What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 6 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
Yes, seriously. I can give the hon. Member the reference, unlike for the extraordinary statistics he cited in his speech, which apparently have no basis in actual evidence. Fundamentally, we have to stop pouring fossil fuel on the fire of the climate crisis, and that means we need a full ban on fracking.
It is indeed true that there is considerable public subsidy for oil and gas, as well as revenues from the windfall taxes. As the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth pointed out, the fossil fuel companies are making tens of billions of pounds in profit, which is raked in from consumers. Fundamentally, renewables are the cheap, clean, green energy of the future, and we need to shift in that direction as quickly as possible. We are here talking about fracking, but there is no commercially viable shale gas reserve in the entirety of the UK.
No, the argument that there is commercially viable production is a nonsense. The hon. Member should look at the information from the British Geological Survey.
I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman and several other people, so I will move to my conclusion. Fundamentally, we are living in a burning world. The 11 hottest years on record were the past 11 years. The three hottest years on record were the past three years. The trajectory is going up and up, and this is not just a question of graphs on paper and reports from the World Meteorological Organisation; we are feeling it in our communities. The Prime Minister, when he considers decisions on things like fracking, should listen to communities in places such as Stourbridge, West Sussex and Stoke-on-Trent, where people have had their homes burned by wildfires that have been supercharged by the climate change that is already built in. It would be utterly irresponsible to pour yet more fuel on the fire of climate crisis. We need to recognise the reality that is hitting us in the face: a barrelling and accelerating climate crisis. We need to do everything we can to change direction, and the very least of those things has to be a full ban on fracking. Can the Minister confirm that when the energy independence Bill comes to this House after the recess, it will include a fulfilment of the Government’s previous promise to implement a full and statutory ban on fracking that cannot simply be overturned by ministerial diktat? Will he apply the ban to existing licences? We have to leave fossil fuels in the ground and supercharge our transition to the green, clean energy revolution, which is the only fundamental basis for a sustainable and prosperous future for all of the UK.
3. What progress his Department has made on replacing the water main serving the Onley Park estate.
The Minister will know that Onley Park is still owned by the Ministry of Justice. Although I welcome the funding, these residents have been waiting years, and frankly they are really worried—we have still not got a start date or clarity around backdated bills, and the situation is affecting house sales now. Will the Minister meet me and representatives of the parish council, so that we can provide some clarity and a resolution for the residents of Onley Park?
I will share with the House one particular case that is representative of many. My constituent, Mrs Gillian Pothecary, lost her husband almost a year ago. She wrote to me in July about her valiant but so far unavailing quest to obtain a civil service widow’s pension. She wrote: “Throughout this process, I have been given differing information about the status of my claim…More recently, I was told that I was at the top of the list for assessment, only to then be informed that some of my paperwork had become out of date and needed to be resubmitted, causing further delay.” I was very impressed to get a reply, when I forwarded this on, from someone holding the exalted position of deputy director of civil service and Royal Mail pensions in the Cabinet Office. She said: “Mrs Pothecary’s…case falls under the commitment to be fully resolved by early September at the absolute latest. Capita has assured me that her case is on their escalation log and has been flagged for priority handling.” I rang up Gill just before coming into this debate and—you’ve guessed it, Dame Siobhain—she has not yet received her pension. She is now dipping into her savings and working longer hours at the supermarket.
If the New Forest and the Waterside were forced into a unitary authority dominated by Southampton and Eastleigh, what chance would there be of local authorities looking after the interests of rural areas?
As the Minister seems to have run out of supportive Back Benchers, I shall endeavour to ask him a helpful and easy question. Accepting that it will be some years, to put it mildly, before we can eliminate our dependency on oil and gas, does he accept in principle that we are more secure if we exploit our own domestic oil and gas resources, rather than relying on imports from the middle east, which can so easily be blocked?
