Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,779 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
I think it is fair to say that in the years I have been here generally most people have known what I believed in, but is the reason the hon. Gentleman is so incredibly angry this afternoon because, from his point of view, he lost not only one referendum, but two: on Scottish independence and then on the European Union?
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to contribute to this important debate on the forthcoming UK-EU summit next Monday. As someone who has, I hope the House will concede, followed these matters reasonably closely for a number of years, I will focus on three broad areas. I will say something about the summit itself, make some points about the very worrying suggestion that we are about to waive a large part of our fishing rights, and raise my concerns and those of many others about the potential for so-called dynamic alignment by which the United Kingdom effectively would become a passive rule taker, despite voting peacefully and democratically to leave the European Union in the first place. Before I do that, I pay a personal tribute to Sir Roy Stone, who has tragically passed away. He was a constituent of mine and lived just a few minutes away from me. I once inadvertently canvassed him some years ago during the local elections. As a highly professional public servant, he was completely inscrutable about his voting intentions. I subsequently worked with him closely for two years in the coalition Whips Office between 2010 and 2012. He was always very patient, especially with me. When I was the Vice-Chamberlain of the Household, he always gave well-informed and canny advice. He believed passionately in the institution of Parliament and the principle of representative democracy, which he served so well. Our thoughts and prayers are with his widow, Dawn, and her family. May he rest in peace and always be warmly remembered. A crucial summit will take place between the leaders of the UK and the EU in London next month. I recall being told repeatedly during the referendum campaign that if we left the EU, we would be isolated and friendless. All the meetings that have taken place in London recently, including one with virtually every EU leader at Lancaster House regarding the so-called coalition of the willing, show how absolutely ludicrous that assertion was. However, according to multiple media reports, it seems as if this summit could involve some kind of defence pact between ourselves in the UK and the European Union. As I have Front-Bench responsibility for defence, I shall not dwell at length on those matters, but hopefully we will have a lot more to say on them next week once the details of any such agreement have been made public and, crucially, we have had an opportunity to read the small print. Nevertheless, I am sure that the Government’s tactic will be to try to talk almost exclusively about defence as a form of camouflage to mask likely concessions both on our fishing rights and, potentially, relating to our food. When the British people voted democratically to leave the European Union some nine years ago, they did so in order to decide their destiny for themselves. It would be completely against the spirit of the referendum, under the guise of some kind of reset with the EU, to surrender that principle next week. Moreover, after the absolute chaos of the Labour Government’s proposed Chagos deal, the Spanish Foreign Minister asserted only yesterday that the UK should make concessions over the sovereignty of Gibraltar as part of our reset at the summit. This is despite the fact that the Gibraltarians themselves voted by a majority of 99% to maintain the current position in their own referendum on the subject, a margin so emphatic that even the SNP would have to accept it. On fishing, in early 2020 during Boris Johnson’s premiership, the United Kingdom agreed what was known as the trade and co-operation agreement between the UK and the EU. While there has been much recent talk of trade deals, including with India and now the US, the TCA was in effect a major, comprehensive trade deal with the EU, negotiated in the context of having left the European Union. For the benefit of the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes), who is no longer in his place, that agreement was 1,245 pages long—I know, because I read it. In essence, the TCA guaranteed virtually tariff-free trade between the UK and the EU. Moreover, the fact that we had left the EU, including the customs union, meant that we were able to negotiate unilateral trade deals of our own around the world.
In a moment. While we were in the customs union, it was possible to negotiate those agreements only collectively via the auspices of the EU. That is a fundamental difference. It is important to note that by using this critical Brexit freedom, we have been able to negotiate almost 80 independent trade deals with nations around the world since we left the EU, including important Commonwealth partners such as Australia, New Zealand, and now India. We have also joined the trans-Pacific partnership, which materially improves our access to Asian markets worth trillions of dollars. Moreover—
If the hon. Lady will let me finish this point, I promise I will do so, but I want to enjoy this bit. We now have the delightful visage of our ambassador to the United States, one Lord Mandelson, having to acknowledge through metaphorically gritted teeth that we have been able to negotiate a trade deal with the United States—albeit one that is limited in scope—only because we left his beloved European Union. I think our Peter is struggling with that. I will give way to the hon. Lady, who has been patient.
