Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
Does the Minister think it fair that someone who is £1 or £10 over the limit will have to pay for someone who is £1 or £10 under the limit? This redistribution is penalising people near the limit to such an extent that those who are just outside it will end up worse off than those who are just inside.
The shadow Chancellor for the Duchy of Lancaster has asked today and previously, as have other Conservative Members, about the existence or not of a declaration of interests form for Mandelson. Does that form exist?
As the Government’s reforms to special educational needs and disabilities provision focus on pushing children into mainstream education, they risk removing specialist support from many who need it and undermining successful work programmes, such as the Witherslack futures programme. Will the Secretary of State meet me and relevant groups to ensure that he does not allow SEND reforms to damage the chances of young people with special educational needs and disabilities to secure long-term, sustainable work?
I raised with the Prime Minister at PMQs a couple of weeks ago the case of Twentyfour Hair, a salon in Princes Risborough in my constituency, which for the first time in 21 years cannot afford to take on a new apprentice. That message is echoed by businesses across my constituency. In order to improve uptake in new apprenticeship starts, which I entirely support, what steps is the Secretary of State taking with the Chancellor to get rid of this punitive level of business taxation, which is preventing businesses from taking them on?
Is there any truth in the claims that the delay in the Government adhering to the Humble Address motion is because Cabinet Ministers are refusing to hand over their mobile phones because of the messages between them and Mandelson that they contain, and the embarrassment that that will cause them?
Is the shadow Secretary of State more surprised that the promised amendments leaked to the papers at the weekend are missing from the debate or that the Armed Forces Minister is missing from the Chamber and will not be here to vote for this disgraceful carry-over motion, because he knows that it should not be voted for?
I echo the comments made by my hon. Friend the shadow Minister about the broader context. The Minister rightly highlighted the broader context of the Renters’ Rights Act, the reforms it introduces and the implications they have for the sector. She also quite rightly highlighted that rights matter only where they are enforceable. Given that context, I have a few questions and points of clarification that I hope the Minister can help me with. I will confine my remarks to the property chamber, which is one of seven chambers at first-tier tribunal level. The Minister gave the example of having a £900 cost versus a £200 fee for a case, and the significant public subsidy that goes into the system, even with the fee changes. Will she set out the overall cost per annum—the cost with regard to the resource departmental expenditure limit—of Government administration of the property chamber? Picking up on a point highlighted by my hon. Friend the shadow Minister, what assessment have the Government made of the increased demand for property chamber services in the context of the changes in the Renters’ Rights Act? How many additional staff may be needed in that chamber to avoid any lengthening of case wait times, for a listing or similar? In essence, how many additional cases annually do the Government anticipate will come forward as a result of the Act? Again, the Minister was absolutely right that the challenge is to balance cost recovery and access to justice. What formula or process was used to calculate the numbers for these fees? She said that cases are effectively still subsidised by the taxpayer, but what was the calculation that said that £47 or £200, for example, was the right fee? What went into coming up with that, and discounting it in the way that she has? Paragraph 5.16 of the explanatory memorandum states that “the rent appeal right is substantially different to what existed before, and so our confidence on the effect of a fee on people’s behaviour is lower than normal.” That is understandable, but how do the Government propose to measure—once the fees have been operating for, say, a year—the effect on people’s behaviour? What data will be collected, as a baseline, to measure whether people are using the tribunal service, and why they are or are not using it—that is, both the quantitative and qualitative data? Finally, paragraph 10.1 of the explanatory memorandum states: “The underlying costs of activities for which fees are charged will be reviewed on a yearly basis”. Will that annual review of the fees come to this House, or will it be an internal process in HMCTS or the Ministry of Justice that comes to this House, with an order, only if something is identified as having diverged?
I am happy to be written to.
