debates/debates2025-01-21d conversation_17
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-01-21)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-01-21d conversation_17

Chris McDonald:Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Intasite, a technology business in Stockton that is celebrating its 10th anniversary with 40% growth? Does she agree that our industrial strategy will help businesses to invest and grow in Teesside? \p Rachel Reeves: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Intasite on its 10th anniversary as a business, and on the rapid growth it is enjoying. The announcement we were able to make last year on the carbon capture and storage work in Teesside will be a big driver of jobs and growth there, and I look forward to working with him and local businesses in Stockton to make that a reality. \p Oliver Dowden: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer propose funding the reported £9 billion bill to the Mauritians for the continued use of Diego Garcia through higher taxes, more borrowing or spending cuts? \p Rachel Reeves: We are in discussions with the new Administration in the United States around the future of Diego Garcia. We will set out details in the spending review, as the right hon. Gentleman would expect. \p Debbie Abrahams: It is estimated that 148,000 people had their lives cut short between 2010 and 2020 as a result of austerity measures; on top of that, poor health led to more than £13 billion in lost productivity under the previous Government. What are my right hon. Friend’s estimates of the different choices, and the impact that they will have on the health of the nation and economic growth? \p Rachel Reeves: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I know she studies closely the work of Professor Michael Marmot on life expectancy and the impact of health inequalities on our country. At the Budget, we increased the minimum wage. In addition, we extended the household support fund and reduced the amount that could be taken in deductions from universal credit, all to try to put more money in the pockets of ordinary working people, to reduce some of those inequalities and tackle the cost of living crisis. \p Jerome Mayhew: One of my GP surgeries called me this morning to highlight the impact of the rise in national insurance contributions, which will cost it £40,000. It can only respond by freezing cost of living pay increases for all its support staff. Does the Chancellor finally accept that working people up and down the country are paying the price for her tax rises? \p James Murray: What we accept is that the difficult decisions we took at the Budget enabled extra funding to be put into the NHS. GP surgeries have had a funding settlement that considers all the pressures on them in the round. \p Sonia Kumar: My constituency has a proud industrial heritage, with manufacturing still worth £1 billion a year to the local economy from sectors that account for nearly 10% of the UK’s total economic output. What steps have the Government taken to promote the growth of the manufacturing sector and ensure that towns like Dudley continue to build on their industrial traditions? \p Rachel Reeves: I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and for the work she does to support and promote businesses in Dudley. Through our modern industrial strategy, and the targeting of eight sectors in which there is huge potential for growth, we will work with businesses right across the country on, for example, reform of the planning system to make it easier for them to build, and reform of the pension system to get funding for businesses, including those in Dudley, that are looking to grow and expand. \p Dave Doogan: Neither the US Federal Reserve nor the EU Central Bank are engaged in active quantitative tightening, but the Bank of England is. The Bank of England is costing the public finances in the region of £13 billion a year as a result of a fire sale of UK Government bonds. Last time I spoke to the Chancellor about that, she said that that was because of the Bank of England’s operational independence, which we all value, but that is not a licence for impunity. What discussions will she have with the Bank of England about releasing UK Government debt in a way that benefits everybody in the UK? \p Emma Reynolds: It is our view that it is absolutely right that the Bank of England has operational independence. That is in line with international standards and what is happening in jurisdictions around the world, including in the United States and the eurozone. \p Callum Anderson: Recent developments in the UK investment trust sector have once again shone a light on the crucial role that retail investors play in our financial markets. In her Mansion House speech last November, the Chancellor rightly prioritised leveraging domestic pension capital to drive the Government’s economic growth mission. Does the Minister agree that greater retail participation in UK financial markets also supports growth and democratises wealth, and will she meet me to discuss how the Government can better support access to financial markets for individuals, including in my constituency? \p Emma Reynolds: I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend, who is a near constituency neighbour. We absolutely agree that retail investment is crucial. I want more progress on the advice guidance boundary and  targeted support. I will be working closely, in my new role, with the Financial Conduct Authority to take that forward. \p Sarah Olney: Residents in my constituency will have been extremely concerned to read the news this morning that the Chancellor plans to announce next week the expansion of Heathrow. I invite  her to tell us, on the Floor of the House this morning, yes or no: will the Government back expansion at Heathrow? \p Rachel Reeves: I am not going to comment on leaks. I will say that the Government are absolutely committed to growing our economy, and making this a great place for businesses to invest in and trade. \p David Simmonds: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if she will make a statement on community engagement principles and extremism. \p Alex Norris: National security will always come first for this Government, and we will always treat the threat of extremism with the seriousness that it requires. As the Prime Minister said this morning,

“Britain now faces a new threat”—

a threat of extreme violence from people who are driven by material online. They are often now lone individuals who are driven by a twisted desire for notoriety. It is a threat that we must contend with, alongside that from traditional terrorist groups.

The House will be aware that the Home Secretary will make a statement to the House shortly. All aspects of this changing threat will be considered in her rapid review, ordered last year, which will inform the Government’s counter-extremism strategy. The review panel is considering the current understanding of extremism, including Islamist and far-right extremism, and its work will include a focus on how best to tackle the threat posed by extremist ideologies, both online and offline. Early findings were set out in December, alongside initial measures to tackle the challenges that we face. The Home Office will provide a further update on the measures and actions arising from the counter-extremism sprint shortly.

Our Department retains responsibility for communities and cohesion policy, and the Deputy Prime Minister has convened a new cross-Government communities recovery steering group to develop a comprehensive strategy to address the underlying causes of divisions in our local communities. In particular, it seeks to address some of the causes of the disorder across the UK following the Southport tragedy last summer. We have made it clear that a new approach is urgently needed, and we have backed that with an initial £50 million from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government community recovery fund to support areas that were impacted over the summer. \p David Simmonds: This question relates to an announcement made last March by Michael Gove, who was then Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, in which he set out some new definitions of extremism, including the activities of Islamist and far-right groups, and robust non-engagement principles for the Government to apply when there were serious concerns. That is particularly relevant to the MHCLG portfolio, which covers social services departments and other organisations, youth justice and Prevent, through which public services engage at community level with a variety of organisations to gather intelligence, help people to move away from extremism, and intervene and disrupt emerging challenges, such as those posed by  grooming gangs. The issues are also important for our often vilified Muslim communities, who contribute so much to our nation.

The principles having been set out, the aim was to set out a new system for structured engagement. However, in July the Chancellor announced £120 million of savings in the MHCLG from “small projects”. It subsequently emerged in answers to written parliamentary questions that an element of that was reduced funding for “legal fees” which were no longer expected

“to arise from the previous Government’s”

cross-party

“approach to extremism”.

A series of Ministers have, since then, found it very challenging to determine exactly what this means, but Ministers have told the House in answer to written questions that the March statement reflects the position of the last Government—in other words, that this Government have chosen to ditch the last Government’s policy on the non-engagement principles.

I am conscious that this is very sensitive, given the statement about the Southport case that we will hear later, but will the Minister answer some questions? Does the Department still adhere to that working definition of Islamism? Does it still have a working definition of non-violent extremism on which public bodies can rely, should they need to defend themselves when challenged? Can he tell the House why Ministers have not been—to quote from the “Ministerial Code”—“as open as possible” on this issue? Will he share with the House details of correspondence and any meetings that have taken place, and, in particular, the membership of the steering group to which he referred, so that more transparency and confidence surrounds this process? \p Alex Norris: I do not think it will be a revelation for Members to hear that a change of Government often means a change of approach to what have been shared views and shared problems. I believe that the last Government deeply wanted to tackle extremism in all its forms across the country, and we share that desire. Where we differ is on the approach taken by the Department.

In last year’s written ministerial statement—this, I have to say, is something with which I simply cannot agree—the previous Secretary of State, for whom I have a lot of respect, chose for the Department to assume a great deal of responsibility for the issue, essentially on the part of the entire Government. I do not think that is the right approach, for very good reasons. Counter-extremism should, I believe, be the fundamental purview of the Home Office, not least because of the Home Office’s access to confidential information that is often not available to the MCHLG. The approach that we have chosen in the new Government is to have a cross-Government but Home Office-led counter-extremism sprint, which will lead in due course to a counter-extremism strategy that shapes the Government’s way forward. That is a different approach to what is, I believe, a commonly understood problem.

I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the previous process as robust. Let us be honest: it was not used. The previous Secretary of State made a detailed written ministerial statement and set out a system that could have led on this issue. He named some  organisations, but it was very clear in the written ministerial statement that he was not prejudging any process for those organisations, and he subsequently did not use the process. I would question the hon. Gentleman’s attachment to a previous process that the previous Government chose not to use.

On the point about openness, I have answered multiple questions from the shadow Secretary of State and the shadow Minister. I will continue to do so, and we will be as open as we possibly can be. Similarly, with regard to the steering group, I do not think we have made that information public, but I am sure there is no problem in doing so. I will make sure that it is available. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Select Committee. \p Florence Eshalomi: At a time when we are seeing such an increase in religious hate crime, including Islamophobia and antisemitism, we all have a duty in this House to be careful about the language we use. I hope that the Government will look at their language, because it is vital for community cohesion that we are careful and do not unintentionally inflame tensions.

There are some really critical issues to consider, not just in this country but around the world. The Minister said that he is looking at the definition of extremism, and at changing measures put in place by the previous Government. Will he outline whether the Government will consult on any new definition? If we are honest and look back, there was a lack of consultation by the previous Government. \p Alex Norris: I am grateful for the Chair of the Select Committee’s question. Language is important, and it is reasonable and right that our constituents expect us to be robust with those who choose to challenge and undermine democracy and the basic principles that guide our society, but also that we do not use our very privileged platform to give succour to hateful ideas and prejudices. Indeed, one thing that we know about the changing nature of terror is that individuals are taking cues from organisations that stop short of the threshold for inflaming terrorist-type behaviours. They are using that as encouragement, so we all have a responsibility to be measured in our response. With regard to the engagement with the Home Office, we want to make sure that anything that comes out of the cross-Government sprint and into the strategy can be bought into and owned by communities across the country, so there will be engagement. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Vikki Slade: As we know, the world is a fast-moving and scary place, and people who feel disempowered and isolated often turn to the internet. They are often vulnerable, and their reliance on the internet for everything in their world puts them at even greater risk. We must work with our community leaders to make the most of the information that they hold, and get early notice of problems.

What worries me is that if we make assumptions and do not work with our communities, there is a risk of authoritarian decision making that affects all of us.  What consultation has there been with communities on the changes, and what additional burdens might fall on local authorities following changes to how the Government work? Furthermore, with such extreme things taking place online, especially on the platforms of social media giants based across the pond, what are the Government actively doing to unite faith and cultural leaders, environmental groups, industries and people across generations to foster unity and stop extremism across the whole spectrum? \p Alex Norris: I agree with a lot of what the hon. Lady’s says about earlier interventions and tackling isolation at its root. As she says, local authorities are really important partners in that endeavour. That is why we will ensure that whatever comes out of our communities and recovery steering group leans into the partnership with local authorities and local law enforcement, where possible, to ensure that the right resources and support are in place.

The hon. Lady asks about engagement and ensuring that we have a contribution from those affected across our faith communities. My noble Friend from the other place, Lord Khan, the Faith Minister, has met representatives of all faiths and will continue to do so. The Government will keep having that important dialogue with different faith groups to ensure that the ideas that we bring forward will be effective and are rooted in real life, but we will also promote inter-faith work, which she mentioned. I know from my own community that when we have had challenges, the best thing we have had to lean on to tackle hate, wherever it might emerge, is the inter-faith relationship. \p Jonathan Brash: There is real division in our communities, and extremism is changing at great speed. Although the vast majority of Members in this House treat such division as a tragedy and as something that needs to be solved calmly, there are some, sadly, who appear to view it as a political opportunity. Does the Minister agree that Members need to be calm in their dialogue on this issue, and that when they are not, they should be called out by all political parties? \p Alex Norris: I have always felt that there were two types of politician. There are those who seek to move things forward politically by bringing people together, and those who seek to exploit division. It is up to individual hon. and right hon. Members to decide which is their personal approach. When there is divisive—or bordering on hateful—language in political parties, we would expect them to resolve that in their normal ways. With regard to leadership in this country, we are certainly the luckiest people in the country. We get to come here every day and tackle these issues head-on in the interests of our communities and our country. Almost exclusively, Members use that platform for good. We have important distinctions and differences, and that is great in a democracy, but we want to bring the country together and move it forward together. That is certainly the approach that I will be using. \p Gavin Williamson: Can the Minister reassure the House on the Government’s approach to the Muslim Council of Britain? The previous Government decided to break off engagement with the MCB for very real reasons,  including the infiltration into that organisation that had happened. Can the Minister tell the House that he and his Government will not be engaging with it? \p Alex Norris: Those whom I and all my ministerial colleagues in the Department—and all Ministers including the Prime Minister and across the Government—meet with is a matter of public record, which can be interrogated in its right way. I am going to stop short of providing a running commentary, organisation by organisation, with regard to who we will not meet—[Interruption.] As I say, I am not going to provide a running commentary on that organisation. It is very clear from the record who I do and do not meet. \p Debbie Abrahams: I was a little bit concerned by the shadow Minister’s conflation of extremism with child sexual exploitation and grooming gangs. Does my hon. Friend agree that how we use language is important if we are to avoid eradicating the social cohesion that many of us have spent many, many years establishing in our communities? \p Alex Norris: It is important that we are careful with our language and with conflations. One thing I know about, after the many years of building trust in my community, is that it takes a long time to build that trust but it can be lost very quickly if we are thoughtless in the language that we use. \p Desmond Swayne: When a crime has the attributes of a terrorist outrage, but the police, in their engagement with the community, proactively announce that it is not initially being treated as such, is that not bound to give rise to public suspicion that the truth is being covered up? \p Alex Norris: I do not know what in particular the right hon. Gentleman is referring to—[Interruption.] Well, he did not have to use coded language if he meant a specific incident. There is rightly a distinction between what the Government of the day do and what the police do. We are not here to direct the police. In line with what I have said, however, all public bodies need to be careful about the language they use because it has real-world consequences. \p Peter Swallow: Members across the House will know how important community engagement is to building strong communities, and that working together with those whose views we may not share but can respect is really important. I want to pay tribute to the fantastic work of the Bracknell Forest Interfaith Forum for doing exactly that in my community. The Conservatives, when in government, cut funding to the Inter Faith Network, which was working at national level. What can we do to support organisations such as the Bracknell Forest Interfaith Forum to bring religious groups together and to help us understand that we do indeed have more in common than that which divides us? \p Alex Norris: There was real sadness when the previous Government moved away from interfaith as a model. My hon. Friend the Faith Minister has been clear about how important he thinks it is, and that is why promoting interfaith work has been a core part of the work he has done so far. \p Kirsty Blackman: We know that a number of the individuals who are radicalised are encouraged to find that radicalisation by high-risk platforms on the dark web. Will the Minister and the Home Secretary ensure that they work together with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that the Online Safety Act 2023 does as it was intended to do, which is to regulate those high-risk platforms, rather than the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport just allowing Ofcom to step away from them and let them do what they like? \p Alex Norris: I share the hon. Lady’s intent. We know that, whether it is in publicly available online forums or on the dark web, there are people who will use all corners of the internet to promote their views and to promote hateful ideologies. As part of our counter-extremism sprint and the strategy that will follow from that, we are looking very carefully at this and at the tools that we need to tackle it. \p Connor Naismith: We will all be sadly familiar with the shocking and racist remarks made by the Conservative party donor Frank Hester last year. I do not intend to repeat them in this House, so that we do not have to relive them, but does the Minister agree that that kind of language encourages extremism and has no place in our politics? \p Alex Norris: We all have to be careful, both as individuals and collectively within our parties, about the individuals with whom we choose to associate and from whom we choose to take money, so that we do not send messages that we would not want to send. \p Mark Pritchard: The Minister mentioned a rapid review; perhaps he can give the House a timetable. As part of that review, could he include the Charity Commission and ask what charities might be dividing our communities rather than unifying them? Also, could more officials from the Cabinet Office and the Home Office be seconded to his Department so that the decisions around Prevent and this review are taken in a better way? \p Alex Norris: On the development of the strategy, I do not want to pre-empt the Home Secretary because I am conscious that she is making the next statement. On Cabinet Office resourcing and secondments, our commitment, as the House would expect, is that fundamentally we are one Government and we must find internal ways to work effectively. Come what may, we will not hide behind that as an excuse for why things are not effective. Instead, when Ministers ask questions, we will address them in the spirit of one Government. \p Luke Evans: I commend both sides of the House on how they have respectfully approached this statement, because that is really important. The Minister talked about the robustness of this topic, and I am keen to pick him up on that, because one tenet in the UK is all about safety and the other is freedom of speech. Can the Government rule out changing any definitions that could lead, intentionally or unintentionally, towards blasphemy laws, because free speech is really important? \p Alex Norris: The Home Secretary will have the chance to talk about the counter-extremism strategy in due course, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have been looking at the early signs from that review, and these were talked about in December by my hon. Friend the Security Minister. To some degree these were about the places in which hate festers rather than about legislative changes. \p Liz Saville-Roberts: Our thoughts today are with the families of those three poor little girls and with everybody who was hurt in that terrible event last summer. It is inexcusable that state agencies missed vital opportunities to intervene in this devastating case, including at three crucial points following Prevent referrals. These failings shine a grim light on the significant cracks in our public services, following years of spending cuts and underinvestment. Will the Minister join me in calling for the public inquiry to consider the role of austerity since 2010 as a contributing factor to these terrible failings? \p Alex Norris: Again, I am afraid I cannot pre-empt what the Home Secretary is about to say, but the hon. Lady will have the chance to put that point to her soon. In our community strategy and our attempts to ensure that communities are resilient ones where people can live together in harmony, we are of course considering what was said in Dame Sara Khan’s review, and one of the underlying causes that she raised concerns about was austerity. We need to make sure that we have well-resourced public services. We also need to ensure that people do not feel that there is any division in the allocation of resources that is in some way targeted against them. We know that that should never be the case and would never be the case, so of course we are considering that as part of our communities work. \p Katie Lam: The independent review of Prevent, the Government programme that tries to stop people being radicalised by extremist views, said on its very first page that

“the facts clearly demonstrate that the most lethal threat in the last 20 years has come from Islamism, and this threat continues.”

The last Government knew this to be true. Do this Government? \p Alex Norris: This Government have taken on the independent review of Prevent, and 33 of its 34 recommendations have been implemented. We are engaged in the counter-extremism sprint, and our counter-extremism strategy will flow from it. The hon. Lady will have a chance to see that. \p Nick Timothy: I will have a go at getting an answer from the Minister, even if he did not answer the questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson).

Yesterday, the Department confirmed in answer to a freedom of information request that there is internal Government correspondence about the Muslim Council of Britain that it refuses to publish. Can the Minister overturn that decision, publish the papers and confirm that there have been no discussions and no correspondence within Whitehall proposing re-engagement with the MCB? \p Alex Norris: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the position has not moved. I have previously stated in answer to written questions that we are not meeting the Muslim Council of Britain. [Hon. Members: “Say it again!”] I am not sure I can say it any more clearly than at the Dispatch Box in the Chamber of the House of Commons. The position has not changed from the previous Government. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his answers to all the questions. In Northern Ireland, of course, we face extremism from the left and right, but at the same time we have managed to have community engagement, and I believe lessons can be learned. It is essential that our police forces have the wherewithal to deal with threats through an appropriate mechanism. The designation of community threats and extremism is truly essential. Will the Minister outline whether the process of designation can be streamlined to ensure that the police have all the powers they need to work within communities to root out and deal with paramilitaries and extremists, with safeguards for human rights? \p Alex Norris: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s question. His work on the persecution of Christians across the world reads across to some of those challenges in making sure we have cohesive communities across the UK. Of course, policing in Northern Ireland is a devolved matter, so it is not for a Minister in the UK Parliament, but I assure him that we give the best insight to make sure that public institutions are interacting in the best way possible. I often feel for junior officers who, early in their service, are having to deal with what are often quite complicated issues in live time. We want to make sure they get the best information so that they are able to do so. \p Lindsay Hoyle: Before we come to the Home Secretary’s statement, I want to say that I appreciate that it has been most frustrating for the House that we have not been able to discuss the issues relating to this case because of ongoing prosecutions. Although the case is still technically sub judice until sentencing on Thursday, given that the accused has pleaded guilty to all charges and that there is strong public interest in the House being able to discuss these matters, I am granting a waiver so that Members may discuss it freely. I am confident that the House’s sub judice resolution has been followed correctly, and I am grateful to Members for their patience in not discussing this case substantially before now. I am going to ensure that the House’s sub judice resolution is reviewed to ensure it is fit for purpose. \p Yvette Cooper: With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the Southport murders.

None of us will ever forget the events of 29 July. The school holidays had just started, and little girls were at a dance class to have fun, dance and sing. A moment of joy turned into the darkest of nightmares. We think especially of three little girls—Elsie Dot Stancombe, Bebe King and Alice da Silva Aguiar—their precious smiles and the dreams their families had, and we think of their families’ agony to have that future so brutally destroyed. They are in all our hearts and prayers, as are those who survived the attack but live with the physical and emotional scars. Nothing will ever take away their trauma and loss, and we will ensure that they receive the support and care they need in the years to come.

We think, too, of the police and first responders who ran into that scene of unspeakable horror. The courage they showed and the lives they saved are public service at its very best.

Yesterday, Axel Rudakubana pleaded guilty to all charges. He stands responsible for one of the most barbaric crimes in our country’s history—the most vile and cowardly attack on little children who could never defend themselves, carried out in the most horrific and traumatic way. The Crown Prosecution Service has described him as

“a young man with a sickening and sustained interest in death and violence”

who has

“shown no sign of remorse.”

On Thursday, before sentencing, the prosecution will set out what happened that day and the nature of those offences.

Now that the conviction has been secured, the families, the people of Southport and the entire country need answers about how this horrendous attack could ever have happened. The Government have been constrained in what we could say up to this point about Rudakubana’s past to avoid prejudicing any jury trial, in line with all the normal rules of our British justice systems, because nothing is more important than securing justice, but now we can start to lay out that background.

Multiple different agencies were in contact with Rudakubana and knew about his history of violence. He was referred to Prevent three times between December 2019 and April 2021, when aged 13 and 14.  Between October 2019 and May 2022, Lancashire police responded to five calls from his home address about his behaviour. He was referred repeatedly to the multi-agency safeguarding hub. He had contact with children’s social care, the Early Help service, and child and adolescent mental health services. He was convicted of a violent assault against another child at school and was referred to the youth offending team. He was excluded from one school and had long periods of absence from another.

All those agencies had contact with him yet, between them, they completely failed to identify the terrible danger he posed. How did he fall through so many gaps? It is just unbearable to think that something more could and should have been done. There are grave questions about how this network of agencies failed to identify and act on the risks. There were so many signs of how dangerous he had become, yet the action against him was far too weak. Families need the truth about why the system failed to tackle his violence for so many years.

That is why we are setting up an independent public inquiry. Like the Angiolini inquiry into Wayne Couzens, it will begin work on a non-statutory basis so that it can move quickly into action, but with statutory powers added later, as required. We will set out the terms of reference and appoint the chair once we have consulted the coroner and given the families the opportunity to comment. In addition to examining what went wrong in this horrific case, I am also asking the inquiry to consider the wider challenge of rising youth violence and extremism.

I have been deeply disturbed at the number of cases involving teenagers drawn into extremism, serious violence and terrorism—including Islamist extremism, far right extremism, mixed and confused ideology, and obsession with violence and gore. In just three years, there has been a threefold increase in under-18s investigated for involvement in terrorism. Some 162 people were referred to Prevent last year for concerns relating to school massacres; the Met Commissioner has warned about

“young men who are fixated on violence...grazing across extremist and terrorist content”;

and Five Eyes counter-terror partners have warned about growing radicalisation of minors, happening as so many of our children and teenagers are being exposed to ever more disturbing materials online. An online ecosystem is radicalising our children while safety measures are whittled away.

The Online Safety Act 2023 illegal content codes of practice come into force in March and the child safety codes should be in place this summer, but companies should take responsibility before then. The prosecution will provide more detail on Thursday about material Rudakubana searched for online, but I can tell the House that the Government are this week contacting technology companies to ask them to remove the dangerous material that he accessed. Companies should not be profiting from hosting content that puts children’s lives at risk.

Let me set out four other areas where we are taking action in advance of the inquiry. First, on Prevent, the Government and counter-terrorism policing jointly commissioned an immediate Prevent learning review during the summer, and I will publish detailed findings following the sentencing. The three referrals took place between three and four years before the Southport  attack, including following evidence Rudakubana was expressing interest in school shootings, the London Bridge attack, the IRA, MI5 and the middle east.

On each occasion, Rudakubana’s case was assessed by counter-terrorism policing, but in each instance there was no onward referral to specialist Channel support. The learning review has concluded that the referrals should not have been closed, and that cases such as these, given the perpetrator’s age and complex needs, should be referred to Channel. It concludes that too much weight was placed on the absence of ideology, without considering the vulnerabilities to radicalisation, or taking account of whether he was

“obsessed with massacre or extreme violence”,

and that the cumulative significance of those three repeat referrals was not properly considered.

The Prevent programme is vital to our national security and its officers work with huge dedication to keep us safe, but we need it to be effective. Some changes have already been made since 2021, including new Prevent duty guidance, new training for frontline workers on radicalisation and stronger policy on repeat referrals. In September 2024, a new Prevent assessment framework was launched, supplemented by robust training for all Prevent police officers, but those changes do not go far enough.

Given the importance of the programme, I cannot understand how it has been allowed to operate for so long without proper independent oversight. That is why I announced before Christmas the introduction of a new independent Prevent commissioner with power to review cases and ensure standards are being met. I am today appointing Lord David Anderson KC as the interim Prevent commissioner, to start work immediately. His first task will be to conduct a thorough review of the Prevent history in this case to identify what changes are needed to make sure serious cases are not missed, particularly where there is mixed and unclear ideology.

I have also tasked my Department with conducting an end-to-end review of Prevent thresholds, including on Islamist extremism, where referrals have previously been too low. We are looking at cases where mental ill health or neurodivergence is a factor, and developing new arrangements with other agencies for cases that may not meet the threshold for Channel counter-extremism support, but where violent behaviour must be addressed urgently.

Secondly, two shocking facts around knife crime have emerged from this case. The Prevent learning review found that Rudakubana admitted to having carried a knife more than 10 times, yet the action against him was far too weak. Despite the fact that he had been convicted for violence and was just 17, he was easily able to order a knife on Amazon. That is a total disgrace and it must change. We will bring in stronger measures to tackle knife sales online in the crime and policing Bill this spring.

Thirdly, as the Prime Minister has set out this morning, we need to ensure our laws keep up with the changing violent and extremist threats that we face. It is for the police and CPS to decide whether individual cases meet the definition set out in the Terrorism Act 2000 when making charges, but given the growing number of cases  where perpetrators are seeking to terrorise, even without a clear ideology, we need to ensure that the law, powers and sentencing are strong enough to cope. I have therefore asked the independent reviewer on terrorism powers to examine the legislation in this area in light of the modern threats we face.

Finally, let me address the issue of contempt of court. The British way of justice means that information is presented to the court by the police and CPS with restrictions on what can be said beforehand, so that the jury does not get partial or prejudicial information in advance, and to ensure the trial is fair and justice is done. Social media puts those long-established rules under strain, especially where partial and inaccurate information appears online, and the Law Commission is reviewing the contempt of court rules in that light. But let me be clear that where the police, Government and journalists are given clear advice from the CPS about contempt of court and about not publishing information in advance of a trial, if we did not respect that and a killer walked free, we would never be forgiven.

There are times when something so unfathomably terrible happens that whatever words we find feel grossly insufficient, and that is how it feels over the Southport attack. Let there be no doubt: responsibility for this outrage lies squarely with the perpetrator. Equally, in the wake of such a monstrous atrocity, we have to ask every question, no matter how difficult, and where change is needed, we must act. That now is our task. We owe that to the victims and their loved ones, and we owe it to the country, because protecting the public is the first duty of the Government and the shared purpose of this House. I commend this statement to the House. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Let us start and I will try to call everybody who was here on time. I call the shadow Home Secretary. \p Chris Philp: I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement and for the briefing she kindly arranged.

First, let us remember the three young, innocent victims of this savage and senseless attack: Bebe King was just six years old, Elsie Dot Stancombe was seven and Alice da Silva Aguiar was nine years old. Their lives were cruelly cut short as they attended a Taylor Swift dance class. It should have been a time of joy, part of a precious and innocent childhood to be cherished and remembered, and yet the darkest of shadows fell over Southport that day as those girls were robbed of their young lives. Let us not forget that eight more children and two adults were seriously injured on that day as well. Many of us in the House are parents or grandparents, and many people listening today will be too. We can only begin to imagine the pain and grief the parents and family of Bebe, Elsie and Alice must now be feeling. We should recognise and thank the first responders who arrived at the scene.

We owe it to the memory of those children and to their bereaved parents to learn the lessons from this terrible incident and to take steps to make sure it does not happen again. In that spirit, I welcome and support the inquiry announced yesterday. Will the Home Secretary confirm that it will be placed on a statutory footing as  soon as possible, to ensure its independence and to enable it to compel disclosure of the evidence it may need? It is vital to get to the truth about the opportunities that may have existed to stop the evil perpetrator, Axel Rudakubana, from committing those sickening murders.

Rudakubana was encountered multiple times, as the Home Secretary has said, by the police, social services, the school system and the Prevent programme over a period of several years. The inquiry will find out, I hope, whether mistakes were made or whether the law needs to change. The Home Secretary mentioned some areas that will rightly be looked at, and I support that. Will the Home Secretary confirm that the inquiry will include consideration of whether the Mental Health Act 1983 was adequate for this case?

The Home Secretary has rightly referred to Prevent. A review of Prevent was conducted by Sir William Shawcross and the last Government responded to that in February 2024. Will the Home Secretary now commit to implementing all the recommendations of the Shawcross review?