I beg to move, That this House has considered the definition and application of grey belt land. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain, and to have the opportunity to introduce this debate on the definition of grey-belt land. Shortly after their election, the Government introduced a new concept to planning and development: grey-belt land. This would be a subset of land currently designated as green belt that the Government considered less worthy of protection than the rest of the green belt, on which they wanted to make development easier. I asked for this debate because it is important that we understand the significance of this new concept. Specifically—I know the Minister will do his best to help with all these items—I am interested in understanding, first, how different grey-belt designation seems from what the Government originally said it would be; secondly, its likely impact on our countryside; and thirdly, how it combines with other changes the Government are making to the balance of development in rural and urban areas. Let us start with the difference between what the Government originally suggested grey belt would be and their definition published in the “National Planning Policy Framework” document. In July 2024, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), in her first incarnation as Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, told the House that the Government’s intention was to “release lower-quality grey-belt sites, disused car parks and garages, and ugly wasteland”.—[Official Report, 19 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 315.] She also said: “The land we are talking about—grey belt, which we define in the NPPF consultation—is not agricultural land; it is disused garages and things of that nature”.—[Official Report, 30 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 1196.] However, when the actual definition of grey-belt land appeared in the NPPF of December 2024, the concept was considerably wider. Grey belt is now defined as land in the green belt that does not strongly contribute to three of the five purposes of the green belt that were included in the previous definition of green-belt land. Those three purposes are to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up are, to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another, and to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns. In other words, to remain as green belt and not be reclassified as grey belt, land must need protecting in order to prevent urban sprawl or to stop urban areas merging, or be near enough to a historic town to affect its setting or character. Even a moderate contribution to those objectives will not be enough; to save the land from grey-belt status, it must contribute “strongly”. The remaining two purposes of green-belt designation are no longer considered important enough to preserve green belt from becoming grey belt. Namely, they are assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, or assisting urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. We can draw two conclusions from all this about what is actually green belt and what is grey belt. First, quite a lot of what is now green belt will probably end up redesignated as grey belt, because the Government have set the bar quite high to retain green-belt status. Only a strong contribution to the three remaining effective green belt purposes will do. I am not the only one who thinks that much of the green belt could end up as grey belt. Recent analysis from “Channel 4 News” suggested that 96% of the green belt around Guildford could be grey belt, along with 92% of the green belt around Stoke-on-Trent and 80% of the green belt around Solihull. My second conclusion is that land that continues to qualify as green belt as opposed to grey belt will largely be on the edge of urban settlements. That is because the grey belt is, in effect, all green-belt land that does not strongly contribute to the three green belt purposes that only apply very near to urban settlements. It follows that land in open countryside currently in the green belt will be less able to meet one of those three purposes, and is therefore more likely to be redesignated as grey-belt land. Much of that is agricultural land, which the Secretary of State said the green belt would not be. The Secretary of State also told the House in a written statement on 30 July 2024 that much of the green belt is: “better described as ‘grey belt’: land on the edge of existing settlements or roads, and with little aesthetic or environmental value.” Given the actual definition of grey belt that the Government have decided on, the opposite is surely true. By their definition, the land on the edge of existing settlements or roads is in fact more likely to be green belt, and land further from existing settlements is more likely to be grey belt. Why does any of this matter? It matters because grey-belt designation is intended to facilitate more development—that is the point. The Government are trying to release more land that is currently called green belt for housing and other things, so it matters what land the Government are actually making it easier to develop with grey-belt designation. The reality is that the land that the Government are making it easier to develop is not disused car parks and garages or ugly wasteland; it is agricultural land and open countryside. We can see an indication of that in the decisions of planning inspectors in cases where developers have argued for grey-belt status. The Campaign to Protect Rural England has examined cases in the year following the first definition of grey-belt land in the NPPF of December 2024. In that period, planning inspectors approved 13 developments of 10 or more houses on green-belt land, which they believed should be reclassified as grey belt in accordance with the Government’s definition. Of the 1,250 homes those schemes deliver, nearly 90% are in previously undeveloped countryside, not on wasteland or former car parks. I appreciate that the Minister may say that grey-belt designation is not enough on its own to allow development; other criteria must also be met. That is so, but it is worth examining those other criteria. First, development on green-belt land must also meet an unmet need, but with many councils unable to demonstrate a five-year land supply—often, it has to be said, due to recent increases in Government housing targets, to which I may return—I suspect that, routinely, that unmet need will be