I have been there; I sympathise.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison, and to respond on behalf of the Opposition in this Delegated Legislation Committee. It might seem that this is a narrow measure, but, in reality, the draft order is part of a poorly implemented Act of Parliament. As the Minister explained, it introduces a £47 application fee for rent appeals, a £47 application fee for succession of assured tenancy rights and a £200 application fee, plus a £300 hearing fee, for financial penalty appeals, which are where landlords appeal civil penalties imposed by local authorities. That reflects the expanded scope of rent repayment orders under the Renters’ Rights Act, so it is clearly not an isolated change. The order is being introduced because, as the Minister described, Government legislation is creating new routes into the tribunal system, and Ministers need to introduce a fee structure to go with those routes. There are two immediate problems. The Government have not done an impact assessment for the order because, they say, no significant impact is foreseen, but that is hard to accept. The order introduces new fees into a system that the Government are making more widely applicable, and it is doing so in a sensitive area where access to the tribunal may matter a great deal to tenants and landlords alike. It simply does not look credible to say that there is no significant impact worth assessing. The Opposition have been clear for some time that the Government’s rental reforms will put more pressure on the courts and tribunals system before it is ready. Regardless of the changes that the Government make to the fee structure, such relatively minor, short-term changes in the income available to courts will not change that situation overnight. Our court system is simply not in a position to manage the influx that is likely to result from the Act, but Labour is pushing ahead without first showing that the wider justice system can cope. The Government are adding further operational pressures to the property chamber at a time when there are already problems across all elements of His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service. The Government should deal with those broader pressures first, not build new demand into the system and adjust the fee structure around it. There is also real concern about incentives. Geoffrey Vos, the Master of the Rolls, has warned that the rules under the Renters’ Rights Act could incentivise tenants to apply to the first-tier tribunal in respect of every rent increase, simply to delay its implementation. That is because even when a rent increase is upheld, it will take effect only from the date of the tribunal decision, not from the date of the notice being served, meaning that even unsuccessful challenges could delay higher rent payments for months. If that is the case, Ministers may be creating a much greater volume of tribunal work than they are willing to admit, and I would be grateful if the Minister would respond to that particular concern, which was raised by someone with significant credibility.. The broader truth is that Labour is failing to listen to those who understand the sector. No serious impact assessment has been done, there have been clear warnings about incentives and workload, and there are longstanding concerns that the wider Act will reduce supply and increase rents, yet Ministers are pressing on regardless. Our objection to the order is straightforward: it is not just a technical amendment, but part of a wider framework that places more reliance on a tribunal system that is already under strain. It comes without a proper assessment of impact, and helps to implement a wider Act that we believe will leave the rental market less, not more, stable. For those reasons, the Opposition cannot support the order.
Let us say that a landlord proposes to put someone’s rent up by £100 a month, and that it might take two months for the case to be heard in tribunal. They are therefore going to be £150 better off, even if they pay the £48 fee, if they wait for two months and the case goes to the point of a ruling. That is the criticism made by the Master of the Rolls. What is the counter-argument to that? Why would people not simply lodge an appeal knowing that they will make that money back and be in the black on the back of it?
7. Whether he plans to introduce curfew orders for parents who are non-compliant with child maintenance payments.
Every year, millions of pounds of child maintenance go unspent, not including deductions for money hidden away and parents who pretend they cannot work. As far as I am concerned, if someone has children and they can pay towards their maintenance, they absolutely should. Enforcement is not working, because the Government treat it like an unpaid utility bill rather than a moral obligation that people have towards their children. I would like the Minister to revisit his suggestion that the Government would need primary legislation to use curfew orders, as that is not my understanding. If all the other measures are not working, why should someone who does not pay for their own children be able to go out on the lash on a Friday and Saturday night when the Government can stop that happening?
I politely say that the Minister’s overly sincere, butter-wouldn’t-melt-in-his-mouth act is beginning to wear thin—the way he suggests that the process he is going through has not put a foot wrong. He has repeatedly failed to answer questions that I put to him with candour around Mandelson, despite the fact that this evening we will pass a Bill that makes it law for Ministers to answer questions. Can I follow up on the questions around mobile phones? Ministers will be asked whether they have any communications left on their personal phones. Are they also being asked to tell you, and will we be told, if those messages have disappeared because they have disappearing messages on their phones?
Will the Secretary of State give way?