I now turn to what happened after the murders and to the importance of openness and transparency. First—this is a serious and important question—will the Home Secretary confirm that the inquiry will also cover the Government, police and CPS response to the murders and especially the handling of public communications and the appalling riots that followed? It is a very important question, and I will be grateful if the Home Secretary answers that directly in her response.

The Prime Minister this morning acknowledged that he knew about the background to the case and to Rudakubana himself, including that he had been referred to Prevent on three separate occasions and that he had been found to be in possession of ricin—a highly toxic chemical—and a manual detailing al-Qaeda terrorist methods, which is itself an offence under the Terrorism Act 2006. The Prime Minister also said this morning that he did not disclose any of that to the public in the days and weeks after the murders for fear of prejudicing the subsequent murder trial.

It is, of course, important for journalists, politicians and this House to do nothing that might prejudice a trial. However, Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said this, in the context of the case, on the “Today” programme in October:

“The Government has to be aware…that if there is an information gap…then there are other voices, particularly in social media, who will try and fill it.”

He went on,

“if there is any information you can give, put it in the public domain, and be really careful that you don’t fall into the trap of saying ‘we can only say zilch, because there are criminal proceedings’.”

He continued:

“Quite often, there’s a fair amount…that can be put into the public domain”.

Jonathan Hall concluded by saying that that police realise now

“that just saying ‘there’s a charge, we can’t say any more’, is not going to cut it these days.”

The independent reviewer is therefore saying that the Government and police can put some material into the public domain without prejudicing subsequent trials.

In fact, on 29 October, Rudakubana was charged with possessing the ricin and the terror manual, and that was then made public. If that can be made public in  October without risking prejudice of the murder trial, it follows that it could have been made public in August without prejudicing that same trial. Background facts on other cases over the years have been made public after arrest and before trial without prejudice—the shields relating to two of those cases are in this Chamber. Why, therefore, did the Prime Minister not make public some of that background information in August when he knew it, when later disclosure of that information in October demonstrated that such disclosure could be made without prejudice? Why, too, did the Deputy Prime Minister, on 31 July, dismiss as “fake news” those saying that there may be further facts to come out?

Briefly, before concluding, let me explain why that is important. As Jonathan Hall said, if there is a void, misinformation can fill that void, especially online. That appears to be what happened here and some of that information, it is said, originated overseas from hostile states. It is possible—indeed, even likely—that that misinformation that was put into the void fuelled the totally unacceptable riots we then subsequently saw. Will the Home Secretary therefore accept, given what Jonathan Hall and I have said, that there should and could have been more openness and transparency, as I just set out, without prejudicing the trial, and that disclosing more of that truth openly and transparently would have helped combat the damaging misinformation that circulated and which, arguably, fuelled the riots? Will she confirm the inquiry will look at that aspect of events?

This was an appalling tragedy: young girls, murdered, with their whole lives ahead of them. Let us all learn the lessons from this tragedy in honour of their memory. \p Yvette Cooper: The shadow Home Secretary raised a series of points, which is obviously a substantial shift in position for him and his party from the one they took in government. He asked about the status of the inquiry. I can confirm that it will start quickly on a non-statutory basis, in the same way that the Angiolini inquiry did. However, I can also confirm that it will be given whatever powers it needs, including on a statutory basis, so that it can get any information that it needs.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Shawcross review. I can confirm that the Government have implemented 33 out of the 34 recommendations. I will gently point out, however, that the approach that the Shawcross review took was to say that the Prevent programme should be narrowed and should focus particularly on the cases around terrorism. That could have risked including fewer cases like this one, where ideology is less clear.

The shadow Minister then raised the issue about the information that was provided. He will know that the Contempt of Court Act was set out in 1981. Jonathan Hall has highlighted the problem of disinformation online, with social media actors not bound by the same rules that the police, the media and the Government follow. He refers, for example, to the name and nationality being provided, which in practice they were in this case after misinformation appeared online. Ultimately, he has also said that all that is governed by the Contempt of Court Act 1981, and the Law Commission is reviewing that. However, it is not for the Government to ignore the law or the advice that we are given when justice for families is at stake.

I will point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the previous Conservative Government did not publish information before the trial about the Prevent referral for the perpetrator who killed Sir David Amess. None of us criticised them for that because none of us wanted to put at risk justice for Sir David’s family. Nor did they publish information before the trial on the Prevent referral of the asylum seeker who killed Tom Roberts. In fact, they did not even publish that after the trial; it only came out in the inquest. Further, the Minister, who even after the trial refused to answer my questions on whether they knew that the asylum seeker was wanted for murdering two people in Serbia when he was allowed to enter the country, was the current shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick).

We have been keen to publish the information on Prevent referrals from the start, but the advice to us has been clear throughout. If we had ignored the advice that we were given about the case that was put to us and about the information that the police and the CPS were working through in order to get justice, and if, as a result, a killer had walked free, no one would ever have forgiven the Government or anyone else. The most important thing is to get justice and then, once justice is secured, to make sure at this point that the questions are answered about what went wrong and why three young girls’ lives were lost. That is the question the shadow Home Secretary should be focusing on right now. \p Patrick Hurley: It has been another tough week for my Southport constituency, as I am sure that Members across the House will appreciate. I want to start by thanking the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister for the calm, diligent way in which they have undertaken their work over the last six months, and for the way in which they have been good friends to Southport.

I was clear back in the summer that I did not want people speculating online as to the motives or the background of the person who we can now say was the murderer of those three girls. We were risking prejudicing the trial, and it could have collapsed because of that speculation. In fact, it was not just speculation, but in some respects, downright lies—downright lies that were being circulated in the interests of political gain, with the interests of justice a distant second. Does the Home Secretary agree that the next stage of achieving justice for my community and for the families impacted so desperately by the crime back in July—that is, the public inquiry—should also be allowed to undertake its work and make its recommendations free of the ridiculous nonsense and lies that we have seen from public figures who should know better and which have been circulating purely for their own interests? \p Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend has been an important voice for the people in his community throughout this unimaginably difficult time and has spoken for them with great dignity and passion, including in this House.

My hon. Friend is right that nothing of that sort should be done; it is part of our British justice tradition that information is produced at the trial, but not in advance for fear of prejudicing a jury, of undermining justice and of potentially letting criminals walk free. He is right that we should never do that. He is also right  that his community, including the families involved, need answers now. And the answers that they need include how on earth this shocking, disturbing and barbaric attack was able to happen. What went wrong? What could have been done to prevent it? There is also the question of how we as a society face up to the rising youth violence and extremism that we have seen, with this being just one example among some very disturbing cases. That is the justice and the answers that those families need. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Lisa Smart: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. What happened in Southport last year was a horrific tragedy. Three innocent young girls—Alice, Bebe and Elsie—lost their lives to an act of senseless brutal violence, and our thoughts go out to the bereaved families and their friends, for whom this week will be incredibly difficult. We all owe it to these girls to ensure that a senseless tragedy such as this can never happen again.

It has been deeply concerning to hear reports about how, in the lead-up to the attack, warning signs were missed as the attacker fell through the cracks in the system. The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s commitment to an inquiry, and, clearly, tough questions need to be asked. The inquiry must not shy away from getting the answers. This inquiry, like others, will only reach its full potential when there is a duty of candour that requires public officials and authorities to co-operate fully. I would welcome more details from the Home Secretary on when her Government plan to finally introduce the Hillsborough law to Parliament.

Our country also deserves a counter-terrorism strategy that keeps our community safe and is fit to tackle the modern challenges that we face in an increasingly complex online world that crosses international boundaries. Will the Home Secretary confirm that these concerns will be addressed in the upcoming counter-terrorism strategy? This must be a watershed moment from which we move forward by building a system that avoids future failures such as we have seen in this case. It is my sincere hope that we can work together across this House to make that a reality. \p Yvette Cooper: The hon. Member makes an important point: we want to introduce the duty of candour as part of the Hillsborough law. She is also right to talk about the challenges of countering terrorism, extremism and these changing patterns of extreme violence. As the Met Commissioner has said, those with a fixation on violence and gore are also consuming different bits of terrorist and extremist material. The ideology may be unclear, but they pose a danger to the public. This inquiry needs to look at all those issues, and, as part of our Prevent work and counter-terrorism work, we need to act at pace in these areas as well. \p Florence Eshalomi: I thank the Home Secretary for her statement this afternoon. As many Members have said, our thoughts remain with Bebe, Elsie and Alice. We can all remember where we were that late mid-morning on 29 July. I had just dropped off my two children at their holiday camp at school. When the news broke, I could feel that panic. I almost stopped for a minute to think: are my children  safe? We think about the other children and the trauma that they will be feeling, and the first responders who ran towards that danger knowing that they could be harmed.

The Home Secretary has announced an inquiry, but, sadly, there is also the issue of the nature of the violence that children as young as 15 or 16 are viewing online—the nature of the violence that was used on Elianne Andam when she was tragically stabbed in Croydon on 27 September, and the nature of the violence that Axel Rudakubana used on these three girls. How will the Home Secretary ensure that the institutions which, if we are honest, failed to see those warning signs will not fail in the future? What will the inquiry do differently, so that, as a House, we will not be coming back to recount dangerous tragedies again in the future? \p Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right to describe how every parent and grandparent will have felt on hearing those awful descriptions on that day in July. She is also right to focus on what our young people—our children—are seeing online. If we do not face up to this, the damage that we could be doing to generations down the line is disturbing and troubling. That means that social media companies need to take responsibility. The Online Safety Act 2023 will introduce stronger codes and requirements, but the companies themselves also need to take some responsibility, instead of going backwards, which they are at the moment. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. \p Karen Bradley: I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement, and my thoughts are with everybody involved. The list that she set out of the points where the agencies and institutions could have intervened sooner is truly terrifying. What reassurance can she give the House that this is a cross-Government piece of work and that all agencies and institutions will be involved? Furthermore, as and when the inquiry makes recommendations, which it will hopefully do on an interim basis, will she give a commitment that she will look carefully at them and implement them as soon as possible? \p Yvette Cooper: We will certainly look at any recommendations that come from this important inquiry. We need to look at what went wrong in this case. This is particularly about the interactions between the different agencies. There were so many agencies involved, but, as a network, they failed to identify the risk and to have sufficient actions in place. Lancashire county council has carried out a rapid initial review, but there still has to be a statutory child safeguarding practice review and a coroner’s inquiry. However, our view is that those are not sufficient, because we need a cross-agency examination of all of the things that went wrong in this case. We have to start with the dangers that were posed to those children in Southport in such a devastating way and then see why the system so badly failed to protect them from those dangers. We need that rather than organisations working in their own silos, doing only their bit and then leaving children at risk. \p Bill Esterson: I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement and for announcing the public inquiry. I want to remember Alice, Bebe and  Elsie, and their families and friends. I also want to remember the other victims of the attack and the first responders, some of whom have given harrowing accounts over the last six months of what they found at the Hart Space in Southport.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we in this House should recommit to the principle that nothing that we say or do in this place or elsewhere should prejudice criminal proceedings or prevent justice from being secured? Does she agree that to have done so in this case would have been an insult to the memories of Alice, Bebe and Elsie, an insult to their families and friends, and an insult to everyone in the community in Southport who were, and remain, so badly affected by what happened on 29 July last year? \p Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The families and all the people across Southport and the country need the truth. They need answers about what happened and what went so badly wrong in this case. That is why the information is put before the trial and then released after the trial. That is how the British justice system works. Crucially, at the heart of this, people need to see justice. There has to be an account for such a terrible, terrible, barbaric crime. All of us have to make sure that justice is delivered, because when lives have been lost in such a terrible way, justice is the minimum that they deserve. \p David Davis: I hope the Home Secretary will not take it as a discourtesy if I say to her that it should be the Prime Minister making this statement here today. This morning, he said on television that singleton terrorist attacks are a very new occurrence; they are not. They have been going on for nearly a decade. There have been many in London, including one in the yard of this House of Commons, and one that killed Sir David Amess, our colleague. In that attack on Sir David Amess, the police declared it a terrorist incident the same day. Without three Prevent references, without ricin, and without an al-Qaeda manual, they declared it a terrorist event the same day. So we all wonder why this was not the case here when there was such evidence. This is a clear mistake, is it not? \p Yvette Cooper: The decision about the application of the Terrorism Act 2000 is one for the police and, ultimately, the CPS when it lays charges based on the operational information that it has. The prosecution will lay out more information before sentencing that they would have put before the court today had the offender not pleaded guilty initially, and that is for them to decide. But the point the Prime Minister made this morning was that this was clearly a case where someone attempted to terrorise the community. That was clearly their intention—to kill those children and to terrorise more widely. That is why we have to ensure that, even in cases where the police and the prosecution say they have not been able to prove ideology, we still have the right powers, sentencing and ability to respond with swiftness and seriousness to the kinds of cases we are facing. That is why the Prime Minister has said this needs to be reviewed—I referred to the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation looking at those issues—and also why we have this statement to the House and are doing this inquiry.

Where I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman is when he said we have had such cases for a long time. We have seen in recent years a big increase in youth violence and extremism on a disturbing scale, and that needs to be part of the inquiry as well. \p Shaun Davies: I associate myself and my community with the statement from the Home Secretary on this tragic incident. Whether it is the purchasing of knives online or the sharing of horrible videos celebrating violence and death, there is clearly a gap in the ability of the state to hold social media companies and online retailers to account. What more can the Government do, together with the intelligence services, to take robust action and hold to account social media companies that are allowing extremism, violence and horror to be present on their sites? \p Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend raises an important point. We are raising with the companies some of the particular dangerous material that this terrible offender accessed online, and the police and prosecution will say more about some of that material later this week.

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the issue around online knife sales. We know that in the case of Ronan Kanda, who was brutally murdered with a ninja sword, that the perpetrator was able to buy that online and pick it up with no age checks at all. In this case, for a 17-year-old to be able to get the knife he used online from Amazon, that is frankly shocking. Commander Stephen Clayman has been doing a review for us of online knife sales and the kinds of checks that should be taking place. We will bring forward new measures to tackle this problem based on that review. \p James Cleverly: I am particularly drawn to the line in the immediate learning review where it concludes that “too much weight was placed on the absence of ideology, without considering the vulnerabilities to radicalisation”. Much of the challenge over the summer was because there was an understandable lack of public understanding of the distinction between a terrorist incident and a non-terrorist incident. Had this person done exactly the same thing but been driven by a desire to create a caliphate here in the UK, it would of course have been defined as a terrorist attack. The fact that it was not is of no solace to the families who lost loved ones. Is it not now the time—I appreciate this could be part of the review, but I urge the Home Secretary to ensure it is given particular emphasis in the review—to get rid of this entirely arbitrary distinction of motivation and to focus exclusively on the risks and actions? \p Yvette Cooper: The former Home Secretary makes an extremely important point because, from the point of view of the families and the community, the attack was intended to terrorise the community, and their real concern is about the scale of the harm. They saw the loss of children’s lives and the impact on the community.

The law is set out in the Terrorism Act 2000, and there is serious consideration for different agencies about the nature of the response. If there is an ideological attack or motivation, it may be that a counter-extremism response—the kind of support that the Channel programme provides—is targeted at the extremist ideology that  needs to be challenged, tackled and taken down. Alternatively, if the issue is around mental health or an obsession with violence and gore, it may need a different kind of response. But the right hon. Member is right that the threats from the point of view of the community will feel the same. That is why the law needs to be looked at again, but it is also why we need to have this inquiry, which can look at where the gaps are in the way that different state agencies respond, because we have seen those growing gaps—obviously, in the most traumatic of ways in this case. \p Chris Murray: I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. In her statement and in the Prime Minister’s speech this morning, they painted a terrifying picture of how terrorism is changing in this country and how the threat we face is evolving, especially with the proliferation of extremely violent online content, which is having an effect on mixed ideologies and ideologies from across the spectrum. Clearly, part of the response will be from the intelligence services. Will the Home Secretary tell us how the intelligence services will be responding to this evolving threat and what the Government are doing to prevent the growth of extremism through extreme online content? \p Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right that we seem to have cases where there is extreme violence, or where obsession grows around extreme violence, and then young people cast around to consume different kinds of terrorist or extremist material, but at its heart it may be an obsession with violence. Different circumstances will require different kinds of responses, but the scale of the growing obsession with violence should be a serious concern to us because it makes us think, “What are we allowing to happen to our kids and teenagers if we see this kind of obsession grow?” That is why we need action. Clearly, the focus of the intelligence and security agencies is on those cases where there is organised ideology and radicalisation, as well as state threats, but we have to deal with the kinds of threats that our society faces much more widely, and that means everyone needs to be part of it. \p Stephen Gethins: I associate myself with colleagues’ remarks about the murder of those three wee girls and the bravery of the first responders. Most of all, we think about the families left behind. I agree that we have a responsibility to the victims, when talking about these kinds of cases, to ensure that we do so responsibly, while keeping the Government under scrutiny. There is a fast evolving situation regarding technology companies. Will the Home Secretary tell us what areas she is looking at on enforcement? In this diverse, multi-agency case, what interaction has she had with the Scottish Government and the devolved Administrations in the areas where they have responsibility? \p Yvette Cooper: The hon. Member is right that there are issues around the responsibility of social media companies. Stronger powers will be brought in as part of the Online Safety Act, but we urge the companies to take responsibility now and not to continue to profit from dangerous material that is putting kids at risk.

On the discussions with the Scottish Government, we have broad discussions planned for later this week on some of our shared Home Office responsibilities. The  hon. Member will know that policing and crime are devolved, but that national security issues, where terrorism cases may fall or have an impact, are reserved. On such cases, we would expect to consult the Scottish Government and discuss the way forward. \p Paula Barker: I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. My thoughts and prayers are with everyone involved. Acts of terror devastate the families of victims who are left to pick up the pieces, having their closest loved ones robbed from them in the cruellest way. As with the Forbury Gardens terrorist attack in 2020, which saw my constituents Gary and Jan Furlong lose their beloved son James, these acts often take place after multiple agency failings. The Forbury Gardens perpetrator had been referred to Prevent four times and was known to mental health services. It will be important to those families in Southport that lessons are learned and acted on in a timely way. Will the Government engage with me and Survivors Against Terror on its calls for a survivors’ charter, which would extend rights to survivors and the families of victims? \p Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Security Minister has met and had regular discussions with survivors of terror. They raise serious concerns about, for example, the way in which survivors of the Manchester Arena attack ended up feeling badly let down, and the additional support needed in such cases. We will continue to discuss the support that is needed with those organisations. \p Julian Lewis: I trust that the Home Secretary agrees that the courage shown by the dance teacher and the member of the public who intervened should be recognised appropriately. What troubles me is that we seem to have a subtext here of saying that if only that particular ticking time-bomb had been successfully referred to Prevent, it could have stopped him doing what he did. Assuming that someone so committed to fanaticism would not respond to Prevent, will the Home Secretary share with the House what measures are in place to keep such terrible events from happening? Do terrorism prevention and investigation measures, for example, apply in a case like that? \p Yvette Cooper: The right hon. Member makes an important point. Those referrals were three to four years before the attack, and multiple different agencies had contact with Rudakubana, but there is a huge question about the powers and interventions that were available. Even if the scale of the risk and danger that he posed had been sufficiently identified, what could have been done? That is one of the reasons why the Government are determined to bring in a new power, a youth diversion order, to address some of the difficult cases—particularly those involving teenagers—and see what requirements might be put on young people in such cases. We will bring forward legislation as part of the crime and policing Bill. \p Paul Waugh: The barbaric murder of those three little girls in Southport is part of a growing problem of youngsters fixated on violence and gore, as the Home Secretary said. That worrying phenomenon has been fuelled by the rapid growth of  websites and social media forums that promote and revel in such violence. Can the Home Secretary confirm that the inquiry into Southport will look into exactly that danger promoted by such websites? \p Yvette Cooper: We will certainly ensure that that issue is clearly in the scope of the inquiry, which must consider why so many young people are drawn into an obsession with violence and extremist activity, and what exactly is going wrong and why, so that we can take the action needed across society to keep our children safe. \p Lee Anderson: The Home Secretary told us that, last year alone, 162 people were referred to Prevent over concerns relating to school massacres—a truly shocking and disturbing figure. How many of those people are currently in detention? \p Yvette Cooper: The hon. Member will know that a referral to Prevent can be for young people who may have expressed an interest in school massacre, as opposed to those who have committed a crime. The point of the Prevent programme is early intervention to take action preventing young people from committing crime. My view is that the powers are not strong enough currently to prevent young people from committing crimes or getting drawn into extremist violence. That is exactly why we need to introduce the youth diversion order—a stronger power for the police to take action in these extremely serious cases. \p Mike Tapp: It is important to note that this attacker is a terrorist. He has been charged under the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Biological Weapons Act 1974. The man is a terrorist. The attack itself has not been labelled terrorism because of the lack of a clear ideological motive—that is a decision for the police and the CPS. Will the Home Office look into how our legal frameworks might be updated to recognise the full horror of acts intended to terrorise? \p Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. We need the legal framework to be up to date to ensure sufficient scope, powers and sentencing are in place to deal with acts that are intended to terrorise, even where there is no ideology. He is also right to say that this man has been charged under the Terrorism Act and has pleaded guilty to a terrorist offence, and I can confirm that he will be treated as a terrorist offender in prison. \p Andrew Murrison: If the authorities remain silent, bad people write the script. On 16 October 2021, those authorities, and then their political masters, were frank about what had happened the previous day in Southend, and there were no riots. Why is that different from this? \p Yvette Cooper: The right hon. Member refers to the attack on Sir David Amess, who I regard as a friend, as I know he does—Sir David was a great loss to this House. The Government did not publish crucial information about, for example, the Prevent referral that had taken place. A lot of information was not provided until the trial. In fact, this Government are going further in providing information after the trial than was provided in that case. I do not think that anyone should attempt to excuse people who threw bricks and rocks at police  officers by saying that it was something to do with the information they were provided with and when. They committed crimes; they need to take responsibility for those crimes. \p Gregor Poynton: We have heard from Merseyside police, the CPS and counter-terrorism police about the wide range of violent content that the accused was accessing, including on genocide, and about his social media searches for violent and fatal stabbings. I know that the Home Secretary covered some of this in her statement and in response to previous questions, but what more should the social media and search engine giants be doing, first, to prevent our young people from accessing such content in the first place and, secondly, to take it down quickly from their sites once they are aware of it? \p Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The thing about the social media companies is that they have incredibly sophisticated technology and resources. They know exactly how to target every single one of us online with things in which we might be interested, and they use their algorithms in all kinds of sophisticated ways. They have the capability to do far more to identify this dangerous content and take action on it. I believe that they should use those capabilities, rather than rowing back from content moderation and reducing the responsible action that they take. \p Sorcha Eastwood: I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. Constituents across Lagan Valley send their thoughts and prayers not just to the families of Elsie, Alice and Bebe, but to the community of Southport. Something that has deeply concerned me for a long time is the radicalisation of young people in particular. As the Home Secretary explicitly stated, there is an online surge of young people becoming radicalised, including those who are interested in and look at content on violence against women and terror-linked activity. How will a lack of ideology be captured so that we can identify potential perpetrators? What laws can we pass in this House not only to stop social media companies profiting, but to ensure that they are aware of such violent and terrorist content on their platforms? \p Yvette Cooper: The hon. Member is right to raise that issue. The director of MI5 has talked about how the security services are seeing far too many cases of very young people being drawn into poisonous online extremism, and 13% of all those investigated for involvement in UK terrorism are now under 18. That is a disturbing fact for us all. The hon. Member is also right to say that we need to consider the complexity. Some young people become radicalised around an ideology early on. Others become obsessed with violence, and still others may switch between different extreme ideas and perspectives, but all of them are at risk of becoming dangerous to communities if they get drawn down that extremist track, and if their ideas get poisoned by things that they see online. That is why the issue is so important, and is a central part of the inquiry. \p Josh Simons: I thank the Home Secretary for updating the House, and welcome the uncompromising inquiry that she and the Prime Minister have announced. I would like to ask about social media and the digital information environment. I worked in a technology company for a long time, and I concur with the Home Secretary’s comments: the companies that we are talking about know what is circulating online and what is getting virality. After last summer, does she feel that she and the Prime Minister have the information that they need to make decisions in real time in order to secure our online information environment? \p Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I do not think anyone would suggest that Ministers are in a position to make decisions on individual cases, but what we need is the right kind of framework. Clearly, the Online Safety Act will put new structures and systems in place. The Prime Minister made it clear this morning that we should not shy away from taking any further action needed to address this issue, because fundamentally, if it is impacting the safety of our children, we need to act. \p Nick Timothy: The Prime Minister’s denial in August that Rudakubana was being investigated for offences under the Terrorism Act 2006 did not protect the trial, because we found out the facts anyway when Rudakubana was charged in October. The same disclosure did not cause other trials, such as that of the Parsons Green tube bomber, to fail. I am not talking about the detail of Prevent referrals, which the Home Secretary has mentioned in answers to similar questions, but about the information that was disclosed in October. If a jury knew that before the trial, why could the Prime Minister not have told the country the truth in August? \p Yvette Cooper: The hon. Member will know that investigation is carried out by the police. The Crown Prosecution Service decides what charges to bring, and how and when to bring them, based on the evidence it has gathered. That is the British justice system. Decisions are made by the police and prosecutors, who are rightly independent of Ministers. I strongly believe that this independence, which is part of our British judicial tradition, must continue. \p Connor Naismith: We have heard that the murderer in Southport had a history of violence and a fascination with it, and was just 17 years old at the time of this horrific attack. There are no circumstances in which he should have been able to buy a knife. Does the Home Secretary agree that we have to get to the bottom of how that deadly weapon ended up in his hands, and ensure that teenagers are unable to buy these weapons in the future? \p Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right: the perpetrator should never have been able to buy a knife online. It is really disturbing that despite all the cases we have seen in the past, it is still far too easy for young people to get access to knives online. That is why, through the policing and crime Bill, we will take action, including by ensuring that executives of online companies take responsibility for the checks that need to take place. \p Shockat Adam: I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. Despite the attacker’s three referrals to Prevent, five referrals to the local police force and multiple referrals to multiple hubs, we still did not protect Elsie, Alice and Bebe. We have failed them. We must ensure that this never happens again. Does the Home Secretary agree that whoever the perpetrator is, the victims are always terrorised, and that an obsession with ideology may have been an underlying factor in why we missed this perpetrator? Should we not look again at the Shawcross recommendations on ideology obsession? \p Yvette Cooper: The hon. Member is right that the Prevent learning review identified that in this case, the focus on ideology may have meant that some of the vulnerabilities to radicalisation were missed. We also have to recognise that cases in which there is ideology are different from cases in which there is not, and may require a different kind of response. The assessment of risk, and of the danger that a young person poses, may be the same, but the action that the state takes may need to change, depending on what is driving that danger and risk. For too long, though, some of those mixed-ideology cases—those unclear cases—may have been missed because we have not had sufficient focus on them. That focus is what the inquiry needs. \p Ben Spencer: I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and of course, the victims and all those affected are very much in our thoughts and prayers. Nothing we say should detract from the fact that the perpetrator has sole responsibility for these awful crimes, but it is right to look at what happened beforehand. The Home Secretary has mentioned a few times the involvement of multiple agencies and their warnings. For me, that is one of the most concerning and shocking things. How come so many agencies were aware of the issue and raised concerns? This was not a lone wolf who popped out of nowhere. Who does the Home Secretary think ultimately bears responsibility for managing this perpetrator’s risk? \p Yvette Cooper: The hon. Member’s question gets to the heart of the problem. He is right that the responsibility for this appalling and barbaric attack lies with the attacker, and he needs to face the consequences. He has committed the most heinous crime. However, we have to ask questions on behalf of the families. There should have been a network of responsible agencies, and the inquiry needs to look at why, ultimately, so many agencies together failed to identify the scale of risk, and to take the action that was needed. Part of the challenge is that it can be too easy for each agency to think that somebody else is addressing a particular bit of the problem. There needs to be a much stronger approach to what happens between agencies. That is what the inquiry must look at. \p Richard Tice: I think the vast majority of the British people agree with the Government’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, who has said repeatedly that when these horrific crimes take place, more information needs to be put out sooner to avoid an information vacuum. However, that is in conflict with the need to avoid prejudicing a fair trial. Does the Home Secretary agree that it is incumbent on this House to find a way to overcome or reduce that conflict, so that we get more information sooner? \p Yvette Cooper: In the world of social media, there can be all sorts of information online, but as the hon. Member rightly says, we have to make sure that justice is done. We have to make sure that a jury is not prejudiced by information in such a way that a killer can walk free, but also that people can get answers and the crucial information that they need. The Law Commission is reviewing the Contempt of Court Act, which dates back to 1981, but I know the hon. Member recognises the importance of us following the law in the meantime. We need to make sure that justice is done and, now that we have a verdict, that the families can find out what went wrong in this case and get the answers that they so badly need and deserve. \p Luke Evans: I congratulate the Home Secretary on her proposals; she has my full support in turning over every stone in looking into this case, and I wholeheartedly agree with all the powers she is bringing forward. However, that is half of the story. She rightly talks about balancing the risk of a criminal walking free, but we have to bear in mind the riots that happened across this country. Will she consider conducting a review that looks into the creation of a framework for how Government talk about these issues in the media, so that the approach is standardised and there is no political point-scoring across this Chamber? At the heart of this issue is the public perception that information was withheld from them. We could then hold a review on the rioting, to make sure that there are no further riots, because there were no riots in October, when this information came out. There is a discrepancy there that needs looking at, and I would be grateful if the Home Secretary took up this matter. \p Yvette Cooper: I point out that the violent disorder stopped when people realised that they would face consequences for it, and when there was a clear police and criminal justice system response. There is no excuse for throwing rocks and bricks at the police—the same police officers who had to deal with the most horrendous attack on those little children in Southport. It is really important that the inquiry’s focus is on getting the families of those children the answers that they need about what went wrong in this terrible case, not on trying to excuse a bunch of thugs who were throwing rocks and bricks at the police—something for which there is no excuse at all. \p Jim Allister: As we reflect on the horror of the murder of these three young girls, we all have many questions, as do the public. Will the inquiry’s terms of reference permit an answer to this question: how far was the inaction by the various agencies influenced by fear of disturbing race or community relations? Was that a factor in the inaction? We have heard that there were three ineffective referrals to Prevent, and have heard of 162 other referrals to Prevent. Has the adequacy of the response to those referrals been reviewed? \p Yvette Cooper: I have introduced a new Prevent commissioner—Lord David Anderson is beginning work as the interim commissioner right now—because there is no independent review of Prevent decisions or processes. That is a problem, because the decisions that Prevent takes are incredibly important. They need to be effective,  and we need to make sure that standards are maintained. That is why we need an independent review. We have independent inspectors of aspects of the work of other public services, such as policing. We need an independent commissioner brought in to review not just this case, but similar cases. On the scope of the inquiry, the Prime Minister made it clear this morning that this inquiry will follow the evidence wherever it takes the inquiry, and no stone can go unturned. \p Ben Obese-Jecty: On what dates were the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary made aware that Axel Rudakubana was in possession of ricin and an al-Qaeda training manual, and will the inquiry cover public communications after the murders? \p Yvette Cooper: Ministers were of course updated throughout. The Home Office was advised about ricin in August, and we were advised about the document much later on in October. We made sure that the official Opposition were also briefed. In the end, those decisions and investigations are matters for the police on an operational basis. The tradition in this country is that we have operational independence for policing, and operationally independent decisions made by the CPS.

