debates/debates2025-11-19d conversation_21
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-11-19)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-11-19d conversation_21

Mike Wood:Everyone who cares about media independence and freedom will be relieved that RedBird has recognised that it cannot run , but there are serious concerns that it will burden the paper with unsustainable debt if the title is sold for less than half a billion pounds. Will the Prime Minister step in to prevent this from happening and enable a sale, at a lower price if necessary, without this toxic debt burden? \p Keir Starmer: The hon. Member raises a serious issue. I am not quite sure what he is asking the Government to do—to step in and nationalise it I do not think would be the right thing. \p Perran Moon: Meur ras, Mr Speaker. On 5 March at the Dispatch Box, the Prime Minister said these words:

“We do recognise Cornish national minority status—not just the proud language, history and culture of Cornwall, but its bright future.”—[Official Report, 5 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 278.]

Since then, I have repeatedly asked Ministers for Cornwall’s unique place on this island to be recognised through devolution. When the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill comes back to the House next week, will the Prime Minister help me explicitly enshrine Cornish devolution and Cornish national minority status in that Bill? \p Keir Starmer: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Of course, he has raised this issue with me on a number of occasions already. He is a great champion for Cornwall. We will ensure that Cornwall’s national minority status is safeguarded in any future devolution arrangements. We have provided half a million pounds to support distinctive Cornish culture, including the Cornish language. \p David Davis: The Prime Minister knows that, last week, nine four-star generals made it plain that yesterday’s Northern Ireland Troubles Bill is doing harm to the British Army already. The most acute damage is being felt by the Special Air Service. It is already affecting its recruitment, retention, morale and operational effectiveness. As a result, lawyers acting for the SAS Regimental Association have sent a letter before action to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I know of no precedent for this in the entire  history of the British Army, and this reflects—because it is so important—how important it is, so may I make a plea to the Prime Minister? Will he involve himself personally to ensure that 60, 70 and 80-year-old soldiers, who have carried out actions that most of us would view as heroic, are not persecuted in the coming years, because now it is a matter not of national security, but of national honour? \p Keir Starmer: May I thank the right hon. Member for his question and reassure him on the protections that he seeks for veterans? It is a very important issue, and he has continually and rightly raised it. There will be protection from repeat investigations, so the commission does not go over old ground without compelling reasons. There will be protection from cold calling, and protection in old age, so that elderly veterans are respected. Those who do contribute to the legacy process will have a right to anonymity, a right to stay at home to give evidence remotely and a right to be heard through the commission. That is the work that we are doing, and I am happy to discuss it further with him. \p Lindsay Hoyle: To end no doubt on the subject of Scotland’s victory, I call Torcuil Chrichton. \p Torcuil Crichton: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

When the Prime Minister next meets the President of the United States, will he ask him if he knows any reasonably priced hotels near the MetLife stadium in New Jersey, where the world cup final is to be held, and, as we are about to provide the biggest boost to whisky exports since our trade deal was signed, will he gently ask the Chancellor to consider excise duties next week so that we Scots can continue celebrating at reasonable prices? \p Keir Starmer: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. It is important that we do everything we can to support whisky. I am really pleased with the progress we are making with the United States, and of course with India under that trade deal, and I will continue to discuss what more we can do with my hon. Friend. \p UNKNOWN: 12.40 pm \p Mims Davies: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if she will make a statement on the recent severe flooding impacting Monmouthshire and what support will be made available for those affected. \p Anna McMorrin: My first thoughts, and those of the Secretary of State, are with all the people and businesses affected by the flooding over the weekend. The impact in Monmouthshire has been devastating for local residents and traders and I know that hon. Members across the House will be thinking of them as they recover from this dreadful storm.

I am answering this urgent question because the Secretary of State is in Monmouthshire to thank first responders and to meet the community and thank them for their efforts. She is there with my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes), who has been supporting her local community since the flooding across the weekend. I also pay tribute to the emergency responders, the local residents who have rallied together, and the mayor of Monmouth, Jackie Atkin, who has raised a substantial sum for the community.

As the House will be aware, flooding is a devolved matter; however, the Prime Minister spoke to the First Minister over the weekend and offered the UK Government’s support for the Welsh Government’s response. My ministerial colleague who is here with me today, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), has also been in touch with the Deputy First Minister. The Environment Agency has offered support locally, including any mutual aid that may be requested by Natural Resources Wales, which operates in the area. We see the number of these events increasing, which demonstrates why our climate response on flooding is so important.

Today the Floodmobile response sponsored by Flood Re is in Monmouth, a mobile demonstration unit which showcases dozens of property flood resilience measures and techniques that can help keep homes and other buildings safer during a flood. That is reaching out to the community. I also bring hon. Members’ attention to what we are doing to support people to access insurance through our partnership with Flood Re, a joint initiative between the Government and the insurance industry to ensure that households at the highest risk of flooding can access affordable insurance.

In the financial year ’24-’25 alone, Flood Re provided cover for over 345,000 household policies. Government officials have met Monmouthshire county council over the weekend to discuss emergency funding; the Deputy First Minister was also there over the weekend to meet first responders and the community, and opportunities are being made available through the emergency financial assistance scheme. The Welsh Government have been working very closely with the council and all the emergency services, and have committed over £370 million to reduce risks to communities across Wales. The Welsh Government are doing everything they can at this very difficult time for the community and for businesses in Monmouthshire. \p Mims Davies: This weekend, tragic and heart-wrenching floods affected families and their loved ones, resulting in evacuation from their properties in Monmouth after the River Monnow burst its banks. That, in turn, has blighted businesses with devastating consequences. This horrific experience also hit hard nearby areas, including Abergavenny and Skenfrith village. There are desperate families and business owners across Monmouthshire who have lost their homes and their livelihoods. They have literally lost everything, with Christmas looming—a key time also for hospitality.

I thank the emergency services and all the volunteers, including many local councillors and Peter Fox, Member of the Senedd. They have done fantastic work around the clock to assist, safeguard and do what they can to help and support those impacted. It is now vital that, without any delay, the necessary support reaches every single person who has been affected by these devastating floods, and that their longer term needs are also met. Local people report that they do not have any clarity, answers or insight on what to expect, beyond initial rescue and community kindness. They have been told that discussions are ongoing.

The First Minister outlined this week in the Senedd some support and the Prime Minister also offered support to Monmouthshire. Will the Minister provide details on what exactly that means, practically, on the ground in the coming weeks? Will the Minister outline a timeframe for when support will reach the people of Monmouthshire and what precisely it will entail? It is reported that some insurance companies will not pay, as they meet only storm damage, not flood damage. Locals want urgent resources, not endless form-filling for the Senedd. They need urgent help now and for it to be fast-tracked, they say, via the council. Finally, does the Minister agree that time is of the essence in answering those vital questions, to ensure that the anxieties of residents and businesses do not worsen? \p Anna McMorrin: The hon. Lady is absolutely right that time is of the essence. My heart goes out to all those impacted by the storm over the weekend. It must be absolutely dreadful for those people to see their business or home flooded after all the hard work they have put in all their lives; I cannot image the trauma and the difficulty they are going through.

As I said, the First Minister spoke to the Prime Minister: the Prime Minister reached out over the weekend to look at how support can be offered following the flooding. The First Minister has also been looking at how funding can be provided in the least bureaucratic way possible to those impacted. We are a few days after the event and the nature of the support will become clear as the clean-up continues. As the days go on, we will work with emergency services and those impacted. The Welsh Government have emergency financial assistance schemes for just these very scenarios. They have kicked in and are being used. Proposals for support are being prepared. Local government financial officials are there on the ground. The Secretary of State is there on the ground today. We are doing all we can, working hand in hand with the Welsh Government, the council and the mayors, to make sure that those impacted get the support they need as quickly as possible. \p Jessica Morden: My constituency neighbour and very diligent representative, my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes), is as we speak in Abergavenny and will join the Secretary of State in Monmouth shortly, meeting and listening to those affected by the devastating floods which hit Monmouth, Abergavenny, Skenfrith and the villages. She has asked me to say a very big heartfelt thank you to the emergency services, all the authorities and all those who have helped for the incredible community effort and many kindnesses shown over the past few days, which have included offers of beds, homes, donations and more. Hundreds and hundreds of businesses and homes will be affected and it will take many months to clear up. I know that my hon. Friend is liaising with the Prime Minister, Departments and the Welsh Government—this is a devolved issue and there will be many asks—but may I ask on her behalf that we continue to offer support in the many ways that will be needed in the period? I am also mindful of other areas impacted by flooding, including my own. \p Anna McMorrin: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) has been so diligent. I was on the phone with her over the weekend, and I know that she has been speaking to the Welsh Government. I was also on the phone to the Deputy First Minister over the weekend, and I have been in contact with Natural Resources Wales and local community groups. My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire has been out there in her wellies, helping with the clean-up. I know that she feels this as deeply as those who have been impacted. The support we will be there, and we will continue to work together. Although flooding is a devolved matter, it reaches right across the country. Wherever we can help, we will. We are working together to ensure that we resolve this at pace and help the people who need it. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p David Chadwick: The recent floods in Monmouthshire have been devastating for local communities, and our thoughts are with everyone affected as they try to return to some sense of normality. I would also like to pay tribute to the emergency services and everyone who has worked tirelessly to keep residents safe throughout these events.