The Secretary of State will have to work extremely hard to secure the trust of veterans on both sides of this argument. If he cannot clearly condemn what are clearly outrageous remarks about our armed forces personnel, how does he expect them to trust him?
Does my hon. Friend agree that any Government Member, including Ministers, who wants to be taken seriously by armed forces personnel needs to condemn the remarks of Lord Hermer and the disgraceful disparaging of our armed forces?
Let me say at the outset that the Opposition continue to support the broad aims of the Bill, as we have done throughout its passage. We recognise the importance of candour, transparency and accountability in public life and recognise the long and determined work of those campaigners, including the Hillsborough families and others who have fought for many years to ensure that where public bodies fail, evade, conceal or mislead, there are proper consequences. That principle remains an important one, and it is not a partisan principle. It is not owned by any one party or Government; it is a basic requirement of good government and of public confidence in the institutions of the state. As has been recognised throughout the passage of the Bill, legislation on its own cannot guarantee the cultural change that is needed. We have already introduced duties of candour in parts of the public sector—for example, the NHS—and have taken steps in recent years in policing to improve accountability, as well as creating the office of the independent public advocate, but questions remain about whether the system works as it should when it really matters. The lesson from Hillsborough, the infected blood scandal, the Post Office scandal and other serious institutional failures is that, yes, the legal framework matters, but so do culture and practice. For that reason, we want the Bill to progress and the areas of consensus to move forward, so we do not intend to oppose this carry-over motion. We have consistently taken part in proceedings in that matter. What I say next is not a criticism of the approach of campaigners, or indeed of the many Labour MPs who have been sincere and consistent in their campaigning on this issue over many years, including the hon. Members for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) and for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle). The Government have utterly mishandled this legislation from start to finish, which is why we are here today, six months on from Second Reading, with a Bill pulled at the last minute—and with broken promises. I do not expect Labour Members to relish joining me in that criticism. The Minister will, I am sure, say that the Government have at least brought a Bill forward, as if that were a blank cheque for the manner in which these proceedings have been conducted. I have some sympathy for her—she has been put into difficult situations—but trust has been damaged on all sides. Even though this Bill is about trust, candour and whether the public can believe what they are told by those who exercise power on their behalf, the process by which the Government have pursued the Bill has too often fallen short of the standards that Ministers say they want to impose on others through this legislation. The Prime Minister announced the Bill last September at party conference, and gave the clear impression that families and campaigners were content with the detail on the approach being taken. The House should remember that it had been widely reported several months earlier that a draft Bill had been rejected by campaigners. What else could we have reasonably assumed other than that those concerns had been addressed? It has since become crystal clear that campaigners were in fact not satisfied with the draft proposals, and that their support was conditional—as I understand it, they made that clear to the Government—but the Prime Minister wanted his big announcement and proceeded anyway. The Hillsborough Law Now campaign has explained its view: the delays since January have been caused not by the families or campaigners, but by disagreements within Government and by objections from the Cabinet Office, the security services and others. All that should surely have been dealt with prior to the drafting, publication and big announcement of the Bill, and the fact that it was not is why we are debating this carry-over motion. On more than one occasion, we were presented with a version of the Bill that the Government told us was the only possible approach to the inclusion of the intelligence services—until it was not. We were told that the balance had been struck, but then the Bill was withdrawn and there were reports of further changes. The issues relating to the security services could not be more serious. The Government cannot have it both ways; they cannot tell the House at one stage that the Bill they have published is the only responsible approach to the inclusion of the security services—and marshal the leaders of the security services to say the same thing—before moving away from that position without properly explaining what has changed, why, and whether the earlier assurances given to Members were sound. The Opposition have always accepted that national security raises real and serious issues; there will be material that cannot be handled in the same way as ordinary departmental papers, as well as operations, sources, methods and relationships with allies that require safeguards. Any responsible Government must take that seriously. It was a Conservative Member—my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty)—who asked how those provisions might apply to elements of the armed force, and those elements were then included in the Bill very late in the day. That is another issue that should have been properly thought through before the Government reached the point of withdrawing the Bill in January, which has led us to this carry-over motion. This is part of a broader pattern. We have seen a lack of candour from the Lord Chancellor