It is really sad that so many Opposition Members have chosen to ask questions about the timing of the release of information—they know that such issues are governed by the Contempt of Court Act, and that this is about providing justice for the families who lost their loved ones—rather than asking the serious questions about why that terrible, horrific and barbaric act took place. I would just ask the hon. Member, and others deciding what issues they want to focus on, to think very seriously about what the most important issue is here, when so many lives were lost. \p Rupert Lowe: In her statement, the Home Secretary said, “Let there be no doubt: responsibility for this outrage lies squarely with the perpetrator.” That is indubitably true, but I would argue that there is blood on the hands of the myriad very difficult to understand Government agencies and quangos that charge around in ever decreasing circles, blaming everybody else when something goes wrong. Will she commit to reviewing every single dropped or downgraded case on which Prevent failed to act appropriately, to avoid another heartbreaking catastrophe like this one? \p Yvette Cooper: We have announced two important things today. The first is the inquiry, which needs to go to the heart of what went wrong in this case—why so many agencies knew about this incredibly dangerous perpetrator who committed this barbaric act. The second  is establishing the new Prevent independent commissioner, who can review different cases and ensure that the right approach has been taken, that risks are being identified and, frankly, that action is being taken. What disturbs me about some of the information—particularly the knife crime issues identified in this case—is that strong enough action was not taken. To keep people safe, we need to ensure that such action is taken. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the Home Secretary very much for her statement, her tone and her well-chosen words. I think every one of us in the Chamber is heartbroken for the families and their loss. The trust of local communities was damaged by the information that was released, and I believe a lesson about transparency must be learned. Can the Home Secretary outline how the Government will ensure that trust is rebuilt in the system, that misinformation can be corrected and that such corrections are trusted in the future? \p Yvette Cooper: The hon. Member is right to raise the important issue of trust. The police and criminal justice system are rightly independent of Government and of politics, but there needs to be trust in the work they do. This Government have made it part of our mission to restore confidence in policing, which I think has been undermined for far too long, and to stand up for the rule of law. We must defend the different parts of the justice system, which rightly play different roles, otherwise they will not provide justice for people in the future.

Crucially, to ensure that there is trust, we need to get to the truth about what happened in this shocking, terrible case: what went wrong and why a dangerous man was able to commit this terrible crime. Above all, all of us should keep in our minds and in our hearts the three little children, their families and all those who have been affected by this truly appalling attack. We must ensure that we get them the truth and answers, and do everything that we can to prevent such terrible crimes. \p Caroline Nokes: I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. \p UNKNOWN: Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Zarah Sultana presented a Bill to make provision for an inquiry into the end use of arms sold to foreign states to determine whether they have been used in violation of international law; to immediately suspend the sale of arms to foreign states where it cannot be demonstrated that arms sold will not be used in violation of international law; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 14 March, and to be printed (Bill 164). \p UNKNOWN: Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23) \p Katie White: I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the practice of bottom trawling in Marine Protected Areas in England, and for connected purposes.

It is a privilege to speak on a topic that has cross-party support and builds on the excellent work led by my right hon. and hon. Friends the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ministers to put nature on the road to recovery and address the climate crisis. This Government and this Parliament are the greenest of my lifetime, and I am proud to be a Member for a party with such a distinguished history of leading on environmental protection. This Bill offers an opportunity for a fairer, greener future, and I am grateful for support for the Bill from colleagues across the House.

It is important to remember that protecting our oceans and marine protected areas is not only a Labour legacy, but a Yorkshire one. In 2009, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), the then Environment Secretary, spearheaded the passage of the Marine and Coastal Access Act, a landmark Act that established a network of marine protected areas to safeguard vital marine habitats, species and ecosystems. Fifteen years later, with a new Labour Government in place, we have the opportunity to strengthen protections for these areas even further.

Before I lay out my case to the House, I must address the obvious question: why is the MP for Leeds North West, a landlocked constituency in the heart of west Yorkshire, bringing forward a ten-minute rule Bill to ban bottom trawling in our marine protected areas? It is a fair question; after all, up in Leeds our closest encounters with marine life might be spotting a trout in the River Wharfe or enjoying fish and chips on the drive back from Whitby. Yet the health of our seas is not just an issue for coastal constituencies; it is a national responsibility.

The ecosystems in our waters play a crucial role in regulating the planet’s climate, absorbing carbon dioxide, and supporting biodiversity that impacts life far beyond our shores. From sheltered sea lochs to wild open waters, from seaweed beds to deepwater coral, the UK’s coasts and seas are extraordinary. They are home to an astonishing variety of wildlife, including dolphins, whales, sharks, seals, puffins and deep-sea coral reefs. They are also vital to our economy and communities, particularly our essential fishing industry, as well as our tourism, shipping and the growing renewable energy sectors.

We are an island nation and we are never more than 70 miles from the sea here in the UK. Whether it is pollution, habitat destruction or the impact of climate change, we Brits are deeply connected to our coastal heritage. But while our seas work hard for us, they face growing pressures, and bottom trawling is one of the most destructive practices of all.

For Members unfamiliar with destructive bottom trawling, it involves dragging heavy nets and metalwork across our seabed, destroying fragile ecosystems and habitats that take decades or even centuries to recover. As a fellow Member so aptly put it to me, it is like  ripping up an orchard to pick an apple. Just one or two trawls over an area can decimate the seabed for up to five years. Alarmingly, this is happening right now across our marine protected areas—zones specifically designated to safeguard and recover biodiversity.

My Bill builds on previous work to ban this destructive practice. Currently, only 5% of the UK’s marine protected areas have a ban on it. My argument in support of the Bill is threefold: first, the British public overwhelmingly expects a ban; secondly, our small fishing businesses are suffering without a ban; and thirdly, it is crucial for the ongoing health of ecosystems in marine protected areas and the broader protection of the environment, and the natural world in which we, in Britain, take great pride.

On public support, research from Oceana shows that the measure has significant backing, with eight in 10 UK adults in favour of banning destructive bottom trawling in marine protected areas. What is particularly striking is the level of misunderstanding around the issue. When surveyed, the vast majority of people-—around 64%—mistakenly believe such a ban is already in place. Many of the individuals I have spoken to in recent weeks share this misconception and, frankly, it is no surprise: the term “protected” in marine protected areas naturally leads people to assume that harmful activities such as destructive bottom trawling are prohibited. The reality, however, is quite the opposite: these fragile ecosystems remain exposed to one of the most destructive forms of industrial fishing, which devastates habitats and wildlife.

Secondly, on our hard-working British fishermen and women, especially the small-scale fisheries that have been at the heart of our coastal communities for generations, let us be clear: they are not the ones dragging heavy nets across the seabed, destroying delicate ecosystems. The culprits are industrial-scale operations and supertrawlers that prioritise profit over sustainability, leaving our own small-scale fishers to bear the brunt of their actions. This is David versus Goliath—a fight to protect the lifeblood of our coastal communities from the destructive might of industrial fishing giants.

In 2023 just 10 fishing vessels over 20 metres in length were responsible for more than a quarter of the destructive bottom trawling. None of the 10 vessels were from the UK. I will not pretend to be an expert on the fishing industry, but Bally Philp, a fisherman with decades of experience, puts it best: he describes how

“small-scale fishers are under a lot of pressure everywhere, mostly from industrial fisheries”.

He says that one of the things that impacts quite heavily on small-scale fishers is a highly degraded ecosystem, because many small fishers are only viable in a healthy, productive ecosystem. Bally Philp speaks for many in our fisheries who want stronger protections that ensure their livelihoods are not sacrificed for the short-term gains of large industrial operators. Protecting our 178 English marine protected areas from destructive bottom trawling is not only about safeguarding marine life; it is about securing a sustainable future for the communities who depend on our seas for their way of life.

Lastly, and most importantly, we need to protect and restore our marine protected areas for both climate and nature. Bottom trawling is not just destructive and emissions-heavy; it reduces carbon sequestration. Our oceans are unsung climate heroes. A series of recent  reports from the World Wide Fund for Nature, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, and Wildlife Trusts has found that the UK’s seabeds play a quiet yet crucial role in carbon sequestration, storing up to 13 million tonnes, nearly three times the amount captured by UK forests.

This is not inevitable in England, and we do not need to imagine the positive impact of the Bill. We have already seen the benefits of banning bottom trawling in some of our marine protected areas, such as Lyme bay on England’s south coast. In 2008, a partial ban on destructive fishing practices was introduced. This was later expanded to 312 sq km—about 120 square miles—through overlapping conservation efforts. The results have been extraordinary. The seabed has begun to recover, with coral reefs like pink sea fans regrowing, scallop numbers increasing, and species such as black bream returning to the area. Within just a decade, the number of species in the protected zone increased by almost 40%, compared with a 5% decline outside it. Local fishermen, such as Matt Toms, have witnessed these changes at first hand. Since destructive bottom trawling was banned, he has observed a lot more fish in the area, including black bream breeding in the bay once again. This is proof that protecting our marine ecosystems benefits not only the environment but also the communities who rely on it. Lyme bay is living evidence that with the right action, recovery is possible, and this and every other measure should be guided by the science.

Sometimes people fail to act because they cannot see what is going on beneath the ocean. That cannot be said of our national hero Sir David Attenborough and I thank him for his years of service documenting our planet. I am excited to hear that he is premiering a new film that draws attention to the damage we have caused and the opportunities to humanity, in particular fishing  communities, of well managed and protected oceans. I also thank the Blue Marine Foundation, Oceana, WWF and many other activists across the country for their work.

To close, as I have said previously, I came into politics from a background in climate and nature. I proudly campaigned for the Climate Change Act in 2008, a landmark Act brought in by the last Labour Government. It taught me from the outset of my career what could be achieved through a sustained, steadfast commitment to a cause. That Act has succeeded because of its pragmatism and cross-party consensus. For that reason, I am proud of the cross-party nature of this Bill and its co-signatories.

The implementation of this Bill is a matter of common sense: for the small fisheries of this country; for the wildlife in our marine protected areas; and for all of us who depend on a healthy planet. This Bill is about real action on climate and nature, and I hope colleagues will join me in seizing this opportunity.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Katie White, Anna Gelderd, Mr Toby Perkins, Ms Polly Billington, Alistair Strathern, Luke Murphy, Sarah Champion, Aphra Brandreth, Mr Andrew Mitchell, Wera Hobhouse and Carla Denyer present the Bill.

Katie White accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 June, and to be printed (Bill 165). \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standin Order No. 59(2)),

That the Arbitration Bill [Lords] shall no longer stand referred to a Second Reading Committee.—(Martin McCluskey.)

Question agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Consideration of Bill, not amended in the Public Bill Committee

[Relevant documents: Oral evidence taken before the Defence Committee on 14 January 2025, on the Work of the Service Complaints Ombudsman, HC 626, and correspondence between the Defence Committee and the Secretary of State for Defence, on the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, reported to the House on 14 November 2024 and 14 January 2025.] \p UNKNOWN: “In this Act, any reference to ‘service personnel’ or ‘persons subject to service law’ includes people going through the recruitment process to join any branch of the armed forces.”—(Helen Maguire.)

This new clause would allow those currently going through the recruitment process to join the armed forces to use the Armed Forces Commissioner for its intended purposes.

Brought up, and read the First time.

2.30 pm \p Helen Maguire: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. \p Caroline Nokes: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Commissioner’s interaction with Veterans Commissioners—

“Within one year of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish details of—

(a) whether or how the Commissioner will work with the National Veterans Commissioner, the Scottish Veterans Commissioner, the Veterans Commissioner for Wales, the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner and the Chairman of the Independent Commission for Reconciliation & Information Recovery;

(b) whether or how the Commissioner and Secretary of State will ensure that veterans receive appropriate and necessary support.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make clear how the Commissioner will work with the Veterans Commissioners and related bodies.

Amendment 7, in clause 1, page 2, line 2, at end insert—

“(5A) The Commissioner must—

(a) uphold and give due regard to the principles and commitments of the Armed Forces Covenant when carrying out its functions;

(b) monitor and report on compliance with the principles and commitments of the Armed Forces Covenant in all areas of its responsibility.”

This amendment would require the Commissioner to uphold and abide by the principles of the Armed Forces Covenant when carrying out its functions.

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

“(5A) The Commissioner shall operate independently from—

(a) the Ministry of Defence;

(b) the Armed Forces, including the chain of command; and

(c) any other government bodies;

and shall be free from any influence of interference in the exercise of the Commissioner’s functions.”

This amendment would require the Commissioner to be independent from the Government, the Armed Forces and any interference in the carrying out of their duties.

Amendment 6, page 2, line 10, at end insert—

“(5) The Secretary of State will, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, publish an intended time frame for—

(a) the appointment of the Commissioner;

(b) the abolishing of the office of the Service Complaints Ombudsman;

(c) the commencement of operations of the office of the Commissioner.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to state when they intend to appoint a Commissioner and get the office of the Commissioner operational.

Amendment 9, in clause 4, page 2, line 35, at end insert—

“(2A) A ‘general service welfare matter’ may include issues relating to the provision of pensions and death in service benefits to serving and former members of the armed forces and their dependants.”

The amendment would enable the Commissioner to include matters relating to pensions and other such benefits, including death in service benefits, in their investigation of service welfare matters.

Amendment 10, page 2, line 35, at end insert—

“(2A) A ‘general service welfare matter’ may include issues relating to the wellbeing of, and provision of support to, the children, families and other dependants of serving and former members of the armed forces, including but not limited to—

(a) the provision and operation of the Continuity of Education Allowance;

(b) the provision of Special Educational Needs tuition; and

(c) the maintenance of service families’ accommodation.”

This amendment would enable the Commissioner to include matters relating to the wellbeing of, and provision of support to, the children, families and other dependants of serving and former members of the armed forces in the Commissioner’s investigation of service welfare matters.

Amendment 1, page 3, line 31, after “means” insert

“kinship carers and the family members of deceased service personnel as well as other”.

This amendment would include kinship carers and the family members of deceased service personnel in the definition of ”relevant family members”.

Amendment 2, page 3, line 35, at end insert—

“340IAA Commissioner support for minority groups within service personnel

(1) When investigating general service welfare matters under section 340IA, the Commissioner must consider the specific experiences of minority groups within service personnel, including but not limited to—

(a) female;

(b) BAME

(c) non-UK; and

(d) LGBT+

service personnel.

(2) The Commissioner may investigate service welfare matters unique to one or more of these groups of service personnel.

(3) The Commissioner must maintain up-to-date evidence on the experiences of these groups of service personnel and develop robust community engagement mechanisms to identify and address issues specific to these groups.

(4) The Commissioner must establish a formal network of representation to enable the views and concerns of these groups of service personnel to be communicated to the Commissioner.

(5) The Commissioner must publish an annual report outlining—

(a) the issues facing and concerns raised by these groups of service personnel;

(b) the actions taken by the Commissioner to address identified issues;

(c) the progress made in improving conditions for these groups of service personnel.”

This amendment would require the Commissioner to take specific action to consider and address welfare issues facing service personnel from minority groups.

Amendment 11, page 5, line 22, at end insert—

“(aa) the report must include the Commissioner’s view on whether the relevant general service welfare issue has had, or may have, an effect on the retention of armed forces personnel; and”.

This amendment would require a report by the Commissioner on a general service welfare matter to include the Commissioner’s view on whether the issue affects the retention of armed forces personnel.

Amendment 4, page 6, line 2, at end insert—

“(4A) After section 340O (annual report on system for dealing with service complaints) insert—

‘340OA Annual report on the work of the Commissioner

(1) The Commissioner must, for each calendar year, prepare a report covering—

(a) the actions taken by the Commissioner to promote and improve the welfare of persons subject to service law and relevant family members;

(b) the initiatives undertaken by the Commissioner to enhance public awareness of welfare issues faced by persons subject to service law and relevant family members;

(c) the resources used by the Commissioner in fulfilling its functions, and any further resources required.

(2) On receiving a report under this section, the Secretary of State must lay it before Parliament promptly and, in any event, before the end of 30 sitting days beginning with the day on which the report is received.

“Sitting day” means a day on which both Houses of Parliament sit.

(3) The Secretary of State may exclude from any report laid under this section any material the publication of which the Secretary of State considers—

(a) would be against the interests of national security;

(b) might jeopardise the safety of any person.

(4) With three months of the receipt of any report prepared by the Commissioner under this section, the Secretary of State must publish a response to the report which includes an overview of any measures taken or planned to be taken to address any resource issues identified by the Commissioner.’”

This amendment would require the Commissioner to publish an annual report on the work it had done to improve the welfare of service personnel and public awareness of welfare issues faced by service personnel and their families.

Amendment 5, in schedule 1, page 8, leave out lines 15 and 16 and insert—

“3 A relevant Parliamentary select committee will hold a pre-appointment hearing with the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate for Commissioner.

3A The select committee may hold a confirmatory vote on the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate for Commissioner.

3B Where a select committee has expressed a negative opinion on the appointment of the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate for Commissioner, the Secretary of State may not proceed with the appointment of that candidate without appearing before the select committee to address the concerns raised by the committee.

3C If the select committee maintains its negative opinion following the further appearance of the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State may not proceed with the appointment of that candidate.

3D Where a select committee has expressed a positive opinion on the appointment of the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate for Commissioner, including after a further appearance before the committee of the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State may recommend the appointment of the candidate to His Majesty.

3E The Commissioner is to be appointed by His Majesty on the recommendation of the Secretary of State.”

This amendment would mean that the Commissioner can only be appointed after appearing before a relevant select committee and obtaining its approval.

Amendment 3, page 10, line 39, at end insert—

“(3) The Secretary of State must ensure that the financial and practical assistance provided to the Commissioner is appropriate and sufficient to allow the Commissioner to carry out its functions.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to provide adequate financial and practical assistance to the Commissioner to enable it to carry out its functions. \p Helen Maguire: This is an is an important Bill, and one that I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues broadly welcome. However, we believe that it must go further. Before turning to the detail of our proposed changes, I want to acknowledge the significance of this legislation and the opportunity it presents to deliver meaningful change for the armed forces community. I thank the Minister and his team for all the hard work they have put into bringing the Bill to the House.

The Armed Forces Commissioner as proposed in the Bill will serve as an independent and vital advocate for service personnel and their families, reporting directly to Parliament. The role is long overdue. For too long, service personnel and their families have felt neglected, overlooked and unsupported. The commissioner’s remit will include addressing a wide range of issues from unacceptable behaviours and substandard housing to equipment concerns. The power to visit defence sites unannounced and commission reports is particularly welcome, as is the consolidation of the Service Complaints Ombudsman’s responsibilities into this more robust role.

The Liberal Democrats welcome those provisions as steps in the right direction, but steps alone are not enough. Delivering a fair deal for the armed forces community is not just morally right; it is a strategic imperative. Recruitment and retention challenges directly impact on national security. We cannot allow systemic neglect to erode the morale, trust and effectiveness of those who defend our nation.

Time and again, reports from reviews such as the Haythornthwaite and Atherton reviews have highlighted the failures of previous Governments, which include failures to provide decent housing and support service families adequately or to tackle issues such as discrimination and sexual harassment. Those are not new revelations; they are systemic problems that require a new approach.

The former Conservative Government failed to deliver for our armed forces. The Liberal Democrats will continue to call for a fair deal including strengthening the armed  forces covenant, ensuring that service accommodation is fit for purpose and delivering for those who put their lives on the line for our country. The Bill is an opportunity to begin addressing those issues comprehensively, and I am proud to propose amendments that would have it deliver for all members of the armed forces community.

New clause 1 seeks to extend the commissioner’s remit to include individuals going through the recruitment process. At present, the Bill excludes those individuals, but recruits can face challenges during that initial formative stage. Recruits can be asked to stay on bases overnight, and we cannot ignore that they may encounter issues during such trips. It is essential to understand those issues to retain recruits, as many currently drop out, which we assume is due to the long waits that they are currently experiencing but may stem from issues that we are unaware of. The new clause would ensure that support was available from the very start of their journey into the armed forces, not just after they sign on the dotted line.

Amendment 1 would address another critical omission. The Bill currently leaves the definition of “relevant family members” to the Government, which creates ambiguity and risks exclusion. The amendment would ensure that kinship carers and the family members of deceased service personnel were explicitly included. Those groups face unique challenges, and it is vital that they are not left behind.

The creation of the Armed Forces Commissioner is a positive development, but we need to ensure that the role is truly independent, adequately resourced and held to account for its actions. Several key issues must be addressed to guarantee the commissioner’s effectiveness. For the commissioner to function properly, they must have adequate financial and practical support. Without sufficient resources, they will struggle to fulfil their vital responsibilities. Amendment 3 would place a direct duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that the commissioner’s office is properly resourced—both financially and practically—to carry out its work effectively. That would ensure that the role would not be hampered by a lack of support.

Additionally, transparency and accountability are essential. If the commissioner is to be a meaningful advocate for service personnel and their families, their work must be open to scrutiny. Amendment 4 would require the commissioner to publish annual reports to Parliament, ensuring that their efforts are transparent and that they can be held accountable for their actions. Such reports would allow Parliament, the public and service personnel to understand the welfare issues faced by service personnel and their families.

To safeguard the commissioner’s independence and credibility further, amendment 5 would have their appointment subject to pre-appointment scrutiny by a parliamentary Select Committee. That process would allow Members of Parliament to ensure that the best person for the job is appointed. This person needs to be independent of Government influence and focused on the needs of the armed forces community. Such additional scrutiny would help safeguard the integrity of the role and ensure that it remains focused on the needs of the armed forces community.

Further, the armed forces covenant should be central to the commissioner’s work. The covenant is a fundamental framework that guides how we treat our service personnel  and their families, ensuring fairness and respect in all aspects of their lives. Amendment 7 would enshrine the covenant’s principles in the commissioner’s remit, ensuring that those values remain at the heart of their mission. Given that the covenant is at the heart of how we support our armed forces, it should be explicitly included in the Bill.

It is essential that we do not delay putting the Bill into action. That is why amendment 6 would require the Secretary of State to publish a timeframe for the appointment of the commissioner within six months of the passing of the Act. Our armed forces and their families need this service urgently and cannot wait around for years for action to be taken.

Following the damning findings of the Atherton and Etherton reports, it is clear that minority groups including women, ethnic minorities, LGBT+ personnel and non-UK nationals face systemic challenges within the armed forces. The Atherton report, published in 2021, focused on the experience of women in the armed forces. Four thousand female service personnel and veterans completed a survey to inform the inquiry, and shockingly 62% of respondents had been victims of bullying, discrimination, harassment or sexual assault during their service, sometimes at the hands of senior officers. It is unacceptable that women who serve in the armed forces too often face sexual harassment or misogyny.

That issue has not been adequately addressed, reflecting a lack of moral courage within parts of the armed forces, despite good intentions across the services. Amendment 2 would require the commissioner to take specific action to consider and address issues facing service personnel from minority groups: not only female service personnel but black, Asian and minority ethnic personnel, LGBT+ personnel and those not from the UK. That would be backed by annual reporting to ensure transparency and accountability. That is essential to ensure that all voices are heard and no one in the armed forces community is overlooked.

The Bill must be part of a wider effort to improve the quality of life of service personnel and their families. Housing, for instance, remains a persistent issue. Decent housing is not a privilege but a right, and service families deserve homes that are safe, comfortable and fit for purpose. Just last week in the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) tabled an amendment to the Renters’ Rights Bill that would have extended the decent homes standard to Ministry of Defence service family accommodation, ensuring that all members of the armed forces would have the living standards they deserve. I was beyond disappointment when the Government voted it down.

The Bill represents progress, but it is not the finished article. Although I do not wish to press new clause 1 to a vote, our proposed changes are about fairness, accountability and doing right by all those who serve and their families. Let us seize this moment to deliver real and lasting change for the armed forces community. They have given so much for us; it is time that we gave back to them. \p Tan Dhesi: I rise primarily to address amendment 5, just referred to by the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen  Maguire), which would directly impact the role of the Defence Committee, which I have the honour and privilege of chairing.

Amendment 5 would enshrine in law an enhanced version of Select Committee pre-appointment scrutiny. That is significant because, in most cases, such scrutiny is a matter of political agreement rather than legislation. The Government have committed to pre-appointment scrutiny by the Defence Committee for the preferred candidate for Armed Forces Commissioner. That mirrors the existing arrangement for the Service Complaints Ombudsman, which is the only defence-related post currently subject to that form of scrutiny. The Defence Committee last conducted such a hearing in December 2024 for the current ombudsman.

It is likely that our scrutiny of the Armed Forces Commissioner candidate will be both our first and final pre-appointment hearing in this Parliament. Let me clarify the purpose of pre-appointment scrutiny. It aims to examine the quality of ministerial decision making and appointments, assure the public that key public appointments are merit-based, demonstrate the candidate’s independence of mind and bolster the appointee’s legitimacy in their role. It is crucial to understand that this process does not replicate the recruitment process—we cannot assess the candidate pool or suggest alternatives. Our primary task is to evaluate how the preferred candidate performs under public scrutiny. \p Mike Martin: Does the Chair of the Defence Committee agree that it is a question not merely of scrutiny but of approval? If the Committee, which he so ably chairs, decides that the persons brought before them are not fit for that role, is it not up to the Secretary of State to find somebody else who can obtain the approval of Committee? \p Tan Dhesi: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. He has made a massive impact on the workings of the Defence Committee, of which he is a member. I will directly address the issue that he raises very shortly—patience is a virtue.

In the Public Bill Committee, the Minister for the Armed Forces stated that our scrutiny should be vigorous and thorough. I assure the House that, given appropriate time and opportunity, it will be exactly that. The Minister also expressed expectations in Committee for our scrutiny to go above and beyond the current process. I seek clarity on that point: how do the Government envisage the Defence Committee exceeding the current process without procedural changes? I would appreciate it if the Minister could elaborate on that. Do the Government have specific proposals to enable us to go above and beyond?

My second question for the Government is about implementation—the subject of amendment 6. Following a pre-appointment hearing, the Defence Committee will recommend either appointing or rejecting the preferred candidate. For this process to be meaningful, the implementation plan must account for the possibility, however remote, of the Secretary of State facing a negative Committee opinion, as the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) has just alluded to. The Service Complaints Ombudsman has informed us that,  under current legislation, casework processing halts without an ombudsman in post. We must avoid a scenario where rejecting a candidate would so severely impact service personnel, the ombudsman team and the broader transition that approval would become the only viable option. I seek assurances that this consideration is already part of implementation planning, so I hope that the Minister will elaborate on that point.

The ombudsman also raised broader transition concerns in her evidence to the Defence Committee just last week. I trust that the Minister is aware of these issues and is addressing them seriously. Other amendments address the commissioner’s independence, which the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell alluded to, minority group experiences in the armed forces and the commissioner’s remit. These echo questions that our Committee has raised with the Secretary of State in our published correspondence. I hope that the Government will carefully consider these points, regardless of whether they accept the amendments.

I eagerly await the Minister’s responses to my two questions: how does he expect the Defence Committee to go above and beyond the current pre-appointment scrutiny process, and will he assure the House that the implementation plan accommodates the possibility of needing to extend the recruitment process, and will not be put at risk if the Defence Committee recommends against appointing a candidate? \p David Chadwick: I stand to speak to amendment 2 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire). As the Member of Parliament for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe, I am proud to represent a constituency with a deep and enduring military history. It is home to Brecon barracks, the headquarters of the British Army in Wales, and 160th (Welsh) Brigade, alongside the Sennybridge training area, where thousands of British service members train in the Brecon Beacons.

My constituency is also home to a vibrant Nepalese community made up of former Gurkha soldiers and their families—an integral part of our community’s fabric. Gurkhas, renowned across the world for their bravery, professionalism and humility, have called the Brecon area home for over 50 years. They settled here during their distinguished service in the British Army and have since become an invaluable pillar of our local society. In fact, Brecon is now proudly twinned with Dhampus in Nepal, symbolising the bond between our two nations.

However, it is the past treatment of Gurkhas in the UK that compels me to support this amendment. Despite their service to the United Kingdom, the Gurkhas have faced significant discrimination for many decades. Many will remember the Gurkha justice campaign, which gained momentum thanks to the tireless efforts of Dame Joanna Lumley and the support of the Liberal Democrats under Nick Clegg. Through that campaign, a crucial parliamentary vote was won to grant all Gurkha veterans the right to reside in the UK, despite opposition from the Labour Government of the time.

