Prisoner Releases in Error
Can the Justice Secretary tell the House whether in the last 16 months any prisoners have been accidentally released from Hewell Grange prison in Worcestershire and, if so, how many?
5,750 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Human Rights Laws
1. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to reform human rights laws.
- Hansard source
Human Rights Laws
The public are clearly frustrated that foreign criminals and people who come here illegally are not deported because human rights laws are used to prevent that from happening. I understand that the Lord Chancellor’s predecessor, the present Home Secretary, is considering changing those laws, which might happen, but if that is the case, could the Lord Chancellor not accept the Bill tabled by my right hon. Friend the shadow Lord Chancellor and put it into law so that we can get on with the job of deporting people who should not be here?
- Hansard source
Prisoner Releases in Error
Between 5 July and the end of the reporting period in March, this Government oversaw the accidental release of 193 prisoners. That is five prisoners every week. We now know that there have been a further 91 accidental prison releases since 1 April, so there have been 284 in total. What assurances can the Secretary of State give my constituents that no prisoners have been accidentally released from HMP Littlehey in my constituency since Labour took office?
- Hansard source
Remembrance Day: Armed Forces
This is a short story about war. It is a story about what war looks like from the ground. It is not so much my story, but I was there and I was part of it. It is the story of Operation Herrick 11. More specifically, it is the story of 3 Rifles Battlegroup in Sangin, a small Afghan town of just a few square kilometres. The casualties sustained by 3 Rifles Battlegroup between October and March over the winter 2009-10 remain the heaviest casualties sustained by a British Army battlegroup since the Korean war. Sangin is where a third of all British soldiers who died in Afghanistan lost their lives. Staff Sergeant Olaf “Oz” Schmid, George Cross, 30, was killed defusing multiple improvised explosive devices on 31 October 2009. Serjeant Phillip Scott, 30, was killed by an improvised explosive device during a patrol on 5 November. Rifleman Philip Allen, 20, was killed by an IED during a patrol on 7 November. Rifleman Samuel Bassett, 20, died in hospital from his injuries from an IED on 8 November. Rifleman Andrew Fentiman, 29, was killed by small arms fire during a foot patrol on the morning of 15 November. Rifleman James Brown, 18, died of his injuries from a suicide IED on 15 December. Lance Corporal David Kirkness, 24, was also killed by the suicide IED on 15 December. Lance Corporal Michael Pritchard, 22, was shot and killed by friendly fire from a British sniper on 20 December. Lance Corporal Tommy Brown was killed by an IED on 22 December. Lance Corporal Christopher Roney, 23, died of his wounds from a friendly fire Apache helicopter attack on 22 December. Sapper David Watson, 23, was caught in an IED detonation and died in the operating theatre on new year’s eve. Corporal Lee Brownson, Conspicuous Gallantry Cross, 30, was killed by an IED on 15 January 2010. Rifleman Luke Farmer, 19, was killed by the same IED as Corporal Brownson on 15 January. Rifleman Peter Aldridge, 19, was caught by an IED, and he died en route to Camp Bastion on 22 January. Lance Corporal Daniel Cooper, 21, was killed by an IED on 24 January. Corporal John Moore, 22, and Private Sean McDonald, 26, were both killed by an IED on 7 February. Rifleman Mark Marshall, 29, was killed by an IED during a routine foot patrol on Valentine’s day, 14 February. Rifleman Martin Kinggett, 19, was shot and killed on 25 February. Rifleman Carlo Apolis, 28, was killed by a single gunshot wound on 1 March. Corporal Richard Green, 23, was killed by a single sniper round on 2 March. Rifleman Jonathon Allott, 19, was killed by a command wire IED on 5 March. Corporal Stephen Thompson, 31, was killed by an IED during a patrol on 7 March. Lance Corporal Tom Keogh, 24, died of a single gunshot wound on 7 March. Serjeant Steven “Stevie” Campbell, 30, was killed by a command wire IED hidden underwater on 22 March. Rifleman Daniel Holkham, 19, was killed by a vehicle-borne suicide IED, weeks short of the end of his tour, on 27 March. Thirty soldiers died in Sangin in those six months, and another 80-plus suffered combat injuries, including amputations. I apologise if there are those whom I have missed, but there is no definitive list that we can check to read their stories. I pay tribute to those who made the ultimate sacrifice, some of whom I knew and many of whom I did not. We ask young men and women, some of them still teenagers, to close with and kill the enemy through dismounted close combat to win the fight in those last 100 yards, and that ask comes with a cost. So in this period of remembrance, I ask those in this House to remember their names, and should any of us have to make that fateful decision to commit soldiers to harm’s way, to remember above everything else that that decision will come with more names.
