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
I beg to move amendment 113, in clause 25, page 24, line 17, after “Crown Court” insert “or Court of Appeal”. This amendment means that where the Court of Appeal makes a slavery and trafficking risk order under section 29(1)(a) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 any application to vary, renew or discharge the order will be determined by the Crown Court.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Dr Murrison. Good morning to all colleagues. Before we get into the detail of the various clauses, I want to place part 5 of the Bill, and all the provisions concerning modern slavery, in their wider context. Modern slavery is a vicious, cruel and barbaric crime that dehumanises people. This Government are absolutely committed to tackling it in all its forms, and to identifying victims and giving them the support that they need. However, for the Government to continue to meet that commitment, we must go further. We need a robust end-to-end system supporting earlier identification, ensuring clear decisions and addressing opportunities for improper use, so that the system works effectively for those it is intended to protect. These measures will improve alignment with wider immigration and support systems while enhancing protections for child victims. We need to reduce further the risk of exploitation by increasing expectations on businesses to tackle abuse in their supply chains, and by strengthening the enforcement powers available to our courts and the police to stop offenders in their tracks. The clauses in the Bill will do all that. Clauses 25 to 34 are focused on strengthening slavery and trafficking prevention and risk orders. As modern slavery offending continues to evolve, the tools used to manage offending behaviour must keep pace to enable law enforcement and the courts to take more efficient and tougher action. Slavery and trafficking prevention and risk orders give law enforcement agencies and the courts powers to apply for and grant orders to prohibit certain behaviour and to prevent harm, but they are not operating as effectively as they could be. The measures will strengthen those powers, making them more efficient and flexible to use, and improving their effectiveness as preventive tools. The changes will help to prevent further exploitation, better protect victims from harm and reduce the risk of exploitation and reoffending. Clause 25 amends the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and provides the power for the court before which a person is acquitted of a slavery and human trafficking offence to make a slavery and trafficking risk order. The appropriate court is the court where the person was acquitted following a trial, the court allowing an appeal, or the Crown court on remittal following a successful appeal to the Court of Appeal. Under existing legislation, a slavery and trafficking risk order is available only on application to the magistrates court. In circumstances where a person is acquitted of slavery and trafficking offences by the Crown court, the process places additional pressure on law enforcement and court time. Allowing the court that made the acquittal decision—including on appeal—to make an order, and extending the power to make an order to the higher court, will remove delays caused by the current process. As the trial court has already heard the evidence, it need not be repeated in the magistrates court. That will also mean that the courts can make an order of their own motion. That will improve efficiency and effectiveness by dealing with an individual immediately following the trial, reducing the risk of offending and preventing harm to others without delay. The clause also enables the court to adjourn proceedings relating to a slavery and trafficking risk order on acquittal. The reasons we need adjournment of proceedings will be discussed in further detail under clause 30. Government amendment 113 sets out a technical amendment to clause 25 to clarify which court is responsible for dealing with any future application to vary, renew or discharge a slavery and trafficking risk order made by the Court of Appeal on acquittal. The amendment makes it very clear that any subsequent application will be heard by the Crown court, rather than the Court of Appeal. That aligns the provision of the slavery and trafficking risk order made on acquittal with the existing approach under section 29 of the 2015 Act, which covers appeals of the decision to make an order and ensures a consistent process for managing such orders. The amendment will also ensure that the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal is not taken up by further matters in respect of the orders. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
I thank the shadow Minister for his response to this debate. As discussed, the clause makes important amendments to the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and provides the power for the court before which a person is acquitted of a slavery and human trafficking offence to make a slavery and trafficking risk order. Let me address a couple of the points made by the hon. Gentleman. He asked whether the measures would contribute to an increase in court time. The court will have heard the evidence during the trial or considered it on appeal, and it will be best placed to assess whether an order is necessary. The Government amendment will also mean that the evidence heard in the Crown court does not need to be repeated in the magistrates court, so court time in the magistrates court will be reduced, improving efficiency and effectiveness by handling the case immediately following the trial. The hon. Gentleman also asked whether the measures will increase the use of orders and how many orders we expect to see. As hon. Members know, we have published an impact assessment setting out the analytical case for the proposed measures, and developed a justice impact test with the Ministry of Justice. The estimated impacts are therefore only indicative, as no available evidence or data estimates the magnitude of the increase in the number of orders issued as a result of the changes, but the scenarios assume that the number of prevention or risk orders will increase by between 25% and 75%, which equates to an increase of 20 to 30 orders per year. Government amendment 113 is technical and will merely clarify which court is responsible for dealing with any future application to vary, renew or discharge a slavery and trafficking risk order made by the Court of Appeal on acquittal. I commend it to the Committee. Amendment 113 agreed to. Clause 25, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 26 Power for Chief Constable of the British Transport Police Force to apply for prevention and risk orders etc Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Stockton West was right to raise the concerns of law enforcement partners about the limitations to the effectiveness of slavery and trafficking prevention and risk orders. We are seeking to deal with that issue through these clauses. Our ambition is to ensure that law enforcement agencies have exactly the right tools they need to respond as offending evolves. Currently, the British Transport police must rely on a local force to make an application for a slavery and trafficking order on their behalf, even if the British Transport police have undertaken all relevant investigations. That means that there are delays between identifying a risk and an application for a slavery and trafficking order. Clause 26 extends the list of bodies to allow the chief constable of the British Transport police to apply to a magistrates court to make, vary, discharge and renew slavery and trafficking prevention and risk orders. Giving an express power to the British Transport police will enhance the force’s capability to disrupt and tackle criminal exploitation and sexual exploitation on the transport network, and to keep pace with how modern slavery offending has evolved. It will also reduce costs and the time spent by local forces on making and processing applications of these orders on behalf of the British Transport police, and will enable swifter protection of victims by minimising the length of time between the offence taking place and the application being made. Extending these powers to the British Transport police will send a message to organised criminal gangs that all areas of law enforcement are equipped to take decisive action against perpetrators who exploit vulnerable individuals. Clause 27 will remove a further limitation on law enforcement applications for slavery and trafficking orders: the restriction on chief officers of police of being able to make applications for slavery and trafficking orders only in relation to a person who lives in their police force area. The nature of modern slavery offending, and the links to other types of crime, have evolved since the Modern Slavery Act 2015 was introduced. Both criminal and sexual exploitation offending can take place across force areas, in multiple locations across the country, and online. The legislation also needs to evolve to remain effective and to reduce the risk of offending and harm caused. The current legislation does not account for instances where the perpetrator has never visited or does not intend to visit the location where the offending occurs—that includes circumstances in which the offending takes place online. In such cases, the offending is more likely to be identified by the force in the location where the offending occurs, but the responsibility for applying for an order currently falls on the force in the perpetrator’s area of residence. Removing that restriction will enable law enforcement to improve the way it targets and disrupts modern slavery and human trafficking offending by relieving the burden on forces. It will cut back on application delays by allowing any force to apply for the order. The application will need to be made in the area where the defendant lives, or in the police area where the applicant believes the defendant is or is intending to come to. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution and his questions, and we appreciate his support for these important clauses. Put simply, clauses 26 and 27 address the important issue of how law enforcement agencies will deal with the issues in their area. Clause 26 extends the provisions to the British Transport police, while clause 27 removes the restriction on chief officers of police of being able to apply for orders only in relation to people living in their local area. As I set out earlier, currently there are unnecessary limitations on law enforcement’s ability to apply for slavery and trafficking orders. The constraints on how the orders can be applied for restrict their effectiveness. This means that we could be doing more to manage the risks identified, to protect vulnerable people who are at risk of exposure to these horrendous crimes. To manage that, we have worked closely with enforcement colleagues—including, to respond to the hon. Gentleman, the British Transport police—to design new clauses that will allow forces to apply for the orders and remove the restriction on chief officers of police of being able to apply for orders in relation only to individuals living in their local police area. That will allow forces to better manage individuals who are committing offences across police force boundaries. The hon. Gentleman asked about how the responsibility for monitoring and enforcing would be managed, and how the process would work. This amendment will improve co-operation between local forces and the British Transport police, who have to work collaboratively at almost every stage of the process, from application to monitoring. The British Transport police will still need to engage with the relevant local forces, give notice of the application to the chief officer of police, and conduct monitoring of the orders. The hon. Gentleman asked whether a national monitoring system would be introduced. Law enforcement is responsible for monitoring and managing compliance with slavery and trafficking orders. The former modern slavery and organised immigration crime unit issued guidance to law enforcement on obtaining and managing slavery and trafficking prevention risk orders, to help ensure consistency across forces in England and Wales. When the changes are introduced, that statutory guidance will be updated to align with them, ensuring that all those involved have the right training and preparation for the new powers. Together, clauses 26 and 27 allow the Modern Slavery Act 2015 to remain relevant to the modern world. I commend them to the Committee. Question put and agreed to. Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 28 Notification requirements in slavery and trafficking prevention orders Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Under section 19 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, courts may require individuals subject to slavery and trafficking prevention orders and slavery and trafficking risk orders to notify the police or another specified agency of personal information, including their name and address. However, monitoring and enforcement are currently inconsistent across police forces, which affects their ability to manage individuals and respond effectively to risk. That can result in police forces collecting information on individuals subject to an order in different ways, leading to delays in identifying breaches and an inconsistent approach to preventing individuals from engaging in criminal behaviour.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. As he has set out, the orders in clauses 28 and 29 are crucial tools to allow our law enforcement to protect victims, and we appreciate the support of His Majesty’s Opposition. The clauses address a gap in the current framework for managing individuals subject to slavery and trafficking prevention and risk orders. Currently, notification requirements are discretionary, which has contributed to there being different approaches to monitoring and enforcement across police forces, and that can limit law enforcement’s ability to identify breaches, manage risk and safeguard potential victims. Clauses 28 and 29 strengthen that regime by making the notification requirements mandatory, while also enabling courts to impose additional risk-based notifications where necessary and proportionate. This flexibility will allow the requirements placed on individuals to keep pace as modern slavery evolves. The hon. Gentleman asked about the additional data that will be collected under clause 29. Currently, each force collects and records said data differently; that is part of the problem we are trying to address according to local needs. It is for the forces to decide how to monitor and manage individuals subject to an order. He also asked about some of the things that could be requested and collated: those could include phone numbers, email addresses, online usernames and vehicle registrations. They will be considered on a case-by-case basis specific to an individual that addresses proportionality and necessity based on the risk of offending, which I think answers his question about additional data. The shadow Minister also mentioned the regulations we refer to. We will publish those as soon as possible. Together, these measures will support a more consistent and effective approach to monitoring individuals subject to orders. Strengthening orders and increasing notification requirements sends a strong message to both perpetrators and victims that exploitation will be detected. I commend clauses 28 and 29 to the Committee. Question put and agreed to. Clause 28 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 30 Slavery and trafficking prevention orders: adjournment of proceedings Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
There is a risk that the current legislation is not clear that a court can adjourn proceedings, although it is common practice for courts to adjourn proceedings in relation to the slavery and trafficking prevention orders. Clause 30 makes it explicit that a court can adjourn proceedings when a person has been found guilty of a slavery and trafficking offence before making a slavery and trafficking prevention order. It ensures that the court has the option to adjourn proceedings for a slavery and human trafficking offence even after sentencing. That will remove any existing or future doubt. The clause also includes provision for when an individual does not attend proceedings, to ensure that the criminal justice process can continue. It is simply about ensuring that courts have the necessary powers to ensure a smooth and effective court process.
I thank the shadow Minister for his thoughtful contributions. Clause 30 is simple: although courts can adjourn proceedings, the current legislation does not explicitly provide for that, which has created the potential for real uncertainty. During the passage of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 in the House of Lords, a specific provision was requested in related to serious violence reduction orders to make it clear that proceedings could be adjourned even after sentencing took place. The specific provision for adjournment has been included in domestic abuse protection orders. That is intended to enable the court to determine any outstanding prevention orders, even after the criminal proceedings have concluded. Replicating measures such as those for instances of modern slavery will remove any current or future doubt that the court is able to determine a slavery and trafficking prevention order after sentencing. Adjournment is a procedural tool that the court might take after sentencing or acquittal to consider imposing an order. The court may then consider further evidence related to the future risk of offending when considering whether to make a slavery and trafficking prevention order. Clause 30 is about enabling the court to more effectively address offending while the defendant is still under their power and to ensure that outstanding matters in a case can be dealt with at the same time. Adjourning proceedings in relation to the making of a prevention order is currently common practice, but we are making that explicit and mirroring the similar provisions in other legislation providing for civil orders. The shadow Minister asked whether the measure would result in an increase in non-attendance in the courts and potentially an increase in warrants. A court can hear the proceedings in a person’s absence if it is satisfied that the defendant “has had adequate notice of the time and place of the adjourned proceedings, and…has been informed that if the defendant does not appear for those proceedings the court may hear the proceedings in the defendant’s absence.” As such, a person cannot continually delay proceedings by not attending, but the notice requirements are safeguarded to ensure that defendants are aware of the proceedings. The court cannot issue a warrant unless it is satisfied that the person “has had adequate notice of the time and place of the adjourned proceedings”. Clause 30 also makes clear that a court can adjourn proceedings where a person has been found guilty of a slavery and trafficking offence before making a slavery and trafficking prevention order. I will pick up on the shadow Minister’s point about victim liaisons because that is important; I will undertake to get back to him and the Committee about that. The clause also undertakes a court process, which is currently common practice in relation to these orders and mirrors established legislative precedent from other civil orders. I commend the clause to the Committee. Question put and agreed to. Clause 30 according ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 31 Slavery and trafficking prevention orders: electronic monitoring Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