However, it was not only residency rights on which the Gurkhas faced discrimination. They faced inadequate support after leaving active service, receiving less pay  than their British counterparts for the same jobs, and many were deprived of fair pensions. Even today, veterans who served before 1997 continue to struggle for equal recognition and treatment. It is my firm belief that amendment 2—especially the call for the Armed Forces Commissioner to produce annual reports on the challenges faced by specific groups and to establish mechanisms for community engagement—will help ensure that no group ever again has to suffer injustice like the Gurkhas did. I urge all Members to join me in supporting this vital amendment. \p Luke Akehurst: I rise primarily to talk about amendment 2, tabled by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire). It was an honour to serve on the Bill Committee. I would have spoken to the amendment had it been tabled in Committee— I think a timetabling issue meant that it could not be.

There is already a public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010 that would apply to the commissioner. When the commissioner undertakes their reports, they will be bound by that duty to have due regard to the different minority groups that form the armed forces and their families. More specific thematic reports about issues faced by minorities in the armed forces ought to be a matter for the commissioner to decide.

As someone with a disability, I am perturbed by the absence of disabled people from the list of minorities that is cited. That is the problem when amendments are tabled with a prescriptive list of different minority groups: some can be missed out, and some can be made to feel that their concerns might be more valued than others. It is not completely incompatible with service in the armed forces to have a disability—clearly, some physical disabilities make service on the frontline difficult, but there are other roles that people legally defined or self-identifying as having a disability might be able to serve in. Indeed, the most famous admiral in the Royal Navy’s history was Horatio Nelson, who had two disabilities: he had one arm and one eye. It is unfortunate to have gone for a prescriptive listing, and unnecessary, for the reasons that I set out at the start of my remarks.

I will not detain the House with my take on the other amendments, as I am sure other hon. Members will wish to come in on them. However, my general assessment would be that the amendments that have been tabled are well intentioned but unnecessary, because the Bill already deals with the concerns they raise. \p Jim Allister: It is good to see the Armed Forces Commissioner put on a statutory basis, and to see the functions set out and see how the staff, though perhaps not directly recruited, can be provided for the commissioner. All that is good, but it causes me to ask why, if we are making that provision for the serving members of our armed forces, are we not making a parallel statutory provision for our veterans? Why is it right to have a statutory basis for the Armed Forces Commissioner, but not for the various veterans commissioners? Surely, if it is right for serving members, it must equally be right to have a statutory basis setting out the functions and ensuring staff provision for the veterans commissioners. I take the case of the part of the United Kingdom that I know best: in Northern Ireland, we have a part-time, term-appointed veterans commissioner for two days a week, effectively, with two staff seconded from the Northern Ireland Office, who is  charged with looking after all the interests of the very many thousands of veterans that we unsurprisingly have in Northern Ireland.

I ask again, if it is right to have a commissioner on a statutory basis for serving soldiers, why is that not the case for veterans? It would be not only a significant step forward in itself, but a significant nod to how we value our veterans community if we were to give them equality of treatment on this issue. I think that is very important. Without the role being on a statutory basis, a part-time, term-appointed veterans commissioner with seconded staff has his hands tied behind his back, frankly.

In Northern Ireland, because this Government are going to repeal the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, we are moving back into a phase where we may see many veterans from incidents 50 years ago dragged through our courts. We have a veterans commissioner with no standing to intervene in the multiple judicial reviews that take place on those issues and no standing to take any official line on any of that. If we were to put the veterans commissioner on a statutory basis, with the available funding, there would be a role to be performed—and not just on that specific issue, but perhaps if there was a challenging judicial that touched on veterans’ issues. Why should the veterans commissioner not be a notified and intervening party in such proceedings? I think he should. \p Robin Swann: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman share the concern that the staff of the Northern Ireland veterans commissioner are appointed by the Northern Ireland Office, as is the commissioner? Does he agree that the commissioner having the freedom, independence and ability to challenge the Government with force and vigour, and without having to continually look over their shoulder at what may be perceived as oversight from the NIO, would actually strengthen that role? \p Jim Allister: I absolutely agree. It is one of the strengths of the Bill that it purports to give independence to the Armed Forces Commissioner, but that means there is all the more need for the veterans commissioner to have the same independence. All the veterans commissioner has is two staff, whom he does not choose—not that there is anything wrong with those staff; they are very good. However, they are not appointed by his office; they are hand-picked by the NIO and seconded to him. If all he has is two staff he has not chosen, it creates the wrong perception, and very often that is enough to do damage to an office.

I therefore take the opportunity of this debate to say that what we are doing for the Armed Forces Commissioner is good, but let us mirror it in what we do for our veterans. \p Mark Francois: The relationship between the Armed Forces Commissioner and veterans cropped up several times in Committee, and I commend new clause 2, on this subject, to the hon. and learned Gentleman. He will know that the former Northern Ireland veterans commissioner recently resigned in part because he had concerns about the constraints on his independence to carry out his role, which concerns Members on the Conservative Benches. Does that concern the hon. and learned Gentleman as well? \p Jim Allister: It does. When a former Member of this House with Army experience, Mr Danny Kinahan, was appointed veterans commissioner, great expectations were placed on his shoulders. Sadly, as the right hon. Gentleman says, among the reasons proffered for leaving his role, Mr Kinahan stated that he felt his freedom of action was impinged on by the Northern Ireland Office. Be that right or be that wrong, the perception that such an office holder would have those restraints placed on them does untold damage to that office.

As I have in the past, I pay tribute to Mr Kinahan for his service in that role. I also wish well his recently appointed successor, Mr David Johnstone, whom I had the privilege of meeting last week. I trust that as he takes forward the work of representing veterans, he will find himself unrestrained. However, this Government could put all that beyond doubt by putting the veterans commissioner on the same statutory footing as the Armed Forces Commissioner. \p Andrew Murrison: I join the hon. and learned Gentleman in paying tribute to Danny Kinahan; as a Minister who had some dealings with him, I would certainly say he did a very good job indeed. I wish his successor all the very best. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledge that the previous Government actually went one step further by appointing a Minister for Veterans’ Affairs of Cabinet rank—a very experienced individual—which this Government have failed to replicate? \p Jim Allister: That is true. However, they failed to take the step I am now advocating of putting the veterans commissioner on a statutory footing. This Government can go one better and do the right thing for veterans, and I trust that they will. I do support new clause 2; I think it is a step in the right direction, but it is not enough. We need to offer our retired servicemen the facilities we are offering our serving servicemen. \p Robin Swann: The Ulster Unionist party would support new clause 2. I, too, pay tribute to my predecessor as Ulster Unionist MP for South Antrim, Mr Kinahan, for the work that he did in this place and continued to do for veterans. I also wish David Johnstone well.

The right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) made a point about the position of Veterans Minister. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there is an opportunity for the Veterans Minister to be responsible for appointing the veterans commissioner for Northern Ireland, rather than the NIO, and that there may be a segregation of perception with regard to some of the concerns that our veterans community would have? \p Jim Allister: That is a fair point. In truth, our veterans community, as they see some of their brethren facing historic investigation, align the genesis and support for that investigation with the NIO. Therefore, it certainly would be better, both in presentation and in reality, if there was that distance between the veterans commissioner and the NIO. \p Graeme Downie: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it is to  the discredit of the Opposition that they do not even have a shadow Veterans Minister who could bring up the issues he is raising? \p Jim Allister: If there is a failing on the Opposition Benches, then all the greater opportunity and need for the Government to make good on that. I trust that they will do that. I am not here to mediate between the two sides of this House! \p Mark Francois: For the record, I am the shadow Veterans Minister. I am the shadow Armed Forces Minister and I do a bit of procurement on the side as well. We do take veterans very seriously on the Conservative Benches, but, as I will say later on, if I am lucky enough to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not sure the Government do. \p Jim Allister: I will leave the two sides of the House to sort out their differences. All I am interested in is that the veterans in my community have the best opportunity and the best service. With the best will in the world, yes, we have, and have had, good veterans commissioners, but they cannot do the job so long as their hands are tied behind their backs. Let us unleash them and see a basis on which they can properly perform their functions. \p Leigh Ingham: I would like to put forward my strongest support for the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill. This legislation marks a significant step forward in ensuring that our armed forces personnel receive the care and support they deserve.

As the Member of Parliament for Stafford, I am acutely aware of the challenges faced by many of our service personnel and veterans. In my constituency, about 5.5% of residents are veterans, in addition to just under 1,000 serving personnel. For years, we have needed a national focus on the needs of serving personnel. By establishing an independent voice to investigate welfare matters, we can ensure that serving personnel have a dedicated champion who is able to bring their concerns to the forefront.

I am very pleased that the Bill will address long-standing issues in the current complaints process by transferring powers from the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces to the new commissioner. That will provide serving personnel and their families with a much-needed avenue to address their grievances. That will make a huge difference for some of my constituents. I know that the Government are laser-focused on supporting our serving personnel and their families, and that this is only one step in our plans to change the lives of those who serve and who have served, and of their families.

I want to speak briefly to amendment 2, to which my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) spoke earlier, which specifies that the commissioner must engage with certain groups. I would have thought that to be expected as part of the role, so specifying them, as he rightly pointed out, makes the mistake of sometimes missing groups. I suggest that there is no need to divide the House on this issue, as it would be expected of any commissioner.

The Bill is about much more than policies and procedures. It is about recognising the immense sacrifices made by our service personnel, and providing them with the support they deserve and a healthier culture in which to serve our country. I commend the Government for  taking that step for all regiments across the country—not just those based in Stafford. I urge all Members to support this vital legislation for our serving soldiers and serving personnel. It is only by supporting them that we can support the veterans of the future. \p Pam Cox: It was a pleasure to serve on the Bill Committee and to have the opportunity to hear from representatives of military charities and armed forces families organisations, as well as from the current Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces. I have also had the chance to discuss the Bill and the proposed amendments with representatives of our armed forces community in my constituency of Colchester, which is home to 16 Air Assault Brigade Combat Team and many veterans’ organisations. I also raised the Bill with the many people I met on fantastically insightful visits to Army facilities around the country as a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme—I thoroughly recommend that scheme to other Members—and today, I had the pleasure of meeting e50K, a defence-led community interest company supporting armed forces families navigating the challenges of service and civilian life.

There is a significant opportunity for the Bill to create a positive step change in the relationship between the defence community and the organisations currently in place to support it. My conversations with the various groups suggest that the current situation is that for advocacy, policy and complaints, there are multiple restrictions on what issues can be raised and how they can be raised. There is a need to change the current mindset of concern within the defence community about raising an issue without experiencing repercussions in terms of career progression and the chain of command. Regardless of whether that is the reality, it is the perception of many service families.

The Armed Forces Commissioner will change that by creating a new chance for the defence community to advocate for real change to meet their needs. Crucially, it will do that by reducing barriers and fostering a culture of being listened to, rather than being done to. It can only do that, however, if it is an independent office. My concern about the amendments is that, although they were considered and tabled in good faith, they have the potential to undermine the independence of the commissioner. It is that independence which is so vital.

I am very proud to support the Bill, and of the impact it will have in my constituency of Colchester and across the country for the future of our armed forces community. \p Lincoln Jopp: I rise to speak primarily in support of amendment 8, but I will also give some broader reflections on the Bill.

We all need to be very clear that the welfare of service personnel is the responsibility of the military chain of command. No other supernumerary bureaucratic organisation can take that responsibility away from the chain of command. Personally, I am concerned that the Bill has the potential to undermine the authority of the chain of command, and I will expand on that theme. However, I also agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) that we have seen too many examples of service personnel being poorly treated in their service. If it were not for the fact  that that was the case, arguably we would not have had a need for the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces and, now, for the Armed Forces Commissioner.

Having said that welfare is the responsibility of the chain of command, amendment 8 makes it very clear that ensuring a separation between the authority of that chain of command and the independence of the Armed Forces Commissioner will be critical. As I understand it, the provenance of the Bill was that the Government thought the remit of the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces was too narrow, so they have added in the responsibility for welfare.

Welfare is a very broad word. It means quite a lot to quite a lot of different people. For some people, it means housing. For others, it means education. It can mean myriad things. We know that, because General Rommel commented that the best form of welfare is better training, because better training makes for fewer widows. That is the way Rommel saw welfare. As I am mentioning Germany, the model for the commissioner is the German armed forces commissioner, which is there to ensure that the inalienable rights of the German armed forces are not impinged on by the giving of illegal orders. That is its sole remit, yet it has grown. In 40 years, it has never had a case where it has found that a member of the German armed forces has been given an illegal order, yet that organisation has grown to a staff of over 60, and its main areas of recommendation and concern are to do with equipment. \p Jacob Collier: The German armed forces commissioner was the inspiration for the Bill, but the Government’s proposed commissioner is quite different. The German commissioner sits effectively as a Member of Parliament, and has parliamentary staff. Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman not see the difference between the German legislation and this Bill? \p Lincoln Jopp: I do acknowledge that important difference. I think that amendment 8 seeks to enhance and strengthen the independence of the Armed Forces Commissioner from the chain of command, and I commend it to the hon. Gentleman.

The German armed forces commissioner finds herself reporting and making recommendations on matters such as equipment and undermanning—matters that are well beyond the inalienable human rights of German service personnel not to be given an illegal order. My watchword is that, untrammelled, this proposal will grow arms and legs. Not only have we widened it to cover welfare, which, as I have argued, is very broadly interpretable, but we are giving the Armed Forces Commissioner an “access all areas” pass. We have enabled members of armed forces families—wider families—to be in touch with the commissioner, something that the German model does not follow. While I support amendment 8 and the chain of command, I am glad that I have had the opportunity to put my views on record. \p Luke Akehurst: The tone of the hon. and gallant Gentleman’s remarks suggests that he does not really support the thrust of the Bill, and is extremely sceptical about the potential areas of involvement of the Armed Forces Commissioner per se. Having heard what was said from the Opposition Front Bench in Committee,  I was under the impression that there was consensus across the House in favour of the thrust of the Bill and that today we would be talking about nuance and detail, so I seek reassurance from the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he does in fact support the need for an Armed Forces Commissioner. \p Lincoln Jopp: I think the hon. Member will recall from his time on the Bill Committee that the Front-Bench spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), referred to us as fulfilling the role of critical friend. \p James Cartlidge: Exactly. \p Lincoln Jopp: I offer these comments as a critical friend. I think it important for people listening to this debate and referring to our proceedings at a later time to realise that, utterly untrammelled, these measures will generate a bureaucracy all of their own. We do not wish this to be a good idea that we have in peacetime that becomes a massive hindrance as we approach a period of conflict. \p Graeme Downie: I congratulate the new Government on introducing the Bill so early in their term. It was a pleasure to serve on the Committee, along with friends on both sides of the House, and to hear from the existing Service Complaints Ombudsman as well as from charities such as Poppy Scotland and the Royal British Legion. I thank the Clerks and Committee staff who helped and supported me, as a new Member serving for the first time on a Committee of that kind. It was particularly positive to hear the strong cross-party consensus in favour of the Bill, which was supported by both the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), and the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), although, like my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), I feared that the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) did not support it. I hope that that is not the case. I should add that I did not expect to be discussing the difference between the powers and political structures of the United States Senate and those of this Parliament with the shadow Minister, but it was very interesting and enjoyable.

I understand the need, in fact the duty, of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition to scrutinise legislation properly, but I hope that after today’s debate on the amendments, the House will speak with one voice in support of the Bill and there will be no need for Divisions. This Government have already shown their commitment to our armed forces by awarding the largest pay rise in over 20 years, tackling recruitment by removing outdated policies, and boosting retention through £8,000 payments to certain Army personnel and £30,000 to for some aircraft engineers. They are also doing more to support veterans. It was a pleasure to welcome the Veterans Minister to my constituency last week, where he visited Bravehound and Ghost Force K9, organisations run by veterans to support other veterans’ mental health through the walking and training of dogs.

The problems that the Bill seeks to begin to tackle are well known: 14 years of our armed forces being hollowed out and underfunded by the Conservative Government,  and, in Scotland, an SNP Government with seemingly little interest in supporting serving personnel for their own petty political reasons, and failing even to properly recognise the role of the Scottish defence industry in our national economy. It is noticeable that once again, as we debate an issue that will affected armed forces personnel in Scotland, no SNP Members are present. We have a crisis in military morale and recruitment. Under the last Government, only four in 10 personnel reported that they were satisfied with service life, the lowest reported level on record. The impact on family life and personal life was the top factor influencing their decision to leave. Meanwhile, we live in an increasingly unstable world in which it seems more and more likely that our armed forces will be needed to play further roles around the world.

The Bill seeks to build on and expand the role of the Service Complaints Ombudsman. That will allow the new commissioner to continue to respond on, and help with, specific issues, but crucially it will also enable him or her to conduct wider inquiries, and to investigate issues that affect general service welfare, including those affecting families. All that will be critical to the future success of our armed forces. The commissioner must be independent and free from Government interference, and must present a report to Parliament annually. I suspect that Ministers will not look forward to that event, as they will rightly be held to account not only by the commissioner but Members from all parts of the House, and indeed the public.

Let me address some of the amendments, and explain why I believe that the Bill should proceed unamended, following a constructive Committee stage. Amendment 10, proposed by the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), seeks to specify further the role of the commissioner. Although I believe that it is well intentioned, being overly prescriptive in the Bill risks inadvertently compromising the independence of the commissioner, which will be vital to his or her success. In Committee, I raised that issue with Angela Kitching from the Royal British Legion, who felt that the term “general welfare” was sufficiently understood in the military, so I do not believe that we should seek to be more prescriptive than that.

Indeed, amendments 8 and 10, both in the name of the hon. Member for South Suffolk, appear contradictory, with amendment 8 seeking additional measures to cement independence from the Government, while amendment 10 would dilute that independence by adding unnecessary prescription. Moreover, we know that the issues the commissioner will seek to investigate will change and evolve over time, and I do not think it helpful to have that level of prescription in the Bill evermore, or until it is amended by primary legislation. \p Matt Rodda: My hon. Friend is making an excellent point about both independence and the need for flexibility. Does he agree that the recently discovered serious problems with service housing might have been addressed better and sooner if there had been an independent figure whom service families as well as serving members of armed forces could approach? \p Graeme Downie: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Housing issues are critical to ensuring that we recruit and retain the personnel we will require for the success that we want our armed forces to have. \p Andrew Murrison: Given the support that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) have expressed for improvements in service housing, which must be one of the principal issues affecting the welfare of serving members of armed forces, what is the hon. Gentleman’s objection to amendment 10? Given what he has said, I should have thought that he would be fully supportive of it. \p Graeme Downie: I agree that housing is one of the issues that the commissioner will want to consider, and I hope that they will, in Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom, but I do not think it helpful to be prescriptive. We must ensure that the commissioner is fully independent and can determine their own priorities, and we should not seek to place requirements on them. Otherwise, Parliament will be dictating to them what they should do. I believe that they—and their staff, appointed through the appointments process—will be more than capable of doing that for themselves.

Amendment 6, tabled by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, seeks to impose a timescale for the implementation of the Bill. I am sure that the Minister, like other Members, wants to see the commissioner begin their new and expanded role as quickly as possible, but it is important that this be done fully and correctly. In Committee, I asked Mariette Hughes, the Service Complaints Ombudsman, how staff would cope with the additional powers that are being transferred. It was positive to hear that staff were excited about the new powers and believed them to be necessary; that is a sign that the legislation is both needed and framed correctly. On timescales, Mariette Hughes said that

“there needs to be a significant scoping period to determine how many staff will be required and what the budget will look like.”––[Official Report, Armed Forces Commissioner Public Bill Committee, 10 December 2024; c. 6, Q6.]

Amendment 10 seeks to rush that process, and risks losing the good will within the ombudsman’s team. I come back to the importance of independence, and my belief that there must be a culture of independence from the beginning, without artificial deadlines or criteria being imposed. I know the Minister wants to move as quickly as possible with this legislation while ensuring its effectiveness, and I ask him to comment on the timescale, but I do not believe that the amendment is required.

I turn to an issue that I raised on Second Reading and again in Committee, and which is mentioned in new clause 2: relationships with veterans commissioners and the devolved Administrations. Given that I was the only Scottish Member on the Public Bill Committee, ensuring that this legislation is effective for my constituents is one of my key concerns. When I asked Mariette Hughes about this issue in Committee, she was incredibly practical and clearly focused on the need to solve problems with the devolved Administrations, rather than taking a heavy-handed approach. In my view, her approach is correct. She said that she would work

“with the devolved Administrations…sit round the table and talk about whose job it is to take this forward, because we can all agree that this is what needs to happen for people.”––[Official Report, Armed Forces Commissioner Public Bill Committee, 10 December 2024; c. 6, Q7.]

In Committee, I asked the Minister about housing, which has been discussed. I was reassured by his response that

“if the commissioner was looking at housing in a Scottish context, you would expect them to make recommendations to the Scottish Government.”––[Official Report, Armed Forces Commissioner Public Bill Committee, 10 December 2024; c. 68, Q108.]

That is the kind of constructive scrutiny that I would like to see, and I feel that new clause 2 is heavy-handed in its dealing with the devolved Administrations. An annual report will be presented to this House; I am sure that MSP colleagues of all political parties, as well as Scottish MPs, will be quick to hold a Scottish Government of any political stripe to account when recommendations are made to them.

New clause 2 does not take account of the fact that the power to tackle issues such as housing lies not with veterans commissioners, or even with the Scottish Government, but with local councils, which are even closer to communities. I know that the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, abhors central control from a distant place, so I am sure that he will agree that seeking to control housing policy in Fife or Moray from London is not appropriate. I urge Members to reject new clause 2.

As I said, the fact that the Government brought forward this legislation so early on and the other positive steps that have been taken to support our armed forces and veterans show the commitment of the Labour party and this Government to supporting both. I hope that we can maintain the positive tone of discussions on the Bill to date, and that we can speak with one voice this evening and pass this legislation without amendment. \p Marie Rimmer: May I say how delighted I am to see the introduction of a commissioner for our armed forces and veterans? It is badly needed, and I am sure that the commissioner will be appreciated and will make vast improvements to the welfare of our people.

I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), for tabling new clause 1, because we have volunteers in the Territorial Army who are highly respected and valued, yet they get rejected when they apply to the Army. They do not feel that they are given any explanation of why they are not accepted by the armed forces, and new clause 1 would address that. It is really bad for morale when people do not get told exactly why they have not been accepted. I truly welcome this Bill. \p Jacob Collier: I rise to lend my full support to this Bill, and I will shortly speak to the amendments in the name of the Opposition. The Bill represents a long-overdue step towards supporting the welfare and rights of service personnel and their families. I have a brother in our armed forces, and I am grateful to have a Government who recognise the value of being challenged to deliver more for our service personnel and for military families like mine. The introduction of the Armed Forces Commissioner is an opportunity to provide independent and robust oversight to ensure that we in this place, and all parts of Government, do right by all who serve.

Our nation and its armed forces are inseparable. In Burton and Uttoxeter, we have so many military families like mine; we feel immense pride in the service of our loved ones. At a moment’s notice, they stand ready to protect our nation and all that we hold dear. Regardless of whether it is a soldier posted overseas, a sailor  patrolling distant waters or a pilot protecting our skies, their wellbeing, and that of their families, should be at the heart of any Government policy. This Bill achieves precisely that by establishing an independent Armed Forces Commissioner who can investigate, advocate and hold the system to account. The commissioner will not just respond to complaints, but proactively examine the issues affecting service life, from housing and healthcare to the transition to civilian life and the schooling of service children. The role will deliver real improvements, and it will challenge this Parliament and this Government, so I hope that those on the Front Bench are fully prepared for that.

I am mindful of amendments 9 and 10. Although their intentions may be laudable, I think they miss the point. Amendment 9 proposes that the commissioner’s remit explicitly include pensions and death-in-service benefits for serving and former members of the armed forces. That might seem fair at first glance, but I am firmly of the view that the amendment is unnecessary and risks undermining the effectiveness of the commissioner’s work. As defined by the Bill, the commissioner’s role is already expansive, covering the full spectrum of welfare concerns for service personnel and their families.

Amendment 9 risks narrowing the commissioner’s focus, and could lead to a disproportionate allocation of time and resources to one area at the expense of other pressing welfare concerns. The commissioner must have the freedom to determine their priorities, based on the evidence that they receive from service personnel, veterans and their families. The commissioner’s work should not be restrained by this Parliament prescribing specific areas of focus, no matter how good its intentions. Let us trust that the Bill gives the commissioner the independence that they require to do the job effectively. To prescribe excessively is to risk diluting the authority and focus of this legislation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) said. He was bang on the money, if the House pardons the pun.

Similarly, amendment 10 seeks to explicitly include issues affecting children, family and dependants. Although I fully recognise the importance of supporting the families of our service personnel, this amendment raises several concerns. The commissioner’s role is already designed to allow them to advocate comprehensively for the welfare of service families. There is no doubt that issues such as education allowances, special needs tuition and housing fall squarely within that remit. The commissioner must have the flexibility to address the full spectrum of welfare issues, and must not be bound by a rigid checklist dictated by this House. We must trust that the commissioner will engage with service families effectively, without Parliament micromanaging their work. I am sure that all of us in this House have topics that we would want the commissioner to focus on, but the point is that it is not up to us.

This Bill represents progress, and a move towards ensuring that our military personnel and their families feel heard, valued and supported. It sends a clear message that their voice matters, that their welfare matters and that their service to our country is not taken for granted. We on these Benches have consistently supported measures that champion the rights and wellbeing of all those who  serve. The Armed Forces Commissioner Bill aligns with those values, and I urge colleagues to wholeheartedly support it tonight. \p Phil Brickell: It is a pleasure to speak in support of the Bill. I came into politics to improve people’s lives, and I believe that the introduction of an Armed Forces Commissioner will do just that by providing a voice to members of our armed forces community who have been ignored for far too long. As the Prime Minister said during the King’s Speech debate last year, this is not just a “name or a role”; it is a way in which we can show our respect for those who have committed their lives to the ultimate service. Indeed, my own father served as a gunner in the Royal Artillery, taking him to Northern Ireland, Germany, Cyprus and Canada, so I have some idea of the sacrifice made by our servicemen and women and their families. This is yet another instance of this Government delivering on their promises. We made a manifesto commitment to strengthen support for our armed forces personnel and the families who support them by establishing an independent Armed Forces Commissioner, and here we are now, getting on with it.

The simple fact is that the current system is broken after 14 years of the Conservatives regrettably burying their heads in the sand. No one should have to live in damp housing or use food banks to get by, least of all the families of our brave armed forces. We know that, sadly, only four in 10 service personnel say that they are satisfied with service life in general. We will all be conscious of the shocking reports of the experiences of female personnel in particular over recent years. These are totally unacceptable, so I was reassured to see the former Member for Wrexham, who chaired a Defence Committee inquiry into women in the armed forces, express her support for the Bill. \p Sarah Dyke: Amendment 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), would ensure that the commissioner published annual reports to outline what was being done to support minority groups in the armed forces. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the amendment would ensure that the commissioner was an important tool in helping to achieve the target of women accounting for 30% of armed forces personnel recruited by 2030? \p Phil Brickell: I thank the hon. Member for her contribution, but I will not be supporting that amendment. I hope that we will be able to pass the Bill unamended, and I will defer to the Minister to address that question directly.

I echo the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) about the independence of the commissioner, and particularly his comments on amendment 6. We live in a dangerous world, so when it comes to the men and women who are tasked with keeping us safe, we must ensure that we return the favour by making sure that they are treated with respect. We should not delude ourselves by seeing the Armed Forces Commissioner as a silver bullet. I welcome this Government’s commitment to a new  strengthened armed forces covenant, which would enshrine in law the respect due to members and former members of our military.

As many Members know, the military estate’s houses, barracks and other facilities are in an appalling condition and, frankly, unfit to house many of our servicemen and women and their families. I welcome measures from the Government to conduct a medium to long-term review, but I would simply urge Ministers not to kick the can down the road on an issue that has persisted for far, far too long. Financial wellbeing, gaps in medical discharge processes, mental health support failures—there is a lot to do, but the initial signs are good.

As secretary of the all-party parliamentary group on Germany and someone with a number of family members in Germany, I would like to note that this position has been modelled on its long-established and successful German counterpart, as the hon. and gallant Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) rightly mentioned. It is refreshing to see a Government seeking to improve life in the UK by drawing inspiration from the successful policies of our closest allies in Europe. I sincerely hope that we can pass the Bill today to provide the support our military personnel and their families so urgently deserve. \p Calvin Bailey: The Armed Forces Commissioner Bill stands as a critical piece of legislation that will establish an independent champion for our servicemen and women, as well as their families. The Bill fulfils a manifesto commitment and represents a significant step forward in renewing our nation’s contract with those who serve us, so it is positive to see its continued and rapid progression into law. Today, our Opposition colleagues have tabled a number of amendments, and I want to speak to several of them in turn. On new clause 1, the Government are implementing measures to address our current challenges with recruitment and retention. Expanding the commissioner’s scope to include all applicants could overwhelm the office and detract from its core mission of supporting current service personnel and their families.

