debates/debates2025-09-08e conversation_21
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-09-08)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-09-08e conversation_21

Chris McDonald:How will the defence industrial strategy, which is most welcome, ensure that more public money is spent with supply chain businesses in the UK—particularly those in the Teesside defence and innovation cluster in Stockton, Billingham and Norton? \p Luke Pollard: There is a real opportunity to grow further the 2,000 directly supported defence jobs in the north-east. I am happy to speak to my hon. Friend further about that. May I encourage him to stay for the defence industrial strategy statement? He will hear about the further investment and opportunity that the Government hope to provide to every nation and region in the UK. \p Dave Doogan: An independent northern European nation of 5.5 million people, Norway, has just signed an order for £10 billion-worth of the world’s best anti-submarine warfare frigates, designed and built in Glasgow in Scotland. Despite that, despite Scotland’s longer coastline, and despite the ingenuity displayed in that product, none of those Type 26s—unless I am wrong—will be stationed in Scotland. Would the Minister like to tell me that I am wrong, and that he is prepared to place Type 26s on station in Scotland in the future? \p Luke Pollard: The hon. Gentleman is a defence expert, so he knows well that the Type 26s replace the anti-submarine warfare Type 23s in Devonport, where they will be based. He also knows that we have quick-reaction fighters at Lossiemouth and our Royal Navy submarine force based at Faslane. We have huge investment across Scotland, and we will do even more, but while the Government in Holyrood, which he backs, has dithered on defence jobs, this Government have delivered extra defence jobs for Scotland, and will continue to do that. \p Emma Foody: I recently met my constituent Lance Corporal Sarah Bushbye, who is only the third ever woman to receive the Military Cross. She shared with me the difficulty of dealing with the complex physical and psychological effects of her service, and the transformative effect that the Boulder Crest foundation had on her in her recovery. Will the Minister meet me and Sarah to hear about the work of the foundation? \p Alistair Carns: I completely empathise with that veteran. I am more than happy to sit down and talk through the pros of that treatment, and to see if we can expand it further. \p Caroline Dinenage: Fort Blockhouse in Gosport was due to have been sold by 2024, but the deadline keeps moving. The Defence Infrastructure Organisation has not been at all proactive;  this giant site sits empty, doing nothing for the MOD, taxpayers or the local economy. First Reform and then the Government have suggested that sites like Blockhouse will be used for asylum accommodation. Gosport deserves so much better. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss a much more innovative future for this important— \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I have a lot of sympathy, but please —we have to be a bit quicker; otherwise, nobody else will get in. \p Luke Pollard: I am happy to meet the hon. Member to discuss the opportunities to use the defence estate to contribute to growth in every part of the country, including hers. \p Kim Johnson: How will the Government ensure that Cammell Laird’s shipbuilding expertise and workforce are fully integrated into the defence industrial strategy, in order to both strengthen sovereign capability and support skilled jobs in the north-west? \p Luke Pollard: There is real expertise in, and opportunities for, our shipyards nationwide—both those that support Royal Navy military vessels, and those that spend much of their time working on Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels, which are the backbone of the Royal Navy fleet. There is a real opportunity in not just shipbuilding but ship repair. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss those opportunities. Given that the Labour conference will soon take place in Liverpool, perhaps I can pop over and see her. \p Neil Shastri-Hurst: For many veterans, hearing loss is one of the hidden scars of service, and in a number of cases, it has been linked to defective 3M hearing equipment. Will the Minister use their arts of persuasion on the Prime Minister to ensure an independent inquiry, so that we can find out the extent of this, and see whether any other equipment is involved and how we can prevent it from happening again? \p Alistair Carns: Anyone with hearing loss from equipment can absolutely apply for compensation through the war pension scheme or the armed forces compensation scheme. Broader work is happening on those specific bits of capability outside this place. \p Alex Baker: I welcome the five new defence technical excellence colleges just announced, but we need a skills pathway right across the country. I have been working with ADS on a defence curriculum that could be delivered across colleges and universities nationwide. What plans does the Minister have to support defence learning right across the country, and will he meet me and ADS to see if we can roll out a trial? \p Luke Pollard: My hon. Friend is simply prolific in the areas in which she is seeking to improve defence, and I would be very happy to meet her to discuss this further. There will be an announcement on skills in the defence industrial strategy that is coming out this afternoon. There is a real opportunity to expand this work, not just in defence technical education colleges, but in institutions nationwide. \p Sarah Pochin: Will the Secretary of State guarantee—yes or no—that no British serviceman or veteran will face prosecution for actions taken in Northern Ireland while serving their country? \p Alistair Carns: As has been mentioned, as we go through the process, we will ensure that protections are in place, to look after our veterans. The reality is—I am being really honest—that if people broke the law, they will be held accountable, but I assure the hon. Member that veterans who served will be protected. \p Chris Webb: Young people in my constituency are crying out for decent, well-paid jobs, especially in the defence sector, so will the Secretary of State agree to meet me to discuss the Typhoon order that is desperately needed, not only for our country, but for jobs across Blackpool and Lancashire? \p John Healey: I will indeed, and my hon. Friend will be encouraged, I hope, by the visit I paid to Turkey, and the initial agreement that I have signed with Turkey for a big new order of Typhoons, which will be built in Lancashire. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I look forward to the order. \p Lindsay Hoyle: Before we come to the urgent question, I should remind hon. Members to avoid referring directly to criminal cases that are currently before the courts. There is also an active application for judicial review relating to the proscription of Palestine Action. I have decided to grant a waiver in relation to that case, as it concerns a matter of public order in which there is significant public interest. Members may therefore refer to that case. \p Stella Creasy: (Urgent Question): To ask if the Home Secretary will make a statement on the proscription of Palestine Action and public protest. \p Dan Jarvis: Anyone who wishes to demonstrate about the humanitarian situation in Gaza or the actions of any Government, including our own, has the absolute freedom to gather with others and voice their views, provided that they do so within the law, but supporting Palestine and supporting a proscribed terrorist organisation are not the same thing. The vitally important issue of Palestinian rights should not be co-opted by one organisation that has shown that it is willing to use violence in pursuit of its cause. The clear advice and intelligence given to the then Home Secretary earlier this year was that Palestine Action satisfied the relevant tests in the Terrorism Act 2000 and should be proscribed.

Some of those holding placards in support of Palestine Action may not know the extent of its activities. It has conducted an escalating campaign involving intimidation and sustained criminal damage, including to Britain’s national security infrastructure. Some of its attacks have involved the use of weapons, resulting in alleged violence and serious injuries to individuals. Palestine Action’s members have been charged with violent disorder, grievous bodily harm with intent, actual bodily harm, criminal damage and aggravated burglary—charges that include, in the assessment of the independent Crown Prosecution Service, a terrorism connection.

These are not the actions of a legitimate protest group, and for a Government to ignore expert security assessments, advice and recommendations would be highly irresponsible. Were there to be further serious attacks or injuries, questions would rightly be asked about why action had not been taken.

The Metropolitan police has confirmed that a total of 890 arrests were made at a demonstration in central London on Saturday. Most of those were under section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000 for displaying articles in support of Palestine Action. Thirty-three people were arrested for other offences, including 17 assaults on police officers. As the Metropolitan police has pointed out, that was in stark contrast to the 20,000 people who peacefully marched and attended the Palestine Solidarity Campaign demonstration.

Demonstrations of this scale require a significant policing response. The new Home Secretary joined the Commissioner of the Metropolitan police on Saturday to observe the force’s operations and express her backing for the officers working tirelessly to enforce our laws and to maintain order. The fact that some officers were subjected to violence and abuse is utterly shameful.

It is completely understandable that people rightly feel very strongly about the situation in Gaza. But supporting or being a member of a proscribed terrorist organisation is a criminal offence and will never be acceptable, regardless of the wider context. We all want the suffering in Gaza to end and the remaining hostages to be returned. We all want to see peace. I say to the House that we must keep our focus squarely on achieving those aims and not on one harmful group that refuses to abide by our laws and threatens our public safety. \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I do not know who is doing the speeches, but I am going to crack down on Ministers and shadow Ministers if they do not keep to three minutes. I have to get Back Benchers in. Does the Minister agree to stick to the time in the future? \p Dan Jarvis: indicated assent. \p Lindsay Hoyle: Thank you—I am glad that there is some acknowledgment. \p Stella Creasy: Nearly 1,500 people have now been arrested because of concerns about proscription. There is clearly a problem with violence and intimidation in our politics, and we have to get this right because public confidence is falling, too. I am not here as a supporter or defender of Palestine Action and its tactics. I condemn without hesitation abuse, intimidation and attacks on the police and any political opponent. The case for acting on the group itself was and is strong. We have seen a pattern of violence at its events, and it has not dissociated itself from that violence. But we also see police and refugees being targeted for violence alongside those who want to protest about immigration matters—banners that say, “Kill ‘em all, let God sort ‘em out!”, neo-Nazi groups circling. We cannot ignore the impact on policing on our streets because of these incidents, but this is just not sustainable for our police or our criminal justice system.

There is a difference between people protesting using violence and people protesting the use of proscription. If we do not get the response right, if we continue to arrest those in that secondary category, the seriousness of the term “terrorism” risks losing its meaning and becoming diluted rather than strengthened. Proscription was supposed to be about stopping those inciting direct harm and violence. Going after somebody with a poster testing the boundaries of liberty—many of whom are clear that they do not support Palestine Action, but feel strongly about Palestinian rights or free speech—confuses rather than clarifies the Government’s intention. People must be able to protest what is happening in Gaza, and the focus should be on what is happening in Palestine, not Parliament Square.

I asked for this urgent question because I think it is for us to act. Legislation on public order focuses on specific Acts; proscription orders target specific terrorist groups. Nothing sits in between. Given that, what discussions has the Minister had with the police about distinguishing between members of Palestine Action and people concerned about proscription itself? [Interruption.] The offence of recklessly encouraging support of a proscribed group runs counter to that focus on criminality. If he will not abolish that offence, will he at least set out guidance to the Crown Prosecution Service and the police on any public interest test in using it? The previous Policing Minister— \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. This is what happens. I granted the urgent question because I thought it was important to hear you, and you were advised that it was two minutes. I think you have now finished or are about to. \p Stella Creasy: I do apologise, Mr Speaker. I was advised that it was three minutes, but that is my fault.

Terrorism is different from terrorising opponents, but both should be criminal offences. Will the Minister commit to a review of that section so that we can get it right for the sake of our democracy? \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I believe the advice was corrected to two minutes. [Interruption.] That is correct. I do not want my department to be blamed. \p Dan Jarvis: I am genuinely grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing these issues to the House. They are important, and it is right that Ministers are held accountable for them.

I am sure that the whole House will agree with my hon. Friend’s remarks about violence and intimidation, which have absolutely no place in our politics. She will be aware that there is a significant body of work taking place across Government, co-ordinated by the defending democracy taskforce, to ensure that all our elected representatives are able to do their duty and represent their constituents without fear or favour. The Government take that very seriously indeed.

My hon. Friend made a number of points, and I will struggle to respond to all of them. She will understand that the police are operationally independent of Government, but of course we remain in regular contact. It is important to take this opportunity to thank the police for their important work. They come under a huge amount of scrutiny—rightly so—but I think we saw at the weekend an impeccable police operation in which brave officers stood and did their duty, at least 17 of whom were allegedly assaulted in the line of duty.

The final thing to say to my hon. Friend relates to drawing the distinction, as she will well understand, on the absolute right of anybody in our country to express their concern about the desperately difficult situation in the middle east and more specifically in Gaza. The ability to go to the streets and join others in expressing individual or collective concern about unfolding events, be they in this country or further afield, is a cornerstone of our democracy. This Government would never do anything to get in the way of that. It was interesting that tens of thousands of people took to the streets this weekend and were able to express their concern in an entirely lawful way.

My hon. Friend asks about whether we are seeking to review any elements of the Terrorism Act. It is worth pointing her to the recently published article by Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, who said with regard to tackling Palestine Action that

“There is no way ordinary criminal law would be effective against funding, training and recruitment.”

The Government must ensure public safety, and that is what we will seek to do. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Home Secretary. \p Chris Philp: We—in common, I hope, with everyone in this House—fully and unequivocally support the right to peaceful protest, including on issues in the middle east, whether the hostages who remain captive or civilians in Gaza, whose plight concerns us all. However, in exercising that right to protest, violence is never acceptable. Palestine Action has committed deliberate criminal damage against various premises, used a sledgehammer to attack a police officer, and deliberately sabotaged RAF planes. No matter how strongly people feel about an issue, and whatever the rights and wrongs of that issue, using violence to advance a political agenda is never acceptable. It is not how we do things in this country; we settle things through debate and elections.

The Security Minister has given the House assurances about the necessity of this measure. I have not been briefed, or been offered a briefing on that, but the Minister commands widespread respect across the House, and Members will take his assurances seriously. Will he give an assurance that the police are taking all possible preventive action against Palestine Action where it may be planning future attacks against premises, or future acts of violence, including using the offence of conspiracy to commit public nuisance, under which the police have wide-ranging powers? I join the Minister in extending my thanks to the police for the difficult work they do keeping us safe.

Finally, I will use this opportunity to express my support for a protest that took place on Sunday in Parliament Square, and the Campaign Against Antisemitism march, which I addressed. It was regrettable that neither the Home Secretary nor a senior Minister addressed that march, so will the Security Minister take the opportunity to express the Government’s resolve to combat antisemitism wherever it is found? \p Dan Jarvis: I am grateful to the shadow Home Secretary for his remarks and the tone of them. On his final point, yes, let me take the opportunity, on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, to state our absolute abhorrence of antisemitism wherever it rears its ugly head. I hope he knows that the Government will do everything we possibly can to stand against the forces of racism wherever they seek to rear their ugly head.

I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that violence is never acceptable in pursuing a political agenda, and I am pleased that we are able to establish a consensus across the House in that regard. On his point about briefings, we briefed the shadow Minister ahead of the proscription action back in July, and as he knows, I would be happy to brief him on Privy Council terms whenever he should wish. I am also able to give him the assurances that he seeks about the work the police are doing. As a former Home Office Minister he knows that the police are operationally independent, but I assure him that the police will be taking all necessary measures to guard against future attacks. I am happy to speak to him about those matters further, and I am grateful for his support for these matters today. \p Markus Campbell-Savours: As I understand, convictions simply for displaying the name of a proscribed group have been extremely rare unless there has been clear evidence of intent to promote  a group’s more extreme actions. If that is the case, and as it is clear that the acts of protest and civil disobedience seen in recent days are not acts that would ordinarily form part of a case for proscription, why do the police not simply stop the arrests? \p Dan Jarvis: I take the opportunity to acknowledge the difficult job that the police do. In my experience, recently and over a longer period, the police have done an excellent job, often under very difficult circumstances. It is important that we consider proportionality. These operational judgments have to be made by the police, often on the ground and often under pressure or in difficult circumstances. It is also important that we consider that we would not tolerate the kind of activity that we have seen in recent days and weeks from an organisation that was motivated, for example, by Islamist extremism, or by an extreme right-wing ideology. Similarly, we cannot tolerate that activity from Palestine Action, and this Government will support the police in doing the difficult job that we have asked them to do. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Lisa Smart: The right to peaceful protest is a cornerstone of a liberal democracy, but events over the weekend have set a dangerous precedent and risk having a chilling impact on free speech and legitimate protest in the UK. The arrest of 857 protesters under terror laws, following hundreds of arrests under the same powers last month, is deeply alarming. The Lib Dems warned that that would be exactly what happened when the Conservatives expanded terrorism powers in 2018. There is no doubt that those using violence, antisemitic abuse or hate speech must face the consequences, but those crimes are already covered by existing law. It cannot be right that simply displaying a placard in support of a proscribed organisation, while peacefully protesting, can result in a conviction and up to six months in prison. Will the Minister urgently review terrorism legislation, specifically as it is impacting the right to protest peacefully, to ensure it is proportionate and contains the nuance that it so clearly needs? \p Dan Jarvis: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, as always, for the sensible and reasonable tone in which she makes her remarks, but I have to say that I do not agree that the events of this weekend have had a chilling effect on our democracy. I think it is quite the opposite: tens of thousands of people came to London to exercise their absolute right to demonstrate on matters about which they are concerned. The overwhelming majority of people who came to London were able to do so in an entirely reasonable and lawful way. Only a very tiny minority were not able to do so in that way and deliberately sought to get arrested.

The hon. Lady asks entirely reasonably about necessity and proportionality, and about whether the Government intend to review existing legislation. She has raised that point previously, we have discussed it, and I know that the leader of her party, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), raised it over the summer recess. Of course we look very carefully at legislation, but the Government do not currently have any plans to amend the existing legislation. Not least in the light of the ongoing criminal proceedings relating to Palestine Action and the ongoing judicial review, it would not be appropriate to carry out a review at this time.

We think that the UK’s counter-terrorism legislation strikes the right balance between protecting national security and individual freedoms, including the right to the freedom of expression under article 10 of the European convention on human rights. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove knows the high regard in which I hold Jonathan Hall, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, and she knows that the legislative framework is subject to independent statutory oversight by the independent reviewer. The Government will of course consider any recommendations that he seeks to make. I have advised the hon. Lady previously to get in touch with him; I think that she has and I know that she will want to look very carefully at what he says. \p Bell Ribeiro-Addy: Those arrested were merely holding signs, wearing T-shirts and displaying general support for a group that does not come close to the loosest definition of terrorism. Meanwhile, political pundits and columnists seem free to discuss Palestine Action without fear of criminal prosecution. I do not think that anyone should face arrest for doing that, but it does not seem fair that people can get away with it as long as they are doing it in front of a TV camera. Will the Minister explain how the law is being applied, whether it is being applied fairly and where people are allowed to show support for Palestine Action? It is clear that some people are being allowed to do it, but others are not. \p Dan Jarvis: My hon. Friend has a long-standing interest in and concern about these matters. I give her an absolute assurance that the law is being applied fairly. I say to her—I know that she will agree with this—that nobody is above the law. It is important to think about how we collectively seek to respond to those who behave in a similar way but underpinned by very different causes, such as extreme Islamist terrorism or an extreme right-wing ideology. If people were demonstrating on behalf of those organisations in the same way that we have seen people demonstrating in support of Palestine Action, I think people would absolutely want the police to act in the way that they saw them act over the weekend. I say again: the law is being applied fairly; nobody is above the law; and the police need to be able to ensure that they are able to enforce it without fear or favour, and that is what I think they did over the weekend. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. \p Karen Bradley: The burden of policing these protests is falling on certain forces more than others. That was also the case during the disorder last summer. Can the Minister give some reassurance that the Home Office is providing the support that is needed to those forces to ensure that they can manage the protests and so that their doing so does not distract from day-to-day policing? \p Dan Jarvis: The Chair of the Select Committee makes an important point. Yes, I can give her the assurances that she seeks. The right hon. Lady is right that recent activity has provided particular burdens on particular forces. The Home Secretary and I, and of course the Policing Minister and colleagues right across Government, work very closely with the police and we will ensure that they have the necessary resources for the important job that they have to do. \p David Taylor: Last August, a police officer was hospitalised after being hit with a sledgehammer while responding to a Palestine Action attack on a business near Bristol—a fact that was absent from our debate when we voted to proscribe that organisation recently. The attackers had sledgehammers, axes, whips and other home-made weapons. Does the Minister agree that that crosses the line of any legitimate protest—into terrorism? \p Dan Jarvis: Yes, I would. \p Kit Malthouse: The Minister has said that no one is above the law and that violence is never the answer. I agree with him and I know that he believes that the law should be wielded with integrity, so when are we going to see the proscription of violent settler groups in the west bank, many of whom are perpetrating a reign of terror on innocent Palestinians in that part of the world but who may be garnering support and raising funds in the United Kingdom? \p Dan Jarvis: The right hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of this House and has served as a Minister in the Home Office, so I am sorry to have to put my response to him in this way, but he will understand why I do so: we never comment about matters relating to future proscription. I know that his words will have been heard by colleagues in other Government Departments, as well as in my Department. He makes his points with great consistency—he has raised them with me previously—but I know that he will understand that there is a long-standing protocol, across a number of Governments, that we do not talk about future proscription activity. \p Florence Eshalomi: I thank the Minister for his response to the urgent question, but I concur with some of the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) about people being arrested, including my constituents, some of whom were protesting peacefully.

I want to come back to the issue of the impact on frontline policing. As a central London MP, I am seeing resources being drawn away from my local police to deal with the protests. My constituents want those frontline police officers to be solving crime on their streets; the Minister will understand the sheer scale of their concerns about ensuring the police can get to grips with that locally. Returning to the point made by the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, will the Minister assure me that those ongoing discussions with the police are happening, including with the chair of the Metropolitan Police Federation, who said on the “World at One” today that the protests are “not sustainable”? \p Dan Jarvis: My hon. Friend raises a very important point, as did the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. She will absolutely understand the importance that this Government attach to the safer streets agenda. I can give her an assurance that we are working very closely with the Metropolitan police and other police forces around the country to ensure that they have the resources they need to police these kinds of protests and activities, alongside the other activities that they are required  to police. The Home Secretary, the Policing Minister and I take these matters very seriously. We met senior representatives of the Metropolitan police just last week, but I give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance that we will ensure that the police have the necessary resources to do the job that we ask them to do. \p Jessica Brown-Fuller: Given the scale of arrests over the weekend and the Minister stating that he has no intention to review legislation, will he commit instead to an independent review of the use of terrorism legislation against people peacefully protesting to see if it is fit for purpose? \p Dan Jarvis: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question; I hope that she heard the response I gave a moment ago—that it would not be appropriate to get into a review process at this particular moment because of ongoing legal proceedings. We are incredibly fortunate to have Jonathan Hall KC as the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. He brings a weight of authority and credibility to the process. I know that he has particular views on the issue, and I invite her and other Members to look closely at what he has said about it. \p Patricia Ferguson: Does the Minister agree that the continued mass arrest of peaceful protesters, many of whom are protesting about the proscription of Palestine Action but would not for a moment support the activities of Palestine Action, is something that we should distinguish and that we should advise prosectors and the police about—not least because the furore around the arrests risks drowning out the rightful protests about the difficult situation in Palestine and Gaza, to which the Minister has referred? \p Dan Jarvis: My hon. Friend raises some really important points. For clarity, it is an offence to display support for Palestine Action, but it is not an offence to criticise the Government’s decision to proscribe, so difficult judgments often have to be made by the police on the ground. Let me give her a categorical assurance that this Government will do nothing to get in the way of somebody’s absolute right to protest about a matter about which they are concerned. In many respects, it was incredibly heartening to see tens of thousands of people take to the streets to express their concern in an entirely peaceful and lawful way, and I hope that will long continue. \p Julian Lewis: As I have indicated previously, I have my doubts about whether the terrorism label is most suited to a group that is certainly criminal, certainly violent, and arguably seditious, in its attacks on the assets of our military, but I have a positive suggestion to make. Will the Minister undertake fully to brief the Chairman and members of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which I used to chair but on which I now no longer serve? If they were able to see information that the Minister cannot share publicly and say to us that they were satisfied with the terrorism designation, I for one would find that reassuring. \p Dan Jarvis: I am always very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who speaks with a real wisdom about these matters, and I can give him those assurances. We have been in contact with the Committee, which he used to chair; it consists of some incredibly experienced and  wise parliamentarians, and we seek to take their counsel at every opportunity—so, yes, we have engaged with them and will continue to do so on this matter and others. \p Steve Yemm: While Palestine Action waged its campaign of intimidation and went about damaging military bases, with very little impact in the middle east, this week the Government will host President Abbas and President Herzog for discussions on a more peaceful future for Palestinians and Israelis alike. Does the Minister agree that, unlike Palestine Action, this Government are actually taking genuine and serious steps to support peace in the middle east? \p Dan Jarvis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments, and I completely agree. I think there is an absolute point of consensus in this place—and, I hope, much further afield—about the urgent need to secure peace in the middle east. This Government, led by the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and colleagues in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, will do everything we possibly can to support that important process. \p Pete Wishart: The optics of octogenarian priests being arrested alongside hundreds of peaceful protesters are absolutely awful for this Government. We had only three arrests over the weekend in Scotland, because Police Scotland seemed to deploy a much more conciliatory and community-based approach. Does the Minister support operational independence across the UK? If police forces feel it is in their interests to have different policing arrangements from the Metropolitan police, will he support them and say that there will be no Government interference in their operations? \p Dan Jarvis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his engagement over the course of the summer. I can give him an absolute assurance: yes, of course we believe in the absolute importance of the operational independence of the police. They have to make some very difficult judgments, but I hope he agrees that nobody should be above the law; there is not an age limitation with regard to these offences. The police have difficult judgments to make, but in the main they have acted proportionately and without fear or favour, in the best traditions of British policing. \p Abtisam Mohamed: This weekend alone, almost 900 people—several of whom were from my constituency—were arrested. The Terrorism Act was not brought in to arrest vicars, retired grandmothers and NHS consultants for holding a placard, yet the police are now in the position where that is exactly what they are doing weekend after weekend. Will the Minister consider the views of international human rights experts, like the UN Human Rights Commissioner, who has described the ban as “disproportionate and unnecessary”? Will he also acknowledge our concerns that political decisions must be open to political challenge—otherwise, we risk a massive loss of confidence in our democracy? \p Dan Jarvis: I completely agree with the point about political challenge; that is why we are here today to debate the decision and the policing around it. I hope my hon. Friend will understand that the Government  have acted in good faith, as we always seek to do. The advice that the Government received was clear and unambiguous. Palestine Action is concerned in terrorism, and its members have demonstrated a willingness or intention to conduct, in pursuit of its cause, serious violence against persons. Under those particular circumstances, the Government have a responsibility and a duty to act.