Last year, we saw attempts by multiple fire and rescue authorities in Wales to close small fire stations, which often house the equipment needed to respond to major floods like the ones we have just seen. Two of the proposed closures are in my constituency in Knighton and Crickhowell. Crickhowell is just a stone’s throw away from Monmouthshire, and the services that are based there often go over the border to help out. Will the Minister clarify what engagements the Government have had with fire services in Wales on potential closures? Does she agree that it is vital that we keep small stations open to protect residents in rural Wales from devastating events such as the ones we have just seen? \p Anna McMorrin: I also pay huge tribute to the first responders and emergency units and the fire and rescue service, who did an outstanding job over the weekend and will continue to do so—and right across Wales, too.  It is important that we protect those who put themselves in danger and support people in need. I am happy to write to the hon. Member about the details of the closures. \p Nick Smith: Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney neighbours Monmouthshire. Last winter, we experienced coal tip slipping because of heavy rain. People experiencing flooding deserve all our support. Can the Minister please tell us more about the support available to residents who are claiming insurance or emergency financial help in order to get through this really difficult time? \p Anna McMorrin: My hon. Friend has been a strong advocate in this area, and I thank him for that. The UK Government have pledged £143 million in this Parliament for coal tip safety. This is a big issue that needs to be continually monitored. Coal tips were being monitored over the weekend throughout Storm Claudia and they will continue to be monitored. The Government take this issue very seriously and are investing in coal tip safety. \p Julian Lewis: May I appeal to the Minister to help us in one way? Although this is a devolved matter, it is possible in the internet age very easily to make charitable donations, so could she investigate whether there is a reliable local charity to which people across the country can make donations? Could she perhaps circulate the details of that after this urgent question? \p Anna McMorrin: I thank the right hon. Member for his suggestion, which I will absolutely take away. There has been a lot of money raised locally; I mentioned the local mayor, who has raised significant funds. That is fantastic, but I know that a lot of people will want to help, so I will certainly take away that suggestion. \p Alex Barros-Curtis: I also pay tribute to all those affected and the emergency responders—and to my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) for the tireless effort she has put in since the flooding. I am grateful to the Minister for what she has said and for what the Prime Minister said earlier about the conversations and constant interaction between the UK Government, the Welsh Government and the First Minister. Collaboration between our Governments when there are civil emergencies such as this is integral, so will she assure me that that collaboration continues and that the people of Monmouthshire will have everything they need from us? Will she also push the Welsh Government to do everything they can to ensure that those affected get through this crisis? \p Anna McMorrin: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point. Collaboration is key. In situations like this, where speed is of the essence, it is important that we work together quickly and seamlessly. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Water and Flooding has been in touch with the Deputy First Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes). We will all continue to work together to resolve this and make sure that those impacted get support and help as quickly and seamlessly as possible. \p Ben Lake: I also associate myself with the Minister’s comments. My thoughts are very much with the people of Monmouthshire as they try to get their lives back on track. She rightly mentioned the increasing frequency of severe weather events. Further to the very wise words of the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Mr Barros-Curtis), in addition to collaboration between the two Governments, in light of the increasing frequency of severe weather events, I wonder whether it is time for us to consider a central resilience fund to provide the additional emergency support that is sadly becoming far too routine? \p Anna McMorrin: The hon. Member rightly points out the important link between climate change and increased flooding, which I mentioned earlier. It is very important to build resilience into communities and housing. I know that there is a fund. We are putting funding in; this Government take very seriously that investment, whether it is in new build, existing build or communities, businesses and infrastructure at risk. We absolutely need to ensure that with changing weather patterns, increased rainfall and further flooding, our communities and people across the country are safe. \p Harriett Baldwin: On behalf of residents in flood-prone West Worcestershire who approached Storm Claudia with trepidation, I convey our sympathies to people in Monmouthshire. Experiencing a flood like that is one of the most terrible things that can happen a community. Could I ask the Minister to ask the Minister for Water and Flooding, who is beside her on the Front Bench, to follow up with the Environment Agency on two projects it is working on in West Worcestershire—in Severn Stoke and Tenbury Wells—to improve flood resilience? I would love it if the Minister could give the Environment Agency a nudge to complete that work. \p Anna McMorrin: My colleague has heard that loudly and clearly and will get back to the hon. Member. \p Cameron Thomas: There are few around the country better equipped to empathise with the people of Monmouthshire than my people in Tewkesbury in north Gloucestershire. Will the Minister join me in thanking the volunteers of the Severn Area Rescue Association who were called out this weekend, as they so often are? Will she also tell me when her Department will respond to the Environmental Audit Committee’s report into flood resilience in England? \p Anna McMorrin: I thank the hon. Member for raising that point and for his words to the people of Monmouthshire. I pay tribute to his communities. It is important that we support communities right across the country, wherever they are. This Government are intent on doing that. \p Mark Francois: Although I am not a Welsh MP, I would like to express my sympathies for what the people of Monmouthshire are going through. In 2014, when I was the Armed Forces Minister in the Ministry of Defence, I spent  weeks in Cobra meetings helping to co-ordinate military assistance in response to the severe flooding in the west country, particularly on the Somerset levels. Can I offer a suggestion? We all hope that this will not happen again, and certainly not quickly, but if there are further named storms, has the Minister or the First Minister considered speaking to the Ministry of Defence about military aid to the civil authorities—so-called MACA arrangements? We learned in 2014 that there are some specialist units, such as the Royal Marines or the Royal Engineers, who have capabilities to offer in these circumstances that can really make a difference to local people. Is that something that she and the First Minister might at least be prepared to consider? \p Anna McMorrin: Of course, when there are critical or major incidents, such as the flooding in Monmouthshire, we are ready to consider anything. Where we need that support, collaboration is important and that extends to all our Departments. In every way possible, we will ensure that people, businesses and infrastructure are looked after, and that can and would extend to Defence if necessary. \p Ellie Chowns: My heart goes out to the people of Monmouthshire, which is just downriver from my constituency. Terrible damage has also been done in South Herefordshire, with places such as Ewyas Harold very badly affected. We know that these things are happening more frequently and more severely. It is also tragic to see the huge amount of soil that is washed off the land at times like this. Does the Minister recognise the hugely important role that farmers play in managing floodwater and building resilience to these sorts of events? Will she invest more in nature-friendly farming—river-friendly farming—to help prevent these sorts of disasters, which do so much damage to people’s livelihoods? \p Anna McMorrin: It is exceptionally important, for those who have a duty to their land, to manage that land safely. These events have a devastating impact and soil is washed away, but there are things that can be done further upstream to prevent flooding. The Welsh Government have put in place projects right across Wales to ensure that happens. Just this morning I was talking to Powys county council about some of those taking place there. \p Adrian Ramsay: Flood Re’s report earlier this year highlighted that, in the face of more extreme weather and more frequent flooding, many insurers are increasing excesses and premiums often to eyewatering levels or withdrawing insurance support altogether. What immediate support are the Government putting in place for people who find themselves without insurance? \p Anna McMorrin: An emergency financial initiative is available. Welsh Government officials are working with community groups, the local council and us to ensure that they have access to those emergency funds. \p UNKNOWN: Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23) \p Peter Swallow: I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the penalties for driving without insurance; to require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a report containing an assessment of the effectiveness of existing methods of enforcing the law on driving without insurance; and for connected purposes.

In preparing this ten-minute rule Bill, I have had the opportunity to speak with so many incredible organisations and charities that work to deliver better road safety. At the outset I want to thank, in particular, Brake, Protect Young Drivers, the Motor Insurers’ Bureau, Thames Valley Police and the fantastic Road Safety Foundation, which is based in my Bracknell constituency.

I am delighted to bring forward this Bill during Road Safety Week, which raises awareness of the importance of safer driving at a time of year when dark nights come down earlier, fog and icy conditions can increase hazards—we even had snow today—and the temptation to drink and drive is heightened by the festivities. I am proud that this Government have committed to delivering a national road safety strategy, and I am grateful to the road safety Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), for taking the time to speak with me on several occasions about the progress of developing this strategy. Remarkably, it will be the first update to national road safety in well over a decade. Where the previous Government failed to act, we will, because every accident, every death on our roads is a tragedy, and too often an avoidable one.

Last month I published my road safety report, which captured the real concerns of Bracknell Forest residents regarding road safety in our community. I thank the almost 500 constituents who responded to the campaign and shared their views on everything from speeding and antisocial driving to the illegal use of off-road bikes and scooters. I am honoured to discuss the report today to ensure that the voices of Bracknell residents are heard and acted upon, making our roads safer for drivers, pedestrians and cyclists alike. Vitally, I have shared a copy of my report with the road safety Minister so that Bracknell Forest’s voice can be heard at the heart of the upcoming national road safety strategy.

The findings of the report revealed a critical level of concern among residents and calls for tougher action on antisocial driving. The overwhelming issue that residents felt affected road safety was speeding, followed by off-road bikes and e-scooters. Almost 80% of residents either agreed or strongly agreed that people drive too quickly down residential roads in Bracknell Forest, with similar figures for speeding on main roads.

To tackle that, residents agreed that there should be more speed cameras and Community Speedwatch initiatives. They also called for more appropriate speed limits, speed bumps and more visible police patrols, with police providing more information on local patrols so residents can see how their concerns are being addressed. The report identifies a clear public mandate for decisive intervention on road safety, prioritising enforcement and infrastructure upgrades. Concerns were also raised  about overly bright car headlights, and I am delighted that the Government have already listened on that point and announced that further research will be conducted into headlight glare.

Residents supported more action around schools, with particular concerns that an accident was simply waiting to happen. I heard about the challenges caused by pick-up and drop-off times, the need for more safe crossing points and the widespread support for the implementation of school streets. I am pleased to share that directly with the local council and offer it my full support as it works to address road safety around schools. Residents also raised concerns about potholes, which can cause damage to vehicles and lead to unsafe driving as motorists do their best to swerve around them. That is why I back the Government’s £3.3 million investment in Bracknell Forest’s roads this year, with Bracknell Forest council committing an extra £5 million over four years to pothole repair and other road maintenance.

When we design road safety initiatives, and indeed roads, it is vital that we listen to the experts. That is why I want to highlight the work of a fantastic organisation based in Bracknell called the Road Safety Foundation. When I met the Road Safety Foundation, it emphasised how important it was that speed limits reflect the purpose of roads and the vulnerability of the users they support. By mapping the risk on major roads across the UK, the Road Safety Foundation plays an essential role in driving road safety improvements and, ultimately, saving lives.

I now turn to the subject at hand: uninsured drivers. Sadly, uninsured driving is all too common. Every 20 minutes someone is the victim of an uninsured or hit-and-run driver, every four minutes an uninsured vehicle is seized, and every year uninsured drivers cost the UK economy £1 billion. A crackdown on uninsured drivers on our roads is essential to improving road safety, as data has shown that those who drive uninsured are often disproportionately involved in road accidents and also more likely to commit offences that put others at risk, such as hit-and-run incidents, speeding and driving under the influence. The economic cost of uninsured driving, which includes compensation for victims, emergency services, medical costs and loss of productivity, is significant. This is a question of fairness: we cannot allow the costs of those who flout the law to be shouldered by honest drivers who are paying hiked premium fees to cover that.