when he has been asked about prisoner release, and tomorrow we will debate the candour and honesty of the Prime Minister. I have absolutely zero faith in this Government—zero. The Bill is literally about candour in public office, but this process has left campaigners, Members and the public unclear about the Government’s position from one month to the next. The Government should not be surprised, then, that we will not simply accept assurances about the Bill at face value. Assurances are not enough; the test will be the text of the Bill, whether Ministers can explain clearly and consistently how the Bill will operate in relation to our security and other services, and whether the Government can show that they have balanced transparency, accountability and national security in a workable, principled and robust way. I hugely respect the Hillsborough Law Now families and campaigners, but I am not afraid to say that they may well not be entirely satisfied by this law. A responsible Government must sometimes say that to campaigners, but this incredibly weak Prime Minister is not able to do so. The families and campaigners who have fought for this legislation deserve better than drift, confusion and mixed messages; they deserve frankness and candour. If the Government are not willing to do everything that the campaigners ask, they should just tell them so and get on with it. The public deserve legislation that is not merely well intentioned but clear, workable and effective. As I have explained, we will not oppose the carry-over motion, but we will scrutinise what comes next with the seriousness that the subject demands and the scepticism that the Government’s handling of the Bill has regrettably earned.
Jon Boutcher has been fairly critical of a number of political parties, including, it must be said, the party of government. He is clear about the fact that his force, the PSNI, is not funded like other forces across the United Kingdom, and he believes that that is partly due to legacy issues—a position that will be made far more acute by the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. Does the Secretary of State agree with the Chief Constable or not?
I represent a very large number of veterans. What are they to make of the remarks made by the Attorney General, who has suggested to his human rights lawyer friends that they have done more for the sum total of human happiness than the brave, highly decorated men and women of our armed forces, many of whom I have the honour and privilege to represent?
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the person who is likely to draft those amendments is the Advocate General for Northern Ireland, who is one and the same Lord Hermer? What confidence does the hon. Gentleman think the armed forces community can have that this Bill will be any better?
Despite the Minister’s centralising zeal, I detect a slight weariness on her part as we once again go toe to toe on Lords amendments. It remains the position of the Opposition that the Government are bringing forward in this Bill overall a set of centralising measures that are fundamentally about extending control from Whitehall into our town halls. Those measures come from a Government who have a record of imposing additional cost and responsibilities on our local authorities, as we hear continually from local government leaders. It is welcome to hear from the Minister that there has been additional recognition from the Government of the differences that exist in our rural and coastal communities—I do have some coastline in my constituency, but I do not think Ruislip lido was what we had in mind when making the argument. It is clear that the needs of our rural and coastal communities, and the potential that they offer, are often different from what we see in urban and suburban areas, so we will not be pushing for a further vote on the matter of extending the recognition of rural affairs.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. People in Old Bexley and Sidcup—just like those in Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner and, indeed, in many of the constituencies that are represented by Conservative Members—are concerned about a Reform party that is championing tearing up the green belt across our capital in pursuit of housing targets, and about the ambiguity that has been created by the Government’s position on grey-belt land. That description seems to be applied to any site on which a developer can argue that housing could be delivered because it has had some previous use. That level of ambiguity is another one of the reasons why we are keen to make the very strong case for brownfield being enshrined as the priority, and for the Government to accept that case. I will now turn briefly to the Lords amendments dealing with the leader and cabinet model of local government. To be clear, as an Opposition, we do not have a strong view about what governance arrangements town halls should choose. Many of us will have had experience under the committee system or under the leader and cabinet model, some with executive mayors. However, the reason why we intend to push the Government on this issue is that it once again represents their centralising tendency—a view in Whitehall that the Government know best what structures should be used. I happen to agree with Ministers that the leader and cabinet model is the most effective and efficient model, but it is not for us to tell locally elected officials and councillors what arrangements they should make.
Suffice it to say that I was significantly slower than the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince), whose outstanding efforts will, I am sure, leave him a little bit sore when bobbing today. The hon. Member will know the benefits of an effective leader and cabinet model, because he has a good Conservative local authority led by Councillor Dan Swords, and the work of Councillor Dan Swords and his team has driven forward the improvements Harlow has been able to enjoy over many years.
