Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
The Minister responding to this debate represents Selby. One of the great successes of the open system has been Hull Trains, which provides a fantastic service from Hull, through Selby, down to London, and then back again. Does my hon. Friend worry, as I do, that open services such as Hull Trains will be crushed by Great British Railways and the Minister, despite whatever he may say?
I am sure that Hull Trains will be grateful for the passionate way in which the Minister made its case. Would he be open to amendments to the Bill that would look again at that balance? As the Bill is currently drafted, it looks as if GBR can just squeeze out the open operators—it has all the power and they have none.
The biggest issue for those on low incomes is losing their jobs. Does the Chancellor believe that there is any link at all between her increase in employer national insurance contributions —her job tax—and employment levels slumping to a 14-year low?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. These draft regulations seek to lay the legislative foundation for the transfer of many of the powers currently held by the scheme administrator, PackUK, to a private producer responsibility organisation. The PRO will remain an independent body working closely with the devolved nations and the public sector. In March 2025, Karen Graley was appointed head of the EPR PRO, bringing extensive experience from the Food and Drink Federation. I ask the Minister whether she or her colleagues have met Ms Graley to discuss the issues already identified with the scheme. I note that should the PRO fail to meet the expectations set out in its conditions of appointment, the scheme administrator, acting with the consent of the four nations, may revoke its appointment. Can the Minister reassure us that if such a step were ever required, there would be no adverse disruption to the scheme and no consequential adverse impact on businesses? The Minister will also be aware that Wildlife and Countryside Link, the Environmental Investigation Agency and Everyday Plastic wrote jointly to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee to seek clarification from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on certain aspects of the scheme. They expressed concern that they found the explanatory memorandum to contain insufficient information about intended implementation. Although DEFRA has responded to their three specific questions, I hope the Minister can set out in greater detail the evidence required for the producers. Under the packaging extended producer responsibility scheme, producers must demonstrate that they have collected and recycled packaging waste that is either reusable or not ordinarily collected by local authorities. As I understand it, there is currently no requirement for that evidence to be third-party verified. Can the Minister explain how the accuracy and reliability of such information will be ensured? I discussed the extended producer responsibility scheme in a recent Westminster Hall debate with the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), so the Minister will be aware of my concerns about its general implementation. The Minister will also be aware that the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), recently chaired a food and farming emergency summit with farmers, fishermen and food producers. One of the issues raised repeatedly was the impact of the EPR scheme on food, drink and hospitality businesses, many of which—local pubs included—feel that they are being unfairly charged twice. Following that summit, and after listening carefully to industry representatives, my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State wrote to the Government urging them to work with the Conservatives on a rapid review of the scheme’s impact on the food, drink and hospitality sectors, including the problem of the double charging of pubs. That emergency summit took place before the autumn Budget, in which the Government announced that they will consult in early 2026 on proposals to measure the performance and effectiveness of local authorities’ use of the packaging EPR scheme. Has the Minister considered extending that consultation to include stakeholders so that practical issues with the scheme’s operability can be identified sooner? The amendments contained in these regulations are sensible and show some movement in response to feedback and concern from the frontline. However, they do not address some of the wider concerns raised in our recent debate or those voiced by stakeholders, particularly regarding glass recycling and the consequences for hospitality businesses. Tackling these issues should be a priority for this Government not just in 2026, but as soon as possible.
As I mentioned, the Budget document talked about a consultation on this going into 2026. I raised with the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), in the Westminster Hall debate that such consultation needs to be urgent, rather than kicking the can down the track. Can the Minister reassure us that she and her DEFRA colleagues will urgently review the system and act to mitigate any adverse consequences? A consultation is good on paper, but unless it is urgent, stakeholders on the frontline are going to suffer.
The shadow Secretary of State talks about passengers being at the heart of the Bill. He earlier raised watchdogs and dogs not having teeth. As a veterinary surgeon, I am very conscious of a subset of dogs that we need to think about in relation to passenger access. Does he agree that people need to work together to ensure that people with assistance dogs and guide dogs have good access to the railway? In terms of modernisation and access, we need to keep those people in our mind.
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Understandably, the Secretary of State has been talking primarily about passengers so far, but of course, the railways also transport freight; for example, they are important suppliers to British Gypsum in my constituency, taking many lorries off the already congested A21. Could she lay out what her ambitions are for increasing the use of freight on the railways, and how she will deliver those ambitions?