Mr Speaker, I want you to imagine for a second that you were involved in a car accident. Imagine an inconsiderate driver has been going too fast, or not paying attention to the road, and has crashed into you. You are standing there on the roadside, perhaps injured, your car a write-off. You are feeling incredibly shaken, as anyone would. But thank goodness you have insurance. Now, Mr Speaker, imagine you find out that the other driver is not insured. Suddenly, a stressful situation becomes so much worse. The victims of accidents involving uninsured drivers often face delays and complications in securing compensation, which only exacerbates the immense emotional and financial toll.

I recently met the Motor Insurers’ Bureau to hear about “Operation Drive Insured”, a week-long UK campaign with the National Police Chiefs’ Council that saw police forces increase their operational activity in tackling uninsured driving. It involved identifying and removing uninsured vehicles from the road, as well as  an excellent public awareness campaign. During our conversation, the MIB highlighted the need for a real-time database of all uninsured drivers, which would make it easier for the police to catch those driving uninsured. At the moment, it is far too easy for criminals to take out fake insurance under assumed names and present that to police on the roadside because insurers do not update the national insurance database in real time.

Insurers also do not always carry out checks to verify drivers’ identities and ensure that they have not been disqualified from driving. I have even heard how some uninsured drivers are now using AI to create fake policies when pulled over by the police, making it more difficult for the police to clamp down on uninsured driving in real time as they struggle to instantly verify the legitimacy of these documents at the roadside. Those who forge or deliberately fabricate such documents, through AI or any other means, are putting other road users at risk and must face tough sanctions.

The Motor Insurers’ Bureau estimates that there are 1 million uninsured drivers on our roads, a figure that suggests that existing penalties are not providing a serious enough disincentive. A fixed penalty notice for owning a car without insurance starts at just £100, which rises to £300 and six points on a person’s licence if they are caught actually driving it. The police also have the power to seize and crush the vehicle, but given the serious consequences that can result from driving uninsured, my view is that these penalties should be increased.

Cracking down on the number of uninsured drivers will also help to tackle high insurance premiums, because claims made against uninsured drivers are made through the MIB and ultimately paid for through mandatory annual contributions from all UK motor insurers. If we can reduce the number of those driving uninsured, we can reduce costs for the vast majority of drivers who do the right thing by insuring their vehicles. Insurance premiums rose, on average, by 21% between 2022 and 2024, before falling by around £50 this year, so I welcome the action that the Government are taking, through the motor insurance taskforce, to tackle the high cost of driving for the honest many.

This Road Safety Week, let us all commit ourselves to taking the action needed to make driving safer for everyone, prevent crashes and save lives. Let us tackle the costly problem of uninsured motorists, deliver on our manifesto commitment to an ambitious national road safety strategy, and back the drivers of Great Britain.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Peter Swallow, Sarah Russell, Chris Vince, Rachel Taylor, Josh Newbury and Cat Eccles present the Bill.

Peter Swallow accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 May 2026, and to be printed (Bill 331). \p James Cartlidge: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance on an important matter of national security. This morning, the Secretary of State for Defence gave a speech on television—I think it was in Downing Street, not in the House—about a very serious incident in which, he said, a Russian spy ship has tried to blind British military pilots with lasers. This is very important, but there has been no statement in the House and we have not been briefed. I wonder if you can give any clarification on this matter. \p Lindsay Hoyle: It has not been brought to my attention either. I hope that those on the Treasury Bench are listening. I take this very seriously. Matters relating to the defence of the realm should always come first to this House, and I will always make arrangements for a Secretary of State to make a statement to this House on very important matters. The hon. Gentleman’s point has been heard. Who knows? Let us see. Yesterday, the Government reflected and came to the House with a statement later. Let us see if they can reflect again today on this important matter. If it was good enough for a TV interview, it is certainly good enough for this House to know. I will leave it at that. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 10 February 2025 (Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill: Programme): \p UNKNOWN: (1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement.

(2) The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order: 37, 1 to 36 and 38 to 42. \p UNKNOWN: (3) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

(4) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Alex Norris.)

Question agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Consideration of Lords amendments \p Lindsay Hoyle: I inform the House that nothing in the Lords amendments engages Commons financial privilege. \p Alex Norris: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 37. \p Lindsay Hoyle: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 1 to 36 and 38 to 42. \p Alex Norris: The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill has returned to this House in good order. A number of amendments were made in the other place, with all but one made by the Government. Throughout the passage of the Bill to date, the strength of feeling about the importance of a properly functioning immigration system that is controlled and managed so that it is fair and works for the people of this country has been evident. Proper enforcement and respect for the rules is crucial to that.

As we discussed in this House on Monday, the Government’s new asylum policy statement sets out significant reforms to the UK’s asylum and illegal migration system to restore order, control, fairness and public confidence in the system. That statement builds on the measures in the Bill, our consideration of which returns our focus to the core objectives of the Bill.

This Bill will strengthen UK border security. It is part of a serious, credible plan to protect our borders that sees the Government working closely with our international partners upstream and in our near neighbourhood. It is a plan that sees this Government bringing to bear the powers and impact of the system as a whole, under the leadership of the Border Security Command, against those who seek to undermine the UK’s border security. It is a plan that delivers for our law enforcement partners by creating the new powers that they need to intervene faster and earlier against more of those involved in serious and organised immigration crime activity, providing for better data-sharing and creating stronger intelligence to inform enforcement activity. It is a plan that disrupts the sales pitch spun by the gangs by preventing illegal working in sectors that are not currently required to confirm whether a person’s immigration status disqualifies them from working.

Turning to the Lords amendments, I will start with the non-Government amendment passed by the other place. Lords amendment 37, tabled by the Opposition, is in our view unnecessary. It would mandate the Home Secretary to collate and publish statistics on the number of overseas students who have had their student visa revoked as a result of the commission of criminal offences, the number of overseas students who have been deported following the revocation of their student  visa and the number of overseas students detained pending deportation following the revocation of their student visa.

It is first worth emphasising that the Government strongly value the vital economic and academic contribution that international students make in the UK. They enrich our communities, including my own in the city of Nottingham. The immigration rules provide for the cancellation of entry clearance and permission to enter or stay where a person has been convicted of a criminal offence in the UK or overseas. Where a student’s permission is cancelled, as a person without leave to enter or remain they are liable to administrative removal from the UK. Foreign nationals who commit a crime should be in no doubt that the law will be enforced and that, where appropriate, we will pursue their deportation.

On the specifics of the amendment on publishing data on these topics, the Home Office already publishes data on a vast amount of migration statistics, including information on visas, returns and detention. The official statistics published by the Home Office are kept under review in line with the code of practice for statistics, taking into account a number of factors including user needs and the resources required to compile those numbers, as well as the quality and availability of data. This ensures that we balance the production of high-quality statistics against the need for new ones to support public understanding on migration.

I want to be clear, however, that we recognise that there has been heightened interest from parliamentarians, the media and members of the public in learning more about the number and type of criminal offences committed by foreign nationals in the UK and about what happens to foreign national offenders—FNOs—after they have been convicted, and after they have completed their sentences. The Home Office is looking closely at what more can be done both to improve the processes for collating and verifying relevant data on the topic of FNOs and their offences, and to establish a more regular means of placing that data into the public domain alongside the other Home Office statistics that I have talked about. When this work progresses, the Home Office proposes to publish more detailed statistical reporting on FNOs subject to deportation and those returned to countries outside the UK. I hope that, on that basis, right hon. and hon. Members will support the Government motion relating to Lords amendment 37.

The Lords amendments introduced by the Government further strengthen and expand the powers and offences that target organised immigration crime groups. The most significant is Lords amendment 7, which introduces a new offence that criminalises the creation or publication of material relating to unlawful immigration services online, on internet services including social media, and on messaging platforms. Such material will be considered criminal when a person knows or suspects that the material will be published on an internet service and it has the purpose, or will have the effect, of promoting unlawful immigration services. I hope that the policy objective is clear to Members: it is crucial in order to tackle the facilitation of organised crime online, and to ensure that law enforcement has the appropriate tools to break down organised crime groups’ exploitation of the online environment, including social media.

Lords amendments 8, 9, 12, 13, 14 and 15 work alongside this new offence, providing intermediary liability protections for internet service providers, meaning that  they will not be impacted by this offence and the actions of those being targeted in this offence—namely, individuals who are promoting unlawful immigration services online. The offence will have extraterritorial effect and therefore may be applied to online material created or published anywhere in the world and by a person or body of any nationality.

I turn now to the amendments to the core immigration crime offences set out in clauses 13 and 14, which concern the supply and handling of articles used in immigration crime. Lords amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, 10 and 11 enable us to disrupt the actions of not only those who commit offences directly, but those who facilitate them through the provision of tools, materials or services. That sends a clear and unequivocal message: those who enable immigration crime, whether through direct action or indirect facilitation, will face consequences. \p Pete Wishart: When the Bill was introduced, I thought that it was the ultimate horror and an attempt to outdo Reform, but it was a mere aperitif compared with the main course of the horrors of this week. On these specific measures, does the Minister recognise the possible impact on support agencies and services that assist refugees and asylum seekers? Did he not listen to the many representations from those groups about the difficulties that the measures will cause them? \p Alex Norris: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is horrified by our attempts to crack down on organised immigration crime, which is the ultimate industry in profiting from misery and desperation, and which leads to vulnerable people losing their lives and has such impact on public confidence domestically. If he waits a little longer, I hope I can give him a degree of succour on the point he makes.

The amendments seek to criminalise those who are concerned in the supply of relevant articles for use in immigration crime and will bring into scope possession with intent to supply, or the making of an offer to supply, such an article. The amendments will also bring into scope those who are concerned in the handling of a relevant article for use in immigration crime.

Lords amendments 16 to 32 strengthen the powers of search and seizure in relation to electronic devices. Lords amendment 16 seeks to expand the definition of “authorised officer” to include officers of the police services of Scotland, the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the National Crime Agency. Lords amendments 17 to 32 ensure that those officers have the relevant safeguards, protections and legal clarity when utilising the powers, and make the required consequential changes.

Lords amendments 5, 6 38, 39 and 40 were tabled in response to the Joint Committee on Human Rights report on the Bill and debate in the other place, and ensure that proportionate, robust and appropriate safeguards are in place. Lords amendments 5 and 6 introduce additional safeguards to the offences set out in clause 13, and exempt from these offences any item or substance designed for personal cleanliness or hygiene. This includes items such as soap, toothpaste, sanitary products and other essentials that individuals may carry for personal dignity and wellbeing. I hope that gives the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart)  a degree of comfort. Limitations to this exemption are set out where certain items present a heightened risk of being repurposed as weapons or used in ways that endanger others. That strikes the appropriate balance on this important point.