As I have mentioned previously, and my hon. Friend will know, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation has been widely quoted about his response to the actions that the Government have taken; he concluded in a recent article that there is no way that ordinary criminal law would have been effective against this organisation. \p Andrew Murrison: Does the Minister agree that, while in this case, proscription may be a finely balanced decision, the law must be upheld whether you like it or not, whoever you are and wherever you are? Does he therefore share my concern that in this case, there appears to be some regional disparity in the interpretation of the law, as evidenced by the different rates at which people were arrested across this country at the weekend? \p Dan Jarvis: As always, I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question, and I acknowledge his assessment of the decision as being finely balanced. As I know he will understand, should this or any Government have taken a different approach, we would no doubt have been in this Chamber debating why the Government had decided to not proscribe. These are difficult judgments, but under the circumstances I have described, the then Home Secretary did exactly the right thing in taking the decision she did.

As for the right hon. Gentleman’s point about regional disparities, he will have heard the comment I made just a moment ago about the operational independence of the police. However, if he has seen particular occurrences that he thinks are not in that spirit, I ask him to write to me. I would be very happy to look at them. \p Alex Sobel: So many people, myself included, are looking at the famine in Gaza and the planned annexation of the west bank with a sense of complete desperation and a lack of agency. People want to demonstrate that desperation through peaceful protest, and it is difficult for many of us to see the mass arrests of people holding placards. I understand that the nature of proscription means that showing support for a proscribed organisation is a criminal offence, but the acts are peaceful, and the cause is so desperate. At the time of voting, the effect of arresting demonstrators was not made clear to us; we must reflect again on the effects of proscription. When assessing whether to proscribe Palestine Action, to what extent did the Government take into account the rights to free expression and free association, including under articles 10 and 11 of the European convention on human rights—not the rights of the proscribed organisation itself, but of the wider cohort who will be criminalised for peacefully expressing support for it? \p Dan Jarvis: Of course I agree with my hon. Friend’s point about peaceful protest, and I can give him an absolute assurance that in taking this or any decision, the Home Secretary acts on advice and very carefully  considers a range of different factors. He is right to talk about peaceful protest. Peaceful protest took place in London over the course of this weekend, which was very good to see, but at the particular demonstration at which there were a significant number of arrests, 33 people were also arrested for separate offences, including 17 alleged assaults on police officers. None of us wants to see that kind of violent activity. We will work closely with the police to ensure people have the ability to protest in a peaceful way—that is a cornerstone of our democracy—but it is entirely unacceptable that anybody should seek to assault a police officer. \p Bobby Dean: I hear the distinction that the Minister is attempting to make, but the fact remains that almost 1,000 largely peaceful protesters were arrested in London this weekend. I am sure that when we look back on this, we are going to conclude that it was not only a huge waste of police resources, but a chilling moment for free speech in this country. Given that the Government seem so convinced that these people are associated with terrorism, will they commit to publishing data on what proportion of those arrested are actually charged with terrorism-related offences? \p Dan Jarvis: I say to the hon. Gentleman—hopefully in a constructive way—that the only distinction I am seeking to make is between those who break the law and those who do not. We saw a very interesting comparison over the course of this weekend; tens of thousands of people came to protest, and were able to do so, expressing their concerns about the terrible situation in Gaza without supporting a proscribed organisation. As I said in my earlier remarks, there is a big difference between being able to protest in support of a legitimate cause and expressing support for a proscribed organisation. That is a criminal offence, and the police have an absolute duty to enforce the law, which is what they did. \p Andy McDonald: Nobody is above the law, yet the Metropolitan police report that a total of 857 people were arrested under section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000 at the weekend, the vast majority for simply holding placards stating, “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.” Can the Minister confirm whether the Government have received any legal advice concerning the implications of hosting a visit by Israeli President Herzog in relation to the UK’s genocide convention responsibilities, particularly given his recent record of stating that there are “no innocent civilians” in Gaza and personally signing artillery shells destined for use in Gaza? Will any visa application made by the Israeli President to visit the UK this week be rejected, or will he be subject to police investigation if he does arrive? \p Dan Jarvis: I understand why my hon. Friend has asked me that question. I hope that he will understand that he is asking me about matters for which I do not have ministerial responsibility. He will also understand that the Government receive a range of legal advice across a range of different Departments. The purpose of this particular response today is to look at the issue of proscription and the recent protest activity. I can give him and the House an absolute assurance that this is a Government who believe in upholding the law. This is a Government who believe in the importance of international  law, and we will work with our allies and partners to ensure that international law and domestic law are upheld. \p Liz Saville-Roberts: On this day 89 years ago, three founding members of Plaid Cymru handed themselves in after burning the RAF bombing school at Penyberth. Today, they and all their supporters would likely be branded terrorists for non-violent direct action. Lumping Palestine Action with Maniacs Murder Cult and Russian Imperial Movement was calculated, cynical and disproportionate. It has led to the arrest of hundreds, if not thousands, of protesters. What does the Minister think will be the consequences now that his Government look more interested in silencing protest than maintaining policing by consent? \p Dan Jarvis: I struggle to follow the logic of the right hon. Lady’s question, given that tens of thousands of people were absolutely able to express their democratic right to protest over the course of this weekend. I am sure she would have seen that. I hope she will understand that this Government have not done anything that interferes with anybody’s lawful right to express their concern about an issue. Just to pick up on one other point that she made, let me give her an absolute assurance that we did not group the three proscribed organisations together for the reasons she—[Interruption.] She is completely mistaken. She has asked me a question, and she might want to listen to the answer. There were two reasons why that decision was taken. Frankly, the first is that this is a Government with a busy legislative agenda, and we need to be efficient with precious parliamentary time. The second and perhaps more important reason is that this Government do not look at the ideological origin of the threat: we will do what we need to do to keep the public safe, regardless of where the threat comes from. That is the right approach, it is even-handed, and it was on that basis that we proceeded. \p Simon Opher: In recent weeks, a number of my constituents in Stroud have been arrested. Many of them are over 70, and the whole situation seems to have become slightly ridiculous. Does the Minister agree that proscribing is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut? \p Dan Jarvis: With great respect, and I do not mean to be flippant, I think it is a rather unfortunate use of “sledgehammer”, given previous events. No, I do not agree with my hon. Friend. I think the actions of the Government have been necessary and proportionate for the reasons I explained earlier. I worry that there are a number of people who seek to express support for an organisation who do not fully understand the activities that that organisation has engaged in in recent times. \p Richard Foord: Mr Justice Chamberlain granted the judicial review on the basis that the Home Secretary had not consulted Palestine Action before proscribing it. The judge ruled that it was “reasonably arguable” that there was a duty to consult Palestine Action before proscribing it, as reported in The Guardian. If organisations meet a high standard and a high threshold for proscription under the Terrorism Act, why should there be a duty to consult that organisation before proscribing it? \p Dan Jarvis: I hope the hon. Gentleman understands that given that there are ongoing legal proceedings, it would be completely inappropriate for me to comment on any legal rulings or judgments that have been made, but I can give him an assurance that when it came to making this decision, all the necessary legal and expert advice was considered very carefully. There is a formal process that enables any organisation that is proscribed to seek a legal right to redress, and the Government are very supportive of any organisation that has been proscribed pursuing a legal avenue of appeal. It is the right of any such organisation to do so, and this Government would never get in the way of that legal right. \p John Slinger: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is not a case of people’s democratic rights to protest being curtailed? The democratically elected Government and Parliament have legislated, Members have proscribed Palestine Action lawfully, and now police enforce the law free from political interference. The law is clear: people are no longer allowed to support this organisation, and to do so risks lawful arrest. Does my hon. Friend further agree that there is nothing to stop people protesting in support of the Palestinians or against this Israeli Government, as long as they so do peacefully and within the law? \p Dan Jarvis: I completely agree with all my hon. Friend’s points. He knows and I know, and I am sure the House knows, that had the Government taken a different decision, I would be standing here at the Dispatch Box seeking to justify that decision as well. \p Jeremy Corbyn: May I ask the Minister to reflect for a moment on the fact that this is the largest number of people arrested since the Terrorism Act 2000 came into force? Those people who were protesting on Saturday were protesting at the horror of the genocide in Gaza, and British complicity in it through arms sales and military co-operation and support. They are deeply concerned about civil liberties in our society, and feel that the legislation rushed through this Parliament damages their right to civil peaceful protest in our society.

The Minister knows that the weight of history is against him. He knows that at some point the Government will have to review this legislation, because otherwise the situation will simply get worse and worse. Can he not just bring himself to say now that the Government will look at it again, review the whole situation, and, rather than proscribing peaceful protest in our society, accept that we have a history behind us that brought us all here, and is built on protest and dissent? \p Dan Jarvis: The right hon. Gentleman has been a Member of this House for a very, very long time, so he will know that this legislation was not rushed through Parliament. It came through Parliament in the same way that other proscription actions have come through over many, many years.

Let me seek, perhaps, two points of consensus. The first involves freedom of speech. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman was up to at the weekend, but I have a sneaking suspicion that he may have been on the streets of London, and good luck to him. It is his absolute democratic right to protest in the way in which he is well known for doing. The Government have done nothing to stand in the way of him and his colleagues in  that regard. Let me, however, say one more thing to him. Although he and I may disagree on many things, I hope that, as supporters of the trade union movement, we agree on the importance of people’s safety in the workplace. He asked me to consider something; perhaps I should ask him to consider the importance of safeguarding people’s safety and security in the workplace, which is not a matter to which the organisation that we are discussing today has given much consideration. \p Kim Johnson: Hundreds of people have now been arrested for terror offences, facing up to 14 years’ imprisonment, for no more than peacefully holding a placard. Most are elderly, and many are healthcare workers, priests and ordinary working people. All are prepared to risk severe punishment for doing what our Government have failed to do. The proscription of Palestine Action is an authoritarian attack on the right to protest. It is absurd, unworkable and unsustainable. Will the Minister, and the new Home Secretary, consider the Government’s position? \p Dan Jarvis: This Government and the new Home Secretary will do everything that is necessary and proportionate to keep the public safe. These are difficult judgments that require very careful consideration. Very careful consideration was given to the decision that was taken, and it was motivated by a very strong desire, and a responsibility, to keep the public safe. \p Richard Tice: May I thank and congratulate the police for arresting successfully so many hundreds of people who broke the law and shockingly supported a proscribed terror group? Does the Minister expect them to be charged and prosecuted to ensure we have a proper deterrent against supporting a proscribed terror group? \p Dan Jarvis: Let me first join the hon. Gentleman in thanking the police for the important work that they do. It is absolutely shameful that there were 17 assaults on members of the police doing their job in London this weekend. That is totally unacceptable and rather undermines the credibility of those who say that these are entirely peaceful protests.

With regard to the hon. Gentleman’s other point, I hope he will understand that these are matters for the Crown Prosecution Service, which is independent of Government, so it would not be appropriate for me to comment on them, but I share the concerns that he has expressed. \p David Smith: I abhor the methods of Palestine Action, and indeed any violence in the course of protest, but I understand that four groups have been de-proscribed in the last 20 years. I am sure that the aim is for all banned groups to de-escalate and become legitimate protest groups, so what steps or evidence would be required for Palestine Action to be de-proscribed in the future? \p Dan Jarvis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his thoughtful and sensible question. There is a formal legal process to be followed. As I said in response to an earlier question, the Government completely understand that any organisation that is proscribed has an absolute legal right to contest that decision. This Government will not stand in the way of that legal process, and we  will respond in a reasonable and responsible way. There is a legal appeal under way. That will run its course, and then we will have a legal ruling. The Government will, of course, abide by that. \p Caroline Voaden: Many members of my community were arrested in London on Saturday, including a senior priest, an elderly Jewish man, and a teacher who has spent years with Gazan children and has witnessed the horror of seeing them killed by Israeli troops over the last couple of years. These people are not terrorists. While I am sure all Members of the House agree that anybody attacking serving police officers in the streets deserves to be arrested, does the Minister accept that the use of counter-terror powers is wholly disproportionate to the peaceful action that these people took by simply holding signs, and sets a dangerous precedent for free speech? \p Dan Jarvis: I do not accept the hon. Lady’s critique about the precedent with regard to free speech, for the reasons that I have already referenced and because tens of thousands of people were on the streets of London this weekend expressing their free speech. The police have difficult judgments to make. I do not accept her analysis that this was not proportionate. The Government have an absolute responsibility to act when the evidence suggests that we need to take decisions to secure public safety, which is what the Government have done. We stand by that decision, and we will work with the police to ensure that people obey the law. Where they do not, regardless of their age or professional background, I am afraid there have to be consequences. \p Warinder Juss: Many of those arrested over the weekend for simply holding placards were older and disabled citizens and human rights activists, who can hardly be described as terrorists. Considering that the UN human rights chief has warned that proscription dangerously conflates protest with terrorism, does the Minister accept that we at least run some risk of suppressing protest and dissent, through which we obtained many of the freedoms that we enjoy today? \p Dan Jarvis: I really do not think that that is the case. At every stage of these proceedings, the Government have been absolutely clear about the important right—the cornerstone of our democracy—of people to protest about matters about which they are concerned. This Government have not done anything to get in the way or prevent people from doing that. We saw that this weekend: tens of thousands of people having their say. They were able to do so in a way that was lawful and did not require them to be arrested, because they had not broken the law. I do not accept the analysis that this has a chilling effect on free speech—quite the opposite. I think it absolutely demonstrates that people can come and demonstrate in a lawful way, and that the police will respond in an appropriate manner. \p Zarah Sultana: It is a shame that the Home Secretary could not come here today to defend her Government. Over 1,600 people have been arrested since this Labour Government proscribed a non-violent direct action group for the first time in  British history, including elderly people, disabled people, priests, NHS workers and the children of Holocaust survivors. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has condemned this proscription as “disproportionate and unnecessary”, warning that it risks creating a “further chilling effect”. Will the Minister finally admit that his Government got it wrong and that they have threatened and undermined our free speech and right to protest, and will they review and immediately lift this ban? \p Dan Jarvis: First, the Home Secretary is meeting our Five Eyes allies who are here for the five-country ministerial. That is incredibly important work in securing our alliances with our United States, Canadian, Australian and New Zealand allies. These are important partnerships that this Government value and that this Home Secretary is investing in on almost her first full day in office.

On the other points the hon. Lady seeks to raise, she has an absolute right, as everybody does, to protest in a lawful way. There is nothing that this Government have done to prevent her or anybody else from doing that. What this Government have done is ensure that we are best placed to protect the public. I am sorry that she does not agree with that—that is her absolute right—but I maintain that support for freedom of speech is a cornerstone of our democracy, and this Government will always enable people to have their say. \p Rachael Maskell: I absolutely condemn any action or violence taken against the public or, indeed, the police. However, I wrote to the former Home Secretary twice on this matter, because many legislators here have yet to see evidence that satisfies us about the proportionality of the proscription of Palestine Action and how the Government balance that with the public’s right to protest and freedom of speech. Could I encourage the Minister to review this law, not least because it has an impact contrary to what the Government want, in that the more arrests there are, the more it draws attention to Palestine Action? \p Dan Jarvis: I entirely understand why the hon. Lady may wish to raise concerns in the way she has. She made an important point about evidence, and I give her an assurance that we have put into the public domain all the evidence we have been able to. I hope she will understand that there are strict limitations on some things we are able to say for a variety of reasons, not least that there are ongoing police investigations and ongoing criminal proceedings. That limits the ability of Ministers to talk about this issue, but within those constraints we have tried to be as clear as we possibly can about the reasons for this decision. On a number of occasions, the previous Home Secretary and I have laid out the reasons why we took this decision. \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. I urge the Minister to be a bit more succinct in his responses. \p Josh Babarinde: Hundreds of peaceful protesters have been arrested this weekend in the name of national security, but in what way does a peaceful protester’s tactic of holding a banner compromise national security? If the aim of national security is fundamentally to ensure that we can live in a free society where our democratic freedoms are protected, can the Minister  not see that the mass arrest of peaceful protesters is an authoritarian measure that undermines, not protects, those freedoms? \p Dan Jarvis: I completely acknowledge that the concerns the hon. Member has expressed are entirely genuine and well-meaning. I hope he understands the importance that we attach to the rule of law. We do not think that people should be excepted from the rule of law because they are of a particular age, have a disability or have a particular professional background. That would be entirely unfair. Nobody is above the law. The police have a difficult job to do to police these protests. I gently say to him that the protests we saw over the weekend were not entirely peaceful, with 33 other arrests, including 17 for assaults on police officers. I hope that none of us wants to see that activity in our capital, or anywhere else for that matter. \p Chris Hinchliff: I thank the Minister for his answers, and I fully agree that there can be no place for violence in our politics. However, does he accept that elderly retired priests and disabled veterans would not be protesting in the way they are if they genuinely believed that Palestine Action was a similar organisation to ISIS or al-Qaeda? Can he provide any additional guidance or advice on how members of the public can legitimately protest against the proscription of this organisation? \p Dan Jarvis: First, let me say to the hon. Gentleman that neither the Government nor I are seeking to make the comparison he offers. What we do believe is that people should follow the law. It is a criminal offence to seek to support a proscribed group. The police are doing the job of ensuring the law is enforced. Again, I make the comparison that if it were people protesting about other organisations—extreme right-wing ideological or Islamist organisations—then certain commentators, not in this place but outside it, would seek to view the matter in a different way. We have to be even-handed and fair, and that is what we have sought to be. \p Max Wilkinson: Nobody would support the violent actions of some of the people in Palestine Action, of course, but the number of arrests is placing huge pressure on our police. The demographic of those arrested is clearly absurd. The nature of what they are doing is holding a placard in response to the horrors they are seeing on their televisions. We are all, in this House, seeing those horrors. The previous Home Secretary said that many of the people who support the group do not know the nature of the more violent elements of it. Given the apparent imbalance of what we are seeing, is the Minister not concerned that it creates a dangerous precedent when, in future, we try to enforce against people who are actually terrorists and have malign intent on our streets? \p Dan Jarvis: As I have said previously, I understand the concerns that are being expressed. The hon. Gentleman refers to somebody holding a placard. They are holding a placard that expresses support for a proscribed organisation, and that is a criminal offence. In an answer I gave just a moment ago, I said that the Government are limited in terms of the detail they can provide about the activities of Palestine Action, for the reasons I have explained. If people are considering seeking to protest  and provide their support for this proscribed organisation, I invite them to look very carefully at what that organisation has been engaged in. There has been significant reporting about some of those activities. That might focus the minds of those who seek to support them in future. \p Shockat Adam: The more than 1,000 people who have been arrested include blind veterans, elderly people, NHS workers and even the children of Holocaust survivors, yet the Government are intent on aiding and abetting Israeli firms—51 of them will be exhibiting in London this week at the arms fair—alongside rolling out the carpet, stained with the blood of the children of Gaza, for the President of Israel. Why are non-violent protesters being treated with greater punishment than a Government bombing and starving millions of children? Does the Minister agree that if there was real justice, the Government would arrest the Israeli leadership and send them to the International Criminal Court? \p Dan Jarvis: I hope very much that there is consensus across the House about the desperate situation in Gaza and the middle east. I hope the hon. Gentleman will understand that the Government will do everything they can to work with partners and allies to seek to bring a resolution to that desperate situation. He referred to the age of the protesters. I just say to him that the law has to be applied fairly and universally. Therefore, if someone is of a particular age, that does not enable them to break the law, in the same way that it would not enable someone of a younger age to do so. \p Will Forster: With over 800 people arrested this weekend, proscribing Palestine Action clearly has not worked as intended. Will the Government urgently review our terrorism legislation to ensure that those who legitimately protest in favour of the Palestinian cause are not treated as terrorists for simply wearing a T-shirt or holding a placard? \p Dan Jarvis: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the remarks that have been published recently by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. \p Manuela Perteghella: Can the Minister tell me what safeguards, if any, are in place to ensure that terrorism powers are not misused against people exercising their democratic right to protest peacefully against proscription, including elderly vicars holding placards? \p Dan Jarvis: That is an entirely fair challenge. That is precisely why we have Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, look at these matters very closely—an expert in this field who is entirely independent from Government. There is respect for him across the House; the Government certainly hugely value his opinion. I would ask the hon. Lady to look carefully at what he has said on these matters. \p Ayoub Khan: Sixteen hundred individuals—mainly senior citizens—have been arrested. The Minister will understand that this is not just a big operation, but one that involves taxpayers’ money, with millions of pounds spent on arrests, and no doubt millions spent on legal aid if people are prosecuted  in our courts system. Will the Minister release the legal advice upon which this proscription took place so that the public can see whether taxpayer money is being used effectively? \p Dan Jarvis: There is a process in place when the Home Secretary makes decisions on proscription. As part of that process, she will, of course, consider legal advice, as well as advice from experts right across Government and law enforcement. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that these decisions are not taken lightly. No Government and no Home Secretary would seek to take these decisions lightly, and the previous Home Secretary certainly did not do so. \p Cameron Thomas: Our free speech is protected under the European convention on human rights, and we should view with great suspicion anybody who would remove the United Kingdom’s signature from that convention. This Government’s proscription of Palestine Action has led to the arrest of more than 1,000 peaceful protesters—another assault on freedom of expression. I urge the Government to review these powers, which also risk undermining our anti-terrorism laws. \p Dan Jarvis: The hon. Gentleman will have heard the response I gave earlier to questions on that specific point. I would gently say to him that 17 police officers were assaulted over the weekend, and, while I completely understand why people want to refer to non-violent protest, and I completely accept that the majority of people were behaving in a non-violent way, I hope that he and others will join with me in absolutely condemning any attack on the police that took place over the weekend. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for all his answers. I was and am pleased to see steps to ensure that protesters who were outside the realms of peaceful protest and demonstrating support for a proscribed organisation were dealt with in terms that line up with the law. Palestine Action’s illegal street protests are impacting the police’s ability to do their normal job. Does the Minister believe there are enough police officers to deal with more of these scenarios, and how will the Government ensure that policing on the ground in communities is not sacrificed in order to police these protests? \p Dan Jarvis: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I can give him an absolute assurance that we work very closely with the police to ensure that they have the resources they need and the necessary legislative framework in order to do their difficult job. As he will understand from his own part of the world, it is important that the police are able to enforce the law without fear or favour. It is worth pointing out that the police work closely with organisers each week to facilitate safe, lawful protests, and I know that they will continue to do so. Hundreds of thousands of people have been able to make their voices heard, while only a very tiny minority have been arrested for breaking the law. \p David Davis: (Urgent Question): To ask the Minister of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the 2001 arrest of Saudi national Omar al-Bayoumi and the failure to extradite Mr al-Bayoumi for his alleged involvement in the 11 September terror attacks. \p Dan Jarvis: The attacks on 9/11 were an appalling assault on freedom. We remember the courage displayed by the American people in the aftermath and in the years since; ahead of the anniversary this week, our thoughts remain with the victims and survivors, as well as all who loved them. Almost 25 years on, there is a risk that we might forget the destructive and barbaric scale of the attacks on 9/11. I would like to remind this House that the attacks killed nearly 3,000 innocent people, injured thousands more and gave rise to substantial long-term health consequences for the victims. The 11 September attacks are the deadliest act of terrorism in human history. I would like to take this opportunity to remember every single one of the victims and their families. In addition to the huge loss of life, the attacks also caused at least $10 billion-worth of infrastructure and property damage.

