part.

New clause 1—Powers of the Secretary of State: review—

“(1) Within three years beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the exercise of powers conferred on them by virtue of this Act.

(2) A report under this section must include—

(a) a description of the powers used,

(b) the purposes for which they have been used,

(c) an assessment of how effectively they have been used,

(d) an assessment of how their use accords with the objectives of the Agreement.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the exercise of powers conferred on them by this Bill.

New clause 2—Reporting requirements relating to the Act—

“(1) Before the end of the period of two years beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, and at least once every two years thereafter, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the implementation and enforcement of the Act.

(2) The report must include—

(a) data on access to samples;

(b) information relating to the number and nature of DSI views and downloads;

(c) information about the amount and nature of enforcement actions taken;

(d) an assessment of the impact of the Act on business, scientific research, and the fishing industry;

(e) a summary of any regulatory changes made under the Act;

(f) an assessment of the impact of any such regulatory changes.”

This new clause would require the secretary of state to lay a report before Parliament every two years on the effect and enforcement of the Act.

Schedule. \p Seema Malhotra: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Madam Chair, and to open this debate in Committee of the whole House on the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill.

Before turning to the detail of the clauses and of the amendments that stand in my name, I want to underline why it is so important that this House sends a clear signal today by progressing this legislation. This Bill will, along with subsequent secondary legislation, enable the United Kingdom to implement obligations in the United Nations biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement into UK law, and enable us to move towards ratification of this historic agreement.

The House may also have seen that the BBNJ agreement was recognised by the Prince of Wales’s Earthshot Prize Council last week, which is a testament to the broad support for it. The BBNJ agreement is the culmination of nearly two decades of international negotiations. The agreement covers roughly two thirds of the world’s ocean, which is home to ecosystems that regulate our climate, support fisheries, drive weather patterns and sustain the livelihoods of millions around the world. \p Jim Shannon: It is such an important subject, and I appreciate the opportunity to ask a question on behalf of those I represent who are involved in fishing. The Bill and the international treaty it implements will affect the fishing industry primarily through the creation of marine protected areas and through the imposition of stricter environmental impact assessments. Does the Minister agree that this means engagement with our fishing sector is essential, and can she confirm that the viability of fishing and food security will be a priority for this Government? \p Seema Malhotra: The hon. Member will know from previous conversations that we continue to engage with the fishing industry on all areas of policy. Fishing falls outside the scope of the Bill, but it is important that the Government maintain that dialogue. \p Jeremy Corbyn: I welcome and support the Bill, which is an important step forward. It is a shame that it was not passed before the election so that it could have been dealt with in the wash-up of the previous Parliament. Will the Minister assure us that  the Government will provide the necessary resources, and that the UN agencies are sufficiently funded, to ensure that this law becomes an effective protection for the natural world and the oceans that we all rely on? \p Seema Malhotra: As the right hon. Member will have seen—I know that he has studied the Bill closely—we are looking to implement our obligations in line with many existing obligations. It has been important for us to hear from scientists and other involved parties that there should be no extra burdens and that we should consider how to move forward together. When we ratify the agreement, we will be party to the Conference of the Parties and able to participate in how future decisions are made. That will be important to understanding how the UK can incorporate decisions efficiently, effectively and with the fewest possible resources. \p Tom Hayes: I welcome the Bill’s enhancement of biodiversity and the protection of our oceans and natural world. How will the Bill help to unlock innovation in marine science? \p Seema Malhotra: I will come to that later in my remarks. My hon. Friend makes a good point. Ratifying the agreement will also make it easier to share the benefits of research more widely and efficiently. That will allow those who might not be able to carry out such research themselves to use it and consider where innovations might be made. That is an important benefit of the Bill.

The Bill is the culmination of nearly two decades of international negotiations. The agreement represents a once-in-a-generation step forward in ocean governance, to ensure that areas beyond national jurisdiction are managed sustainably, transparently and equitably. Through the Bill, the United Kingdom will be able to play its full part in that effort. It will allow our scientists, companies and research institutions to participate confidently in the new frameworks on marine genetic resources, to contribute to the development of area-based management tools, and to meet international standards on environmental impact assessments in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Royal Assent early next year—subject to time in the House—will place the UK in a strong position to ratify the agreement and to take its seat at the first Conference of the Parties, which is expected to be in the second half of 2026. It is vital that the UK is at that table. \p Carla Denyer: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way as she speaks about the importance of the UK taking global leadership. I welcome the Bill, but will the Minister complement it and show global leadership by announcing a new international taskforce dedicated specifically to protecting at least 30% of the Atlantic ocean by 2030? \p Seema Malhotra: The hon. Lady will know that that is outside the scope of the Bill, but the measures will protect the world’s oceans—as I have said, the agreement covers roughly two thirds of them. Indeed, in all areas of our international work, we do all we can for the environment around the world. \p Matt Rodda: Will my hon. Friend give way? \p Seema Malhotra: I will make a bit of progress—I thank my hon. Friend for his patience.

The Bill is divided into five parts. Parts 2, 3 and 4 align directly with three operational pillars of the BBNJ agreement: marine genetic resources, area-based management tools, and environmental impact assessments. I will address the Government amendments and clauses stand part now, but I will address the Opposition amendments in my closing remarks, so that I have had an opportunity to hear the shadow Minister’s contribution.

Part 1 sets out the definitions that underpin the rest of the Bill. Given that those definitions will be discussed at some length today, I say for the benefit of the Committee that “areas beyond national jurisdiction” comprise the high seas—waters beyond exclusive economic zones—and the area, meaning the seabed and subsoil beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, and “marine genetic resources” are defined as any marine material containing functional units of heredity of actual or potential value. Those definitions mirror the agreement and ensure consistency between domestic law and our international obligations. Clause 20 provides definitions for terms that are used in the Bill but not defined elsewhere in it.

In part 2, clauses 2 to 10 implement the provisions of the agreement relating to marine genetic resources. The provisions promote transparency in the collection and utilisation of marine genetic resources of areas beyond national jurisdiction and associated digital sequence information, and provide the building blocks for benefit sharing.

Clauses 2 and 3 create reporting obligations for individuals collecting marine genetic resources using UK craft and for those utilising those resources and associated digital sequence information. Information must be provided to the Secretary of State before and after collection, and information about the results of utilisation should be provided in accordance with the schedule. Clause 4 provides that the Secretary of State may transmit to the BBNJ clearing house mechanism the information provided on collection and utilisation, unless it is protected from disclosure under domestic law. Those clauses are designed to implement the UK’s obligation on information sharing, with the clearing house mechanism facilitating transparency and helping us to deliver on our obligations while protecting information that is not to be shared.