- Hansard source
Prisoner Releases in Error
On 10 October, Ola Abimbola, a violent Nigerian criminal, walked out of Ford open prison in my Bognor Regis and Littlehampton constituency. He has not been seen since. He is meant to be serving 21 years for grievous bodily harm, kidnap and possession of an offensive weapon. How many other prisoners are at large from Ford open prison and what offences were they imprisoned for?
- Hansard source
House Building: London
My hon. Friend is painting a really bleak picture for London. Does he agree that to build the homes that we need in this country, we should focus not only on increased density in our city centres, but crucially on brownfield sites? We are not seeing from the Government a determined brownfield-first approach to housing that would protect the green belts surrounding our towns and cities.
- Hansard source
House Building: London
The key thing is that until the Government recognise that they need to put some support into brownfield regeneration, our green belt and our green spaces will always be under threat.
- Hansard source
House Building: London
My hon. Friend speaks passionately about this, but does he not agree that this absolutely shows the problem with centralising not just targets but powers in the hands of one person—the mayor or a combined authority? We need much more involvement of local communities, and we need councils to have a greater say on planning matters.
- Hansard source
House Building: London
The hon. Member makes a really important point about grey belt. I completely understand her example of a car park, but grey belt needs much clearer definition, because we are seeing cases of development that inspectors are now saying is grey belt when it is actually greenfield, and that is really damaging to our communities.
- Hansard source
Bronze-age Heritage: Cambridgeshire
I pay tribute to my Cambridgeshire colleague, the hon. Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes), for securing this debate. I am grateful that the Minister draws out that distinction. Must Farm, the 3,000-year-old settlement dubbed the “Pompeii of the fens”, is in Fenland in my constituency, yet the funding always seems to go to Peterborough next door. Some of that is logical, but will he clarify what share of this funding will go to Fenland residents so that they can benefit from a discovery in their local authority area?
- Hansard source
Conflict in Sudan
May I repeat the question that I asked the Minister’s colleague last week: are there no other regional powers that could intervene physically to separate the warring parties? May I put it to the Minister that, while it is fortunate that we have been granted successive urgent questions on this subject in successive weeks—thanks to the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), to the shadow Foreign Secretary and to Mr Speaker—it would be a recognition of the anxiety felt in all parts of the House if the Government made regular ministerial statements on it, rather than us having to rely on applications for urgent questions?
- Hansard source
Curriculum and Assessment Review
It is welcome news that the Government plan that children should be taught critical thinking and how to guard against fake news and misinformation, but the Secretary of State will be aware that some teachers, like some politicians, regard “fake news” differently from the rest of society. Will she ensure that teachers who teach that subject are schooled in the knowledge of the requirement for political impartiality in schools introduced in 1986 and carried forward in subsequent legislation?
- Hansard source
Employment Rights Bill
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, I understand that the Deputy Prime Minister has made it clear that he was held back for operational reasons by the Metropolitan police from answering that question at Prime Minister’s questions. Mr Swinford of The Times has published right now that far from that being the case, there is “significant frustration in the Met Police”, as they said that there was clearly “no operational issue” at all with the release of that information. I wonder if you will take that into consideration, Madam Deputy Speaker, because surely this is a process of misleading the House.
