Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
As you are aware, Mr Speaker, the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office is at a funeral today and is therefore unable to attend this session, so he has asked me to reply on his behalf.
This Government are determined to deliver a closer relationship with the EU. As part of that, we are negotiating a bold SPS agreement, the potential benefits of which are huge: reducing unnecessary checks at the border, cutting costs for businesses of around £200 per shipment and, in the long run, boosting the UK economy by around £5 billion a year. We have started negotiations and hope to have them concluded by early 2027. This is just one example of this Government filling in the holes left by the Conservatives.
Mr Carmichael
I am sure we all understand the reasons for the Paymaster General’s absence today, although I am less clear on his reasons for being absent from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee next Tuesday; he has declined our invitation to attend. A bold deal is indeed something to be wished for, but only if it does not bring with it lots of unintended consequences for the farmers, food producers, chemical companies and others whose work will be impacted by it. If Ministers will not engage with the Committee, will the Minister give me some assurance that there will at least be engagement with those vital industry interests?
Chris Ward
I understand that the Minister for the Cabinet Office has offered to meet directly with the right hon. Gentleman, the Chair of the Committee, on this—he will get back to the Committee. We will obviously be engaging on this matter and showing scrutiny across Parliament as much as possible. This is an incredibly important part of the deal. As I say, the benefits of the agreement are potentially very important; it will be of real benefit to farmers and other communities.
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
The Government’s social value model provides opportunities to reward suppliers that recognise a trade union or other forms of worker representation. We are looking at further reforms to procurement to ensure that the rules do everything possible to boost jobs and skills and reward good work. I am working with trade unions, businesses and other organisations on this matter.
Lorraine Beavers
I refer to my entry on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Bidfood, which has public contracts with the Army, prisons and schools across the UK, has torn up a long-standing recognition deal with GMB and Unite, leaving workers open to fire and rehire. Does the Minister agree that public contracts should go only to businesses that recognise and work constructively with trade unions?
Chris Ward
I personally think all businesses should recognise and work with trade unions. Our social value model, which we are reforming and will shortly strengthen, allows contracting authorities to consider the economic and social impact and reputation of bidders. Of course, the Employment Rights Bill—the biggest upgrade in workers’ rights in a generation—will end the scandal of fire and rehire.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
On determining awards for public contracts, what steps are being taken to prioritise UK firms in public procurement, especially for the provision of vital equipment, like personal protective equipment, in our NHS?
Chris Ward
We are going to bring forward plans, hopefully in the next Session, to reform procurement rules. A big part of that, as the Chancellor has said many times, is to help people to buy British more, and to support local jobs and economies around the country. Despite all their other failings, the previous Government did make some progress on this matter through the Procurement Act 2023, and we will build on that in the next Session.
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
Me again—it is not going to be all me, don’t worry!
I am delighted to say that we have held several rounds of negotiations with the EU about a youth experience scheme, which will be balanced, capped, time-limited and subject to a visa requirement, and will deliver huge benefits to young people. I have to say, one tragedy of the deal negotiated by the previous Government is that it reduced and narrowed opportunities for young people. This Government will change that.
Ben Coleman
The Chancellor said recently that an “ambitious” youth experience scheme with the EU would be good for growth and good for business. The Centre for European Reform has estimated that such an agreement could add nearly 0.5% to UK GDP over 10 years. Can the Minister reassure my constituents that the Government will maximise all the opportunities on offer for our young people from all backgrounds to work, study, do apprenticeships and volunteer in European Union countries in order to boost our economy and to rebuild cultural links after the damage of the Conservative party’s botched Brexit?
Chris Ward
Yes, I can. This agreement will make a real difference to jobs, maximising opportunities for young people and for cultural exchange. That is why we are working so hard on it, and it is why we are also working on an associate relationship with the Erasmus+ scheme. The exact parameters of that relationship are, of course, part of the negotiations, but we will update the House on it shortly.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
In October, more than 200 UK and EU cultural and creative organisations issued a joint statement calling for the UK to rejoin Creative Europe and take part in its proposed successor, AgoraEU, giving lots of young people access to grants and cultural exchanges. What assessment have the Government made of rejoining Creative Europe?
Chris Ward
As I said, one of the tragedies of the deal the last Government did was that it excluded opportunities for cultural exchange, particularly for young people. We are going to change that—it is part of the negotiations. I will ask my colleague the Minister for the Cabinet Office to come back to the hon. Lady on her specific point on the cultural bit, but in general, our aim is to get as close as we can to that agreement as quickly as we can.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Josh Simons)
Mr Speaker—[Hon. Members: “Bring back Chris.”] Sorry to disappoint!
Over the past few months, I have begun to stand up a high-calibre team, working at pace to develop proposals for a free new digital credential for all UK citizens. This credential will be inclusive, secure and useful, learning from the best schemes around the world, and in the new year we will invite the public to have their say through a major public consultation. I will be travelling up and down the country, engaging in new ways as we develop this vital new public good for our country.
Mr Perkins
Britain has a proud track record of providing refuge for people fleeing persecution and war, but when tens of thousands of people are travelling across many safe countries to get here, it is clear that the criminal gangs’ sales pitch—that Britain is an easy place to find illegal work—is working. Can my hon. Friend tell me how digital ID will help us smash those criminal gangs and tackle the scourge of illegal work?