The previous Conservative Government hollowed out and underfunded our armed forces. Morale in the military is at a record low, and we are facing a recruitment and retention crisis. Many of those who want to join our armed forces wait far too long, and the Government are committed to fixing this through measures such as the new 10-30 provision, under which applicants will be given a provisional offer to join the armed forces within 10 days of applying, and a provisional start date within 30 days. \p Lincoln Jopp: The hon. Member describes morale as being at an all-time low. Last week, along with a number of colleagues from the Defence Committee, we both had the opportunity to visit RAF Lossiemouth, where we saw a range of service personnel at the top of their game. I am intrigued to know whether he would characterise their morale as being at an all-time low, or whether he thinks the election of a Labour Government in July has had the rapid effect he describes. \p Calvin Bailey: The hon. and gallant Member is correct that we visited RAF Lossiemouth last week, where we saw people at the top of their game, doing what servicepeople do, which is coping, doing their job and  putting a brave face on things. However, the continuous attitude survey shows the stress behind those things. The service they are, to some degree, enduring could be made better. Although servicepeople put a good face on their morale when we see them, that does not mean our services are in the buoyant state they could be. \p Luke Akehurst: Does my hon. and gallant Friend agree that an easy way to measure morale is through retention rates? We are not recruiting and retaining armed forces personnel to the degree we would wish. Part of the motivation for introducing this Bill to address general service welfare issues—I am making sure that I use the correct language about what the Armed Forces Commissioner role covers—is to have an operational impact by making it easier to recruit people to the armed forces. And once we train them at great expense, we must retain them for the longest possible period of viable service. \p Calvin Bailey: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. We do not expect service personnel to stand up and openly tell us their problems, as that is part of what makes them resilient. The important thing about having an Armed Forces Commissioner is that they can see through that. The gallant Members of this House will be able to see through those things, and it would be wrong to politicise what people present of themselves during our visits, rather than what we would like them to make known, for political gain.

The truth, as my hon. Friend makes perfectly clear, is that we are not doing a very good job of recruiting and retaining personnel. The objection to new clause 1 is that it is important to focus on the specific needs that will enable us to have better recruitment and retention, because that is where we are failing. Perhaps that is why the hon. and gallant Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) is now in this House, rather than continuing his illustrious career.

The Government have also introduced a new cyber pathway to bring the best and brightest into our armed forces and to rebuild our defences for the future, particularly given the grey zone threats from Russia about which the Select Committee heard evidence this morning. This is also positive, but with 150,000 applicants attempting to join the military at any one time, if all those individuals were brought under the scope of the commissioner, as would happen if the new clause were enacted, that would vastly increase the commissioner’s workload and, ultimately, impact their efficiency and effectiveness. In proposing the new clause, Conservative Members are attempting to address a genuine problem, but I have concerns that, in practice, it could mean that service personnel and their families would not get the attention they rightly need.

On new clause 2, while the Armed Forces Commissioner’s role is focused on serving personnel, the Government are implementing a broader strategy of support for the entire armed forces community, including veterans, through various initiatives and legal protections. All veterans, including those sitting on the Opposition Benches, make an important contribution to our communities and our armed forces. However, the Armed Forces Commissioner’s remit is purposefully defined narrowly to focus on issues currently impacting service personnel and their families. That allows the commissioner to effectively address  immediate concerns facing those in uniform, including some of those that most concern me and most seriously affect retention for women and people from ethnic minorities, such as bullying and harassment.

The Bill is just one step in Labour’s plans to renew the nation’s contract with those who serve and have served, and their families. Our Government are committed to strengthening support for the entire armed forces community, recognising that the issue of veteran support is distinct from those issues addressed by the Bill. The Government are working to fully incorporate the armed forces covenant into law, ensuring fairness and respect to veterans and their families. Recent initiatives include a £75 million LGBT financial recognition scheme, acknowledging the historic wrongs experienced by our LGBT veterans; making the veterans card an accepted form of voter ID, crucial to mobile service members, as I know from my own experience; and committing £3.5 million for veteran homelessness support, including wraparound services for at-risk veterans.

While the Armed Forces Commissioner will primarily deal with those affected by service law, they will have the discretion to invite opinion from a broader range of stakeholders, including veterans, when conducting investigations. I would expect the commissioner to regularly use that power, as it is a critical part of their role, as Conservative Members have said. I hope Conversative Members recognise that flexibility is important in the Bill, as it will allow the commissioner to gather comprehensive insight in the exercise of their duties, but does not limit their independence or freedom to lead by narrowing their focus.

On amendment 7, while focused on serving personnel, the role of the Armed Forces Commissioner complements the broader armed forces covenant and existing legislation to support the entire military community. The armed forces covenant recognises the unique obligations and sacrifices made by those who have served in the armed forces, whether regular or reserve, as well as veterans and their families. Our Government are fully committed to the covenant and our election manifesto pledge was to put the covenant fully into law.

The Armed Forces Commissioner’s role focuses primarily on members of the serving community and their families, but they will undoubtedly consider covenant issues related to active service members and their families as part of general service welfare matters, as outlined in the Bill. That aligns with the commissioner’s functions to promote the welfare of service persons and their families, and to improve public understanding of the issues.

It is important to note that the Bill is not standalone legislation. Instead, it amends part of the Armed Forces Act 2006, which already includes part 16A addressing the armed forces covenant. Therefore, amendment 7 is not necessary. By integrating the commissioner’s role into the existing framework, we ensure a comprehensive approach to supporting both current and former members of the armed forces, reinforcing our commitment to the entire military community.

Amendment 8 would require the commissioner to be independent from the Government and the armed forces and from interference when carrying out their duties. In response, the Bill provides greater independence and scrutiny for those upholding the welfare of armed forces personnel. I welcome that role, which will be subject to  a full public appointment process and scrutiny by the Defence Committee, as mentioned earlier by its Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi).

The commissioner will be established as a corporation sole and will thus be independent of the Ministry of Defence, which is clearly important to give them the ability to hold people to account effectively. The commissioner will have discretion over what they investigate and the proactive power to launch investigations. Those provisions mean that the commissioner will stay focused on general service welfare matters and will be expected to have regular meetings with the chain of command. However, I fully agree that independence for the chain of command is vital.

As a member of the Defence Committee, I had the opportunity to question the Service Complaints Ombudsman on a point that many members of the armed forces have raised with me since, around the independence of the current complaints process from the chain of command. Will the Minister provide clarification on how the commissioner will close that gap and the gaps that allow for abuses by commanding officers?

I want to emphasise how important a shift the new powers and independence of the commissioner will be. That will mark a significant improvement on the current ombudsman’s limited scope. The commissioner will retain the independence to make arrangements for their office. They will also be able to decide how to spend their money and which issues they choose to investigate. Currently, the Service Complaints Ombudsman has only the power to investigate formal service complaints, as she stressed last week. However, the current defence guidance encourages informal complaint resolutions at the lowest level. In my view, that emphasis can be inappropriate when dealing with complaints such as harassment and discrimination. Abusers can survive an informal resolution and move on to continue their abuse elsewhere. \p Lincoln Jopp: The hon. and gallant Member referred to the armed forces complaints ombudsman giving evidence to the Defence Committee last week. Her report from 2023 detailed that three complaints were made against the ombudsman organisation itself. Was he as dismayed as I was that she was not able to recall the details of the one complaint of those three that was upheld? \p Calvin Bailey: The ombudsman who came to speak to us the other day gave a clear account of the challenges and issues that she faced and elucidated on a number of challenges around addressing the specificity of any individual complaints that she had been made aware of, due to the distance between the complaint and her appearance before the Committee. I think it is worth reviewing the entirety of her evidence because, for me, it did nothing more than emphasise the need for the Bill to be passed as drafted and to take note of my challenges to the amendment.

On the wider status of the service complaints system, efforts to enhance consistency and accessibility are ongoing. I take this moment to thank the ombudsman, Mariette Hughes, and her team for their work to improve the  service complaints system. It was clear from her responses to our questions last week that she was conscious of the need to continue improving the system throughout the transition to a new commissioner.

I am sure the Ministry will continue its work to implement the recommendations of the ombudsman’s office, particularly in ensuring that there is a single entry point for complaints and a consistent approach in the recording of all the grievances across defence, as laid down in successive annual reports.

On amendment 6, the Government are committed to swiftly establishing the Armed Forces Commissioner through a rigorous appointment process, ensuring that the role is filled by a highly qualified and security-cleared individual who can advocate effectively for the armed forces community. Although the Bill does not detail a specific implementation timetable, which colleagues will know is typical of primary legislation, this is a priority for the Government. I believe that colleagues from all parts of the House will recognise that the appointment process must be done correctly. The appointment will be subject to a full public appointments process, regulated and overseen by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. This process will include necessary vetting and security clearances, building trust among armed forces personnel that the appointment—[Interruption.] The implementation timeline will also account for the passing of the secondary legislation and a smooth transition from the current Service Complaints Ombudsman to the new Armed Forces Commissioner— \p Nusrat Ghani: Does the hon. Member require a moment? \p Calvin Bailey: No. \p Nusrat Ghani: Are you happy to continue? \p Calvin Bailey: Yes. \p Nusrat Ghani: Wonderful. \p Calvin Bailey: In conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, the creation of an Armed Forces Commissioner will provide a powerful voice for service personnel and their families, ensuring that their concerns are heard and addressed at the highest levels. As we move forward with the Bill, we must remain vigilant in our efforts to improve service life, address systemic issues and uphold the highest standards of behaviour within our military. The success of the new role demands, and depends on, our continued support and scrutiny. I look forward to seeing the positive impact that this Bill will have on the lives of those who serve our nation. \p Nusrat Ghani: A substantial contribution there. I call the shadow Minister. \p Mark Francois: On Second Reading, we began by announcing that, with regard to the Bill, our aim was to be a critical friend, and that remains our aim today, although I feel that, at one point, we may become very critical. May I begin, however, in a bipartisan spirit by pointing out that, even though we are here today to debate the extremely important matter of the welfare of our armed forces, so far at least, as pointed out by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme  Downie), the SNP has not made a single contribution to this discussion—and neither for the record has Reform. And in both cases, that is a shame.

We debated this Bill in Committee in December, and following that I should like to speak to amendments 8 to 11, plus new clause 2, in my name and the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), who is in his place. First, though, let me commend the Chair of the Defence Committee for his speech. For the record, he is having a good run at the moment. He has had three Select Committee reports, on which he has been allowed to make statements, and the Committee has only been up and running for a few weeks, so that is a very fast start.

I shall be relatively brief in my remarks on amendment 8, because we covered this issue in some detail in Committee. Moreover, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), as a former commanding officer of the Scots Guards, made some incisive points about the amendment, not least in relation to the interaction between the proposed Armed Forces Commissioner and the chain of command. That point was also touched on by the hon. and gallant Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), before he was inexplicably distracted.

Suffice it to say for now, it was mentioned numerous times across all parts of the Committee that, in addition to demonstrating their independence, the Armed Forces Commissioner would have to work hard in this new role to win the trust of armed forces personnel and their families. Indeed, during the public evidence session, General Sir Andrew Gregory, the controller of SSAFA, made the very constructive suggestion that the commissioner would need to undertake a lot of visits to armed forces locations to meet both personnel and their families as part of that trust-building process. When I was an MOD Minister, I tried to make a lot of visits, too, so I can well understand the merits of the general’s suggestion. According to the Government’s timetable, the new Armed Forces Commissioner is likely to be up and running sometime in 2026. I hope that whoever takes up the post will be minded to listen to General Gregory’s sage advice.

Turning to amendment 9, we raised pensions and death-in-service benefits in Committee. As I shall go on to explain, we were determined to raise this issue on Report, not least because it is both important and unresolved. I would like to look at one aspect of military pensions and then at death-in-service benefits specifically. It is interesting that we lack some important statistics about military veterans who have left the armed forces and then draw their service pension. For instance, we have an armed forces continuous attitude survey, or AFCAS, which is an annual exercise to tell us the attitudes of armed forces personnel on everything from housing repairs to overseas deployments. Similarly, we have a reserves continuous attitude survey, or RESCAS, to ask questions about the opinions of our much-valued reserves, and we also have a families continuous attitude survey, or FAMCAS, to seek the views of service families. However, there is no official veterans continuous attitude survey—no VETCAS, as it were—to tell us the opinions of veterans. However, a number of veterans charities gather data in this area outside the direct responsibility of the Ministry of Defence.

I recently tabled a written parliamentary question to MOD Ministers about their estimate of the number of veterans who would be affected by the recent decision to seriously restrict winter fuel allowance availability. The response that came back from the Department around a fortnight ago was, in essence, that it did not have the data. I humbly suggest that someone needs to try to collate that data as soon as possible, because I am not sure the public would be pleased to learn that many veterans—although we cannot say precisely how many—could lose their winter fuel allowance as a result of the Chancellor’s Budget.

Indeed, the Royal British Legion, which knows a thing or two about veterans, has expressed concern that the Government have

“not identified how this policy change will impact older veterans”.

A RBL spokesman recently said:

“A large number of older people have served in the UK Armed Forces, many of whom face additional heating costs due to caring responsibilities or disability”— \p Graeme Downie: Will the right hon. Member give way? \p Mark Francois: In a moment—please do not interrupt the Royal British Legion. It says:

“The Government needs to understand the impact of their policy on veterans in order to better support those affected.” \p Graeme Downie: I am very much enjoying the right hon. Member’s remarks from the Dispatch Box, as I always do, but he is discussing an issue that is definitely not within the scope of the Bill. Perhaps it would be better to move on to the areas where—hopefully—we have cross-party consensus. \p Mark Francois: First, that is a matter for the Chair. Secondly, I presume that, if the amendment were not in order, it would not have been selected.

This is not Treasury questions, so I do not propose to reprise the whole debate about the winter fuel allowance; I will save hon. Members from that agony. Nevertheless, I hope the Minister has taken the point on board. Perhaps when he winds up, he could say something—anything—about how many veterans the Government think are likely to be affected by the restriction of winter fuel allowance and whether he thinks that that is the right thing to do, not least in the spirit of the armed forces covenant.

I turn to the specific matter of death-in-service benefits—a topic that, as the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar will remember, we raised in Committee last month. As ably pointed out by the Forces Pension Society, which I hope the House will accept is very much the gold-standard organisation on any matter relating to armed forces pensions—the clue is in the name—a problem has arisen because of the Government’s proposed changes to inheritance tax as announced by the Chancellor in her Budget of 30 October. In essence, if a member of the armed forces who is in a long-term relationship—and perhaps even has children—but is not married dies while in service, which does not necessarily mean in active operations, the death-in-service benefit  that they would normally be entitled to might, under the Government’s proposed changes, become liable for inheritance tax.

As I did in Committee, let me take an example of how that might affect a senior non-commissioned officer. An individual at OR 9 rank equivalent, a senior warrant officer at the top of the non-commissioned officer rank structure, has a partner to whom they are unmarried, and on death leaves an estate worth £400,000 and death-in-service benefits of £248,292—four times their £62,000 salary. They would pay 40% inheritance tax on the non-pensioned assets, resulting in an IHT liability of £30,000, but after April 2027, and if the death-in-service benefits are included in the estate, that will increase the estate’s value to £648,292, and the IHT liability will increase accordingly to £129,316. That represents a staggering increase of 330%.

In a briefing it prepared on this issue, the Forces Pension Society explained that worrisome problem in the following terms:

“At a time of extreme vulnerability, these lump sums need to be paid promptly, as they currently are. If death in service benefits become subject to IHT there will be a delay to the benefit being paid both while the estate is assessed for IHT and while the amount of IHT attributable to the DIS [death in service] benefit is assessed and the scheme administrator (Veterans UK) pays the tax charge.”

The Forces Pension Society then elucidates:

“Many who would not previously have been caught with an IHT liability will find themselves in a very bureaucratic process that will slow down the already lengthy process of sorting out the financial affairs of an individual at what is a very difficult time.”

I should say in fairness that the Forces Pension Society has suggested that the Government have made an error, and would not knowingly implement a policy that runs so contrary to the spirit of the armed forces covenant. \p Luke Akehurst: Will the right hon. Member give way? \p Mark Francois: When I have finished this point, yes.

The Forces Pension Society points out that the system is recoverable because the changes are subject to a consultation and are not currently due to come in until April 2027. Nevertheless, this is still a potentially worrying situation, especially for armed forces families in which parents are in a committed relationship with multiple children but have not, for whatever reason, decided to marry.

We were prepared to give the Minister the benefit of the doubt about that in Committee. Indeed, without wishing to be uncharitable, when I raised it he seemed slightly taken aback by the problem. I say that because my suspicion is that when the Treasury came up with this, the Ministry of Defence was blissfully unaware of it. I therefore suggest that MOD Ministers may not be directly at fault, but it is nevertheless their personnel and families who may be affected. Towards the conclusion of the Committee, I strongly suggested to the Armed Forces Minister that he should take this away for discussions with the Treasury, as there will be a consultation exercise on the changes before they come into force in the 2026-27 financial year, with the opportunity to change the policy and avert the problem. \p Calvin Bailey: Will the right hon. Member give way? \p Mark Francois: In a moment.

Indeed, the Forces Pension Society response to the consultation, which I have here, calls on the Government to do just that. However, having given the Minister what I believe was fair notice in Committee, I raised the topic again with him at the last Defence questions on 6 January—although, in fairness, that was the day the Commons returned from Christmas recess. When I asked him what the Government had done about it, unfortunately he did not deliver a particularly convincing reply.

I give way to the hon. Gentleman. \p Calvin Bailey: I thank the right hon. Member for giving way. He is citing a specific example that the Armed Forces Commissioner would have to oversee. That is not relevant to the discussion about the Bill or the amendments. Will he bring up any of the other myriad exceptional circumstances of pain and suffering for our service personnel that your leadership, under 14 years of the previous Government— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. “Your leadership” refers to me, and it is up to the Chair to determine what is in scope. For the benefit of other colleagues, it is up to the speaker to accept or decline an intervention. Do you have more to say, Mr Bailey, or shall I return to the shadow Minister? \p Calvin Bailey: No thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the shadow Minister. \p Mark Francois: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. \p Luke Akehurst: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? \p Mark Francois: Just a second—I am just going to reply to this one. Forgive me, but if my remarks were not in order, we would have been told so by now. Maybe one day, after many years of distinguished service, the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) will become a Deputy Speaker of this House, but not today.

I will continue, and then I will take the other intervention. We really need to do something about this issue. As the Forces Pension Society has pointed out, it would be totally contrary to the principles of the armed forces covenant—including the principle that armed forces personnel and their families should suffer no disadvantage as a result of their service to the Crown—if this were to go unanswered, and unmarried service widows and their families were to be punished in this way.

I thank the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) for being patient. \p Luke Akehurst: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has raised some interesting specific policy issues that are clearly of concern to large numbers of people receiving armed forces pensions, but the Bill makes it clear—and Ministers have been very clear throughout its consideration—that the independent commissioner will decide for themselves what is a general service welfare matter, and therefore whether they want to look into the issues raised by amendments 9 and 10. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the apparent contradiction between Opposition Members insisting in amendment 8 that they want reassurance about the  independence of the commissioner, and their wanting to predetermine the very specific topics that the commissioner would investigate through amendments 9 and 10? \p Mark Francois: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As we are on Report, we are trying to amend the Bill where we think it could be improved. Just because we have the Bill as originally produced on First Reading does not mean that it cannot be improved. If I may humbly say so, that is what Report is about.

This subject is pressing—I say this particularly to the hon. Member for North Durham—as the consultation on it closes tomorrow. The Veterans Minister replied to me on this subject—hey presto!—just this morning. I quote from his letter:

“I would seek to reassure the Right Honourable Gentleman that an existing exemption in Inheritance Tax legislation means that active members who die as a result of their service, are exempt from Inheritance Tax provisions.”

However, that only applies to those killed while on active service. It does not apply to those who are still in the service of the Crown but die of natural causes, so I am afraid that the Veterans Minister’s reply is smoke and mirrors, as it deliberately ducks the issue of those who die of natural causes while still in service with living dependants. The Government have already upset farmers and business owners through their proposed inheritance tax changes; they surely do not want to upset service families as well.

I say to the Minister that if, at what is now the third time of asking, we do not receive a satisfactory reply this afternoon, we will be strongly minded to press amendment 9 to a Division in order to hold Ministers to account and try to achieve positive change. With the consultation closing tomorrow, I will listen very carefully to what the Minister says about this issue in his response, but having given him two previous bites at the cherry, I am afraid that we may be likely to divide the House if we do not receive a satisfactory reply on behalf of those service families who may be affected.

As you can see, Madam Deputy Speaker, amendment 10 covers three topics: the

“operation of the Continuity of Education Allowance”,

or CEA as it is known;

“the provision of Special Educational Needs tuition”

for the children of armed forces personnel; and

“the maintenance of service families’ accommodation.”

I will take those topics in reverse order.

On service families’ accommodation, I welcomed in Committee the recent announcement that the Government intend to, in effect, buy back service family accommodation from Annington Homes. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) also welcomes these proposals because—as Ministers, to be fair to them, have already acknowledged on the Floor of the House—while in government, he spent a great deal of time working on the scheme. He is understandably very pleased to see those efforts come to fruition, albeit under a Government of a different colour, as indeed am I. We should give credit where it is due.

Service housing was mentioned multiple times in Committee, and there seems to be little doubt but that it qualifies as a general service welfare matter. However,  I have included the topic in this amendment to facilitate a brief discussion on the management and maintenance of service housing post Annington, as it were, and in the timeframe during which the new Armed Forces Commissioner is likely to be in operation. The fact that the MOD will in effect recover the freehold of its properties and be the landlord opens up exciting opportunities to change the maintenance of service family accommodation and, indeed, of single living accommodation as well.

The Minister will be aware that, when I was a Minister, I was commissioned by a former Prime Minister to write two reports: one was on armed forces recruitment, subsequently entitled “Filling the Ranks” and delivered in 2017; and as a result of the first report, a second one was on retention, entitled “Stick or Twist?” and delivered in February 2020—barely a month before the nation went into lockdown because of covid. I know that some Defence Ministers have kindly taken the time and trouble to look at those reports, so I shall not attempt to repeat their contents here, except to make one specific point on the management of SFA.

Having looked at the matter in detail, my team concluded very strongly that there must be a better way of managing service housing than the current Future Defence Infrastructure Services contract. Our alternative, which I believe now has new resonance as the homes are transferred from Annington back to the MOD, would be to form a dedicated forces housing association, the fundamental purpose of which would be

“to provide high quality, well maintained accommodation for service personnel and their families at an affordable cost.”

I think the Minister has kindly read this report, as has the Veterans Minister, who has responsibility for it, and I hope he will take that on board.

We debated special educational needs in some detail in Committee, so I do not propose to repeat all of that again, but I refer the Minister to a recent Public Accounts Committee report that was published last week on the topic.

The continuity of education allowance is a very important issue, particularly as it affects retention. The VAT increase of 20% will affect around 4,200 children of service personnel, but the MOD is increasing the CEA cap only by 12.5% for senior school students and 16.6% for junior school students, leaving their parents to make up the difference from their post-tax income. This has already come into effect from 1 January, or about three weeks ago. A joint briefing note from the Independent Schools Council and the Boarding Schools’ Association points out that the VAT will cover both tuition fees and boarding accommodation at independent boarding schools. In the worst cases, the VAT will have an adverse impact on military families using CEA, who could see their contributions increase by over 50% for senior school pupils. The Treasury’s VAT consultation said that it would

“monitor closely the impact of these policy changes on affected military and diplomatic families, with the upcoming Spending Review being the right time to consider any changes to this scheme.”

The spending review—[Interruption.] Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe we have until 6 o’clock. The spending review will not report until this summer, but military  families are having to pay the increased costs now, and I have a whole range of quotes that I could read into the record. \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. Mr Francois, please do not read out all the quotes, but come to your conclusion. \p Mark Francois: I will not read them out, but the point, in terms of retention, is that this is not just an officer’s benefit. It is a very important benefit for senior non-commissioned officers. If the costs become unsustainable, there is a risk that they will leave the armed forces, and that someone whom it may have cost the Crown over £1 million to train will leave, which would very much be a false economy.

Finally, on our new clause 2, we had a considerable debate in Committee about the relationship between the Armed Forces Commissioner and the various veterans commissioners, a point touched on by our friends from Northern Ireland, and I place on record my admiration for the previous Northern Ireland veterans commissioner, Mr Danny Kinahan, an ex-serviceman who was widely respected across the sectarian and political divide in Northern Ireland. It is a great shame that he resigned. \p Carla Lockhart: Northern Ireland has possibly more veterans per head of population than any other constituent part of the United Kingdom. Thousands served in the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Irish Regiment alongside the British Army regiments during their tours in Northern Ireland. Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in commending the new veterans commissioner, Mr David Johnstone, who has also served with distinction, and does he agree with the call of the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) today that this should be a fully funded and full-time post in Northern Ireland, given the needs of veterans in Northern Ireland? \p Mark Francois: I wish the new veterans commissioner in Northern Ireland all the best, but suffice it to say that he has a hard act to follow.

In conclusion, we hope that we have been a critical friend to the Bill. We have pressed the Government on death-in-service benefits, and on the continuity of education allowance and its implications for retention, and if we do not receive what I yet hope may be satisfactory answers from the Minister, we might be minded to press the amendments on those issues to a Division. \p Luke Pollard: I thank all Members who have spoken in this debate, and all who served on the Public Bill Committee. The Bill is a landmark step towards fulfilling this Government’s commitment to renewing the nation’s contract with those who serve by strengthening support for our armed forces, and their families, who stand behind them. Our forces face a crisis in recruitment, retention and morale that this Government inherited after 14 years of a Conservative Government; only four in 10 of our service personnel report being satisfied with service life. We need this Bill to establish a champion who can shine a light on the general service welfare matters most affecting  our people, so that we in this House can understand those issues and hold this Government and future Governments to account.

I will turn to each of the amendments proposed. New clause 1 in the name of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), seeks to bring those going through the recruitment process into the commissioner’s remit. We inherited a retention and recruitment crisis. That is why the Secretary of State laid out a number of policies to improve our recruitment policy early doors. One of them is the 10-30 policy, so ably explained by my hon. Friend  the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey): the policy that a provisional offer will be made within 10 days of an application to the armed forces, and a provisional start date will be given within 30 days. That is a substantial step forward for those joining our armed forces. Some 84% of those who seek to join the armed forces drop out of the process because it takes too long. That is an utter scandal that this Government are determined to address. That is why the 10-30 policy was put in place, and why the Defence Secretary, the Minister for Veterans and People and I have focused on improving our retention and recruitment policies. It is also why I have to resist the hon. Lady’s amendments—because the focus of this Bill is on those who serve and their families. They have been neglected for far too long. That is why this Bill is relentlessly and unapologetically focused on providing an independent champion for them.

I understand why the hon. Lady seeks to include recruits in the scope of the Bill. That would mean 150,000 candidates every single year being added to the workforce on which the commissioner is focused. Our job as a Government is to make it easier to convert more of those applicants into military personnel, and the new lateral entry into cyber work announced by the Defence Secretary is a good example of that, but the commissioner’s focus should remain on those who serve and their families.

New clause 2, on veterans, tabled by the shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), is about ensuring decent engagement with veterans commissioners across the country, and with the chief commissioner of the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery. The manifesto commitment on which the Bill delivers  is clear: it is a commitment to addressing the gap in support for military personnel. The commissioner is to highlight the issues affecting personnel today, not matters from the past.

I understand why the hon. Member tabled the new clause, and with the Government’s new role of Minister for Veterans and People, we have made clear our intention of improving the support that we offer veterans, but the commissioner’s role is to support service personnel and their families. It is also the role of the commissioner to decide independently which general service welfare matters they should investigate. That freedom and independence are vital to the role, so it is important to keep the commissioner’s freedom to decide whom to engage with. However, I reassure the hon. Member that I would expect that once the commissioner was established, their terms of reference would be established for engagement with a variety of organisations from the charitable and military charity sectors, including bodies that represent veterans, and veterans commissioners across the UK.  I therefore think that the effect of what he seeks will be provided in our implementation of the Bill, so the new clause is unnecessary.

Amendment 7, on the covenant, is also well intentioned. It is important to realise that this is not a stand-alone Bill; it amends the Armed Forces Act 2006, part 16A of which deals with the covenant. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell has sought to make the covenant apply to the Armed Forces Commissioner, but I reassure her that as this Bill will insert provisions relating to the Armed Forces Commissioner into the Armed Forces Act, they will already grip in that way. I further reassure her that later this Parliament, the Government will bring forward proposals in the Armed Forces Bill to deliver on our manifesto commitment of putting the armed forces covenant fully into law. I therefore feel that the amendment is unnecessary, but I understand and entirely appreciate why she wanted to bring it forward. I hope that all of us can lend our support to the further implementation of the armed forces covenant, so that it grips not just local but central Government.

On amendment 8, which is on independence, I hope that there is no doubt that the intention that the commissioner will act as an independent champion for our armed forces and hold this and future Governments to account is clear in the legislation, and from commitments that the Defence Secretary and I have made at the Dispatch Box. I therefore generally welcome the principle of the amendment, which we discussed in detail in Committee. The Bill already has a number of provisions to ensure that the commissioner can work and conduct their inquiries separately from Government. Those provisions include measures giving them discretion over the matters they investigate, their reporting powers, their power of entry to defence sites to carry out their functions—without notice, in some circumstances—and an obligation on the Secretary of State to co-operate with the commissioner. Many of those functions will be transferred from the Service Complaints Ombudsman. The ombudsman has highlighted in her evidence that she already feels a strong degree of independence from the Ministry of Defence on decision making. That matters, and I have echoed that in the Bill.

There are important circumstances where it is critical that the commissioner cannot act purely on their own initiative—I refer to the Secretary of State restricting access to sites when there is a valid national security or safety reason to do so. A legal power for the commissioner to act without influence or interference would make that impossible. Certainly in previous conversations, the Opposition have been keen to ensure a suitable qualification to the power to access secret and very sensitive sites, and the amendment would actually go against the argument that they have made elsewhere, so I hope that they will not press the amendment.

I thank the House for its views on amendments 5 and 6 from the Liberal Democrats on the appointment of the commissioner. It is our intention that the commissioner will be in place in 2026. The reason why we have had not only Second Reading and a full Committee stage but Report so soon into this new Government is that we want the commissioner put in place as soon as possible. Our intention to have the operation up and running in 2026 remains in place.

Let me briefly refer to the questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) on the  work of the House of Commons Defence Committee.  We expect robust scrutiny of any candidate that the Secretary of State puts forward for this role. We expect the relationship that the commissioner has with the Defence Committee to be above and beyond other relationships, because when the commissioner publishes a report, under the Bill, it will not be sent to the Ministry of Defence to decide what to do with it—except in the case of a national security scrub, and I am certain that every Member in this House will understand why that is. It will be sent to Parliament, including to the Defence Committee. In that respect, the relationship between the commissioner and the Defence Committee will be more enhanced than perhaps the relationship between the Service Complaints Ombudsman and  the Committee.