Clause 43 enables stronger conditions to be placed on those who pose a threat pending their removal. Lords amendments 38, 39 and 40 do not alter the original intention of the clause, but ensure that the Bill sets out the limited circumstances in which an individual could have conditions such as electronic monitoring or curfews placed on their leave to enter or remain. This includes cases where the Secretary of State considers that the person poses a threat to national security or public safety, or where they have been convicted of a serious crime or a sexual offence.

The Government made a number of small amendments in the other place that seek to clarify the provisions to which they relate. Lords amendments 33, 34 and 35 are minor and technical changes to remove references to data protection legislation that are redundant following the enactment of section 106 of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025.

Lords amendment 36 amends the consultation requirements to require the Secretary of State to consult the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland and the relevant Scottish Ministers prior to making regulations that determine the purpose for which trailer registration information may be shared with the police. The amendment does not affect the Secretary of State’s discretion to consult representatives of police bodies. \p Jim Shannon: rose— \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The hon. Gentleman has just walked in, and I do not think he has heard everything that has been said. That is rather unfair, and I do not expect people to do that. He should know better. \p Alex Norris: I can assure Members, especially those from Northern Ireland, that we are talking closely with colleagues in the Northern Ireland Executive—the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) knows well from our many discussions on the topic how much I value my relationships with them. I met several of them on Monday and I will continue to do so to make sure that the application of this provision and beyond is as good as possible and works seamlessly across all parts of the United Kingdom. I hope that provides a degree of comfort.

Lords amendments 41 and 42 relate to clause 62, the commencement clause, and the commencement of clause 42, which provides legal clarity for EU citizens and their family members with EU settlement scheme status—those who are in scope of the withdrawal agreement and have that as the source of their rights in the UK. The amendments change the commencement provision so that clause 42 will be brought into force on Royal Assent, to provide legal certainty as soon as possible for all EU citizens and their family members with EUSS status as to their rights in the UK.

This is a really important Bill. The work done in the other place was excellent, and I commend Lord Hanson of Flint especially on his work. Colleagues in the other place worked hard to improve the legislation, which we appreciate, and I ask the House to support our amendments today. \p Matt Vickers: The Opposition join the Minister in thanking our colleagues in the other place for their work on and scrutiny of this Bill. I would like to thank my colleagues Lord Cameron of Lochiel and Lord Davies of Gower, as well as numerous members of the other place, including Lord Jackson, for their work.

The subject of the Bill is extremely important to this country and its future. I am afraid the reality is that, under this Labour Government, illegal immigration has got much, much worse. We are in the grip of an immigration crisis. Small boat crossings have surged. They are up 55% against the same period before the election. In the nine months before the election, the number of people in hotels had gone down by 47%, but since this Government came to power, it has gone up.

This country is our home; it is not a hotel. We need stronger borders to make sure that those who come to our country share our values, contribute to society, and are not simply a drain on the resources that taxpayers fund. The Bill will remove powers that allow us to detain and deport people who arrive here illegally. It will remove powers that allow us to mandate scientific age tests for those who arrive here illegally claiming to be children. It will allow people who break into our country illegally to become British citizens. Those who break into our country should not be allowed to stay.

This week, the Home Secretary announced a new plan, which she says will tackle the immigration crisis.

Lords amendment 37 would ensure transparent data on one of the key contributors to the high immigration that the Government say that they want to reduce. Transparency matters for public trust and accountability. Opposition to the amendment is completely at odds with the Home Secretary’s rhetoric, and the action that she promised us earlier this week. Once again, the Bill has been nowhere near as ambitious or radical as it needs to be to stop dangerous crossings in their tracks. The Government should be using every tool available to control immigration and make our country safer.

I appreciate that there are Members in this House who question why this amendment is necessary. As my noble Friend Lord Jackson said in the other place, when he sought to obtain information from the Government on the number of foreign students who had their visas revoked and had been deported because of criminal activity, he faced a series of non-answers from the Department. The Minister representing the Government on Report acknowledged that without proper information on that and a number of other matters, it is very difficult to have an informed public debate.

We must do what we can to mandate the publication of a wider array of information. If the Government already have this data, then the natural question is: why do they not publish it? I stress that the amendment is not aimed at the vast majority of individuals who study hard in the UK and contribute to society, but the minority who abuse that privilege. Without this data, how can the public have trust? How can we have a proper debate about the issue of foreign criminals in our country?

Records of the number of people arriving in the country illegally and disputing their age were previously published, but that data has been hidden since the  Government came to power. Why is that? This week, the Government looked like they were beginning to make a start on overhauling our asylum system. The current situation is not tenable, but as always, they are bold on rhetoric and weak on action. Whether it is on economic growth, policing, energy, or asylum, they say one thing, and their actions achieve the exact opposite.

The Conservatives will not stand in the way of amendments that give the public transparency and Ministers greater powers to tackle the issue of illegal immigration head-on. The Minister needs all the powers that he can to get to tackle our broken immigration system, and that is why the Conservatives will vote against the motion. \p Alex Ballinger: I thank the Minister for his earlier comments. When I speak to constituents in Halesowen, Cradley Heath and Quarry Bank, their message for me is clear: they are concerned about illegal immigration, and they want the Labour party to secure our borders. That was one of our manifesto commitments, because there is nothing progressive about allowing smuggling gangs to take people across Europe, or about children drowning in the channel. I welcome the Bill, and I welcome the tough measures that the Home Secretary announced on Monday.

I will speak to Lords amendments 7 to 9 and 12 to 15. They are mostly about criminalising the online advertising and marketing of illegal migration actions, often conducted by smuggling gangs. There are lots of reasons why people flee a country and seek refuge in another, including conflict and persecution. \p Jim Shannon: I welcome what the Government are trying to do, and the thrust of what the Minister is saying, but I think that the Minister and the hon. Gentleman are referring to the fact that we have to ensure that there is a bit of muscle behind the legislation. My colleague Lord Weir was very clear in the other place about our party’s point of view on the legislation. There are people from across the world who flee their home because of persecution or human rights abuses, and who have nowhere to go. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern about those who can never go back to their country again? I know people who came to Newtownards in my constituency six or eight years ago, and there are six Syrian families who are still there. They are established in the community. Does he agree that those who flee persecution must be protected in the legislation? \p Alex Ballinger: Yes, of course. We are a compassionate country, and a place of refuge for many people who are fleeing persecution or face other issues. Everything that the Government have announced this week, and the measures in the Bill, allow us to be compassionate; but we can also be also tough on the smuggling gangs, who are in no way compassionate, and who are bringing people into this country on very dangerous journeys.

As I said, people are fleeing conflict and poverty, and I have mentioned in other debates the importance of the Foreign Office investing in conflict resolution and prevention in order to mitigate the challenges from which people are fleeing. However, that does not excuse the smuggling gangs that are operating for profit, or the   organisations that market these dangerous journeys, often on Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp or Telegram. They are selling the service of smuggling people across continents on dangerous journeys. I am pleased that Lords amendment 8 cracks down on online gangs’ marketing and advertising, and that we have some tough new criminal measures to use against them. I understand the need not to place the liability on the platform providers, but how will we work with those platforms, if we see smuggling gangs advertising routes or selling illegal work opportunities on them? How will we ensure that the legislation is effective?

Lords amendments 12 and 13 are about cracking down on such advertising, even if it is not in the UK. People advertising smuggling opportunities are likely to be based in Europe or the middle east, so it is important that our legislation is extended to allow us to go after the gangs operating outside the UK, where possible, and I welcome that change.

In summary, this is an excellent Bill and I support the amendments. It is important that we use all the powers that we have to go after the smuggling gangs. The legislation is an important step, and I am pleased that we are building on it with what the Home Secretary announced earlier this week. \p Judith Cummins: I call the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats. \p Will Forster: The Liberal Democrats and I want to stop dangerous small boat crossings. We want to stop the smuggling gangs and bring them to justice. The former Conservative Government failed to do either. My constituents in Woking and people across the country need this Government to deliver a compassionate, effective and fair immigration and asylum system. If this Government thought that this Bill and the amendments were enough to do that, the Home Secretary would not have come to the House on Monday to announce another raft of immigration measures. \p Pete Wishart: Like me and several other hon. Members present, the hon. Gentleman spent hours in Committee considering these measures, only for the Home Secretary to come along this week and trump them with even harsher measures. Does he agree that it almost feels like we are all wasting our time considering measures that will be superseded by the measures announced by the Home Secretary? \p Will Forster: The hon. Gentleman and I, and others, worked really hard in Committee, proposing humanitarian visa amendments, and trying to lift the ban on asylum seekers working—both measures that would have made things better for taxpayers and for vulnerable refugees. Sadly, we were not listened to, but I hope that we will be listened to if we have the pleasure, or the unfortunate duty, of serving on the Bill Committee for the next Bill. \p Chris Murray: Since we all served on the Committee for this Bill, the Government have announced a “one in, one out” deal with France, and this week, new safe routes were announced by the Home Secretary as part of the  new package. Under the “one in, one out” deal, the “one in” will arrive by a safe route, so will the hon. Gentleman welcome the Government’s reforms to the immigration system, given that that is what he has been calling for? \p Will Forster: I am pleased that the Home Secretary and the Government are finally listening to what I and others have been saying for years: that safe and legal routes are important. However, the “one in, one out” deal with France is not delivering what the Government wanted. The humanitarian visas and the safe routes that we proposed would have done so. We have not seen a flood of Ukrainians crossing the channel, because we have a genuine safe route for them, and we need to expand such initiatives to others.

Let me make some progress. The Liberal Democrats—and others, I assume—welcome parts of this Bill, but the glaring reality is that it falls far short of what is needed to keep our borders and people safe. The Government say that the Bill gives authorities stronger tools, and some of that is true. For example, clauses 19 to 26, which were added in Committee, give the Border Force and the police further powers to seize electronic devices, and I think that is broadly sensible. A Government amendment on Report on tightening offences linked to the supply of equipment used in organised crime was also a reasonable step.