Josh Simons
Around the world and across Europe, countries use digital checks to evaluate whether someone has a legal right to work, but we do not. While we have brilliant digital verification tools, millions of checks use unreliable paper-based systems based on passports, birth certificates and other forms of evidence. This leaves too much room for fraud and, crucially, creates the perception that our country has weaker regimes for combating illegal working. Digitising checks will enable digital auditing of employers and more enforcement, bringing our illegal working regime in line with international peers and helping to deliver on one of our top priorities: reducing illegal migration.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
In October, the Prime Minister called a Downing Street press conference rather than come to this House so that he could tell the nation that digital ID will not be mandatory; it is just that people will not be able to get a job without one. What else will they not be able to do without this apparently voluntary digital ID? If people will not be allowed to get a job without digital ID, can the Minister confirm that they will also be unable to receive any benefits without it?
Josh Simons
Building a new digital credential for UK systems is a major public good that we need to do carefully and take our time over. That is why, as I said, we will launch a major public consultation in the new year. That consultation will include a whole series of questions about the use cases for digital ID. I look forward to working with the shadow Minister and Members across this House on what the new digital credential should do for our citizens.
Mike Wood
The Minister’s answer makes it clear that this announcement was not a policy—it was a late party conference stunt. The Government obviously have not thought it through; it is clear that the Prime Minister lacks the backbone to push back against officials who have taken this awful idea off the shelf once again. The truth is that this is a £1.8 billion solution in search of a problem. The Minister talks about illegal migration, but there is already a legal responsibility to carry out these checks, and the Home Office offers a reliable service. Can he tell us how many people who have passed the Home Office right-to-work check are later found to not have the right to work?
Josh Simons
To be very clear about right-to-work checks: the current system is not fit for purpose. The United Kingdom is out of whack with international peers, and that creates the perception that we have a weak, illegal labour market regime. I am sure that the shadow Minister would not be against toughening up enforcement against illegal working. On the broader benefits of digital ID, in the future economy and state that we need to build, a free digital credential to which every citizen has access is a vital foundational public good for everything that we want our Government and our state to do in the 15 to 20 years ahead. I am proud that this Government are taking on the task of building it.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Dan Jarvis)
The decision to call in the planning application for the proposed Chinese embassy was made by the former Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), in line with the current policy on call-in. The decision is subject to a quasi-judicial process and independent from the rest of Government. No private assurances have been given to the Chinese Government regarding the embassy application.
Sir Edward Leigh
Will the prayers of long-dead medieval monks save us from this hideous mega-embassy, right next to the most totemic building in the United Kingdom, the Tower of London? On 14 January, the then Secretaries of State for the Home Office and the Foreign Office wrote a letter insisting that a condition be made that there should be a wall and public access to the Cistercian medieval monastery on the site. The Chinese, in their arrogant way, are ignoring that. Will the Government stand firm and insist on public access—which, by the way, would be a good way of stopping this awful project?
Dan Jarvis
I can say to the Father of the House that national security is the first duty of this Government, and has been a core priority throughout this process. We have considered the breadth of national security considerations and have publicly outlined the necessary security mitigations that we need in order to support an application. Should the planning decision be approved, the new embassy will replace the seven different sites that currently comprise China’s diplomatic estate.
Gregory Stafford
On Tuesday, my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) raised with the Foreign Secretary concerns expressed by the United States, Dutch, Swiss and Swedish Governments regarding the reported presence of data cables running beneath Royal Mint Court. I note that the Cabinet Office has since denied the reports to the press. Will the Minister now provide the clarity that his colleague at the Foreign Office could not, and give a clear yes or no answer to this House as to whether any such cables run beneath or in the vicinity of the site?
Dan Jarvis
I reiterate the point that the Government have considered the breadth of national security considerations. Both the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary have been clear about that. We work incredibly closely with our allies, particularly our Five Eyes partners, to ensure our collective national security.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
My constituents are concerned about the broader domestic security risk that China is currently posing, beyond the potential implications of its embassy planning application. Considering that Chinese state-subsidised bus manufacturers have gained a rising market share in the UK over the past few years, the Department for Transport and National Cyber Security Centre—
Mr Speaker
Order. As important as that is, I think the hon. Member’s point is way off the question, which is just about the Chinese embassy. I am sure he might catch my eye during topicals.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Dan Jarvis)
The Government published the resilience action plan in July to set out their strategic approach to improve the UK’s resilience to the full range of risks that we face. One of the actions we have taken is to conduct the largest ever pandemic exercise, which involved all regions and nations of the UK and thousands of participants.
Gideon Amos
From the first ever charts by Captain Cook to real-time digital mapping, the UK Hydrographic Office enables and keeps our Royal Navy safe at sea—operating quite literally under the radar. Will the Minister pay tribute to the hundreds of people in my constituency who work at the office, and will he support a cross-sector approach to energy cables, telecommunication cables and their security, bringing in the University of Plymouth, University Centre Somerset and the Hydrographic Office in my constituency?
Dan Jarvis
I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the important work of the UK Hydrographic Office and its vital contribution to the UK’s maritime security. The Cabinet Office plays a central role to cohere cross-Government efforts to secure the UK’s undersea infrastructure. Given the growing prominence of this issue, lead Departments are engaging with industry partners, and we will continue this inclusive approach as we support the Royal Navy to take a leading role to secure our undersea infrastructure.
Susan Murray
The Russian spy ship Yantar has been probing our infrastructure in the North sea. While doing so, its crew used high-powered lasers against an RAF plane monitoring their activity, threatening the lives of our pilots. What steps are the Government taking to secure our critical strategic infrastructure in the North sea and to ensure clear and serious consequences for Russia when it carries out aggressive and dangerous military activity off our coasts?