It would be inappropriate to comment on an individual case, such as the one that the right hon. Gentleman raises. As he will know, it is also a long-standing Government policy—followed by successive Governments —to neither confirm nor deny an arrest for the purpose of an extradition request. The purpose of this policy is to protect the confidentiality of ongoing investigations, reciprocate international best practice, maintain trust and confidence between states, and minimise the risk of fugitives escaping justice. It is always a matter for the competent authorities in requesting territories if they wish to make a request for extradition to the UK. There is an ongoing civil legal action in the United States, and due to those ongoing legal proceedings, the Government are not able to comment further today.

The extradition process is a formal international procedure where one country requests another to return a person accused or convicted of a serious offence to stand trial or serve a sentence. The process typically begins with a formal request from one country to another. Extradition from the UK is governed by the Extradition Act 2003. For all countries outside the EU, a state-to-state system operates, whereby requests are sent between Governments, with decision-making split between Ministers and the UK courts. Whether or not formal extradition arrangements are in place with the requesting state will determine how incoming requests progress through the UK system. There are many countries where bilateral or multilateral treaties are in place. However, the UK can co-operate with any country on an ad hoc basis through the special extradition arrangements provisions in the 2003 Act.

The Home Office has an operational case working unit—the UK central authority—which exercises the Home Secretary’s responsibilities for non-EU extradition to and from the UK. For all incoming extradition requests sent to the UK from any country in the world, the 2003 Act requires a UK judge to decide whether the  requested person’s extradition would be compatible with their human rights. The UK unequivocally supports the rule of law; all individuals requested for extradition are considered individually by our independent courts, complying with the provisions of the 2003 Act. \p David Davis: Yesterday’s edition of The Sunday Times revealed that in the aftermath of 9/11 the Metropolitan police were forced to release Omar al-Bayoumi, who was believed to be a Saudi intelligence agent accused of supporting the hijackers, because the FBI withheld evidence. Arrested in Birmingham 10 days after 9/11, al-Bayoumi was taken to London to be interrogated by Met counter-terror officers. The FBI declined to provide those officers with vital evidence of al-Bayoumi’s involvement in 9/11. The evidence included a hand-drawn aircraft diagram, trajectory calculations matching the Pentagon attack, and an address book with the attackers’ code name—a code name that bin Laden himself did not disclose until a year later.

The FBI’s refusal to disclose this evidence prevented al-Bayoumi’s extradition to the United States. FBI records show that in 1999, al-Bayoumi met two officials from the Saudi Ministry of Islamic Affairs. Those officials were assessed to be part of a network of individuals connected with the facilitation of two 9/11 attackers. A separate 2017 assessment by the FBI’s Arabic specialists concluded that Mr al-Bayoumi was a co-optee of the Saudi General Intelligence Presidency, which is its secret service.

A full investigation by the Intelligence and Security Committee is needed. It must investigate why the FBI clearly avoided extraditing Mr al-Bayoumi and exactly what was the involvement of the Saudi Government, in particular their Ministry of Islamic Affairs and secret service. As the Minister said, it is nearly 25 years since 9/11. In that time we have extradited many innocent people to America, but we failed to extradite someone who deserved to be sent over there. We need to get to the bottom of this, in part so that we do not see this terrible atrocity happen again. \p Dan Jarvis: I know that the right hon. Gentleman applies a huge weight of judgment and consideration to these matters, so I completely understand why he sought to bring this matter to the House’s attention. I hope, though, that he understands that I am very limited in what I can say by way of response.

The right hon. Gentleman will remember—I do not think he will mind my saying that he has been around for quite a long time—that in 2001 we were operating under the Extradition Act 1989. As he has mentioned, The Sunday Times has reported that key documents were not considered in 2001 when Mr Omar al-Bayoumi was subject to investigation in respect of the 9/11 bombings in the United States of America. The Sunday Times article suggests that the US did not pursue extradition in 2001. The right hon. Gentleman will understand that there are legal proceedings ongoing in the United States, and that means that I am not able to say any more at this point. I hope that he and the House will understand the reasons for that. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the shadow Secretary of State. \p Chris Philp: Let me start by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) on securing the urgent question and The Sunday Times on its reporting. As the Minister said, 9/11 was one of the most sickening terrorist atrocities of our lifetime, committed by Islamist extremists. Yesterday’s piece in The Sunday Times raises serious questions about the case of Omar al-Bayoumi. It appears that the UK police and the FBI had clear evidence that Omar al-Bayoumi assisted terrorists and had close links to the Saudi Government—or elements of the Saudi Government—and indeed was their agent.

It is not me saying that: just last week, US district court judge George Daniels sitting in New York found there was “reasonable evidence” that two Saudi citizens—one of whom was al-Bayoumi—were sent by the Saudi Government to assist the hijackers. That raises some extremely serious questions that I would like the Security Minister to answer. I gently say to him that the ongoing civil proceedings in New York by no means preclude him from answering; I ask him not to hide behind that.

First, why did the UK police release al-Bayoumi so quickly when they held other suspects, including someone in an adjacent cell, for extended periods—in that case for five months? Secondly, did the Saudi Government or the US Government pressure the UK Government to release al-Bayoumi early and not pursue the matter? Does the Security Minister agree with the judge that al-Bayoumi assisted terrorists and that he was sent by the Saudi Government to do so?

Will the Security Minister release all the relevant documents, including those held in the National Archives? Will he look into this matter and report back to the House? Finally, does he agree that the Intelligence and Security Committee should urgently investigate this matter? \p Dan Jarvis: I am grateful to the shadow Home Secretary for his remarks. He understandably referenced the article in yesterday’s edition of The Sunday Times, which I accept raises a number of important questions that are absolutely worthy of scrutiny and deserving of the House’s attention. I give him an assurance that the Government and I, as Security Minister, will look closely at the matters raised in the context of the debate. I do not accept the point he made that we are seeking to hide behind the legal proceedings taking place in the US. An article was published in a newspaper yesterday, and I give both the shadow Home Secretary and the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) an assurance that we will look carefully at the detail contained within it.

The shadow Home Secretary also made a reasonable point about the Intelligence and Security Committee. As an experienced Member and a former Minister, he will know that it is not for me to direct the activities of the ISC. It is an independent Committee, and it is very much a matter for the Chair and the Committee to decide what they wish to pursue. However, knowing the Chair as I do—he will be well known to hon. Members right across the House—I would be surprised if he did not want to take a look at it. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Ben Maguire. \p Ben Maguire: I thank the Minister for his update, and I echo his tribute to the victims of the appalling 9/11 attack. However, after recent revelations about Omar al-Bayoumi, his alleged involvement with the Saudi intelligence services and his links to the 9/11 hijackers, a number of pressing questions remain unanswered. First, why were British investigators not given access to all the evidence that the FBI held, including the Capitol Hill video and the aircraft sketch? Who in the UK Government was briefed about al-Bayoumi’s arrest at the time? Why is there no clear record of ministerial oversight? Did the Saudi authorities make representations to the UK Government regarding al-Bayoumi’s detention? If so, did this ultimately influence the decision to release him? Finally, and most importantly, what safeguards are now in place to make sure that crucial evidence from foreign intelligence agencies cannot be withheld from British counter-terrorism investigations? \p Dan Jarvis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, not least because he rightly raises the important point that we should always seek to remember and reflect on the sacrifice and the loss of the victims and survivors of terrorism. He is right: the victims and survivors of the horrific terrorist attacks that have scarred communities here and around the world must be remembered. This Government take that incredibly seriously, and in that spirit we have recently consulted on the creation of a national day for victims and survivors of terrorism. It is vital that the day reflects the voices and experience of those who have been directly impacted by terrorism offences.

The hon. Gentleman asked a number of detailed questions, but I will not be able to respond in detail to all of them, for reasons that I have already outlined. I can say that we will look closely at the matters that have been raised. I hope he sees that there are reasons why we cannot get into the detail of this today, but I give him and the House and assurance that we will look closely at this. \p Andrew Mitchell: My right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) did the House a service today in raising this important matter, but there are wider issues associated with the extradition treaty with America. The House will recall that the treaty was set up when Sir Tony Blair was Prime Minister to address terrorism, but in recent years, it has controversially been used for a much wider remit; from time to time, it has looked as though commercial and national advantage was sought from it. That suggests that the time may be right to review it. Will the Minister look at the matter carefully, and consider whether now is the time to do that? \p Dan Jarvis: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is an important matter with wider ramifications. I will not commit to the formal review that he describes, but I commit to him, and to the House, that we will look carefully at the issues that have been raised and the points he makes, and I will endeavour to come back to him and others on this issue as soon as possible. \p Julian Lewis: Does the Minister accept that ever since the Saudi nationality of the vast majority of the 9/11 hijackers became known,   there has been deep suspicion about the role of the then Saudi Government in the atrocity that took place? To what extent do the Government believe that the nature and attitude of the Saudi Government have changed over the past 24 years? \p Dan Jarvis: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will understand that on this occasion, I want to look forward, rather than back. The United Kingdom Government hugely value the relationship that we have with Saudi Arabia, and I visited it relatively recently. It is an important regional partner, and we want to work as closely and constructively with it as we can. \p Andrew Murrison: We know that 67 Britons died on 9/11. Does the Minister agree that we owe it to them, their memory and the families to get to the bottom of what look like very fishy reports over the weekend on how this individual was handled? Will he assure the House that the police at the time had operational independence—an issue that he referred to in his response to the previous urgent question? Does he understand that the British public are deeply sceptical about the stance taken by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, particularly as the 2018 murder of Jamal Khashoggi is still very much at the forefront of their mind? \p Dan Jarvis: On the right hon. Member’s final point, I refer him to the response I gave to his right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) a moment ago, but I agree about the importance of this matter. That day will be engrained in the minds of us all; I certainly remember exactly where I was. The world changed, and my life changed alongside it. I absolutely share his concern about these matters, and I completely agree with his point about the responsibility we have for the UK victims of that horrendous terrorist attack. I give him an assurance of the seriousness with which we take these matters. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his update and his answers. Does he not agree that our obligation to expose international terrorism and support our allies in the fight against those responsible for the 9/11 bombings is incredibly clear? Every step must be taken to ensure that anyone on British soil understands that we will never be a shield for terrorists. How will he ensure that every possible step is taken to make sure that this man is questioned—and held to account if, in fact, he is guilty? \p Dan Jarvis: I am grateful to the hon. Member, as I always am, not least because he speaks with great authority on matters relating to terrorism. I have had the privilege of discussing it with him on many occasions. He raises important points. I can only reiterate the importance that this Government attach to keeping the public safe and working with our international allies to defeat international terrorism. This Government will do everything that we need to do to stand against the terrorists and with those affected by their destructive activities. \p Luke Pollard: With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the defence industrial strategy. Today we fulfil another manifesto commitment by publishing our plan to strengthen our security and grow our economy. It is a plan to back British-based industry, create British jobs and drive British innovation.

Before I set out the detail of the strategy, I would like to place on the record my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) for her work in developing the strategy. I also extend a warm welcome to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Sandher-Jones), who has joined the Ministry of Defence team.

This is a plan supported by £773 million of investment—a plan to make defence an engine for economic growth in every nation and region of our country. The men and women who serve our nation are rightly respected across the world for their dedication and professionalism, yet as we know from the war in Ukraine, when a country is forced to fight, its armed forces are only as strong as the industry that stands behind them. The UK has one of the most advanced, innovative defence industrial bases the world over, but we are in a new era of threat, which demands a new era of UK defence.

Our strategic defence review set out our vision to make Britain safer—secure at home and strong abroad. Through our defence industrial strategy, we will ensure that we have an industry to deliver that vision. All the pledges made today can only be met because this Labour Government have committed the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war: 2.6% of GDP by 2027, and 3.5% by 2035, alongside our NATO allies. But with the promise to invest more comes the responsibility to invest better. By implementing our strategy, we will ensure that workers and businesses across the UK feel the benefit of the defence dividend.

In opposition, the now Defence Secretary told the House:

“Labour’s determination to see British investment directed first to British industry is fundamental.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2021; Vol. 691, c. 798.]

Today, ambition in opposition becomes action in government. Using every lever available to the Government, our strategy will prioritise British-based businesses. We will make it easier for British-based firms to do business with the Ministry of Defence. We will launch an office of small business growth to support small and medium-sized enterprises in accessing MOD contracts, and we will give greater clarity by sharing our five-year acquisition pipeline, allowing businesses to invest with confidence.

The £10 billion frigate contract signed with Norway last week was the biggest warship deal in our history—a demonstration that when we export defence capabilities, we not only strengthen our security abroad, but create high-skilled jobs at home. Through our strategy, we will back British businesses to go out and win—win more contracts and create more jobs. The new office of defence exports brings responsibility for defence exports back into the Ministry of Defence and creates a Government-to-Government exports structure that reflects what our allies and industry need.

Sustaining sovereign capabilities is the cornerstone of national security, so our strategy sets out the requirement to onshore key assets. We will maintain the advantages afforded by open international competition, but in a way that improves value for the British taxpayer. For the first time ever, we will introduce an offset policy, designed in consultation with industry. It will mean that when we buy from our allies, the UK economy will be strengthened in return through new jobs and novel technologies.

Our defence industrial base represents a commitment to innovation and excellence. Today, it supports over 460,000 jobs and over 24,000 apprenticeships across the UK, the vast majority of which are unionised. As a trade union member, I know that good, well-paid and unionised jobs are good not only for defence but for growth. The defence industry is a source of not only prosperity but pride; it proves that we are still a nation of makers. When I speak with defence workers, I see their deep sense of purpose in what they do. They are right to feel that way; their efforts keep our nation safe. Through our strategy, more people will be afforded the opportunities and rewards of working in this industry.

To ensure that the benefits of the defence dividend are shared across every nation and region of the UK, we are investing £250 million in defence growth deals. Our deals will build on inherent strengths in defence communities by improving skills and infrastructure. The first phase will be launched in Plymouth, where we will focus on advanced marine technologies and autonomous systems, and in south Yorkshire, where we will build on our recent investment in defence and steel. Further locations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will be announced, because there is not only a defence dividend from our uplift in defence spending, but a Union dividend, strengthening our United Kingdom.

ADS analysis indicates that the defence industry workforce could grow by 50,000 people by 2035, when defence spending increases to 3% of GDP. To ensure that the UK can take full advantage, we must ensure that we have the workers with the right skills to fulfil those roles, so I am today announcing the biggest ever investment in defence skills: £182 million of new Government funding to establish five defence technical excellence colleges, so that we can promote to over 800,000 school pupils the benefits of a career in the defence industry; and our new defence skills passport, which will make it easier and faster for veterans and workers in other industries to move into the defence sector.

Over the past few years, defence firms have expressed growing concerns about attending jobs fairs. The harassment and intimidation to which they have been subjected has forced companies to cancel events on university campuses. The campaign to boycott and target defence firms misunderstands the purpose of deterrence. We know the full measure of freedom and security in Britain because of what our defence industry does. The strategy will help the industry to attract the talent it needs by creating a dedicated presence on the UCAS website, a new defence apprenticeship and graduate clearing system, and a defence university alliance to strengthen careers in the sector.

The war in Ukraine reminds us that innovation is the central pillar of deterrence. To ensure that we meet our objectives of better capability and increased growth, we are committed to spending at least 10% of our equipment  budget on novel technologies. The newly established UK Defence Innovation is backed by £400 million of ringfenced investment and has the authority to reallocate funding and resources, ensuring a focus on priorities and value for money. Today’s strategy outlines how we will employ UKDI to rapidly produce technologies that give our armed forces an advantage. We will set out the first of the innovation challenges that we want industry to go after, as well as how we will better support firms in testing their innovations.

This Government inherited what the Public Accounts Committee described as a “broken procurement system”. For too long, defence has been burdened by waste, delay and complexity, yet today we know that whoever gets technology to its frontline forces the fastest, wins. We have proved that we can do it for Ukraine; now we must do it for Britain. Our segmented approach to procurement sets ambitious targets to drastically reduce the timescales to get new projects on contract. As part of the biggest shake-up to the Ministry of Defence in over 50 years, we have created the role of National armaments director, and because we want UK firms to win not just at home but abroad, we will improve our export licensing system with a new digital platform, better training for staff, and reformed procedures, including allowing exporters to apply for licences during the bidding process.

Unlike previous strategies, our one is funded. It is also the culmination of months of detailed work and close engagement with industry, academia, and trade unions. Throughout the process, our aim has been to produce a strategy with the defence sector, rather than to it. With a clear plan backed by historic investment, our Government, alongside industry, will now deliver for Britain. I commend this statement to the House. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the shadow Secretary of State for Defence. \p James Cartlidge: I am grateful to the Minister for early sight of both his statement and the hard copy document. Before I respond to the statement, may I express on behalf of the Opposition our wholehearted condemnation of the latest drone attack on Kyiv, the largest of the war, with small children among the dead? It is a reminder of why we need to step up and rearm at pace and scale, to strengthen our deterrence in a dangerous world.

The strategy’s statement of intent, published last December stated:

“The Defence Industrial Strategy will be developed at pace...and will be published in late Spring 2025”.

It is now autumn—it has been delayed when we need real pace from the Government, and that is part of a pattern. Some 26 times Ministers promised on the Floor of the House that the strategic defence review would be published in the spring, but it was published in the summer. The defence housing strategy was promised for the summer, and we now understand that it will be published as late as the Christmas recess. Can the Minister guarantee that the defence industrial policy will be published this year?

It is not just Labour’s reviews that are being published far later than promised. The SDR promised that a National armaments director would be in place from 1 April 2025. On page 6, and as the Minister just said, the defence industrial strategy states that

“we have created the role of National armaments director”.

If the Government have created the role, could they kindly tell us the name? Is Andy Start the interim NAD, or is he the new permanent empowered NAD? If so, is he on his previous salary, or the much higher one for the new role? Key appointments and strategies—months late. War is changing rapidly, but Labour is moving far too slowly.

On the contents of the defence industrial strategy, we welcome further measures to boost the skills base of our defence sector. While we will wait to see the full details of the growth deals, we strongly share the Government’s goal of spreading the prosperity benefits of defence around the United Kingdom. Can the Minister tell us when those will be up and running, and whether the £250 million investment represents new money that was not previously included in the MOD budget? I also welcome measures to boost defence exports, not least establishing a real Government-to-Government offer, and restoring the defence export team back into the MOD—that is something I was working on, and I am glad the Government are implementing it.

Our main concern about the strategy is that it lacks the ambition to fire up our defence industrial base at the scale and pace required, at a time when the threats we face are so stark. The blunt reality is that, for all Labour’s talk, actual procurement has been largely on hold since the election, with the now notorious written answer confirming in spring that the Government had purchased just three new drones since the election last July. Quite simply, they need to start signing actual capability contracts. Thousands of jobs are at stake in some of those major procurements that were meant to have been resolved in the SDR, but on which we still await a decision.

For example, on Friday I had the pleasure to visit Leonardo in Yeovil, the cornerstone of UK military rotary. It is clear that the New Medium Helicopter procurement is critical to its future. When I announced the NMH competition, I deliberately strengthened tender scoring to support defence jobs here in the UK. Are the Government still committed to NMH? If so, when will they give the green light? We hope that will be at the Defence and Security Equipment International. For that matter, when will we see further progress on Skynet, the Red Arrows replacement, M270 artillery and the many other key decisions that the industry is waiting on?

We want to see pace in procurement, not endless dithering and delay. However, we all know the reason why the waiting goes on for so many UK defence companies, large and small: the Government have not prioritised boosting defence spending meaningfully in the near term. Instead, they use smoke and mirrors to inflate what appears to be going into the MOD. For example, the Government reclassified the intelligence budget into defence, so that they can claim to be spending 2.6% by 2027, when the reality is that the MOD budget—that which actually funds the equipment plan—will be equivalent to only 2.2% of GDP in that same year.

While key procurement decisions continue to be put off, tomorrow Labour will plough on as fast as possible with surrendering sovereignty of our critical defence  base on Diego Garcia at a cost of £35 billion. The first payment is of £250 million next year and I can safely say that, instead of giving that to the Government of Mauritius, we would spend the money on rapid procurement of drones and counter-drone tech for the British Army from our brilliant British defence SMEs.

That is what we wanted to see from today’s strategy—the delivery of a strong, sovereign drone industrial base, and the same for space, rotary, military vehicles and so many others, as well as artificial intelligence and tech. Warm words delivered late are not enough. We need to see a real-world ramping up of the defence industrial base, with serious investment and not smoke and mirrors, the prioritisation of UK defence companies, and a rapid boost in our ability to deter the rising threats we face. \p Luke Pollard: I think the shadow Defence Secretary really wanted to welcome this strategy, but is finding it difficult, because the politics have got in the way. I will deal with some of that, but first let me say that I am grateful to him for his words about the attack in Kyiv. It is so important that, although we may disagree about some things across this House, there is strong cross-party support against Putin’s illegal invasion. That must never wane.

I suggest politely to the hon. Gentleman that the mess in defence procurement that we inherited was one that he was in charge of when he was in government. It is, therefore, a bit cheeky of him—though, generally speaking, I like cheekiness—to raise these questions. The platforms that he asked about should have been sorted out under his Government, but never were. He knows for sure that our investments will be in the defence investment plan we will publish later this year. He also knows that for the national armaments director, recruitment is well advanced—we have appointed Andy Start as the interim NAD, but it is important that we get the right person for the role. We will continue that process. The shadow Secretary of State also asked about defence growth deals, and that is new money. He also knows that we have signed 900 deals for defence procurement contracts since the election. We will sign more on the back of the defence investment plan later this year.

The hon. Gentleman also accuses us of dithering and delay, but I fear that that is political projection from the failures of his time in government. We have a clear increase in defence spending and a clear strategy published today that directs that increased defence budget at British companies, that backs British SMEs and that creates the skills that our industry needs. I know that he wants to back it. I know that he is passionate about drones, which is why I know that he will back our doubling of funding for drones and autonomous systems in the SDR. I say to him politely: this is a huge opportunity for British businesses up and down the country, in every single nation and region of our land, and the strategy sets out the objectives and opportunities. I hope that, on reflection, he will be able to welcome the strategy thoroughly and to give it full-hearted support, because our industry deserves the support of this House. It has the support of this Labour Government, and we will continue to increase defence spending, directing more of it at British businesses. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Chair of the Defence Committee. \p Tan Dhesi: I welcome the Minister’s announcement and advance sight of the Government’s defence industrial strategy, which rightly seeks to strengthen our sovereign capabilities and to bolster British defence businesses. One element of the strategy is offsetting, as set out on page 7 of the document, whereby contracts with overseas companies will lead to British jobs and novel technologies. The Minister will be aware, however, that while the practice is used in other nations, previous attempts have been abandoned, because they have led to increased costs and complex contract problems. How will the Minister ensure that the Government get the details correct, that the practice will indeed benefit British workers and that the costs are not merely loaded on to other contracts? \p Luke Pollard: The offset policy that we will shortly consult on with industry provides not just the opportunity for us to bring our industries closer together, but means that in circumstances where we have to buy from a foreign provider, which could be because of quality or specific opportunities, we have the ability to then invest more in UK businesses. This is commonplace and has featured in the Norway deal and in procurement by the Australian Government and South Korea. It is a model that works and it creates an environment where we can mesh our industries together more closely with those of our allies, helping to share research and development costs for new platforms and ensuring that when we are not able to spend money on British purchases, British industry still benefits from increased skills and increased investment in novel technology. This is an area that will directly benefit UK firms and our entire defence ecosystem, especially with those investments in skills, which will last a lifetime for the workers involved and show a real defence dividend. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Helen Maguire: I thank the Minister for advance sight of the defence industrial statement. I welcome the announcement today of the new defence industrial strategy because for too many years, the Conservatives chose to ignore the challenges across our defence industrial base. In light of the threats that we face from an imperial Putin and other revisionist powers, it is right that this Government have a serious approach to the defence industrial base in our country.