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. My mission for my constituents is to keep Runnymede and Weybridge moving. Supporting and improving our train services is a vital part of delivering that. On the changes that the Bill delivers for people across my constituency, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. I will give an example of how much this means to them. Salesian school in my constituency takes in many children from the local and surrounding areas. They use the Chertsey to Addlestone branch line, which is one of South Western Railway’s worst-performing lines. As a result, they are very often late to school, and the school has to allocate teachers to the platforms for safety purposes, because the platforms become crowded when there are delays. That has serious material impacts on those children’s education. I am sure that that experience is replicated for schools across the local area. The Chertsey-Addlestone loop is punished by level crossings, including in Addlestone and Egham. The Pooley Green level crossing has had downtimes of over 10 minutes, including just a couple of months ago. Constituents tell me that they do not go to the fish and chip shop and other businesses on the other side of the level crossing because of those downtimes. Whatever happens with the Bill, it is absolutely critical that there are improvements to the level crossings at Egham, Addlestone and across my constituency, so that we have data, such as from downtime monitors, to see the impact that the problem has on traffic. We need timetabling that changes not in a click of the fingers but with proper consultation with residents about what is happening. That would mean proper train services for the children going to school in my constituency and the people who depend on commuting to get to work and to see their families. It would end the last-minute train cancellations that have seemed to be more frequent in the past few months. As a regular South Western Railways user—I live in Chertsey in my constituency—I see the impact that that is having on my constituents. We also need improvements to accessibility. It is completely scandalous that the lift at Weybridge station is still out of service. Accessibility problems are not limited to lifts; they also affect stations themselves. Services need to be responsive to the needs of my constituents, but passengers are too often punished when engineering works take place on our tracks, causing traffic carnage for the weekend. Engineering works must be co-ordinated with local roads.
On that point, will the Secretary of State give way?
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for allowing me to intervene. Her Wiltshire constituents and mine are not really interested in organisational change, but they are interested in railways that run on time, are reasonably comfortable and have interconnectivity. When will those passengers who use South Western Railway expect to see tangible improvements, rather than the 50% increase in cancellations that they have seen since May and the 29% increase in delays that they have seen during the time that the service has been renationalised?
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and I welcome the appointment of the noble Baroness Longfield as chair of the panel. She has a great track record. I have worked with her over many years and am sure that she will do a very thorough job. I am very grateful that victims are being put at the centre of the inquiry. This is about the victims, and we cannot forget their terrible suffering. They must be front and centre of everything that the inquiry does. What would happen if, during one of the local inquiries, new evidence or a new issue arises? Will it be possible to go back and look at previous inquiries, including those that have already completed, if certain issues were not identified, but are raised through this new work?
Let us remember that victims are at the heart of this. Young girls, some only 10 years old, were groomed and gang raped by men of mainly Pakistani origin—girls like Jane, who was just 12 years old when she was raped by an illegal immigrant; when she was found by police, instead of arresting the rapist, they arrested Jane. Anna, only 15 years old, repeatedly told social workers that she had been gang raped, but instead of helping her, they allowed her to marry her main abuser in an Islamic ceremony that was attended by the very social worker who should have protected her. Last week, sentencing remarks from several of these terrible cases were published. I warn the House that some of them are extremely graphic. One perpetrator, Mohammed Karrar, raped a 12-year-old girl, and when she tried to fight back, he hit her with a baseball bat and then inserted the handle into her vagina. He also injected her with heroin and forced her to take crack cocaine. Another man, Arshid Hussain, viciously beat a young girl, stubbed out a cigarette on her chest and tied her up; she was then repeatedly raped by numerous Asian men. The same man, Arshid Hussain, also called a victim, who had been raped and abused since the age of just seven, “white trash”. He said that Asian girls would