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Lady and the House will understand that I am limited in what I can say in my response, but I can assure her that Russia is a top national security priority for the Government, and UK law enforcement has recently secured a range of convictions in this area. I will have more to say about this later today.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
Considering that Chinese state-subsidised manufacturers have gained a rising market share in the UK over the past few years, that the Department for Transport and the National Cyber Security Centre have recently announced an investigation into kill switches in Chinese buses, and that the 10-year bus pipeline is expected imminently, will the Minister be raising our Government’s concerns about Chinese buses directly with the Chinese Government?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, not just for his question today, but for the important work that he has done in this particular area, in his constituency and across Scotland. I have listened carefully to what he has had to say this morning, and I would be happy to discuss it with him further.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Dan Jarvis)
Through the national security risk assessment, the Cabinet Office engages closely with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to continuously assess risks to the security and resilience of the food sector, as well as interdependencies between critical national infrastructure sectors. The Government have published the results of the first annual public survey on risk and resilience, and we provide resilience advice to the public on gov.uk.
Daniel Zeichner
The UK food system has shown remarkable resistance and flexibility in recent years, but seasoned industry voices are warning that we face new challenges from climatic risk and global instability. I appreciate that this is not just a food production issue, but a cross-Government issue. Can my right hon. Friend say a little more about measures to assess our readiness for these new challenges?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend speaks with great authority on these matters. The Cabinet Office is strongly supportive of the work that DEFRA is undertaking on food security, including mapping critical food supply chain assets to provide a greater understanding of potential vulnerabilities. We have also published the first ever chronic risks analysis to support decision making on longer-term cross-cutting and interconnected risks, such as climate and geopolitical change.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare) (Lab)
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Darren Jones)
After the damage wrought by successive Conservative Governments, we have successfully reset relations with the devolved Governments. Thanks to the hard work of Eluned Morgan, Anas Sarwar and our brilliant Welsh and Scottish Labour MPs, we have provided the largest uplifts to their budgets since devolution began.
Gerald Jones
I very much welcome the additional £505 million of investment that the Chancellor announced in last week’s Budget through the Barnett formula, building on the biggest settlement since devolution. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is another example of two Labour Governments working together for the benefit of the people of Wales, which is in complete contrast to how we were treated by the Conservatives?
Darren Jones
I agree that this is but one fantastic example of two Labour Governments working together to deliver for the people of Wales, in stark contrast with 14 years of Conservative Governments ignoring Welsh leaders in the Senedd. Just the other week, we announced two AI growth zones and the UK’s first small modular reactor in Anglesey, alongside historic investment in Welsh rail earlier this year. Through that, we are creating 11,000 new jobs across Wales. That is thanks, again, to two Labour Governments working together for the people of Wales.
Katrina Murray
Does the Minister agree that in my constituency, where people are struggling to access healthcare, it is vital that the SNP Government make effective use of the recent funding uplift to finally deliver the long-promised elective treatment and diagnostic centre in Cumbernauld, so that we can cut waiting lists and get my constituents the care they need?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend will know that it was Nicola Sturgeon, campaigning less than a month before the 2021 Scottish Parliament election, who promised a new elective treatment and diagnostic centre for the people of Cumbernauld. Four and a half years later, my hon. Friend’s constituents are still waiting, and the SNP Government have admitted that they will not be building it any time soon. This Labour Government have committed billions of pounds in extra funding for Scottish public services, but voters in Cumbernauld and across Scotland will rightly be asking the SNP Government the question, “Where’s the money gone, John?”
Irene Campbell
Does the Minister agree that with a Labour Government at Holyrood working with a UK Labour Government, constituencies like North Ayrshire and Arran could be much better off, because nuclear policy in Scotland could change and sites like Hunterston, which is currently blocked from investment by SNP policy, could be developed to support small modular reactors, bringing good jobs to the community and playing a key part in our energy supply?
Darren Jones
In England and Wales, Labour Governments are investing billions of pounds to deliver a new generation of clean, safe nuclear power. Hunterston, in my hon. Friend’s constituency, is just one of the communities in Scotland that could benefit from this investment, if it was not for the SNP Government’s outdated and ideological ban on nuclear power. Their student politics approach is holding Scotland back. Only a vote for Scottish Labour and Anas Sarwar next May will deliver the jobs and growth that nuclear power could offer Scotland.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Despite the Government’s assurances, they and the Scottish Government fail to communicate in many ways. As a Scottish MP, I am used to the frustrating process of being sent from one to another, with nobody taking responsibility. Access for All is a great example. The new ramp at Leuchars station, which serves St Andrews, could provide effective step-free access, but nobody knows when the new scheme is coming and how it will be administered in Scotland. Can I get an assurance that conversations are taking place about the scheme?
Darren Jones
I can confirm that Ministers across Government, including myself, the Prime Minister and others in relevant Departments, engage with our counterparts in the Scottish Government frequently, and we wish to unblock problems to improve delivery for the people of Scotland. If the hon. Lady writes to me on the particular issue that she raises, I will ensure that it is taken into account. Perhaps next time, SNP Members might come to oral questions to hear about the issues directly.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister is a gentleman—that is never in question. What steps will be taken to respect the principle of devolution and avoid legislating on behalf of the Northern Ireland Assembly without genuine necessity? I ask everyone to cast their minds back to 2019, when the Conservative Government brought in abortion legislation in Northern Ireland against the will of the Northern Ireland Assembly and against the will of the people of Northern Ireland. This House endorsed it. Mr Speaker, what can be done to ensure that that never, ever happens again?