The opportunities offered through the defence skills passports will add vital channels for people who are already in employment to make the transition to the sector. UK businesses are playing a vital role in supporting military operations in Ukraine, yet we know that many businesses operate internationality. Will the Minister ensure that all British individuals working in the defence sector in offices abroad will also have the skills that they need to support our allies? As the need to work closely with our European allies continues to grow, will he provide an update on what progress the Government have made on securing the UK’s access to the EU Security Action for Europe fund?

It is vital that we properly incorporate small and medium-sized companies into the defence supply chain across Britain. While I welcome the Government’s commitment to a new defence office for small business  growth, will the Minister set out how the new office will effectively support the integration of small and medium-sized companies into supply and procurement?

It is crucial that the UK is prioritising spending its money at home and with the best businesses. To create a forward-thinking defence industry, will the Minister support an innovative approach to the development of new defence capabilities that continue to give businesses opportunities to innovate, even when the product is in use?

While the Type 26 deal with Norway is a positive step in working closely with our allies, will the Minister confirm that the delivery timeline for expanding the UK’s own Type 26 fleet will not be delayed?

Finally, last week my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) asked the then Foreign Secretary to assure the House that the Government would not award a £2 billion contract to Israeli defence manufacturer Elbit, to which he replied with a resounding yes. Will the Minister reconfirm that position today? \p Luke Pollard: I thank the hon. Member for welcoming the strategy—it is good to see cross-party support for our defence industry. I also welcome her words about the support that we provide to Ukraine. A lesson that we are learning from the war in Ukraine is that we can procure faster, better and more effectively using increased freedoms. That is precisely the lesson from our work supporting our Ukrainian friends that we are seeking to apply in order to support UK armed forces.

Negotiations on UK participation in SAFE are led jointly by the Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Defence. We will seek to continue those conversations. There needs to be provision of value for money for the British taxpayer and opportunities for British businesses, and I am confident that the discussions will be productive.

The SME office that we are seeking to create is one way of helping those small businesses that feel that they have an innovative project for defence, but struggle with the labyrinthine bureaucracy and confusion about who to go to. Having a one-stop shop that enables people to access those contracts and navigate the process will be a real boost for SMEs selling their products into the Ministry of Defence.

The hon. Member is right about the need for spiral development, but in reducing the contracting times, we need to be alive to the fact that the technologies that we procure need to be spiral developed at pace, so that we do not have a legacy system that then gets spiral development many years later.

On the hon. Member’s two final questions, the Type 26 deal with Norway is a superb boost for shipbuilding on the Clyde. Discussions with our Norwegian friends have already started about the build slots, but the Royal Navy will receive our Type 26 frigates in the 2030s as planned. No decisions have been made about the recruitment contract that she mentioned. The intention is to make a decision in February 2026, but I have heard what she said in relation to that. \p Patricia Ferguson: On Thursday, I had the pleasure of visiting BAE Systems in my constituency with the Prime Minister. I spoke to many  of the apprentices there, who are looking forward to a very long and secure future in their jobs. Can the training academy model used at Scotstoun be considered for integration into the defence academies? Might Glasgow be one of the locations for such an academy, presumably following discussions with the Scottish Government? \p Luke Pollard: I thank my hon. Friend for championing the work that takes place at Scotstoun. In both Govan and Scotstoun, we have an incredible workforce building the world’s best anti-submarine warfare frigate, and I am very glad that they have been getting such a lot of attention since the Norway deal, because they deserve it. The skills academy that BAE has built on the Clyde, as well as the skills academy it has built in Barrow for the submarine build work, are best in class. They really provide an opportunity to skill people up for a lifetime of opportunity, and they are precisely the types of investments that we want to see more defence companies make. I will take her question as an early bid for one of those colleges. I look forward to continuing work with her and other Glasgow MPs on how we make the most of the Type 26 project. \p Andrew Murrison: The Swedish Archer self-propelled gun is in the process of replacing the AS-90, and it will itself be replaced by the German Remote Controlled Howitzer 155 system. Can the Minister say when the in-service date of the Howitzer will be? How much UK componentry will be in it? How many UK jobs does he anticipate will be generated by it? \p Luke Pollard: It is entirely right that we donated the AS-90 platforms; nearly all of them are now in operation with our Ukrainian friends. That was the right decision, which was originally taken by the right hon. Gentleman’s own party, supported by the Labour party. It is right that we have transferred those. The Archer is a good platform that will provide interim capability; I can get him the stats, and I will write to him with further details. It is absolutely right that we equip our forces with the latest technologies and do so where possible by procuring with our allies to reduce the R&D costs and increase the real benefit from them. \p Alex Baker: I welcome the defence industrial strategy. In Aldershot and Farnborough, we have a strong ecosystem that includes the home of the British Army, Standing Joint Command, QinetiQ and a hub of amazing SMEs on Cody technology park, so I am really pleased to see the Government acknowledging my community’s role in putting the UK at the cutting edge of defence innovation in this strategy. I am also pleased to see regional investment through the growth deals. What assessment has the Minister made of quick-win places such as Aldershot and Farnborough that are already delivering for the Government on defence but, with the right extra support and a brief from Government, could do even more? \p Luke Pollard: I thank my hon. Friend for championing her local businesses. Her constituency is not only the home of the British Army, but an incredible base for innovation and advanced technologies. There are real opportunities to grow this sector further in her constituency and across the UK, and the defence industrial strategy seeks to do that by directing more of the increase in the  defence budget at British-based firms and investing in the skills required. With a constituency as hungry and ambitious as hers, we will need even more skills. That is why the investment in FE colleges, schools and university partnerships is so essential in providing those skills. I am happy to meet her to discuss this matter further. \p Stuart Anderson: I congratulate the Minister on his promotion. I have just returned from the US with the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, where we reviewed disruptive technology from AI to quantum and saw how it has a chance to change the defence industrial base. What consideration of that fast-moving technology is there in this defence industrial strategy? \p Luke Pollard: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for championing novel technologies. The £400 million that we have allocated to UK Defence Innovation is intended to champion those disruptive high-end technologies, but we have also been clear that we want to spend 10% of our equipment budget on those advanced pieces of technology. We also need to support the wider R&D ecosystem that supports those technologies, which is why we also make announcements in the strategy about supporting our university and research partnerships that deliver them. Certainly, with US projects relying in many cases on British technology, there is a really strong ecosystem for learning the lessons from Ukraine and maintaining a technological edge. There are real opportunities for UK businesses to do more, and the more links we have with our US friends on those advanced technologies and R&D, the better. \p Chi Onwurah: I welcome the Government’s commitment to support for Ukraine, to our security and to our regional economies. The north-east sends proportionately more of its young people into the armed forces than any other region in the country, yet the Ministry of Defence spends less with our businesses and industries than it does with any other region, despite our fantastic, high-value advanced manufacturing. It appears that we have not been offered a defence growth deal, so will the Minister meet me and stakeholders to address this question urgently? My right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) had agreed to do so; will he make that commitment? \p Luke Pollard: I replied to the debate on defence in the north-east only a few weeks ago, and I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend to look at that issue. This is not just about how we back the current defence industries that exist right across the country, including in the north-east; it is about how we provide routes for firms that might not think of themselves as defence companies to sell their products and services into defence. Making those routes easier to navigate, especially with the new SME offer, will greatly support many of the businesses in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I am happy to meet her and her regional colleagues to make that case further. \p Steve Barclay: The Government said over the summer that the Dreadnought programme was on track, despite the fire last year at Barrow, the challenges of covid and the other Government programmes that are running delayed.  However, there is a lot of latitude in saying that the programme will be delivered in the early 2030s. Is the Minister able to clarify in which year the first vessels will be in service? That has significant implications for the length at sea of existing submariners. \p Luke Pollard: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, and in particular for framing it around our submariners. The Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have both been to zero-day events, at which our nuclear bombers return to base after many months away. Their tours are far too long, and to ensure we can bring those down, we need to not only bring on the new Dreadnought-class submarines but make sure that the submarines that are in refit—the Vanguard class—get to sea faster. We are making efforts to deliver both those things. It is difficult for me to give the full in-service dates on the Floor of the House, but I am happy to write to the right hon. Gentleman with some details that I may be able to publish. \p Callum Anderson: I thank the Minister for his statement. I welcome this industrial strategy, which—as my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) said—demonstrates how closely aligned a strong domestic defence sector is with our economic security and sovereignty. Can the Minister add a bit more detail about what assessment his Department has made of the potential further export opportunities arising from this industrial strategy, which will strengthen not only UK economic growth but our economic and defence relationships with our allies? \p Luke Pollard: I have just returned from South Korea, where I held a number of discussions with Government Ministers about export opportunities and, importantly, partnerships—about how we can use British ingenuity and expertise in support of our allies’ generating capabilities, which benefits all of us in a win-win situation. There are export opportunities across every single sector of British defence manufacturing. In bringing defence exports into the Ministry of Defence, we aim to align the infrastructure that we have within the MOD, both in our overseas representation and in our expertise, to power those deals so that we can announce more deals like the Type 26 deal and the £1.6 billion lightweight multi-role missiles contract, with missiles being made in Northern Ireland and exported to Ukraine. There are huge opportunities for us to do even more, and it is good to have my hon. Friend’s support for powering up those exports, especially for those SMEs that could be the powerhouses of the next-generation technologies. \p Steve Darling: I am sure that the Minister, as a fellow Devon MP, will be only too well aware of our thriving high-tech cluster and the support it provides to the defence industry from its base in Torbay. What assurance can the Minister give our high-tech cluster in Torbay that it will be taken account of as this strategy develops, so that it can play its part in supporting our nation’s defence? \p Luke Pollard: As a Plymouth MP, I know that the success of the defence industry in Plymouth is about what happens not just in the PL postcode, but in the wider regional ecosystem. Torbay, especially with its marine technology, has an awful lot to offer. An important  part of how we power growth is ensuring that the Plymouth growth deal and, indeed, all the growth deals that we have announced today benefit the wider region, and not just the particular locations. The increase in skills and the focus on buying British from British-based firms will help businesses right across the country, including in the hon. Member’s constituency. \p Catherine Atkinson: This morning, I was at the Nuclear Skills Academy in Derby. It is a partnership between Rolls-Royce and the University of Derby that teaches the skills needed to create the reactors that power our submarines, and it delivers 200 apprenticeships a year. The defence industrial strategy delivers the biggest investment in defence skills in decades. Can the Minister tell us more about how it will help smaller defence suppliers to secure the skills that they need, too? \p Luke Pollard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the Rolls-Royce skills work, because Derby is one of the best-in-class examples in this area. That company can invest in its people because of the long-term security that this Government have provided with the multibillion-pound commitment to buy new nuclear reactors from Derby for our nuclear submarines. Our skills investment is not just about the primes investing in skills for that single business; it is about the skills ecosystem, so we must invest for all the suppliers and SMEs as well. There is no point in primes having full apprenticeships if the suppliers they buy from, which are essential to the end product, do not have enough skills. That is precisely why skills are at the very heart of the defence industrial strategy we have announced today. Exemplary examples like Rolls-Royce are superb in delivering those skills. \p Ben Obese-Jecty: I place on record my excitement at seeing RAF Wyton in my constituency directly mentioned in the defence industrial strategy. Last week, I was at RAF Wyton for a hugely successful discussion on its future as a defence technology cluster, with senior officers from the cyber and specialist operations command, the leadership of Huntingdonshire district council and planners from the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough combined authority. I invite the procurement Minister and the Defence Secretary to visit RAF Wyton—I believe they may be due to anyway—not only to see the tremendous work that defence intelligence does, but to see its suitability as the defence, energy and capability resilience centre of excellence. That would address my fears that the land may be sold off for housing by the Defence Infrastructure Organisation by accident in the interim. I also invite them both to the Huntingdonshire defence showcase right here in Parliament next month. \p Luke Pollard: I thank the hon. Member for championing his constituency. There is a real opportunity at RAF Wyton, not just in terms of the military purpose that defence intelligence provides there—that is obviously difficult to talk about in the public space—but in terms of the spin-offs and industrial opportunities that the wider estate offers. I would be happy to attend those events, and I look forward to continuing the conversation about Wyton and returning to visit there soon. \p Luke Charters: Today’s blockbuster strategy completely rewires many of the institutions at the heart of our defence financing: the National Wealth Fund, the British Business Bank and UK Export Finance. With the news that the Chinese bond market may now be open to Russian defence companies, does my hon. Friend agree that we need to keep innovating and keep evolving how we do defence financing to support our own industrial base? \p Luke Pollard: First, I thank my hon. Friend for the work he has been doing on how we open up finance to small businesses in particular and how we deal with some of the policies that restrict access to finance for those firms that work in defence. He is absolutely right that internationally we are seeing more of those nations that sometimes oppose our values come together, but we need to make sure we are innovating with our finance and that SMEs have access to capital. That is one reason why we are seeking to create a more predictable pipeline of acquisitions that enables businesses, especially small businesses, to borrow to invest. \p Dave Doogan: If Scotland is lucky, we will get a per capita share of the £250 million in the growth deal, which is barely twice what the SNP Scottish Government have invested in the skills academy in BAE alone. However, the omens are not good, because Scotland is routinely short-changed in defence expenditure. The London Government are spending more in the south-east of England than they do in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland put together. The Minister’s own region seems set to benefit, and I am not sure where the Union dividend is between Portsmouth and Yorkshire. Seeing as he is holding the pen and writing the cheque, which hopefully will not bounce, will Scotland at the very least get its per capita share of that £250 million? \p Luke Pollard: We hear such negativity from the Scottish National party. On a day when we have announced a growth deal for Scotland, creating skills and infrastructure, rather than welcome for that investment, we hear more negativity. It continues the pattern that we have seen from the SNP in Scotland: not interested in defence, not interested in defence jobs, not interested in the growth that that brings. Only when there is a win do SNP Members finally come out and say something positive. There is a lot to be done in Scotland to grow that sector. We are backing the Scottish defence industry, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman’s party will do so soon. \p Baggy Shanker: We know that when we back British jobs, British industry and British innovators, communities across our country reap the rewards. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that our proudly home-grown small and medium-sized enterprises can be supportive in delivering this industrial strategy? \p Luke Pollard: I have seen some incredible innovation in our defence SMEs. Such companies have the opportunity to transform the warfighting capabilities of our forces and to support our allies, but for far too many of them it has been too difficult to find the person who is awarding the contract, to navigate the process, to understand how to access the forward supply, or even to get security clearance to understand what their competitors are doing.  This defence industrial strategy seeks to rectify those problems by creating a single new one-stop shop for SMEs so that all of them, in every part of the UK, can access MOD contracts and we can benefit from their innovation and agility. \p Harriett Baldwin: I imagine that the timing of the defence industrial strategy is linked to the Defence Security and Equipment International conference that is happening in London this week, so could the Minister have a word with the Mayor of London, emphasising the importance of that event for the defence industrial strategy?

The brilliant brains in Malvern in my constituency have come up with something that is very topical and timely: a better way to deal with those who seek to spoof and jam the GPS signal. It was delivered with MOD funding, and is being sold to other countries around the world, but the UK does not seem to be buying it. Could the Minister look into that specific issue? \p Luke Pollard: If the hon. Lady writes to me about it, I will certainly look into it.

This morning I was on the bridge of HMS Mersey, one of our offshore patrol vessels, which is moored outside the ExCeL centre in east London as part of the DSEI conference. This is a huge opportunity for growth—and, of course, there are 10,000 defence jobs in London and an opportunity to grow even more in every part of the UK, including the nation’s capital. \p Anna Gelderd: I welcome the Minister’s statement, and congratulate him on his new role. It is fantastic that Plymouth has been named as the site of one of the defence growth deals; this is very positive for South East Cornwall, given our close ties with the workers who cross the River Tamar daily using Tamar crossings, and the autonomous naval vessels training in our local Cornish waters. In fact, 23% of Babcock’s Devonport workforce live in South East Cornwall. Will the Minister outline how the positive impacts of this announcement will be felt throughout the region, and will he assure me that local housing and transport improvements will be considered critical to the successful delivery of this important deal? \p Luke Pollard: I thank my constituency neighbour for her advocacy. All the growth deals that we have announced today, including the Plymouth growth deal, will help the wider region in each location, not just the specific location, to build a skills base that will help the suppliers as well as the primes in those locations. My hon. Friend is right: we also need to look at skills and at housing. The Barrow model, for instance, is a good one for us to look at, because Barrow needs to grow bigger in order to build the submarines that the Royal Navy needs. That is not just about the shipyard, although investment from this Government is going into it; it is about housing, education and health in that community. This is precisely the model that is being followed for other locations across the UK, including those in the south-west. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: May I ask Members to be brief, and the Minister to be even shorter? \p Richard Foord: Over the summer I joined the Chief of the General Staff on a visit to Supacat at Dunkeswell in Devon. I learned there that to keep supply chains active, manufacturers need continuous orders that keep British-made capabilities sharp. I am pleased to hear that Plymouth is going to enjoy a cut of the £250 million pledged for defence growth deals, but can the Minister let us know about the next order for the incredible Jackal 3 high mobility transporter? \p Luke Pollard: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Jackal 3 is made in Devonport, in the constituency that I represent. It is a good platform. We will be making further announcements about orders across a whole range of land vehicles, which companies across the UK will be able to bid into. The work on the Jackal 3 continues, with the long wheelbase variants being produced at the moment. \p Richard Baker: Can the Minister assure me that, along with the huge defence contracts that this Government have already secured for shipyards in Scotland, this strategy will also offer great opportunities for fabrication yards, including at Methil in my constituency? It was saved from closure by Labour Ministers, and its brilliant workforce are already delivering a new £8 million Government contract under its new owners, Navantia UK. \p Luke Pollard: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that example. Our £8 million investment will create the facility for the build of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary’s new fleet solid support ships. That is an important part of keeping our Royal Navy supplied well into the future. I am grateful that he spoke about manufacturing, because there are huge opportunities in this strategy for businesses like the ones he mentioned. \p Jim Allister: I very much welcome the indication that Northern Ireland will participate in the defence growth deals, but will the Minister explain the interplay, if any, with the devolved Government? I ask because we in Northern Ireland have the misfortune of having an anti-British and anti-British-defence Economy Minister in the shape of a Sinn Féin Minister. Can I have an assurance that she will not be able to thwart any of Northern Ireland’s benefits under this deal? I ask that in the context that today, sadly, the MOD had to abandon its jobs fair participation in Londonderry, courtesy of Sinn Féin pressure. \p Luke Pollard: We are proud that the growth deals will be in every single part of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. The precise location of those in the devolved Administrations will be set following discussions with those devolved Administrations, including in conjunction with those in Northern Ireland. We are absolutely clear that there is a growth opportunity to provide new, well-paid and good jobs to people there. That is why we will work with partners in Northern Ireland to find the right location and to invest in the skills that the industry there needs. \p Graeme Downie: I thank the Minister for his statement, as well as for last week’s news of the significant infrastructure investment in the Rosyth dockyard in my constituency, which is highly welcome for jobs in the area. As the Minister said,  the real defence dividend will be the long-term skills. We have seen skills devolved to the Scottish Government, but they have utterly failed when it comes to defence skills because of their absolutely childish attitude towards the defence industry. Seventy-two hours does not make up for 20 years of failure. Will the Minister meet me to discuss options to ensure that skills, and the delivery of skills opportunities in Scotland’s defence sector, can be delivered for people in my constituency and across Scotland, so that they can take advantage of the long-term opportunities and sustainable jobs that exist? \p Luke Pollard: Scotland has good representatives on this side of the House: representatives who value defence jobs in Scotland and the people who work in those jobs, and who see growth opportunities. I know that there are huge opportunities in Rosyth, in my hon. Friend’s constituency—not just the submarine recycling work and the build of the Type 31 frigates, but supply chain opportunities for other platforms. We will continue to invest in Scotland and I hope that, after the Scottish Parliament elections, we can find a new partnership between the Scottish Government, whoever may form that, and the UK Government, so that we have less politics and more focus on growth. \p Julian Lewis: Now that the killer in the Kremlin has reinstated the serious prospect of all-out war on the continent of Europe, does the Minister accept that this places a premium on national autonomy in our procurement process? In future with procurement issues, will the Government make it clear to what extent we can proceed with acquiring the necessary munitions, irrespective of what is happening to the allies with whom we might normally co-operate? \p Luke Pollard: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his customarily thoughtful question. He will know of our intention to build six new munitions factories, including a new energetics factory, precisely because there is a shortage and there are concerns about supply and resilience. He will also know that we are seeking to onshore a number of capabilities. The defence industrial strategy deals with a number of those capabilities, especially around national security, which we want to see enhance our sovereign capability. I encourage him to read that part of the strategy shortly. \p Chris McDonald: This defence industrial strategy shows that we finally have a Government who take our British defence industry seriously. A foundation of domestic orders enables British businesses to compete effectively for export orders. Can the Minister outline the nature of the support from UK Defence Innovation that our defence and defence-adjacent SMEs might need in order to help them commercialise their technology? I hope he will consider Teesside and the north-east for a future skills academy and any future growth zone deals. \p Luke Pollard: I thank my hon. Friend for his advocacy for his community. There are certainly opportunities in every part of the country, including on Teesside, for defence companies and for companies that are not selling into defence currently, but which have an opportunity  to do so. The £400 million investment in UK Defence Innovation is designed to go after the most innovative and disruptive technologies. Primes have a good role in this, but so do SMEs. I encourage all businesses to lean into that opportunity, and to really go after the increased funding and the export and contractual opportunities that that will provide. \p Ian Sollom: The Minister has made a number of announcements about skills in the defence industrial strategy, which is much appreciated, but can he explain how they will integrate with existing skills frameworks and whether the industry will be given the flexibility to develop new courses at the “wartime pace” that the strategic defence review referenced? \p Luke Pollard: The hon. Gentleman is exactly right. For instance, the work that ADS is doing on its new curriculum is really interesting and exciting. There is a real opportunity to go after the skills challenges nationwide. In order to give the men and women in our armed forces the kit they need and to export to our allies, we need to invest more in skills. It is something in which this nation has under-invested for far too long. That changes with the defence industrial strategy today. \p Douglas McAllister: I welcome the Minister’s statement. The defence industrial strategy will strengthen our security and grow our economy. These reforms will boost jobs in communities such as my West Dunbartonshire constituency, which is sandwiched between the £250 million investment in Faslane and the £10 billion contract with Norway, guaranteeing shipbuilding on the Clyde for years to come. Will the Minister agree to meet me, the leader of my local authority and the chief executive of West Dunbartonshire council to explore the opportunities for bringing further defence investment and employment to West Dunbartonshire? \p Luke Pollard: I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend and Councillor Rooney, his local authority leader. There are real opportunities to look at some of the sites, especially given the investment in nuclear technology in my hon. Friend’s part of the world. I know that he is seeking engagement with the Department for Business and Trade about the locations in West Dunbartonshire, and I am happy to meet him to discuss this matter further. \p Dr Caroline Johnson: In his opening remarks, the Minister mentioned the importance of the strategic defence review to the industrial strategy. When that strategy was announced, some unions, organisations and businesses were given preferential access to it, but the Minister has consistently refused to say who and when. Written questions have received flannel as answers, and freedom of information requests are now almost a month out of date. What is the Minister trying to hide, and when will he answer the question? \p Luke Pollard: On a day when the hon. Lady could be celebrating the work of SMEs in her constituency and talking up British growth, she is here again with a complaint. There is a clear process with the SDR, which we followed, on the predication of the previous Administration. We have followed a clear plan today to  brief the Opposition and to make sure that it is clear that we are backing British businesses. I wish she had taken the opportunity to do so as well. \p Llinos Medi: SMEs like Affinity at RAF Valley, in my constituency, offer apprenticeships that equip young people with crucial engineering skills. It is vital that the defence industrial strategy’s new clearing-style system for apprenticeships works with local SMEs and colleges to expand these opportunities. Can the Minister clarify how the system will operate in Wales, where apprenticeships are devolved? \p Luke Pollard: That is precisely why we are seeking more engagement on defence with the devolved Administrations. Defence is a reserved matter, but skills are devolved, so we need to form a new partnership between the different Governments across the United Kingdom, including in Wales. The skills around RAF Valley are really very impressive, and there is huge opportunity for growth. If we get this right, we will create more good, well-paid jobs in the hon. Lady’s constituency and across Wales—an opportunity that this Government are going to seize with both hands. \p John Cooper: I am delighted that the face of procurement is changing and that, hopefully, we will see a telescoping of the time between the flash of inspiration and the bang of kinetic effectors, as they say. The neutral vendor framework for innovation is a very important part of that, but will the Minister give me an assurance that the Business and Trade Committee’s recommendation—that we have metrics so that we can measure outputs and not simply inputs—can be brought forward? \p Luke Pollard: I thank the hon. Member, and I agree with him. I am a big fan of a data-led dashboard, and the Ministry of Defence will be producing those, because when it comes to procurement we need a greater data-led approach and a focus on prioritisation. We will be going after areas that have fallen behind, which I am afraid the last Government failed to do. That is our new approach. I have already met the Chair of the Committee, and I look forward to meeting him further to discuss how we can take on board the recommendations to make sure we get this system right. \p Will Forster: To provide certainty for the whole defence sector, but particularly for the small and medium-sized businesses in my constituency, will the Minister confirm when negotiations on the UK joining the €150 billion Security Action for Europe will conclude and a decision will be made, so that those businesses have the certainty and long-term security that this strategy is meant to provide? \p Luke Pollard: The EU-UK reset deal signed by the Prime Minister recently opened the door to discussions on SAFE, and the Cabinet Office and the MOD are jointly working on those discussions to make sure they happen properly. We need to make sure we achieve value for money, and that we build and support UK businesses selling products to our European allies. There is a huge opportunity here, and we will continue those discussions. I do not want to set an arbitrary deadline,  but those discussions are ongoing and I hope the Cabinet Office and the MOD will be able to come back with good news in due course. \p Robin Swann: I welcome the Government’s announcement of a dedicated procurement hub in Northern Ireland to support our SMEs, although I note that no location has been announced in Northern Ireland. Can I remind the Minister of the excellent opportunity that the Aldergrove base in my constituency presents and how it would be an excellent location for an uncrewed systems centre? Will he meet me and the leadership of Antrim and Newtownabbey borough council to develop that opportunity further? \p Luke Pollard: There is no better champion than the hon. Gentleman; I have met him a number of times when he has spoken about his constituency. I agree with him that there is real opportunity in Northern Ireland for defence investment, and I look forward to the continued discussions with the Northern Ireland Executive, as well as with local communities, Members of Parliament and councils, to make sure we find the right locations for the investment and that Northern Ireland gets the defence growth deal we have announced today—and gets it soon. \p Al Pinkerton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the statement. I am really excited about the emphasis on skills. I note the ambitious timetable to create the five academies created by the end of 2026. In the spirit of the cheekiness that he says he admires, can I encourage him to pop over the constituency border from Aldershot to Surrey Heath to find a constituency that would be a ready and expedient site for one of those academies? The site already has Royal Military Academy Sandhurst and Pirbright, and it is the historic home of Chobham armour. Defence is part of our history and our heritage, and I hope it is also part of our future. \p Luke Pollard: I take that as a strong early bid, and I am happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman about how we can maximise skills in his constituency. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister very much for the incredibly good news that he and the Labour Government have delivered today in this Chamber. Every one of us across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will relish the idea of jobs coming our way.