Clauses 5 to 7 impose duties on those managing repositories that hold marine genetic resources from areas beyond national jurisdiction, or databases of digital sequence information on those resources. They must ensure that samples or data can be identified as originating from areas beyond national jurisdiction, provide access, and submit biennial reports. Clause 8 sets out exceptions from the requirements of part 2 in respect of fishing and fishing-related activities, military activities, and military vessels and aircraft, as well as anything done in Antarctica, the marine genetic resources of Antarctica, and the digital sequence information of such resources. The Committee will be aware that this is because the Southern ocean is governed by the Antarctic treaty system, which was part of the debate we had on Second Reading.

Clause 9 provides the Secretary of State with regulation-making powers, including those necessary to implement the UK’s future obligations under part 2 of the agreement. Given that the conference of the parties may adopt  further measures once the agreement enters into force, those powers are essential to ensure that the UK can respond in a timely and appropriate manner. The clause also allows for provision for any enforcement of those requirements imposed by or under part 2 of the Bill. We will ensure that there is ample time for scrutiny of additional measures that may be brought in under secondary legislation.

Finally, clause 10 requires guidance to be published in relation to the above-mentioned provisions on marine genetic resources. Those will be prepared by the national focal point in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and will provide practical illustrations to help institutions and researchers understand the requirements placed on them. The guidance developed will also be laid before Parliament. Taken together, these measures create a clear, proportionate and internationally aligned system that allows UK researchers to continue their world-leading work with confidence, meeting the requirements of the Bill and, in turn, allowing the UK to meet its obligations under the BBNJ agreement. \p Jeremy Corbyn: The Antarctic treaty, which was long and hard fought for in this House and other places, has been important and, generally speaking, very successful. But there are issues about the increasing access to the Antarctic, the pollution that this causes and the need to clean up after the substantial number of visitors that go there at present. Is the Minister confident that the resources will be available to ensure that the Antarctic treaty is fully adhered to? \p Seema Malhotra: The right hon. Member will be aware that the UK also made a declaration upon the signature of the BBNJ agreement stating that the Antarctic treaty system comprehensively addresses the legal, political and environmental considerations that are unique to that region, and provides a comprehensive framework for the international management of the Antarctic. It is important to recognise that it is also about the international management of the Antarctic, to which we are committed as part of the international community. I thank the right hon. Member for his comments.

In part 3 of the Bill, clauses 11 to 13 implement the provisions relating to area-based management tools, including areas beyond national jurisdiction designated as marine protected areas. Clause 11 contains provision for the Secretary of State to be able to make regulations to implement decisions adopted by the BBNJ conference of the parties under part 3 of the agreement. Many activities under UK jurisdiction or control in areas beyond national jurisdiction, such as fishing, are already regulated domestically, and where existing powers suffice, the clause 11 power will not be needed. However, where new measures are adopted by the conference of the parties, where they require additional controls or restrictions, the clause ensures that the UK has the necessary legislative mechanisms to comply. Clause 12 sets out the parliamentary procedure for regulations made under clause 11.

Clause 13 provides a power for the Secretary of State to issue directions to UK craft, without the need for secondary legislation in order to implement emergency procedures adopted by the conference of the parties. As emergency procedures may require immediate action to prevent serious harm to marine biodiversity, regulations alone may not provide sufficient responsiveness. The clause enables swift operational steps, such as directing vessels  to avoid a particular area. Clause 13 is modelled on existing direction-making powers available to the Secretary of State’s representative under schedule 3A to the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. Given the nature of any scenarios that could arise, it is power-limited in scope and emergency in nature.

Part 3 of the Bill ensures that the UK can meet its obligations and exercise leadership in protecting ecologically important areas beyond national jurisdiction. \p Matt Rodda: The Minister is making an excellent speech, and I pay tribute to her work and that of the Government in showing UK leadership in this important environmental area. Could she also briefly touch on the importance of working in a multilateral way with partners from around the world, and—perhaps she will move on to this point later in her speech—could she outline how the UK will work with other countries to protect these areas and carry out other important work? \p Seema Malhotra: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that this is an area where obviously no nation can work on its own. It has to be done through being influential on the world stage, working through and with the UN, and with our international partners and other nations. Indeed, through the course of all of our conversations, be that in the FCDO, DEFRA or other Departments, we maintain dialogue on this and other important matters in relation to our environment and climate impact around the world. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue, because it is another example of where being outward facing as a nation, as this Government have chosen to do, is incredibly important for not just what we achieve at home but our responsibilities on the world stage.

I will make some progress on part 4 of the Bill. Clauses 4 to 19 implement the environmental impact assessment provisions of the agreement, where relevant to marine licencing, and ensure that UK marine-licensable activities and areas beyond national jurisdiction are subject to the appropriate level of scrutiny. Clause 14 amends the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 to ensure it can be used effectively to regulate planned UK activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Government amendment 1—a minor amendment—has been tabled to omit the heading “on the continental shelf”, which will adjust the 2009 Act so it more accurately reflects the content of this section, including the section that is amended by clause 14 in part 4 of the Bill.

Clause 15 updates the Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007 to bring them into alignment with the BBNL agreement. Government amendment 2 would add “or person” to subsection (5)(b) as a minor clarificatory amendment to the regulations. Clause 16 allows regulations to be made to implement the standards and guidelines adopted by the Conference of the Parties under article 38 of the BBNJ agreement. Clauses 17 and 18 ensure that equivalent provisions exist for Scotland, amending the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010, and enabling Scottish Ministers to make regulations where it is a devolved competence, and to implement environmental impact assessment obligations for Scottish regulated marine activities.

Clause 19 amends the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, to ensure that any future environmental outcomes reports can apply to licensable activities in areas beyond  national jurisdiction. The BBNJ environmental impact assessment provisions closely replicate our existing domestic arrangements for marine licensing, which operators are familiar with. These are minor technical changes to align our existing regime with BBNJ processes. Together the provisions deliver a coherent and modernised framework for assessing and mitigating the environmental impact of activities linked to the United Kingdom on the high seas.

In part 5, clauses 20 to 25 contain technical and standard legislative provisions, including key definitions relating to the Bill. Clause 21 provides a power for the Secretary of State, via secondary legislation, to make changes to legislation that may be required because of provisions in the Bill. Clauses 22 and 23 cover the making of regulations, and Crown application. Clause 24 provides that the Bill extends to the whole United Kingdom, with the exception of clauses 17 and 18, which extend to Scotland only. Some obligations in the Bill relate to devolved matters, including environmental protection and scientific research. The legislative consent motion process is therefore engaged for Scotland and Northern Ireland, to varying extents, by parts 2, 3 and 4 of the Bill. We are in the process of seeking legislative consent, and we expect motions in the Scottish Parliament and Northern Ireland Assembly to be passed by the final stages of the Bill in the House of Lords. Clause 24 also provides for the future extension of any provisions in the Bill, with or without modifications, to British overseas territories.