I am going to make a little progress, if I may. The key point is to ensure that our local authorities can set out their governance arrangements in a way that reflects the needs of their community. The Government have already accepted the argument that we need to ensure a degree of nuance in the Bill for rural and coastal communities, and this is another example of exactly that argument. On parish governance, I know we do not all have parish councils in our local areas, but they are a significant feature of civic life across the country and many of them run important local facilities such as leisure centres and car parks. It is clearly important to ensure that their role is enshrined, especially at a time when this Government’s wider agenda of local government reorganisation is leading to a significant transfer of services to parish councils from districts due to be abolished, so it is welcome that the Government are moving forward on that. On the final two groups of amendments we are debating this afternoon, the so-called agent of change principle is the idea that a new arrival in a community should bear the cost of consequent changes on its gaining planning consent: if somebody opens a new music venue or builds a new residential development, that should not be at the expense of existing and long-established uses. Many of us as constituency MPs have had experience of when, for example, a property developer creates a new residential development and seeks to close down an existing venue such as a local pub—I had an example to do with a bus garage—because they are concerned about the impact it would have. Clearly those established uses with prior consent need to have a degree of priority, and that has already found its way into law in Scotland. We believe that it is reasonable to recommend that the Government take this forward and ensure that those existing uses have sufficient protection in the Bill that they are not subject to the unfair impact of new and subsequent arrivals seeking to pass the costs of mitigating the consequences of their activity on to them. Finally, Lords amendment 98 is about the Secretary of State’s powers on changes to strategic authorities. It was hotly contested as the Bill made its way through Committee that it contains chapters and chapters of new powers for the Secretary of State to direct mayors or combined authorities, which very much speaks to the point that this is centralising legislation. While it introduces a new layer of local government, it none the less results in central Government having significantly more powers to levy a precept, to create a new housing development, to create zoning to ensure development takes place, and to bring together groups of local authorities and assume some of their responsibilities. All of those now fall much more strongly within the purview of the Secretary of State issuing directions from Whitehall about how things should happen locally. It remains the Opposition’s position that, as supporters of and believers in devolution, we should not simply pay lip service to it in the title of the Bill, but ensure that those measures have the consent and support of the locally elected politicians whose mandate gives them the power to make those decisions on behalf of their community. We remain determined to push ahead in favour of that principle of consent and ensure that local communities continue to have champions who speak up for them in this Chamber.
The Minister says that 300 documents have now been shared with the ISC, but how many are left to be processed? More importantly, what has the process been in ascertaining a document’s relevance, and who decides whether a document is important?
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is a rather more mundane point of order. Last Thursday, my website, provided by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, was compromised. Malicious links were inserted, redirecting users to south-east Asian gambling websites. I guess it could be worse. We took the site down immediately. It was restored, but then came under a sustained distributed denial of service attack traceable to China. In just 24 hours, the site was hit with 142 million requests, consuming nearly 800 gigabytes of data. This is not a minor nuisance; it is direct interference with a Member of Parliament carrying out his duties. What are the House and the House authorities doing to prevent these kinds of attacks on Members’ websites, and to help MPs protect themselves against interference by a foreign state?