There is currently no express power in the Modern Slavery Act 2015 to impose an electronic monitoring requirement as a condition of slavery and trafficking prevention and risk orders. Case law suggests that that may be within the court’s existing powers; however, as it is not explicit in the current legislation, it can be unclear to the court that electronic monitoring—tagging, as we know it—is an option as a monitoring tool for slavery and trafficking orders. Introducing an express power will ensure that there is no doubt that electronic monitoring can be used where it is deemed necessary. Clauses 31 and 32 set out the explicit provision for courts to impose an electronic monitoring requirement as part of a slavery and trafficking prevention order or an interim slavery and trafficking prevention order, or a slavery and trafficking risk order or an interim slavery and trafficking risk order. Such a requirement will be applied only where the court is satisfied that it is necessary for the purpose of protecting persons from physical or psychological harm. We want to ensure that law enforcement has all the tools it needs to manage offenders effectively. Electronic monitoring enables law enforcement to monitor compliance with the conditions of an order where they include an exclusion zone, a curfew or travel restrictions. The conditions imposed by each order are tailored by the court depending on the nature of the individual’s risk of offending. Electronic monitoring, as a condition of a slavery and trafficking order, would also help to prevent reoffending and prevent offenders from fleeing, leaving the country and escaping criminal punishment. We know that electronic monitoring of an offender can make victims and survivors feel safer in some instances and improve their engagement with the criminal justice system. Electronic monitoring can also act as a deterrent to perpetrators while the tag is being worn. Electronic monitoring will ensure certainty of detection when protective licence conditions are breached, strengthen offender management, help victims and survivors feel safe following the release of their perpetrators and help to prevent further offending. Clause 33 sets out a number of consequential amendments to the Modern Slavery Act 2015 to support the introduction and enforcement of electronic monitoring requirements for individuals subject to slavery and trafficking prevention and risk orders. The clause updates section 30 of the 2015 Act so that the existing offence of breaching an order applies consistently to all the modern slavery and trafficking orders. This ensures a consistent enforcement framework across the full range of orders. The clause also sets out a requirement for the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice governing the processing of data obtained through electronic monitoring. That will provide clear guidance on the handling of information gathered through electronic monitoring while ensuring that appropriate safeguards are in place. The clause also provides the appropriate regulation-making framework for electronic monitoring arrangements and clarifies the parliamentary procedure for regulations specifying who may be responsible for electronic monitoring. Clauses 31 to 33 will strengthen the operation of slavery and trafficking prevention and risk orders, support the use of electronic monitoring and provide a clear framework for enforcement, governance and oversight, and I commend them to the Committee.
I thank the hon. Gentleman again for his helpful and thoughtful contributions, and for his support for the clauses. As discussed, this group covers the electronic monitoring requirements for slavery and trafficking prevention and risk orders, along with consequential amendments. As I laid out previously, law enforcement does not always have the tools needed to support it in effectively monitoring those subject to these orders or to identify breaches at an earlier stage. The clauses will enable courts, where necessary and proportionate, to impose electronic monitoring requirements. That will strengthen the management and enforcement of orders, help to identify breaches sooner and disrupt further offending, and provide greater protection and reassurance to victims. The hon. Member for Stockton West raised a few questions, which I am very happy to answer. First, he asked whether the code of practice would be subject to parliamentary procedure. Given the likely content and nature of the code, the fact that it is not going to define or create any new legal responsibilities, and that the processing of data must be in accordance with the requirements of data protection legislation, the Government do not consider it necessary for the code to be subject to any parliamentary procedure. The hon. Gentleman asked for some more detail on what the code of practice would look like. This clause sets out that the Secretary of State must issue a code of practice relating to the processing of data gathered in the course of the electronic monitoring of individuals where that has been imposed. The code of practice is intended to set out the appropriate tests and safeguards for the processing of such data, in order to ensure compliance with the UK General Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018. The Government consider that a code of practice is the most appropriate vehicle for setting out expectations and responsibilities in relation to the processing of data gathered under electronic monitoring requirements. It is important to have the flexibility to update the code to keep pace with any changes to that legislation and to ensure that it can be aligned with operational guidance. The hon. Gentleman asked about resourcing. There is currently no intention to increase the number of electronic monitoring cases. Electronic monitoring will be used only in cases where it is justified against the legislative requirements and considered necessary to protect persons from harm. The number of orders issued with electronic monitoring as a condition will depend on the nature of the offending, the assessment of the court hearing the case and the other conditions available that could address the risk. As such, it is not possible to say whether, overall, the use of electronic monitoring will increase or decrease. It is about giving the courts the clarity that they need. It is important to consider that electronic monitoring can help to reduce the amount of resource used trying to trace offenders who breach the conditions of their orders. Electronic monitoring would enable forces to respond more effectively to the risk posed by offenders, and we could see some early intervention and prevention as a result of that. Electronic monitoring can be a condition of an order only if the court has been notified by the Secretary of State that electronic monitoring arrangements are available in the relevant area, and the court is satisfied that the necessary provision can be made under the arrangements currently available. I think I have covered the issues raised by the shadow Minister. Clauses 31 to 33 will also align the slavery and trafficking prevention and risk orders with other civil orders, as I mentioned, which have explicit provision for electronic monitoring. This is about clarity for the courts on the face of the law. I commend the clauses to the Committee. Question put and agreed to. Clause 31 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 32 and 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 34 Variation etc of slavery and trafficking prevention and risk orders Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
This clause, building on the group we have just discussed, strengthens the operation of slavery and trafficking prevention and risk orders by allowing courts to include additional notification requirements and electronic monitoring when orders are renewed or varied. It ensures that such measures may be applied only when the court is satisfied that the requirement is necessary for the purpose of protecting persons from physical or psychological harm, and it introduces safeguards governing the use of electronic monitoring, including limits on the duration of monitoring extensions.