The Government sought the consent of the Crown dependencies for that permissive extent clause to apply to them, enabling the extension of the Bill to those jurisdictions in the future. As the Isle of Man consented to its inclusion in the permissive extent clause, the Government tabled amendment 3 in Committee to insert that into the Bill. \p Sarah Champion: I welcome this Bill. As chair of the Channel Islands all-party group, I was interested that the Minister tabled an amendment that covered just the Isle of Man. Before the Bill goes to the other place, could her officials please consult the Channel Islands one last time to make sure that they do not also need to be included in the Bill? \p Seema Malhotra: I thank my hon. Friend for her comments, and yes we will continue those conversations with the Channel Islands.

To conclude, provisions in the Bill would be extended only to British overseas territories and the Isle of Man with their agreement. Clause 25 sets out when most of the Bill’s provisions come into force, and gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations to appoint entry into force and dates for other provisions. In summary, the Bill provides the legal foundation for the United Kingdom’s participation in the new global regime for protecting biodiversity on the high seas. It will enable us to fulfil our international commitments, provide certainty to our scientific and research communities, and demonstrate once again the UK’s leadership in marine conservation. I commend the Bill to the Committee, and look forward to engaging with hon. Members during the debate. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the shadow Minister. \p Andrew Rosindell: Thank you Madam Chair. It is a privilege, as always, to serve under your chairmanship. I am pleased to speak to the amendments tabled in my name and to those of His Majesty’s Government. I thank the Minister for her detailed explanation of the Bill, which we will all agree has been extremely helpful.

The Bill is a significant measure and commands broad support across the House. In plain English, if implemented correctly, the measures in the Bill could play a major part in protecting the two thirds of our planet that lie beyond any one nation’s control.

As I said on Second Reading, the United Kingdom has a proud record of global leadership in ocean conservation. Our island nation boasts the greatest maritime explorers and conservationists in history. I believe that we have always seen the oceans, which have been key to our national and international success story, as treasures that require protection.

However, as with all international frameworks, even those that are without controversy and especially those that confer upon our Ministers prerogative powers, the details really matter. The amendments proposed by His Majesty’s Opposition are by no means intended to undermine the Bill. Instead, they seek to strengthen it by ensuring that Parliament remains properly informed, ministerial powers are exercised accountably, and the new regulatory burdens placed on British science and industry are managed in a proportionate way.

The first of the amendments in my name relates to clause 7, which deals with reporting requirements under clauses 5 and 6 of the Bill. Those clauses concern, respectively, priorities of marine genetic resources and databases of digital sequence information. As drafted, clause 7 requires a separate report to be provided to the Secretary of State every two years from each repository and each database, detailing the number of times samples or data have been accessed, viewed or downloaded. Our amendment, simple though it may seem, would allow those two reports to be combined into a single report, provided that all the necessary information is fully included. It is a modest step to reduce duplication and unnecessary bureaucracy.

Many institutions, whether they be our universities, the Natural History Museum or the National Oceanography Centre, among many other institutions in this country, will operate both repositories and databases. It makes no sense to require two separate reports when a single consolidated report could serve exactly the same function. The scientists of our island home lead the world in marine biodiversity research. We should ensure that compliance with this new regime is as straightforward as possible, while still meeting our obligations under the agreement. The amendment, therefore, aims to strike a sensible balance between upholding the requisite protections prescribed by the treaty, while ensuring that we do not unnecessarily hinder our researchers, especially those belonging to smaller enterprises or university projects. I hope that the Minister will view it in that way.

Our second amendment introduces new clause 1, “Powers of the Secretary of State: review”, which would require the Secretary of State, within three years of the  Act coming into force, to lay before Parliament a report on the exercise of the powers conferred by the Bill. The report would describe how those powers have been used, for what purposes, and, crucially, how effectively they have been implemented. It would also assess whether the use of those powers has aligned with the objectives of the international agreement itself

We live in a nation where Parliament is sovereign. While I respect that this is not a unique case, nevertheless Parliament is owed the right to proper scrutiny. The Bill grants extensive powers to the Secretary of State: powers to make regulations that could amend primary legislation, impose civil sanctions and even create new offences. Clauses 9 and 11, in particular, confer broad regulatory authority to implement future decisions of the international conference of the parties. It is entirely appropriate that Parliament should have the opportunity, after a period of operation, to review how those powers have been used. We have seen in other fields that delegated powers can expand far beyond what Parliament originally intended, so a statutory review clause would ensure that we learn from experience and recalibrate if necessary.

New clause 2 would enhance trust and, I think, trust in the treaty itself. The general public and Parliament want assurance that international obligations are implemented in the interests that have been set out by international agreements and, importantly, in our own national interest, and that the Government remain answerable to this House for the way in which they do so. I believe a report after three years is hardly an onerous expectation. It would create a constructive means of evaluating whether the mechanisms in the Bill are working as intended and strengthen rather than hinder the effectiveness of this legislation.

Amendment 5 concerns clause 12, which sets out the procedure for regulations under clause 11. Clause 11 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations in response to decisions taken by the conference of the parties under the agreement, including in relation to area-based management tools, such as marine protected areas, and emergency measures under article 24. Clause 11(3)(c) specifically allows the Secretary of State to charge fees in connection with the exercise of functions under those regulations. However, as currently drafted the Bill does not require those fee-setting regulations to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Our amendment would correct that and ensure that any regulations enabling the Minister to set fees are subject to a level of parliamentary scrutiny.

Fees are in effect a form of taxation. They may affect universities, research institutes and private companies engaged in marine science or biotechnology. The sums may not be vast, but they are nevertheless material. It is only right that Parliament should have the chance to debate and, if necessary, amend or reject such regulations before they take effect. The affirmative procedure is a reasonable safeguard, and I hope the Government will agree.

Finally, I turn to new clause 2, which would require biennial reporting on the implementation and enforcement of the Bill. Under this proposal, the Secretary of State would be required to lay before Parliament a report every two years, beginning within two years of enactment, detailing how the Bill is being implemented and enforced. The report would include data on access to samples and digital sequence information; information on the number  and nature of the enforcement actions; an assessment of the impact of the Bill on business, scientific research and the fishing industry; a summary of any regulatory changes made under the Bill; and an assessment of the impact of those changes. The intention of the new clause is to keep Parliament and the public informed about how this complex framework works in practice.

This Bill touches on sensitive and wide-ranging interests, such as environmental protection, scientific innovation, intellectual property and economic activity on the high seas. It is right that we protect biodiversity, but we must also ensure that the UK remains a place where science and enterprise can flourish, as they always have done before. Regular reporting would help us to understand whether the balance is being struck correctly.