Darren Jones
I think it comes from mutual respect and dialogue, which this Government have exhibited since we have come into office. That is in stark contrast to the relationship over the previous 14 years. The Northern Ireland Secretary and I, alongside the Prime Minister, engage with the Deputy First Minister and the First Minister on these issues routinely, and we will continue to try to provide the best answers for the people of Northern Ireland.
Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Darren Jones)
Since coming to office, the Government have secured a new strategic partnership with the EU to deliver on jobs, bills and borders. We are repairing the damage inflicted by the Conservatives’ botched Brexit deal, which left food businesses paying £200 on paperwork for every single consignment shipped in from the EU. We have made significant progress since our historic May summit, including negotiations on a food and drink deal, which will slash red tape for businesses and bring down prices for consumers.
Alex Brewer
Given that Brexit has left a £90 billion hole in the UK’s tax revenues and that small business owners in my constituency of North East Hampshire are telling me that the last two Budgets have been “catastrophic” for them, why are the Government not pursuing a bespoke UK-EU customs union to cut red tape, boost economic growth and support British businesses?
Darren Jones
The Prime Minister was very clear in the House yesterday that we will be honouring our manifesto commitments on a single market and a customs union—we will not be rejoining those institutions. However, there is a great deal of work that can be done between the botched deal we inherited from the Conservatives—from their acrimonious relationship, when Britain and the European Union refused to talk to each other in the interests of either of them—and the new relationship that the Prime Minister has built with his counterparts in Europe to deliver for the people of the United Kingdom.
Andrew Cooper
Recent efforts to secure UK participation in the EU’s Security Action for Europe initiative, which aims to strengthen defence capacity across the continent in response to escalating Russian threats, appear to have come to an end without agreement. While it is right that the UK only enters agreements that clearly support our national interest and represent value for money, we must continue to play a leading role in European security. Will the Minister outline how the Government intend to build momentum for renewed UK-EU co-operation in this area?
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for his important question. The United Kingdom remains committed to our role in European security in the face of rising threats. As the House will know, the Prime Minister has led the coalition of the willing to combat Vladimir Putin’s aggression in Ukraine and has worked tirelessly to strengthen our relationships with our allies, including across Europe. We are working quickly with the EU to implement our ambitious security and defence partnership, and have already stepped up our co-operation on key issues such as tackling hybrid threats and our collective support to Ukraine.
Dr Pinkerton
On “The News Agents” podcast yesterday evening, the Deputy Prime Minister, when asked about a UK-EU customs arrangement, said
“that journey of travel…is self-evident”.
Given that the botched Brexit deal is costing the UK Exchequer £90 billion a year, can I ask what that self-evident journey means for the Government’s own red lines? Will the Government take the opportunity to take a giant leap on that journey by supporting my ten-minute rule Bill next Tuesday?
Darren Jones
I have to confess that I have not listened to “The News Agents” podcast that the hon. Member refers to, but I know you will be pleased to hear, Mr Speaker, that what is self-evident is what is said in this House, not on podcasts. The Prime Minister was very clear yesterday on the position the Government hold in relation to a single market and a customs union, while also improving our trading and security relationships, which is what we will continue to deliver on.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
The agreement in May included the restoration of the UK’s country-specific steel quota, but in October we saw new steel protection measures from the EU. Do the Government expect the article 28 GATT––general agreement on tariffs and trade—process to be honoured for those quotas, and will trade measures be set out prior to the steel strategy?
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. As he will understand, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office is in discussions with counterparts in the European Union about the changing global landscape for steel. This Government are very clear that we should protect British steel and our capabilities to produce steel in the UK, while supporting exports and making sure that British steel is not undercut by cheap global imports from around the world.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I am sure people will be pleased to hear that the Labour party is going to honour some of its manifesto commitments.
Last week, it was announced that the Government’s attempt to join the new EU defence fund had failed. This is a major setback for our relationship with the EU, and it is a major embarrassment for the Government. Since that time, no Minister has come to the House to explain what on earth has gone so horribly wrong, so perhaps the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster can tell us: what has gone so horribly wrong?
Darren Jones
First, regardless of the negotiation on SAFE, our collaboration with European partners is stronger than ever on defence and defence procurement. In relation to SAFE in particular, about which the hon. Member asked, this was always going to be a negotiation between the EU and the UK, and the UK Government rightly have to consider value for money considerations in return for how much access British industry has to the contracts being negotiated in Europe. Irrespective of the position on SAFE, I can confirm to the House that UK companies will still be able to take part in European procurement for defence equipment, with an up to 35% allowance for British components in those manufactured goods.
Alex Burghart
I admire the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster’s chutzpah in answering. He pretends that this was in some way not a defeat, but a victory—many more such victories, and we are lost.
The House will remember that in May, No. 10 trumpeted a new agreement with the EU, which gave the EU privileged access to our fishing waters for 12 years—12 years—to
“pave the way for the UK defence industry to participate in the EU’s proposed new…defence fund”.
Now that the EU has killed off that deal with what the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster rightly describes as an unreasonable demand for £5 billion, are we going to get our fish back?