- Hansard source
Conflict in Sudan
Obviously, what is happening in Sudan is absolutely appalling for the people there, but we cannot insulate ourselves from these sorts of conflicts. Mali is about to be taken over by terrorists. All over Africa, energetic young men are fleeing. They are walking across to Libya, being tortured and ending up in Calais. It seems to me that we must think outside of the box on this issue, and we should not wash our hands of it. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell): why are we cutting overseas aid at the precise moment when the whole of Africa is in absolute turmoil? We are not an island. These young men are coming here; it would be much better if we arrested and deported them, and sent them back—with some help; we should not just lock them up—so that they can assist with rebuilding Sudan, Eritrea and Somalia. After all, we are one planet, are we not?
- Hansard source
Curriculum and Assessment Review
This is education in the clouds when contrasted with the reality of a war against elitism, which is so often actually a war against excel-ism on the ground, is it not?
- Hansard source
Financial Transparency: Overseas Territories
As vice-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group, I want to express my appreciation to the chairman, the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell), for the brilliant way he has led the debate. He underlined that there must be an all-party approach, which he expressed with great eloquence and factual back-up. He made the point that we all have a constituency interest in this issue. We certainly recognise that in the royal town of Sutton Coldfield. I also thank his predecessor as chair, the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell), who I note the Government have now neutered by putting on the payroll. As a former Government Chief Whip, I know exactly how these things work, and it is a recognition of his great abilities that he has now been put on the non-ministerial payroll. I want to emphasise why this issue matters. We are talking about dirty money—money stolen from Africa and from Africans, money from the sex trade and money from the drug trade. Although Africa is my principal concern, because I believe that development is being held up by the enormous amount of money that is stolen from that continent, the hon. Member for Bolton West also made an extremely important point about tax. After all, in a few days’ time, the Chancellor will be looking for as much tax revenue as she can get. If she follows the hon. Gentleman’s advice, there is no doubt that billions would flow into the Exchequer, for the reasons that he set out. For many years, we believed that closed registers were doing what was required. Closed registers enabled law enforcement authorities to dip into the details and, in the case of terrorism, get a response within 24 hours, but the publication of the Paradise and Panama papers showed definitively why we must have open registers of beneficial ownership. Without open registers, we cannot join the dots of who is doing what to whom. That is a very important point. The scales fell from our eyes when the Paradise and Panama papers were published—all praise to the BBC and The Guardian for doing so—as they showed precisely why open registers are absolutely essential. That is at the heart of this debate. Let us be in no doubt, either, that we are talking about the Crown dependencies as well. They may come after the overseas territories in the Government’s enforcement action but, like the overseas territories, they are on the frontline of this issue. As the hon. Gentleman said, we are not talking about all the overseas territories. Many of them have implemented, or are implementing, registers in good faith; it is just a pity that some of them have not. It is also worth saying that the UK has big questions to answer. From what the National Crime Agency said some years ago, we know that up to 40% of money laundering goes through London, the overseas territories and the Crown dependencies. That is one of the reasons why David Cameron made tackling corruption an important aspect of the G8 in 2016. Britain can be proud of leading that attack on dirty money. We should remember not only Britain’s leadership, but the fact that we have a dog in this fight. I also want to emphasise how we got here. The hon. Member for Bolton West rightly said that the Government gave way because otherwise they would have been defeated—an embarrassing moment for me, as a former Government Chief Whip, to have led that rebellion with Baroness Hodge. With the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act we made it absolutely clear that, if the overseas territories did not accept the will of Parliament, it would be imposed through the ancient and arcane process of an Order in Council. Baroness Hodge and I took a legal opinion from some of the best lawyers in the country, including one of the most brilliant former Directors of Public Prosecutions, Lord Ken Macdonald. The opinion made it absolutely clear that the Westminster Parliament had the right, indeed the duty, to impose an Order in Council if the will of Parliament was not