Are our scientists able to conduct research without being bogged down in excessive paperwork? Are our marine industries able to operate competitively while meeting environmental standards? Those questions need to be answered. Are our enforcement agencies adequately resourced? That is another important question the Minister needs to reassure the House on. These are legitimate questions that will inevitably deserve answers. I believe that such transparency would demonstrate leadership internationally. The UK has always prided itself on being a model of good governance. By voluntarily reporting on our own implementation of the agreement, we can encourage other nations to do likewise.

I should also mention the position of the overseas territories and Crown dependencies. Clause 24 allows the Bill to be extended to the overseas territories, and Government amendment 3 would permit it to be extended to the Crown dependency of the Isle of Man. I thank the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for mentioning this point. These jurisdictions often have unique marine environments and, more importantly, unique constitutional arrangements, so any extension must be preceded by full consultation. I hope that the Minister can give assurances today that such consultation will take place before any orders are made, and that the Government will work with the Governments of the Crown dependencies and the overseas territory Administrations—they are elected Governments in our wider British family—to tailor the regime to their circumstances.

In conclusion, our amendments share the aim of strengthening this Bill by ensuring proportionate oversight and clear accountability to Parliament and the British public. They would ensure that Parliament remains properly informed; that ministerial powers are exercised transparently; and that our world-leading scientists and industries can comply with the new regime without unnecessary bureaucratic burden. Far from hindering the Bill, our amendments would bolster its credibility and effectiveness, supporting our international obligations and, crucially, our British national interests. On that basis, I commend them to the House. \p Amanda Martin: It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. I want to speak on this Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill both as the Member for a coastal community, and as someone who is truly fortunate to have dedicated environmental campaigners locally. I want to thank one constituent in particular, Viola. Her emails  cover everything from ocean acidification to regenerative farming and the health of our chalk streams. Although I cannot always provide the answers that she needs, I thank her for her valued, informed and tireless campaigning.

Much of what Viola raises is exactly why this Bill matters. It matters for the important issues of pollution, harmful algae blooms in Langstone harbour, and the need to protect local bird species and our drinking water. We must be proactive on ocean heating, bottom trawling and the worrying tipping points we face in ocean acidification, as well as on regenerative farming, reducing pesticides, and protecting soil health, so that rivers, seas and pollinators can recover. Although this Bill focuses on biodiversity beyond the national jurisdiction, the principle is the same. What happens in our oceans—from the south coast to the high seas—affects us all. That is why the Government have tabled amendments to strengthen the Bill and provide clarity and accountability.

I particularly note Government amendment 1, which updates section 81 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 so that it accurately reflects the extended conservation responsibilities created by this legislation. This may seem technical, but accuracy matters, especially when we are embedding in law stronger protections for vulnerable marine ecosystems, including those far beyond our waters. Through this Bill, we will ensure that the UK plays a serious, leading role in implementing the high seas treaty, tackling the over-exploitation of shared oceans, and improving transparency and reporting. Government amendment 2, which tightens the environmental impact assessment provisions, will help to ensure that the framework that we set up is robust, enforceable, and capable of delivering real biodiversity gains beyond our borders.

While stakeholders may not always agree on how best to align planning reforms with environmental goals, we have a shared mission to restore nature, not merely preserve what is left. This Bill is one part of that mission. By strengthening the UK’s hand in protecting biodiversity on the high seas, the Bill reinforces the protection we all want to see everywhere from Langstone harbour to Antarctica. It demonstrates leadership and this Government’s commitment to restoring nature on every scale. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Roz Savage: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. I am honoured to support the passage of this Bill, along with my Liberal Democrat colleagues. It is a real pleasure to see people across the House who have been long-time champions for the ocean. Many people would have liked to have been here tonight, but are forced to be absent by COP30. They will be watching from afar and wishing us well.

I thank the Minister for taking us in detail through the provisions of the Bill, and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), for setting out his amendments. It perhaps falls to me to remind those in the House and beyond of just how significant a step this Bill takes. It may not be enough to save the oceans from their catastrophic decline in health, but it is certainly a big step in the right direction.

The oceans cover two thirds of the planet. The high seas—the areas of the ocean beyond national jurisdictions —make up nearly half the world’s surface and much of its liveable volume. Up until now, they have existed in a legal grey zone, vulnerable to exploitation, and they certainly have been egregiously exploited. The high seas are essential to life not just in the seas, but on dry land, too. With this Bill, the UK finally places itself in a position to uphold the new global agreement to protect ocean biodiversity. It is long overdue and much damage has been done, but it is none the less deeply welcome.

We often speak about forests and land ecosystems, yet the ocean is the Earth’s most powerful driving force, regulating our climate, generating oxygen, absorbing carbon and heat, feeding billions, sustaining cultures and anchoring our weather systems. As anyone who has spent much time out there knows, the ocean’s power is matched only by its fragility. During my crossings of the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans, I came to understand the sea in an intimate way. Alone in a small boat, weeks or months from the nearest coast, you are immersed in the rhythms of the ocean, with its long rolling swells, the astonishing wildlife that appears from the deep, and the immense silence that settles when the wind drops away to nothing. At times, the ocean felt overwhelmingly powerful, and at others unexpectedly tender.

The lessons that I learned on the ocean have stayed with me, especially the lesson that survival depends not on domination, but on partnership. It is not survival of the fittest; it is about the species that fits in best with its surrounding ecosystem. Humans would do well to remember that. That is why I am particularly heartened to see that today we have genuine cross-party alignment. When Parliament chooses collaboration over confrontation, we show what is possible. It echoes the spirit that I felt when I first introduced the Climate and Nature Bill earlier this year, and I give huge credit to my co-sponsors, a genuinely cross-party group of Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem, Green, SNP and Plaid Cymru MPs. That consensus across the House was based on the understanding that long-term environmental policy works only when it transcends party politics, rather than being used as a political football. I am proud that the Climate and Nature Bill campaign contributed to the ratification of this treaty, and I commend the Government on following through on their promise to all the hard-working campaigners.

We must recognise the headwinds internationally and domestically. Some voices are questioning climate ambition, watering down commitments or treating environmental progress as optional. We cannot afford that drift. Climate and ocean policy must be future-proofed against short-term politics. Nature does not bend to electoral cycles. \p Al Pinkerton: As my hon. Friend well knows, 94% of the UK’s biodiversity lies within the waters of our overseas territories. Just north of the Falkland Islands is the so-called blue hole, an area of unregulated fishing beyond national jurisdiction. It is an area where trackers are turned off and illegal fishing takes place. Does she agree that the ratification of the BBNJ agreement may provide the opportunity—the common cause—to tackle intractable geopolitical issues  that have led to that lack of regulation, and may point to a way forward for the international co-operation of which she speaks? \p Roz Savage: I agree with my hon. Friend that the treaty can help to provide clarity about previously unregulated areas. Many countries have already ratified it, which shows that ocean conservation really can unite us where, in the past, there has been disunity.