Darren Jones
The hon. Member will know that the agreement with the European Union was not just on one particular issue; it was a package of improvements in the relationship between the UK and the EU. He might want to welcome the agreement on food and drink regulation reforms, so we can get prices down on the shelves in British supermarkets, after they went through the roof under the last Conservative Administration.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
Following threats from Donald Trump, earlier this week the Government announced that between £3 billion and £6 billion each year will be diverted from our NHS services into the pockets of pharmaceutical giants. The American Health Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., said the agreement shows Trump’s
“courage and leadership in demanding these reforms”
and that he puts Americans first. That will give no comfort to my Hazel Grove constituents, who rightly value our NHS and want to see it thrive. Does the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster agree that we are more isolated from our European allies following Brexit, making us far too vulnerable to the threat of American tariffs? What will it take for the Government to rethink their red lines and protect the British people from further bullying from the White House, by agreeing a bespoke UK-EU customs union with our European neighbours?
Darren Jones
The agreement reached on pharmaceuticals is a win for the United Kingdom. We have an enormously important sector for pharmaceutical research and development and production in the United Kingdom, which exports many of its products to the American market, so to have agreed the tariff arrangements with the United States is a win for UK pharma and the people who work in it. I would just point to the fact that the UK’s relationship with the United States, thanks to our Prime Minister, has been one of the most productive relationships in the world in securing trade and security agreements both for the UK and to support our allies around the world.
Lisa Smart
I note the right hon. Gentleman’s response. It may well be good for the pharma industry; my question was whether it is good for the NHS. Just four days ago, the Prime Minister said that the Brexit deal “significantly hurt our economy” and that we have to keep moving towards a closer relationship with the EU. I agree with the Prime Minister. A clear and welcome step for jobs and growth would be to create a bespoke customs union with the EU. The Liberal Democrats want to cut unnecessary red tape, support British businesses and deliver sustainable long-term economic growth. I am sure the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster does, too. I agree with his earlier comment that what happens in this House matters, so will he at least agree not to block his colleagues on the Government Benches from backing the ten-minute rule Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) will move next Wednesday, which sets a path towards a bespoke EU-UK customs union—
Mr Speaker
Order. Honestly, you cannot go on and on. In fairness, we have to limit the amount of time. I am sure the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has got at least three of the questions.
Darren Jones
Mr Speaker, there is obviously a great deal of interest on the Liberal Democrat Benches in their ten-minute rule Bill, which I look forward to reading in due course.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Dan Jarvis)
The Government recently introduced the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill to strengthen the resilience of UK critical national infrastructure. Yesterday, I visited BT, which has worked with the National Cyber Security Centre to block almost 1 billion attempts to access malicious content in just six months. In spring, the Government will publish a business-first national cyber action plan, and we have already engaged with over 400 stakeholders as part of its development.
Andrew Rosindell
The United Kingdom is increasingly and uniquely vulnerable to malicious cyber-activity targeting national infrastructure and democratic institutions, including Parliament itself. That poses a serious risk to our national security. Experts have warned of a critical data leak, a new scale of severe blackouts, transport disruption and even Government being brought to a halt. What action is the Minister’s Department taking to ensure that the Government are prepared and sufficiently resourced to meet this pernicious national security threat?
Dan Jarvis
I understand why the hon. Gentleman raises this issue, and he is right to do so. The Government take the threats we face incredibly seriously. That is one of the reasons why the Prime Minister took the decision back in September to ensure that the Security Minister sits across both the Cabinet Office and the Home Office, so we are better placed as a Government to co-ordinate our national security response in the areas the hon. Gentleman outlined. I can give him and the House an absolute assurance on the seriousness we attach to these issues. We take them very seriously and we are working at pace to address them.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Josh Simons)
In this country, at present millions of people cannot access public services online, and millions lack the IDs that they need to go about their daily lives. That is the status quo, and we will not accept it. That is why we are introducing a new national digital credential, free for everyone over 16, that will be inclusive, secure and useful. This will involve a massive digital inclusion drive to ensure that the system works for everyone, including those who do not have smartphones, are elderly or are less digitally confident, so that everyone will benefit from simpler, safer and more secure access to public services.
Bradley Thomas
I thank the Minister for his scripted answer. Digital ID is a terrible idea. If the Government are going to pursue it, what assurances can he give me, in a tiny bit of detail, about what the Government will do to ensure that people are not, through a lack of technological skills or financial exclusion, disadvantaged in accessing Government services?
Josh Simons
Let me be clear about the status quo that the Conservative party left behind: millions of people right now are digitally excluded from accessing public services, and millions of people lack the identity credentials that they need to access them. We will not accept that. We will make sure that post offices, libraries and a whole range of physical places in the communities where people live can be used to access this new digital credential, getting people online who were left behind by the last Government.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Dan Jarvis)
The resilience action plan sets out how we will lead a conversation with the public on resilience. Our evidence gathering included consultation with organisations that represent disproportionately impacted groups to ensure that our approach to resilience reflects the characteristics of the whole of the UK.
Luke Akehurst
Will the Minister explain to the House the importance of exercises like Pegasus, and outline how Pegasus has supported this Government’s efforts to improve our national resilience for future pandemics?
Dan Jarvis
The Government remain committed to learning the lessons of the covid inquiry to protect and prepare us for the future. In line with the inquiry’s recommendations on pandemic response exercises, Exercise Pegasus has been the largest simulation of a pandemic in UK history, involving Ministers, the devolved Governments and representation from arm’s length bodies. We will communicate the findings and lessons from this exercise in due course, as recommended by the inquiry.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
The Minister without Portfolio (Anna Turley)
This Labour Government are proud to be taking historic steps to end child poverty. We are extending eligibility for free school meals to all children and households receiving universal credit next September in an unprecedented boost for children. That is going to benefit over half a million more children and put around £500 back into parents’ pockets every year. We believe that every child can better fulfil their potential if they are well fed, nourished and ready to learn in their school day.