The Liberal Democrats and I also welcome changes that our peers pressed for in the other place, including the exemption for hygiene products, which came from a recommendation by the Joint Committee on Human Rights—I know the Minister mentioned that. I am grateful to the Government for listening in this instance to the suggestions of my colleagues.

The Government were defeated in the other place on an amendment that required the collection of data about overseas students who had visas revoked due to criminal offences. That Conservative Lords amendment would not help to tackle organised crime, or to improve border security, and I do not believe that it strengthens this Bill, so Liberal Democrat MPs will not support it today.

The Government pushed Lords amendments on data sharing, the EU settlement scheme and conditions on leave or bail, many of which tidy things up, or respond to the Liberal Democrats’ human rights concerns. Those are fine as far as they go, but they do not change the overall picture.

In summary, if the Government truly want to stop small boat crossings, they must work more closely with our European partners. Tough talk at home will not achieve what co-operation abroad can, and this Bill and the tabled Lords amendments will not tackle the huge asylum backlog, or reduce the hotel bills that this Government inherited from the Conservatives. Unless the Government support what we are calling for, this Bill will not deliver the safe borders and fairer system that the public expect, and they will remember that at the ballot box. \p Chris Murray: I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and to the support that my office receives from the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy Project.

It is good to see us making progress on this really important Bill, which is utterly essential to what the Government are trying to achieve on the reform of asylum. Nobody can argue that the asylum system in Britain does not need reform. Public trust has been draining from it, because of the growth in illegal crossings and asylum hotels, and because asylum seekers are drowning in the channel as a result of this vile trade. Only last month, a one-month-old baby drowned off the British coast. That is unacceptable. Some 14 children died last year; if that number of children were dying in any other circumstances, people would call on the Government to go hell for leather in tackling it, and to do anything it took to do so. We must do the same for children who are asylum seekers.

I strongly welcome Lords amendment 8. Asylum crossings in the channel are driven by two factors: supply and demand. “Demand” means the causes of asylum, such as war, climate change, conflict and repression. “Supply” relates to the supply of small boats, gangs who facilitate the crossing, the ability to get over the channel, and the networks upstream funnelling them to Calais. A big part of the operation is the social media enterprise.

More than 10 years ago, I was a justice and home affairs attaché in Paris, working on channel crossings. They took place on lorries at the time, and we were able to clamp down on that, but the fundamental difference between now and then—it was more than 10 years ago—is the existence of social media. There is an incredibly sophisticated network of human traffickers, who are incredibly well financed, as a result of the costs that they put on migrants and organised crime. They use social media, exploit migrants and put them in the boats.

Lords amendment 8 is really important in criminalising the facilitation and advertisement of illegal immigration. My question to the Home Office is whether it is properly stepping up its capabilities, and its engagement with private sector and social media firms, to ensure an impact. It will change the calculus for asylum seekers on the path to the UK if they are given proper information, not misleading information by traffickers.

I turn to the Opposition’s Lords amendment 37, on data collection and international students. Public data on migration is incredibly important. The public want to see control of the immigration system; transparency and data are central to that. However, this Lords amendment is not the way to go about getting proper data and scrutiny of the migration system. That is partly because amendments to primary legislation lead to selective, partial or mandated publication of data that is highly controversial and can be selectively and partially used by people on all sides of the migration debate to make their specific point.

It is far better to have official sources of public data on migration published in bulk—which we have. We have Home Office statistics, and statistics from the Office for National Statistics. It is also far better to support organisations like the Migration Observatory, and other think-tanks, in properly scrutinising the data. That equips us in this House—and, more importantly,  the public and the media—to analyse the immigration system. We can then see if policy interventions are having the desired effect.

Let me touch on the point raised by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) about the distinction between charities and organisations that work with asylum seekers, and the organised criminal gangs who seek to facilitate illegal entry. That is an important distinction, and we do not want to make it harder to work for those organisations that support asylum seekers, who are often very vulnerable people. I was the chair of the Refugee Survival Trust, and I have worked in local government on support for migrants and refugees, and it is important that we make that support happen. We are talking about criminalising the exploitation component. As we heard from the Minister, that does not affect the work of migration organisations that help migrants.

It is really good to see this Bill strengthened by further amendments from the Government, and to see that it will soon become an Act. We need to get it on to the statute book as soon as possible, and we need the Home Office to operationalise its measures, so that we can start tackling this vile trade in human beings. \p Alex Norris: With the leave of the House, I am grateful to all hon. Members for their contributions and to those who took this legislation through all its previous stages.

Let me address some of the points made today. My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) made some important points around online advertising and the responsibilities falling not on the providers, but on those sending those messages or putting out those advertisements. We think that is the current gap in provisions that we need to fill, but providers have a really important responsibility too. There are provisions in the Online Safety Act 2023 that relate to that work, but I reassure him that we talk to providers and will continue to engage with them to ensure that their platforms are not being used for what is the ultimate trade in human misery. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) mentioned that issue as well.

I share the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen made about conflict resolution. We talk about upstream working, and that is the ultimate upstream working—it is very much Britain’s place in the world. British Aid works to tackle famine and disease and also works on education, particularly for women and girls, which we know can be transformative around the world. I totally agree with my hon. Friend’s point about our work overseas, which the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster), also talked about. That work and that international co-operation are crucial, and I assure colleagues that we are doing that day in, day out, as I always say.

We had the pleasure of hosting the Berlin process in recent weeks. I said to all my counterparts that we are dealing with these shared challenges, and they agreed. The organised immigration crime networks, which we are talking about and which are addressed in this legislation, are by definition sophisticated and global, and we are engaging with them in different ways. We have to ensure that we have as good a co-ordinated approach as possible.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh, given his long professional work in this space and his work on the Home Affairs Committee. I am grateful to him for enhancing the process of this Bill’s passage and other processes, and he is right: at the root of this issue are death and misery, which is exploited by criminals. We must tackle that, but those criminals’ networks are sophisticated, so as their capabilities increase, so must ours. That is the purpose of this legislation—both being able to tackle where those criminals advertise their services, and giving Border Security Command and others the tools they need to tackle them. I totally agree with his point about the value of data in its collective form, rather than any one strand, which I will address when I respond to the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers).

I thought that the Lib Dem spokesperson was slightly unfair—which is not in his nature—in his characterisation of what happened on Monday. Everything we talked about on Monday builds on what we are putting in place through this legislation; it is all part of the same approach to tackling both organised crime, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh said, and the supply and demand challenges in this area. I know that the Lib Dem spokesperson thinks the work on safe routes that we announced is really important. He and his colleagues are going to want to take part in that process, and of course they will have an opportunity to do so.

That brings me to the Opposition spokesperson. He has a terribly difficult job—the word I wrote down was “desperate”, but I am not going to use that word in this context. “Difficult” is what I will say to the hon. Member for Stockton West, because he wants people in this place and those watching us to believe that there is in some way anger among Conservative Members at the circumstances we find ourselves in today regarding hotels and small boat crossings, as if these are not phenomena that can be dated to within much less than a decade and started on the Conservatives’ watch. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said on Monday, and as I will say again, any contribution from the Conservatives that does not start with an apology will not wash with the British public. \p Matt Vickers: Is the Minister aware that in the nine months up to the election, the number of people in hotels fell by 47%? It has now gone up, and the number of people arriving in this country has gone up by 55%, while the number of those arriving in small boats and being removed has gone down. It is just not on—it is a car crash. \p Alex Norris: Again, I know that the hon. Gentleman has to try hard to desperately defend the previous Government’s record and their failure. He knows as well as I do that the original sin in this area was the six-year head start that he and his colleagues gave to organised crime, and he will now chirp from the sidelines while we break that cycle. We are getting on with the job while the Conservatives talk about it.

Let us talk about the removal of the deterrent—that is not quite within the scope of the amendments made in the other place, but the hon. Gentleman talked about  Rwanda, as his colleagues did the other day. I would gently say that from the day that the Rwanda deal was signed to the day it was scrapped, 84,000 people crossed the channel, so the idea that it was in some way a deterrent is for the birds. Until and unless colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench enter the real world, they are going to struggle for credibility. \p Matt Vickers: Those people who arrived in this country illegally were going to Rwanda. Where are they now? \p Alex Norris: The hon. Gentleman will know that in this Government’s 16 months in office we have removed 50,000 people who had no right to be here. \p Matt Vickers: Will the Minister give way? \p Alex Norris: The hon. Gentleman can ask the questions, but he cannot give the answers as well. I am afraid that I will not give way again—I am going to finish my point. When it comes to removing people with no right to be here, our record in office is a 23% increase on what the Conservatives managed to do.

On Monday, we heard something very interesting from the Leader of the Opposition. She committed Opposition Front Benchers to co-operating with what she said was such an important shared endeavour, and we have an opportunity to test that today, because the hon. Member for Stockton West heard what I said in my opening speech. He heard about my belief in transparency in this area and building public confidence through transparency in the statistics, which he also expressed in his contribution. \p Matt Vickers: Will the Minister give way? \p Alex Norris: The hon. Gentleman really does have to let me finish my point before I give way. He heard about this Government’s commitment to that, and about the work that is under way. Having known each other for as long as we have, I hope he will take it in good faith that we are committed to publishing stats that will mean people know what is going on in this area. On that basis, the hon. Gentleman does not really need to support the Lords amendment, but I will let him make his case. \p Matt Vickers: People out there are really concerned about people arriving illegally in this country claiming to be children, and the impact that that can have on our education and care settings. This Bill removes our ability to scientifically age-verify some of those people, but more than that, since this Government came to office, they have stopped publishing the data on age disputes on arrival. What do they have to hide? Why will they not publish that data? \p Alex Norris: I am afraid that panto season is starting early, Madam Deputy Speaker. \p Jerome Mayhew: indicated dissent. \p Alex Norris: We want to bring forward a whole set of data on this issue that helps people get a picture of what is going on—I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) heard  me say that, but the hon. Member for Stockton West certainly did. I have made that commitment from this Dispatch Box, and that is what we will do. \p Matt Vickers: Will the Minister give way? \p Alex Norris: I will not give way, as the hon. Gentleman has more than had the opportunity to make his case. We have said that that is what we will do, and that is what we will do. On that basis, there really is no need for Lords amendment 37, but as I say, we will test the co-operation of Conservative Front Benchers. Will it last even 48 hours? From the hon. Gentleman’s demeanour, I suspect it will not.