The hon. Lady pre-empts me. If she will give me a moment, I will get to fishing very shortly. The TCA—part 2, heading 5—contains transition arrangements relating to fishing. In essence, the TCA allowed for a period of over five years during which there would be temporary arrangements on access to UK waters by EU fishing fleets. After that, under international maritime arrangements, the United Kingdom would become solely responsible for its own territorial waters, out to 200 nautical miles in some places. As this transition period is now approaching its expiration in 2026, the EU is pushing very hard to maintain its access to our fishing waters and—it would seem—even to expand its access in certain cases, were we naive enough to give in. It would be a complete betrayal of our fishermen if the United Kingdom Labour Government were now to grant major concessions to the EU in what will become indisputably our own sovereign waters once again come 2026.
In a second—the bourgeoisie will have to wait. While our sovereign rights are enshrined in both the TCA itself and wider maritime law, we have yet to see the final details of whatever Faustian pact the Government have agreed with the EU on fishing. However, our fishermen and those of us on the Opposition Benches —although not Reform Members, who are not here—will be watching the Government very closely, and will be highly alert to the prospect of a sell-out on fish. We then come to veterinary matters and SPS—and ultimately, therefore, food—which would involve the United Kingdom in a process known as dynamic alignment. In essence, this means that if the EU were in any way to change or modify its rules in those areas, we would in turn be compelled to follow the EU, regardless of the wishes of our own Parliament. In other words, we would become a “rule taker” in those areas, even though we have left the European Union. Moreover, it seems that these arrangements would apply throughout the United Kingdom, and in the event of a dispute, that would be arbitrated by the European Court of Justice rather than the UK Supreme Court or even an international tribunal.
In a moment. To have left the EU but submit to becoming a passive rule taker would be entirely contrary to the spirit of the 2016 referendum. That is why, time and again today, no Minister will admit that the Government are going to do it next week.
No. When Labour talked about a “reset” in its general election manifesto, there was absolutely no reference to rule taking as part of any such accommodation. Labour would therefore be giving away our rights, entirely without the consent of the British people. That must be fiercely resisted and, if necessary, overturned. Moreover, there is the prospect of additional concessions over everything from so-called youth mobility schemes—a euphemism for a return to freedom of movement in another guise—to capitulation over net zero mechanisms and, specifically, the EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism, or CBAM, which would make our remaining industries even more internationally uncompetitive than the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband) has achieved to date. As someone who sat here during the last Parliament—as the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) kindly mentioned—and witnessed, night after night and week after week, the then Labour shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, now the Prime Minister, pulling every procedural trick from the depths of Erskine May in order to try to keep the United Kingdom in the European Union at almost any price and despite the referendum, I am in no way surprised that his Government are now attempting this act of capitulation. Our Prime Minister has always been a passionate Europhile; in short, he remains a remainer in his heart of hearts, and he always will. What the Labour Government are up to—and I say again that they will try to use a defence pact in order to hide it—is beginning a process of gradually taking us back towards and even back into the European Union, if they think they can get away with it. They will never risk another referendum, because in 2016, almost up to the last minute, the polls were showing that remain might win, but when it came to it, the British people had the temerity to vote to govern themselves, despite the best efforts of the British Establishment and “Project Fear”. What they will do is try to take us back in very gradually, via a process of grandmother’s footsteps, or, to make another analogy, trying to boil a frog slowly. If they get away with submission next week, despite their manifesto commitments, they will eventually try to take us back into the single market—although, no doubt, under some other name—and if they can get away with that, they will suggest that we might as well rejoin the customs union. They will put the argument to the British people that we are so far back into the blooming thing that we might as well go the whole hog and rejoin it entirely—all without a vote or the consent of the people of the United Kingdom, at any stage, whatsoever.
It would be far better to do this via a process of mutual enforcement, of which my right hon. Friend has always been a staunch advocate. When the Minister sums up the debate, we will ask him if he will rule out, very clearly, any prospect of dynamic alignment at the summit next week.
In a moment. This is a yes or no question. Perhaps the Minister, at that time—because he would not answer my right hon. Friend’s question yesterday—will give us an honest answer to an honest question. In fact, if he wants to do it now I will give way to him. A stunning silence! Well, as he has not the guts to get up, I will give way to his Back Bencher.
People have made market choices, but under the common fisheries policy, we had the absurdity of so-called discards. Our fishermen had to throw fish, many of which were already dead, back into the sea in order to comply with the absurdities of the CFP. Hopefully, we will never return to that.