easy to demonstrate. Secondly, the development must be in a sustainable location, but sustainability is an elusive concept. If I am right that most grey-belt land will be in countryside away from urban settlements, then transport infrastructure, health and education provision and even mains gas and sewerage may well be less plentiful. Therefore, we have to ask if many of the grey-belt locations will really be sustainable. Presumably, the Government must believe so, or grey-belt designation is not going to move the needle on housing provision. Perhaps the Minister expects to see considerable infrastructure upgrades to rural grey-belt locations, but that will be expensive and will affect the viability and deliverability of the housing developments that the Government may be relying on. Then housing developments in grey-belt locations must provide more social housing than elsewhere—perhaps 50% of the total. Whatever the merits or viability of that, social houses will have the same impact on the openness of the green belt and our countryside as any other kind. Finally, the Minister may remind us that, according to the NPPF, a development on grey-belt land may only take place if it “would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan”. I accept that, theoretically at least. That brings back into consideration both the encroachment of the countryside and urban regeneration. Again, it is worth exploring how valuable and usable that safeguard is likely to be, and it seems it will be challenging to argue. The plan area for most of my constituency is south Warwickshire. It would be difficult to claim that building on a single grey-belt site would fundamentally undermine the green belt in half the county, unless the cumulative effect of many grey-belt developments could be considered in measuring the fundamental undermining of the green belt. Would the Minister clarify whether the cumulative impact of other sites, in conjunction with the sites subject to individual consideration, will be relevant in that exercise? If not, why not? I turn to the broader impact of the grey belt on the countryside. As I said earlier, it appears to me that grey-belt land as the Government have defined it will increasingly be agricultural land and other land in the countryside, which will be easier as a result to turn into housing estates, warehouses or solar farms, for example. The protection for our countryside that green-belt status has thus far offered will be substantially eroded, and for constituencies with large amounts of green belt, that could be very significant. My constituency is roughly 30% green belt, and others are substantially more. The residual green belt will be areas on the fringes of towns and cities but, to be clear, not around our villages, which are specifically excluded from the definition of an urban area in the NPPF. That might seem uncontroversial—logical even—but it has a practical effect in the context of the debate. That is because the difference between small towns and large villages is becoming increasingly academic. In my constituency, for example, the town of Southam had a population in 2024 of around 9,200, and the village of Wellesbourne had a population of around 7,600. Under the Government’s definition, small towns in the green belt can defend themselves from grey-belt designation, but large villages in the green belt cannot. Grey-belt designation means more pressure from development on villages and rural areas, more pressure on rural roads and schools, and more of our countryside lost to bricks and concrete on top of the huge housing developments already in and around villages in constituencies like mine. It is hard to believe that that impact is accidental, because it has to be seen in the context of other changes the Government have made. Making it easier to build houses in the countryside goes hand in hand with revised housing targets from the Government that are higher in rural areas and lower in urban areas. My constituency, again, is a good example. Most of it falls within Warwick district and Stratford district, and just across the border is the city of Coventry. The Government have reduced Coventry’s housing target by 50%. The target for Warwick district, which is mostly green belt, has gone up by 65%. Stratford district’s new target is 99% higher. That is not accidental; it is a deliberate plan to transfer housing pressure from urban to rural areas. It is no surprise, then, that the Government do not want the green-belt purposes of safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and assisting urban regeneration to stand in the way of grey-belt designation and easier development. However, my constituents and those of other Members present have seen considerable housing development around them already, and now they face even more, while predominantly Labour councils, it has to be said, in urban areas are not asked to find housing land within their own borders—land that would largely be brownfield sites. That is not just bad news for our countryside; it is bad news for our cities, too, as they will not get the new housing, particularly for first-time buyers and young families, that would help to revitalise the economy of places like Coventry. It seems to me that the Government have described the green belt as one thing and then defined it as something else. It seems to me that there will be much more grey belt and much less green belt as the Government ask local authorities to review their green belt and as they or the Planning Inspectorate accede to developers’ arguments that the green belt they want to build on is actually grey. All of that will have a significant and irreversible impact on our green-belt countryside. The Minister is of course entitled to disagree with my analysis or to tell me that I do not need to worry, but I would like him to address in particular the following points. First, does he accept that grey belt is likely predominantly to be open countryside and greenfield sites, contrary to what the Government originally suggested? If so, does he accept that the impact on our countryside in green-belt areas will be significant and destructive? Finally, is that likely impact deliberate or accidental? If accidental, will he look again at what grey-belt designation will likely deliver in practice? Will he be prepared to continue the conversation that I hope we will have this afternoon and seek to minimise the impact of this change on our rural communities, about which many of us are extremely concerned?