We in the Democratic Unionist party welcome the defence industrial strategy, acknowledging the need for world-class defence and making the most of our world-class defence businesses. One of those, Thales, employs hundreds of my Strangford constituents, and it has been instrumental in protecting Ukraine. There were some 200 new jobs—including, I understand, 30 apprenticeships—no more than three months ago. With news circulating that defence spending commitments will create a total of 85,000 jobs across the sector in the next 10 years, will the Minister reaffirm the role of Northern Ireland in the industry and indeed in the defence of this great nation? \p Luke Pollard: Let me be very clear: there are growth opportunities in every nation and region of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. We have today  announced a defence growth deal for Northern Ireland, which builds on the incredible skills that we already see in defence companies in Northern Ireland. This Government were very proud to announce the £1.6 billion contract for the lightweight multirole missile, which will be built in Northern Ireland. It will be used to shoot down Russian drones attacking our allies in Ukraine, which is precisely how we can make defence an engine of growth as well as support our security objectives. The workers in Northern Ireland should be very proud of the work they are doing; I certainly am. \p Peter Prinsley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), at a congressional hearing and in written evidence, has suggested that the US Government explore possible trade consequences in response to the UK’s Online Safety Act 2023. Would you agree that suggesting that a foreign Government take measures harmful to the interests of this country is not behaviour commensurate with the office of a Member of the UK Parliament? Indeed, would you agree with several constituents of Clacton who have described the Member’s statements as “treacherous”? \p Nusrat Ghani: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. I take it that he notified the hon. Member for Clacton that he intended to refer to him in the Chamber. \p Peter Prinsley: indicated assent. \p Nusrat Ghani: The hon. Member is nodding. The Chair is not responsible for anything that hon. Members say outside the Chamber—that in itself would be a full-time job—but he has put his point on the record. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Renters’ Rights Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 9 October 2024 (Renters’ Rights Bill: Programme): \p UNKNOWN: (1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after their commencement.

(2) The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order: 11, 14, 18, 19, 26, 27, 39, 53, 55 to 62, 64, 67, 1 to 10, 12 and 13, 15 to 17, 20 to 25, 28 to 38, 40 to 52, 54, 63, 65 and 66, 68 to 77. \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.—(Sir Nicholas Dakin.)

Question agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Consideration of Lords amendments \p Nusrat Ghani: I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that Lords amendments 39 and 68 engage Commons financial privilege. If either of those Lords amendments is agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal. \p Matthew Pennycook: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 11. \p Nusrat Ghani: With this it will be convenient to discuss:

Lords amendment 14, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu.

Lords amendment 18, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 19, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 26, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 27, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 39, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 53, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 55 to 62, Government motions to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu.

Lords amendment 64, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 67, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu.

Lords amendments 1 to 10, 12, 13, 15 to 17, 20 to 25, 28 to 38, 40 to 52, 54, 63, 65, 66 and 68 to 77. \p Matthew Pennycook: This Government were elected with a clear mandate to do what the Conservatives failed to do in the last Parliament—namely, to modernise the regulation of our country’s insecure and unjust private rented sector, and empower private renters by providing them with greater security rights and protections. Our Renters’ Rights Bill does just that, and it needs to receive Royal Assent as quickly as possible so that England’s 11 million private renters can benefit from its provisions.

Before I turn to the Lords amendments, I want to thank Baroness Taylor for so ably guiding the Bill through the other place. I put on record my appreciation of all the peers who contributed to its detailed scrutiny.

As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Government made several important changes to the Bill in the other place with a view to ensuring that it will work as intended and in response to the legitimate concerns raised about the implementation of specific provisions. In the interests of time, I will update the House only on the two that are most apposite.

The first change concerns the date from which a tenant is required to pay a new rent in instances where the first-tier tribunal has set a new rent amount following a tenant’s challenge to a proposed increase. The Government were elected on a clear manifesto commitment to empower tenants to challenge unreasonable rent increases. It is essential that we deliver on that commitment not only to protect tenants from undue financial pressure, but to prevent rent hikes from being used as a form of back-door eviction once section 21 notices have been abolished.

However, recognising that there is inherent uncertainty about the volume of rent increase challenges that will be brought when the new tenancy system comes into force, and as a safeguard against a scenario in which the first-tier tribunal is overwhelmed by a sharp increase in challenges, Lords amendments 6 to 8 introduce a new delegated power that will enable the backdating of rent increases following determinations by the tribunal of new rent amounts. I want to reiterate what Baroness Taylor made clear in the other place—namely, that it is not the Government’s intention to make use of this new power unless and until it is considered necessary to avoid lengthy delays for genuine cases to be heard. If used, it would be subject to the affirmative procedure to allow appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. In addition to introducing that important safeguard, the Government also concluded that there is a compelling case for the use of an alternative body or mechanism to make initial rent determinations. Subject to a final viability assessment, we intend to establish such an alternative body or mechanism as soon as possible, and will confirm further details in due course.

The second important change the Government made in the other place concerns insurance to cover potential damage from pets. As hon. Members will be aware, the Bill as originally introduced, mirroring provisions in the previous Government’s Renters (Reform) Bill, enabled landlords to request such insurance in instances where a tenant had requested a pet. In response to concerns expressed by several peers that the insurance industry appears unlikely to provide suitable financial products at the speed and scale required, and that the reasonable request of tenants to keep pets might be hampered as a result, Lords amendments 10, 12 and 13 remove the provisions in the Bill which made landlord consent to a request to keep a pet conditional on the tenant taking out, or paying for, pet damage insurance. \p Jim Shannon: Just last week, I was asked a similar question back home; the legislation back home is not covered by this House. The issue for those who have animals is that almost every person who has an animal in a flat, apartment or other property always looks after the property as if it were their own and the issue of animal damage does not come up. It does, however, come up the odd time, so is it not better—I think the Minister is saying this—to have an obligation rather than legislation to ensure that the tenant covers any damage by a pet, because most tenants will be accountable for their pets no matter what? \p Matthew Pennycook: As ever, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He makes a good point. There is evidence that pet damage is, in many cases, not extensive or a particular issue. Where pet damage occurs, as I will come on to make clear in response to the relevant Lords amendment, we think that the provisions in the Tenant  Fees Act 2019, which allow for tenant deposits to be changed in response to such issues, mean that we have the necessary delegated powers, but I will set out further detail on that particular issue in due course.

I will now turn to the amendments made by peers in the other place. We welcome the scrutiny and challenge provided, and are willing to make sensible concessions in some areas, but most of the amendments in question serve to undermine the core principles of the Bill and for that reason we cannot accept them. Let me make clear precisely, in each instance, where that is the case, starting with Lords amendment 53.

Lords amendment 53 dramatically broadens the scope of possession ground 4A, so that it encompasses not only full-time students living in houses in multiple occupation, but non-typical students, such as older students with families undertaking postgraduate studies who may live in self-contained one and two-bed properties. Ground 4A exists precisely because the Government recognise the unique nature of the student rental market and are determined to ensure that the annual cycle of student lettings continues accordingly. However, ground 4A was deliberately designed to ensure that the benefits of the new tenancy system introduced in the Bill were not denied to non-typical students. We believe restricting its use to HMOs or dwelling-houses in HMOs strikes the right balance, and I therefore urge the House to reject Lords amendment 53.

Lords amendment 64 introduces a new ground for possession for the sole purpose of allowing a landlord to regain their property to house a carer for themselves or a member of their family living with them. Everyone in this Chamber recognises the vital work carers do to support people to live independently and with dignity. However, while the Government are profoundly sympathetic to the needs of those who require care, I am afraid we cannot support this amendment for two main reasons. First, while I appreciate entirely that some peers currently own and let rental properties in close proximity to their homes, with a view to one day using them to house a carer for themselves or members of their family, there is no compelling evidence to suggest that this practice is sufficiently widespread to justify the insertion into the Bill at this late stage of a dedicated possession ground to cater specifically for it. Secondly, the definition of “carer” in the amendment—namely, anyone providing any form of care in a voluntary or contractual arrangement, is so broad that the scope for abuse, in our view, is substantial. I therefore urge the House to reject the amendment.

Lords amendment 18 would reduce the prohibition on re-letting or re-marketing a property following the use of possession ground 1A from 12 months to six. We recognise that there will be occasions when landlords regain vacant possession of their property using ground 1A but are unable subsequently to sell it despite repeated attempts to do so, but we are not prepared to weaken the strong safeguard against abuse provided by the 12-month no-let provision. It is essential to prevent landlords misusing ground 1A and evicting tenants who are not at fault, whether that be because they have made a legitimate complaint or simply because the landlord wants to re-let at a higher rate. The Government remain  firmly committed to the 12-month no-let restriction, and I urge the House to reject Lords amendment 18 on that basis.

Lords amendment 19 is a related amendment that exempts shared owners from the 12-month re-letting and re-marketing restriction, as well as other important restrictions. I want to make it clear that the Government recognise the plight of shared owners living in buildings that require remediation. I know from my own efforts to support shared owners in my constituency of Greenwich and Woolwich that those affected by the building safety crisis often face unaffordable costs, often with no viable exit route other than a distressed sale.

It is worth noting that to better support affected shared owners, the Government have already taken a number of steps to provide greater clarity about what flexibilities and assistance shared owners should expect from registered providers, including in relation to subletting at market rates. We also recognise that there is more that might be done, outside this legislation, to mitigate the impact of the building safety crisis on shared owners, and are committed to exploring all options. However, while I very much commend Lord Young of Cookham for championing the interests of shared owners in difficulty, and am more than happy to continue to engage with him to determine if there is a way to provide them with greater support that does not undermine the core principles of the Bill, I am afraid that I cannot accept Lords amendment 19 at this time, purely because the Government remain of the view that it could undermine protections for the small subset of tenants who happen to rent a sublet home from a shared owner.

Lords amendment 11 would allow landlords to require an additional deposit, equivalent to three weeks’ rent, as a condition of consent to a tenant’s request to keep a pet. We cannot support this amendment. Requiring a further three weeks’ deposit would cost the average tenant in England over £900. Such sums would be unaffordable for many tenants and would greatly exceed the average deposit deduction for pet damage of £300. We are satisfied—this speaks to the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—that the existing requirement for five weeks’ deposit for typical tenancies is sufficient to cover the risk of any damages relating to pet ownership. Crucially, as I mentioned, we already have the delegated powers necessary, under the Tenant Fees Act 2019, to allow higher deposits for tenancies with pets, should evidence come forward to the contrary. For those reasons, I urge the House to reject Lords amendment 11.

Lords amendments 26 and 27 would require local authorities to meet the criminal, rather than the civil, standard of proof when imposing penalties for rental discrimination and rental bidding breaches. The Government are absolutely clear that the civil standard, which is aligned with similar legislation, such as the wider anti-discrimination provisions of the Equality Act 2010, is the appropriate one to apply in these circumstances. Requiring local authorities to meet the more stringent criminal standard of proof for provisions that cannot lead to a criminal offence where the conduct persists would make local authority enforcement extremely challenging, and would be prohibitively resource-intensive. We cannot accept the amendments for those reasons, and I urge the House to reject them.

Finally, Lords amendment 39 would bring service family accommodation within scope of the modernised decent homes standard that the Government are introducing. I begin by once again acknowledging the integral role that safe and decent accommodation plays in the lives of our service personnel and their families. The Government are absolutely determined to improve the standard of service family accommodation across the entire defence estate—in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as England. However, the Government cannot accept the amendment. As has been debated at length at various stages of the Bill, the Ministry of Defence is absolutely clear that subjecting secure defence sites to local authority inspections, as this amendment would do, is unworkable due to access and security constraints. In any case, as we have made clear many times, the MOD already applies the decent homes standard as a benchmark, has gone further with its decent homes plus standard for service family accommodation, and has committed to complying with Awaab’s law requirements, and to mirroring any of its timescales for dealing with damp and mould in its key performance indicators.

As the House will know, earlier this year, the MOD announced an additional £1.5 billion investment in service family accommodation as part of a £7 billion commitment over the next five years, and in the coming months, the Government will publish a defence housing strategy, setting out clear renewal standards and further steps to improve accommodation for the men and women who serve our country. Importantly, those renewal standards will apply to the whole UK defence estate, ensuring that the different nations of the UK are not subject to different decency standards, as would be the case under Lords amendment 39.

We believe that there are very strong reasons for objecting to that amendment, but I appreciate fully that peers want certainty that all service accommodation will be brought up to the requisite standard. With a view to providing greater confidence about the Government’s clear intentions in this area, I can confirm today that the MOD will lay before Parliament and publish on gov.uk an annual report on the standard of service family accommodation in the UK. I hope that the transparency and accountability that annual reporting will facilitate will provide sufficient reassurance of the Government’s commitment to the commendable objectives that underpin Lords amendment 39. However, for the reasons I have provided, we will not be able to accept it today.

I mentioned at the outset that the Government are willing to make sensible concessions in some areas, and that is the case for Lords amendments 55 to 57, which would expand ground 5A to allow landlords to evict their tenants to house self-employed workers and other types of workers engaged in agriculture. Peers also agreed to Lords amendments 58 to 62, which would expand ground 5C in order to allow landlords to evict a wider range of workers than just tenants who are employees.

Having reflected on our position, the Government have tabled amendments in lieu that narrowly expand ground 5A to allow agricultural landlords to evict assured tenants in order to house both employees and non-employed workers engaged in agriculture. We believe this small technical change will support the Government’s clear intention of ensuring that the agricultural sector can continue to function effectively without compromising  wider security of tenure, and I am pleased that both Lord Carrington and the National Farmers Union have indicated their support for these changes.

To conclude, the Bill has undoubtedly been improved as a result of the scrutiny to which it has been subjected, but the Government are not prepared to allow our core principles to be undermined in the way that the amendments would. I urge the House to support the Government’s position, and I look forward to the remainder of the debate. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the shadow Secretary of State. \p James Cleverly: The UK needs a vibrant and fluid private rented sector. We need it to deliver communities that are happy and cohesive, and to deliver fairness, stability and security for families. I have been looking at the Government’s position on the Bill, and I pay tribute to the Minister for Housing and Planning, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), for the work he has done on it—or is he the right hon. Member? \p Matthew Pennycook: indicated dissent. \p James Cleverly: Well, he deserves to be the right hon. Gentleman. He has been doing the hard yards; he has done loads of work on this Bill. I am sure he was disappointed that he did not get to lead the Department—congratulations to the new Secretary of State—but I have no doubt that the opportunity will come in the near future. I would just say: be patient for the moment.

While I have no doubt that the Bill is full of good intentions, it is poorly though through and counterproductive. In fact, I am assuming it is poorly thought through, but it is entirely feasible that the measures within it are well though through, and are designed to undermine the private rented sector. It is inept, either by accident or on purpose—I will go with inept by accident, because that is more in keeping with the Government’s actions in this Department.

The Bill is clearly a mishmash of measures on issues that are Back-Bench hobby horses—issues that those on the Front Bench do not have the authority or the courage to put to bed. It is entirely counterproductive, as has been recognised and highlighted by their lordships in the other place. The Bill risks driving private landlords out of the sector, reducing the supply of private rented accommodation and pushing up rents for those in the private rented sector. Limiting the supply of such accommodation means limiting the options for tenants in the private rented sector, and leaving them worse off.

We do not need to look very far to see what happens when Governments get this wrong. In Scotland, fixed-term tenancies were abolished, rent controls imposed and regulations tightened, and what was the result? Fewer landlords, shrinking supply and the fastest rises in rents in the UK, with Edinburgh and Glasgow facing steeper rent rises than ineptly Labour-run London. The Labour Government in Westminster are about to make the same mistake, because Government Back Benchers are, for whatever reason, obsessed with “fixing” an already highly successful sector. The private rented sector has  the highest satisfaction levels of any tenure type—higher than levels in the social rented sector or among owner-occupiers. \p Danny Beales: I do not know what correspondence the right hon. Gentleman is looking at, but the correspondence I receive from my constituents in Hillingdon does not tell a story of a sector that is secure and safe; instead, my constituents tell me that they are battling damp and mould, and have had 35% rent increases in recent years. Is that success, in the Opposition’s view? \p James Cleverly: The hon. Gentleman makes the classic statistical error of assuming that his inbox is representative of all the people in the sector. Has it not occurred to him that people who are happy in their private rented accommodation do not tend to write to their MP, saying, “Apropos of nothing, I just want to let you know that I am happy”? I have it on good authority from my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds)—my good friend and colleague—that the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) is not doing a terribly good job of championing the social rented sector in his constituency. He seeks to deny the private rented sector, while simultaneously denying people the social rented sector. I am not sure where he thinks people in his constituency should live.

The point is that the Bill is a mishmash of incoherent proposals, which, instead of being designed to improve the private rented sector, are designed to keep angsty Back Benchers happy, but Front Benchers are already starting to learn that they cannot pay political Danegeld to their Back Benchers. I give the Front-Bench team due notice: their Back Benchers will be insatiable. They will take whatever red meat they are thrown, and they will ask for more. We have already seen this, Madam Deputy Speaker, with the proposed changes to social security and disability benefits. The Front Benchers had plans, but their Back Benchers had other plans, and guess who won? Those showing courageous leadership on the turbulent Back Benches. The Government will see the same again on this issue.

The Opposition understand that a good tenure mix is good for the UK. We took measures to improve the private rented sector, but we made sure that we did it in the right order. We made sure that the courts were ready. \p Rachel Blake: I was intrigued by the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks about the success of the private rented sector. If the sector is so successful and is working so well, why have the Opposition consistently held the position—both when they were in government and, I believe, going into the election—that they would go forward with ending no-fault evictions? I am confused. I would be grateful if he could explain. \p James Cleverly: It is interesting that on the one hand, we have voices on the Front Bench saying that we did not do anything in government, while at the same time, voices on the Labour Back Benches say that we were doing something. \p Rachel Blake: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way again? \p James Cleverly: No. Perhaps Labour Members should co-ordinate their criticism.

The previous Conservative Government understood that there is a need to reform the system, but that every part of the system needs to be ready. That is why we made sure that the justice system was ready first before we started making changes to the legal frameworks, giving tenants, landlords and courts the time to adjust. However, the Labour Government have abandoned that discipline. The changes put forward by their lordships came about through careful consideration of the provisions in the Bill and their implications in real-world scenarios, not the fantasy world of many Labour Back Benchers.

The Labour Government were defeated in the other place on several important amendments. There is a pattern to the Government’s defeats: time and again, Ministers accepted a principle but when it came to taking action to deal with the principle, they fell short. I will give some examples from amendments on Report in the other place. Amendments 87 and 88 in the name of Lord Keen would raise the standard of proof for financial penalties to “beyond reasonable doubt”. The principle is clear: setting serious penalties requires having serious evidence. The noble Lord Keen made the case powerfully in the other place, yet the Government still refuse to act. In doing so they are introducing a huge degree of uncertainty for both landlords and councils, and uncertainty is toxic to the provision of homes in the sector. Making these changes will reduce the housing supply.

The Minister mentioned amendment 5 in the name of the noble Baroness Scott, which would extend ground 4A to all student homes, not just those with three or more bedrooms. This is another example of the Government accepting the principle and the need to act but failing to do so. In the student rented sector it is important that tenancies match the academic year to give landlords in the sector a credible chance. The Government established that as a principle and agreed with it but then excluded one and two-bedroom properties as if students were never accommodated in them.

My own son—as Back Benchers were keen to personalise examples—is a student who is currently accommodated in a two-bedroom flat. Why would the landlord of that accommodation be outside of scope but the landlord of a student property with one more bedroom be within scope? The idea that we cannot work out who is or is not letting to students is a nonsense. Students have their own council tax category, and it is often the case that they can only get student accommodation and enjoy the benefit of the student discount for council tax by proving that they are a student. It would be a really easy cut-off to say that all student accommodation falls within scope. The Government accept the principle but then fail to address the issue—they accept the logic but do nothing about it.

Amendment 53A in the name of the noble Lord de Clifford would ensure that tenants who want to rent with pets and landlords who want to rent to people with pets can both have a degree of security. The Government accept the principle that pets are likely to cause more damage to a rental property than would be caused if a  tenant did not have pets. They accepted that principle when they put forward the idea of a special insurance product to cover such damage. If they did not believe that pets were likely to cause more damage, they would not have gone down the road of exploring an insurance product specifically for pet owners, but they did. They established the principle, then when it became clear that the insurance products were too difficult and the sector would not bring them forward, they basically said, “You know what, we’re just going to ignore that”—again, recognising a challenge but doing nothing about it.

Amendment 53A proposed a sensible and credible additional deposit to protect against the higher likelihood of damage from a pet. I should declare an interest that I have pets and I rent a property. I need to keep a close eye on my terriers, because they love digging. Sometimes they dig in the garden, but they are not so disciplined not to attempt to dig in the carpet in the house. I recognise that tenants have to take additional responsibility, but I also recognise that it is totally legitimate for landlords to want to seek additional protection. The Government recognise that but then do nothing about it.