I defer to my hon. Friend, who is clearly a subject matter expert. I will conclude, because others want a chance to speak. The Labour Government will go for dynamic alignment. They will sign us up as a passive rule-taker at the behest of the EU, despite the British people voting in 2016 to take back control of their laws. I have absolutely no doubt that if the Labour Government get away with this surrender summit early next week, that is precisely what they will do. It is therefore very important that we alert the British people, and the media that serve them, to exactly what Labour is up to, in an attempt to expose the situation and prevent it getting any worse. In summary, we will not allow our obsessively Europhile Prime Minister—in this context, our “white flag” man—to surrender our right to govern ourselves. This surrender to the EU has absolutely no democratic mandate, and we will oppose it tooth and nail. If necessary, we will eventually overturn it. Remember what the booklet in the referendum said: “This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.” The British people decided to take back control of their own laws. It is not for Labour to give them away.
It has not ended yet. Sir Bill is a sprightly 83, and he has been texting some of us throughout the debate. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that Sir Bill’s great success was the sovereignty clause, which finally said, after years of campaigning, that this Parliament is sovereign? That is on the statute book because of Bill.
rose—
Is there a red line on dynamic alignment—yes or no?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) for securing this important debate. I wish to speak about the effect on the residents of South West Hertfordshire. In the five and half years I have been a Member of Parliament, I have been distressed by how many residents come to me about this issue. A problem that starts as a trickle very quickly has a massive impact on their life. Flooding now has real, lived effects; it is not just a remote risk. Residents face home damage, traffic disruption, economic loss and, increasingly, mental health impacts. Rickmansworth lies at the confluence of three rivers: the Colne, the Chess and the Gade. It has a historic canal network, including the Grand Union and Batchworth canals, and surrounding waterways. In recent years, we have increasingly seen the overtopping of canals and a fast-rising water table during heavy rainfall. Problem hotspots include Church Street, the aquadrome and Ebury Road in Rickmansworth. Surface water flooding is worsened by urban development, inadequate historical infrastructure and bad planning. Unfortunately, we do not have an up-to-date local plan, so design guidance is not yet being adhered to by developers, because there is no requirement to do so. Planning must begin with flood resilience. Bad planning does not just affect us; some of the structures we build today will last for decades, if not hundreds of years. If we get it wrong now, it is very difficult to retrofit and correct with a developer, who typically makes a profit and leaves.
I agree 100%. I commend my parish councillors, the volunteer flood wardens and the residents of Croxley Green, Rickmansworth and Batchworth who step up during these difficult times. Flooding is now a structural challenge, not an anomaly. We must act now by embedding resilience in planning, forcing developer responsibilities and investing in essential infrastructure.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. This new clause was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) in an effort to raise a subject that affects many of her residents. She says that dangerous delivery drivers have become an increasingly common sight on the roads of Reigate, Banstead and Redhill. She has spoken with constituents who have reported near misses, actual collisions and a growing sense that people and property are being put at risk by these individuals, who simply do not have the skills to operate their vehicles safely. My hon. Friend believes that the new clause would both address this problem and protect the rights of regular moped users. In a world with an increasing number of home delivery transactions being undertaken, there are more and more delivery drivers on our streets. Many are not properly qualified to drive, but they are working potentially long shifts, having to find addresses in areas that are alien to them. The fact that they are doing so using a licence that exists to allow people to learn to drive poses real challenges for road safety. The new clause would amend section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002, which grants police powers to seize vehicles being used in a manner that causes “alarm, distress, or annoyance”. Proposed new subsection (3A) would deem mopeds being used for commercial purposes by riders with only provisional licences as likely to fall into that category, effectively lowering the threshold for police action in such cases. The use of mopeds for delivery services—for example, food and parcel deliveries—has expanded rapidly. However, a concerning number of riders continue to operate on provisional licences, often without any training or supervision, putting both the riders and the public at risk. By allowing the police to treat such behaviour as likely to cause alarm or distress, the new clause would ensure faster and more decisive action to remove unsafe vehicles from our roads. It would allow police to actively deal with individuals on mopeds abusing the lack of legislation. If the Minister does not support the new clause, I would welcome her views on how the issue can be tackled.