While I welcome the speed with which the Government have introduced the Bill following the Climate and Nature Bill, thus giving us a seat at the table at the first ever ocean COP next year, it is a little disappointing that the UK was not one of the first 60 nations to ratify the agreement. We hope to be a country that leads on climate diplomacy, so we should not arrive late at the crucial environmental treaty of the decade. While many of our colleagues are in Belém, and with the world preparing for that first ocean COP, the UK must demonstrate not only that it supports global ocean governance in theory, but that it is prepared to deliver it in practice. It is also vital to recognise that the health of our oceans depends on the health of our land-based environment; one cannot heal without the help of the other. We need to decrease our carbon emissions on land if we are to slow ocean acidification, which threatens plankton, ecosystem health, and the millions of people whose lives and livelihoods depend on the ocean.

This responsibility starts at home. That is why the Liberal Democrats have long been pushing for the strongest possible marine environmental targets, both domestically and internationally. If we want credibility internationally, we need coherence domestically. Our own marine protected areas must live up to their name, which means ending destructive practices such as bottom trawling and implementing a clear, science-driven ocean strategy that rises above and goes beyond departmental silos and party-political lines. A strong stance on the high seas will ring hollow if our waters remain vulnerable. The public understand that, the environmental community understand it, and I know that many Members on both sides of the House understand it too. I join my Liberal Democrat colleagues in calling for a coherent oceans policy that joins up our commitment to international waters with stronger protections at home.

As I draw to a close—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I am getting there! Let me just say this. If we choose to pursue a strategy of high ambition, the UK can once again be a leader in global ocean protection, championing the first generation of high-seas sanctuaries, pushing for robust monitoring and enforcement, supporting small island states, and ensuring that the benefits of marine science are shared fairly. So yes, the Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill. It enables the UK to participate fully in the new regime for marine scientific resources, for marine protected areas, and for stronger environmental impact assessments. It is necessary, but it is not sufficient. The work that follows will determine its true legacy, and I trust that the Government will continue to draw on the support and perspectives of Members on both sides of the House to secure the wellbeing of the oceans for generations to come. \p Jeremy Corbyn: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage). Every time she describes her ocean journeys, I think of that wonderful  poem “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner” by Coleridge, which she must have repeated to herself dozens of times while pulling on those oars.

I repeat, very briefly, my welcome for this good Bill, which will hopefully lead to much greater protection for the oceans. However, I want to ask the Minister to respond to one question. Over the years, we have been through all kinds of arguments about Antarctica, from the original Thatcherite concept of mineral extraction to, much later, the protection of the whole continent and the seas around it. On the whaling industry that was, is the Minister satisfied that there are sufficient protections, including for the whales that have survived, and for the growth in their numbers? There are still endless reports of illegal whaling on the continent, particularly by Japan but also by other countries.

The hon. Member for South Cotswolds rightly raised the issue of plastic pollution. There are many wonderful schemes to try to clean up the plastic island in the Pacific ocean and ensure that the plastic is recycled in a proper manner. That is good, and we hope that it will be clean by 2040. The problem, as I understand it, is that two thirds of the plastic is actually under the ocean and not on the surface. Therefore, something else has to be done, but crucially, it is up to us to decide how much plastic flows into the oceans through our rivers, through dumping and through illegal activities. It is the responsibility of our water industry and sewage disposal system to ensure that plastic does not flow into the ocean.

The point that has been made about bottom-trawling and overfishing of the oceans is absolutely true. That is why I asked about the resources that this Government and other Governments will have to enforce this piece of legislation. There are massive commercial interests involved in overfishing, in pollution, in dropping plastic in the ocean and so much more. There is an inequality of resources, and the powerful commercial interests that have done so much damage to our oceans and to fish stocks are not met by the equivalent resources of the public for either monitoring what is going on or cleaning up after them. I hope that the Minister will understand that this is not a criticism of the Bill—it is very much in support of the Bill—but if the resources are not there to monitor and correct what is going on in our oceans, we will not have achieved what we should have. \p Barry Gardiner: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the most important things the Government can do at COP1 when it meets next year is to establish a regime with the other members of the conference of the parties on how enforcement of the new treaty will take place? \p Jeremy Corbyn: Absolutely. That is a very good intervention, and I completely agree with the hon. Member on that point. We have to bring into the enforcement regime those countries that are the worst polluters, the ones that are most guilty of overfishing and those that are most guilty of turning a blind eye to fishing companies that do that. It is not an easy gig, but it is very important to do it. If we do not do it, fish stocks will reduce, biodiversity will reduce and pollution will get worse. Ultimately, those who eat fish will be eating plastic fish. \p Seema Malhotra: In the interests of time, I will do my best to come back to Members on the amendments they have spoken to. The contributions from the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) and my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) showed the importance of a healthy marine ecosystem that underpins global fisheries and climate regulation. The BBNJ agreement is an essential step towards protecting marine biodiversity and the creation of marine protected areas in areas beyond national jurisdiction.

I will speak briefly about the amendments tabled by the shadow Minister and our reasons for not supporting them. I recognise his point about reducing burdens, which is on all our minds, and I thank him for tabling his amendments. However, the Government consider that amendment 4 is not necessary, as the ability to provide a single report already exists. If the person who controls the repository on which a report is required is the same person who controls the database on which a report is required, there is nothing in the Bill that prevents them from providing a single report covering both elements. I hope that is of some reassurance to the hon. Gentleman.

On new clause 1, I think it would be helpful to say that as we do not currently know when or if the powers in the Bill will be used, we believe that our approach of a post-implementation review after five years provides the necessary flexibility to review the implementation of the Bill at a more appropriate point. We therefore do not think that new clause 1, tabled by the shadow Minister, is needed.

On amendment 5, the purpose of the enabling provision for the charging of fees under clause 11(3)(c) is to allow for the recovery of costs associated with the carrying out of functions. This is standard practice to ensure effective use of public money, as set out in the Treasury’s “Managing Public Money” guidance. Regulations made under clause 11 that amend an Act of Parliament, create a civil sanction or vary the maximum amount of a monetary penalty, and so on, are regulations that also contain provision for the charging of fees, which are already made by the affirmative procedure. The shadow Minister may not have been aware of that detail, but I hope it will reassure him.

On new clause 2, we believe that the consequences of the various reporting requirements it would introduce would be disproportionate to the value it would provide. There is also a risk that it would duplicate existing processes, misalign with the international reporting cycle and increase the burden on entities providing information in the reports.

Finally, it may help to reassure the shadow Minister if I say that engagement with scientific stakeholders suggests that the notification and other requirements are unlikely to impose a significant burden. Indeed, the BBNJ agreement will benefit the scientific community by encouraging information sharing and supporting scientific and technological development. I hope that reassures him that we have considered his amendments and that we have reason for not supporting them.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment proposed: 4, page 5, line 4, at end insert—

“A single report may be submitted for the purposes of sections 5(2)(c) and 6(3)(c), provided that any such single report meets the requirements in sections 5(3) and 6(4).”—(Andrew Rosindell.)