Amendment 21, also in the name of the noble Lord de Clifford, is about creating the framework whereby a landlord can evict a tenant in order to create space for someone who would then care for them. The reasoning that we heard from the Government Front Bench just now was quite shocking—that the only people who might be interested in putting this forward would be Members of the other place, with the implication being that they have large properties and it is all about self-interest. The argument was that there is only a small number of people that this might be relevant to and because they are small in number we can ignore them. It is an interesting political philosophy that small groups of people can comfortably be ignored by Governments. That is certainly not the politics I want to put across. \p Dave Robertson: Earlier in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), the shadow Secretary of State said that my hon. Friend did not need to pay any attention to the people in his inbox who had contacted him. Was he not advocating exactly that—we should not listen because it is a small number of people, and we should accept these amendments so that this legislation can be watered down? Is he not arguing both sides of the same coin on this? \p James Cleverly: If the hon. Gentleman was going to criticise what I say, he should have at least listened to what I said. What I said was that extrapolating— \p Dave Robertson: rose— \p James Cleverly: No, no, get it right first time. What I said was that extrapolating from a Member of Parliament’s inbox is not a good way of gauging the full spectrum of opinion within a cohort of people. At no point did I say—and I would never say—that we should ignore the people who write to us, and no one should assume that we do. I am pretty certain that the hon. Gentleman would not, and I certainly do not. That is absolutely not what I said.

The point I am making is that the Government’s argument was, “There aren’t that many people, and frankly they’re all posh, so we can ignore them.” That was  basically the framing of their argument, but tell that to the extended families of people, typically of ethnic minority origin, who often live in close proximity to each other. There will be communities all across the country where the elders of the family have rented properties that have tenants in them, but because those properties are near where they live, they envisage at some point in the future members of their extended family moving into the properties in order to provide care for them. Disregarding and diminishing this as an idea just because it is something that the Government Front Bench accuse only the posh Members of the other place of doing is rather distasteful. \p Matthew Pennycook: The shadow Secretary of State failed to address the second concern the Government have about amendment 21, which is the substantial risk of abuse that will flow from the definition of a “carer”. The definition under the amendment could be anyone providing any form of voluntary care. It could be someone who provides the weekly shop. Does he not see the risk of abuse that comes with a ground that is so broadly drawn? That was our other concern, and he has not addressed it. \p James Cleverly: There are always opportunities for abuse, but we cannot be closing off a provision that would be really valuable to many families around the country because there is a risk of abuse. If we were to do that, there would be loads of areas where Government would not legislate. We do not disregard an opportunity just because of the potential for abuse; we manage that potential for abuse.

I will move on a bit more quickly as I want to ensure that all Labour Back Benchers get their opportunity to speak. [Interruption.] It is their legislation.

Lords amendment 58 in the name of Lord Cromwell would reduce the ban on re-letting from 12 months to six months. That is a wholly pragmatic point. There is the idea in the Bill that a landlord would have to wait for 12 months, but if it is clear after six months that, despite genuine efforts—there is provision to ensure that efforts are genuine—there is no chance of selling, it is entirely reasonable that a landlord should seek to re-let. That is not as quickly as Members on the Labour Benches would do so; nevertheless, it is an entirely fair provision.

The largest Government defeat in the other place came on amendment 59 in the name of Lord Young of Cookham, which is about the exemption for shared owners from the 12-month ban on re-letting. The Minister said at the Dispatch Box that he recognised that this area created challenges, but I urge the Government not to dig in their heels on the issue. The cohort of people envisaged by the amendment are often those most in need of flexibility—people who are not of significant financial means—and limiting their options when it comes to, perhaps, a distressed asset would be entirely wrong. I have no doubt that he recognises that. I urge him to move quickly to a resolution on this matter to reassure the Chamber and the other place that those people will not be disadvantaged by the Bill.

The Lords amendments are well thought through. They attempt to take this mishmash of a Bill and knock it into some credible shape, providing protection for tenants and a bit of reassurance for landlords so that  they can continue to provide a supply of private-rented accommodation to help people get on the housing ladder and to live in homes they love and value in communities that they cherish. If the Government choose to blindly ignore those amendments, I have no doubt that the Bill will have the effect of reducing the number of landlords, reducing the number of homes and increasing rents, which is the opposite of what any of us in the Chamber should want. That is why the Opposition will support the amendments. \p Antonia Bance: Once again, I stand here proud to speak in favour of this groundbreaking legislation that finally brings some balance back between the landlord’s right to profit from an asset and the renter’s right to a home. I oppose in particular Lords amendments 26, 27 and 18 proposed by the landlord lobby in the other place. Amendments 26 and 27 would increase the evidence bar for all civil penalty offences to the criminal standard of proof—beyond reasonable doubt rather than on the balance of probabilities. That would gut the ban on discrimination against housing benefit recipients, the ban on refusing to let to families and the ban on bidding wars. Those measures would be almost unenforceable if the amendment stood.

Discrimination is notoriously hard to prove, and we all know that early interactions between a renter and a prospective landlord are often not in writing, so proving beyond reasonable doubt that a prospective renter was prevented from letting a property because they might be a benefits claimant or have kids would be extremely challenging; it is the same for proving bidding wars. Councils already struggle to pursue civil penalty cases because of the staff time and resource involved in gathering evidence to support those cases. Introducing that new, higher bar of evidence for already challenging cases would make them almost unenforceable. It would also be out of line with other legislation, such as the Equality Act 2010, which require only the civil standard of proof. If we do not oppose those Lords amendments, such unlawful practices will continue unchecked, and renters will continue to face homelessness as a result.

I also oppose Lords amendment 18, which would reduce the restricted period from 12 months to six months. The Nationwide Foundation found that one in five landlord sale evictions in Scotland did not end up with the sale of a property. It is so clear that this changed period would make it far too easy for landlords and agents to claim they are selling the property, only to re-let it at a higher rent shortly after. Let us leave no loopholes for rogue landlords. A no-let period, with financial penalties for breaches, provides a clear and significant deterrent against such behaviour, but six months is too short to deter abuse—especially for landlords with large portfolios. Twelve months is an effective deterrent against unlawful, dishonest eviction, and we should keep that measure.

As I come to the end of what I want to say, I welcome the new ministerial team and thank the members of the former ministerial team for their work on the Bill, and I make one plea to the Minister, who I am so glad to see still in his place: we must get on with this. As soon as this brilliant, groundbreaking Bill receives Royal Assent,  let us get a commencement date in, and let us make that no more than three months later, so that renters on that day will know that, three months further along, no one can throw them out of their home “just cos”.

With every month of delay and every month that goes by, another 1,000 families are removed from their homes by bailiffs following a no-fault eviction. In the year since we took power, 30,000 households have lost their home to no-fault evictions. It is time to get on with it. To everyone who rents their home, I say: this Government and the Labour party will always have your back. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Gideon Amos: I am grateful to the Minister for presenting the Government’s position on the Lords amendments, as indeed he presented their position on the 92 amendments we tabled in Committee. I only regret that, in doing so, he rejected all 92 of them. I was going to congratulate the Secretary of State on his new position, but he has escaped just in time. I will come to our amendments—the other place took a different view on some of them—but I will first declare my interest in a registered provider of social housing.

A generation have been cut off from the dream of home ownership. After half a century of flogging off council houses—over 4.5 million have been sold off since 1980 by successive Conservative Governments—there are now, in effect, none left for the thousands of families who now need them. That is why the Liberal Democrats have a vision to restore hope to millions who aspire to a decent home by building our target of 150,000 social and council rent homes per year, backed up with a commitment of an extra £6 billion on top of the affordable housing programme budget, funded by fairly reforming capital gains tax so that more people benefit from relief but those who make bigger gains pay more. Alongside that, the Liberal Democrats want a new generation of rent-to-own homes so that people can get on to the ownership ladder. It is the biggest and most ambitious programme since council housing was invented by Lloyd George and Addison back at the beginning of the 20th century.

We have also long campaigned for an end to no-fault evictions and for longer and more stable tenancies for tenants. The Government have put both those key measures in the Bill, and that is why we support it and want to see it enacted. Tenants have lived for far too long with insecurity and the fear that, if they speak up, they might lose their home.

Some of the Lords amendments before us would improve the Bill, while others would weaken it. Lords amendment 11 would require tenants to pay pet deposits, which would pile on new financial burdens, putting the right to own pets out of reach for those already struggling. It is not in the spirit of the Bill, so we cannot support it.

Similarly, Lords amendment 18 would cut the prohibition on re-letting unsold properties from 12 months to six. That might sound like a neat compromise, but in practice it would give cover to any rogue landlord looking for an excuse to evict. A six-month ban would be far too short to give tenants the protection from abuse that they deserve. Lords amendment 26 seeks to raise the bar for enforcement by moving the burden of proof from civil to criminal. \p Steve Darling: In Torbay, we have almost 50% more people who rent in the private sector than the national average. While the vast majority of landlords are good landlords, sadly there are some rotten apples out there. Pushing against Lords amendment 26 is essential, because we need to ensure that local authorities have the powers to hold these landlords to account. I hope my hon. Friend agrees. \p Gideon Amos: I do agree with my hon. Friend, and I pay tribute to the sterling work he does in Torbay, and has done in the past as leader of the council, on these issues.

That change in the burden of proof may sound technical, but in fact it would gut the powers of local authorities to hold bad landlords to account, as my hon. Friend has just said. At a stroke, it would make justice for tenants far harder to achieve.

Lords amendment 53 points in the same wrong direction. It seeks to introduce fixed-term tenancies, but the whole point of the Bill is to shift to periodic tenancies—arrangements that give renters both flexibility and more security. Dragging us back to fixed terms, which would become standard across that particular element of student housing, would undermine those core principles.

On the other hand, there are amendments that make the Bill fairer and more workable, which we support. Lords amendment 19 recognises the reality faced by shared ownership leaseholders, who can be can be, and are, hit disproportionately hard when sales fall through, through no fault of their own. Without that exemption, they could face financial ruin. This is a simple matter of justice and we support it.

Lords amendment 64, which would create a new possession ground where a landlord needs to house a carer, is in keeping with the Liberal Democrats’ belief in the importance of supporting the millions of carers out there who are so often overlooked. It is right that the law should recognise the vital role they play, and if there are risks of abuse, it is open to the Government to table their own amendments to set out how they would make the same provision for accommodation needed by carers.

Lords amendment 39, which would legislate for a decent home standard for our military, goes to the heart of who we are as a society and our obligations to those who serve. I pushed for this amendment at earlier stages in the Commons, and indeed this has long been the Liberal Democrats’ position, having been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) in the previous Parliament. It is therefore disappointing that, while the Government have come forward with their own amendments on other matters, they have not come up with any such amendments on decent homes for our military, although that has been agreed across the parties in the other place. \p Helen Maguire: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Ministry of Defence itself says that the MOD housing standard is already higher than the decent homes standard, the Government should do the decent thing and accept Lords amendment 39 and put it on the face of the Bill? \p Gideon Amos: Indeed, our military deserve no less than this being on the face of the Bill, in whichever way the Government wish to do it. If it is so easy and, as my hon. Friend points out, it is the Government’s position, surely it can hold no fear for them.

It would be disappointing not to have those amendments. We are told that 90% of service accommodation meets the decent homes standard—my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) had clearly already read this part of my speech—but those figures come from contractors who are responsible for managing those properties and have an interest in saying that they already meet the standards. There is no independent assessment.

The Defence Committee painted a very different picture, when families reported to it. The Committee stated:

“It is disingenuous for DIO to present glossy brochures about being ‘decent homes plus’ when they are anything but. It is clear that the DIO’s property frequently does not meet the standards.”

Crucially, it added:

“Moreover, there is no local authority”—

or anyone else—

“to hold them to account as would be the case for private and other local landlords.”

We are also told that it would be impractical to extend the decent homes standard to military housing because of access “behind the wire”, yet former Chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Stirrup, reminded colleagues in the other place that civilian officials already go into far more sensitive areas of military bases, so that is not a serious objection. \p Matthew Pennycook: Do those on the Lib Dem Benches have any concerns about one of the issues that I raised: applying the decent homes standard to the defence estate in England when a different standard will apply to Scotland and Wales—to other parts of the United Kingdom? Fracturing the defence estate in that way is problematic. \p Gideon Amos: Any opportunity to give our service people decent homes, beginning with England, should be taken. I am surprised that the Minister has not grasped it with both hands. The Minister and the Government are in the position, with a large majority, to legislate for this in whichever way they choose, but it needs to be on the face of the legislation. That is what our military deserve. Warm words about things improving are not enough; we have heard them before. My hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire gained a categoric assurance from the last Government’s Housing Minister at the Dispatch Box that that Government would legislate. They did not. \p Danny Beales: The hon. Gentleman says nothing has changed, yet again, but does he not welcome—as I do, as a constituency MP with a significant amount of military housing around RAF Northolt—the significant £1 billion-plus investment into military housing and the insourcing back into public ownership of thousands of MOD homes, after the previous Government’s botched privatisation deal, which cost taxpayers huge amounts of public money? \p Gideon Amos: I welcome the moves to which the hon. Gentleman refers, including the insourcing, but the responsibility for determining whether the homes meet the “decent homes plus” standard is down to contractors, who have a commercial interest in reporting that. The difference with the decent homes standard generally is  that it is subject to independent inspection. That is a crucial difference. Surely there should be a robust and accountable regime set out in primary legislation to ensure that that investment continues and those standards are reached. That is the least that our service people should be able to expect.

As I was saying, my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire was given categoric assurances that the Government would legislate in this regard, but they did not and neither have this Government. Lord Stirrup, the former Chief of the Defence Staff, reminded the Lords, speaking from experience, that this is not a new problem but one that Governments had failed to tackle for decades. He said:

“For decades now, I have seen at close hand the deficiencies in service families’ accommodation…For years, I have listened to successive Governments undertake to get to grips with the issue. For decades, I have seen them fail to do so…So why should I, or anybody who comes after me, put any faith in any Government’s promises that are not backed up by enforceable measures?”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 July 2025; Vol. 847, c. 1759.]

That is the nub of the issue. Service families have heard promises for decades. Now, surely, is the time for action. Our military deserve the gold standard, and that means they deserve legislative provision for decent homes, however the Government wish to do it. \p Matthew Pennycook: I urge the hon. Gentleman to engage with the clear concession I made from the Dispatch Box: the confirmation that the Ministry of Defence will lay before Parliament—and publish on gov.uk—an annual report on the standard of service family accommodation in the UK, giving transparency, accountability, and reassurance that the standards we all want to see improve and be met will be. \p Gideon Amos: I welcome any report that will deal with this issue, but the fact is that unless the Government accept an amendment or table their own amendment to provide this protection for service families in primary legislation, our service people will be the only category of renters who are not guaranteed the decent homes standard in primary legislation. Private renters will be, social renters will be, but our military service families will not be. That cannot be right. The balance is wrong and the Government need to do more; they need to legislate.

The Government’s final objection is that they want to do it differently. So be it. I will wait with bated breath, as I am sure the whole House will, for the Government’s amendment giving servicemen and servicewomen the gold standard they deserve. Since the Government have tabled no amendment of their own, however, we shall continue to press ours, both here and in the other place. Our armed forces should not be the only group in Britain excluded from the right to a decent home in legislative terms. That is what Lords amendment 39 delivers, and it must stand part of the Bill.

This Bill is about a vision for better homes and for dignity, security and fairness for renters. That must include the families of our armed forces, such as those of the 40 Commando Royal Marines in Norton Fitzwarren and elsewhere in Taunton. I was proud to start a petition to save Norton Manor camp following its proposed closure by the previous Conservative Government. That  commitment must sit alongside our national mission to build more social and council homes—150,000 per year—to restore hope for a whole generation. That is what Liberal Democrats are fighting for, and that is the change the country desperately needs. \p Danny Beales: The Bill before us is one of the most important and impactful Bills currently before Parliament. I say that not as someone who has seen a few emails in my inbox, but as someone who has felt the impact of the sector, having experienced homelessness twice in my teenage years and having been evicted through a section 21 eviction. As a renter as an adult for many years in London, I know the worry that many go through when pushing for simple repairs to be made or for mould to be addressed, fearing that ultimately their reward for asserting their legal rights will be a section 21 eviction.

The private rented sector in this country is unbalanced and insecure, and the rights of tenants are far outweighed by the powers of the landlord in our legal system. Like many in this place, I am aware of countless cases of constituents who have experienced section 21 evictions and poor treatment right across the sector—treatment that the Bill will go a significant way to remedying. That is why I hope Members will support the Government in opposing the Lords amendments, which seek to weaken, neuter and undermine key provisions of the Bill. Specifically, I want to mention Lords amendments 26, 27, 11 and 18; I am pleased that the Minister has outlined that the Government will oppose them.

Lords amendments 26 and 27 would require local authorities to meet a criminal standard of proof to impose financial penalties for discrimination and rental bidding. That seems completely inappropriate for the offences, with a relatively small maximum penalty of £7,000. That is also completely out of kilter with other provisions that local authorities would enforce to a similar civil standard. It would be incredibly hard to meet that burden of proof for many of those offences. How would a tenant prove beyond reasonable doubt that, for instance, they had been discriminated against for being on benefits? Anyone in that situation would know quite clearly that that is incredibly difficult—if not impossible—to do. Clearly, the amendment would neuter the provisions of the Bill. Local authorities have incredibly limited resources, particularly for enforcement action, and such a high bar would be likely to deter them from pursuing those offences further.

Lords amendment 11, which would allow a landlord to require a pet deposit of up to three weeks’ rent as a condition of consenting to a tenant keeping a pet in their property, is again disproportionate. First, it would hit the poorest hardest. I am pleased that the Opposition spokesperson, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), has pets and has no problem with such a provision, but many people not on a parliamentary salary would struggle to pay three weeks’ extra deposit on top of the five weeks’ deposit already in place. The Minister mentioned an average cost of £900. In a constituency like mine in London, the cost would be even more than £900; for a rented three or four-bed family home, it would probably be several thousand pounds. That is a completely disproportionate charge for simply having a cat or dog at home.

Secondly, there is no evidence that such a pet deposit is required to protect a property. Recent research by the University of Hull found that three quarters of pet-owning tenancies result in absolutely no claim against the existing deposit levels, so I would argue that the five-week deposit is more than adequate to support pet-owning households. In fact, Battersea Dogs & Cats Home found that owning a pet increased the length of time someone stayed in a tenancy and reduced tenant turnover, benefiting the landlord financially, not harming them.

I am also significantly opposed to Lords amendment 18, which would reduce the period for which landlords could not re-let their property from 12 months to six months after they had evicted a tenant on the basis that they intended to sell their property. My concern is that this six-month reduction is not sufficient time to meaningfully disincentivise landlords from gaming the system and would reintroduce section 21 through the back door.

Take the London market, for instance, where average rents have increased by 32% over the last five years—the successful sector that Opposition Members have highlighted. Six months is not long enough to dissuade a landlord from benefiting from that sort of rental increase over short periods of time. The inconvenience that a 12-month time period would cause to a well-meaning landlord who is struggling to sell is relatively minor compared with the potential harm caused to the many tenants who would be affected by such a loophole.

In conclusion, houses are homes, not just investments. This Bill was written to rebalance the relationship between the landlord and the tenant in the tenant’s favour, fixing a decades-long power imbalance that has deprioritised the rights of tenants to a safe, stable and affordable home. All the amendments have in common a shared motive to shift the balance back towards landlords to weaken this landmark legislation. That would save some good landlords a small inconvenience, but it would be at the expense of the rights and protections afforded to each and every tenant. That is not reasonable or justifiable, and that is why I will vote against the amendments. I hope that others will do the same and give renters the rights and security they deserve. \p Vikki Slade: Renters have waited long enough: this Bill is overdue, and it is time to deliver. The Conservatives had their chance. They promised reform, then watered it down. The Renters (Reform) Bill gathered dust while tenants were left to suffer, so Liberal Democrats absolutely welcome this Government’s Renters’ Rights Bill. But let us be clear: this Bill must hold firm in protecting the rights of tenants. My inbox is overflowing with experiences that should shame us all: families sleeping on the floor, windows that whistle in the wind, homes riddled with damp and mould, and tenants harassed by landlords to intimidate them out of their homes. This is not just about comfort and health; it is about dignity, justice and fairness.

Energy efficiency must be front and centre. Too many renters are living in homes that make them sick and are paying through the nose to heat them. Fuel poverty is a national scandal, and the Bill has a role to play in ending that. While the spotlight is on private renters, we must not forget those in social housing or in homes owned by institutions. They deserve the same rights, protections and standards.

I want to talk to Lords amendment 39 and Ministry of Defence housing. It is outrageous that the families of those who serve and who risk their lives for us are denied the legal protection that others will enjoy. These families are often uprooted, isolated and left behind while loved ones serve abroad or at sea. Yet they are told that they do not qualify for the same decent housing standards as everyone else. I have met families and service personnel around the country and even around the world through the armed forces parliamentary scheme, and one of the issues most frequently cited by those thinking of leaving the armed forces is their housing. Too many of their homes are below par.

The Government say that most MOD homes already meet the standard—fine, then what is the harm in giving these families the legal right to decent housing? If the homes are good, the law will confirm it. If they are not, that is why we need the law. Let us be honest: many tenants, whether in military housing, Church estates or country manors, are afraid to speak out. They are afraid to challenge their landlord and lose their home. Rights must be for everyone, accessible without fear or favour.

The Government claim that councils cannot access the homes for security reasons, but I am sure the Minister will know, as do those of us who have military homes in our areas, that most family homes are not behind the wire. For those that are, there are solutions. We must find a solution and ensure that these families have the same rights. No one should be denied decent housing because of who they work for. I want to address the attempts to water down the Bill. \p Carla Denyer: We in this House all know that some landlords use the excuse of selling up to evict tenants only to re-let at a higher price. Does the hon. Member agree that Lords amendment 18, which would shorten that re-let period from 12 months to six months, would severely undermine one of the main aims of the Bill—to end no-fault evictions—by making it disappointingly easy for landlords to evict on just that basis? \p Vikki Slade: I thank the hon. Member for raising that point and saving me the trouble of doing so. Absolutely, landlords give excuses that are perhaps not all they seem to be.

I have heard from tenants who are terrified of being evicted under section 21, with landlords rushing to act before the law changes and evicting with absolutely no excuses. I have heard from renters who feel like they are in a David and Goliath battle.

Lords amendment 11 is an attempt to treat pets more harshly. The proposers of the amendment have it wrong. As the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) said, tenants with pets are good news for landlords: research shows that their landlords are better off by £3,800 over 12 years thanks to lower vacancy rates and marketing costs for their properties. I would be a landlord who happily took pets.

Amendment 26 requires a criminal standard of proof for a civil matter. In my mind, that is not justice but obstruction. Last week, I met the housing ombudsman service. It told me that one in five calls that it deals with are from people it cannot help: private renters, people in new builds and people in conversions. The system is  broken and the scales are tipped too far from our tenants. The Bill must fix that. We need one ombudsman, one law, one standard, one rule: wherever someone lives, if their home is owned by someone else and it is not up to scratch, they should be able to challenge it, get it fixed and live in a decent home. Housing is not just bricks and mortar; it is the foundation of everything else—health, education, family and work. Every renter deserves a home that is safe, warm, and fair. \p Johanna Baxter: I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cats.

As an animal owner myself—I have two cats—I rise to give voice to the many concerns expressed to me by pet owners across the country. Their concerns relate specifically to Lords amendment 11, which would allow landlords to request a pet deposit equivalent to three weeks’ rent. The amendment was narrowly agreed to on Report in the House of Lords in July, in response to the Government’s decision to remove the right for landlords to require tenants to take out pet damage insurance. Cats Protection has argued that the Government’s decision to remove the provision allowing landlords to request pet-related damage insurance was the right one, as the insurance sector was not ready to meet demand competitively.

The Minister in the Lords outlined many arguments against the pet deposit amendment, including that an extra three weeks’ deposit is unaffordable for many tenants. She also referred to a report commissioned by Battersea Cats & Dogs Home and the University of Huddersfield, which found that 76% of landlords reported that they did not encounter any damage caused by dogs or cats in their rental properties. She noted that the Government were

“content that landlords would be suitably protected against the cost of pet damage through existing tenancy deposits”,

and I wholly agree.

Cats Protection is also strongly of the view that charging an additional pet deposit is neither necessary nor proportionate. Measures already exist for landlords to seek additional compensation from the tenant in the very rare circumstances in which damage caused by a pet may exceed the value of the existing security deposit. The amendment could see tenants forced to find up to £1,500 extra for a one-bedroom flat in high-rent areas. That would mean that those without additional ready funds are priced out of having a pet.