As I laid out earlier, we want to ensure that law enforcement and the courts have the tools required to prevent harmful behaviour, including when orders are renewed or varied. Put simply, clause 34 strengthens the operation of slavery and trafficking prevention and risk orders by allowing courts to include additional notification requirements and electronic monitoring when orders are renewed and varied. That will enable orders to respond to changing risks, help law enforcement manage those risks effectively and better protect potential victims. The hon. Gentleman asked an earlier question about resource, and it is important to re-emphasise that electronic monitoring can often reduce the resource wasted in trying to trace offenders. Instead, it can allow forces to effectively respond to the risk posed by offenders. He also asked who will be involved, but it will follow the existing process already undertaken by those police forces. I want to further discuss the balance between the powers given under the clause and human rights, as I think it is important to get this on the record. Electronic monitoring would only be applied by a judge to orders where it is appropriate within the confines of the European convention on human rights. There are also restrictions on the specified length of the electronic monitoring period that can be applied, based on the circumstances of the individual cases—for example, it could be up to 12 months. The decision to electronically monitor a subject will only be made following great consideration by the courts, and it will be applied only where there is justification and it is demonstrated to be proportionate in that case. Providing the courts with this explicit power to require electronic monitoring as a condition of a slavery and trafficking order does not mean that what constitutes an acceptable threshold for electronic monitoring will be lowered. The provision will only allow for it to be quickly put in place where merit is identified. If I have not addressed any of the hon. Gentleman’s questions, I commit to write to him further on those, but I am grateful for his support. The clause introduces important safeguards governing the use of electronic monitoring, and I commend it to the Committee. Question put and agreed to. Clause 34 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 35 Authority responsible for deciding if a person is a victim etc Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
I will speak to clauses 35 to 43. Since the modern slavery system was established, the nature and volume of referrals have changed. Compared with 2014, referrals into the national referral mechanism—the system for identifying potential victims of modern slavery—have increased by 900%. In 2025, modern slavery referrals from those who arrived by small boat were the highest since records began in 2018, and more than half of referrals now relate to exploitation that took place overseas. Our system seeks to identify, support and protect individuals at the earliest opportunity, and that is in everyone’s interest. However, we cannot ignore the fact that, because of the protections offered by the system, there is value for some in seeking to misuse it. In 2025, over a third of chartered flight returns that failed to go ahead involved a modern slavery referral lodged after that return was arranged. That type of action undermines the integrity of the system and creates disproportionate operational pressures. We need a robust end-to-end system—one that supports earlier identification of victims, delivers clear and timely decisions and addresses opportunities for improper use. Importantly, it must be one that works effectively for those who it is intended to protect. This Government have been particularly clear in our commitment to embed protections for those who are most vulnerable, including exploited and trafficked children, and the clauses will bring balance and order to the system to do just that. First, clause 35 clarifies a key part of our modern slavery system: who can make decisions about whether an individual is a victim of modern slavery for the purposes of part 5 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. For adults, it will formalise the existing operational model where the Secretary of State acts as the competent authority or decision-making body for all modern slavery decisions. For children, it will enable the Secretary of State to nominate other public authorities to act as the competent authority in relation to reasonable and conclusive grounds decisions on a case-by-case basis. We know this model can be successful; we have been piloting the approach since 2021, enabling local safeguarding partners, who will often be involved in the child’s care, to make decisions about whether the child is a victim of modern slavery. Stakeholders have told us that embedding decisions with those working directly with a child removes the perceived disconnect between identification and support and delivers a more sustainable model of decision making aligned with existing safeguarding frameworks. However, legislative change is required to implement this approach on a greater scale. That is what this clause delivers: the legal foundation to devolve modern slavery decision making for children nationally, ensuring decisions are made by those best placed to safeguard them. By embedding these responsibilities within existing local safeguarding structures, the clause will strengthen partnership working, increase awareness of exploitation, support earlier identification of vulnerable children and create greater opportunity to prevent harm before it occurs. Schedule 4 will play a critical role in implementing the changes made through clause 35 of the Bill, making consequential amendments to reflect the definition of “competent authority” and ensure consistency across the statute book. It will enable the Secretary of State to lay regulations on the making of reasonable or conclusive grounds decisions by all competent authorities and issue guidance on the processes to be followed by nominated public authorities. Together, the measures will enable consistent, high-quality devolved decision making for children by local safeguarding partners. First, schedule 4 updates definitions to reflect the change in who can make decisions set out in clause 35. Secondly, the regulations ensure persistent decision making across all decision-making bodies, setting a clear framework for the making of modern slavery decisions, what bodies should make them and how they should do so. This will be underpinned by guidance that makes it clear what is expected of public authorities while also providing transparency on how their competence will be addressed. That will help ensure consistent and quality decision making, and that public authorities are trained and supported to deliver to the required standard. Thirdly, regulations will make it clear that information sharing and joint working across multi-agency safeguarding partners is paramount to strong decision making, enabling the Secretary of State to require public authorities other than the Home Office to engage in decision making. That is crucial not just for information sharing for partners with the Home Office, but to deliver the tried-and-tested approach to decision making for children, which will see responsibility embedded with those best able to make decisions for children and ensure it is done in a consistent and controlled way. Turning to clause 36, the Government are committed to ensuring that decisions made under the national referral mechanism are robust, preventing opportunities for improper use of the system and providing clarity in legislation. To deliver that, it is essential that the factors that a decision maker must consider to negatively impact a person’s credibility are clear. Currently, decision makers can consider factors such as the timing of disclosure and consistency in the information a person has provided, which may have an impact on the credibility of a person’s account. This assessment can be used to inform the outcome of a reasonable grounds or conclusive grounds decision. However, there is no legal requirement for this credibility assessment to inform part of the decision making. The clause will place those credibility considerations on a statutory footing, making it clear that those factors, which can often be an indicator of a lack of veracity, will be considered to be damaging to a person’s credibility unless good reasons are put forward. That will provide a more robust framework supporting consistent decision making and a clear understanding across potential victims and those representing them. We recognise that there may be factors that explain the presence of credibility indicators. For example, a person may be suffering from coercion, fear or trauma. That is why the legislation also requires decision making to assess whether there are good reasons that could explain the presence of factors that would otherwise impact on an individual’s credibility. Detailed guidance will be set out on what will constitute good reasons, recognising that these are non-exhaustive. It will support decision makers in considering each person’s individual circumstances and experience. This is a key safeguard that balances the importance of preventing improper claims with the recognition that some factors that point to a lack of credibility are the result of individual circumstances that require consideration. By setting out a statutory duty to consider credibility considerations and the impact of those factors on decisions, the clause will strengthen the legal robustness of decision making and provide greater clarity for decision makers, potential victims and those representing them. I commend clauses 35 and 36 to the Committee.
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. This is a really important discussion because these are important clauses. Clause 35 clarifies who can make decisions about whether an individual is a victim of modern slavery for the purposes of part 5 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. For adults, as I have said, it will formalise the existing operational model, with the Secretary of State acting as a competent authority for all modern slavery decisions. For children, it will enable the Secretary of State to nominate other public authorities to act as the competent authority. That will allow modern slavery decisions relating to children to be devolved nationally, ensuring that decisions are made by those best placed to safeguard and support them, building on the success of the pilot. Schedule 4 complements these changes by making important consequential amendments to reflect the definition of competent authority and ensure consistency across the statute book. It will enable the Secretary of State to lay regulations on the making of reasonable or conclusive grounds decisions by all competent authorities and issue guidance on the processes to be followed by nominated public authorities. Clause 36 places on a statutory footing credibility considerations that are already set out in guidance. That will make it clear that these factors will be considered to be damaging to a person’s credibility unless good reasons are put forward. That will provide a more robust framework—one that supports consistent decision making while recognising factors that could impact credibility indicators, such as a person suffering from coercion, fear or trauma. I come back to the points raised during the discussion. I am afraid that I take issue with the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for talking as if the purpose of the Bill is just to drive rhetoric or a political argument. These important measures will give our constituents confidence in the immigration and asylum system, and they will make sure that these important provisions, which are a credit to the Conservatives, are genuinely there to protect those who require and deserve support having faced the horrendous issue of modern slavery. It is really important that we protect them from abuse. I go back to some of the facts and evidence I have already mentioned. The hon. Lady seems to dismiss the evidence out of hand, but there are some important factors here. I mentioned in my introductory remarks that modern slavery referrals have gone up 900% since 2014. Of arranged returns that failed to go ahead, 34%, or over a third, involved a referral for modern slavery made after the return had been arranged—not prior, but after. That is people who have gone through numerous appeals processes and have had numerous opportunities to highlight issues or concerns, but who had a return arranged because they have no right to be in this country. Of cases raised through the national referral mechanism’s out-of-hours decision-making service ahead of a charter flight, 76% were raised between the hours of 3 pm on the day prior to the planned removal and 6 am on the day of the planned charter removal. Of the total referrals, 15% were raised after 11 pm.