I know that the Minister recognises the point that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) was making to him is that, although we all want this to be a plan-led process, the NPPF still allows for grey belt designation to be achieved through an individual application, and that is what the Conservatives are also concerned about. I wanted to test him on this question of cumulative impact. He may come on to this later, in which case I apologise, but I put to him in my speech that if we look at an individual application or site, it may be difficult to make a credible argument that building there would undermine the purposes of the green belt across the plan area. On the other hand, if we look at a series of grey belt applications and their cumulative impact on the green belt across the plan area, it might be easier to demonstrate. Can he clarify which of the two the Government believe it should be?
Before the Minister does that, I understand his point earlier about guidance, and I am certainly not asking him to comment on an individual application, but the purpose of the point that I made to him earlier was to suggest that the reality of grey-belt designation is that grey-belt sites are likely to be further away from urban settlements rather than closer to them, because those closer are more likely to remain as green belt. As the Minister says, there are three purposes—A, B and D—that would enable a site to remain as green belt rather than be designated grey belt. Can he see circumstances in which a field in my constituency that is not on the outskirts of an urban settlement could possibly satisfy the test of those three requirements and remain as green belt rather than be redesignated as grey belt?
That may be very helpful, and I am genuinely grateful to the Minister, because I know he is doing his best to provide clarity. I know he would accept that the starting point for all these decisions will be the NPPF definition. I accept his point about guidance and the other qualifying criteria; we have spoken a little about the limitations that there might be on those qualifying criteria. The substantial point remains, does it not, that the definition in the NPPF of grey-belt land overwhelmingly—perhaps not in every instance, but overwhelmingly—will be met by fields, farms and greenfield sites that are not near to urban settlements. A, B and D in the list clearly each relate to the fringes of urban settlements, and the Minister knows that the green belt encompasses more than just such sites. It is inevitable, is it not, that the starting point will be that grey-belt land will be those sites that are not on the fringes of urban settlements, which is of course the direct antithesis of how the Government originally described the concept.
I am sure the Chair will remind the Minister that we have plenty of time left in this debate. On the specifics of the local plan, the Minister is right, of course, to point me to the specific statistics in relation to my local plan area. But he will recognise that, as was said earlier, there is a difference between decisions that a local authority makes about what to seek to extract from the green belt, and subsequent decisions about whether part of the green belt is in fact grey belt. The Minister has referred me to statistics relating to the former, not the latter.
I thank everyone who participated in the debate, from the Back Benches and the Front Benches. I particularly thank the Minister, who—there will be general agreement on this—is an excellent Minister. He tried to engage properly with the issues in the debate and to give us the clarity that we asked for. He is a perceptive man, and he is right when he says that he has not quite persuaded all of us of everything, but I am grateful to him for what he said last, which is that he will reflect on what has been said here and consider whether further clarity needs to be provided. Ultimately, the evidence as to which of us is right about what the grey belt turns out to be will become apparent over the years during which the policy is used. If I can ask the Minister to reflect on one other thing, it would be that the Government keep under review—as I am sure they will—what the impact of the policy change ends up being. If we see a great deal of new development in open countryside within green-belt areas, rather than in the type of land that he and his Secretary of State have previously described as wanting the grey belt to be, I hope the Government will reconsider the policy and look again at whether it is doing the damage to the countryside that many of us fear it will. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the definition and application of grey belt land.