not do what he was forcing her to do. There was an explicit racial element to his crime; he was raping his victim because she was white. The identity of the majority of the perpetrators is something that should not be hidden. A 2020 study by academics at the University of Southampton and the University of Reading reviewed 498 grooming gang convictions. They found that 83% of the perpetrators were of Muslim background, and specifically mainly of Pakistani heritage. The Casey and Telford reports made similar observations. The fact is that these crimes were deliberately covered up by those in authority who were more interested in so-called community relations and in avoiding being called racist than they were in protecting young girls. I spoke to a retired police officer who was told by a serving chief superintendent to stop investigating abuse by Pakistani-origin taxi drivers in Bradford because the local police did not want to offend Bradford’s Muslim community. I have sent the name of that officer to the police for investigation. A former Labour MP, Simon Danczuk, was even told by the then chair of the parliamentary Labour party to stop asking questions, in order to avoid antagonising the Muslim community in his town. Yet when the need for a national inquiry was raised in January, the Prime Minister disgracefully smeared those calling for an inquiry as “far right”. What the Prime Minister claimed in January was a far-right bandwagon had become Government policy by June, so will the Home Secretary apologise on behalf of the Prime Minister for what he said last January? The truth is that it should not have taken several months and the threat of a vote in Parliament to agree to the inquiry in the first place, and it should not have taken another six months to appoint a chair. That is what the survivors and their families told me yesterday. One of the most disturbing elements of this scandal is the deliberate cover-up of the crimes, as I have said, so will the Home Secretary assure the House that those in authority who covered up the crimes will be prosecuted for the offence of misconduct in public office? Will she also ensure that the inquiry refers such cases to the police for investigation? Can she confirm that the inquiry will formally start in March 2026, and that the final report will be published publicly three years later, in March 2029? We have not yet seen the terms of reference. Survivors and their families, whom I met yesterday, are concerned that the scope of the inquiry may be too broad. Will the Home Secretary confirm that it will focus specifically on localised, group-based grooming gangs, and that it will analyse and report on the ethnicity and religious background of the perpetrators? She mentioned local inquiries sitting underneath the national inquiry. Can she specifically confirm that those local inquiries will be completely independent of the bodies they are investigating, particularly local councils and local police forces? They cannot be allowed to investigate themselves. Will the Home Secretary also confirm that the parents of survivors and victims will be able to serve on the panel? I spoke yesterday to two parents of survivors who felt that they had been excluded from the previous panels. For many survivors and victims, the truth has been hidden for far too long. These crimes were covered up because those in authority were more concerned about so-called community relations and avoiding being called racist than they were about protecting young children. That was an abject moral failure. The truth, at last, must come out.
The east coast main line is a fantastic example of where privatisation has worked. Open access operators such as Hull Trains, Lumo and Grand Central are competing with the franchisee and keeping prices down and service levels up. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Bill does nothing to protect open access operators, and that there is a real danger that this centralised, Soviet-style monolith will squeeze them out in due course?
I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.
I call the Father of the House.
I call Simon Hoare to speak for no more than 10 minutes.
In accordance with precedent, I will cast the casting vote Aye, to allow further debate. The Ayes have it, the Ayes have it. Question accordingly agreed to. Ordered, That Dr Al Pinkerton, Ed Davey, Daisy Cooper, Wendy Chamberlain and Calum Miller present the Bill. Dr Al Pinkerton accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 January 2026, and to be printed (Bill 345).
The reasoned amendment in the name of Mr Richard Holden has been selected.
Order. There will be an immediate five-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches. I now call the shadow Secretary of State.
One of the challenges that the NHS faces is dealing with people who are street homeless and who have to go into hospital for treatment. They are then discharged, and it is almost like a rotating saw, unfortunately. What is needed now is targeted funding to ensure that the NHS discharges people to somewhere they have a safe place to live. Will the Minister take up that challenge, particularly at this time of year?
Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) on asking it, and on his excellent contribution. This is a very significant and highly detailed report, which I know hon. Members will want to take some time to digest, but on behalf of the Conservative party, I thank all those who have contributed to it. I also want to remember all those who suffered during that very difficult time. The last Conservative Government apologised for collusion following the de Silva review of the murder of Patrick Finucane, and while it is sobering to read further accounts of collusion between a small number of agents of the British state and paramilitaries, it is important to set this alongside a number of findings in the Kenova report. First, as the Secretary of State mentioned, there is an understanding that legislation has changed dramatically since the time in question, under both the last Labour Government and the last Conservative Government. Secondly, it is important to highlight that although the review found that there were a small number of rogue actors, it did not find “any evidence” that collusion occurred “at a political or strategic level”, and there was “no evidence which indicates that the RUC at an organisational level was involved or complicit with the activities of extremists or terrorists.” It is very important that those findings are not lost. Thirdly, as the right hon. Member for Belfast East said, the review found that there was no specific intelligence that, if acted upon, could have prevented the 1974 Dublin and Monaghan bombings, and it did not manage to find any evidence indicating that British security forces colluded with the UVF in those attacks—again, these are historic findings. I would be very interested to hear from the Secretary of State whether he would be prepared to come back at a later date and tell us more about the Government’s future position on “neither confirm nor deny”. I understand that there is a case going on at the moment, but I believe that once that is done, it will be important for the Government to be clear with the House about how they see that policy going forward. As has already been mentioned, there have been a number of detailed and necessary reviews of collusion between agents of the British state and paramilitaries, but as yet there have been no such reviews on the Irish side. Will the Secretary of State tell us whether the Irish Government have told him by when they intend to present their own legislation?
The Budget cut the venture capital trusts tax relief that allowed investors to back Britain’s fastest-growing companies. How can the Chancellor claim to support our entrepreneurs when she is cutting off the funding that they rely on?
I will keep my intervention very short, Sir Edward. An unheard-of 4,400 of my constituents signed this petition. They are very clear that they do not want the imposition—which is what it will be—of digital ID. As we heard from my hon. Friend’s history lesson, time and again it has been the Conservatives who have said, “No, we do not want this. The British people do not want it.” Is it not time that this Government sat up and listened to the public for a change?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I thank the Minister for his explanation of the draft order. As he will expect, I have a number of questions on which some further clarity would be helpful for the Committee. His Majesty’s Opposition recognise the long-standing role that the UK has played in supporting IDA, which is the World Bank’s concessional arm, working in some of the poorest and most fragile countries in the world. We also recognise the scale of the challenges facing those countries, from conflict and food security to the growing pressure of climate shocks and debt distress. IDA has been, and remains, an important part of the global response. However, the draft order legislates for payments of up to £1.98 billion in UK aid, which is an extremely significant commitment. Therefore, Parliament deserves some clear and detailed assurances about how this money will be used, what impacts it is expected to deliver and how the Government intend to oversee it. Can the Minister explain, in broad terms, how IDA allocates where resources go under this replenishment? What balance does IDA expect between grants and concessional loans? What criteria are used to allocate funds between countries, particularly those facing acute debt pressure? As the UK shareholder, what role have the Government played in deciding where taxpayers’ money will go? Secondly, can the Minister set out the themes and priorities that the UK argued for during the IDA21 negotiations? IDA covers a wide agenda, from health and climate resilience to education and digital infrastructure, so it would be helpful to know where the Government have sought to focus UK influence, not least in view of the reduction to the aid budget from 0.5% to 0.3%. Do the themes and priorities meet UK development objectives, and how have key UK interests been prioritised? On the issue of debt sustainability, can the Minister reassure the Committee that IDA’s lending will not compound existing debt vulnerabilities? Have any safeguards been strengthened since IDA20? What assurances can the Government give that UK taxpayers’ money will not be used for debt reduction where countries have been trapped into debt by China? ODA should not be paying down debts to China. Turning to oversight, what monitoring and evaluation arrangements does the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office rely on to demonstrate that UK contributions to IDA21 deliver measurable outcomes and value for money? How often will Parliament receive updates on performance and progress against UK objectives? Will the FCDO publish a report on delivery against measurable outcomes? Governance is another key area. Can the Minister confirm whether there have been any changes to IDA’s transparency, accountability or anti-corruption safeguards, which should give Parliament confidence in how this replenishment will operate? Finally, can the Minister say whether the UK sought particular conditions or expectations from other donors during the negotiations? How do the Government intend to use the UK’s seat on IDA’s board to ensure alignment with our bilateral work, so that efforts are not duplicated? IDA remains an important development instrument, but the scrutiny of large multilateral commitments is essential. We hope the Minister can address those points and we look forward to his response.
Will the hon. Member give way?
Does the hon. Gentleman think that mandatory ID would realistically stop these problem shops on the high street?