accepted in the overseas territories. It so happens that the Foreign Office, with the skill and dexterity for which it is famous, interpreted that measure as meaning not that an Order in Council would be imposed after a year, but that it would be drafted after a year for imposition after another year—thus giving the overseas territories an extra year. That was condemned in the House of Commons by two former International Development Secretaries—myself and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn)—and by two distinguished former Chairmen of the Public Accounts Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) and Baroness Hodge. It has still not been done. That is where we are now. I echo the questions that the hon. Member for Bolton West asked the Minister. It is very important that we get a definitive approach from the Government to implementing that measure. The Minister is a good bloke. He and I have been discussing development matters for nearly 20 years, so I know exactly what his view is. I hope very much that he will stiffen up the relevant Foreign Office officials, who like to ensure good and harmonious relations, and who do not like a row. He must remind them that officials advise and Ministers decide. Ministers are the servants of Parliament, and Parliament decided as long as seven years ago why these matters must be brought to a head. I have recently seen senior representatives from Bermuda and the Cayman Islands who, in my judgment, were truculent and disrespectful of the will of the Westminster Parliament. As the hon. Member for Bolton West rightly said, the BVI is one of the key countries that needs to accept that, if these overseas territories and Crown dependencies want to use the British flag and to have our monarch and our laws, they must also accept our values. Although the hon. Member has admirably summed up the first of them, I will end my remarks by quoting three points in this excellent brief from the APPG, which I hope will be widely distributed. Backed by Transparency International, Tax Justice Network and others, the report deals with the impact of financial secrecy in the overseas territories on UK communities. The hon. Member spoke about Transparency International UK’s revelation that at least £5.9 billion-worth of suspicious funds have been used to purchase UK properties—an astonishing figure. Secondly, the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation found that, since February 2022, over a quarter of all suspected sanctions breaches were made intermediary jurisdictions including the BVI and Guernsey. Finally, Transparency International UK’s research has linked to our overseas territories £250 billion-worth of funds diverted by rigged procurement, bribery and embezzlement in 79 countries, of which the British Virgin Islands accounted for 92%. What is more, Tax Justice Network’s report, “The State of Tax Justice 2024”, shows that countries are losing nearly £375 billion to multinational corporations and wealthy individuals using tax havens to underpay tax, with over £1 trillion in profits being shifted into tax havens. Those are significant figures; they show why Parliament was absolutely right to vote for and implement the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. They show why today we need to hear the Minister say that his patience is running out, and that he will issue the Order in Council if the overseas territories do not accept the will of the British Parliament.
- Hansard source
Financial Transparency: Overseas Territories
Although the hon. Gentleman may have been in a cartoon, Baroness Hodge and I were the subject of a demonstration in one of the overseas territories, with placards saying, “Let’s hang Mitchell and Hodge”.
- Hansard source
Financial Transparency: Overseas Territories
On the point made by the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) about an Order in Council, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that his understanding is the same as mine, namely that an Order in Council is not a discretionary matter for the Government, and that it is there in the legislation that he just referred to? Parliament insists that if these territories do not comply and provide open registers, an Order in Council should be issued.
- Hansard source
Financial Transparency: Overseas Territories
Of course, the Minister is right about transparency—sunlight is the best disinfectant—but may I just pin him down on one point? He is heavy on collaboration and trying to get agreement, and he is right about that, but let us be absolutely clear that the constitutional relationship with the overseas territories and Crown dependencies is that Britain and Parliament are responsible for security issues and foreign affairs. These are security issues, and they relate directly to foreign matters. If the overseas territories do not agree to accept the will of Parliament, the Minister must make it clear to them that the Westminster Government will act via an Order in Council. That is not a voluntary thing; it is our duty. That is the nature of the constitutional arrangement, and the very clear legal opinion that Baroness Hodge and I secured underlines the point.