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) is a lovely man, but I just cannot follow his logic. He says that the solution is to pursue green energy, which is fair enough in the long term, and in the same breath—in the very next sentence—he asks what oil reserves we have. Surely it is not a zero sum game. It will be decades before we rely entirely on green energy. I am not asking the Minister to comment on Jackdaw and Rosebank and all that, but does he accept that we must pursue oil drilling in the North sea to become self-reliant, and to get ourselves out of this crisis?
If the hoteliers of Bournemouth are gagging to pay this tax, I can assure the Minister that those in hospitality in the New Forest are not. The Minister said that everybody will be a winner, but how can he possibly know when he cannot tell us how much the tax will be or where it will be levied?
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Minister knows that there has been a decrease in probation officers in the past year, yet at the same time the Government have released thousands of dangerous criminals on to our streets. The Government’s answer is electronic tagging, but the National Audit Office has highlighted problems. First, staff have to review tag alerts. Only 10% to 50% of alerts result in breach notifications, and where outcomes are even recorded, nearly half result in no further action. Can she guarantee that in the next year, every tagging breach will come with consequences?
Rapid deployment cells are one option, but the question remains of why the Government are not making use of fully certified cells. HMP Millsike has an operational capacity of up to 1,500, but it has only 1,100 prisoners, due to staffing issues. Can the Minister guarantee that she will replace the 1,600 prison officers lost under Labour by next year?
(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on the impact of the Government’s proposed overnight visitor levy on the tourism and hospitality sectors in England.
Let us call this what it is—Labour’s holiday tax. Although we knew it was coming, we never expected it to be uncapped. This Government have already hammered hospitality with higher employment costs and business rates. Almost 89,000 hospitality jobs have gone, and now what is Labour’s answer? Hit them again. If we tax something, we get less of it, so if we tax tourism, we will get less tourism—it is not complicated. Fewer tourists mean fewer jobs. UKHospitality estimates that up to 33,000 jobs will go, along with over £2 billion wiped from the economy. These job losses will hit young people hardest, when they are already struggling to secure those all-important first roles. We should not make the mistake of thinking that this is just a tax on foreign visitors. Tax Policy Associates estimates that trips by British tourists will generate 63% of the revenue from this levy. This is a tax on hard-working British families. A weekend away, a family holiday or a few nights by the seaside will all cost more. Every pound taken in this tax is a pound that families do not spend in the local pub, restaurant, café, shop or attraction. It is not just Brits on a staycation who will be impacted—it will be anyone staying overnight for any reason, such as visiting a sick relative, going away on business or travelling for medical treatment. Why on earth should those people be taxed simply for going about their daily lives? It is not fair. The Prime Minister has repeatedly promised to give breathing space to households struggling with the cost of living, yet this tax does the exact opposite. British hospitality does not need another tax. Hard-working families do not need another tax. Young people looking for work do not need another tax. The Government must scrap the holiday tax.
Earlier this month, John Dunne was convicted of trying to meet a 14-year-old boy at a train station in Suffolk. He received a two-year sentence, reduced from three after a guilty plea. This still seems lenient, considering that Mr Dunne has already served a life sentence for rape and murder. Our community and country will never be safe when we release people who are clearly not functioning in society. I have written to the Attorney General about this sentence, but if the Government are considering changes to IPP, what is their plan for keeping children safe in situations like this?
Upon taking office, the Prime Minister promised to “find ways of not reducing access to jury trial.” He said that jury trials are a “linchpin of a fair society.” Now that we know the Courts and Tribunals Bill will return to the House on 13 October, immediately after the recess, can the Justice Secretary guarantee that the Bill will not reduce access to jury trials at all?