It is so important that this legislation reaches the statute book quickly. The need for these powers is urgent, and we are down to one point of disagreement with the other place. This Bill is central to the Government’s actions to strengthen border security. It includes new, transformative measures to deliver on our manifesto commitment to identify, intercept, disrupt and prevent serious and organised crime through new criminal offences, expanded data-sharing capabilities and improved intelligence. It will disrupt the business models of organised crime groups and reduce unlawful migration to the UK. \p Carla Lockhart: Does the Minister accept that despite his opening remarks and his words about Northern Ireland, the reality and the understanding of people in Northern Ireland is very different, given that we are subject to EU law in this space? This is a very real issue for people in Northern Ireland. They want zero tolerance of illegal entry and fast removal of those who are blocking up our public services, which are already stretched to capacity, so will the Minister go further and have this sovereign UK Parliament legislate for Northern Ireland to protect our borders? \p Alex Norris: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. She may have heard me say before that it is not in the interests of anyone, anywhere in the UK, for the work of establishing order and control at the United Kingdom’s southern border to create displacement challenges with regard to the common travel area. That is something we are very concerned about, and it is something that I talk to colleagues across the UK and beyond about. Of course, we have had very successful interventions in this area, such as Operation Comby.

Turning to her question about future legislation, she will have heard what the Home Secretary had to say the other day. There will be plenty of opportunities within that process to have those sorts of conversations, but our resolution is to make sure that we have a system that establishes order and control. That is what this legislation is in service of, and it is what the work set out on Monday is in service of. \p Alex Ballinger: Could the Minister talk more about the data that we already have, how we are properly tracking the number of refugees already, and why Lords amendment 37 is not appropriate? \p Alex Norris: As I said in my opening speech, it is right that we take our time to develop the right package of data, so that we can publish it and the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) and I can sit down and  discuss it in great detail. [Interruption.] As always, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley wants it now, but as I suspect he is learning, opposition does not always work on a “now” timeline. The Conservatives may well have some time in which to find that out. \p Chris Murray: Does the Minister agree that we have a very strong ecosystem of data on migration in this country? For example, the Home Office publishes enormous amounts of data every quarter. The ONS publishes a lot of data, and the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration publishes and analyses lots of the data that the new occupant of that role collects. We also have an ecosystem of think-tanks, research organisations and universities—for example, the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford does amazing work in this space. The challenge is not that data on immigration is not available; it is that people interpret it selectively for their own purposes. \p Alex Norris: That is always the challenge, because we live in a world of misinformation, disinformation and, I am sad to say, occasionally bad faith. However, my antidote to that is the same as my hon. Friend’s: better transparency is the best way to see our way through. He is exactly right that we already publish a vast amount, including on visas, returns and detention. He is exactly right that we keep things under review in line with the code of practice for statistics.

I say gently to Opposition colleagues that we have made a commitment. Many of them did not see my opening speech, so it perhaps bears repeating. We understand the heightened interest from parliamentarians, the media and members of the public in the number and type of criminal offences committed by foreign nationals and what happens to them. It is in everybody’s interest for that to be known. It is also in everybody’s interest for that dataset to be as good as possible. \p Matt Vickers: People out there are concerned about 30-year-olds trying to get into classrooms with 13-year-olds. They want to know how often it is being tried. Why have the Home Office and the Government stopped publishing the data around age verification? \p Alex Norris: It is getting to the point where I might not be able to help the Opposition spokesperson, because I have answered the question. It is in nobody’s interest, as I say, for important information to not be available. We are preparing it as a whole dataset. I said that in opening, and I have said it in response to him at least once, and I have said it again. [Interruption.] I hear the question, “When?” As soon as we can accurately publish it, that is what we will do.

There is a danger that we are down to the narcissism of small differences on this Bill. I do not really think that this is the hon. Gentleman’s principal objection, but I know that he has committed from the Opposition Front Bench, as did the Leader of the Opposition, to co-operation in ensuring that we tackle the pernicious crime of organised immigration crime and that we have order and control at our borders. I look forward to their co-operation.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 37. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 326, Noes 92.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment 37 disagreed to.

Lords amendments 1 to 36 and 38 to 42 agreed to.

Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to draw up a Reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment 37;

That Alex Norris, Stephen Morgan, Sarah Coombes, Mr Jonathan Brash, Chris Murray, Matt Vickers and Clive Jones be members of the Committee;

That Alex Norris be the Chair of the Committee;

That three be the quorum of the Committee.

That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Gregor Poynton.)

Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords. \p UNKNOWN: Considered in Committee

[Judith Cummins in the Chair] \p UNKNOWN: Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. \p Judith Cummins: With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 2 stand part.

I remind Members that in Committee they should not address the Chair as Mr or Madam Deputy Speaker, but use our names. Madam Chair, Chair or Madam Chairman are also acceptable. \p Sarah Sackman: It is a pleasure to serve under you, Madam Chair.

I am pleased to open this discussion on the clauses of a focused but important Bill, designed to drive innovation, enhance legal certainty, and strengthen our standing in the global digital economy. Let me turn first to clause 1—an unassuming clause on the page, but one with important implications for the future of our legal system and our economy.

Clause 1 is the engine room of the Bill. It provides a clear and powerful statement: that a thing—including something digital or electronic—can be recognised as personal property, even if it does not fall within either of the categories that our legal system has traditionally recognised. For centuries the law has drawn a simple line: personal property was either a “thing in possession”, that being a physical object such as a car or a watch, or a “thing in action”, something that exists because the law says it does and is enforced through legal action, such as a debt or a contractual right. However, the world has changed. Technology has leapt forward, and our law must keep pace. Today we have assets such as crypto-tokens. They are not physical objects, yet their existence is not reliant on the law. They do not fit comfortably into either of the traditional categories.

Our courts have begun to acknowledge that such assets can and should be the subject of property rights, but without a clear, binding legal foundation, uncertainty remains—uncertainty that could stifle innovation, deter investment, and push the digital economy elsewhere. This Government will not allow that to happen. Driving sustainable growth is a top priority for us, and that means giving businesses and investors the certainty that they need to thrive. With this single clause, we are removing doubt and sending a clear message: we are open for business in the digital age.

By removing ambiguity, clause 1 ensures that those who hold or transact in digital assets are better supported to defend their property rights, transfer them and recover them when it matters most. The Bill reinforces our position as a global jurisdiction of choice for legal innovation, emerging technology and the digital economy. We are leading from the front. To be clear, clause 1 does  not attempt to draw rigid lines around what qualifies as property—that is a deliberate choice. It rightly empowers our courts to continue developing the common law, case by case, applying centuries of legal wisdom to the frontiers of a digital economy. The reference to “digital or electronic things” in the Bill simply reflects where the issues most commonly arise today, without boxing in where the law might go tomorrow. The clause paves the way for fairer outcomes in cases of theft, fraud, commercial dispute or insolvency involving digital assets. It will reduce litigation costs, promote market stability and underpin our reputation as a jurisdiction of choice in a digital world. This is a small clause with big consequences. It is a bold, forward-looking step that reaffirms our commitment to legal certainty, technological progress and global leadership.

Clause 2 sets out the title, territorial extent and commencement date. Once granted Royal Assent, the legislation will become the Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025. That title—Digital Assets etc—is no accident. It has been carefully chosen to capture the technologies of today, such as crypto-tokens, while keeping the door open to future innovations. This is a law built not just for now but for what may come next. The Act will extend to England and Wales, and Northern Ireland. That will minimise legal discrepancies across jurisdictions and help to ensure that the benefits, such as legal clarity, investor confidence and streamlined dispute resolution, are more widely felt across these jurisdictions. I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that the Bill does not extend to Scotland, owing to differences in property law. However, the Scottish Government introduced their own Digital Assets Bill on 30 September, confirming that certain kinds of digital assets can be objects of property under Scots private law.

Importantly, the Act will come into force the moment it receives Royal Assent—no delays, no retrospective effect—because the legislation does not create new burdens. It confirms and clarifies the law as it has been developing under common law. As a result, there will be immediate certainty, minimal disruption, and a strong foundation for our digital economy. I commend the Bill to the Committee. \p Judith Cummins: I call the shadow Minister. \p Kieran Mullan: I am pleased to speak again on behalf of the Opposition as we carry forward the constructive debate that we had on Second Reading.

Let me restate from the outset our support for the Bill, which represents a careful, modest step in the right direction, and preserves the inherent flexibility of the common law while giving just enough statutory certainty to ensure that businesses, innovators and courts know the ground beneath their feet. That balance is vital. If we over-prescribed in statute, we would risk freezing progress. If we left matters entirely to the interpretation of the courts, we would risk fragmentation and delay. The Bill avoids both extremes.

Importantly, this legislation was not born overnight. It is the product of the rigorous work of the Law Commission—work commissioned by the last Conservative Government, who recognised early the need for clarity in this space if the UK was to stay competitive  internationally. The commission’s conclusion was clear: certain digital assets simply do not fit neatly into the centuries-old categories of things in possession or things in action. Without intervention, the risk grew that uncertainty would hold back investment, undermine commercial transactions and frustrate innovators and consumers.

The Bill answers that challenge in the right way. It does not attempt to define every kind of digital asset that might emerge. Nobody in this Chamber—or indeed beyond it—can predict the full scope of the technologies that will shape our financial and commercial future in the coming decades. Instead, the Bill does something both restrained and profound: it confirms that digital things are not excluded from attracting property rights merely because they fall outside the old categories. Beyond that, it gives our common law the space it needs to continue doing what it has done for centuries: develop sensibly, case by case, guided by principle rather than by prescription.

That is not to say that the state has been inactive in related causes. Since 2023, cryptoasset promotion has been subject to the Financial Conduct Authority rules, the money laundering regulations have been amended for the new cryptocurrency class, and the Government have consulted on bring crypto-trading platforms and custody services within the broader perimeter of financial regulation. The Bank of England and the FCA are exploring robust frameworks for stablecoins and custody. However, none of this works unless the foundational question, “What is the legal status of these assets?”, is clearly answered. That is exactly what the Bill provides.