- Hansard source
Conflict in Sudan
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, and underlining the importance of this matter by allowing further discussion on Sudan in the House. The Minister is doing a very good job, but the whole House needs top-level, prime ministerial involvement in this matter, just as Sir Tony Blair and my noble Friend Lord Cameron were involved when they were Prime Minister. We are witnessing wholesale slaughter. Today is not about money and humanitarian aid, but about impunity. These murderous thugs are bragging online about their part in the ethnic cleansing that is taking place. We need to keep very strong records, so that we can hold to account as many of these people as we can, and we need more action at the UN, where Britain holds the pen. We need to demand access for an African Union-UN delegation to El Fasher, so that they can meet the leaders of the RSF, and we need to prepare international sanctions to be visited on all its leaders.
- Hansard source
Engagements
I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for joining me at a recent event in Parliament to support the work of Prostate Cancer Research, a charity of which I am an ambassador. He and I both believe that introducing a targeted national screening programme for prostate cancer is the right thing to do and would save lives. Does he agree that the recent compelling results of the 162,000-patient European trial support the case, and that that evidence, alongside data from Prostate Cancer Research and others, should be given significant weight by the UK National Screening Committee?
- Hansard source
Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill
I begin by echoing the thanks expressed to Members in all parts of the House and in the other place who have contributed to the Bill. In particular, I pay tribute to the excellent work of Baroness Finn, Viscount Younger and Lord Vaux, whose detailed and constructive engagement made the Bill stronger, more balanced and more effective. This Bill is about protecting taxpayers’ money, ensuring fairness for those who play by the rules, and giving our public bodies the powers that they need to tackle fraud and error wherever they occur. Every pound lost to fraud is a pound taken from taxpayers, public services and the people who rely on them. Tackling fraud and error and sending a clear message to fraudsters that they will not succeed is vital, and this Bill took an important step towards doing that, but there was more to be done, and our colleagues in the other place have done a brilliant job of scrutinising the legislation. I acknowledge that the Government have been incredibly constructive in their approach. Thanks to the determination of Conservative and Cross-Bench peers, a number of important concessions have been made, improving the Bill. I will touch on several of the Lords amendments. Lords amendment 1 concerns the power of the Public Sector Fraud Authority to conduct proactive investigations. When the Bill was introduced, the PSFA could act only when invited in by another authority. That risked preventing it from acting, even when there was credible intelligence that fraud was taking place. Our Conservative colleagues in the Lords rightly identified that gap, and brought forward an amendment that would empower the PSFA to act proactively where there were reasonable grounds to suspect fraud, without waiting for a formal request. That ability to act swiftly and decisively is essential if we are to stop fraud before more money is lost. The Government’s amendment in lieu reflects the principles in Lords amendment 1, ensuring that the PSFA’s new powers operate in a clear and accountable framework. This is an important issue, so we welcome that concession, which strengthens the PSFA’s ability to intervene early and protect taxpayers’ money. Lords amendments 30 and 31 relate to oversight and accountability, and would ensure that with new powers came clear lines of ministerial responsibility. Conservative peers raised legitimate questions about how serious investigative powers in the Bill would be authorised, particularly those based on the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The principle is simple: when Government officials are to exercise significant powers, Ministers must remain accountable to Parliament for how those powers are used. Following discussions, the Government have tabled amendments in lieu of Lords amendments 30 and 31, which we have accepted as a compromise, on the basis that the initial guidance is subject to a “take note” debate in Grand Committee. That would allow Parliament to consider and scrutinise the guidance in full. I would be grateful if the Minister could, in his closing remarks, confirm that this remains the Government’s position. I apologise if he said so already and I did not quite catch it. Let me turn to Lords amendment 84. Modern fraud prevention increasingly relies on technology, including artificial intelligence and