I am just addressing the hon. Lady’s point. She said that those are not big statistics, or she dismissed them. They might appear small in scale, but they place a hugely disproportionate pressure on operations. Home Office officials are getting all the paperwork in place and liaising with different countries and airlines. These cases are hugely expensive and damaging for operations. They delay removal action due to disingenuous claims, prevent proper decision making and impact support for those who need it most. That is what the Bill aims to address.
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s intervention. I will come on to trauma and the exemptions that we have, because this is really important. We want to make sure that genuine victims are protected, but I want to outline another fact—the facts are really important here—because the UK refers more victims of modern slavery than the whole of Europe put together. In 2023, the UK referred 17,004 cases, yet there were 10,907 referrals in the whole EU. I do not think anyone can accuse us of not living up to our obligations on modern slavery. The hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Wimbledon have both mentioned victims of trauma. As a Government, we have engaged extensively with organisations working to address modern slavery. We have had a call for evidence and lived experience forums. We have had a range of expert insights, including survivor voices, to ensure that we have informed policy development. That has helped to ensure that the reforms reflect how the system operates in practice and take a trauma-informed approach to identifying and supporting victims. We will continue to engage with stakeholders as the Bill progresses, to ensure that the system remains responsive to victims’ needs. I reiterate that individuals have opportunities throughout their immigration process to raise any modern slavery-related information, or any other information.
I will give way, and then I will make the point I had intended to make.
The hon. Lady must not misinterpret us; we are absolutely clear that individuals do not make those claims. However, they raise information. If they raise information on the plane’s steps, it is very clear that many individuals are knowingly gaming the sorts of information that will be relevant to a modern slavery claim. Individuals can raise, at any point in the immigration process, not a referral but any information relating to any concerns they may have about their experience of modern slavery. That could be at the moment they arrive at a UK port, when they are encountered by immigration officials, or it could be to the police, a local authority, a community group or a charity. All this information can be flagged. If modern slavery information is raised, or if it is identified through general immigration screening processes, a trained first responder—in these circumstances, from UK Visas and Immigration, Border Force, Immigration Enforcement or the police—will make a national referral mechanism referral. Adults must consent to such a referral being made. The referral process includes questions designed to surface any modern slavery experience, to aid decision making by the single competent authority and the immigration enforcement competent authority. People are trained specifically to ask questions throughout the process to identify victims of modern slavery. Returning to the issues of trauma, the Government recognise the horrific experience that many victims of modern slavery have endured. We understand that trauma can have a profound effect on their ability to raise and discuss it, which is why decision makers are trained and must consider whether there are good reasons to explain the factors that might otherwise be viewed as undermining an individual’s credibility. Detailed guidance will support decision makers in considering each person’s individual circumstances and experience. That will be trauma-informed, and it will ensure that credibility assessments are made fairly and on a case-by-case basis. First responders are also trained to recognise any signs of modern slavery and identify potential victims, to use trauma-informed approaches to help individuals disclose their experiences and, where appropriate, to refer them to the national referral mechanism. The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion asks about the provisions applying to children. The Bill’s credibility provisions will apply to individuals of all ages, but specific safeguards will be in place with regard to age. The Government recognise the specific vulnerabilities that children can have, which may affect their ability to disclose relevant modern slavery information. That will be factored into decision makers’ consideration of whether there are good reasons to explain the factors that might otherwise be viewed as undermining an individual’s credibility. This could include, for example, a child’s developmental stage and emotional maturity, which could have an impact on their ability to disclose information. Detailed guidance will support decision makers in considering each person’s individual circumstances and experiences, ensuring that credibility assessments are made fairly and on a case-by-case basis. The hon. Lady also asks whether the credibility provisions will apply to British nationals. Yes, they will apply to all individuals, including British nationals. We recognise that some individuals, including British nationals who have experienced modern slavery, may have reasons for being unable to disclose information at an early opportunity. For example, victims of historical exploitation may not have previously come into contact or had repeated interactions with authorities, resulting in delayed disclosure. Equally, victims might not recognise themselves as victims of modern slavery or might be reluctant to be identified as such. That is why our first responders are trained to understand and identify signs that may indicate that a person is a victim. The clause also requires decision makers to consider all relevant circumstances and evidence when assessing the credibility of an individual’s account on a case-by-case basis. As I said, where they identify that there are good reasons for the delayed disclosure, they will not draw a negative credibility finding on that basis alone. The hon. Lady mentioned the al-Fayed cases. We are absolutely committed to supporting victims to come forward and disclose their experiences, including victims of historical exploitation, victims of grooming gangs and al-Fayed trafficking victims. Those are horrendous cases. Under the modern slavery system, first responders must refer consenting adults and children to the national referral mechanism when modern slavery indicators are present. This is true regardless of how long ago the incidents may have occurred. Decision makers will take this into account when considering cases. Where there is an explanation for the time taken between the exploitation and disclosing it, the delay in disclosure will not result in a negative credibility finding on that basis alone. The credibility provisions on delayed disclosure focus on where individuals have had repeated opportunities to disclose and did not do so. It is not a blanket provision on all lateness. Hon. Members have asked for more detail on why good reasons are not listed in the Bill. The Bill sets out a pretty exhaustive list of five specific factors that decision makers are required to consider as having a negative impact on credibility when assessing the account of an individual referred to the national referral mechanism, while recognising there might be legitimate reasons for these issues arising. Where the competent authority is satisfied that there are good reasons for the issues with an individual’s account, such as delayed disclosure and inconsistency of account, this will mitigate against any adverse credibility finding. The legislation does not include an exhaustive list of good reasons, primarily because the range of potential mitigating circumstances is so broad that any attempt to provide a closed list would inevitably fail to capture the full range of potential mitigating circumstances. Decision makers should not be restricted to a set of good reasons. Having these reasons in guidance will retain flexibility for decision makers to consider individual factors that appear to impact on an individual’s credibility. Those decision makers should consider all relevant factors in the round on a case-by-case basis before making a credibility finding. In terms of good reasons, relevant consideration may include the impact of trauma, fear of authorities, cultural or gender-related barriers to disclosure, a lack of self-identification as a victim or, for children, factors such as developmental stage, maturity and the effects of grooming, coercion and control. The hon. Member for Stockton West asked about consistency across local authorities and local decision-making structures. It is important to say that any individual would receive a consistent decision and outcome. That is important to us, irrespective of which competent authority makes the decision. Regulations will be put in place to establish a clear framework that all competent authorities will be expected to operate within in order to ensure that decisions are taken consistently across all areas. All decisions will be made in line with modern slavery statutory guidance that will be consistent across all competent authorities. For decisions made by local public authorities, there will be separate additional guidance setting out the process and timelines for decision making through this model. The shadow Minister also asked who might be nominated. Ahead of any public authority being nominated as a competent authority, it will be provided with a comprehensive programme of training to ensure that it understands its responsibilities as a competent authority and is able to make timely and accurate decisions. In addition, the Home Office will put in place clear oversight processes, including clear intervention steps that will be taken should concerns be raised about performance. The shadow Minister also asked how the measures will apply in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The intention is for this model of decision making to apply to children across all parts of the United Kingdom. We already have successful pilot sites operating in all four nations, as the model allows for local safeguarding partners to have flexibility over how they deliver many elements of the decision-making process. This means that decisions can work alongside any differences in legislative framework across the UK, while ensuring that all decisions are made to a consistent standard. We will continue to work with local safeguarding partners and devolved Governments on this approach and implementation.