On the robust decisions that the commissioner will make, my hon. Friend may be aware that on page 9 of the Bill, paragraph 7 of schedule 1 includes a power for the Secretary of State to appoint people to interim roles if the full appointment process has not been completed. Given the powers afforded to the Service Complaints Ombudsman, the ability of that organisation to function is greatly restricted if there is a vacancy in that office. We have learned from that, and provided a power to ensure that the work of the Armed Forces Commissioner could continue in the absence of a permanent post holder. I hope that will satisfy my hon. Friend. I am eager for the commissioner to be established, and for their office to be operational as soon as practically possible.

On amendment 3 on funding, the Bill has been designed to ensure that the commissioner has the tools, funding and support that they need, now and in future. The Secretary of State has an obligation in the Bill to give the commissioner any reasonable assistance that they request to conduct their work effectively. Should the commissioner feel that their funding—estimated to be in the region of £5 million a year—is insufficient, they can raise this in their annual report, which is one of the mechanisms for providing additional scrutiny to Parliament.

On the family definition mentioned by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, she will be aware that we have committed to setting out the definition of family members in secondary legislation, so that it can be updated if necessary. Families come in all shapes and sizes, and when trying to define “family”, it is important that we consult and get views from a wide range of people. We want to make sure that the definition in the legislation is as accurate as possible, and includes bereaved family members of service personnel, so that they can still access the commissioner. I hope that gives her reassurance.

On the inclusion of minority groups, speaking as someone who represents one of the minority communities that the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell mentioned, let me be clear that we want the commissioner to engage with a whole range of different communities in our armed forces family. It is important that they do. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), a non-exhaustive list that left out people with disabilities would be a concern, because I think the hon. Lady’s intention is to focus on minorities. We would expect the commissioner to be able to make a decision themselves in order to deliver that engagement. \p Helen Maguire: I know the Minister will have read amendment 2 in detail, and is aware that it includes the words “including but not limited to”, and therefore includes individuals with disabilities and others. That is what the hon. Members for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), and for Stafford (Leigh Ingham), were concerned about. \p Luke Pollard: That highlights the danger of a list. In future amendments that the hon. Lady tables, I would expect her to veer away from lists to avoid that problem.

Briefly, on the inheritance tax that the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) mentioned, the Minister for Veterans and People has replied to him, as I said he would in Defence questions on 6 January. Provisions in the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 will continue to ensure that attributable deaths of active members are exempt from inheritance tax. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that is a matter for the Treasury, and it would be wrong of me to pre-empt the result of the genuine consultation being conducted by Treasury colleagues. He may need to wait until the Treasury has had a chance to consider the matter. I expect, nonetheless, that he will push his amendment to a vote, because there is a certain level of politics that I appreciate he has to play. It is certainly true that our armed forces deserve better than they have experienced over the past 14 years. Hollowed out and underfunded services, servicemen and women living in accommodation that, frankly, is not good enough, and morale falling every single year of the past 14 years—these are the areas that this Government seek to change.

The landmark Armed Forces Commissioner Bill will deliver a better service for our armed forces and, importantly, their families. We have a lot of work to undo the damage, but I hope the message goes out loud and clear from this House that the creation of an independent Armed Forces Commissioner—a champion for those serving in our military and for their families—is a good thing that enjoys cross-party support. I urge all colleagues to support the Bill. \p Helen Maguire: I am happy with the reassurance received from the Government, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment proposed: 9, page 2, line 35, at end insert—

“(2A) A ‘general service welfare matter’ may include issues relating to the provision of pensions and death in service benefits to serving and former members  of the armed forces and their dependants.”.—(Mr Francois.)

The amendment would enable the Commissioner to include matters relating to pensions and other such benefits, including death in service benefits, in their investigation of service welfare matters.

Question put, That the amendment be made. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 192, Noes 338.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: 10, page 2, line 35, at end insert—

“(2A) A ‘general service welfare matter’ may include issues relating to the wellbeing of, and provision of support to, the children, families and other dependants of serving and former members of the armed forces, including but not limited to—

(a) the provision and operation of the Continuity of Education Allowance;

(b) the provision of Special Educational Needs tuition; and

(c) themaintenance of service families’ accommodation.” —(Mr Francois.)

This amendment would enable the Commissioner to include matters relating to the wellbeing of, and provision of support to, the children, families and other dependants of serving and former members of the armed forces in the Commissioner’s investigation of service welfare matters.

Question put, That the amendment be made. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 191, Noes 338.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: 2, page 3, line 35, at end insert—

“340IAA Commissioner support for minority groups within service personnel

(1) When investigating general service welfare matters under section 340IA, the Commissioner must consider the specific experiences of minority groups within service personnel, including but not limited to—

(a) female;

(b) BAME

(c) non-UK; and

(d) LGBT+

service personnel.

(2) The Commissioner may investigate service welfare matters unique to one or more of these groups of service personnel.

(3) The Commissioner must maintain up-to-date evidence on the experiences of these groups of service personnel and develop robust community engagement mechanisms to identify and address issues specific to these groups.

(4) The Commissioner must establish a formal network of representation to enable the views and concerns of these groups of service personnel to be communicated to the Commissioner.

(5) The Commissioner must publish an annual report outlining—

(a) the issues facing and concerns raised by these groups of service personnel;

(b) the actions taken by the Commissioner to address identified issues;

(c) the progress made in improving conditions for these groups of service personnel.”—(Helen Maguire.)

This amendment would require the Commissioner to take specific action to consider and address welfare issues facing service personnel from minority groups.

Question put, That the amendment be made. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 76, Noes 349.

Question accordingly negatived.

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

It is a privilege to open the Third Reading debate and to reach this next milestone in establishing the Armed Forces Commissioner. The first duty of any Government  is to keep our nation safe. At the heart of that security are the dedicated men and women of our armed forces, and the families who support them. It was a priority for this Government to move quickly and introduce the Bill in our first Session. I am grateful to all Members across the parties for their co-operation in getting the Bill this far in the short space of a few months.

I thank everyone who has played a role in getting the Bill to this stage, particularly the parliamentary staff who have worked on the Bill, and the officials in the Ministry of Defence who have moved at pace to deliver it.

It can be an all-too-rare occasion for this House to find itself in agreement, so I am grateful to Members on all sides, including those in the official Opposition, for their support for the Bill and for the role of the new Armed Forces Commissioner. I thank the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), alongside all members of the Bill Committee, for their constructive scrutiny throughout. This is testament to the pride that is felt in all parts of the House in our exceptional armed forces and our shared recognition of the service and sacrifices that they and their families make to keep us all safe.

I also thank the witnesses who gave evidence to the Committee, including the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces, Mariette Hughes, who has provided invaluable feedback, drawing on her time in office, and showed such enthusiastic support for what the Bill is trying to achieve. I must thank her and her team for  all their hard work in rescuing much of the service complaints system and getting it in the good shape that it is in today.

I say thank you to the Royal British Legion, Help for Heroes, SSAFA, Cobseo, the Defence Medical Welfare Service, the Army Benevolent Fund, the Royal Marines Charity, the RAF Benevolent Fund and the Army Families Federation, not only for their valuable and thought-provoking participation at Committee stage, but also for their tireless work representing our service personnel and their families. Their views will be crucial to ensuring that the commissioner is a success.

I think it is clear from the evidence that we have heard and from the views shared in this House that an independent Armed Forces Commissioner is the champion that we need to improve service life and to represent our serving personnel and their families.

At a time of increasing instability and heightened tensions, we are asking more of our serving personnel, but they have been badly let down and we are facing a crisis in recruitment, a crisis in retention and a crisis in morale. For the past two years, more people have been leaving our armed forces than joining, and morale hit a record low under the previous Government. Our forces and their families have been failed for far too long. That is why this Government are determined to renew the nation’s contract with those who serve, and the establishment of the Armed Forces Commissioner is a major step forward.

I previously mentioned to the House that the Bill was inspired by the long-established German Parliamentary Commissioner for the Armed Forces. I pay tribute to Dr Eva Högl, who is a superb example of how we can champion and provide a voice to our armed forces. Our proposed Armed Forces Commissioner, like the German commissioner, will have the power to consider the full  breadth of welfare issues that may impact service life. They will be a direct point of contact for our forces and their families.

The Bill before us grants the commissioner the necessary access to personnel, information and defence sites to be able to proactively launch investigations, shine a spotlight on issues facing service personnel and their families, and make recommendations to Parliament. They will be able to investigate individual concerns and launch wide-ranging thematic investigations. The Bill also provides for the commissioner to absorb the existing powers of the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces. As we heard from the current ombudsman in Committee, her remit is too narrow and does not allow her to explore the “So what?” behind the complaints she oversees. The new powers will allow the commissioner to do just that, situating the service complaints system in a wider landscape of service welfare and providing that coherent, independent view of those issues facing our serving personnel and their families.

At this time of increasing threat, it has never been more important to raise awareness of the service and sacrifices made by our armed forces and the issues facing the families who stand beside them. We have discussed on the Floor of the House today, and in Committee last month, how critical it is for the commissioner to be independent and impartial, with the discretion to decide what welfare issues they investigate. I hope there is no doubt that our intention is that the commissioner will act as an independent champion for the armed forces and hold this Government and future Governments to account. They will challenge Ministers, strengthen parliamentary oversight and raise awareness of the issues facing our forces.

Several hon. Members from across the House have spoken about the Bill’s application to veterans. I am grateful for those questions and particularly for the contributions of those who have served our armed forces. I would like to reiterate that the Bill is deliberately tightly drawn to focus on those who are currently serving and their families. Looking at the continuous attitude surveys, that is where the crisis we are facing in recruitment, retention and morale is. There are specific issues that need to be addressed for those people who serve in uniform today and their families. The role of the Armed Forces Commissioner as an independent champion for our forces is significant and long overdue.

The issues facing our veterans population are distinct and, as the Secretary of State set out on Second Reading, we are certain that a more effective way of improving support for veterans will be to fully implement the armed forces covenant in law—work that is already in train, led by the Minister for Veterans and People, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns).

In conclusion, we must renew the whole nation’s contract with those who serve. The Armed Forces Commissioner is a major step in commencing that important work. This is landmark legislation to establish an independent Armed Forces Commissioner with the mission to improve service life. I therefore commend the Bill to the House. \p James Cartlidge: I congratulate and thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the passage of the Bill and served on the Bill Committee.   As I said on Second Reading, we recognise that the Government have a clear mandate for this piece of legislation, which has the worthy goal of improving day-to-day service life in our armed forces. We strongly share that goal and want the Bill to succeed, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) said, we also have performed the role of a critical friend of the Bill and have raised a number of specific issues. The shadow Veterans and Armed Forces Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), raised important points, which we have put forward in amendments. In fact, both relate to tax measures that have come forward under this tax-raising Government on death in service and continuity of education allowance, known as CEA.

The key thing I would say on death in service, in response to what the Minister said on Report, is that of course we understand that a consultation is happening on inheritance tax, which expires tomorrow. What we want to know is that the Ministry of Defence has communicated to the Treasury that it opposes the measure and hopes that it will not be imposed on those who serve in our armed forces, because it would be a disproportionate and significant increase in inheritance tax. As my right hon. Friend put it in a moving speech about the impact it would have, I am sure none of us in the Chamber would want to see that, so we hope that the Minister has written to the Treasury and that it listens to his advice and cancels the proposal.

There is a very simple reason why we moved amendment 10 on the continuity of education allowance. We want the Department to continue monitoring the impact of the new tax on those who serve in the military and choose to send their children to independent schools, not least because of the stability that those schools provide in a life that is subject to the opposite, particularly for those who are deployed abroad. The allowance gives them stability through access to schools at which their children can board, and of course most of that capacity is in the independent sector, which is now subject to a huge 20% tax imposition. We want that monitored by the Armed Forces Commissioner. If anyone doubts the reason for that, our office has received many emails from serving personnel—people in the Army, Navy and Air Force today—who are extremely concerned about the impact on them, and are having to weigh up their future. I will read an extract from one email that I received from the wife of an Army officer with two children in boarding school—one in junior school, and one in senior school. She says:

“With the sudden introduction of VAT on school fees—something that was not foreseen when we made our decision—we will face an additional £14,500 per year in costs. This is simply not sustainable for our family, and my husband is now considering leaving the Army as a result.”

This is not a minor matter. If we are worried about retention, surely the last thing any of us wants is for people like that to consider leaving. We are disappointed that the amendment was defeated, but the parliamentary arithmetic speaks for itself.

Finally, on accommodation, which is an incredibly important issue, I remind the House of what I said on Second Reading. I said that, in my time as Minister for Defence Procurement with responsibility for the defence estate,

“I wanted to see us potentially buying back the defence estate in England and Wales from Annington, so that we could plan a full rebuild and regeneration of the estate”.—[Official Report, 18 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 78.]

I am delighted that since I said that, the Government have concluded that deal. I started the negotiations on the deal when I was a Minister, following the successful legal challenges initiated by the preceding Minister for Defence Procurement, Jeremy Quin, and the deal was brought forward with huge effort in the Department—particularly, I must say, from the Defence Infrastructure Organisation. DIO has come in for criticism in some reports—in response to the winter problems that we had two years ago, for example—but my experience was that its leadership was as passionate as I was about getting that deal through, and we are now in a far better position.

Why does that matter? Well, there are many welfare issues that the commissioner will have to think about, but as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), said, accommodation will surely feature prominently, and we now have the means to address that issue strategically, rather than through year-to-year sticking-plasters. I assure the House and Ministers that, given my role in driving that deal forward, I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, who shares my passion for housing and armed forces accommodation, will seek to contribute to the plan to move forward to a better defence estate. In the meantime, we look forward to continuing to engage on these matters as the Armed Forces Commissioner becomes a reality.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed. \p Mary Creagh: I beg to move,

That the draft Deposit Scheme for Drinks Containers (England and Northern Ireland) Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 25 November 2024, be approved.

It is a red-letter day, is it not, Madam Deputy Speaker? Back in 2017, the Environmental Audit Committee, which I chaired, reported on the UK’s appalling record on recycling plastic bottles, and recommended the introduction by Government of a deposit return scheme. I have the report and the then Government’s response with me. Previous Governments promised that such a scheme would be put in place, yet here we are. The Conservatives recycled Ministers at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs up to seven times, but they did little to reduce the millions of empty plastic containers littering our high streets, washing up on our beaches and polluting our rivers.

We have known for decades that the “take, make, throw” model causes harm. It leads to littering, landfill and incineration. Keep Britain Tidy estimates that two waste streams, plastic bottles and drinks cans, make  up 55% of all litter across the UK. When it comes to addressing waste, this Government will not waste time. We are turning back the plastic tide and moving to a circular economy that keeps valuable resources in use for longer. \p Andrew Murrison: The Minister will know that incinerators are now the dirtiest way in which we generate electricity—dirtier than coal. Further to her Department’s advice note dated 30 December, what will she do to place a moratorium on the construction of new waste burners, thus bringing us in line with more enlightened Administrations—in this respect at least—in Wales and Scotland? \p Mary Creagh: The right hon. Gentleman is right that we made an announcement on that issue. We will bring forward further guidance and work with local authorities as they examine what is before them, so there will be more to say on this at a later date.

Returning to the issue of getting money back on bottles and cans, deposit return schemes and other such schemes are a well-established method of keeping resources in use for longer. Many of us generation X MPs will remember using these schemes in our school days. Over 50 countries run money-back bottle schemes, creating an incentive to return drinks containers for reuse or recycling. Germany had a 98% return rate—the highest in Europe—in its deposit return scheme last year. I met the Irish Minister Ossian Smyth just last week; Ireland’s deposit return scheme was introduced only in February 2024, and it is already achieving a 90% return rate. The UK is way behind, with collection rates ranging from 71% to 76% for plastic bottles and metal cans. We can, must and will do better. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for introducing the issue. Could she kindly outline the discussions that she and the Government have had directly  with Northern Ireland? I do not want to be a Job’s comforter, but we have asked some questions, and it does not seem that anybody in Northern Ireland can tell us what the connections and discussions have been. \p Mary Creagh: I am very happy to say that we discussed the fact that when this scheme comes in, there will be a scheme in Northern Ireland, and one in the south. However, the currencies are obviously different, so we will have to get the scheme up and running before we look at whether there is scope for interoperability. That is basically where we are with Northern Ireland. \p Jim Shannon: I am not trying to be awkward—it is never my form—but can the Minister say which Minister or Department her Government have spoken to about this system, and how we in Northern Ireland can have input into this process, other than just from this place? \p Mary Creagh: As I say, I was talking last week to Ossian Smyth, who is the outgoing Minister in the Republic of Ireland. We have been in discussion with officials over the past several years; the previous Government, members of which are in the Chamber today, have been in discussion with officials at the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, and I met the Minister for a general introduction before Christmas. \p Jim Shannon: rose— \p Mary Creagh: I will make some progress, and I will perhaps come back to the hon. Gentleman later. \p Barry Gardiner: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and commend the excellent work that she did on this subject as Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee. I think another Select Committee then looked at this subject in 2022, and the Government at that stage said that they would implement a deposit return scheme. Does my hon. Friend accept that over 200,000 people responded to the consultation that was then run, and 84% of respondents said that they agreed with implementing such a scheme? \p Mary Creagh: I thank my hon. Friend for that point. This move has overwhelming support from the general public, who are sick to death and fed up of seeing their streets and rivers blighted by litter. Slovakia implemented a scheme in 2022, and that country now has a 92% return rate; it is right up there with countries that have had schemes for decades. We know that we can do the same in the UK; just look at how behaviour has changed since the introduction of charges for carrier bags in shops. That led to a rapid change in people’s habits. Imagine where we would be if the previous Government had focused on recycling plastic bottles, rather than smuggling champagne bottles in suitcases into Downing Street.

The deposit return scheme is one of the three strands of our packaging reforms, along with extended producer responsibility for packaging and the simpler recycling programme for England. We estimate that, together, the packaging reforms will support 21,000 new green jobs in our nations and regions, and stimulate more than £10 billion of investment in recycling capability over the next decade. CPRE, the countryside charity, estimates that the deposit return scheme will deliver 4,000 of  those new jobs. It is also estimated that the reforms will save over 46 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2035, valued at more than £10 billion in carbon benefits.

The deposit return scheme will end the epidemic of litter on our streets and restore pride in our communities. It will improve the countryside, preserve our wildlife and protect our beaches and marine environment. I have spoken to several fantastic organisations that were part of the huge campaign that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) mentioned, including the Marine Conservation Society, the Aylesbury Wombles and, in my constituency, Destination Ball Hill. There are so many people spending so many volunteer hours dealing with this pollution problem, and doing their best to keep their area looking nice.

The brilliant charity Keep Britain Tidy estimates that littered drinks bottles and cans along our roadsides are killing millions of our native mammals every year. If we drive along the M1 motorway, we see buzzards and birds of prey circling, and that is because our national highways have become nature corridors. They are a very important habitat for RES—rare and endangered species—and much-loved small mammals such as shrews, bank voles and wood mice, but we are finding more and more of them becoming trapped in plastic bottles carelessly discarded along our highways. We must act to protect these precious creatures. We want less Mr Toad and more Moley. \p Peter Swallow: I warmly welcome the deposit return scheme; it would have been fantastic if it had been delivered many years ago, as had been promised. On the wider issue of litter affecting our constituencies, will the Minister say more about how this measure fits in with the work the Government are doing to, for want of a better phrase, get tough on litter and tough on the causes of litter? \p Mary Creagh: I thank my hon. Friend for that, and we are looking at what further reforms we can bring in to tackle the rogue waste collectors. The carriers, brokers and dealers regime is not fit for purpose. I have asked officials to look at what we can do to strengthen that, and to avoid the sort of casual criminality we saw just yesterday in the constituency of Lichfield, where waste from a construction site was abandoned in the middle of a country lane, literally trapping nine households in their houses; they were unable to leave. I understand that the Environment Agency has been in touch, and the council is working to clear that blockage. It is clear that, with this Government, the era of talking is over and the era of action is upon us, and there will be nowhere for these waste criminals to hide.

The deposit return scheme is about having a more resource-resilient economy, and not being reliant on materials brought in from overseas. The scheme under the statutory instrument that we are discussing is consistent with the “polluter pays” principle. Giving money back for bottles and cans provides an incentive for people to do the right thing. It places obligations on drinks producers, not consumers, to ensure that containers are collected and recycled. We have set an ambitious target of collecting 90% of in-scope containers by the third year of the  scheme. I am confident that the public are with us. We know people hate litter in their parks, in their countryside and on their streets. As with plastic bag charges, once this is the norm, people will just get on with it. Small changes for individuals will deliver huge national benefits.

I will now turn to the details of this instrument. Laid in draft before the House on 25 November 2024, this instrument establishes in England and Northern Ireland, and I can tell the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that Minister Muir is the responsible Minister in Northern Ireland— \p Jim Shannon: I know it is Minister Muir. I respect the hon. Lady greatly, but what discussions has Minister Muir had with the Department, because I understand there have been none? Ministers from down south are not responsible for Northern Ireland, we in Northern Ireland are and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Minister is. Can the hon. Lady gee up her civil servants and tell us what is happening? \p Mary Creagh: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my excellent officials, led by the estimable Clare Delaney, have been shepherding this through. They will have had extensive conversations with officials. I met with the Minister on the taskforce on woodland creation before Christmas as well, so we are in regular contact and I will make a point of discussing this with him—but I am sure the hon. Gentleman will make a point of discussing this with him as well. \p Claire Hanna: As I am sure the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) would attest, Keep Northern Ireland Beautiful estimates that we have 420 million plastic bottles and 90 million cans in Northern Ireland so we have a lot of work to do on reduction. The scheme is working really well in the Republic and I am an avid user of it when I am down south, but while it is a big draw into supermarkets, particularly the multiples, are there any provisions in place to help smaller retailers put the infrastructure in place so that they get a piece of the action as well? \p Mary Creagh: My hon. Friend makes a good point. We have been engaging extensively with the Association of Convenience Stores because it is imperative that they do not miss out or else we will end up with a scheme run by large retailers for large retailers. It is in the design of the scheme that the deposit management organisation which this instrument sets up must have representatives from large and small retailers on its board to ensure that the full voice is heard. In fact I am about to tell my hon. Friend and the House about the details of this.

A person who is supplied with drink in a container that is in scope of this instrument pays a deposit which can be redeemed when it is returned for recycling. The design is informed by well-established international examples and extensive industry engagement over many years—about seven years. Industry partners have shared their experiences delivering these schemes across the world and the scheme will be centrally managed by an industry-led, not-for-profit organisation: the deposit management organisation.

The instrument applies to England and Northern Ireland. My officials have worked closely with the Scottish Government, who are amending their existing legislation  so that we can launch compatible schemes simultaneously across England, Northern Ireland and Scotland in 2027. The Welsh Government have withdrawn from the four-nation DRS approach; however, we are keen to remain in close working partnership with them as they make decisions regarding a DRS in Wales. We are keen to keep the door open, to provide as much interoperability across the UK as possible.

I acknowledge the work of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which draws this instrument to the special attention of the House on the grounds that it is politically or legally important and gives rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House.

The instrument sets out the scope of the scheme and places obligations on drinks producers, importers and retailers. Producers of drinks in plastic and metal containers will be obligated to label products and charge a deposit when supplying the drink into England and Northern Ireland. They must also pay the deposit to the deposit management organisation along with the producer fees to fund the scheme.

Retailers across England and Northern Ireland will be obligated to participate in the scheme by charging a deposit on plastic and metal drinks containers, taking the containers back and refunding the deposit. They are also required to pass the collected containers to the deposit management organisation for recycling and to display information to consumers so that they understand how the scheme works. Those obligations on producers and retailers across England and Northern Ireland will start from launch in October 2027. To administer the scheme, the instrument requires the appointment of a deposit management organisation. The instrument allows for certain provisions to come into force on the day after it is made that are necessary for the appointment of the deposit management organisation and the establishment of the administrative arrangements. \p Barry Gardiner: The Minister has been most generous in giving way to Members. She mentioned that the scheme will apply to plastic and metal drinks containers. What discussions has she had, or what information have her officials gathered, about the potential for manufacturers to switch their containers to glass and the impact that might have on use of resource and climate change? \p Mary Creagh: There has been talk of that, and I met with the glass industry recently, but so far we have seen no evidence of manufacturers switching. Manufacturers must be part of the deposit management organisation, so they will pay under either EPR—extended producer responsibility for packaging—or DRS. Glass has been excluded from scope on the basis of extensive consultation.

The DMO will be appointed in April 2025. It will be obligated to: meet collection targets; pay return point operators for collecting containers; recycle the collected containers; and pay national enforcement authorities. The instrument provides powers for the deposit management organisation to set deposit levels, prescribe labelling, interact with other schemes, set producer fees, calculate handling fees for return points and exempt some retailers from hosting a return point.

Under the “polluter pays” principle, it is the responsibility of businesses to bear the costs of managing the packaging they place on the market. Through specific return point  exemptions based on store size, proximity to another return point and suitable premises grounds, this instrument will also protect small businesses across England and Northern Ireland, which we recognise are vital to our high streets and communities.

Further information has come to light since the question asked by the hon. Member for Strangford. I am in contact with Minister Muir as we progress, but Northern Ireland has given DEFRA responsibility for delivering the scheme, so this statutory instrument has Northern Ireland’s consent. I hope that answers his question.

Finally, the instrument makes provision for monitoring and enforcement activities by the Environment Agency and by local authority trading standards officers to ensure obligated businesses and the deposit management organisation are compliant. This deposit return scheme will improve recycling rates and provide better quality material for recycling. [Interruption.] Was I asked to give way? I do give way. \p Gareth Snell: I am sorry; I was being quiet and shy, which I am well known for in this place. The Minister rightly points out that some of the responsibility will now fall to trading standards and local authorities. Can she give an undertaking to the House that, with that new responsibility, there may be some element of new burden funding so that local authorities are properly resourced to undertake the enforcement of this vital protection? \p Mary Creagh: Local authorities have been given new burdens funding to prepare for the simpler recycling reforms, but I will take my hon. Friend’s question back and endeavour to get an answer to him, hopefully by the end of this debate. Who knows, it could come sooner.

The DRS will improve recycling rates, and by giving people money back on their bottles we transform their plastic and metal drinks containers from a waste stream to a resource stream. That will make a positive difference to every single street where we live. Nobody wants to see plastic and cans littering our beaches, rivers and seas, our roads and our parks. With this scheme, we will have less litter, less landfill and less harm to our precious wildlife, which is under such pressure, and we really will begin to turn back the plastic tide. \p Judith Cummins: I call the shadow Minister. \p Andrew Griffith: I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the Government’s position. Let me place on record the substantial achievements of the last Conservative Government on recycling. This Government do not like the facts, but let me give them some. In 2010, 25,000 tonnes of waste were sent to landfill. By 2022, the last year for which figures are available, that was just 13,000 tonnes—a reduction of almost half. The Conservatives introduced new, straightforward and simpler—Labour will welcome simpler—guidance on recycling by creating standardised rules on what can be recycled to deliver that substantial achievement.

Some love to talk, while others quietly act and get on with the job. In my constituency in 2023, Conservative-run West Sussex county council delivered a recycling rate of 53%. For the same period, the Green and Labour-led  Brighton and Hove council, just next door, delivered a rate of only 30%. Who would have thought that socialists would struggle to clean up their own mess? Thanks to Conservatives, local authorities are now required to collect a consistent set of recyclable waste and to ensure frequent collections, underpinning a new recycling economy. Let us be clear: Labour-run local authorities deliver the lowest levels of recycling in this country, so the Government could fix this problem without coming to this place to pass legislation. \p Barry Gardiner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p Andrew Griffith: Communities in Conservative-controlled local authorities are three times less likely to be subjected to fly-tipping than in Labour-run areas. The Conservatives have a proud record of recycling, and the hon. Member clearly wishes to applaud that, so I give way. \p Barry Gardiner: I applaud any movement in the right direction. The hon. Gentleman compares local authorities, but does he accept that many Labour local authorities have high-rise and tenement buildings, where collection is infinitely more difficult than in leafy suburbs with individual detached houses? \p Andrew Griffith: The hon. Gentleman knows of what he speaks, and of course I accept that there is wonderful variation across our whole country. That is precisely why I chose two neighbouring authorities. What could be easier than collecting from dense urban areas, compared with the challenges and costs of having to collect waste across far-flung rural communities such as those I represent? Perhaps later we will hear the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) explain exactly why that council, which drove itself into the ground, has such a poor record on recycling. \p Carla Denyer: rose— \p Andrew Griffith: Fantastic, we do not have to wait. \p Carla Denyer: As the MP for Bristol Central, I cannot speak directly on behalf of councillors for Brighton and Hove, other than to point out that my understanding is that their hands were tied by a deal that was agreed by the previous Labour administration \p Andrew Griffith: I hate to intrude on socialist grief, so let me move on.

Business leaders make decisions only when they have considered the context of all external factors, so it is important—I hope the Government agree—that we consider the statutory instrument in the context of the current headwinds faced by British business.

Right now, businesses across the land are working through the tough choices they will have to make to keep their businesses viable in the face of this Government’s job-killing, investment-crushing, growth-destroying Budget, because of choices this Government have made. It was this Government who chose to place enormous burdens on business with their new tax on jobs. It was this Government who chose to halve business rates relief for retail and hospitality. It is this Government who are choosing to push through their Employment Rights Bill,   which will increase unemployment, as we saw today, and prevent young people from ever getting their first chance of a job. Business confidence has been knocked down and jobs are at risk, and it is no surprise when we consider that not a single person sat around the Cabinet table has real experience of running a business.