Let me end by reiterating what I said on Second Reading: the UK must remain at the forefront of global legal innovation. When technological change accelerates, the temptation can be either to rush into rigid regulation or to do nothing at all. The Bill avoids both pitfalls. It is proportionate, it is principled, and it is rooted in the understanding—championed strongly by the previous Conservative Government—that legal certainty is a foundation for growth, investment and innovation in this area. For all those reasons, the Opposition will continue to support the Bill, and we look forward to working constructively to ensure that it delivers the clarity that our courts, consumers and businesses need. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Will Forster: It is a pleasure to speak once again in this Chamber on the Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill, which creates a modern legal framework that will allow Britain to take every opportunity we can while protecting ourselves in an ever-changing digital age.

The Liberal Democrats support clause 1. It states that a “thing”—including a digital or electronic thing—will not be deprived of legal status as an object of personal property rights merely by reason of the fact that it is neither a thing in action nor a thing in possession. The clause responds to the development of new types of assets such as crypto-tokens, which challenge the traditional categories of property. I am grateful to the other place for scrutinising this legal framework incredibly well. As a result, we have a fine piece of legislation to discuss.

The digital world is often mired in legal ambiguity about how common-law systems treats digital assets. At present, the law recognises two primary forms of personal property: things in possession and things in action. However, digital assets, which cannot be physically possessed and often do no count for a claim against another person, do not really fit easily into either category. The need for clarity is imperative. We risk undermining individual rights and weakening legal solutions in cases involving cryptoassets, non-fungible tokens and other digital holdings.

The Bill goes far in ensuring that digital things are not denied property status simply because they do not fall into the normal categories. Consequently, we also support clause 2, as it requires the Secretary of State to publish codes of practice on the attributes of digital things that confer personal property rights. The clause aims to provide guidance to the courts on how to assess whether a digital asset is the object of personal property rights.

The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s decision to accept the Law Commission’s recommendations. Financial Conduct Authority figures indicate that nearly 12% of UK adults now hold cryptoassets—I know because constituency cases are raised with me when things go wrong—and that figure has more than doubled since 2021. However, victims of fraud, people seeking restitution in insolvency, or simply those wishing to assert ownership over what they rightfully hold, have been operating in a murky legal landscape. The Bill leaves room for the common law to develop in that sphere of property. That will help the law to reflect the evolving nature of technology, but it must be monitored over time to ensure that regulation ultimately aligns with the need to protect individual rights and support our economy.

We know that digital assets can also present risks, particularly fraud, volatility and abuse, but we cannot ignore them; we must face them head on. We need a modern legal framework that bolsters confidence in our economy and in the use of digital assets, and supports the rule of law. The Bill is clear, well written and makes doubly sure that UK law remains relevant in the digital world. It is supported by the Law Society, by legal practitioners and by the Liberal Democrats. I urge colleagues on all sides of the Committee to support its passage. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Minister to wind up the debate \p Sarah Sackman: With the leave of the Committee, I give my sincere thanks to the hon. Members for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) and for Woking (Mr Forster). It has been a pleasure to discuss the clauses in more detail, and it is good to see constructive consensus about a piece of legislation. I think we all agree that it brings legal certainty, keeps pace with legal innovation, is proportionate, and meets the moment, with the growth of cryptocurrency and other related industries. I thank all those who have contributed to this important debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

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

Let me I start by reiterating my sincere thanks to Members of this House and the other place for their support and insightful contributions. I am particularly grateful for the support expressed on Second Reading by the hon. Members for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) and for Woking (Mr Forster), and all Members who have contributed throughout the passage of the Bill. Their engagement demonstrates strong, cross-party momentum behind modernising our personal property law.

I also pay tribute to the former Special Public Bill Committee, which gathered expert evidence and was ably led by Lord Anderson of Ipswich. The Law Commission deserves particular recognition for its exemplary work, led by Laura Burgoyne and Christopher Long, and on which this Bill stands. Their engagement with stakeholders has been gold standard and demonstrated the benefits of coherent law reform—transparent, expert-led and deeply consultative. I would also like to thank the former law commissioner Professor Sarah Green for her contribution to this work and for giving evidence at Committee.

Lastly, I put on record my thanks to the officials who have worked tirelessly on this Bill. I thank my policy officials, Alicia Love and Jonathan Fear, the Bill managers, Harry McNeill-Adams and Lily Sullivan, and Helen Hall from the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. I also thank my private office, in particular my private secretary, Amelia Overton, and Meheret Ashenafi.

This is more than a Bill; it is a landmark step towards ensuring that the law of England and Wales, and Northern Ireland, not only keeps pace with innovation but leads it. The Bill will give digital pioneers the certainty they need, backed by the legal strength they expect from our country. It shows that our economy is open, our ambition is global, and we are here to support innovation. By supporting the recognition of digital assets as property, the Bill helps establish legal certainty.

The Bill gives industry the confidence to innovate here, knowing that our legal system can support new models of ownership, transfer and settlement. This is how we translate legal reform into economic leadership. It is how we show that we are at the forefront of the technical revolution, and how that can be seen in the real world with the London Stock Exchange’s announcement of a new digital asset platform. This is the first major global stock exchange to implement a blockchain-based system.

This Government are backing growth, backing technology and backing Britain’s future, and as such, I commend the Bill to the House. \p Kieran Mullan: I rise simply to put on the record my thanks, particularly to the Bill Committee and to the Law Commission for its diligence. Yet again we see the great benefit that our state machinery and apparatus as whole derive from having the Law Commission. I have nothing further to add. \p Will Forster: I thank colleagues from across the House. It is a good example of cross-party working, delivering a Bill that has been well-scrutinised and is fit for purpose. In that spirit, I hope that the Minister can take that away and encourage her colleagues to do the same with other legislation.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Unmanned Aircraft (Offences and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 21 October, be approved.—(Gregor Poynton)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Online Safety Act 2023 (Priority Offences) (Amendment) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 21 October, be approved.—(Gregor Poynton.)

Question agreed to. \p Mims Davies: I rise on behalf of the 279 petitioners from Crawley Down in my constituency of East Grinstead, Uckfield and the villages, and the further 370 who have signed the petition online. I present the petition especially on behalf of Joy, an elderly constituent who risks being cut off and isolated should this unwanted and unwarranted development take place.

The petition states:

The petition of residents of the constituency of East Grinstead and Uckfield,

Declares that the proposal to potentially demolish the existing dwellings in Woodlands Close and to create a significant new access road serving potentially 48 additional homes is inappropriate and would cause significant harm to the wider local community; further declares that the scale of the proposed development is out of keeping with the surrounding area, that residents would be subjected to noise and disruption, that the affordable housing mix of the proposed development is inadequate, that Woodlands Close could not accommodate the volume of traffic that would arise from the development, that the development would risk harming the heritage asset of Grade II listed Burleigh Cottage and the natural environment, and that public consultation regarding this proposal was inadequate and has not taken into account significant flooding risks and topography.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to encourage Mid Sussex District Council to withhold planning permission for this development to protect the wider local community in Crawley Down and in particular any homes impacted by this significant road layout change which will isolate one dwelling in particular.

And the petitioners remain, etc.

[P003136] \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Gregor Poynton.)2.37 pm \p Andrew Cooper: From a debate about the personal property rights of crypto tokens, we move seamlessly into a debate I am proud to have secured on railway station accessibility, specifically at Northwich in my constituency. My thanks go to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and Mr Speaker for giving me the opportunity to talk about it. This is a long-standing issue that affects not just disabled people but the entire community of Northwich. For more than a decade, the station has lacked any step-free access to its second platform, leaving many passengers effectively cut off from half the station and unable to complete their journeys.

As we all know, rail travel is not just about getting from A to B; it is about connecting lives and communities. Our railways provide essential links for people who might otherwise face isolation and exclusion, offering vital access to employment, learning and healthcare and keeping us connected to the people and communities that matter most. They are the backbone of opportunity, helping people to participate fully in society. By doing this, rail services drive economic growth, strengthen social cohesion and improve health and wellbeing across the country. However, these benefits matter only if everyone can use the network with confidence, which means removing the obstacles that make rail travel challenging or impossible for some people.

Accessibility is not an optional extra—it is fundamental to ensuring that our railways serve every passenger, regardless of their needs. That is not the case at Northwich station today. Since 2013, when the old barrow crossing was removed, passengers have had no step-free way to access the Chester-bound platform, meaning that passengers who cannot use stairs cannot get to it. \p Linsey Farnsworth: I share my hon. Friend’s concerns about accessibility in train stations. We had a similar issue at Alfreton train station, where, after 20 years of campaigning by Labour councillors, I was fortunate enough to open the new lift, allowing accessibility from one platform to the other, only in July. However, we still have a similar issue at Langley Mill train station, so I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns. Will he join me in urging the Government to make accessibility at our train stations an absolute priority? \p Andrew Cooper: I congratulate my hon. Friend and her councillors on securing that improvement. I agree with her entirely, and I am sure the Minister has heard what she has said.

Passengers in Northwich who cannot use stairs cannot get to the Chester-bound platform. There is no lift and no ramp; there is just a steep footbridge with 41 steps. That means that wheelchair users, people with limited mobility, elderly passengers, parents with prams and anyone with heavy luggage are all put at a disadvantage or, worse, locked out completely. For some, that means missing trains; for others, it means giving up on rail travel altogether. When we talk about building stronger, fairer communities or encouraging greener travel, we have to ensure that our public transport is open to  everyone. A railway station that only some of us can use is not truly public transport—it is exclusion by design.

I have spoken with residents who are unable to visit family, attend job interviews or enjoy a simple day out because they cannot use their local station. Local charity Disability Positive has highlighted how disabled passengers are being denied equal access, with one user telling them they had to be driven miles to another station simply to start their journey because Northwich was a no-go. Others are forced to rely on staff-organised taxis to get between stations, turning a simple journey into a logistical headache. While Northern Rail does its best to accommodate passengers, that is not a real solution; it is a workaround for an infrastructure failure. It does not offer dignity or spontaneity—it just underlines the problem.

Let us not forget: this is happening at a station that about 65,000 people live within 5 km of. Northwich is not a minor rural stop—it is a key part of the Mid-Cheshire line. Yet we have a station that in practice serves only part of the population.