I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and, given what I am going to say, to the fact that I was a trustee of the SAS Regimental Association for two decades up until a few years ago. This Bill was sold to the House and the country on the premise that it would deliver human rights and the rule of law. As the House knows, I pay great attention to human rights and the rule of law—so much so that I defeated my own Government in court on exactly that issue—but what we have here is neither human rights nor justice. It is a perversion of rights and a travesty of justice. The Government clearly have made promises to Sinn Féin, to IRA families and to would-be rewriters of history, including the Irish Government, putting those ahead of the interests of our soldiers. The recent revelation that the Attorney General, Lord Hermer, pursued cases against our soldiers, despite knowing that the allegations might be false, is indicative, I am afraid, of the attitude of this Government to the rights of our soldiers, as was the Secretary of State’s response to my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). The attitude is one of undermining our soldiers at home while they fight abroad, and the same will happen under this Bill. We have already had a rehearsal or a preview of what is to come. This month’s Court of Appeal judgment in the case of Soldier B in the Coagh firefight is a perfect illustration. The shadow Northern Ireland Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), read out some of the judge’s comments in that case; I will take things a little further. What happened in the Coagh firefight was that the IRA plotted to murder an Ulster Defence Regiment soldier. In the process of doing that, they were hit by an SAS patrol. The IRA terrorists all died, and an inquest found that the SAS actions were all entirely lawful. So what happened? One of the IRA members’ family used taxpayers’ money—legal aid—to force a judicial review. The judge threw that out, stating: “In this challenge, this Court is being asked to slow the passage of time down, to analyse events in freeze-frame… It is ludicrous to suggest that this court should analyse the events of the day in question in that manner”. He went on to say: “I cannot conclude this judgment without expressing my surprise that legal aid funding was made available to mount such a challenge”.
No, but it is simply the rule that in Northern Ireland, it is easier to get legal aid for these issues. I can see that there was a reason for that in the past, but it has, in effect, perverted the course of justice in a case where soldiers did nothing more than their duty. That is what is going to happen under this Bill, too, because the case went on to appeal. If anything, the judge struck down that appeal in even more robust terms than the previous judge. A brave, patriotic, honourable soldier was dragged through three courts over several years, in gratuitous actions that were funded by the taxpayer. I say “brave”, “honourable” and “patriotic”; these are not casual words. I have known Soldier B for 30 years. As well as being a brave soldier, he is a firm believer in the rule of law. He does not believe that there should be exemptions. He believes that there should be proper rule of law, which is not provided by the Bill. Indeed, given his history and his views, I would say that he has a better claim to have defended justice in our country than anyone in the House, and certainly than those on the Government Front Bench. What happened in that case is just a rehearsal for what will come if the Bill goes through. If it is passed, hundreds more—and I mean hundreds—will follow. This Bill puts the interests of the Irish Government, Sinn Féin and IRA apologists above those of our veterans, and would put rewriting history ahead of providing proper justice. It is unpatriotic, disingenuous and dishonourable. It satisfies no one. It solves nothing. Everything it touches, it makes worse. I note that the Minister for the Armed Forces is not here for the vote, and I entirely understand why: he wants to avoid association with this disgraceful legislation. If he cannot vote for it, neither should we. We should reject this disgraceful Bill out of hand.
Could the Chief Secretary confirm that responses to submissions are written on the paper of the submissions, and not on Post-it notes?
T3. At the previous DWP oral questions, I raised concerns that youth unemployment in my constituency was up 15% since the last election, and I received something of a dismissive response. Two months later, there has now been an astonishing 28% increase in young people out of work, so will the Secretary of State finally concede that his Government’s policies are the cause?
Order. Before she drifts off into the music industry in any great detail, may I respectfully remind the Minister that she must confine her remarks to the Bill and the Lords amendments thereto?
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
I remind the House that this is a procedural motion about whether the Bill ought to be carried over to the next Session of Parliament. While I will allow some leeway on scope, I gently encourage Members to focus their remarks on the issue of carry-over.