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 47 National statutory inquiry into grooming gangs “(1) The Secretary of State must, within 3 months of the passing of this Act, set up a statutory inquiry into grooming gangs. (2) An inquiry established under subsection (1) must seek to— (a) identify common patterns of behaviour and offending between grooming gangs; (b) identify the type, extent and volume of crimes committed by grooming gangs; (c) identify the number of victims of crimes committed by grooming gangs; (d) identify the ethnicity of members of grooming gangs; (e) identify any failings, by action, omission or deliberate suppression, by— (i) police, (ii) local authorities, (iii) prosecutors, (iv) charities, (v) political parties, (vi) local and national government, (vii) healthcare providers and health services, or (viii) other agencies or bodies, in the committal of crimes by grooming (f) identify such national safeguarding actions as may be required to minimise the risk of further such offending occurring in future; (g) identify good practice in protecting children. (3) The inquiry may do anything it considers is calculated to facilitate, or is incidental or conducive to, the carrying out of its functions and the achievement of the requirements of subsection (2). (4) An inquiry established under this section must publish a report within two years of the launch of the inquiry. (5) For the purposes of this section— ‘gang’ means a group of at least three adults whose purpose or intention is to commit a sexual offence against the same victim or group of victims; ‘grooming’ means— (a) activity carried out with the primary intention of committing sexual offences against the victim; (b) activity that is carried out, or predominantly carried out, in person; (c) activity that includes the provision of illicit substances and/or alcohol either as part of the grooming or concurrent with the commission of the sexual offence.” —(Matt Vickers.) This new clause would set up a national statutory inquiry into grooming gangs. Brought up, and read the First time. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. New clause 50 would amend the Children Act 1989 by inserting a new section 2A to suspend parental responsibility for any individual convicted of serious sexual offences involving or relating to children. It is not in a child’s best interests for a person who has committed a serious sexual offence against a child to retain any legal rights over them, whether that child was the direct victim or not. The new clause would put child safety above all else, by ensuring that there is no ambiguity about the offender’s legal standing as a parent. Although the courts do have the power to strip parental responsibility when it is in the best interest of a child, families and former partners of perpetrators are currently required to instigate and fund proceedings to secure these orders to protect their children. The costs for these types of proceedings can run into tens of thousands of pounds. However, under the new rule, the automatic suspension would make proceedings simpler. The new clause would send a powerful message that those who commit serious sexual offences against children forfeit the rights of parenthood. Parenthood comes with responsibilities, chief among them being the duty to protect. Breaching that duty in the most serious and damaging way should have equally serious consequences under the law. There is wide public and cross-party support for measures that prioritise the protection of children over the rights of offenders. The new clause would ensure that the law reflected both moral clarity and practical necessity, putting children first and ensuring that legal rights are not abused by convicted predators. It would introduce a long overdue legal safeguard for vulnerable children by ensuring that no individual convicted of a serious child sex offence continued to exercise legal power as a parent while in prison, unless and until a court independently decided that it was safe and appropriate for them to do so. It would strengthen the child protection framework and put survivors’ welfare and dignity at the centre of family law.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause seeks to amend the Sentencing Act 2020 to ensure that the starting point for sentencing anyone convicted of the murder of a child is a whole life order. Specifically, it would amend schedule 21 to insert the murder of a child as a stand-alone aggravating factor warranting the highest penalty available under the law. The murder of a child is one of the most heinous and incomprehensible crimes in our society. It represents a total breach of the duty of care and protection that adults owe to children, the most vulnerable members of our communities. Unlike many other forms of homicide, the murder of a child is rarely spontaneous and often involves an abuse of trust, authority or access. These are crimes that permanently scar the moral fabric of society and must be treated with the utmost severity in our justice system. Under the current law, a whole life order for child murder is applied only in cases involving additional aggravating factors, such as abduction, sexual abuse or premeditated sadism. This creates an unjust distinction that can result in disparities in sentencing. A child’s life is not made more or less valuable by the specific nature of the crime. The act of taking a child’s life should, in itself, warrant the strongest possible sentence. The new clause would eliminate ambiguity and bring clarity and consistency to sentencing practice, ensuring that the most severe punishment is applied to the most serious offence. By making the starting point for child murder a whole life order, Parliament would send a powerful and unambiguous message that the deliberate killing of a child will never be met with any leniency. That would not only strengthen public confidence in the justice system, but serve as a deterrent to those who might commit such unforgivable acts. It would reinforce the principle that the protection of children is paramount, and that their murder is an attack on the very core of civilised society. The new clause would recognise the unique horror of child murder and ensure that our sentencing laws reflect that reality. By adopting the measure, we would show victims’ families that their suffering is acknowledged, and uphold the principle that the life of every child must be fiercely protected in both law and practice.