Another problem with the addition of a pet deposit is the potential lack of transparency in landlord decisions on what constitutes pet damage and what constitutes the type of damage that would otherwise be funded by the standard security deposit. Some landlords may just see the extra fund as an option to withhold more money for standard wear and tear. Damage can be avoided with the use of throws and rugs, for example. I know that Cats Protection and Dogs Trust adopters are always given information on how to provide enrichment activities to keep pets happy. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly) would like to take advantage of those to ensure that his terriers do not tear up his carpet.

I am concerned that the amendment will reintroduce the very inequity that the pet provision was designed to remove, putting the price of pet ownership out of reach for many tenants and entrenching geographical inequality. We all know how beneficial pet ownership is not just for the welfare of the animals, but for our wellbeing. “Cats and their stats”, a 2024 Cats Protection report, found that over half a million households who would like a cat do not have one simply because their rental agreement forbids it. I strongly believe that the additional pet deposit should be withdrawn from the Bill; the standard security deposit is more than adequate to cover any damage caused by a pet. I will oppose Lords amendment 11, and I encourage colleagues from across the House to do likewise. \p Andrew Rosindell: I rise to speak to Lords amendment 11 and on the wider issue of pet ownership, which many other Members have spoken about. Pet ownership in rented accommodation is an issue on which I have campaigned for many years in this House. Some Members will remember the Dogs and Domestic Animals (Accommodation and Protection) Bill, otherwise known as Jasmine’s law, that I introduced to the House in 2020. It supported the principle of a pet in every home.

The British people care deeply for the welfare of animals, especially in my Romford constituency. We all understand how important animals are to the lives of human beings. As the owner of two Staffordshire bull terriers, Buster and Spike, who are sadly no longer with us, I know just how important the companionship of pets is to so many people, especially those who live on their own. Owning a dog or cat, or any kind of household pet, improves both physical and mental health, provides vital companionship and helps to tackle loneliness. In fact, pet ownership is estimated to save our NHS around £2.5 billion a year by reducing the number of GP and hospital visits.

Despite those clear benefits, housing issues remain the second most common reason for animals to be relinquished to animal shelters and sanctuaries such as Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, which I was privileged to visit only a few weeks ago. I have had many links to that charitable organisation over the years, particularly during my time as shadow Minister for animal welfare some years ago. With growing numbers of people renting, it is absolutely essential that the Bill works in support of responsible pet ownership in rented homes, rather than putting further barriers in the way. That is why I must express my opposition to amendment 11, and any clause that makes it harder for tenants to keep pets.

The introduction of large up-front deposits will only serve to price many people out from owning pets, especially in the ongoing cost of living crisis. It is absolutely wrong that someone should be prevented from owning an animal that they love and want to be with because of this situation. The law needs changing, as I have argued for many years, including with Ministers in the previous Government, whom I had to go and see before they eventually agreed that this policy was the right one. I hope that my shadow Front-Bench colleagues will reconsider their stance. I commend the hon. Members for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), for  Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) and for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) for all their comments on this issue.

What should have been a Bill to unlock pet ownership for those in millions of homes now risks excluding them altogether, entrenching the idea that pet ownership is a privilege for homeowners only—that cannot be right. I do not believe that is what the Government intended.

Earlier proposals on pet insurance—I know issues to do with that have been raised today, but they can be overcome—provided a fairer balance between the concerns of landlords and the ability of tenants to meet the costs. Insurance spreads the expense more evenly across the year, and avoids the burden of large, one-off deposits. It is disappointing that that approach appears to have been set aside by the Lords amendment.

Finally, I urge His Majesty’s Government to work closely with animal welfare charities, and the animal welfare sector in general, when developing the guidance that will accompany the Bill. I speak as an honorary member of the Kennel Club—perhaps I should have declared that at the start—and a supporter of the Dogs Trust, Battersea Dogs and Cats home, and of course Cats Protection; it is important always to remember our cats. We need a clear definition of what constitutes unreasonable grounds for a landlord to refuse a tenant’s request for a pet. That clarity will help landlords and tenants alike, and avoid unnecessary disputes ending up before the ombudsman or courts. Jasmine’s law has always been about the simple belief that people should not have to choose between a home and a beloved companion. We must not let the Bill, through the Lords amendments, and particularly Lords amendment 11, undermine that vital principle. \p Rachel Blake: I wish to speak against Lords amendments 58 to 62, which expand eviction grounds, and Lords amendment 27. I also wish briefly to revisit the core principles of the Bill, which are: ending no-fault eviction, and providing stability, not just for individuals but for the private rented sector; introducing a private renters’ database and an ombudsman, to restore rights to private renters, as well as transparency, so that they understand their tenancy in more detail; and to establish Awaab’s law in the sector. Those are vital interventions in the private rented sector, which we know is diverse, and it is important that the Bill becomes law as soon as possible. All of us, on both sides of the Chamber, will recognise the impact that uncertainty on the issue has had on the private rented sector for a number of years.

I have to say that it was pretty unedifying to listen to the Opposition reneging on their previous commitments to ending no-fault eviction. The first commitment from the Conservatives to ending no-fault evictions was in 2019—I think that was about four Conservative Prime Ministers ago, but I have given up counting. I understand that the shadow Housing Secretary might not remember the position that the previous Prime Minister took on the issue, but this provision cannot come into law soon enough. The number of private rented sector no-fault eviction notices that my constituents receive, and the instability that they cause in the sector, are causing real harm and distress to those who live in it.

Lords amendments 58 to 62 would expand possession ground 5C, and those completely unnecessary expansions provide yet more uncertainty in the sector. They open  up the risk of further additional claims, and of introducing other grounds for eviction, which undermines the overall principles of the Bill. I support my colleagues who have spoken against Lords amendment 27, which would raise the evidence bar. It is completely unrealistic to think that it would be possible to do that, not only because bidding wars and contests often take place through verbal dialogue, but because of the lack of resources available to local authorities to investigate such cases. I do not believe that the amendment is practical, or was tabled in particularly good faith. We want renters’ rights restored, and a balance between renters and landlords. I cannot stress enough the urgent need to bring forward the Bill, to give confidence to renters, all those who rely on people living in private rented accommodation, and those living and working across the UK who need the sector to be successful. I urge Members to vote against the Lords amendments, and to support the Government in getting the Bill into statute. \p Caroline Voaden: I welcome the Government’s move to empower tenants. For too long in this country, owning property has been seen as a way to create additional wealth, rather than the intention being to provide a safe, secure and warm home for tenants. Not all landlords are bad, but there are some bad apples out there, and all those who are unable to get on to the housing ladder, or who actively choose to rent, deserve security of tenure, and confidence that they will not be evicted at the whim of a landlord, which often means being forced to move out of the area, and uprooting children from schools.

I declare an interest, because my younger daughter has spent four years renting in London, and for the last two, she has been living in horrific, mould-covered flats. She had to move out of the last one early, because the mould crawling up the walls was so bad that it was affecting the health, and ruining the belongings, of her and her flatmates. In 2025, that is simply not acceptable. For the thousands of people living in unsuitable accommodation, we must ensure that local authorities can take action against negligent landlords. For that reason, the Liberal Democrats do not support Lords amendment 26.

I support Lords amendment 39, which would extend the decent homes standard to accommodation provided by the Ministry of Defence for use as service family accommodation. In my constituency of South Devon, the prestigious Britainnia royal naval college brings a large number of military families to the town of Dartmouth, some of whom live in MOD housing. Those families, who commit to a life of service—the whole family is involved when one member serves our country—deserve, at the very least, a home that is safe, comfortable, warm, energy efficient and decent. I am not sure that I agree with the security argument offered by the Minister, given that much MOD housing is located outside military bases. It is not beyond possibility to find a way to ensure that local authorities can access that housing. Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for decent homes for military families, who deserve exactly the same standards and legal protection as other renters, and I urge the House to support Lords amendment 39.

Turning to pets, a friend of mine recently failed to move back to Devon because she simply could not find rented accommodation in her price bracket, and her search was severely hampered by the fact that she has a  much-loved family dog. Being told that she was not eligible even to look at properties because of the dog was discriminatory, and it made a difficult search impossible. We are in an area that is short of houses available to rent. If we take the average rent in the south-west of £1,181 per month, the proposal to allow landlords to request pet damage deposits of up to three weeks’ rent equates to an additional £817 up front, which is simply out of reach for most tenants. The current rental deposit cap of five weeks’ rent is sufficient to cover any potential pet-related damage, and nobody should be priced out of pet ownership simply because they do not own their own home. I therefore do not support Lords amendment 11.

Finally, I turn to agricultural workers. Agriculture is one of the largest industries and employers in South Devon, which is a predominantly rural constituency. Many of those working on farms as dairy workers, relief milkers and tractor drivers are required to live on site, as they have to work incredibly unsocial hours, and living on site makes the job slightly more manageable. I support measures in the Bill that allow repossession when a property is required to house agricultural workers, whether they are employed or self-employed. Farmers regularly tell me how difficult it is to find housing for farm workers, with many having to rely on caravans and cabins that are not suitable for long-term living. As it is increasingly common in farming for workers to be self-employed, we must ensure that they, too, are covered by the grounds for repossession, so I support Lords amendment 55. \p Dave Robertson: I am glad that I managed to sneak in this speech, and I hope I will finish it. There have been many speeches made by Members on both sides of the Chamber, many of which have focused on the many things that the Bill will hopefully achieve. I confirm that my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) does have two very cute cats.

I now turn to a more serious issue: domestic abuse and domestic violence. One of the most challenging cases that I have picked up as a Member of Parliament since last July is that of my constituent Caitlin, whose situation I have raised on the Floor of the House previously. Caitlin’s partner was arrested for coercive control less than a week after she signed a tenancy agreement with him. Caitlin has never lived in the property that they rented together, but has had to pay thousands of pounds of rent on that property, because her mother is the guarantor and he refuses to pay rent on it.

The simple fact is that Caitlin does not have the rights she needs to be able to get out of that situation, which has had huge financial and personal impacts on her, her mother and her family. I am reminded of what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips) said when she came to a fundraiser in Lichfield a few years ago: Governments often talk about the need to defend the nation and their first responsibility being to keep people safe—with more guns, more tanks and more police officers; all things that we need to maintain our freedoms—but too often skate over the fact that for huge proportions of the population we cannot even guarantee their safety at home.

In supporting Caitlin, I have worked with the Domestic Abuse Housing Alliance, an organisation of more than 150 housing associations and local authorities working to ensure that every survivor can choose a home where they are safe and free from abuse. I have spoken to those at the alliance about the Bill and some of the amendments that we are considering. I will read their reflections into the record, as they have important implications for the issues I am raising.

Part of what those at the Domestic Abuse Housing Alliance want to see, and that they urge the Minister to do, does not require a legislative response. We should, however, press local authorities to ensure that, if they are to be given investigative and enforcement powers, their staff are trained to recognise domestic abuse and coercive control as a separate issue, rather than treating that solely as a tenancy or antisocial behaviour issue.

The Domestic Abuse Housing Alliance asks us to ensure that

“the amendments made by the House of Lords, that threaten to weaken the Bill, are removed. These changes would water down rights in England’s least secure tenure and put survivors at greater risk. Halving re-let protections, increasing deposits for pets, and creating new repossession grounds all undermine stability and safety for survivors. The Bill must return to the Commons in its stronger form to deliver real security. Survivors must not be collateral damage in a Parliamentary compromise—the Bill is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to put housing, security and safety at the heart of renters’ rights.”

When I hear that from an organisation such as the Domestic Abuse Housing Alliance, I find it difficult not to be proud to walk through the Lobby and support my Government in getting rid of the watering-down amendments from the other place. We have an opportunity to make real change for survivors, and I am proud to be part of it. \p Matthew Pennycook: With the leave of the House, I will close what has been a brief but good-natured and considered debate. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken. In opening the debate, I set out in some detail the reasons the Government are resisting the bulk of the amendments made in the other place, but in the time remaining, I will further substantiate some of the Government’s arguments and respond to a number of the issues that have been raised in the debate.

Several hon. Members questioned the Government’s logic in resisting Lords amendment 75 related to ground 4A. They argued that it is too narrow. As I made clear, ground 4A exists precisely because we recognise the unique nature of the rental market. We think that the ground as it exists covers the majority of the market, but the truth is that no one-size-fits-all solution covers all circumstances. We have been clear: we do not want to deny to non-typical students the benefits of the new tenancy system under the Bill. Removing the restriction could lead to students who need more security of tenure, such as single parents living with children or postgraduate couples living together who have put down roots in an area being evicted more regularly. The possession ground as originally drafted strikes the right balance and we will resist the amendment on that basis.

Several hon. Members raised the issue of pet insurance and questioned why the Government have changed their position. Debate in the other place was extensive. Furthermore, alongside that, drawing on the expertise of peers such as the Earl of Kinnoull, Lord de Clifford  and Lord Trees, the Government consulted the Association of British Insurers and the British Insurance Brokers’ Association. Following such engagement, we concluded that we are no longer confident—as we once were, and as the previous Government were—that the insurance and underwriting sector will have sufficient or suitable products available at the scale and speed required for either landlords or tenants to purchase.

We do not want to leave tenants in a position where they cannot comply with conditions set out as part of the pet consent granted by their landlord, as that would mean—as several hon. Members have made clear—that they simply would not be able to have a pet, which would defeat the object of having the pet provisions in the Bill. The Government’s position, I am pleased to say, is supported by Battersea Dogs and Cats Home and other organisations. I hope that hon. Members note that.

A report produced by the University of Huddersfield, which was commissioned by Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, found that 76% of landlords reported that they did not encounter any damage caused by dogs or cats in their rental properties. When damage was caused by pets, that was an average additional cost of £300 per property, compared with £775 for non-pet-related damage. The report also shows that renters with pets tend to stay longer in their properties than those without pets, indicating financial and social advantages for landlords in fostering longer and more stable tenancies.

In the rare cases where the insurance and deposit do not cover the cost of the damage caused by a pet, a landlord could take the tenant to a small claims court by bringing a money claim to recoup any outstanding funds. On that basis, and having reflected, we are satisfied that the existing requirement for five weeks’ deposit for typical tenancies is sufficient to cover the risk of increased damage by pet ownership. As I noted in my opening speech, however, the Government will continue to keep that under review. We already have powers available to allow for higher deposits for pets if needed.

The very topical and pertinent issue of shared owners affected by the building safety crisis was raised by a number of Members. The Government are absolutely clear: we recognise their plight. As I made clear, we have already taken a number of measures to better support shared owners in that position. We recognise more can be done outside this Bill. We are more than happy to continue conversations with peers, hon. Members and organisations such as the Shared Owners’ Network about what more we can do in this space on issues such as valuations, sub-letting requests and repurchases.

We remain of the view, however, that the amendment in question could undermine protections for that cohort of tenants who happen to rent a sub-let home from a shared owner. Carefully considering arguments made by the peers and their validity, we will have further conversations. I will carry on those conversations to ensure that we are satisfied whether a solution that does not undermine the core principles of the Bill would allow us to provide that greater support to shared owners.

Carers and the carers ground were raised by a number of hon. Members. We have all recognised the contribution that carers make, but we believe that not only is there not sufficient evidence that the scenario in question is extensive—that it is common—but that there are real   risks of the ground being abused. The shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), mentioned the example of families across the country who own properties and who may wish to move a family member back in as a carer. I gently point out to the right hon. Gentleman that, if the carer is a family member as set out in ground 1, a landlord can already use that ground to gain possession, enabling them to accommodate a carer. We think that Lords amendment 64 is drawn too widely and is open to abuse. We will resist it on that basis.

Finally, I come to the last couple of issues that were raised. Several hon. Members made a powerful case for not accepting Lords amendments 26 and 27, related to the criminal standard of proof. We are absolutely clear that the civil—not criminal—standard of proof is the appropriate one. The standard of proof is lower for the breaches in question—breaches of the rental discrimination and rental bidding clauses in the Bill—precisely because they are purely civil, rather than criminal matters. Raising that standard of proof to align with other criminal offences would logically result in repeated instances of those breaches on rental discrimination and rental bidding, attracting the higher fine of £40,000, rather than £7,000. I do not understand the logic of the Opposition’s position, but we very much think that those breaches should remain subject to the civil standard of proof, with the penalty of £7,000 and without the impact on local authorities across the country.

I will briefly address the arguments made by Liberal Democrat Members about service family accommodation. We have had extensive debates about the subject and I know that they are coming from an honourable place when they make those arguments, but I gently point out that the Ministry of Defence has made it clear that in its view, subjecting secure defence sites to local authority inspections, as proposed in the amendment tabled by Baroness Grender, is unworkable because of access and security arrangements. As several hon. Members have said, let us find a solution to that. The MOD does not think there is a workable solution and is worried about fracturing how standards are applied across the defence estate, as this legislation applies only to England. As I have said, in the coming months, the Government will bring forward a defence housing strategy, setting out clear renewal standards and further steps to improve accommodation. I have offered a very clear concession from the Dispatch Box that we will provide for annual reporting to give the transparency and accountability that those standards will be met. \p Gideon Amos: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and for his engagement in the issue of service family accommodation. Will he consider bringing forward primary legislation, on the face of this Bill or another Bill, so that service families are given the same legislative protection that private and social tenants are given? \p Matthew Pennycook: I am more than happy to continue the conversation with the hon. Gentleman and with Liberal Democrat peers in the other place, but our argument today is that we cannot accept the amendment tabled by Baroness Grender. We think that the concessions that I have offered today from the Dispatch Box should be sufficient to satisfy the concerns that have been raised.

I will briefly address the incredibly important issue of implementation, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance). This Bill must receive Royal Assent as soon as possible. The time that it has taken for the legislation to make its progress through the House is not cost-free. Families across the country have been subject to no-fault section 21 evictions, which we know are a leading cause of homelessness, and renters across the country need the Bill on the statute book.

Following Royal Assent, we will allow for a smooth transition to the new system, and we will support tenants, landlords and agents to understand and adjust to the new rules. We want to make that change as smoothly and efficiently as possible, and to introduce the new tenancies for the private rented sector in one stage. On that date, the new tenancy system will apply to all private tenancies: existing tenancies will convert to the new system and any new tenancies signed on or after the date will be governed by the new rules. We will work closely with all parts of the sector to ensure a smooth transition and we will provide sufficient notice ahead of implementation.

To conclude, this Labour Government are going to succeed where their Conservative predecessor failed. We will level decisively the playing field between landlord and tenant, and transform the experience of private renting in England. While we have shown ourselves more than willing to make sensible changes to the Bill in response to concerns raised, we are not prepared to accept amendments that undermine its core principles. I look forward to continuing the constructive conversations that I have had with peers over recent weeks, with a view to securing agreements across both Houses in the near future, and I commend the Government’s position to the House.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 11. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 398, Noes 93.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment 11 disagreed to.

Lords amendment 14 disagreed to.

Government amendment (a) made in lieu of Lords amendment 14. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 18.—(Matthew Pennycook.) \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 402, Noes 97.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment 18 disagreed to.

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 19.—(Matthew Pennycook.) \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 336, Noes 158.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment 19 disagreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 26.—(Matthew Pennycook.) \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 404, Noes 98.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment 26 disagreed to.

Lords amendment 27 disagreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 39.—(Matthew Pennycook.) \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 325, Noes 171.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment 39 disagreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 53.—(Matthew Pennycook.) \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 401, Noes 96.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment 53 disagreed to.

Lords amendments 55 to 62 disagreed to.

Government amendment (a) made in lieu of Lords amendments 55 to 62.

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 64.—(Matthew Pennycook.) \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 335, Noes 160.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment 64 disagreed to.

Lords amendment 67 disagreed to.

Government amendment (a) made in lieu of Lords amendment 67.

Lords amendments 1 to 10, 12, 13, 15 to 17, 20 to 25, 28 to 38, 40 to 52, 54, 63, 65, 66 and 68 to 77 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendment 68. Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing with their amendments 11, 18, 19, 26, 27, 39, 53 and 64;

That Matthew Pennycook, Gen Kitchen, Harpreet Uppal, Michael Wheeler, Rachel Blake, Sir James Cleverly and Gideon Amos be members of the Committee;

That Matthew Pennycook be the Chair of the Committee;

That three be the quorum of the Committee.

That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Deirdre Costigan.)

Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords. \p Tom Gordon: I rise to present a petition on disabled bus passes and their use during peak hours. At the moment, across England, there is a 9.30 am barrier, as before that time people are not guaranteed to be able to use their disabled bus pass. This varies wildly across England, depending on whether different local authorities subsidise and enhance that concession. I believe, as do the petitioners and others, that people live with their disabilities 24/7 and that those disabilities do not know the bounds of such arbitrary time limits.

I thank Jackie Snape of Disability Action Yorkshire, the Royal National Institute of Blind People, Waterside Changemakers and all the other campaign groups who have helped with the campaign and the petition. We know that disabled people already face unfair and additional barriers when participating in society. These structural and societal inequalities include higher living costs and limited transport options.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to allow disabled people to use their bus passes at all times of day, including during peak hours, to promote fairness, independence and equal access to public transport.

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The Petition of residents of North Yorkshire,

Declares that restricting the use of disabled persons’ bus passes during peak hours is unfair and places additional barriers on disabled people, who already face significant structural and societal inequalities, including higher living costs and limited transport options.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to allow disabled people to use their bus passes at all times of day, including during peak hours, to promote fairness, independence, and equal access to public transport.]

[P003099] \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Deirdre Costigan.) \p Perran Moon: Meur ras, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to have secured this debate on Government support for remote coastal communities. My constituency of Camborne, Redruth and Hayle is one such area, and there is growing evidence that such constituencies face distinct and underestimated challenges. I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh), to her new position.

According to the Office for National Statistics, around 8.7 million people—15% of the population—lived in coastal settlements in England and Wales in 2021. These communities deserve strong representation in Parliament because, just as the human body often shuts down extremities at times of extreme shock, our remote coastal communities tend to feel the chill of economic neglect first, experiencing public service withdrawal, under-investment and eroded socioeconomic opportunities. To illustrate, a report by Onward found that coastal neighbourhoods are 42% more likely to be in the lowest decile for income deprivation than inland areas, and half as likely to be in the best. \p Jayne Kirkham: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s fair funding review is right to take into account the sparsity and rurality of coastal areas and visitor numbers into the new calculations? For example, a hotel in Cornwall in the winter can cost £53, but in the summer it can cost £100, and county councils spend twice as much on home-to-school transport as London boroughs, proving how much more it costs to provide those services in rural areas. \p Perran Moon: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, although I think the Government should go further in relation to visitor numbers, because the current proposals look only at day trippers. I will come on to that issue a little later in my speech.

We know that place matters. A recent report from the Resolution Foundation found that one third of pay differences between labour markets stem from the places themselves, not the people who live there. That should be a wake-up call for all of us. There are several interrelated pressures driving this deprivation that are not adequately currently reflected in Government assessments of need. \p Jim Shannon: I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward the debate. As I said when I spoke to him earlier, there have been many debates on coastal erosion and remote coastal communities. In my constituency of Strangford, as in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, the problem of coastal erosion was financed from Westminster some years ago, but that has now fallen by the wayside. The issues are not just about coastal erosion, but about social erosion—the closure of the pub, the post office and the shop, and reduced public transport, if it even exists. Ever mindful that the drive to change that must come from Westminster,  does the hon. Gentleman agree that there must be more money put into community budgets to address greater social isolation? \p Perran Moon: I agree. That is why, on the back of this debate, I am calling on the Government to develop a specific remote coastal strategy.

First, there are the pressures of geographical remoteness itself. Physical isolation and sparse populations drive up the cost and complexity of delivering public services. In Cornwall, our landscape of small, scattered settlements and constrained transport links means that service provision is inherently far more expensive; those costs are not captured by labour and property indices alone. \p Martin Wrigley: On transport links, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the final repair in phase 5 of the Dawlish rail resilience programme is vital to remote coastal communities in both Devon and Cornwall? \p Perran Moon: I agree. The Dawlish line is very important in relation to Cornwall, and it needs to be a consideration for relevant Ministers.

Members may not realise that, sitting here, we are closer to Middlesbrough than to Camborne in my constituency, but remoteness is not just about distance; it is a barrier to access, opportunity and resilience. \p Steve Darling: When I visit teachers in Torbay secondary schools, I reflect on how there is often a bay mentality and a lack of aspiration for youngsters. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that often in our local coastal communities there is a lack of aspiration compared with many metropolitan areas, where there is greater richness of culture and opportunity for our young people? \p Perran Moon: I entirely agree, and I will address that later in my speech.