data-driven eligibility checks. Used well, those tools can help to identify patterns and protect public funds, but they must be used responsibly and transparently. Lord Vaux, Viscount Younger and Baroness Finn raised fair concerns; they said that the use of AI or automated eligibility indicators should never amount to reasonable grounds for suspicion on their own. Technology might inform decisions, but it must not replace human judgment, so it is welcome that the Government have listened. Their amendment in lieu makes it explicit that before any intrusive action is taken, such as amending a benefit or launching an investigation, the information must be reviewed by a suitably qualified human officer. We believe that ensures that we get the best of both worlds; we harness innovation to protect the taxpayer, while retaining human judgment to safeguard individuals. Lords amendment 43 concerns the eligibility verification mechanism and its impact on vulnerable people and financial institutions. The amendment would task the independent reviewer of the mechanism with assessing how the system takes into account the additional needs of vulnerable people, whether it risks benefits claimants being prematurely de-banked, and the cost to banks and financial institutions of complying. Throughout the passage of this Bill, Members—including Conservative Members—have emphasised the need to protect those who may be more vulnerable, including people facing financial hardship and those with disabilities. We are disappointed that the Government are not backing Lords amendment 43, but it is reassuring that they have committed to ensuring that all the points made in both Houses are fed directly into the work of the independent reviewer. We understand that a meeting will be set up between Members and the independent reviewer after Royal Assent so that these issues can be explored in detail. We will continue to push to ensure that Ministers deliver on those promises, but we hope that this engagement will ensure that the review proceeds with a full understanding of Parliament’s concerns about proportionality, cost and fairness. As the Minister rightly said, Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment 75 is essentially a technical correction. We have no issue with it, because it tidies up the text but does not alter the substance of the Bill. Finally, I turn to Lords amendment 97, which concerns the issue of reasonable force by Department for Work and Pensions investigators. We do not believe that it was the Government’s intention that DWP investigators should use force against individuals—that power rightly rests with the police, who are trained in its use and accountable for it. However, that was not clear in the legislation as originally drafted. The explanatory note stated that “This power will be limited to using reasonable force against things not people”, but that was not specified in the Bill. After we raised this issue in Committee in the Commons, Lords amendment 97 sought to clarify that DWP officers may use reasonable force only against property, not against people. The Government’s amendments in lieu are a compromise, but the Bill does now distinguish between the use of force against people, and the use of force against property for investigators who are not constables, which was the clarification we were looking for. In summary, thanks to the thorough work of colleagues in both Houses, the Bill today is better than when it was first introduced. It gives the Public Sector Fraud Authority the power to act proactively, embeds ministerial accountability, ensures the responsible use of technology, protects vulnerable people, and provides clarity on how enforcement powers may be used. There remain areas in which we think the Bill could be further strengthened—there is still nothing in it to tackle sickfluencers, nor were amendments requiring the Government to review the whistleblowing procedures in the civil service accepted. It is regrettable that the Minister missed those opportunities, but it is welcome that the Government were at least willing to listen in other areas, and we had some very good debates on the bits that the Government have not accepted. Although we will not oppose the amendments that the Government have tabled in response to the Lords’ amendments, this Bill must not be the limit of their ambition. It is the latest step in cracking down on fraud and error, but we need to see continued effort, action and enforcement from this Government, because the message must be clear that fraudsters must not, and will not, succeed. Every pound stolen through fraud is a pound lost to the taxpayer, our public services and those who do the right thing. That is why we will keep pressing for vigilance, transparency and fairness as this Bill becomes law.
- Hansard source
Conflict in Sudan
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if she will make a statement on the Government’s approach to the worsening conflict in Sudan.