This amendment would permit a single report to be provided to the Secretary of State for the purposes of fulfilling reporting requirements under clauses 5 and 6.

Question put, That the amendment be made. \p UNKNOWN: The Committee divided: Ayes 143, Noes 318.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clauses 7 to 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment proposed: 5, in clause 12, page 9, line 2, at end insert—

“(aa) relating to the charging of fees under section 11(3)(c),”—(Andrew Rosindell.)

This amendment would require that any regulations enabling the Minister to set fees are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.

Question put, That the amendment be made. \p UNKNOWN: The Committee divided: Ayes 147, Noes 318.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clauses 12 and 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment made: 1, page 11, line 8, at end insert—

“(za) in the heading omit “on the continental shelf”;”.—(Seema Malhotra.)

This amendment would adjust the heading of section 81 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 so that it more accurately reflects the content of the section, including as that section is amended by the current provisions in clause 14(4)(a) and (b) of the Bill.

Clause 14, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment made: 2, page 12, line 33, at end insert—

“(ba) in paragraph (3A)—

(i) after “(1)(b)” insert “or (1A)”;

(ii) at the end insert “or person”;”.— (Seema Malhotra.)

This amendment makes amendments to regulation 10(3A) of the Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007 that are consequential on the amendment made by clause 15(5).

Clause 15, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 16 to 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment made: 3, page 21, line 12, after “modifications,” insert

“to the Isle of Man or”.—(Seema Malhotra.)

This amendment would permit provisions of the Bill to be extended to the Isle of Man.

Clause 24, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 25 and 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Bill, as amended, reported.

Bill, as amended in the Committee, considered.

Third Reading \p Seema Malhotra: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

If there is one message that Members should take from today’s debate, it is that this Bill is essential—essential to protecting the ocean, advancing marine science and ensuring that the UK continues to lead ocean protection efforts on the international stage. This is a landmark piece of legislation. It will, along with the subsequent secondary legislation, enable the United Kingdom to ratify the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement to protect marine biodiversity in the two thirds of our ocean that lie beyond any one nation’s control.

The Bill means that the UK can play its full part in shaping a fair, science-based international system for areas beyond national jurisdiction, one that balances conservation, sustainable use and global collaboration. It delivers on our international commitments and ensures that British scientists, institutions and innovators remain at the forefront of ocean research and biotechnology.

Let me take this opportunity to thank Members across the House for their thoughtful contributions and scrutiny of the Bill at every stage. The work of the all-party parliamentary group for the ocean and of environment Committees has been crucial to keeping the Bill high on the agenda. I am grateful to those who spoke on Second Reading, have taken part in the Committee of the whole House and have engaged constructively throughout. I would also like to thank my hon. Friend the Minister for Water and Flooding for her support throughout the passage of the Bill.

I also thank officials from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Transport, whose expertise, along with that of parliamentary draftspeople and other officials across Government, has underpinned the Bill. I thank, too, the devolved Governments for their engagement on the Bill and legislative consent processes. Finally, I acknowledge the scientific community, from the National Oceanography Centre to the National History Museum, and our universities, which have been pivotal in presenting the need for this legislation.

Let us be clear why this Bill matters. The ocean regulates our climate. It sustains global fisheries. It provides half the oxygen on Earth. Protecting it is not just an environmental choice; it is an economic, scientific and moral imperative. The previous Government began this process by signing the BBNJ agreement in 2023, but they delayed bringing forward legislation. This Government are now finishing the job, taking the necessary steps to implement their obligations in UK law and to ratify the treaty.

By passing this Bill, the House will send a clear message that the United Kingdom will continue to lead the world in the protection of our shared ocean, that we stand with our partners to deliver a healthy, sustainable ocean and that we will do so grounded in science and international co-operation. This is our responsibility today and for future generations. For those reasons, I commend the Bill to the House. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the shadow Minister. \p Andrew Rosindell: I thank the Minister for guiding the Bill through Parliament and echo her thanks to all those involved in its passage. I am pleased about the cross-party agreement on the Bill—that is as it should be.

On behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition, I state my support for the core purpose of the Bill. It is right that we act to safeguard the biodiversity of the high seas, promote the fair and equitable sharing of benefits from marine genetic resources, and establish clear assessment and management tools to prevent harm to the ocean environment. It was on that basis that, as has been acknowledged, the previous Conservative Government played a key role in negotiating the treaty in the first place. The United Kingdom should meet the obligations prescribed in the treaty, with the leadership for which we are known around the world. As an island nation with a proud maritime heritage stretching back centuries, we understand better than most nations the value and the vulnerability of our oceans.

However, although the Bill enables us to fulfil our treaty commitments, it also assigns wide-ranging powers to Ministers to implement future decisions taken by international bodies—decisions that could, in time, have significant implications for British science, industry and innovation. Parliament must retain the ability to scrutinise, question and, where appropriate, challenge the use of those powers. That was the spirit behind our amendments, reflecting the fundamental principle that international co-operation must never come at the expense of proper democratic oversight by this House.

The United Kingdom’s long-established record as a custodian of the seas is strengthened by the extraordinary biodiversity of our overseas territories. The Blue Belt initiative—which includes many of our territories, including Pitcairn, Anguilla, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, the Falkland Islands and the British Indian Ocean Territory—has rightly made Britain a global leader in marine protection. I therefore welcome the Bill’s application to the overseas territories under clause 20—and now, through the Government amendment to clause 24, to the Isle of Man—but proper consultation with those territories and dependencies, which is essential, has been starkly absent from the Government’s shameful handling of the Chagos Islands. Our overseas territories are part of the British family and deserve to be treated with the respect and consideration that such a relationship demands.

The challenge of protecting the oceans is neither partisan nor subject to open conflict between nations. Our seas sustain every nation, and the success of such co-operation on the high seas will depend on the integrity of domestic implementation. If we are to lead internationally, we must first put our own house firmly in order, as we are doing in passing the Bill.

As we send this Bill to the other place, I hope that the Government will reflect on the constructive contributions made from across the House and ensure that the final Bill upholds our environmental responsibilities and our democratic principles. Britain can and must lead by example. We owe it to future generations to get this right. As Sir David Attenborough said:

“If we save the sea, we save our world.”

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed. \p UNKNOWN: [Relevant document: First Report of the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, Appointment of IPSA Board Members (Former Member and Statutory Auditor), HC 1426.]

Resolved,

That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that His Majesty will appoint Sir Charles Walker KBE to the office of ordinary member of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority for a period of five years with effect from 1 January 2026.—(Sir Alan Campbell.)