No sectors have been hit harder than retail and hospitality. The British Retail Consortium has said how Labour’s Budget will increase inflation, slow pay growth, cause shop closures—the very shops that will have to participate in this scheme—and reduce jobs. The CBI has said that retail businesses have gone into “crisis containment”. The Institute of Directors found that economic confidence has fallen for a fourth month running—does anyone know what those four months have in common? The number of businesses closing has increased by 64% since the Budget. That is the shocking reality and the context in which the Government seek to bring forward today’s statutory instrument, putting more burdens and more cost on business. \p Andrew Murrison: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Government were really serious about reduce, reuse, recycle, they would put a moratorium on the construction of new waste incinerators, as we put in our manifesto in July? If we now had a Conservative Government, there would be no more waste incinerators, including in Westbury, in my constituency, which would be matching what the Welsh and Scots have already done. \p Andrew Griffith: My right hon. Friend makes a very important point—I hope the Government are listening. That measure would not cost the economy anything, unlike this measure, which, according to the Government’s own impact assessment, will cost the economy. In fact, it will represent a £288 million net cost imposed on business every year, which is a £2.7 billion indirect cost over the 10-year appraisal period. It will be another unsustainable cost heaped on business, and an unwelcome addition to the growing headwinds on enterprise that this Government have created. \p David Simmonds: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that this measure will create not only headwinds for business, but significant headwinds for the local authorities that use the recyclable and resaleable material from doorstep recycling to subsidise the cost of expanding recycling services to all our residents? By extracting that valuable material from doorstep recycling, we risk pushing up the council tax needed to subsidise recycling services  for all. \p Andrew Griffith: I agree with my hon. Friend, who makes a very important point. At its heart, it is a failure to identify the real harm that would justify the imposition of real costs on business at this enormously difficult time.

The scheme will also have an impact on consumers, because it is ultimately consumers who will bear the burden. It is a highly regressive cost burden that will disproportionately hit those on the lowest income. Research by the Association of Convenience Stores found that a disproportionate amount of people with long-term disabilities or aged over 65 supported the existing model of household collections, which is broadly working well, instead of the deposit return scheme. \p Barry Gardiner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p Andrew Griffith: I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who will hopefully speak about the aggressive nature of these proposals. \p Barry Gardiner: I am slightly puzzled. In the Conservative Government’s response to the previous Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report, they committed to putting these measures in place by 2025. Why have the Conservatives changed their minds so dramatically? Given that it appears that the hon. Gentleman would reject these measures, how does he propose to achieve the target set under section 1 of the Environment Act 2021, which his Government brought forward and for which I commend them, which is supposed to reduce the number of kilograms of residual waste per capita by half, from 577 kg to 287 kg? \p Andrew Griffith: When the facts change, we change our minds. The Conservative party is under new leadership and we will be unafraid to speak up for those in the economy who create the growth we so desperately need. If the hon. Member would like me to do so, I would be very happy once again to go through the impact of Labour’s Budget on business—that growth-destroying, jobs-killing, economy-sapping Budget. I would be very happy to go through that all night long, but I will make some progress.

The cost of this measure is highly regressive and the Conservatives are not alone in voicing concerns. Industry bodies, including the Association of Convenience Stores, UKHospitality and the British Soft Drinks Association, have raised objections to the cost of the scheme and its implementation. But it is not just business: the Scottish Government have also raised substantial concerns. More tellingly, the Minister’s Labour colleagues in Wales have announced that they will pursue their own separate scheme. How astonishing—nice to see two Labour-led Governments working so very well together! I was not entirely clear what the situation was in respect of Northern Ireland, notwithstanding the Minister’s attempt to clarify that, but she certainly conceded in her remarks from the Dispatch Box that the schemes will not be interoperable on day one. Well, 16 million people live within 50 miles of the border. For businesses, it is unconscionable that they are compelled to deliver multiple schemes in multiple areas without any guarantee or clarity about interoperability.

I read in the weekend papers that all Ministers received a note instructing them to cease anti-growth measures. The Minister and her colleagues will have an abundance of anti-growth measures to pick from. In fact, I cannot think of a single measure or policy that this Government have so far put forward that is at all pro-growth. In respect of this particular measure, it seems as if her Department did not read that memo, or if they did, they simply did not understand what it meant. The country needs a Government who focus on doing their key functions well rather than rolling out more red tape, however well intentioned.

As the official Opposition, it is our responsibility to speak up for businesses and our constituents when the Government get it wrong. The Conservative party is under new management and we are unafraid to champion those who take risks, generate wealth and create the prosperity to pay for the public services that those on  the Labour Benches are so keen on funding so well. The United Kingdom has a strong and proud record on recycling and the environment, building on work undertaken by the previous Conservative Government, but circumstances have changed or have been changed by this Government, and when the facts change, so  too must our policies. Businesses are currently being subjected to a barrage of anti-growth measures and policies, destroying investment, jobs and growth. This policy is, I am afraid, the wrong scheme at the wrong time. For that reason, those on the Conservative Benches will be opposing today’s statutory instrument. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Judith Cummins: Order. Members will have seen that the debate is oversubscribed, so I am going to impose an immediate four-minute time limit, with the exception of Front Benchers. \p Barry Gardiner: I commend the previous Government for much of the work they did. I commend the fact that they put in place the Environment Act 2021. I do so because it is really important that we adopt a bipartisan approach to these matters. When we are talking about the environment and climate change, yes in this Chamber we can have some political point scoring occasionally, but it is much more important that we create the bipartisan platform that means successive Governments can build and work from it.

I commend the Minister for introducing the measure so quickly. It is long overdue, and it will make an appreciable difference. I would love to know by exactly how many kilograms of residual waste per capita it will reduce our output, but given that each of us is producing 577 kg of residual waste every year, which is over half a tonne—and some of that is toxic waste—it is very important that we get on with this job. Just a month ago we saw a report from the Office for Environmental Protection which showed very clearly that we are not on track to meet the targets set in the Environment Act 2021 by 2042. Although I commend the Government for the action that they are taking now and the urgency with which they have got on with this measure, I want to quote what the report said under the heading “Progress in the reporting period”, which was 2023-24:

“The scale and pace of actions does not align with the challenge. While flagship waste management policies have been developed, their introduction has been delayed and they largely focus on end-of-pipe action. There is a lack of action focused on circular economy.”

I am delighted that the Minister is introducing this measure and I commend the Government for doing so, but we need even more, and we need it more quickly. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Wera Hobhouse: We Liberal Democrats welcome this initiative from the Government, although in our manifesto we went further and committed ourselves to introducing a deposit return scheme for food and drink bottles and containers.

We agree with the Government that a scheme of this kind will foster a nature-positive economy, tackle plastic pollution, and boost recycling efforts across Britain. Such schemes are a proven strategy worldwide to increase recycling while minimising waste and littering: they support our environmental goals while also providing an income stream that will protect our public funds. However, I have some concerns about the scheme’s implementation.

The Environment Agency is currently underfunded and struggling to meet its regulatory obligations, particularly in respect of water quality, so we must ensure that this statutory instrument comes with appropriate support and additional funding for the agency to handle this new responsibility effectively. The scheme should also be as convenient as possible for people, whether they are “on the go” or at home, and—as has already been mentioned—small businesses need support in order to transition smoothly into the new system. We must ensure that the introduction of a deposit return scheme does not add to their financial burden. We should be seeking to work with small grocery businesses and convenience retailers to help them to introduce the scheme in an affordable way.

I urge the Government to operate a joint scheme throughout the United Kingdom. The Food & Drink Federation has called for a joined-up scheme across the UK, and only this morning I attended a roundtable event on the future of recycling where it was agreed that different schemes in different parts of the UK would make it extremely difficult for those in the industry. They operate throughout the UK, and it would not be viable for them to sell different products in the devolved nations; moreover, they have no control over which parts of the UK their products would be sold or deposited in. A can of soft drink purchased in Bristol should be deposited in the same way as one purchased in Cardiff. A single UK scheme, aligned in scope, fees, processes and labelling, is essential to minimise costs and prevent confusion—and, in that context, it is important that we learn the lessons of the Scottish deposit return scheme.

We must also consider the important role that local authorities will play in making the scheme work successfully, and ensure that they are properly supported. That too has been mentioned during the debate.

Many local authorities collect from the kerbside in bins or boxes, where recycling is co-mingled and then sent on to another company, which sorts and separates the recycled materials. The cost to local authorities for this service depends on whether items can be recycled for a profit by such companies: if they can make a profit from the items that people recycle, councils will be charged less. Some councils now worry that dry and mixed recycling will become less valuable if cans are included in the deposit return scheme, which will lead to higher costs for local authorities, whose resources are already stretched. So far, DEFRA has committed to work to understand the impact of the DRS on local authorities, and I hope that it will be fully considered.

The Liberal Democrats welcome the introduction of the deposit return scheme. We have some reservations about its implementation, but it is a positive step towards a more sustainable and green future. \p Sarah Champion: I am very proud that Beatson Clark manufactures glass right in the heart of my constituency and has done so for 270 years; it employs 200 people directly and a further 2,000 in the supply chain. Glass can be recycled almost infinitely. Currently, almost 74% of glass is recycled, and 80% of that comes from kerbside collections. I recently met representatives of Beaston Clark and British Glass, and they all expressed grave concerns about the impact of this Government’s current policies on the glass sector. DEFRA’s latest figures show that the number of glass containers placed on the market in 2024 was 23% lower than earlier estimates.

With increased pressure from imported glass, the outlook for UK manufacturers is indeed grim. UK glass manufacturers are already under severe pressure. The failure to introduce tariffs on imported glass, predominantly from Turkey, has left the industry facing punishing competition from overseas producers, who have significantly lower energy costs and no carbon charges. Although the move towards a circular economy as part of environmental improvements is laudable, it will ultimately be futile if the outcome is dependent on foreign imports, with no environmental impact mitigations in place. Can the Minister confirm whether imported glass will face the same EPR, and who will be liable  to pay it? \p Mary Creagh: My hon. Friend raised this issue with me prior to the debate. I have checked with my officials, and I am happy to confirm that the person who places the product—regardless of whether it is made in the UK or purchased from abroad—on the market will be responsible for paying the EPR fees on glass bottles. \p Sarah Champion: I rise happier than when I sat down. I thank the Minister for clarifying that.

The sector has legitimate concerns that the DRS will lead to poor environmental outcomes, with less recycled glass going back for remelt, as it will likely be crushed in the process, thus rendering it unsuitable for its purpose. The DRS could also cause storage and safety issues for both consumers and retailers, especially smaller shops. The Republic of Ireland did not include glass in its scheme. It is important to point out that the DRS is not a reuse scheme; it is a collection scheme. Many people reminisce about the UK’s old deposit scheme, but that was a deposit refill scheme, which is completely different from the proposed DRS.

Wales has achieved a 90% glass collection rate from kerbside collections without the need for DRS, and is ranked second in the world for recycling. Following the Welsh Government’s recent announcement that they will withdraw from the four-nations DRS and re-examine its scope, it seems to me and many others that the scheme will be ineffective across the UK. Will the Minister tell us what consideration has been given to the Welsh blueprint for collection, which would be the simplest way to improve recycling rates? Given that local authorities receive money from the extended producer responsibility, it is a shame that the Government are not encouraging them to use it to improve collection quality.

The glass sector supports the principle behind the extended producer responsibility, but it sees the excessively high EPR fees on glass packaging as punishment for   speaking out. The arrangement in Germany is often cited, including by DEFRA, as a good example of an EPR scheme, yet its glass fee is more than 10 times lower than the UK’s, at €28 per tonne. According to the indicative figures recently announced by DEFRA, the fee will be £240 per tonne in the UK.

In my discussions with the Minister last Monday, she confirmed that the final EPR figures were unlikely to be finalised until June. How is a business meant to budget on that basis? I urge her to take a serious look at the indicative figures to see if they can be reduced dramatically; otherwise, we will lose the most recyclable sector. Currently, per unit, glass is facing significantly higher fees than less recyclable, less circular materials. That goes against everything that other Government policies are trying to achieve, and I ask the Minister if they are really confident that the EPR policy and other waste policies will lead to more recyclable packaging in the UK.

Further, the delay to the DRS means that there is a two-and-a-half-year period when glass beverage containers will be paying EPR fees while competing beverage containers will not, due to being in the DRS. Put bluntly, this Government are driving businesses towards less recyclable packaging such as plastic in those two and a half years. It was never intended that EPR would be in place before the DRS, and this leaves glass at a huge competitive disadvantage in the beverage market, which makes up 80% of the glass market. Given the history and the uncertainty that still exists around  the DRS, it is vital that all materials pay EPR fees until the DRS is fully functional, to create a level playing field for all beverage packaging. There is a backstop for 2028, but can I ask the Minister to clarify whether the backstop fees will be backdated to April this year when EPR launches? \p David Chadwick: The Welsh food and drink sector is one of the flourishing parts of the Welsh economy, and it is home to nearly 230,000 much-needed jobs in Wales. Many of those businesses are located in my constituency, and I am fortunate that many of them also come to the Royal Welsh Show in Builth Wells every July to show their wares in the food hall. Many of those businesses are great examples of rural entrepreneurship. They create jobs in places that seriously need them.

I welcome the deposit return scheme, as do the Liberal Democrats, but we are listening to the concerns of people in the industry, particularly in areas such as mine, who have great reservations about the impact on the Welsh food and drink sector of having a scheme that does not work across all four nations. I therefore call on the Government to work closely with the Welsh Government to ensure that we do not have a situation whereby extra costs are imposed on Welsh businesses to sell into England and the rest of the United Kingdom, and likewise that we do not have a situation in a couple of years’ time in which big manufacturers will not manufacture things for the Welsh market because the extra costs are too heavy to bear.

I again welcome the introduction of a deposit return scheme and lament the fact that the Conservatives never did this when they had plenty of opportunity. \p Deirdre Costigan: As chair of the Tidy Britain all-party parliamentary group, I want to thank you for allowing me to speak in this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. The APPG and Keep Britain Tidy have worked on this issue for years, including under the chairship of my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater). It is exciting to finally see change being delivered in today’s regulations, and I congratulate the Minister on her speedy and no-nonsense approach to making this happen.

I frequently visit local schools and when I ask the children what they would like to see changed in Ealing Southall, they always say they want less litter on the streets. Adults complain about litter all the time, of course, but I had not realised how much children were disturbed by it. Litter makes places feel unloved and it makes the people who live in those places feel unloved too. It makes it embarrassing to ask friends around to your house, and it is a daily reminder that your street and your family just do not matter.

Over the last 14 years, the amount of litter on our streets has gone up by a third: a tsunami of litter created by the previous Conservative Government, who slashed the funding for local councils to the bone. Councils such as my own in Ealing were left having to spend about two thirds of their budget on adult and children’s social care, with very little left for anything else. They had to make impossible decisions: spend money on potholes or libraries; on playgrounds or parking; on street sweepers or youth workers. They were left to rely on local volunteer litter pickers such as LAGER Can in Ealing, who do an amazing job, but they cannot do it alone.

It is great that this new Labour Government have increased funding for local councils, and I am confident that the Chancellor’s spending review in the spring will allow councils to plan services better, but let us be honest that picking up litter after people is a total waste of money. That money could be much better spent on more playgrounds or youth clubs. The real solution is to stop the litter in the first place.

What if people were rewarded for recycling their litter instead of dropping it on the street? What if they got money back? That is exactly what this Labour Government are doing today. We are making recycling pay. These new rules mean that shops across the country will be fitted out with reverse vending machines that give people money back for their used plastic bottles and cans. I have tried out the machine in the shop beside my mum’s house in Ireland, and it is simple and easy to use. People feed in their empties, and they get a voucher for their money back.

Since being introduced in Ireland in February last year, reverse vending machines have already increased recycling and reduced litter on the streets. Right now, bins in streets, parks and beaches across the UK are chock-full of empty plastic bottles and cans. Think what a difference it would make if all those bottles and cans went back to the shop instead. We would end the problem of overflowing bins on the high street forever.

In Ealing, a massive 41% of all reported fly-tips are black sack fly-tips containing household waste such as empty plastic bottles and cans, so making recycling pay would also reduce fly-tipping.

The previous Government knew that this made sense as long ago as 2017, but they dithered, delayed and fought among themselves. Today, we have seen a total U-turn, with Conservative Members fighting against their own policy. Again, they prove that they are on the side of the vested interests, the polluters and the litter bugs.

Two schools in my constituency came to see me this week, and they said that this makes sense and will reduce litter on the streets. Even the children know that this is the right thing to do.

Today we are ending the Conservative record of dither and delay, and their deplorable refusal to do anything about so many communities that feel neglected and uncared for. The only way to get rid of litter on our streets is to stop people dropping it in the first place. This new plan to make recycling pay will help clean up our streets and parks, our rivers and beaches, and put money back in people’s pockets. \p Jim Shannon: None of us is against the idea of recycling and reusing, and it is important that we have a plan of action to do that. However, in the light of the questions I have asked about what is happening back home, my concern is that we do not know exactly what Northern Ireland’s input into the process will be. It seems that there is none.

The idea of a deposit return scheme is not new. When I was a child, which was not yesterday, the Maine man brought fizzy drinks to our door. My parents were extremely displeased if we children smashed the bottles, in which case the money would not come back for their recycling—we understood that we would be in trouble. That scheme worked, and it is the kind of scheme we would like to see. We need to reuse bottles, and we can do that only with co-operation and buy-in from the general public.

My local church and others have raised funds to run their Campaigner clans and missionary projects by asking their congregations and kids to bring in drinks cans. They industriously hoover the roads to collect the cans, which they crush and bring to the Bryson recycling scheme in Belfast for cash. The money raised is sent to the missionaries in Swaziland and is used for Campaigner clan equipment. Though the scheme ran for a set period, the church has continued to do it.

There are many such schemes in Northern Ireland. The Minister knows that I am fond of her, and I am not here to cast any aspersions or cause any hassle, but we understand that 12 billion plastic bottles and 14 billion drinks cans are sold in the United Kingdom each year. We need to consider something different. I thank the civil servants. I am not giving them a hard time, but I want to know the answers to my questions. We need to understand the differences between the Republic of Ireland scheme and the one being proposed here. To use a biblical term, how can oil and water mix, and the water be good enough to drink and the oil good enough to put in a car? My point is that if there are two completely different schemes, with different goals, in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, we need to ensure that the matter is looked at in a sensible way.  Our colleagues who are Members of the Legislative Assembly do not know about the scheme either, so we have a very vague system before us.

I know that we are all committed to trying to do something better and different. We take our bottles to the bottle bank every week, and the council collects them; and we recycle our plastics and paper through the blue bin system, and we wholeheartedly support that; but there is something very wrong about the Minister bringing forward a scheme that the MLAs in Northern Ireland do not know anything about. I understand that the Minister said that the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs has given DEFRA authority to carry out the scheme, but which Member of the Legislative Assembly gave the go-ahead? Those are my questions. We understand the reasons for the scheme in principle, but it is vague and generalised, and there has not been proper input from the Northern Ireland Assembly. \p Matt Rodda: It is always a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I wholeheartedly support the Minister and the Government on this important matter. I want to highlight a few brief points in the time I have available, and underline the points made by many other Members about the importance of tackling litter, tidying up, making communities seem loved and helping local residents, as well as the important complementary point about protecting wildlife. Bottles and other packaging are a menace to small mammals, fish and other wildlife, and an eyesore in rivers and on the coast. That needs to be tackled, so I wholeheartedly welcome the measures.

I will cover three points: I will discuss an aspect of the difficult work under way to tackle the problem of litter, highlight the growing scale of the challenge of litter, and underline the importance of behaviour change, which is rightly at the heart of the Government’s policy. May I, like other Members, say a few words of thanks to the wonderful volunteers and organisations in my area that carry out admirable work to deal with litter? Much of that work is completely unpaid and unrewarded in any financial way, but it gives people a huge sense of wellbeing, and they have the support and understanding of their communities for tackling litter.

Keep Caversham Tidy is a local group set up by a group of friends during the pandemic. Since then, it has flourished, and I had the pleasure of going out to help the group. Its work illustrates the practical problems that local authorities and voluntary groups face. When we were clearing up in Christchurch Meadows in Caversham, near the River Thames in Reading, we could see a lot of deeply embedded waste, including drinks cans and bottles, buried behind park benches and logs in the large park. That litter could have caused damage to wildlife, and it was an eyesore and a menace to residents using the park. There was also a risk of it getting into the River Thames, and once waste is in a river, it can travel out to sea and cause untold damage there.

Good work is undertaken by many local groups in the Reading area, particularly by Katesgrove Community Association, which has dealt with two fly-tipped piles of rubbish in the last couple of days, despite the cold  weather. The work of those volunteers supports the enormous amount of work undertaken by landowners and local authorities. That work is unrelenting. Our council takes the issue extremely seriously. It has driven up the recycling rate to well over 50% and introduced food waste recycling, along with other measures. It will shortly introduce doorstep glass recycling, although some glass will not be covered by the scheme. However, the council struggles enormously because of a whole series of practical problems; I will come to that later. It even has a lorry that drives round Reading constantly picking up fly-tipped waste that is reported. That is the scale of the problem that it is trying to tackle.

To give an illustration, I was recently talking to residents in Waldeck Street, near Whitley Street council estate in Reading, and we could see piles of fly-tipped rubbish, including household waste, bottles and other forms of packaging. There is a link, as was highlighted earlier, between fly-tipping and drinks cartons and containers. The Minister is on the right path in giving people an incentive to recycle, so that waste does not get into the illegal waste stream, including through fly-tipping. The evidence from around the world is really clear. I remember the tail end of the scheme that the hon. Member for Strangford describes; there was an incentive in the UK to return bottles as recently as the 1980s or ’90s. Let us go back to that. \p Carla Denyer: I and the Green party welcome this scheme; however, I am disappointed to see a deposit return scheme that does not include glass. Implementing a deposit return scheme that includes glass is really not unprecedented; it is absolutely possible. In fact, there are around 50 schemes around the world, 46 of which include glass. The remaining four do not, but that is only because there is a separate glass scheme. While I welcome the progress, which I am sure will help, will the Government look at this again, and work closely with the Welsh Government to see how glass can be included?

On a tangentially related note, I want to quickly respond to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), who appears to have stepped out of the Chamber. Since my response to him earlier, a resident of Brighton and Hove has been in touch—the hon. Member may regret having raised this—to explain that the 25-year private finance initiative deal that Brighton and Hove council was locked into, which heavily restricted the range of products that could be recycled, was originally brought in by a Labour Administration, but was later extended by a Conservative one. \p James Naish: I wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s commitment to introducing a deposit return scheme. The policy is long overdue and will help us to tackle the rising tide of waste and pollution that has blighted our countryside and our environment for too long.

It is a source of great pride to represent Rushcliffe in this House. The borough of Rushcliffe boasts the highest recycling rate in Nottinghamshire, but we know that we can, and must, go further. My constituents care deeply   about the environment, and they rightly expect this Government to show ambition and leadership in addressing the waste crisis. The Conservatives first promised a deposit return scheme around 2018—more than six years ago—yet there is nothing to show for it. Their failure has sadly meant that countless plastic bottles, cans and other types of packaging have continued to pollute our streets, rivers and seas.

I was fortunate enough to work and spend time in Ireland for 18 months prior to the general election, so I have seen at first hand the deposit return scheme there. In the first few months after implementation, the number of units recycled per month grew from around 2 million to more than 100 million; 630 million containers were recycled in the first 10 months of operation. I hope that we could achieve similar rates of uptake in the UK.

By bringing forward a deposit return scheme that works by 2027, not just for the environment but for businesses, consumers and local authorities, this Labour Government will finally deliver what the country needs. We must, as we promised in our manifesto, empower individuals to play their part in a circular economy. For that reason, I welcome the Government’s recent announcement about tighter rules on incinerators. I have written to the Secretary of State about a proposal for an incinerator at Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station in my constituency. The proposal is nearing the end of its planning permission. For many years, local campaign groups have called out their concerns about that project, and I look forward to the Secretary of State’s reply to my letter in due course.

The benefits of this scheme are clear. It will collect, recycle and reuse valuable materials that would otherwise end up as waste. It will preserve our countryside, protect wildlife and restore pride in our local communities. Significantly, it will drive economic growth, creating 21,000 green jobs and unlocking more than £10 billion of investment in recycling infrastructure over the next decade. The consequences of inaction—litter-strewn streets, polluted waterways and increased fly-tipping—are all too visible. The deposit return scheme represents a common-sense solution that not only cleans up our environment, but fosters a culture of sustainability and personal responsibility.

With this policy, we are not only cleaning up our environment, but charting a course towards a cleaner, greener and more sustainable future. I wholeheartedly support this scheme, and urge all Members to do the same. \p Richard Foord: Growing up, it was second nature for us to rinse out our milk bottles and put them out for the milkman to collect the next day. It was a very simple system, and it worked. Then came the rise of single-use plastics, and for a while we convinced ourselves that recycling was enough. We felt that as long as we put our plastic bottles in the right bin, they would be dealt with responsibly, but that view completely changed when we discovered what was really happening to some of our exported waste. Britain was the largest exporter of waste to Turkey last year; in 2023, it exported more than 140,000 tonnes. We have also learned that so-called energy from waste plants are producing harmful emissions, much of them from burning  plastic waste that could have been reused. I have seen in my east Devon constituency the effect of plastic not making it into the recycling bins at all.

The UK goes through an estimated 14 billion plastic bottles every year. They wash up on beautiful beaches in Sidmouth, Seaton and Beer. In 2019, volunteers collecting waste along Devon’s beaches found 12,000 pieces of plastic in one day. Groups such as Sidmouth Plastic Warriors do fantastic work as volunteers to clean up, but they should not have to. Last year, children from Sidmouth primary school created a message-in-a-bottle exhibit, which highlighted the problem of plastic waste in Devon’s seas. Their messages were eye-opening. One child wrote:

“I want to swim in the sea with fish, not rubbish.”

Another specifically directed her message to MPs, saying:

“Whatever you’re doing it’s not enough.”

Another simply wrote, “Deeds, not words”. Their words were a powerful reminder, for me at least, that although we must lead, we can also follow the example of other countries. While serving in Germany with the British Army, we found that returning empties to the supermarket was just part of the weekly shop. It became a habit, like taking a reusable bag to the supermarket. When I came back to the UK, I was struck by the difference. In Germany, one rarely sees plastic bottles on the ground. Here, they are in our verges, in our hedgerows and in our waterways.

A deposit return scheme will help. By charging a small deposit when a bottle or can is bought and refunding it when the bottle is returned, we are creating an incentive to reuse. However, the decision to exclude glass bottles means that we could miss an opportunity. Glass is one of the most polluting forms of litter. It is dangerous to livestock in the countryside, and to wildlife. In Wales and Scotland, different schemes are being considered, but having varying regulatory regimes in our four nations could bring additional costs and challenges. The hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) asked whether producers might shift from plastic to glass if that meant not incurring costs associated with the introduction of the deposit return scheme, which was an excellent question. If there was that unintended consequence, we could see heavier goods being transported around the country, and increased carbon emissions.

Overall, we need a deposit return scheme. Devon’s landscape and coastline need it. This time for half measures is over. We need real action, including on glass, across the whole country. \p Amanda Hack: I welcome the Minister’s commitment to bringing forward the deposit return scheme. In my constituency, we have a dedicated community of volunteer litter pickers who work tirelessly to ensure that our environment is free from litter. However, their job is never-ending.

A member of the Castle Donington Litter Wombles visited me recently to highlight the litter issue on the lay-bys of the A453 between Donington services and East Midlands Gateway. In her correspondence to me, she said,

“Wombles have litter picked these lay-bys numerous times—and we have picked over 1000 bags from these locations since 2021, but it’s just a thankless task and is extremely disheartening to see them full of litter again within a matter of days.”

Everyone in the Chamber will have a group of dedicated volunteers litter picking in their communities, and we owe a great deal of thanks to them. We need to act to help them reduce the level of litter locally, but we face a growing environmental crisis and there must be an end in sight.

Keep Britain Tidy has found that small plastic bottles and non-alcoholic cans make up 43% of all litter. Single-use plastic is polluting our communities. A lot of that plastic never reaches the recycling plant; it is dropped on the floor, put in the wrong bin or tossed out the window on the motorway. The Conservative Government promised a deposit return scheme for recycling bottles and consistently delayed its introduction, but when this Labour Government say we are committed to cleaning up our streets, parks, rivers and oceans, we mean it. The deposit return scheme will provide an incentive for people to keep our streets clean and will make us all conscious of the plastic we use.

When Germany implemented a scheme—gosh, a couple decades ago—it reported a 98% return rate, showing the potential we have here. Meanwhile, in this country, a National Highways survey last year found that 63% of people had seen somebody discarding litter out the window on the side of an A-road or motorway. That has a devastating impact on our wildlife: the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has received more than 10,000 reports of animals found injured, trapped or dead in discarded litter over the past three years.

Highways and busy roads are far too dangerous for our volunteers to venture on to, and they should not have to. Keeping our environment clean is a collective responsibility. We have to start at the source, and I am pleased that we have a Government who are finally taking action and delivering on our environmental commitments. Introducing the deposit return scheme will kick-start an economy-wide transformation in our relationship with the resources we use and on tackling waste, but it would be useful if the Minister outlined how convenience stores in rural constituencies such as mine will play their part and how they will ensure that all retailers can get involved in the scheme.

I am grateful to have a Government who recognise the need to encourage people to recycle, reduce their waste and make more sustainable choices, which will go a long way towards protecting and preserving our planet for this generation and those to come. \p Alistair Strathern: I welcome the regulations, which are as important as they are long overdue. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the zeal she has brought to her role in ensuring that after several years of dither and delay, we finally have a Bill to bring this important measure forward.

For far too long, we as a society have not grappled with the blights of plastic pollution and litter. With over 75% of the litter across our high streets made up of the type of drink bottles we are talking about, the measure will be an important way of tackling issues that we know our communities care about. Fantastic local groups  such as Plastic Free Hitchin and Shefford, litter picking associations and other community groups in my constituency play their part, doing everything they can to keep my community and the countryside clear of litter. We owe it to them to ensure that as a Government we do our bit, too.