The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. On cosmetics, does she share my concern about the continued use of botox in the non-surgical aesthetic treatment industry? Botox occupies an unusual, but perhaps not unique position in the market: because it is used for medical purposes, it falls under the medical definition and animal testing is allowed. However, it is increasingly being used in the cosmetics sphere—a loophole that needs to be addressed. For the record, I am wholly opposed to animal testing in all its forms; I believe it should be phased out across the board to the maximum extent possible.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and to my role as an officer on the all-party parliamentary group on phasing out animal experiments in medical research. The phasing out of animal testing was an eye-catching pledge in the Government’s last manifesto. Although it has been slow in coming, the strategy, published late last year, is the first milestone towards delivering on that intent. It was a year ago that we last discussed animal testing in Parliament. As the Member of Parliament with, sadly, the most animal testing infrastructure, I welcome the Government’s commitment to achieving their pledge. In my Huntingdon constituency, there are two sites that are directly involved in pre-clinical animal testing: Labcorp and MBR Acres. I visited Labcorp shortly after being elected as the Member of Parliament for Huntingdon. Notably, the issue of animal testing and the prevalence of the sites was never raised during the election campaign, nor during any hustings by any of the candidates; it is almost as if it is not a topic that people are keen to discuss. Following the election, I visited LabCorp to ensure that I understood the nature of the work done there and the challenges of delivering pre-clinical testing for the pharmaceutical industry. I was public about the visit and clearly communicated the experience; I stated that I do not support animal testing but, in order to understand it, I had to meet those who undertake it. I am sure that many of those participating in the debate today or in the Public Gallery will have seen the footage reported in The Mail on Sunday a week ago. I have seen the puppies and macaques in their cages; although they are well looked after, there is an obvious, inevitable outcome, and it is very difficult to watch them—particularly the macaques, with their recognisable human mannerisms, watching Disney cartoons to keep them occupied, coming to the window to have a look at me looking at them—knowing that all those animals will be tested on and will lose their lives. That is the price we currently have to pay the pharmaceutical industry to save life or extend life. Much as we do not like to know where our food comes from, the same could be said for our medicinal drugs. For all the progress made, animal testing is still a key part of the pre-clinical testing process. Although that will remain the case for the foreseeable future, it is incumbent upon the Government to deliver their pledge as quickly as they can. In December, we saw the Government introduce the Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025, specifically to curtail protest activity at key national infrastructure sites around the life sciences sector. In Committee, the Minister for Policing and Crime said: “The legislation will cover infrastructure that primarily facilitates pharmaceutical research or the development or manufacturing of pharmaceutical products, or which is used in connection with activities authorised under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. That will include, for example, pharmaceutical laboratories, medicine and vaccine-manufacturing facilities, suppliers of animals for research, and academic laboratories carrying out research involving animals.” —[Official Report, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 17 December 2025; c. 3.] It would be extremely naive to believe that that legislation was introduced for any reason other than to address the presence and actions of Camp Beagle. It is unusual that the Government would create a bespoke piece of legislation specifically to target a single protest site, particularly when that legislation is so poorly constructed that it is unenforceable anyway. It is worth mentioning that I voted against that legislation, as did the hon. Members for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell), for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) and for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy); every other Labour MP in this Chamber today voted in favour of it. It is no secret that MBR Acres was just a few days away from closure, owing to the pressure applied by activists, predominantly via their email campaign. The regulations make sending an email to a company simply to lobby it to boycott provision of utilities a criminal offence. They also require the company being lobbied to report that individual to the police for it to be investigated. The police then have to prove the identity of the sender without knowing which force should investigate or whether that person is even in the country. It is a nonsense. Could the Minister clarify how the Government intend to criminalise people for sending emails that are not abusive or threatening and where the sender cannot even be identified? With regards to MBC Acres itself, in response to my written parliamentary question 125326 regarding the outcome of the last announced audit of the site last November, the Government confirmed that the Animals and Science Regulation Unit “identified no critical or major findings, and no low level concerns”, identifying only three minor findings involving “a small amount of rust on a surface, small areas of floor damage in a walkway, and a small portion of loose drain cover”. Given the sheer volume of correspondence I have received on the topic of conditions at MBR Acres, it is not unreasonable to say that the two perspectives do not tally. During the heatwave last summer, there was significant concern regarding the welfare of the dogs, owing to the temperature inside the sheds. Although I appreciate that the Minister will not have this information to hand, could he—or potentially the Security Minister, under whose brief ASRU audits sit—write to me and outline the steps implemented to mitigate those risks, given the likelihood of another hot spell in the coming