The second pressure is seasonal demand from tourism. While the visitor economy has long held strategic value for coastal communities, the seasonal influx of tourists places immense strain on already creaking public services, such as waste collection, highways, beach safety and emergency response, which face significant seasonal surges. Those fluctuations are not captured in standard funding models, yet they have real budgetary impact. Tourism can bring prosperity, but also pressure. In Cornwall, summer means more traffic, more waste and more emergency calls, and significantly higher costs than those associated with the resident population alone. \p Kevin McKenna: My constituency is a lot closer to here than the constituency of my hon. Friend—it is just a bit further down the Thames. We have a strong tourist economy, but due to the housing pressures across the country these days, the housing and accommodation on the Isle of Sheppey hides a masked community living in holiday accommodation all year round, particularly in caravans. That is not picked up in the Government data at either a national or local level. I am interested to hear from my hon. Friend whether that is a problem for him as well; in my community, it means that we have high levels of deprivation that simply are not being accounted for in the current  Government spending plans or formulae. I welcome the Government’s revision to the spending formulae, which will help my constituency, but we could go further. \p Perran Moon: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Again, I will come on to that a little later in my speech.

On higher costs, the pressure that is felt most acutely by residents of Camborne, Redruth and Hayle, as I hear on the doorstep or in constituency surgeries, is housing. Coastal housing markets, shaped by seasonal appeal, have a high proportion of second homes and short-term holiday lets, which significantly reduces supply and drives prices beyond the means of local people, while many of those homes sit empty for months. I appreciate the decisions that this Government have made on stamp duty to dampen demand for second homes, but I was horrified to hear last week that the Reform party suggests that the excessive purchase of second homes in Cornwall is not a problem. I am disappointed that Reform Members are not here now. \p Anna Gelderd: In my constituency, high levels of second home ownership, short-term holiday lets and holiday homes reduce the housing supply for local families and force them away from their important support systems. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need stronger support for generally affordable housing delivery in coastal areas such as ours, backed by sufficient infrastructure? \p Perran Moon: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is something I will talk about in a moment. There is a particular pressure in Cornwall, but there is also pressure in other remote coastal areas relating to second home ownership and Airbnbs—sorry, I should say short-term lets. According to 2024 data from Lighthouse, Cornwall had the largest supply of short-term lets in the country. The figure was around 24,000 properties, which is up by 30% since 2019. I have long supported a compulsory registration scheme for short-term lets—one that includes fire safety regulations—and I look forward to the Government’s forthcoming housing strategy.

Cornwall suffers from a chronic lack of affordable homes—I appreciate that it shares that problem with other remote coastal locations. With the second highest housing target in the country and over 23,000 people on the housing waiting list, the scale of need is clear, but our remote geography, infrastructure limitations and construction skills shortages make conventional housing delivery extremely challenging. \p Seamus Logan: I thank the hon. Member for giving way and for securing this important debate. He is focusing on tourism and housing, but in my coastal constituency, there are many businesses—particularly in the fishing industry—that could benefit from investment to deliver economic growth. In May, the Government launched the fishing and coastal growth fund, worth £360 million over 12 years. Does the hon. Member agree that in her response to this debate, the Minister should update the House on the progress of that funding, and that those funds should be allocated proportionately to reflect the size of Scotland’s fishing industry? \p Perran Moon: I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I am sure that in the fullness of time, we will receive more details on that funding, which will be  very important for the fishing industry—we are certainly very keen to ensure we see the benefit of it within Cornwall. It has to be practical, and it has to be applied where it is most appropriate.

The issue of homes is an important one. When homes become investments rather than homes for local people, communities lose their heart and young people lose their future. As such, the next pressure I want to highlight is educational isolation and the lack of opportunity facing young people in remote coastal locations, which has been mentioned. Research from Plymouth Marjon University shows that schools in such locations struggle in vital areas, including school staff recruitment and retention, support and external investment. Poor transport links, rural roads and seasonal traffic make travel difficult, limiting opportunities for both pupils and teachers and deterring potential recruits.

Our young people are presented with Hobson’s choice: move inland to find work opportunities, or face an uncertain future with limited prospects of a home of their own. That migration reinforces geographic inequality. In a recent report on the issue, the Institute for Fiscal Studies noted:

“Reducing economic disparities…requires bringing opportunity to people—not just raising skills, but building places where skills are rewarded.”

Its report specifically highlights that coastal areas tend to lose out, with migration reducing average earnings by over 5% in parts of Cornwall. Young people face the “half-compass effect”, with the sea on one side, poor transport on the other, and limited access to employers.

A direct consequence of that lack of youth opportunity can be seen in the age profile of remote coastal communities. According to the Office for National Statistics, the median age in coastal built-up areas is 42—three years older than in non-coastal areas—and 25% of residents over 16 are retired, compared with 20.6% inland. \p Torcuil Crichton: I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. He is Labour’s south by south-west to my north by north-west. It is good to have our communities connected to a Government who make change for rural areas and coastal communities. My constituency has much in common with his; it faces the same challenges of connectivity, demographics and housing, and it also has the same potential with fisheries, the people themselves, the culture, the language and the renewables resource, which all of the community should have a share in. Does he agree that we need not only more central Government support, but more devolution? My constituency has been badly treated by devolution: we faced the ferry fiasco that has cost half a billion pounds; we have faced the farce of highly protected marine areas being imposed on us by devolved Government that would have closed down our entire fishery; and because of depopulation, we face the fiasco of reduced funding—being punished for people moving away. Does he agree that we need not only more central Government support, but more power in these peripheral areas so that we can run our own affairs? \p Perran Moon: I thank my hon. Friend for his pertinent points about remote coastal areas and the challenges we face. Obviously, he faces a particular challenge that we do not face in Cornwall, as he also has to put up with an SNP Government.

Since many residents live outside built-up areas, the true figure on age might be even higher. Cornwall has seen sustained population growth, largely driven by the migration of older people drawn to its geographical appeal as a place to retire. This older migration population means increased health and care needs. Data from the Institute of Cornish Studies shows that 43% of households moving to Cornwall from elsewhere are economically inactive, placing huge further strains on public services. Funding formulas rarely account for that reality. We have more demand for carers, more long-term health conditions, and more demand on health and social care systems. In remote areas like Cornwall, care is harder to reach and far more expensive to deliver.

With our ageing population come the health inequalities that deeply affect remote coastal communities. The chief medical officer’s 2021 report on health and wellbeing in coastal communities identifies a coastal excess of disease driven by deprivation, age profile and behaviours such as obesity, smoking and alcohol use. Life expectancy, healthy life expectancy and disability-free life expectancy were all lower in coastal areas. The report made it clear that in coastal communities, these factors converge to the detriment of local people, who face income insecurity, low-paid seasonal work and limited educational capital. The 10-year health plan does acknowledge the challenges faced by coastal communities, particularly in its shift from hospital to community care, but more needs to be done. \p Ian Roome: I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate. Does he agree with me about the extra pressures on people living in remote rural coastal communities, such as Ilfracombe in Devon? The life expectancy there is 10 years lower than in other parts of Devon. The integrated care board needs to be funded for the costs of supporting the local minor injuries unit at Ilfracombe hospital, especially during tourist times, when the population of my area doubles. \p Perran Moon: I am just glad that we have a Labour Government who are taking the national health service far more seriously than the previous Government did.

My deepest concern is that deprivation is not adequately reflected in standardised measurements, particularly the indices of multiple deprivation, as the Government’s primary tool for assessing need. Research from Plymouth Marjon University due to be published on 26 September introduces the concept of “pretty poverty”—deprivation masked by Cornwall’s postcard beauty. The six key findings of the report show that the indices of multiple deprivation do not give enough weight to transport dependency, housing displacement, employment precarity, healthcare withdrawal, educational isolation and community resilience. Although the measurement has strengths, without reforming it we risk missing the deep structural issues facing remote coastal communities.

In June, as was mentioned earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham), the Government launched the fair funding review, acknowledging that outdated models have short-changed places like Cornwall. It includes a long overdue remoteness adjustment, previously dropped in 2018, and recognition of some of the costs associated with tourism. However, in Cornwall, the ending of the shared prosperity fund, which had been used to develop economic prosperity—  announced on the same day that millions of pounds were made available for mayoral combined authorities in the north and midlands—was a bitter pill to swallow. The indices of multiple deprivation do not see the full picture, and when measurement fails, funding fails. I am pleased to see that a new iteration of the indices will be released later this year, and that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has been brought into the process to consider rural affairs, but the specific needs of remote coastal communities must be considered as well.

Time and again, evidence shows that remote coastal communities are often conflated with rural areas, overlooked in key metrics and treated as peripheral. Decisions about these communities must be based on accurate, meaningful assessments of deprivation. I urge Ministers to commit themselves to reviewing the forthcoming research from Plymouth Marjon University, because although it focuses on Cornwall, the issues that it raises are likely to apply across most other remote coastal areas. I also ask this Minister to commit herself to a dedicated remote coastal strategy to deal with these issues holistically. Our remote coastal areas have so much economic potential, but up until now Government policy has seemed to favour investment in urban mayoral authority areas in London, Birmingham and Manchester. \p Martin Wrigley: Does the hon. Member agree that the Government need to go further, and appoint a Minister for coastal communities? \p Perran Moon: I am not sure that such a Minister is what we need. What we need is absolute focus and a cross-departmental Government strategy for remote coastal areas. In these areas, we feel acutely the focus on urban areas and, in particular, mayoral combined authorities. Without sustained investment in remote coastal areas, in housing, transport, skills and economic development, our collective economic potential will remain untapped. \p Judith Cummins: I call Andrew George. \p Andrew George: Meur ras, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I congratulate my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon), not only on securing the debate but on the way in which he covered the issues and made such a strong case for the very special needs of remote and coastal areas. We hope that the new group of Ministers will attend to those needs, although the previous Ministers were doing good work in this regard, and I am not in any way dismissing or disapproving of that work.

As the hon. Gentleman said, only 8% of the population of England, Wales and Cornwall is coastal. In my constituency, which covers west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, 95% of the population live in coastal communities—and, being in the far south-west of the country, we are in that sense remote. Most people in our area actually see London as remote; indeed, remoteness is a concept that depends on which end of the telescope we are looking through. The big difficulty for people living in coastal areas is the remoteness of where the decisions are taken, and for them the remoteness is the other way around: people in the centre are often not  listening to, or not hearing, the words and the needs of people in rural areas and, in particular, people in coastal areas such as the hon. Gentleman’s, mine and those of all the other Members who have spoken this evening.

I welcome the Minister, who needs time to absorb the magnificence of the hon. Gentleman’s speech. I am using my speech as a buffer during which she can absorb that magnificence, but I want to add a few points, which I hope she will take on board, in addition to those that the hon. Gentleman made. I particularly want to embellish a little further his points about housing. It is not an accident that coastal areas often contain a lot of highly desirable housing markets, where a lot of people with wealth are very keen to invest their money—that is very much an investment, although sometimes they also buy houses for personal recreational use.

What we have found in Cornwall in recent years, especially since the small business rate relief was introduced in 2012, is that there has been an almost industrial level of shifting of second homes—from council tax to business rates—that are purported to be or actually have become holiday lets for business rating purposes. Owners apply for small business rate relief, and then pay nothing. We are talking about wealthy people, who can afford more than one home, simply flipping their property, with the benefit of their tax lawyers and others, depending on what is to their advantage in terms of tax. Frankly, one must take into account the obscenity of the fact that all those who had done that and were entitled to small business rate relief also benefited from covid aid—so they received four levels of payment amounting to £20,000 apiece. In the case of Cornwall, most of those people have their primary addresses outside Cornwall, and one might argue that they did not need a penny piece of that money, but they still claimed it.

By the end of the last decade half a billion pounds of taxpayers’ money had gone towards subsidising the wealthy having holiday homes in Cornwall. I have made this point to Treasury Ministers and Housing Ministers before, and I am somewhat surprised that Ministers have not yet been prepared to look at this policy and to consider at least reviewing it. Surely it is far better to spend half a billion pounds on first homes for the thousands of families in desperate need, rather than simply shovelling that money into the pockets of wealthy second home owners. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to look at that.

My next point is perhaps rather unique to the Isles of Scilly. Some of the big pressures that Scillonians face relate to transport, given that they are 30 miles off the mainland. Not a lot of people appreciate that from east to west, my constituency is about 70 miles when one takes into account all that wet stuff between Land’s End and the Isles of Scilly. It is a very expensive area to cover, either by air or by ferry. What we are seeking for the Isles of Scilly is something approaching parity with the Scottish islands. People on the Isles of Scilly pay four, five or sometimes six times the amount that people in Scottish islands would normally expect to pay to get on a ferry or to fly to and from the islands. That also has an impact on freight and on build costs on the islands, meaning that although we desperately need affordable homes, it is very difficult to get them off the ground within the viability thresholds of Homes England. It is a very significant challenge.

There is no parity in relation to older people’s bus passes, because there is not a bus and those subsidies therefore do not exist. People who live in the off-islands have to pay significant amounts—£20 or £30—for a ferry just to get from an off-island to St Mary’s to do some shopping. There is no such thing as subsidised transport, and the £3 fares, as for the buses, would be really nice between the islands if we could possibly get it. The Isles of Scilly do not have parity with the mainland on that.

The Isles of Scilly also do not have parity on post-16 education. There is not sufficient capacity in the islands to provide it there, so all the 16 or 17-year-olds—under the mandatory rules that apply for post-16 education—need to go to the mainland, but there are insufficient funds available to be able to do that. I am talking to Baroness Smith at the moment to try to make sure that the Isles of Scilly get the full support, so that students get the backing not only for transport costs, but for accommodation and support. There are a lot of costs in relation to the Isles of Scilly that are simply not met, and I hope the Minister is seized of that.

The final point, which the hon. Gentleman, who represents Camborne, Redruth and Hayle, emphasised—and I know he will be serving on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill Committee—is that it is absolutely important to get devolution right. In some coastal areas such as Cornwall it is really important not simply to apply the same bland uniformity that we might be able to get away with for other locations. Places such as Cornwall need a unique settlement. We were making good progress on that with the Minister’s predecessors, who were certainly understanding, and the conversations were going well. I hope that the Minister will be listening to the voice of Cornwall on the devolution settlement. The only region for Cornwall clearly has to be Cornwall, and there are very strong arguments for it. I do not have the opportunity to make them this evening, but I know the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, all six Members from Cornwall—and the Isles of Scilly—are very keen to make sure that the message gets to this new group of Ministers that Cornwall deserves a special settlement on devolution. \p Luke Myer: If the speech of the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) was nothing more than a buffer, I dread to think what mine will be. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) on securing this important debate.

Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland is an odd constituency, and my hon. Friend mentioned the Middlesbrough part of it. East Cleveland is a rural and coastal community defined by its proximity to the North sea. From the cliffs of Huntcliff and Boulby, which are some of the highest in England, to the hidden gem of Skinningrove beach, it is a place of great natural beauty. It is also a place of great talent, yet too often that talent is lost. I completely agree with my hon. Friend about the brain-drain migration of young people inland to find opportunities elsewhere. Time and again, employers in my constituency have met me and told me of their frustrations at seeing their talent pool displaced to  nearby urban centres or even further into Leeds, York, Newcastle and so on. I hear the same from young people themselves, who feel they have to get out to get on, and that is holding our communities back in so many ways.

There has been a lot of discussion about devolution, quite rightly, and I completely agree that it has to be done in the right way. We have a devolved combined authority in our region, and I feel quite strongly that our coastal communities and our rural communities are not fully acknowledged in some of the strategies brought forward by the regional government. Skills are a great example. I think insufficient work is put in to make sure that young people can access opportunity in some of the new industries coming into Teesside. As my hon. Friend mentioned, public transport is another example; getting from the furthest part of my constituency to urban centres is extremely difficult and very challenging for young people, and that is exacerbating some of these divides and the deprivation that we see.

Coastal communities are often described as left behind. I really want to get across the point that we are not a problem to be resolved, as I think my hon. Friend said, but an opportunity. It is a decade since IPPR North published a report, “Northern Prosperity is National Prosperity”. That can be extended to many communities across the country. By unlocking economic growth in remote areas, we can benefit the whole country and the whole economy. We are untapped in our potential.

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

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Deirdre Costigan.) \p Luke Myer: Governments of many colours have missed a trick by not investing and unlocking economic growth in our communities. We are not a problem, but we could be if not addressed. \p Martin Wrigley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if coastal communities had just a fraction of the investment in public transport that is made in places such as London and other big metropolitan areas, they would flourish beyond belief? \p Luke Myer: I do agree. That is part of the problem in our part of the world. By investing in infrastructure, whether that is public transport or grid connectivity for our manufacturers, the entire economy across the country can benefit. I have one village, Aysdalegate, which does not have a clean water supply; these are the basics of modern-day life.

My hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth mentioned, towards the start of his speech, that the economic divides among our regions have led to a kind of fraying of the social fabric. There is a danger that we become more vulnerable to the anger, resentment and radicalisation that we often see in our politics. It is a mistake to assume that radicalisation can only happen to a very small number of people who are particularly vulnerable. It can happen to anyone when the economic conditions are ripe, particularly at a time when social media giants have built algorithms designed to keep us angry and afraid, and to make us think that our country has never been so bad.

It is important to remember that that is not real. When we visit our coastal communities, we see that England is alive and well. It is there in fishing villages, farmsteads, the stained glass of church windows, dry stone walls and rolling fields. It is there in marketplaces, allotments and so much else. We must not lose sight of that. That England is alive and kicking. That unpixellated England is waiting for us all to come home. \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) for securing this important debate for my first day in this job, and for his tireless advocacy on behalf of coastal communities. I completely agree: coastal communities are a vital part of our national identity, serving as postcards of national pride, and a reminder of our heritage and shared maritime history. But behind those postcards lies another story, as my hon. Friend has rightly alluded to, for the beauty of our coasts can mask the everyday reality of the people who live there all year round.

These communities face a unique set of circumstances. We know, as my hon. Friend pointed out, that coastal communities tend to have older populations and lower rates of employment, which often mean fewer opportunities for young people. We know that the Social Mobility Commission found that coastal communities have some of the least favourable conditions for childhood in the country; a disproportionately high number of children are eligible for free school meals and their parents have relatively low qualification levels. We know that these communities tend to suffer from a lack of connectivity—a point that hon. Members have made—geographically, economically and digitally, with worse 4G coverage and fewer business opportunities than in high-growth sectors.

Let me assure the House that this Government understand the challenges faced by coastal communities. The Government’s mission is to reverse inequalities and unlock the full potential of all our communities, including our coastal communities, to ensure that they play a vital role in our economy and our future. \p Martin Wrigley: I appreciate the Minister listing the disadvantages that we have in our coastal communities, although she did not mention the fact that our health services are overwhelmed in the summer. The Dawlish minor injuries unit not being open due to lack of staffing, for example, does not help when numbers in our towns double in the few weeks of summer. It really is very disadvantageous for the local residents. \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: I thank the hon. Member for making that important point about the pressures faced by our coastal communities, particularly at peak tourist points. It is important that we acknowledge that.

What we are trying to do as a Government, through long-overdue reforms to the local government finance system, is redirect around £2 billion of existing funding to the places and communities that need it the most, which will enable councils—including in our coastal areas—to deliver reliably for their residents. We also acknowledge and recognise that delivery costs vary across the country. Deprivation, remoteness, varying abilities to raise taxes locally and the impact of commuters  and tourists, as the hon. Member pointed out, can all affect how hard it can be to deliver services in coastal communities. That is why we are committed to ensuring that those factors are accounted for in future funding allocations—an important move that will have an impact on our communities. \p Steve Darling: I am concerned about the Getting It Right First Time NHS template that the health service applies to our health services in Devon and Cornwall. It is a system that is very much drawn from the metropolitan experience of health provision and does not account for sparsity and the fact that we have seas either side of us. Can the Minister assure us that Getting It Right First Time will take account of places where there is rurality and coastal impact on our health services? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: Whether it is our NHS or our public services, there is a challenge for us to ensure that we are designing services that work for different communities and that recognise the diversity of those communities, and that is what we are committed to as a Department. We are committed to working with our colleagues across Government to ensure we are providing the services that people need, tailored to the needs of local communities. That is a big thrust of the devolution agenda, which I am very committed to and passionate about, on which we have made big progress as a Government, and will continue to do so. \p Luke Myer: I have submitted proposals to the Tees Valley combined authority to get East Cleveland’s economy moving—the focus of my Invest in East Cleveland event on Friday. Will the Minister commit to working with me to bring investment into our rural and coastal communities so that we can unlock jobs and growth for the whole country? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: I thank my hon. Friend for championing his area and for the work he is doing locally, and I will absolutely commit to working with him. The opportunities to unlock the potential of our areas are huge, and I am very committed to playing my part to help us to deliver that.

Alongside that, we are clear that we want to deliver a wide range of programmes to address economic, social and health disparities across the country, including in our coastal areas; in Camborne and Redruth, for example, we are already investing £24.7 million via the Camborne town deal through to March 2027, as well as £12 million via the UK shared prosperity fund until the end of this financial year.

In addition, our £1.5 billion plan for neighbourhoods will deliver up to £20 million of funding and support over the next decade into 75 communities across the country. One in three of those communities is coastal, meaning that up to £500 million will directly support regeneration in coastal towns and neighbourhoods. At the spending review, the Chancellor announced an expansion of this programme to as many as 350 places, including 25 new trailblazer areas, such as Barrow and Bootle South, with these areas receiving early support to tackle local challenges and drive growth. The programme will help communities to improve cultural venues, health and wellbeing services and, critically, local infrastructure. It will champion local leadership, foster community engagement and strengthen social cohesion.

Members raised challenges around flooding, which the Department recognises. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is taking action to improve resilience in coastal areas, particularly on the key issue of flooding. We are conscious that we need to take action as we respond to climate change. The flood resilience taskforce is improving the co-ordination between national and local agencies, which we need to get right. We have invested a record £2.65 billion over this year and last year for the construction and maintenance of flood schemes, supporting 1,000 projects and protecting 52,000 properties by March 2026. Over the next three years, a further £4.2 billion will be invested in flood and coastal defences.

Critically, we recognise the strategic importance of coastal communities such as Barrow, which play a vital role in our national security. This Government have committed to providing £200 million over 10 years to improve education, employment, skills and health and wellbeing, alongside investment in the town centre. There are significant opportunities for us to capitalise on the natural assets and strengths of our coastline, including by supporting clean energy industries.

Finally, on the key question of fair funding, we recognise that we need to take better account of the drivers of deprivation when we allocate funding. We are consulting on the proposal and taking in all the representations we have been given, and we will respond in due course. Members should be assured that we recognise the specific challenges in coastal areas, such as connectivity, and their impact on deprivation. We are trying to factor that into the approach we are taking with the fair funding formula.

As a proud coastal nation, there are many opportunities available to us, and this Government are already taking steps to make sure that we capitalise on them. We are committed to working with Members across the House to unlock the full potential of our coastal communities.  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth for bringing forward this important debate and for being a tireless champion of coastal communities. I look forward to working with him and colleagues from across Cornwall and across the House. \p Andrew George: I am so sorry to interrupt the Minister’s peroration, but she covered without detail the funding formula for local authorities and whether it will properly address the poverty and deprivation in rural areas. Cornwall is the poorest region in the country and achieved European objective 1 status—one of the highest levels of regional development aid—but it is not seen in Government eyes as the poorest region, certainly as far as the criteria is concerned. Will the Minister ensure that the criteria the Government use properly assesses the levels of deprivation in rural areas? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: We are very exercised about ensuring that we support areas of deprivation, and we always keep all indices and metrics under review. My hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth talked about the research, which I look forward to reading in detail. Ultimately, my objective is the objective of hon. Members. We know that there are areas that face huge challenges, and we need to get the right support to them. In order to do that, we must ensure that we understand the issues and are targeting them. Obviously the metrics that are used have a critical role, and the House has my commitment that we will keep this area under review.

I am committed to working with Members across the House on this issue. We recognise the importance of our coastal communities and we see huge opportunities. The Government are putting in place a large number of programmes and support schemes, and we are keen to work together to make sure that we unlock those opportunities.

House adjourned.