Charlie Maynard
As many as 11% of pupils are missing out on the free school meals to which they are entitled. In many cases, they are not registered for reasons such as a fear of stigma or language barriers. In my Witney constituency, that means that around 230 children from the most disadvantaged homes may be missing out on a hot, healthy meal to get them through the school day. Council pilots of auto-enrolment have been shown to be effective. If implemented nationwide, auto-enrolment would make a huge difference to struggling families and it has overwhelming support from parents, so my question to the Minister is: what is the hold-up?
Anna Turley
We want to ensure that all families can claim the support they are entitled to, and we recognise that there is some great best practice happening around the country, so we will continue to keep the matter under review. By broadening the criteria to everyone on universal credit, it will be a lot easier for people to know that they can access free school meals. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is as excited as Government Members are for the child poverty strategy that will be published later this week. We look forward to many more exciting opportunities in that strategy to lift our children out of poverty and give them the future they deserve.
Kenneth Stevenson (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Darren Jones)
Since I last addressed the House, the Prime Minister announced the new Office for the Impact Economy, based in the Cabinet Office. From building affordable homes to giving children up and down the country the best start in life, social enterprises and community foundations are fundamental to delivering the change that this Government were elected to deliver. Changing lives for the better happens from the ground up, as well as from the top down. The Office for the Impact Economy will allow those organisations to engage with Government directly to get the support they need, and it will help public funding work harder by bringing philanthropists and other social investors together with communities that need investment. I look forward to updating the House further on this issue in due course.
Kenneth Stevenson
While passengers are experiencing short-term pain of long waits as the EU entry-exit system becomes fully operational, can the Minister confirm his Department is working to ensure that the agreement obtained by this Labour Government to allow British access to e-gates will, in the long term, cut queues and improve the travelling experience for my constituents in Airdrie and Shotts and other Members’ constituents?
Darren Jones
British passport holders will be able to use e-gates across Europe, allowing for more time to be spent on holiday and less time spent held up in queues. This is a positive step forward in expanding our access across the EU. The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office is working with individual member states to make this happen as soon as possible.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
A few weeks ago I wrote to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster about Chinese ownership of critical national infrastructure, including the possible acquisition of Thames Water. I have not had a reply, but since then The Telegraph has been briefed by the Government that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster would block such an acquisition. Can he confirm to the House that he will use his powers under the National Security and Investment Act 2021 to launch an investigation before any Chinese acquisition of Thames Water is allowed to proceed?
Darren Jones
The House will know that because of the quasi-judicial powers I have under the National Security and Investment Act 2021, I cannot comment on individual transactions. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are always willing to use those powers to protect the national interests and national security of this country. I do not recognise that briefing to The Telegraph, but I will ensure that he gets an answer to his correspondence shortly.
Alex Burghart
Well, someone was briefing in the right hon. Gentleman’s name. I thank him for his answer, but on the same theme, the electricity distribution network for London and much of the south-east, as well as the gas distribution network for about 5 million people in our country and the water supply for about another 3 million, are currently under Chinese ownership. That includes the power supply for the Palace of Westminster, Whitehall and many security capabilities. Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster tell us whether he has reviewed the national security implications of these legacy acquisitions? If not, will he commit to doing so?
Darren Jones
I can reassure the hon. Member and the House that we constantly keep critical national infrastructure risks under review and will take interventions as required to protect the national interest and national security of the United Kingdom.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
As I said in response to an earlier question, we are in the process of negotiating the EU youth experience scheme, which came out of the agreement secured earlier in the year. We are also seeking associate membership in Erasmus. Those are just two examples of how we will try to take on a much closer relationship with the EU that will have benefits for young people, the economy and cultural exchange.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Darren Jones
We will always negotiate in Britain’s interest and ensure value for money for the taxpayer and benefit for the UK economy. I can confirm that not only has the Paymaster General agreed to meet with the Chair of the EFRA Committee, but the relevant Minister from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be appearing to give evidence in the normal way.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
Chris Ward
Small and medium-sized enterprises are the backbone of our economy, and we are looking at reforming procurement rules to do everything we can to make sure that the £400 billion a year we spend on this does everything possible to help small businesses. We consulted in the summer, including on late payments and reforming social value, and we are going to bring forward a package of reforms shortly on this.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Dan Jarvis)
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising this issue. I will look carefully at what he has said and will be happy to meet to discuss it further.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
The Minister without Portfolio (Anna Turley)
Our great civil service serves citizens from across the UK, so it should look like them, sound like them, and come from the same towns, cities, regions and nations as the communities it serves. Through our places for growth programme, we are moving more roles from London to locations across the UK, including York, where 2,600 civil servants are already working across numerous Departments, including the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
Chris Ward
I recognise the importance of this issue to my hon. Friend’s constituents. Amendments to Schengen rules are predominantly a matter for member states, but the Minister for the Cabinet Office has regular discussions with his counterparts in the EU, and I will ensure that he is aware of those concerns.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Last week, the National Security Adviser was due to appear before the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy. Did he? If not, why not?
Dan Jarvis
My understanding is that the National Security Adviser did appear in front of the Committee, but it was a private session.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
Darren Jones
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing so much investment in his constituency. The Office for the Impact Economy will be working with philanthropists and social investors, as well as corporate givers and others, to support programmes led by the Government, such as Pride in Place and other public investments, to deliver a better bang for our buck and the renewal of communities across the country, including in Bletchley. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend to deliver on that promise of change.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Cabinet Office has an important role to play in publishing data to enable the public to track the Government’s performance. Does the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister agree that it would be helpful to have data on the number of prisoners wrongly released every day by the Justice Secretary?