- Hansard source
Conflict in Sudan
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. The atrocities of recent days, including in El Fasher, are beyond horrifying. The suffering inflicted on the Sudanese people by this war is an affront to humanity. Red lines have been crossed in the prosecution of this conflict that cannot be allowed to stand, especially by the UK as the penholder on Sudan at the UN Security Council. Britain needs to use its influence to co-ordinate robust and stronger international action to tighten the screws on the warring parties, press them into a ceasefire and end this barbaric conflict. The Government must go further and upgrade our support for those documenting evidence of these heinous crimes. Can the Minister confirm that that will happen? Will the Minister introduce more hard-hitting sanctions on the key operators and take concerted action to deter entities, individuals and businesses whose support continues to sustain this awful conflict? Are actions of this nature being co-ordinated with international partners, and what progress has been made to build up organic civilian political groups so that Sudan can move back to a civilian Government after the ceasefire? It is essential that we have a credible day-after plan as soon as possible. On the dire humanitarian crisis, are the changing territorial positions of the warring parties having an impact on the ability to deliver aid, and if so, what is the plan to counter this? We note the announcement earlier this month—I think last week in Bahrain—of the £5 million being provided for emergency aid support for the survivors of sexual violence in El Fasher. The whole House will recognise the importance of getting aid to them, so what can the Minister say about the delivery of that urgently needed aid? How is that happening? What discussions have the UK Government had with the Sudan quad in recent days? How does the Minister define the UK’s relationship with the quad, now and moving forward? Can the Minister share his latest assessment of the region’s wider ability to manage the fallout from this terrible conflict? Have the Government carried out an assessment of what different outcomes from this conflict would mean for the security of the Red sea? Those carrying out the atrocities in Sudan need to know that the whole world is watching them and can see what they are doing, and that there will be consequences.
- Hansard source
House Building: London
Of course I will, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) for securing this debate. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for his excellent speech, much of which I agreed with, especially about using the TfL space. The TfL chairman is Sadiq Khan and, as Mayor of London, he is responsible not only for TfL but for house building in London. If we look at some of his promises in 2016, he said his first priority would be tackling the housing crisis. His first manifesto promised a step change in new housing supply, and that 50% of new homes would be affordable. Here we are nearly a decade later, and he certainly has not delivered that step change. House building has in fact ground to a halt—it is down 73% in London over the past year. The Government have had to step in to water down City Hall’s anti-growth affordability targets, because there is no way of avoiding it: despite Sadiq Khan’s boasts, he has comprehensively failed to build. After nine years at the helm, Sadiq Khan has nothing to show for it. Four fifths of homes built last year, as previously mentioned, were approved under Boris Johnson’s mayoralty. The average home in London cost £483,000 in 2016. Today, it is about £560,000. The average rent cost £1,292 per month in 2016. Today, it is £2,252. As has been discussed, it is not a question of money: Sadiq Khan has been given nearly £9 billion to deliver on housing in London. It is not a question of powers; he has strategic planning powers in London. Instead, it has been about bad policy. His London plan is onerous and expensive to adhere to, and his affordability targets have acted as a tax on house building. The Government know this. Instead of addressing the problem, they are dancing around the issue. They scrapped a mandated review of the London plan after independent experts found it to “frustrate rather than facilitate” building on the brownfield sites that my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup discussed. The Government have cut the community infrastructure levy but kept the more expensive mayoral levy. Instead of taking powers away from the failing mayor they are rewarding him, giving him power to call in developments of 50 homes on green-belt sites. Instead of removing the obstacles to building on brownfield sites they are weakening green-belt protections.
- Hansard source
House Building: London
I agree with my right hon. Friend. It is worth re-emphasising that the mayor has had responsibility for delivering housing in London for nine years and has fundamentally failed to deliver on his promises. On weakening green-belt protections, which matters so much to those of us representing outer London boroughs, it is a bizarre decision to effectively block building on vacant former industrial sites in inner London near tube stations, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, and instead force thousands of homes on to poorly served farmers’ fields in Bromley. If the Government want to meet their housing targets, they need to realise that Sadiq Khan is not a builder—he is a blocker, and the record proves it.
- Hansard source
Conflict in Sudan
Order. I understand the importance of this urgent question, but we have substantial business to get through today, so I ask that questions are short and, Minister, that answers are just as short and on point.