The logic of the Minister’s argument seems to be that the Justice Secretary was repeatedly wrong in the past to defend jury trials, that many of her colleagues are wrong to have concerns, and that her own Government were wrong not to mention it at all in the Labour party manifesto. She has repeatedly refused to say whether she would publish modelling and referred to the impact assessment. Can she clarify this: has the work in the Department been done on the impact assessment and she simply will not publish it, or has it not done that work, in which case the claims she is making are without evidence?
After hearing the Policing Minister, I am slightly incredulous. In her last reply to a perfectly reasonable question from her own side of the House about the roles of UEFA and the safety advisory group, she said she is happy to go back and ask questions. She said in her statement that the mistakes were “alarming”—that is the phrase she used. This has been going on for weeks. The Minister has had a letter back from West Midlands police that she has not shared with the House before replying to this urgent question. She is saying that we will not have all the answers until the end of March, yet the Prime Minister is saying that this is a really high priority. Why is it taking so long to get simple answers on something that is of concern across the House?
While the problems with the Ajax programme are familiar, what we have heard today is quite extraordinary, because both the Minister and the shadow Defence Secretary have said from the Dispatch Box that they have been misled by officials. That raises questions for this House, because we should be able to rely on what is said by Ministers in good faith from the Dispatch Box. Has the Minister discussed this issue with the Cabinet Secretary? I agree with the Chair of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi): Members from across the House do not think that these problems apply only to this programme; they are more systemic. What the Minister and the shadow Defence Secretary have said is extremely important to how this House operates and whether individuals are held to account. What action will the Minister take with the Cabinet Secretary to address that?
I am afraid that the Minister’s treatment of the 60% figure only tends to confirm my belief that one is better off with the common sense of 12 ordinary people than with one legal professional. [Laughter.] Even she is smiling—good for her. Can she look again at this point? Yes, it is disastrous if 60% of women who allege rape drop the case before it proceeds to a conclusion, but if only 9% drop the case after the alleged criminal has been charged, the overwhelming reason for their dropping the case is not the length of the trial by jury, but the slowness between the reporting of the allegation and the criminal being charged. Will she accept that, in this case, she is looking at the wrong target?
It is fairly clear that my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) is right that this was a predetermined decision, and that the evidence was something for which West Midlands police scrabbled about later, but whatever the outcome of the Minister’s inquiries, whether it turns out, heaven forbid, that there was an antisemitic element to this or—in my view, more probably—that the police thought they would have a quieter life if they went down this road, will she guarantee to the House that whatever lessons are learned will be communicated in the strongest terms to the chief constables of all the other police forces so that they do not follow a bad example?
It is hard to think of a comparable disaster without going back to perhaps the early 1960s and the cancellation successively of Blue Streak and Skybolt. I worry that if and when the decision has to be taken that this platform is not fit to be issued to our armed forces, there will be a huge legal stand-off between the MOD and the company as to who is responsible for picking up the bill. Has thought been given to sharpening the pencils of the MOD lawyers?
The right hon. Gentleman is making a very good case. I am utterly opposed to digital ID, as are many of my constituents. One of them has made the point that in fact our great liberty, our great freedom, which is that the state has to prove that a person is guilty of a charge—innocence before guilt—is reversed by this, such that almost everybody on an ID card is assumed to have guilt until they have discharged themselves as innocent. Does that not go against all our freedoms?
Members on both sides of the House know how important these changes are, and getting them right is absolutely vital. My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) asked a specific question as to whether the Department has done an impact assessment. Could the Minister clarify whether that impact assessment has been done? If so, will it be immediately published?
Right across the political spectrum, I think everyone feels that this was a poor decision and a bad decision, which is why it has unravelled so quickly. Can the Minister reassure the House that there was absolutely no local political interference in making this decision?
Order. As you may have noticed, there are huge numbers of Members trying to speak. I will have to impose a three-minute speech limit. We will try and get everybody in, but the more interventions there are, the more people simply will not get in. Perhaps you could all bear that in mind, please.
Order. The mover of the debate must make progress.
Order. I will have to impose an immediate three-minute limit. The more interventions there are, the fewer Members will get in. I can see a number of senior Members in the “standing room only” section. If you are standing and want to speak, you must put your hand up. If called, you must come forward to a microphone and try to find a place—I can see Damian Hinds putting his hand up, very helpfully. I call Melanie Onn.