Darren Jones
I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice receives the hon. Gentleman’s question, which he can maybe raise again in Justice questions when they come round.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
Tomorrow will mark a year to the day since the Government launched the plan for change, to great fanfare, with its milestones, its mission boards, and its dashboards that never materialised. We have now found out that the five mission boards have been deleted from the latest list of Cabinet Committees. Has there been any change at all from the plan for change?
Darren Jones
I welcome the introduction of the plan for change to the debate today, and the hon. Gentleman will be as excited as I am about the promise of change being delivered: five interest rate cuts; mortgage rates coming down; wages growing faster than the cost of living; NHS waiting lists down not by 2 million, 3 million or 4 million, but by 5 million appointments; a better start in life for young people across the country—
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The Minister does not know who in the Labour party signed off on Lord Alli’s pass to No. 10. It is an important question. Please could he find out and write to me and tell me who?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Further to the question from the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), most food insecurity in Northern Ireland comes from a lack of money, not a lack of food. What discussions has the Minister had with his counterparts in Northern Ireland on improving the root causes of food insecurity among all our constituents?
Darren Jones
I know that through the finance interministerial and the interministerial standing committee, leaders and relevant Ministers discuss a whole range of issues relevant to Northern Ireland, including this, with colleagues from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and others. I am always happy to have those conversations with the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, if that is of help.
Local Elections
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister if she will make a statement about the cancellation of local elections scheduled for May 2026.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
Let me respond to the question directly. Local elections will go ahead in 2026—that has been and continues to be our position. We are a responsible Government, so if there are extenuating circumstances on the ground in particular councils, we will have that conversation with them, as the House would expect, but we are as up for elections as anyone else.
This is about our commitment to devolution, and the creation of strategic authorities and mayors who can unlock the economic potential of their areas and deliver for their communities. That will always be our guiding star—our lodestar—in every decision that we make about devolution, so I am pleased to confirm the long-term funding offer to six areas in the devolution priority programme. Once their mayors are in post, the six mayoral strategic authorities will receive close to £200 million collectively per year for the next 30 years for their investment fund. In that way, we will ensure that our mayoral strategic authorities have the strong foundation to unlock the growth potential that we see in every part of the country.
The Government recognise that mayoral strategic authorities are most successful when they are built on a strong history of partnership and joint delivery. That is what we have seen in our established mayoral authorities in Greater Manchester, Liverpool and across the country. The devolution priority programme areas have already made huge progress towards establishing their strategic authorities. We want to allow for a meaningful period between the establishment of a strategic authority, and its mayoral elections.
We are also conscious that those places are simultaneously undergoing local government reorganisation while building those new institutions. The Government are therefore minded to hold the inaugural mayoral elections for Sussex and Brighton, Hampshire and the Solent, Norfolk and Suffolk, and Greater Essex in May 2028, so that those areas have the opportunity to conclude their local government reorganisation, build strong and effective unitaries, which is what we want, and establish their strategic authorities before their mayors take post. The inaugural mayoral elections will take place, but in the meantime we are determined to work with those areas to provide capacity funding, build the institutions, and strengthen their partnership and joint working to deliver for their communities. At the heart of everything we do is unlocking areas’ potential by building strong institutions that can do that job and working in partnership with them to achieve it.
David Simmonds
You and I both value local democracy, Mr Speaker. Last week, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), the Secretary of State told the House that
“the Government’s intention is that all the elections scheduled for next May will go ahead next May.”—[Official Report, 24 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 5.]
The following day, the Minister told the House:
“Labour is up for elections… our clear intention is to press ahead with elections next year. The decision to postpone elections is never taken lightly”.
She went on to state the reason the Government were resisting the Conservative amendment to ensure that those elections went ahead:
“It does not allow for extenuating circumstances at a national level, such as a pandemic, or for exceptional circumstances locally”.—[Official Report, 25 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 322.]
Given that we are all ready for and expecting the elections, having taken this Government at their word, the ambiguity that the Minister has created has caused a huge amount of doubt, significant cost and logistical challenges at a local level in changing the type of elections and the processes for nominating candidates, recruiting electoral canvassers and ensuring that we have the right polling station staff and that they are prepared to arrange that election on schedule. This is a huge waste of public money for elections that we are all ready for.
Given the Minister’s previous comments about circumstances in which council elections would be cancelled and the looming deadlines that electoral officers face, when will she make a decision, and what process will she follow in determining whether the planned council elections will go ahead? When will the Government brief the House on the timetable for the elections of mayors, which they made central to their Budget last week? Will she ask the Office for Budget Responsibility to update its Budget forecast, given the massive impact that this dithering and delay will have on the Budget’s clearly set out plans for housing, infrastructure, the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill and NHS reorganisation?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
It is really important that we distinguish between two things. We have been absolutely consistent that local council elections are happening in 2026. We are cracking on with it and getting ready for them. I hope the Opposition parties are getting ready for them. We will crack on with them, but these are inaugural mayoral elections that are predicated on us laying a statutory instrument, which we are still to lay, and having the consent of constituent authorities. It is absolutely right that we take stock of where we are and the process that we are asking places to get through, to ensure that at the end of this, we have strong unitary councils that are going through the process of reorganisation, strong strategic authorities, and then a mayor. That is the right and rational decision. There is a clear distinction that I ask the House to make between local council elections, which are scheduled and run to a rhythm, and inaugural mayoral elections, which we have not had before.