What makes this worse is that we had the perfect opportunity to fix it. In 2021, the gable end of the station building collapsed on to the station’s Victorian canopy, causing major disruption and narrowly avoiding killing three people. Part of the station building had to be demolished and rebuilt, and has in fact yet to reopen four and half years later. That should have been the moment to deliver step-free access. The construction teams, plant and equipment were already going to be on site, line possessions were going to be in place and detailed plans had already been prepared as part of the station’s soon-to-be-submitted Access for All application. Cheshire West and Chester council, Northern Rail, Network Rail and local campaigners including the Mid Cheshire Rail Users Association were all united behind a proposal and were vocal in their support. The right thing to do—for the Exchequer in long-term saving and for what might be considered adequate compensation to the people of Northwich—was obvious.

Instead, the previous Conservative Government declined to act, simply authorising a like-for-like rebuild, and directed campaigners to Access for All. \p Dan Aldridge: My hon. Friend points to a frustration shared by me and lots of campaigners in Weston-super-Mare, where we have seen missed opportunities over and over again to give people the basic dignity of access in travel. I am pleased that we in Weston join the people of Northwich and Alfreton in trying to get that accessible travel. Does my hon. Friend agree that accessibility must be included by design, right at the very start of any of these processes? \p Andrew Cooper: I absolutely agree. If we are going to give people dignity, we have to make sure that we are catering for everybody’s needs.

When the previous Government declined to act in Northwich, a funding application was submitted to the Department for Transport under the Access for All programme. The previous Conservative Government dithered for three years before turning it down just before the general election. A once-in-a-generation chance to build access into the heart of the station was squandered: we put the walls back up and left the barriers in place.

This was not just a missed opportunity to install a lift. It was a chance to show that disabled people matter, that we are serious about inclusion and that public transport is for everyone, and a chance to spend public money more efficiently by combining projects and minimising disruption, and we let it slip through our fingers. The result is that Northwich station remains inaccessible for many people—a neglect made all the more galling by the £99 million underspend on Access for All in Network Rail’s control period 6. Northwich deserves to be part of that progress. It should not be left behind. Every year of delay means more people excluded from rail travel, more opportunities missed and more money wasted on temporary fixes. That is simply unacceptable.

I welcome the Government’s plan to establish Great British Railways and I recognise that structural reform takes time. I also welcome the very recent publication of the road map to an accessible railway, the commitment to end the short-term, stop-start approach to delivering step-free access and the £373 million committed over five years for Access for All projects, which I am sure the Minister will talk more about shortly. This is a significant step forward, and I commend the Government’s genuine commitment to inclusion, but I also say this: warm words are not enough. Funding must follow need, and few stations in the country demonstrate that more clearly than Northwich.

I have a few questions to ask the Minister directly. Will the Department publish the process for how stations will be submitted for consideration for delivering step-free access following the road map’s publication? Will the Minister set out a timescale for when that will occur and when communities can expect the next batch of stations for improvement to be announced? Will he consider Northwich station for inclusion in the next round of Access for All projects, ensuring that stations like ours—overlooked and underserved for too long—are given the priority they deserve? Will he commit to working with Network Rail and train operators to ensure that in future, when rebuilds or refurbishments take place, accessibility improvements are delivered at the same time?

We cannot afford to miss opportunities like that again. We cannot afford to leave communities behind. Accessibility is not just about ramps and lifts; it is about dignity, independence and fairness, and it is time that Northwich had a station that reflects those values. Let us make sure that no one in Northwich is left behind simply because the station was not built with them in mind. Let us put that right. Let us deliver a railway that works for everyone. \p Simon Lightwood: It is a privilege to respond to this important debate on accessibility at Northwich station. It is an issue that clearly has a massive impact on the Northwich community and the local travelling public, regardless of their mobility, age or the fact they are travelling with heavy luggage.

Many of Britain’s 2,581 railway stations were constructed before modern accessibility standards were established, making them challenging to navigate for many disabled  people. My Department’s recent accessibility audit found that approximately 56% of stations are step-free. It might also be helpful for me to explain that around 66% of the 1.3 billion journeys that take place on the network every year are between those step-free stations. This is significant progress, compared to where the network was just a few years ago, but we still have a long way to go.

I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) and other hon. Members that accessibility is an absolute priority for this Government and, once it is fully established and operational, it will be of critical importance for Great British Railways. We are absolutely committed to delivering accessibility improvements, allowing more people to travel easily, with confidence and with dignity. We also know that the experience for disabled people when travelling on rail too often falls short of what is expected and, frankly, what passengers deserve.

That leads me on to our recently published rail accessibility road map, which ensures that we remain on track to deliver improvements, both to facilities and to the little things that create a better passenger experience. The road map includes a range of tangible actions that will improve the experience of disabled passengers on existing lines, including the assistance they receive, access to journey information and improvements to how we maintain lifts, escalators and facilities such as toilets.

Meaningful improvements are being delivered across the railway to improve the accessibility of the network. Through the Access for All programme, we have already delivered step-free access at over 270 stations right across Britain. This has included new lifts and bridges, ramps, tactile paving, improved signage and wayfinding changes that make a real difference to the everyday lives of passengers. Thirty-two station accessibility upgrades have been completed since the beginning of April 2024, with accessibility upgrades at a further five stations planned for completion by the end of March 2026.

Smaller-scale accessibility upgrades have also been completed at more than 1,500 locations, including everything from accessible ticket machines to better lighting, handrails and help points. This is real progress. We are making strides to transform journeys for passengers who previously struggled to use the railway or were unable to use it at all, and we are continuing to invest in station accessibility. As part of the 2025 spending review, the Chancellor confirmed £280 million for Access for All projects over a four-year period.

Now that I have addressed some of the steps that the Government are taking to ensure that we provide adequate accessibility at stations, I will turn to the specific topic of this debate: accessibility at Northwich railway station, in my hon. Friend’s constituency of Mid Chesire. I regret that Northwich station does not offer full step-free access. As he set out in his speech, the Chester-bound platform remains accessible only via a bridge with stairs. For wheelchair users, people with mobility needs, parents with pushchairs and travellers with luggage, this is a real challenge and hugely regrettable in 2025.

In 2022, the previous Government sought nominations for stations across Britain to benefit from upgrades as part of the Access for All programme. A total of 310 nominations were received, including for Northwich station; indeed, this nomination received strong support from my hon. Friend. The previous Government announced that the initial feasibility work would be undertaken for  50 of these projects, and as my hon. Friend knows, Northwich railway station was not one of the stations announced. Of course, it is not for me to comment on decisions made by the previous Government, but I absolutely recognise his disappointment and frustration at that decision.

My hon. Friend spoke clearly and passionately about the gable end of the station building collapsing into the Victorian canopy and the immense disruption that it caused to users of the station. As he observed, this created an opportunity to deliver step-free access at Northwich station. Again, I recognise my hon. Friend’s frustration that such an opportunity was not taken under the previous Government.

Let me now respond to some of the specific questions that my hon. Friend put to me. First, he asked whether the Department will publish the process by which stations will be submitted for consideration under future rounds of the Access for All programme. Our recently published rail accessibility road map includes a clear commitment to reform the Access for All programme as part of establishing Great British Railways. As colleagues may know, the Railways Bill recently had its First Reading. As the Bill progresses, we will be able to provide a clear timeline for reforms to the Access for All programme, but the House can be assured of our commitment to transparency and a reformed, more efficient approach to this programme. \p Christopher Bloore: The Minister is making a compelling case for why the Government are so insistent on making all stations accessible to ensure that everybody has access to public transport. In my home town of Redditch in Worcestershire, the plan for a newly redeveloped station has been cancelled by the local Reform-led council, just when this Government have pledged hundreds of millions of pounds to improve cross-city lines via the midlands rail hub. The plan was to bring the station up to compliant standards for accessibility. Does he share my frustration, and will he urge the county council to think again about the redevelopment plan? \p Simon Lightwood: I do indeed share my hon. Friend’s frustration and that of, I suspect, hundreds of his constituents, who will continue to face challenges when using the rail network. We are very much committed to delivering a more accessible rail system, and I am sure he will continue to voice the thoughts of his constituents loud and clear to his local council.

Secondly, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire asks about the timescale for the next tranche of Access for All stations, which will be announced soon. Network Rail has completed feasibility studies on the 50 stations selected by the previous Government, and in the coming months we will announce which of these will progress. \p Linsey Farnsworth: It is very exciting to hear the proposals coming forward from Network Rail. Can the Minister give us some more information on how we local constituency MPs can support our local communities in pushing forward with the campaigns to have our stations included in that? As he heard me say earlier, it  took 20 years of campaigning by very committed local Labour councillors in Alfreton town council to get the measures put in place in Alfreton so that everybody can enjoy access to the train station. We still have a train station in Langley Mill, which is much simpler to resolve, but I am told by Network Rail that although it is not against doing improvements there, it depends on footfall. More people would be able to use the train station if it was accessible, but it will not be accessible unless more people use it, so it is a bit of a Catch-22. I would very much welcome advice on that. \p Simon Lightwood: We have seen some great examples across the country of where local stations have managed to attract third-party funding. What I am able to do is volunteer the time of the Rail Minister. I will ensure that he reaches out to have a one-on-one conversation with my hon. Friend.

Thirdly, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire asks whether Northwich station will be considered for inclusion in the next round of accessibility funding. Given the powerful case that he has made today, I fully expect Northwich to be considered for future rounds of Access for All funding. Indeed, the limitations of the current station and the benefits that step-free access would bring, which he set out so clearly today, are exactly the sorts of factors that I expect to inform bids for future rounds of funding.

Finally, my hon. Friend raises an important point about ensuring that when stations are refurbished or rebuilt, accessibility improvements are properly considered for delivery at the same time. I share his disappointment that under the previous Government, opportunities to deliver such improvements at Northwich station were missed. I am happy to commit to my hon. Friend that we will write to the chief executive of Network Rail to ask him to consider whether accessibility is sufficiently embedded in planning and delivery, and how these arrangements can be strengthened further as we move towards the full stand-up of Great British Railways.

During the course of this exchange, we have addressed some of the important issues and considerations around rail accessibility. Drawing on the example of Northwich in my hon. Friend’s constituency, we have discussed missed opportunities under the previous Government to integrate accessibility improvements. Let me finish by reiterating that this Government are absolutely committed to developing a rail network in which accessibility is incorporated from the outset, not just as an afterthought. That is demonstrated by the £280 million of funding that the Chancellor has made available to the Access for All programme through the recent spending review.

I thank my hon. Friend for leading this important debate. I also thank him and other hon. Members for their patience as we continue to move towards a more accessible rail network that works for all passengers.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.