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause would introduce a new aggravating factor into sentencing decisions for child sexual abuse offences under the Sentencing Act 2020. It would establish that where an individual has financially profited, directly or indirectly, from the exploitation or abuse of a child, that financial gain must be treated as a serious aggravating factor. It would also require the court to state that publicly when passing sentence.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The Opposition believe that the Sexual Offences Act 2003 falls short in not addressing sexual relationships between first cousins. New clause 57 would abolish this loophole by explicitly prohibiting sexual relationships between first cousins, bringing these relations in line with prohibitions on other familial relationships. New evidence published by the BBC in February 2025, drawn from new data from the Born in Bradford study conducted by researchers at Bradford University, highlights the key health and social issues caused by consanguineous marriage between first cousins, which new clause 57 seeks to address. A child of first cousins is twice as likely to inherit a recessive health disorder such as cystic fibrosis or sickle cell disease. Indeed, in the private Member’s Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), data was presented that showed the higher risk of birth defects, increased infant mortality rates and more heart, brain and kidney problems due to recessive disorders among children born to cousin parents. The medical evidence shows that health conditions and genetic disorders are compounded by cousin marriage, particularly when the practice persists through generations in a family or wider community. There may potentially be thousands of such marriages each year. Some may argue that this is a minor issue, but if it involves an act that we regard as deeply damaging to the potential health of a child, it cannot be ignored. To do so would be deeply irresponsible.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. This new clause would empower the Secretary of State to require revisions to any code of practice, policy, guidance or strategic document issued by the College of Policing or the National Police Chiefs’ Council. It would ensure that policing standards and practices remain aligned with the Government’s democratically accountable vision for public safety and law enforcement. The College of Policing and the NPCC play critical roles in setting the professional standards and operational frameworks that govern police conduct across England and Wales. However, those bodies are not directly accountable to the public. The new clause would ensure that, when necessary—particularly in response to changing threats, public concerns or parliamentary direction—the Secretary of State has the power to intervene and ensure that the frameworks reflect the national interest and the expectations of the British people. Policing in the UK rightly enjoys operational independence, but that is not the same as independence from oversight. When public confidence in policing is strained, whether due to failings in standards, inconsistency in approach or a lack of responsiveness to major public concerns, the Government must be able to act. The new clause would provide a clear, proportionate mechanism for ministerial oversight of the non-statutory frameworks that underpin much of modern policing policy. From rising levels of serious violence to emerging threats such as online abuse or disruptive protests, the nature of crime and disorder is changing rapidly. The Government must be able to ensure that national policing guidance adapts accordingly. Whether it is guidance on stop and search, digital investigation, safeguarding or public order, it is vital that these documents are kept under review and reflect current priorities. The new clause would enable timely updates when needed, without undermining police independence in operational decisions. With the sentencing guidelines legislation, we have seen the need for the Government to intervene to prevent unhelpful practices that fly in the face of equality, as well as public opinion. The shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), has rightly highlighted that everyone must be treated equally before the law. Given the important role that these bodies play, we welcome the added accountability that would come from allowing Ministers to intervene if necessary. Would the Minister not be grateful for the ability to take action if such a situation were to arise? The new clause would not erode police independence; it would reinforce public accountability. It would ensure that when Parliament or the Secretary of State identifies a critical issue in how police standards are set or enforced, they have the tools to respond. In doing so, it would help maintain confidence in the police, strengthen the integrity of the policing profession and ensure that national guidance reflects the values and priorities of the society it serves.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 59 would abolish non-crime hate incidents as a distinct form of police record. Police authorities would no longer be permitted to report, record or investigate such incidents unless specific exceptions apply. This marks a significant departure from previous practice, where incidents not amounting to criminal conduct could still be logged if perceived as motivated by hostility related to protected characteristics. The new clause would establish that the processing of relevant data by police authorities is unlawful under key UK data protection laws. “Relevant data” is defined as personal data relating to a person’s conduct that is unlikely to constitute criminal conduct but has been perceived by someone else as motivated by hostility or prejudice. There is an exception to allow for relevant data to be processed where it is required for an ongoing criminal investigation