- Hansard source
Curriculum and Assessment Review
Before we come to the statement from the Education Secretary, I should inform the House that Mr Speaker is disappointed that this announcement was widely trailed in the media this morning, before this House had an opportunity to hear directly from the Government. I remind the Government Front Benchers that the expectation set out in the Government’s “Ministerial Code” is that: “When Parliament is in session, the most important announcements of government policy should be made in the first instance in Parliament.” I know that the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee is looking into how that expectation is currently observed and whether it continues to meet the needs of the House, and I look forward to seeing the outcome of that work. Furthermore, engaging directly with Mr Speaker on such announcements is no substitute for the courtesy that this House deserves.
- Hansard source
Curriculum and Assessment Review
Order. Ms Trott, you have run over your time. I hope you are going to conclude very quickly.
- Hansard source
Curriculum and Assessment Review
Order. This is a statement—you must have a short question. Please finish quickly.
- Hansard source
Curriculum and Assessment Review
Order. We have just 30 minutes remaining, so colleagues will have to be brief.
- Hansard source
Points of Order
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of what is not really a point of order. He has most definitely made his point.
- Hansard source
Points of Order
I thank the hon. Member for giving me notice of that point of order. I have received no notice that the Secretary of State intends to make a statement, but those on the Treasury Front Bench will have heard that point of order and, I am sure, will take the hon. Member’s views into account.
- Hansard source
Points of Order
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. Ministers are responsible for their responses to Members’ questions, so that is not a matter for the Chair, but no doubt those on the Government Front Bench will have noted his question.
- Hansard source
Points of Order
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. As an experienced Member, he knows that while statements are made on the initiative of Ministers, there are other ways for Members to raise matters in this House.
- Hansard source
Points of Order
Can the hon. Member confirm that he has actually notified the Secretary of State that he intended to raise this matter?
- Hansard source
Points of Order
Well, that would be good protocol. All correspondence from Members to Ministers should be dealt with promptly, and no doubt those on the Treasury Front Bench will have noted this and will ensure that Back Benchers get answers to their correspondence in good time. Bill Presented Railways Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Secretary Heidi Alexander, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Steve Reed, Secretary Ed Miliband, Secretary Peter Kyle, Secretary Douglas Alexander, Secretary Jo Stevens and James Murray, presented a Bill to make provision about railways and railway services; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Tuesday 11 November, and to be printed (Bill 325) with explanatory notes (Bill 325-EN).
- Hansard source
Employment Rights Bill
I call Justin Madders. After his speech, there will be a five-minute speaking limit for Back Benchers.
- Hansard source
House Building: London
I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for housebuilding in London. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank all hon. Members who enabled me to secure this important debate. It could not be more timely, as house building in London has collapsed. In the first nine months of 2025, construction began on only 3,248 homes. Molior London predicts that just 9,100 homes will be built across 2027 and 2028—that is under 5% of the Government’s target for London. London is supposed to deliver more than a quarter of the Government’s 1.5 million homes target, but given the construction slowdown, that target appears to be dead in the water. That is the inevitable consequence of the Mayor of London’s disastrous London plan and the Labour Government’s anti-growth policies. Three things have gone wrong. First, Sadiq Khan’s London plan has comprehensively failed to get London building. With more than 500 pages and 123 planning policies, the London plan makes it more complex and expensive to build in London. A 2024 review found that it takes seven weeks longer to determine major planning applications in London than in the next four largest cities. Sadiq Khan’s planning requirements also add to the cost of building in London. For example, the London plan goes beyond the national energy requirements, imposes carbon targets, and has policies on overheating and energy statements. Whatever the merits of those policies, they all add to the cost of building homes. In places, Sadiq Khan’s planning policies actively restrict house building. For example, the London plan effectively bans house building on large swathes of industrial land, often within walking distance of public transport.