Back in 2018, the previous Government confirmed that they were looking at the idea of such a measure, so it is a matter of great regret that we have waited so many years for one and that the Opposition have provided little support for it today. That lost time should not just be cause for embarrassment, as we have seen so many other countries stealing a run on the measure and introducing a scheme that has been shown to work in jurisdiction after jurisdiction. That failure is literally littered all across our countryside. The paths that make my community so special and our rivers, lakes, oceans and beaches that we are all so proud of as a country are littered with plastic pollution that could have been tackled had the measure been brought forward earlier.

We know that where similar schemes have been introduced across the world there have been real benefits. There have been dramatic increases in returns—90% and above is quite typical for such plastic return schemes, but the current rate for our kerbside collection scheme is just 70%. We can ensure that we are doing more to improve circularity and the collection of virgin plastic so that we have the high-quality supply stream for recyclability that the industry is crying out for—that is why the Food & Drink Federation supports the measure. And we can ensure that we tackle littering, to address the issues that are blighting too many of our communities.

Given the need to act at pace, which was so lacking under the previous Government, I absolutely understand why we are focusing on important quick wins. However, it would be remiss of me not to address a wider recycling issue in my community that I have raised several times with the Minister: metal recycling. Five times in the last year, people in Hitchin have woken up to plumes of smoke and possible contamination in the air, as time and again local metal recycling plants have caught fire, often triggered by lithium-ion batteries making their way into the waste source. By working together—and trying to knock heads together—between councils, the Environment Agency and other authorities with a remit, we are looking to make progress, but there is clearly also a case for national action to ensure that the Environment Agency has the powers it needs to address that problem at source, and that we have wider measures on the recycling of lithium-ion batteries to reduce the risk of their ending up as contaminants in metal recycling in the first place. I will continue to press the Minister on that, but I know from my conversations with her that she is alive to the risks in that space. I hope that, over the course of this Parliament, we can deliver real change on that, too.

In the meantime, I am incredibly proud to support this important measure. Ensuring that we learn from the successes and challenges facing other jurisdictions will be important, as will ensuring that we have the right level of deposits, the right infrastructure in place, and the right support for smaller retailers to take part in the scheme. \p Christopher Vince: I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent speech. He makes a valid point about the importance of the measures not only for the  environment but for business and retailers. Does he agree that this legislation, which is, as he points out, absolutely overdue, will benefit not only the environment and our wombles—we also have some in Harlow—but business, too? \p Alistair Strathern: Absolutely. It will be important to establish close collaboration to ensure that the scheme is as effective as possible. There is a reason the Food & Drink Federation supports the measures: without them, it will not have the supply of high-quality recycled plastics needed to hit the targets that it is so keen to hit and is often already committed to. Without the legislation, those targets become almost impossible.

I will conclude my remarks by building on those of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner), who highlighted the historical importance of good cross-party consensus and the importance of climate and nature issues. For a long time, this measure had cross-party support, and it is deeply regrettable that that does not seem to be the case today. I take some heart from the Conservatives’ lack of enthusiasm to leap in and speak bombastically about their newfound opposition to the measures, which I hope is a sign that there may be space in the coming months to work more collaboratively to ensure that we support the measures to be as effective as possible.

I am incredibly grateful to the Minister for lending me her ear on the important issue of metal recycling in Hitchin, and for the leadership that she has shown on this legislation, which will make a real difference for my community and those across the country. It is about time that we lead on making it a reality. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Minister. \p Mary Creagh: What a tour de force this has been across the House, apart from the tumbleweed silence of the official Opposition. Where are the former DEFRA Ministers, having been muscled out of this debate? Where is the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), who, as late as April 2024, was speaking enthusiastically about how he was moving ahead with implementing a deposit return scheme for single-use drinks containers by October 2027? They are missing in action—the long-term view muscled out for a short-term hit of political opposition. I am old enough to remember when the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) was a Minister. Presumably he signed off on the write-round on the Environment Act 2021, which introduced the enabling legislation for many of the reforms that we are bringing in. Amnesia seems to be a rather convenient illness among the Conservative Front Benchers.

Let me answer some of the points raised in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern) asked about metals. I hope that we will not have to wait for a whole Parliament before we make progress on tackling the issues in the metals and tyres recycling business. As he is aware, we have also banned single-use vapes to tackle the battery fires they cause. I will work with other Ministers across Government to consider how to tackle the growing problem of lithium battery fires.

Glass is excluded from the DRS in England, Northern Ireland and Scotland. The Government’s position is that glass would add considerable up-front cost and create complex challenges for the delivery of the DRS, particularly in the hospitality and retail sectors, as well as disproportionately impacting small breweries. It would be inconvenient for consumers due to its weight and its potential for breakage in transit to a return point. Glass drinks containers across the UK are included in the extended producer responsibility for packaging scheme to ensure they are efficiently and effectively recycled, and the glass recycling targets within that scheme have been increased from 83% by 2030 to 85%. We are also considering how reuse systems could be developed in the future, and I have met representatives of the drinks industry in the last fortnight to discuss that. We will not let the perfect be the enemy of the good when bringing in these regulations.

On Wales, waste is a devolved issue. How a future scheme works in Wales will be for Welsh Government Ministers to determine, and we will continue to work with devolved Governments and industry as we progress the DRS. \p David Chadwick: Will the Minister give way? \p Mary Creagh: I am going to finish my points, and if there is time at the end, I will take interventions. We are very short of time.

Turning to material switching, a 2023 report from Reloop and the Container Recycling Institute considered numerous international examples of introductions and expansions of a DRS, and concluded that there was no evidence of this causing an observed decline in sales of in-scope products. On small retailers, we have engaged with retail—as I said earlier—and we can confirm that retail premises under 100 square metres in an urban area will be automatically exempt from the DRS retailer obligations, which will support some of the smallest retailers. Although those retailers larger than 100 square metres will be required to host a return point, they will be able to determine whether a manual return point or a small reverse vending machine would be best for their store style, with support from the DMO. Evidence from other areas that have introduced these schemes shows that some very small retailers enjoy hosting returns and are keen to experience the additional footfall they bring.

On local authorities, there will be new burdens funding for trading standards, and the DRS will collect at least 90% of containers by year 3. This will have a varying impact on local authorities: they will miss out on the sales of materials, but will make savings of around £30 million from having to collect less litter, so I think we will see a positive impact there. On incinerators, the residual waste capacity note that we published on 30 December shows that there are certain areas in England where significant volumes of household waste are still sent to landfill, and we landfill far too much non-household waste. Disposing of waste in landfill has a greater negative environmental impact than recovering energy through incineration, but this does not take away from our commitment to minimise residual waste. The new conditions we have set out will support economic growth and will drive our push to net zero and our plan for change.

Turning to interoperability in Northern Ireland, the scheme will of course be interoperable across England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, but although there is a separate scheme in the Republic of Ireland— \p David Chadwick: On that point, will the Minister give way? \p Mary Creagh: No, I am going to make my point and then give way at the end if there is time.

Although there is a separate scheme in the Republic of Ireland, these regulations allow the DMO to work with other scheme administrators, such as Re-Turn in the Republic of Ireland. That means that once the scheme is established, its administrators have the option of collectively developing operational solutions and creating alignment for the benefit of consumers in both countries. Officials have visited the Republic of Ireland and speak regularly to Re-Turn, so the opportunities to work together, to align and to learn from Ireland are there, and they are very positive. I will ensure that Members of the Legislative Assembly are invited, and I am very happy to keep the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) informed.

On regulator costs—an issue that was raised by the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesperson, the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse)—the Environment Agency will be funded for its regulatory costs by the DMO. There are checks and balances in place to ensure that this is proportionate.

In conclusion, we are hearing the same circular arguments from the Conservatives. Their Government talked but did not act, and they allowed dither and delay to dog the reforms. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) how depressing it is for local litter groups to have to step in and pick up the pieces where Conservative cuts have resulted in cuts to street sweeping and cleaning. Frankly, theirs is a Herculean task that should not be necessary, but they are cleaning out the Augean stables. Today is the beginning of the end of that community clear-up. We are literally throwing money into the gutter, and hearing the same old attack lines being recycled, although by different shadow Ministers, to be fair—there are fresh faces.

This is not the end of litter, but it is the beginning of the end of litter in this country. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) for taking the time to listen to the next generation who will benefit from these reforms. I, too, wish to swim with the fish, not with rubbish. I, too, am a believer in deeds, not words. On the Opposition Benches, Conservative Members love to talk; on this side of the House, we love to do. That is the difference a Labour Government will make.

Question put. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 352, Noes 75.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Deposit Scheme for Drinks Containers (England and Northern Ireland) Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 25 November 2024, be approved. \p John Martin McDonnell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Speaker and the Deputy Speakers have been helpful and generous in allowing us to raise the case, using various parliamentary mechanisms, of Mr Alaa Abd el-Fattah, a British citizen who is still imprisoned in Egypt. I understand that the Foreign Secretary is to visit Egypt either tomorrow or the day after. Have you heard, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether there may be a written or oral statement from the Foreign Office about the Foreign Secretary raising Mr el-Fattah’s case, insisting upon his release or at least seeking a visit to this British citizen in prison? It is a matter of urgency, because his mother is now beyond the 100th day of hunger strike, and I fear for her life. \p Nusrat Ghani: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. I have had no indication that the Foreign Secretary intends to come to the House to make a statement, but I am sure that the Table Office will be able to advise him on how he might pursue the matter further. \p Adrian Ramsay: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to correct the record following my intervention on the New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill on Friday. I said:

“Regulations were due to come into force in 2016 that would have required all new homes to have zero carbon standards. Those regulations were scrapped by the coalition Government.”—[Official Report, 17 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 631.]

In fact, regulations that would have required all new homes to have zero carbon standards were due to come into force in 2016, but they were watered down by the coalition Government in 2014, and the requirement for all new homes to have zero carbon standards was scrapped. What was left of the watered-down regulations was subsequently scrapped by the following Conservative Government in 2015. \p Nusrat Ghani: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order and for placing his correction of his earlier statement on the record. \p Richard Burgon: Further to the point of order made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), in the absence of any statement or urgent question being granted on the visit that the Foreign Secretary is hopefully making to Egypt on the fate of British prisoner Alaa Abd el-Fattah, and given the very serious condition of his mother—an academic from Sussex who is on a hunger strike and only taking water, and who a number of Members met today—can you advise, Madam Deputy Speaker, on what other ways we can impress upon the  Foreign Secretary the urgency of this issue? Every single day matters in what could be a life or death situation for his mother. \p Nusrat Ghani: I believe that my earlier response to the similar point of order offered enough information, but no doubt by raising the point again, Ministers on the Front Bench will have heard again. The hon. Member’s point is on the record. \p Lucy Powell: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I am here for the next motion and as the Leader of the House responsible for statements to this House, let me reassure Members that I will raise this issue with the Foreign Secretary, who is very forthcoming—he has been to the House twice in the past week to make statements to keep the House updated. I am sure that he will want to keep the House updated on his conversations in Egypt and elsewhere, and I will ensure that the points of order have been heard. \p Nusrat Ghani: I thank the Leader of the House for a great response to those two points of order. \p Nusrat Ghani: With the leave of the House, I will put motions 5 to 7 together.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Reporting on Payment Practices and Performance (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 7 October 2024, be approved. \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Free-Range Egg Marketing Standards (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 21 November 2024, be approved. \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Silicon Valley Bank UK Limited Compensation Scheme Order 2024, which was laid before this House on 6 November 2024, be approved.—(Gerald Jones.)

Question agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Ordered,

That Sir Marcus Jones and Craig Whittaker be removed as Trustees of the House of Commons Members’ Fund and Sharon Hodgson and Mike Wood be appointed as Trustees in pursuance of section 2 of the House of Commons Members’ Fund Act 2016. —(Lucy Powell.) \p Calvin Bailey: Recent changes to bus services running through Leyton and Wanstead have had significant negative impacts on local people, including on school children, who are struggling to get to school on time, and on my disabled and elderly constituents, all of whom are finding it hard to access care at Whipps Cross hospital due to the changes. Our petition to Parliament, signed by residents and local councillors, builds on an online petition to Transport for London with almost 4,500 signatures. More action is needed to address this issue. The petitioners

“therefore request that the House of Commons urges…Transport for London to immediately reconsider the changes made to ensure that the negative impacts caused by these changes to the W12 and W14 bus service in north-east London are addressed urgently.”

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The petition of residents of the constituency of Leyton and Wanstead,

Declares that recent changes to the W12 and W14 bus service in north-east London have had negative impacts which must be addressed.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Transport for London to immediately reconsider the changes made to ensure that the negative impacts caused by these changes to the W12 and W14 bus service in north-east London are addressed urgently.

And the petitioners remain, etc.]

[P003032] \p Ben Goldsborough: I rise to present a petition about the proposed quarry in Haddiscoe, and I really hope that the Government will take note of the 242 petitioners who have signed it. This demonstrates that an overwhelming majority of residents wish for the Government to know how much this quarry will undermine the health and wellbeing of the village.

The petition states:

“The petition of residents of the constituency of South Norfolk,

Declares that the potential for a future gravel pit near Crab Apple Lane in Haddiscoe is a serious concern… The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ensure that planning and mineral strategies consider issues such as air pollution and local opinion.

And the petitioners remain, etc.”

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The petition of residents of the constituency of South Norfolk,

Declares that the potential for a future gravel pit near Crab Apple Lane in Haddiscoe is a serious concern to residents, that an application for a gravel pit in the same location has previously been rejected due to concerns about harm to Grade 1 listed buildings and the impact of increased noise, dust and traffic, and that these concerns remain.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ensure that planning and mineral strategies consider issues such as air pollution and local opinion.

And the petitioners remain, etc.]

[P003033] \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Gerald Jones.) \p Mark Garnier: It is a great pleasure to raise the issue of the Stourport relief road in this Adjournment debate. Madam Deputy Speaker, you will be well aware that Worcestershire is an astonishingly beautiful county, and Wyre Forest in the north of the county is a perfect example of what Worcestershire has to offer. We have the forest and the hills, not one but two Georgian towns, and the River Severn, with its astonishing valley and heritage railway.

The River Severn, the longest river in the UK, is a fabulous source not just of natural beauty but of water to the 8 million customers of Severn Trent, and it also divides Worcestershire and my constituency in two halves. Inevitably, this leads to crossing pinch points, and along the stretch of the Severn that runs through Worcestershire there are surprisingly few crossing points. The city of Worcester enjoys a number, but, to the north of Worcester, there are just four points to cross east-west before getting into Shropshire; even then, the next crossing point is in Bridgnorth, 15 miles to the north of Bewdley. Of the four bridges on the 38-mile stretch between Worcester and Bridgnorth, three were built by the Victorians and are not fit for 21st-century traffic. Just one bridge was built in the 20th century, and that is the only bridge that can really take any heavy usage.

The most recent bridge, the Bewdley bypass, was built to support the east-west traffic and relieve Bewdley of heavy congestion through the town centre, which has, for a long time, been on a major route from the midlands to Wales. However, with the incredibly welcome flood defence works going on at the moment in Bewdley, the bridge has necessarily been closed to two-way traffic, increasing the burden on other local infrastructure, and the congestion has inevitably put pressure on other crossings.

Of course, the flood defences will be completed by this summer, and normal service will resume in Bewdley. However, the problems remind us why, four or five decades ago, proposals were put forward for a relief road for the town of Stourport-on-Severn, just to the south of Bewdley. As a parliamentary candidate back in 2004, I got hold of a set of 14 proposals for road improvements for Stourport, from minor town centre improvements to the full £14 million—at the time—bypass.

It is important to remember the problem these proposals were trying to solve. Stourport has a complicated town centre, with a one-way system that everybody accepts is far from ideal. It is trying hard—and, by the way, succeeding—to be a tourist destination town, attracting a lot of people from Birmingham. Yet because of its location and layout, many of the cars in the town centre are not there to be in Stourport, but in Stourport to be on their way to somewhere else. It is important to remember that this stretch of the River Severn in Wyre Forest has a denser population than the wider rural community, with 102,000 people living in the three towns of Stourport, Bewdley and Kidderminster. As I say, it is an incredibly important conurbation in Worcestershire.

Of the 14 proposals, the most ambitious for Stourport was the most popular at the time. It proposes taking a road from the busy Stourport to Kidderminster dual carriageway, running around the town to the south using existing roads that were at the time designed to take the Stourport relief road and old railway track that had been closed under the Beeching reforms, and then crossing the River Severn heading west and landing in the cricket club, before continuing its semi-circular route to join the A451 to Dunley. It then heads off to the western part of Worcestershire and then on to Wales, providing a major route to Wales.

That was a popular proposal and it was signalled for further investigation and development. Back in 2010, the cricket club was looking for Sport England’s support but was unable to secure it due to planning blight—the prospect that at any time it may find itself bisected by the new Stourport relief road—so the proposals were shelved. Although they never disappeared, they were not moved on.

Since then, the Stourport relief road has been talked about as a lost opportunity, a myth and a piece of cultural history that a few people remember. So what has changed? What has happened since then? Why is this now something that needs reviving? I mentioned earlier that the flood defence works have temporarily brought extra pressure on Wyre Forest’s river crossings, but that will be resolved in the summer. However, the local population is due to increase significantly. Wyre Forest district council recently published its local plan, under which nearly 5,000 new homes will be built across the district. Around 1,400 of those will be in Stourport and that will, inevitably, increase pressure on local infrastructure. That is an 11% increase in housing stock across the district, and a 13% increase in Stourport itself.

The problems are more profound. To the west of Stourport, directly adjacent to the Stourport suburb of Areley Kings, is an area of beauty known as the Snipes. It is right up against Stourport, but is in Malvern Hills district council’s area. Malvern Hills district council is a multi-party coalition and it has failed to come up with a local housing plan. \p Jim Shannon: I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this issue forward. I spoke to him beforehand to get his thoughts on what he is asking for. He is asking for what I have asked for in my town of Ballynahinch in Strangford: a road to bypass small towns so they are not decimated by through-traffic. We have been waiting for that for almost two decades. Does he agree we need to ensure the Government understand that investment in such roads will bring regeneration to small towns and can very well be a rising tide that lifts all boats? \p Mark Garnier: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He hits the nail on the head. I will be addressing these points a little later in my speech, but if we want to generate economic growth we need to build the infrastructure first—the growth will follow.

Coming back to Stourport and what is going on in the Snipes and with Malvern Hill district councillors, a number of developers put in an application to build 500 to 1,000 houses. It was met with absolute disdain by Malvern Hills district council, Wyre Forest district council,  local parish councils, town councillors, me and my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin). We all rejected it, but when it went to appeal, the Planning Inspectorate ruled that Malvern Hills district council had an unmet planning demand and accordingly granted planning permission against the wishes of literally everybody.

Through a quirk of geography, local government boundaries and poor management by politicians in Malvern Hills, Stourport will see hundreds if not thousands more homes relying on its town centre and facilities, but coming from outside the district. And it gets even worse. The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government told us that in Wyre Forest, we are to build an extra 617 new homes ever year for the next five years, putting yet more burdens on the local infrastructure. That is just Wyre Forest; the total for the whole of Worcestershire is 5,300 homes a year. Add to that 1,375 homes for Herefordshire and 1,200 for Shropshire—that is every year—and one can see how the congestion on River Severn crossing pinch points will increase significantly. A lot of that will come through the point in Worcestershire where the three counties meet.

The argument for the Stourport relief road has never been stronger. It is time to revisit what is proposed. I do not profess to be a transport infrastructure expert, and I certainly do not fully understand traffic flows, but I can understand what it is like to be stuck in a traffic jam. The current 20-year-old proposals may still be perfect, but my instinct is that we need to look again at the whole issue of traffic across the Severn in Wyre Forest, and at how traffic flows across the river.

It may be that we need to look at how to join the Bewdley bypass with a road heading south, to the west of the new, unwelcome homes in the Snipes to the west of the river, that then crosses the Severn to the south of the cricket club, joining the Worcestershire A449; or it may be that the Bewdley bypass should continue when it lands on the eastern side of the bank, as was originally envisaged, between Kidderminster and Stourport, bypassing our main town to the south-east and joining the bypass with the A451 Kidderminster Road and the A449 Worcester Road, going on through the A448 Bromsgrove Road and up to the A456 Birmingham road—all of that adding to the existing Stourport relief road and effectively joining all the major roads that serve Wyre Forest. This would deliver a comprehensive and very long-term solution.

All this is for the experts, and for the community to unite behind. I have already spoken to Marc Bayliss, the Worcestershire county council cabinet member responsible for highways and transport. He agrees that this is an opportunity, and has indicated that it will be worked up and included in plans for the county. The county council is keen to progress our local infrastructure needs, but it needs clarity. It is keen to draw up local transport plan 5, but needs guidance from the Minister’s Department on what is expected of it. My ask is for that guidance to encourage local road schemes such as the one I am suggesting, a scheme that will bring not just a relief of traffic congestion but a boost to economic prosperity of the kind that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and—this is important—for the guidance for LTP 5 to come soon.

I also ask the Minister to give clarity on funding. Of course we need funding and plenty of it—and obviously the Minister receives many demands for that—but as  part of the settlement, it would be good to understand the status of the proposed reallocation of HS2 money, which was suggested by the last Government to be £209 million over the coming seven years. Additionally, we await the announcement on road investment strategy 3, which will cover the Government’s plans for the strategic road network until 2030. I understand that it has been delayed to align with the spending review, but can the Minister tell me when RIS3 will be published, and whether a Stourport relief road could be considered as part of those plans—and will she come and open the new relief road? It would be great to see her there, and I mean not just to cut a ribbon but to drive a Morgan sports car up the new road. We are extremely proud of the fact that some Morgan cars are built just down the road in Malvern, and it would be a fantastic opportunity for her to demonstrate what this Government are doing to support my constituents in Worcestershire.

The new Government are making a very big deal of economic growth, which is incredibly important—I think we would all agree that economic growth is a driver of good for our society—and that is one of the reasons they are keen to build new homes. We can argue across the Chamber on details of how to achieve growth, but the one thing on which we will surely agree is that growth is generated by investment in infrastructure. If we are to build these new, economically productive new homes, we must serve their householders with easy ways to get to work, to school, to medical services when they are needed, and to the town centres to relax and shop and enjoy their communities. The Stourport relief road is one such infrastructure development, which will not just support the town of Stourport-on-Severn and my constituency, but deliver economic growth to the wider rural west midlands. I very much look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about my proposals. \p Lilian Greenwood: I congratulate the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) on securing the debate, and on speaking so passionately about the transport needs in the historic and growing town of Stourport-on-Severn and across the wider region. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss transport in Worcestershire, and I can assure the hon. Member that this Government understand the great importance of transport to the people, communities and businesses that power local economies across the country.

In that context, although Stourport-on-Severn remains the focus of today’s debate, it would be remiss of me not to take the opportunity to highlight how the quality of journeys and transport across the county of Worcestershire is being improved. England’s roads are vital to our transport system—cars remain the most popular form of transport by a long way—and this Government are committed to maintaining and renewing our road network to ensure that it serves drivers, cyclists and other road users, remains safe and tackles congestion. That is why we are committed to a long-term programme of investment to improve road links throughout the region. The hon. Gentleman made reference to road investment strategy 3, which sets out the improvements to the strategic road   network that are due to commence. We have an interim settlement for 2025-26, but the new road investment strategy will begin in April 2026.

There has already been significant road investment throughout Worcestershire, including a £43 million project to upgrade and improve capacity on the A38 in Bromsgrove. That scheme is under construction and will help to tackle congestion and improve local journeys, as well as directly supporting growth through 1,100 new jobs and 5,500 new homes. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that transport infrastructure can unlock opportunities and provide the opportunity for people to have new homes that are served in a sustainable way.

The A4440 Worcester southern link road opened in 2022. It is one of Worcestershire’s busiest roads and received investment of £54.5 million from the large local majors programme for upgrades, including the dualling of the entire length of the road from the A5 to the Powick roundabout, the new Carrington bridge, and a number of walking and cycling improvements to improve access to the city of Worcester. The A4440 has reduced journey times, helped to keep unnecessary traffic out of the city centre, and helped to drive economic growth in the region by improving access to and from the M5, as well as to the newly opened Worcester Parkway station. There are other examples, such as the Pershore northern link road, although I appreciate that it is some way from Stourport.

The region has also gained from investment and improvements to the strategic road network. Junctions 5, 6 and 7 of the M5 have benefited from improvements to road surfacing, road markings, signage and lighting, while a £15 million, 4.5-mile safety upgrade between junctions 6 and 7 has been completed, which impacts positively on journey times. I am sure the hon. Gentleman’s constituents benefit from that when they travel further afield.

As hon. Members will be aware, potholes are an all-too-visible reminder of the last Government’s failure to invest in our local road network. This Government are committed to ensuring that investment is provided, so that our roads facilitate the growth and development that the nation needs. That is why local areas, including Worcestershire, will benefit from the £500 million increase in road maintenance budgets for 2025-26. That marks a 50% increase in funding, with almost £1.6 billion allocated to maintaining and renewing England’s roads. The total allocation from the autumn Budget for maintaining and improving the network in Worcestershire is £29.5 million for the coming financial year. Hopefully, the hon. Gentleman’s constituents in Wyre Forest will see the benefit.

Of course, this is not just about roads; it is about railways as well. England’s railways should be a source of pride, because we are the country that created the railways. They are an iconic part of our heritage, and for more than two centuries, they have played an essential role in enabling people to see our country, spend time with loved ones and seize economic opportunities, although I appreciate that Stourport was built on the canals, rather than the railways. The new Worcestershire Parkway station, in the heart of the county, opened in 2020 and has significantly improved connectivity and journey times to major centres, successfully opening up Worcestershire to the whole country. It is a major success story for the region, with usage far exceeding  forecasts, and more than 10,000 homes are planned for the area. The station is a really good example of how well-planned, integrated travel can drive regional growth, help to deliver the homes that Britain so desperately needs, and provide sustainable transport. Kidderminster railway station in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency benefited from a total of £4.3 million of growth deal funding. That work was completed in 2020 and has improved interchange facilities, providing better transport links to Kidderminster and the surrounding areas.

Of course, tackling some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised, such as congestion, is not just about building more infrastructure; it is also about changing the way that people travel. Buses remain the most used form of public transport across the country, but vital services have been slashed, and there is little accountability to passengers. Some 300 million fewer miles were driven by buses in England in 2024 than in 2010. The transformative work that this Government are doing will turn the tide by giving communities the opportunity to control local bus services and have a real say in building local bus networks that work for them. Following the Budget, we have allocated funding of £9.3 million for Worcestershire in the coming year to support and improve local bus services.

I should mention, alongside the investment made for drivers and public transport users, that this Government are deeply committed to improving the experience of people who choose to walk or cycle. We have local cycling and walking infrastructure plans that allow local authorities to take a long-term approach to developing their networks. Worcestershire county council is developing eight of these plans—for Evesham, Redditch, Wyre Forest, Droitwich Spa, Malvern, Pershore, Bromsgrove and Worcester. All those will help to reduce journeys by other forms of transport, improve health and wellbeing, reduce congestion and improve air quality across the county.

I turn to the issue of a relief road in Stourport. The town of Stourport-on-Severn has played an important part in the nation’s industrial and cultural history, going back to 1768. I think it was the canals that really got it going. I acknowledge and fully understand the difficult challenges that congestion and uncertain journey times on key routes may cause to businesses and commuters in a growing and popular town such as Stourport, particularly perhaps in the summer months, as I know it is a place that people like to visit and a tourist destination. I also understand the potential impact on growth, investment and employment in the area.

The Department for Transport continues to work with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and other partners to deliver a well-designed, integrated and affordable transport network that plays a vital role in unlocking homes and delivering wider benefits, including reduced congestion and carbon emissions, and improved air quality. There is also the important benefit of ensuring that communities can access vital jobs and services. For almost everyone, the road network plays a vital role in our daily life, but as the Chancellor has clearly set out, this Government  inherited an extremely challenging financial situation; the previous Administration left a £22 billion public spending gap in this year alone. The gap between the desire for schemes and the money available to deliver them has become abundantly clear.

The hon. Gentleman talked about a number of potential developments in his area. Within this challenging context, as I am sure he knows, it is for Worcestershire county council to decide which local road schemes, or indeed other transport schemes, should be proposed and progressed as part of its strategic transport plans, and what should be prioritised in Worcestershire’s local travel plan. The relief road was considered some time ago—I understand it was almost two decades ago—and obviously it has not featured in more recent local travel plans. I know that he is already engaging with the county council on its future priorities. If the local authority needs further guidance in developing its transport plans, I am sure that my officials will be more than happy to provide that additional help and support.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the third road investment strategy, and I have already touched on the timeframes. Obviously, the total funding available for the road investment strategy over the five years of RIS3 will be established in the spending review. He can correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe that the suggested Stourport relief road would form part of the strategic road network, so it would not be dealt with in RIS3. Such developments would be brought forward by the county council.

In the past, the county council has benefited from the major road network. If it develops plans, I am sure we could consider them when future funding became available for such programmes. However, it is for the county council to start developing those plans; I am sure my officials would be happy to offer advice and assistance. This would enable the hon. Gentleman and his constituents to put forward a convincing case when future programmes of funding became available.

I conclude by thanking the hon. Gentleman again for securing this debate. As I know he appreciates, transport plays a central role in lives and livelihoods across the country, including in his constituency and the town of Stourport-on-Severn. He has rightly highlighted his concerns about the pressures in Wyre Forest, and in Stourport in particular. I reassure him and the House that the Government are providing record levels of investment for road, rail, bus and active travel projects across the country, including in Worcestershire. I assure him that this Government have heard the case clearly, and will continue to take action to address the issues debated today. I look forward to hearing more from Worcestershire county council—or its successor bodies, as I understand it has expressed an interest in local government reorganisation—in the months and years ahead.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.