or prosecution. Other forms of retention would have to meet stringent conditions. A police officer of the rank of inspector or above could authorise the retention of relevant data where they believe it is likely to assist materially in preventing or detecting future criminal conduct. By abolishing the category of non-crime hate incidents, the new clause would address widespread concerns about the chilling effect such records can have on free speech. Under the previous system, individuals could be recorded by the police simply for expressing controversial or unpopular opinions, even when no law had been broken. The new clause would ensure that lawful speech is no longer subject to disproportionate scrutiny or police record. Nationally there are 13,200 non-crime hate incidents recorded per annum, according to Policy Exchange, which reasonably concludes that over 60,000 police hours each year are spent on NCHIs. Given the challenges facing the police, it is essential that they are able to focus on what matters most: tackling crime.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause seeks to amend section 4A(1)(a) and (b) of the Public Order Act 1986 by removing the word “insulting”. Its effect would be to raise the threshold for the offence of intentional harassment, alarm or distress, ensuring that only behaviour that is threatening or abusive is captured under that offence. Freedom of expression is a cornerstone of British democracy. Although it is vital to protect people from genuinely threatening or abusive behaviour, the inclusion of the term “insulting” in criminal legislation casts too wide a net. Insults, however unpleasant, are part of everyday life and public discourse; they should not, on their own, lead to criminal charges. The new clause strikes a better balance between protecting individuals and upholding free speech. The word “insulting” is vague, subjective and open to interpretation: what one person finds insulting, another may see as fair comment or robust criticism. Laws should be clear and proportionate. Removing the term provides greater legal certainty and reduces the risk of overreach in public order policing, especially in the context of protests, political debate or challenging conversations in public spaces. The Government have already recognised such concerns. The word “insulting” was removed from section 5 of the 1986 Act by the Crime and Courts Act 2013, following widespread concern about its chilling effect on speech. The new clause would simply extend that same principle to section 4A, which relates to intentional conduct. If “insulting” is not sufficient for non-intentional offences, it should not justify criminal liability when intent is alleged either. The new clause would help to restore public confidence in the fairness and clarity of our public order laws. It would ensure that only serious conduct was subject to criminal sanction, while reaffirming the UK’s commitment to open, democratic debate—even when it is uncomfortable or challenging. Removing the word “insulting” from section 4A is a proportionate and necessary step to safeguard civil liberties without compromising public safety.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. Littering from vehicles remains one of the most persistent and visible forms of environmental degradation on UK roads. Despite existing fines, enforcement has been inconsistent and existing penalties have proven insufficient to deter such irresponsible behaviour. By introducing the possibility of penalty points on the driving licence, this measure would add a meaningful consequence that better reflects the seriousness of the offence and its impact on the environment and local communities. The addition of driving licence points introduces a real deterrent by linking antisocial environmental behaviour directly to a person’s ability to drive. Just as mobile phone use when driving or dangerous driving habits result in points, so too should reckless littering from vehicles. That aligns with the principle that the privilege of driving comes with broader responsibilities, including respect for public spaces and the environment. Roadside litter is not just unsightly; it also poses real risks to wildlife, blocks drainage systems and requires expensive clean-up operations, costing local authorities tens of millions of pounds annually. A stronger deterrent, such as penalty points, would help reduce the burden on taxpayers and protect the UK’s countryside, towns and roadsides. Similar approaches have been adopted internationally with success. For example, jurisdictions in Australia and parts of the United States have linked littering from vehicles to driving licence consequences, resulting in measurable behavioural changes. The UK should not lag behind in taking bold, effective steps to tackle that form of pollution and to protect our environment and wildlife. A study by National Highways revealed that 65% of drivers who admit to littering have thrown food and drink packaging from their vehicles. Additionally, the road safety charity, IAM RoadSmart, found that nearly 40% of motorcyclists had experienced car drivers or passengers throwing litter from windows while overtaking. The scale of the problem is huge. Roadside litter poses risk to wildlife, with discarded waste contributing to the deaths of millions of animals annually in the UK. Furthermore, the cost of clearing litter from roads is substantial. For example, between April 2020 and March 2022, 45,000 bags of rubbish weighing 451 tonnes were collected from the M6 motorway alone. National Highways estimates that more than 150,000 sacks of litter are collected by contractors every year, averaging 83 bags per mile of motorway annually. In short, introducing penalty points for littering from a vehicle would send a clear message that such behaviour is unacceptable and will carry real consequences. It would also reinforce the Government’s wider commitment to tackling environmental offences, empowering enforcement agencies and restoring pride in our public places.