This Government are clear that we must be able to move individuals more efficiently through the system without unnecessary delay, and ensure that those who are deemed not to be victims of modern slavery do not receive protection and support that they do not need and are not entitled to. Clause 37 makes it clear that a negative conclusive grounds decision ends the modern slavery recovery period, so there will be no requirement to wait for the 30-day recovery period to end before confirming that an individual is not a victim. At present, after referral to the national referral mechanism, if an individual receives a positive reasonable grounds decision, they receive a statutory 30-day recovery period. That protects them from removal and enables access to support. Even where a decision maker has the evidence to issue a negative conclusive grounds decision within 30 days, and so conclude that the individual is not a victim, that would not end the recovery period nor these entitlements. Clause 37 rectifies this problem. Where there is enough evidence to conclude that an individual is not a victim of modern slavery, a negative conclusive grounds decision can be issued within the recovery period, and the issuing of that negative decision will end the recovery period. This is important to ensure that we remove inefficiencies in our system and do not retain unnecessary barriers to removal. It will also ensure that support resources remain focused on supporting and protecting genuine victims. I commend clause 37 to the Committee.
I appreciate the contributions that hon. Members have made. As I have made clear, the Government are committed to ensuring that the modern slavery national referral mechanism operates efficiently and effectively. Clause 37 is an important part of that. It will remove inefficiencies and allow for support to be targeted at those who are recognised as victims, rather than having an arbitrary period to wait when we have conclusively identified that an individual is not a victim. As I am sure hon. Members would agree, support should be removed in a recovery period when there is sufficient evidence to conclude that an individual is not a victim of modern slavery. Let me respond to some of the points that colleagues have made. I have heard language describing people whose conclusive grounds decisions state that they are not victims of modern slavery described as “survivors”. It is important to note that the conclusive grounds decision is that they are not a victim of modern slavery, and therefore that they are not considered to have recovery needs stemming from modern slavery. It stands to reason that those individuals should not be entitled to the recovery period or to modern slavery-specific support—nor would they need them. For someone who does not receive a negative conclusive grounds decision in the recovery period, those protections will continue for the duration of the 30 days or until such time as a conclusive grounds decision is made. During the recovery period, when there are still reasonable grounds to suspect that a person is a victim of modern slavery, protection from removal and entitlement to support will be ongoing. The recovery period itself is not being reduced; the new provision merely makes it clear that, where there is sufficient evidence to warrant making a negative conclusive grounds decision during that time, doing so will end the recovery period. The quality of decision making has been flagged by a number of Opposition Members. We are talking about highly trained staff, and negative conclusive grounds decisions are always checked by a second pair of eyes, so there is quality assurance and effective decision making. In 2025, of the 17,560 negative decisions, only 1,467 were accepted for reconsideration. Changing the outcome, however, does not mean that the original decision was incorrect. In most cases, additional information was provided that was not available originally, so that is not an issue of decision-making quality.
I beg to move amendment 114, in clause 38, page 40, line 16, leave out— “except where the person is within subsection (1A)” and insert— “in a case where the person is aged 18 or over”. This amendment limits the duty of the Secretary of State to disqualify potential victims of slavery or trafficking from certain protections when they are a threat to public order so that the duty will apply only in respect of adults.
Our modern slavery system is generous in the rights and protections it provides those who require them to recover from that abhorrent crime. The Government remain committed to ensuring that such protections are available to those for whom they are intended. It is right—indeed, it is within our international obligations—that the Government can deny modern slavery protections to those who pose a threat to public order or seek to misuse the system through dishonest claims made in bad faith. The practical operation of the disqualification mechanisms has long-standing challenges, including in cases involving foreign national offenders. The current disqualification framework does not always provide sufficient clarity on when disqualification should apply and what the consequences of that decision are, or on when a claim should be treated as having been made in bad faith. Such ambiguities have created operational uncertainty and complicated decision making, and ultimately mean that the disqualification framework does not operate as effectively as it should. Clause 38 addresses those issues by strengthening and clarifying the public order and bad faith disqualification frameworks, while maintaining appropriate safeguards for children and those at risk of re-trafficking. First, it expands the grounds on which a person can be disqualified, based on the national security or public order threat that they pose, to include suspended sentences, reflecting the changes made in the Sentencing Act 2026. Secondly, it clarifies the consequences that follow a decision to disqualify, making clear that no onward modern slavery decision making is required, rectifying an existing lack of clarity. Thirdly, it clarifies that where an individual is at an immediate and significant risk of re-trafficking in the UK, the national security or public order disqualification will not apply. That necessary and targeted safeguard provides clarity for decision makers, potential victims and professionals, and balances the need to protect people at significant risk with the duty to disqualify. That exemption ensures that, where there is a direct risk of someone being exploited or exploited again in the UK, they retain access to NRM support for protection. Clause 38, combined with amendment 115, also introduces a specific, targeted exemption from disqualification for all children on public order grounds, while maintaining the disqualification where the national security criteria are met, to ensure that the acute vulnerabilities of children are appropriately recognised. Importantly, the clause also separates bad faith from public order, and, for the first time in statute, defines circumstances in which a claim is to be treated as having been made in bad faith. That includes claims based on falsified documents or claims made only after removal action has commenced without compelling justification, thereby disincentivising people from trying to misuse the system. Those measures will provide a more consistent and robust approach to disqualification decisions, helping to ensure that the modern slavery system safeguards the public interest, commands public confidence and strengthens the Government’s ability to respond where individuals pose a threat to public order or seek to misuse the system. The clause therefore addresses existing uncertainty that underpins the current disqualification framework, strengthens and clarifies the circumstances in which disqualification will apply, embeds more appropriate safeguards, and ultimately supports a more effective modern slavery system. Amendment 115, which is consequential on amendment 114, ensures that all children are treated equally under the public order disqualification in clause 38. Presently, clause 38 exempts children with leave to remain or right of abode in the UK from disqualification based on public order threat based on criminality. Amendments 114 and 115 recognise the vulnerabilities of all children and make an important change to ensure that all children under the age of 18 are treated consistently. The same exemption from the public order disqualification on criminality grounds will therefore be afforded to all children regardless of their immigration status. The amendments do not affect disqualification on national security grounds, for which all children remain in scope. I hope that Members will agree that the amendments are sensible and proportionate, and ensure that the public order disqualification provision, and our safeguarding duties, can operate as intended. Amendment 118 is a technical amendment to provide greater clarity win the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 on how the public order disqualification, bad faith disqualification and temporary permission to stay provisions operate together. Amendments 116 and 117, which are consequential on amendment 118, remove references to temporary permission to stay from the public order and bad faith disqualification provisions in section 63 of the 2022 Act. That will create a clearer distinction between a disqualification decision and a temporary permission to stay decision under section 65 of the same Act, the latter of which can be considered only after a positive conclusive grounds decision has been made. Importantly, section 65 already makes clear the circumstances in which the duty to grant permission to stay does not apply, including where public order, national security or bad faith concerns arise. The amendments therefore improve the clarity and consistency of the legislation, without changing the underlying policy intent.