months? Last November, the Government introduced their policy paper, “Replacing animals in science: A strategy to support the development, validation and uptake of alternative methods”, the long-awaited strategy created to fulfil Labour’s pledge to phase out animal testing. It took a while, but I welcome the publication of the strategy. As one of the few MPs who has actually read it, I have some questions for the Minister that I hope he will able to answer later—I hope that he can take some notes, because I have a lot of questions. Ministers in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology recently confirmed to me that the Government are positioning the UK as a global leader in alternative methods via a variety of initiatives, principally including reform of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and by setting new international benchmarks for the development, assessment and adoption of non-animal methods. Could the Minister confirm what progress the Government have made in scoping multilateral and bilateral opportunities for international engagement? In particular, has his Department been successful in discussions with international regulators regarding harmonisation of standards and establishment of key priorities? Ministers have previously informed me of the publication of a set of key performance indicators covering all elements of the strategy later this year. Is the Minister able to expand on the timeline for the publication of those KPIs and the accompanying dashboard? Likewise, Ministers have previously informed me that work is under way to identify and collate UK Research and Innovation-funded alternative methods for inclusion on the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research’s expansion of its gateway publishing platform. I know that that is due to be in place by the end of the year, but could the Minister provide an update on progress in alternative methods likely to be included? Further to that, UKRI plans to publish areas of research interest for alternative methods and is due to start the work in the first half of the year. When in Q2 is that work due to commence, and has an approach now been agreed between the NC3Rs, the Medical Research Council and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council? The Government have also confirmed that the first ministerial board has been convened to oversee delivery of the governance arrangements for the overall strategy. Can the Minister confirm the frequency of those meetings? Is the investment of £75 million to accelerate the development and adoption of alternative methods separate from, or in addition to, the funding supplied for the three Rs? Is the £20 million of increased funding launched through the pre-clinical translational models hub funding call last month part of that £75 million or in addition to it? Is the £30 million allocated to support the establishment and delivery of the UK centre for the validation of alternative methods also in addition to that? Further to that, reporting on the portfolio of investments in alternative methods is planned to commence this year. Is the Minister able to confirm when that will be published? We are already in quarter 2. The next meeting of the alternative methods strategy delivery group is scheduled for tomorrow; can the Minister share the outcome of the first meeting in February, and what is likely to be discussed in tomorrow’s meeting? The Animals in Science Committee has now published its report, “Strengthening leading practice in the animals in science sector”. Will the Minister outline what progress has been made thus far, or he anticipates being made this year, on the 11 recommendations on strengthening leading practice or further work, particularly regarding the Animals in Science Regulation Unit? On recommendation 11, which applies to the Minister’s Department, what steps have DSIT Ministers taken to consider how funding schemes can support the implementation of leading practice across the whole framework? I appreciate that I have addressed some very specific points, so I would welcome the Minister writing to me to address my questions if he is unable to answer them all today. I am sure his team have been furiously scribbling notes. As I have stated, I welcome the animal welfare strategy. It is a good first step towards a future in which animals no longer play a part in pre-clinical pharmaceutical testing, but that day is still too far away. A date of 2035 sounds like wishful thinking—an expectation that there will be exponential leaps forward in progress with the advent of AI and the rapid intramonth increases we are seeing in compute power. That may be the case, but hope is not a strategy. I hope the Government can continue to push in the right direction on this issue, deliver on the pledges outlined in their strategy, and achieve their pledge to phase animals out of testing processes.
I am dealing with a constituency case in which an individual has paid £23,000 during a dispute about being the parent of a child. He was not on the birth certificate, and the mother refused a DNA test. After three hearings in the family court, the court has ruled in his favour. I am sure the House will appreciate that £23,000 is an incredible amount of money for someone to pay for a child who is not theirs. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how my constituent can have it reimbursed?
The Secretary of State suggested in his speech that no comfort letters were ever issued by Tony Blair, but a court case collapsed specifically because of one of them, so could he clarify that? More specifically, the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) said that a member of staff hired by the Northern Ireland Office is having meetings about the early release of IRA dissidents. That worries the House intensely. Will the Secretary of State confirm that no such requests have been made by the Northern Ireland Office, or, if any such requests have been made, that they have been immediately denied very clearly, both in writing and verbally?
I am intervening because I am a little bit concerned. One of the Ministers and the Parliamentary Private Secretaries are mouthing across the Chamber that there will be no ban. I would be grateful for clarification that there is unity on the Labour side. It is clear—I have checked with those around me, and they all agree that that is exactly what is being mouthed—so it is a bit confusing.