I thank the Minister for her comments and welcome the commitment to look at the issue, but I will press the new clause. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time. The new clause would ensure that taxpayers’ money was not used to support organisations or groups that promote or condone criminal activity or seek to undermine the democratic fabric of the United Kingdom through violence or illegality. It is a fundamental principle that public funds—taxpayers’ money—should serve the public good, not be channelled directly or indirectly towards those whose actions threaten public safety, the rule of law or constitutional order. By setting clear criteria for eligibility, the clause would protect public trust in Government spending and send a strong signal that support for criminality or violent extremism will not be tolerated or subsidised by the state. It also provides a consistent basis for denying or withdrawing funds from groups whose conduct falls outside the bounds of lawful democratic engagement. Public funds must be allocated with care, transparency and accountability. It is vital that taxpayer money is not inadvertently used to support organisations that undermine the very laws, institutions and democratic values that uphold the UK’s civil society. The new clause ensures that public funds are directed to organisations that act in good faith and within the law, thereby maintaining public confidence in Government funding mechanisms. The UK rightly protects the right to lawful protest and freedom of expression. However, there is a critical distinction between legitimate democratic dissent and organisations that support criminal conduct or use violence to pursue political or ideological goals. The new clause draws that line clearly. Public money should never subsidise those who break the law or undermine democratic institutions through illegal means. The recent controversy surrounding the Irish rap group Kneecap underscores the importance of the new clause. The group has faced criticism for lyrics and public statements that appear to glorify violence and support proscribed terrorist organisations. For instance, during performances, a band member allegedly stated that “the only good Tory is a dead Tory” and suggested that people should kill their local MP. He also expressed support for groups banned in the UK. Those actions have prompted investigations by British counter-terrorism police and raised concerns about the potential misuse of public funds in supporting such entities. By implementing the new clause, we can prevent money from being allocated to organisations that promote or condone criminal conduct, ensuring that funding supports lawful and constructive contributions to society.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause addresses a crucial gap in the current police inspection framework. Over the years, tragic incidents have demonstrated the potential consequences of failures in firearms licensing. Public confidence in the licensing process hinges on the assurance that robust, consistent and professional standards are being applied across all police forces. While some forces operate highly effective systems, others have been found lacking, sometimes with devastating outcomes, yet at present there is no statutory requirement for HM inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services to review firearms licensing performance as part of its routine police efficiency, effectiveness and legitimacy inspections. The clause would put that right by ensuring that inspection of firearms licensing departments becomes a core part of how we assess the overall efficiency and effectiveness of police forces. By embedding that into the statutory inspection framework, we send a clear signal that public safety and accountability in firearms licensing is not optional, but essential. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) for his dedicated service as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on shooting and conservation. Throughout his tenure, Sir Geoffrey has been a steadfast advocate of responsible shooting practices and the preservation of our countryside. His efforts have contributed significantly to the ongoing discourse on firearms licensing and the importance of effective oversight in that area. His work underscores the need for continuous evaluation and improvement of our systems to ensure public safety and trust. Importantly, the clause does not impose undue burden on our forces. It simply makes explicit what many already expect to be standard practice: that the licensing of deadly weapons is subject to the same scrutiny and performance benchmarks as other areas of policing. It is a measured, reasonable and necessary step towards a safer, more consistent and more transparent firearms licensing regime across England and Wales.
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate with you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the joint sponsors, the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) and the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), on obtaining this very important debate, which highlights the important role that churches play in our local communities. I will give a few examples of that. Last week, we marked the 80th anniversary of VE Day. Yes, there was a grand national service across the road in Westminster Abbey, but there were civic services up and down the country to mark the occasion. I attended one that had been arranged by the Mayor of North East Lincolnshire. He is a Catholic, so we attended the Catholic church last Thursday evening. Amazingly enough, while we were there, we heard of the election of the new Pope. Just as an aside, I would say that perhaps the Catholic Church has something to teach the Church of England in the speed with which it appoints its head. We desperately need a head of the Church of England, and that it takes a year to come up with a candidate is staggering. I am sure the hon. Member for Battersea has relayed that point already, but I emphasise it again. VE Day showed the importance of church buildings and the role of the Church within our national and civic life. On Sunday, it was National Fishing Remembrance Day. Part of my constituency has a ward in Grimsby, which is noted for fish. Sadly, the deep sea fishing industry is no more, but many people in the area worked as trawlermen or were connected with the industry. It is still vital to the area. At the service I attended, Canon Mullins from Grimsby Minster drew links between VE Day and the fishing industry. The great west window in Grimsby Minster depicts St Peter and the fishermen going out into the Sea of Galilee. In 1943, two bombs landed on the minster, or St James’ church as it was then, shattering every window in the church. The original drawings still existed, so many of the windows were recreated, but the new west window paid tribute to the fishing industry. Any country church or churchyard tells the story of the local community. This weekend was an open weekend for many churches in Lincolnshire, and on Saturday, I visited St Mary’s in Broughton, a village close to Scunthorpe. I heard there from a local historian who lives across the road from the church. He was extremely knowledgeable about the history of virtually every brick in the building. He pointed out to me that it was one of four churches in Lincolnshire to predate the Norman conquest, and guided me to the evidence for that. I was a bit disturbed by that because the church that I attend regularly in Scartho in Grimsby, St Giles and St Matthews, has what is claimed to be an Anglo-Saxon tower dating to 1042. I pointed that out to the historian and he said, “Oh no, it must be at least 50 years later than that”, but nevertheless, it points to the long history of the stories that churches tell of their local communities. One of those other four churches in Lincolnshire that was referred to as pre-dating the conquest is St Peter’s—
My apologies, Sir Jeremy. In that case, I will conclude by saying that our churches and cathedrals play such an important part in our local communities. The National Churches Trust is conducting a survey at this time, which I urge Members to take part in to refer to the importance of the churches in their local communities.