In my rural community of South East Cornwall, I had the honour of visiting the Learning Paddocks, which is a specialist provision that worked very hard to get set up but faced many barriers to being a specialist provider of care. In areas such as mine with huge transport problems and when mainstream education is not the right choice, how are the Government going to work with providers to support specialist provision such as the Learning Paddocks?
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. Nine years ago, 72 people, 18 of them children, died in the Grenfell Tower tragedy. It was a deadly betrayal and a national tragedy that must never happen again. Let me start by remembering those who lost their lives and paying tribute to the bereaved families, the survivors and members of the Grenfell community. In the time since, the community has campaigned to fix the building safety crisis exposed by the tragedy. That is why we are all here today—so that no one suffers as they have. A decent, safe and secure home is not too much to ask for, but for many it is still out of reach. Despite nine years passing since the Grenfell tragedy, up to 380,000 residents are still living in buildings with unsafe cladding. Every single one of them tells a story of someone unable to move on with their life, stuck in an unsafe home, unable to sell, and often unable to sleep at night. There are even stories of families evacuated without any guarantee of when they can return home. The mental and financial burden can become unbearable. We have taken action, and we have accepted our responsibilities, but the truth is that others have not. There are still people and companies out there who are not acting quickly enough to make homes safe. Of the 4,724 buildings where unsafe cladding has been identified, work has been completed on only 1,849. Regulators have so far had to take enforcement action on over 900 buildings where those responsible were not taking their responsibilities seriously. As a Government, we will stand up for every leaseholder who is stuck in an unremediated flat, unable to move on with their lives and facing huge costs in the meantime. When this Government came to power, the pace of remediation was unacceptably slow. That is why in December 2024 I announced the remediation acceleration plan—our blueprint to identify all buildings with unsafe cladding. We are now delivering on that plan, which means that buildings will be fixed faster and residents will be supported better.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; we need to ensure that we have the skilled workforce this situation requires. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, alongside other Departments, has put more investment into ensuring we have the people in post, and we will continue with that piece of work. We also launched a national identification drive to understand the scale of the problem.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution. He is right to highlight the devastating impact on communities. The Bill will I hope go some way towards doing the things he wants to see for his constituents. Anyone who has deliberately failed to mitigate or remediate buildings that are over 11 metres will face tougher consequences as a result of the Bill, including fines of up to £500,000 and, where needed, criminal prosecution. Since we launched the national identification drive to understand the scale of the problem, over 200,000 building records have been reviewed. That is significantly improving our understanding of the affected building stock and enabling remediation activity to be targeted more effectively. To drive the pace of remediation work, we also gave social housing providers equal access to Government funding schemes for the first time.
I thank my hon. Friend for that. Hopefully, as we go through the Bill she will see how we are changing the emphasis in particular to ensure that the buildings most at risk will be remediated first. As I said, we have given social housing providers access to Government funding schemes for the first time, investing over £1 billion to ensure that the most vulnerable residents have safe homes. We have also ended the binary approach to remediation funding based on building height.
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I hope that in the passage of the Bill she will see we are hoping that we can do that piece of work, because we do understand the devastating impact on people’s lives. All buildings are now considered based on the risk presented to those living in them. As part of that, we have announced targeted funding for buildings under 11 metres with the highest risk so that the cost of fixing cladding on those buildings does not fall on the leaseholders. We will always ensure that developers pay their fair share towards making buildings safe. We have already agreed stretched targets for developers to accelerate work to assess and remediate buildings and we will hold them to account on their progress.
I am really sorry to hear about the situation in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Since the Grenfell tragedy, many hon. Members across the House have had similar experiences of fires, including fatalities. As I outlined in terms of the thousands of buildings that need remediation, that is one thing that weighs heavily on my mind every night as Secretary of State. I would not want my family to be in a property that was unsafe. That is why the Bill is so important. He made an important point about waking watches, which I will come to further into my speech.
We are trying to ensure that those who are responsible will be part of that. We know that manufacturers and so on have been using routes to try to get out of paying their fair share and doing what they need to do. This remediation Bill is about closing some of the gaps we see. I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman as the Bill goes through the House. We have also ensured that social housing providers have ambitious targets for the completion of all remediation work for which they are responsible. The data is clear that the action is working: since we published the remediation acceleration plan, remediation has been reported to be completed on over 470 more buildings. That is about 35,000 more residents who can at least feel safer in their homes.
My officials will have heard that call, and I or the Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith, who is in her place, will be happy to meet my hon. Friend. Coming back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) about residents paying for costly waking watch patrols, we have provided an additional £62 million for fire alarms in buildings with defects. That will keep residents safe until remediation work is completed and save leaseholders about £280 a month. We are also taking action on insurance. We will introduce secondary legislation to do two things: strengthen transparency and bring the insurance commissions ban into force. The ban will stop people—including freeholders and property managing agents—from passing those commissions on to leaseholders. That will end the incentive for unscrupulous landlords and agents to seek out unearned profits and simply pass the cost on to innocent leaseholders.
We are establishing a single, consistent approach to assessing external walls so that buildings are judged on the same basis. Central to that is PAS 9980, which will become the required standard for fire risk appraisals of external walls. Before the end of the year, we will bring forward the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, which will put power back in the hands of residents and tackle unfair costs and charges. We will cap ground rents at £250 a year before reducing them to a peppercorn after 40 years, and also cap administration fees.
This is about meeting the challenges that we face, and making sure that those who are not taking responsibility, do. I am happy to continue the conversations with my hon. Friend to make sure that we get that balance right; that is what we want. We want those people to take responsibility and carry out the remediation. The remediation Bill before the House is the next major step in ending the building safety crisis.