Resolved,

That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that His Majesty will appoint Mr Manbhinder Rana to the office of ordinary member of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority for a period of five years with effect from 11 January 2026. —(Sir Alan Campbell.) \p UNKNOWN: [Relevant document: Fifth Report 2025 of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, Appointment of the Chair of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, HC 1401.]

Resolved,

That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that His Majesty will appoint Ms Beverley Smith as Chair of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England with effect from 1 January 2026 for the period ending on 31 December 2030.—(Sir Alan Campbell.) \p UNKNOWN: Ordered,

That the Measure passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, entitled Armed Forces Chaplains (Licensing) Measure (HC 1454), which was laid before this House on 11 November, be referred to a Delegated Legislation Committee.

That the Measure passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, entitled Abuse Redress Measure (HC 1455), which was laid before this House on 11 November, be referred to a Delegated Legislation Committee.—(Sir Alan Campbell.) \p Nusrat Ghani: With the leave of the House, I will take motions 7 to 10 together.

Ordered, \p UNKNOWN: That Helena Dollimore be discharged from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and Juliet Campbell be added. \p UNKNOWN: That Anna Gelderd and Alison Taylor be discharged from the Environmental Audit Committee and Alison Hume and Jonathan Davies be added. \p UNKNOWN: That Leigh Ingham be discharged from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and Mike Kane be added. \p UNKNOWN: That Claire Hughes be discharged from the Welsh Affairs Committee and Gerald Jones be added.—(Jessica Morden, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.) \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Christian Wakeford.) \p Dave Robertson: It is an honour and a privilege to lead this debate on Government support for the Clive Treacey safety checklist. I secured this debate in Clive’s name, and I want to start by telling the House a little bit about him. I did not have the pleasure of meeting Clive, so I am drawing here on the words of his family, who knew him best. Clive’s sister, and his father Michael, are in the Public Gallery this evening, and I am really glad that they are able to see proceedings. They have been tireless advocates for Clive, making sure that his voice is heard, and I hope that I can do their efforts justice tonight.

Clive was born in Lichfield, in my constituency, in 1969. He was soon diagnosed with a learning difficulty, and, between the ages of 8 and 10, with epilepsy. I will cover both those factors today. Sadly, they are important to understanding Clive’s death and the failures in care throughout his life, but they do not define what Clive’s life was. I want to ensure that the House hears who Clive was. Clive was a talented artist and gardener, gifted with a brush and able to make plants spring seemingly from nothing. He loved music, especially Elvis Presley, and was often singing and dancing—his family remember him as the life of the party. He wanted to work in a garden centre, helping to raise plants; to have his own home, close to family; to own a cat; to learn to drive; and to go on holiday to Blackpool and Somerset. Clive was as devoted to his family as they were to him. He was known as the family calendar, never forgetting a card for a birthday, Christmas, Easter or any other reason. Clive’s sister Elaine says that her brother was

“engaging, humorous, gentle, and loving”.

His parents, Pauline and Michael, have said his heart “knew no bounds”, and describe their son’s “magical qualities” throughout his life. In all the accounts of Clive, his love and optimism shine through.

Clive passed away in 2017 at just 47 years of age, after a seizure caused by his epilepsy brought on cardiac arrest. This is known as SUDEP—sudden unexpected death in epilepsy. Clive had been living in residential placements for years up until that point, moving often. Before he died, Clive’s family had become worried about his deteriorating health—and, tragically, so had Clive. He left a message on his dad’s phone, which was not received until some days after his death, saying that he was dying and needed an ambulance. Clive was not listened to, and his family were not listened to, and the consequences were devastating.

After that terrible event, Clive’s family had to fight hard for answers. They had to fight to secure an inquest into his death, and later to secure an independent review. When that review was completed in 2021, four years after Clive died, it confirmed what they had suspected all along: the independent review found that Clive’s care fell far short of what should be expected for somebody with drug-resistant epilepsy, and it identified multiple system-wide failures in delivering his care and treatment,  which put him at greater risk. It found that his death was potentially avoidable, and that he had been failed both in life and in death.

What did that mean in practice? It meant that the management of Clive’s epilepsy was fragmented, and the link between his epilepsy and the sometimes challenging behaviours that he could exhibit when stressed, such as not taking his medication, withdrawing to his room, or not communicating, were often overstated. Those behaviours disproportionately impacted the generally held view that Clive required a hospital setting, and despite the fact that he had long expressed a wish to live in his own home, care in the community was discussed with him and his family only towards the end of his life. That is where Clive’s life was, and if we move on past his death, it is important to pay tribute to Clive’s family. Throughout all the suffering, they have been relentless in their focus on ensuring that other families do not go through what they had to. That is why we are here today, and for me, that is entirely what this debate is about. \p Jim Shannon: I congratulate and thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. His choice of words, his tone, and the compassion in his voice are a real tribute to Clive Treacey, and to his family in the Gallery. The hon. Gentleman has paid a wonderful tribute to Clive, and it is right to put that on the record. I am an Elvis Presley fan as well; he could probably sing better than I can, but that is by the way. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that although nothing can bring back the life of this young man, his legacy can be life-changing for so many others? This checklist, rather than being best practice, must be rolled out as a recommended tool to each trust and area of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as a tribute to Clive Treacey. \p Dave Robertson: I thank the hon. Gentleman. That is my first intervention from him. He raises an important point, and when he asked that question, I thought back to a couple of weeks ago, when I was asked at a community event, “What gives you hope, Dave?”. I thought for a while. So often, we hear in this place stories of people who have gone through unimaginable hardship, but who somehow find the strength within themselves not to turn that into anger. They do not turn inwards; they turn outwards, and campaign to make sure that the same does not happen to other people. That is an example of what we have here. It is the very best testament to the human spirit that we see so many people who are able to do that.

Like a quarter of people with a learning disability, Clive had epilepsy. By contrast, one in 100 of the general population has epilepsy. Coupled with that, epilepsy is the second most frequently reported preventable cause of death for people with a learning disability, so not only are people with a learning disability more likely to have epilepsy, but the risks they face from their epilepsy are higher. The risk of SUDEP—that is what killed Clive—is more than three times higher for those with epilepsy and a learning disability than for those with epilepsy and no learning disability.

Tragically, Clive’s case is not an isolated example of these failures; this is a story that is far too common across the country, but there are things that we can do to change the story. Research suggests that annual health checks can significantly reduce the chance of premature  death in people with a learning disability and autism who have epilepsy. Indeed, the chances of death were reduced by 84% for people with a learning disability and epilepsy who had a review of their epilepsy in the past 12 months.

That brings me to the Clive Treacey safety checklist. The checklist is a tool developed after Clive’s death, and an important part of his legacy. I place on record my thanks to Professor Mike Kerr and Professor Rohit Shankar for their work on the checklist, alongside the charity SUDEP Action, NHS England Midlands, and the Cornwall partnership NHS foundation trust.