T2. Will the Minister confirm the state of the current negotiations over the future of Gibraltar, including whether they will be concluded before the EU-UK reset, and will he confirm that the views and interests of the Gibraltarian people will be paramount?
How long will the UK walk by on the other side as Palestinian children bleed and starve to death? Is it not time that this Government, and indeed His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, show that they are supportive of Israel, but that that support does not necessarily mean they are supportive of a particular Government—in this case, the racist, brutal regime of Netanyahu?
Some 5,500 defined-benefit schemes have £1.6 trillion-worth of assets. The trouble is that the regulatory environment is skewed toward buying an insurance policy at the end of that journey. In order to change the way in which trustees and fund managers invest, the Minister has to change the end state. What discussions has he had with the Pensions Regulator and the Association of British Insurers about changing that particular game?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I support giving consumers choice and making it easier to install electric car charging points. This will be a massive help for people in flats—if they want to make the switch to an EV and cannot charge their vehicle at home, the more public charging points there are, the better—but we need to think about it carefully. My constituents are fed up with multiple utility companies digging up the roads willy-nilly—sometimes, the same stretch of road. There does not seem to be any logic behind where roadworks will be, and multiple roadworks happen at the same time. We need to issue guidance. If utility companies, councils and other authorities are going to install loads of charging points, it needs to be done in a logical way. What work are the Government doing with all the different companies and operators in this space? We do not want to see consumers turning up to different charge points that all have different connectors. We need to make this as easy as possible for the consumer, no matter what car they drive. I reiterate that we cannot just dig up roads willy-nilly. What discussions are the Government having with the companies in this space to make it as easy as possible for consumers to access charge points?
I have a question to gain clarity for local authorities. Will the Minister request local authorities to submit how much they spend on planning currently? If the increase in fees is to go into additional planning service, I would not want to see local authorities moving money out of their planning services now, and then charging additional fees so that the services still had the same budget. I hope I have explained that point sufficiently. Will he ask local authorities to submit how much they spend on planning now, to ensure that the additional fees that they will be able to charge go into additional service?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I have a few questions for the Minister. I am pleased to see this clause. When I was leader of Broxbourne council, we changed the council constitution to do exactly what the Government are trying to do here. I want to know how many local authorities will be affected, because I know that many of them already have mandatory training for planning committees in their constitution. What I have not seen in the Bill is how often council officers will be required to carry out the training—will it be once per term of office, which means once every four years, or annually? I cannot seem to find any detail on when elected councillors will be required to do the training. I would like the Minister to comment on what he envisages as a workable interval. Obviously the training has to be timely, because there are always changes to the national planning policy framework and local plans, but not too exhaustive, so that councils can still make planning decisions. The Minister speaks about speeding up planning decisions. I would not want councils to fall into the trap of not having enough people with the right certificate, and the right training at the right time, to carry on their quasi-judicial function of planning. I should be grateful for the Minister’s comments.
Does the Minister recognise the other side of that coin? There are examples, and I can give him some from my local authority, of where officers recommend a planning application for approval, the committee turns it down, it goes to appeal and the planning inspector has agreed with the committee. It is not one size fits all; there are two sides to the argument and there will be examples of both. This measure puts a lot of trust in, and gives even more power to, planning officers.