We are working on that. PAS 9980 is the established approach used across Government remediation programmes. It provides a robust and proportionate way of identifying the risk of fire spreading through a building’s external walls and the action needed to keep residents safe.
My hon. Friend’s intervention shows that the remediation Bill is crucial to us meeting our ongoing challenges with the remediation acceleration plan. The relevant Minister will be happy to meet her to go through the specifics relating to fire safety and the regulations on that. The Bill will help us complete the task of identifying all remaining buildings that require remediation. It will introduce a register of 11 to 18-metre buildings, giving Government a complete record for the first time of all medium-rise buildings in England. It will also mandate how external wall assessments are carried out, to ensure a nationally consistent approach to remediation. Also, for the first time, the Bill makes it indisputable that responsible entities have to remediate building safety defects with urgency through a new legal duty to remediate. They must take action now or risk severe consequences, including criminal charges where appropriate. It is unacceptable that enforcement is too slow and penalties are too weak to compel those responsible to act. We will give regulators the tools that they need, including the ability to issue escalating financial penalties, and to pursue criminal prosecution in the worst cases. From now on, no building and no resident will be left behind. Our new remediation backstop will allow public bodies to step in and carry out remediation work themselves. That will mean that residents have a route to remediation, even when the responsible entity is determined to ignore its duty to keep residents safe.
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting that case and the incredible work that the family have done. Today, I wrote to Amanda’s mother, who has been tremendous in making sure that some of the measures in this Bill were included. It is a devastating case. Our measures will be backed by tough sanctions, including provisions for cost recovery and the sale of responsible parties’ interest in the building, so that they cannot benefit. We will also bring an end to indefinite decants, in which residents are evacuated from their home and given no assurances about when they can return. We will empower residents to make sure that their buildings are safe, even when the responsible entity is absent, neglectful or insolvent. The Bill is not just about getting the work done, but about making sure that the cost of the remediation work is borne by those who are responsible for the building safety crisis. That brings me on to construction product manufacturers who produced unsafe cladding, released it on to the market, and have yet to meaningfully contribute towards the remediation work. As well as being unjust, that puts additional financial pressure on those who are getting on with doing the work. The Bill will fix long-standing gaps in the law: developers, contractors and others who have paid to make buildings safe will be able to properly pursue manufacturers, rather than being blocked by technical legal barriers. That is not all. I intend to table amendments, as the Bill passes through Parliament, that go further on construction product redress. Through the Bill, for the first time, we will require relevant construction product manufacturers to contribute towards remediation costs that are met by the taxpayer. It is not right that taxpayers should shoulder the burden on their behalf. At the heart of everything that we do to make buildings safe are the residents and leaseholders who bear absolutely no responsibility for the building safety crisis, but who feel its most acute consequences. The most important thing that we can do for residents is remediate their homes as quickly as possible, to ensure that they are safe. This is not just a safety crisis; for many leaseholders, the presence of unsafe cladding on their home has had a terrible financial toll. Although the Building Safety Act 2022 protects the majority of leaseholders from substantial building safety costs, there are some groups who remain excluded, and who are exposed to remediation bills. Some are forced to pay higher insurance premiums until their buildings are made safe. As a member of this Government, who are committed to lowering the cost of living, I am not prepared to let that continue, so I can announce that the Government will go further than ever to shield leaseholders from the financial burden of this crisis. I am pleased to announce that this Government will commit grant funding towards the remediation of high-risk, high-cost internal fire safety defects in eligible collectively owned and enfranchised buildings. Those buildings do not benefit from existing protections because there is no separate freeholder to carry the cost. The funding will narrow the gap between leaseholders in such buildings and those already protected from remediation costs under the Building Safety Act, giving them greater certainty and support in making their home safe.
Again, I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. Hopefully, what I have said today goes some way to reassuring those who have raised that issue with us. Since my return to Government, my noble Friend Baroness Blake, who is watching the debate, and I have met End Our Cladding Scandal. We have heard the requests of its members and other leaseholders to expand the leaseholder protections in the Building Safety Act. We have also heard from those who bought their first home, only to find it was a non-qualifying lease. The Government will investigate whether we can extend the protection to any leaseholder who owns a lease on their only or principal home. We have also heard those who have spoken about the plight of those with small portfolios who were excluded from protection. As the Bill passes through Parliament, I will table amendments to expand the protection from three to six properties. In our manifesto, we committed to reviewing how to better protect leaseholders from costs. These actions show that we are a Government who are committed to keeping our promises.
We are hoping to make sure that nobody is left out, or left feeling those pressures. My right hon. Friend makes an important point. I outlined before that many of the groups we have met recently are making the case that we need to push harder on doing everything that we can. As the Bill goes through Parliament, the Building Safety Minister is happy to meet Members to see how far we can go, so that we can make sure that we are doing everything that we said we would do in our manifesto. We committed to accelerating the pace of remediation, better protecting leaseholders, and ensuring that those responsible for the crisis pay towards putting it right. Our record since 2024 shows that we are getting on with the job, but there is still work to do, which is why, through the Bill, we will go further than ever before. Every building that we make safe helps to give those living in these flats and those looking to buy a home confidence that they are safe. This is about restoring trust in our housing market, protecting our communities and bringing an end to the building safety crisis, once and for all. I pay tribute, once again, to the Grenfell community—the survivors and the families who were affected—and to all of us who have contributed to getting to this stage, with the Bill in front of us. I commend it to the House.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) for securing this debate. I want to speak up for Portsmouth today, a city that at its peak had 27,000 council homes and now has fewer than 16,000. Our city is in the grip of a housing crisis, with too many people struggling to find a secure and affordable home. We have a waiting list of almost 3,000 households, with almost 50% of those being exceptional or urgent priority. Yet in 2024-25 Portsmouth built just 40 new homes—not 40 social homes, but 40 new homes in total. In the same period, only 15 units for social rent were added to the council stock, with just six more being started. Behind those figures are families waiting for a home, young people struggling to find somewhere they can afford, and residents facing the insecurity of unaffordable rent or moving from temporary accommodation to temporary accommodation. I know personally what a council home means. I grew up in one and many of my aunties and uncles, and my own parents were born and lived in council housing. For my family it meant stability, security and the opportunity to build a future. Council housing is more than bricks and mortar. It gives people a foundation in life, a community and a place to call home, and every family deserves one. That is why I am proud that this Labour Government have committed to the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation. We are invigorating council house building and taking action to protect existing social housing, but that national ambition must translate into homes on the ground in Portsmouth. More families need the security I experienced growing up in a safe, affordable home, and the chance to build a better future. Cannock Chase and historical Norwich city council have shown what can be achieved when a council creates opportunity, and I commend their vision. Portsmouth should look at what works elsewhere and how we can translate that to my city. Will the Minister meet me to discuss what practical support the Government can provide to help Portsmouth city council overcome barriers to planning, building, developing derelict sites, regenerating empty homes and unlocking investment to deliver the council houses and social rented homes my residents desperately need? Portsmouth city council must act; my residents cannot afford to wait any longer to have a secure place to call home.