The checklist was designed for commissioners and service providers, whether the care is provided in a specialist hospital setting or out in the community, and it outlines the steps that should be gone through annually, as well as whenever a patient moves between services or has a big change in their care, such as a new team looking after them. It recommends up-to-date health plans, genuine consultation with parents and families—not box ticking, but genuine consultation—and proper epilepsy training for staff. The Clive Treacey safety checklist is not a document that should be put in a drawer somewhere in an integrated care board, left alone and looked at once every so often when someone asks a question about it. It is a practical tool and the accompanying guidance, at just 24 pages long— for the NHS, a short story at best—is packed with information, and it is a document that can save lives.

Since Clive’s death, a number of NHS regions have reviewed the way that they care for patients with learning disabilities and epilepsy using the checklist. That includes the NHS in the midlands, where 11 integrated care systems carried out a detailed appraisal using the self-assessment tool developed by the charity Epilepsy Action, based on the work of Professor Shankar, to find the weaknesses in their services and take concrete steps to improve them. More recently, six integrated care boards in the north-west, north-east and North Yorkshire have done the same. It is detailed work, bringing health and care services together, and using joined-up thinking, which we do not hear enough about in Whitehall, to tackle the problem and normalise best practice. That best practice, like the Clive Treacey safety checklist, should be more widespread. I again pay tribute to Elaine and to Clive’s family more broadly for the work that they have done to drive this entire piece of work forward.

The problem is that we still have a postcode lottery. Different parts of the country do and do not follow the checklist; different parts of the country have and have not gone through that detailed work to update their practices. In this House, we cannot tolerate a situation where local outcomes are so varied, so I hope that we hear from the Minister what more we can do, both here in this place and through the Department of Health and Social Care, to ensure that people with learning disabilities are not dying of preventable causes, and to see the very best practice, as set out in the Clive Treacey safety checklist, adopted up and down the country, so that we can end this perverse postcode lottery. \p Zubir Ahmed: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) for  securing this important debate. I recognise the efforts of Clive’s family, particularly Elaine and Michael who join us today in the Gallery.

As my hon. Friend described in his wonderful speech, Clive Treacey was a caring, gentle and humorous man, who liked to paint and who enjoyed gardening and listening to music. As we have heard, Clive also had a learning disability and epilepsy, and sadly he died in 2017, at the age of just 47, following a seizure. His loss, I am sure, is still felt very deeply by his family and loved ones. I pay tribute to all the work that they have done by channelling the tragedy they have been through, and the work that they continue to do in advocating for change following Clive’s death.

The independent review into Clive’s death highlighted that there were multiple system-wide failures in delivering his care and treatment that together placed him at a higher risk of sudden death. It was found that Clive experienced sub-optimal care and support throughout his life and death, and that he was not always placed in settings that could meet his needs, in terms of both epilepsy care and support for his disability.

I am pleased that since Clive’s death, meaningful changes have been made. Following the publication of the independent review into his death in December 2021, organisations directly involved in Clive’s care developed high-level actions in response to its findings and there was an overwhelming commitment from all organisations involved to address the systemic issues raised in the report. NHS England midlands region set up a group that became known as the Clive Treacey conscience group and last year it published “Clive’s Way: A Conscience Manual”, outlining in detail the progress the midlands region is making in taking forward and implementing the learnings from the independent review.

We know that around 30% of people with epilepsy have a learning disability and that the risk of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy is much higher for those with a learning disability, as my hon. Friend pointed out. The latest annual LeDeR—learning from lives and deaths—report found that epilepsy was one of the most common underlying causes of death for people with a learning disability between 2021 and 2023. That highlights how crucial it is that information and support for patients with epilepsy who have a learning disability are tailored to their individual needs. We welcome the development of the Clive Treacey safety checklist; it is an important part of Clive’s legacy. We encourage commissioners and service providers to use the checklist and its accompanying guidance as a key tool when designing services for their local populations and to ensure that the steps outlined in the checklist are followed whenever a patient experiences a significant change in their care.

Since Clive’s death, a number of NHS regions have reviewed the way that they care for patients living with a learning disability and epilepsy—

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Christian Wakeford.) \p Zubir Ahmed: It is a very positive development that a number of integrated health boards in the midlands, the north-west, the north-east and Yorkshire have carried out detailed appraisals to identify any weaknesses in their services.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield raises an important point about how we can go further, including how annual health checks can significantly reduce the chance of premature death in people with a learning disability who have epilepsy. NHS England has developed a quality framework to set expectations for annual health checks for people with a learning disability and accompanying health action plans, which are vital to identifying needs early, providing the right support and mitigating the risk of sudden death.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance on epilepsies in children, young people and adults recommends that people with a learning disability should have monitoring reviews at least annually. The NICE guidance on epilepsies also includes a number of recommendations on how information should be tailored and adapted for patients with epilepsy who have a learning disability. It sets out that patients with a learning disability should have access to specialist care and should receive co-ordinated care using a multidisciplinary approach. For young people with a learning disability who are transitioning to adult epilepsy services, transition planning should begin early. This Government expect commissioners and service providers to take NICE guidelines fully into account when making decisions about how to best meet the needs of their local communities.

We are rolling out mandatory training on learning disability and autism to health and adult social care staff. Support for people with a learning disability is also a key area of focus for the NHS RightCare epilepsy toolkit. The toolkit includes a number of actions that systems should take to support people with epilepsy who have a learning disability, such as ensuring that specialist epilepsy services are upskilled and make reasonable adjustments to support the needs of people with a learning disability, including working in partnership  with staff trained in how to manage learning disability. The toolkit also sets out that services should ensure that community specialist nurses in learning disabilities have the right training in the management of epilepsy.

I recognise the important work of organisations such as Epilepsy Action and SUDEP Action. Epilepsy Action has produced the “Step Together” toolkit, which describes what good-quality integrated services for people with a learning disability and epilepsy should look like. SUDEP Action has developed an epilepsy self-monitoring app, which is a digital tool designed to help patients understand their own personal risk of seizures and to track that risk. SUDEP Action has played a key role in the development of the Clive Treacey safety checklist.

Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield for securing this important debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his contribution. It goes without saying that Clive’s death must not be in vain and that we must learn the lessons to ensure that this does not happen again. I believe we also need to commit further that no longer in our national health service should a tragedy be the only way to make things better for the patients and citizens we serve and to save their lives.

Finally, the patient voice must be our guiding star when designing services and safety checklists and keeping patients safe in the community and in hospital. I believe that through the actions we have taken in our 10-year health plan and the actions that I have taken as the Minister responsible for patient safety, we can undertake today to Members of this House that that shall be the case going forward in this Government’s approach to patient safety.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.