I asked the Justice Secretary to rule out reducing access to jury trials, and the House will have noticed that he did not do that. We are not talking about something insignificant; we are talking about an ancient English right dating back to Magna Carta. As with Labour’s early release disaster, the new Prime Minister told everybody he did not like it and would not do it, but he never got round to working out what to do instead. Once again, the Justice Secretary has made much of his desire to work together constructively—although I have not seen much of it in our correspondence—so will he publish the full details of the new plan now, or does he still not know what it is?
This summer, the Government held five different positions on early release in just six weeks. In seeking to exclude killers, rapists and paedophiles—something the Government previously claimed was impossible—the Justice Secretary has used secondary legislation. He says: “No further legislation is required in the short term…primary legislation will…be considered when Parliamentary time allows.” Will the Secretary of State guarantee that after relying on secondary legislation to change Labour’s early release scheme, no prisoner will successfully challenge their exclusion in the courts?
The Justice Secretary proposes to let another set of dangerous criminals out of prison as well. Every prisoner serving an imprisonment for public protection sentence has been assessed to be too dangerous for release or returned to prison because of their behaviour—last year, there were 426 of them. The Justice Secretary has reiterated his commitment today to ending IPP sentences by the end of this Parliament. Will he tell the House very clearly if he has decided that it is, indeed, safe to release every single one of them?
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In oral questions just now, the Justice Secretary stood there and said again that he wanted to work collaboratively, and he invited the House to scrutinise the Government’s proposals on juries, but those are just words. This summer, as the Government constantly changed policy on early release, I wrote to him and the Prime Minister three times in July and twice in August, and received no reply until I got a short, dismissive reply last Thursday, by which point—[Interruption.] What are your guidelines? By that point, the policy had changed several times. Just now, the Secretary of State dismissed my question sarcastically, saying that he was not the correspondence secretary. That is not only disrespectful to the House; it is disrespectful to his correspondence secretary and may explain the delays—
You are not in your usual place, Chris Vince, but I can still see you.
Order. We have two further urgent questions, a statement and lots of business, so let us try to keep questions and answers short.
That is the end of the urgent question. I will suspend the sitting to allow proper notice of the statement. The sitting will resume at 2.32 pm; the bells will ring two minutes before.
Order. Because the ministerial statement ran over, the shadow Secretary of State has six minutes.
I call Samantha Dixon. I appreciate that this is particularly sensitive for you, so please take your time.
We now come to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Treasury Committee. The Chair of the Treasury Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which time no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of her statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement. These should be brief questions and not full speeches. I emphasise that questions should be directed to the Select Committee Chair and not the relevant Government Minister. Those on the Front Bench may take part in questioning.
Order. We have about 10 minutes for questions and answers, so they must be brief.
We now come to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Public Accounts Committee. The hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of her statement, I will call Members to put questions on the subject of the statement. These should be brief questions, not speeches. I emphasise that questions should be directed to the Select Committee member, not the Minister. Front Benchers may take part in questioning.
I understand that this issue is important to the hon. Lady, but she also knows, because of her experience, that it is not a matter for the Chair. She has most definitely got her point on the record, and no doubt those on the Treasury Front Bench will have noted it and will ensure that the right Department hears of it.
The hon. Lady has raised an important issue, but as she is far more experienced than even I am, she knows that this is not a matter for the Chair. If she wishes to pursue it, she can raise it with those in charge of the independent complaints and grievance scheme, but I do not wish to become involved in matters that do not involve the Chair.
17. What steps he has taken to ensure the equitable regional distribution of residential properties used by the Probation Service during the early release scheme.
Properties such as rundown B&Bs have long been used as houses in multiple occupation for services such as probation, and councils in large metropolitan areas use them for adult and children’s social services, effectively as a dumping ground. This is a cross-Government problem that has been going on over some time. Will the Minister assure me that through the early release scheme they will not add to problems such as those in Blackpool, where the concentration of HMOs used by multiple services creates transient populations?
I previously put it to the Prisons Minister in one of these sessions that anyone who fails a drug test on arrival in an open prison like Kirkham does not belong there and should be sent back to a more secure prison. The Minister said they were concerned but could not agree to that. Has the Department had any more thoughts on at least consequences for failing a drug test on arrival at an open prison?