On the economics, I will take the hon. Member’s question seriously, even though it was completely ridiculous. We are committed to unlocking areas’ economic potential, so we want to crack ahead with strategic authorities. We want to lay the SI, so that we can get the strategic authorities set up in the timeframe that we have been negotiating and agreeing with places. We are committed to that long-term investment. We will bring forward a proportion of that investment into next year and the year after in the transition, so that places can get on with their investment pipeline and their programme.
At the heart of this—I will keep coming back to this—is a determination on the Government Benches to work with every part of the country to unlock their economic potential. We will do that in good faith. We will do that without playing politics. We will do that in partnership with any leader, no matter which party they belong to. I hope all Members across the House will approach this in the same spirit.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) for asking this urgent question and the Minister for responding. Real change is about having mayoral candidates rooted in their community, with an increase in power and funding so that they can deliver that change. There are many issues and challenges across local government, which we all talk about, from special educational needs and disabilities to temporary accommodation and children’s social care. These are big issues that our councillors are dealing with day in, day out.
On 11 November, the Secretary of State told our Select Committee that he did not think local government reorganisation was taking longer than planned and that elections scheduled for May would be going ahead. Less than a month later, the Minister is saying that more time is needed for local government reorganisation in some areas. Given that we are less than six months out, can the Minister reassure the House by confirming that local elections will be going ahead in areas that are seeing reorganisation into a unitary authority and that there will not be any additional delays? This will have an impact on the local people who are working hard on this and may be worried about their jobs, so it is vital that we get clarity from the Government on those areas where unitarisation is carrying on.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
My hon. Friend is right that this about local people and delivering for them. I reassure her that that same concern and commitment is at the heart of everything that we are doing. This is not about shifting the timescales for local government reorganisation; we are proceeding on the same timescales. Authorities across the country are putting together proposals and working to the timescales agreed, and we are committed to holding to that. This is about devolution in a subset of the areas that are going through local government reorganisation. It pertains to the four functional areas that are going through the process simultaneously: in those areas, it is the creation of not just unitary authorities, which is happening in lots of other areas, but strategic authorities and mayors at the same time. It is absolutely right that we take stock and create the space for them to do each of those things in a timeframe that ensures that we have institutions that are strong and work well at the end of the process.
We want to ensure that we are taking forward local government reorganisation at the timescale that we have agreed and talked about with our partners on the ground. We then want to ensure that strategic authorities are created within the timescales that we have talked about and agreed with our partners on the ground. Our proposals set out that we are minded to push the elections of mayors to 2028, so that we can ensure that the unitary authorities, strategic authorities and partnerships are set up and working well, and we then have the inaugural elections. That is a completely rational and sensible place to be, and we will try to do that in lockstep with our partners on the ground.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
Thank you for granting this incredibly important urgent question, Mr Speaker. I am sure colleagues from across the House will have been as shocked as I was to read in the media last night that the four priority strategic areas have had their elections cancelled and postponed until 2028, especially given the reassurances to the House that have been referenced by other hon. Members. Will the Minister explain why, yet again, information about election cancellations has been announced to the press and council chief executives ahead of MPs? Why have the Government chosen to cancel these important elections, which are a fundamental part of our democracy, and then told the media, not Parliament, first?
Will the Minister provide clarity on funding for local authorities, about which I am very concerned? The Government have repeatedly spoken about the importance of mayoral strategic authorities to unlocking investment and funding for authorities. Why are the Government limiting investment funding for the next two years, releasing only one third at a time, when local and upper tier authority leaders have already agreed the share of priorities? If mayors must work collaboratively with other local authority leaders and there is consensus on where investment is needed, why will the Government not release the funding now? Why will they hold that back by delaying the elections? Those authorities need the money now, so will the Government provide reassurance?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Let me be very clear: it was not us who briefed the media. We cannot control what other parties do—we always want to update the House, as well as local authorities. It is incredibly, incredibly important to be very clear that this is not about the cancellation of elections—[Interruption.] These are inaugural elections that are subject to a statutory instrument being laid and they are subject to consent. For all the reasons that I have set out, at the moment the Government are minded to have those elections in 2028, and we will work with the local authorities that are impacted to get consent to do that.
On the fundamental point about investment, we are as committed to investment as the hon. Lady. That is why we have announced £200 million for those areas over the next 30 years. We are urging all areas to produce their investment pipeline, because we want to see things happening on the ground. We have committed to a third, but we will continue to work with areas to ensure that if they have viable investment propositions, the Government are walking hand in hand and side by side with them to unlock that. It is good for the areas, but fundamentally it is good for the growth of the economy and for national Government.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
I need to be blunt, as I usually am: we need to be better than this. Local leaders across the political spectrum have worked in good faith. They have put aside self-interest and differences, and they did everything asked of them to secure a better settlement for the people they represent. They reasonably expected the Government to do the same. Postponing last year’s elections allowed for these mayoral elections to be agreed, consulted on, the statutory tests to be met and funding to be confirmed, all of which was done, leaving just the legislation to be laid for polling day on 28 May. That is why Labour and other parties have already selected their candidates. The Government have a moral and a legal obligation to honour their side of the bargain. Following a statutory process, all involved had a reasonable expectation that these elections would go ahead. The Government know that trust is hard won but easily squandered. Given that we are where we are, will the Minister confirm that the mayoral elections will go ahead as planned in Cheshire and Warrington and in Cumbria in 2027? Will she update the House on the progress of the Lancashire devolution deal, which was due to be presented by autumn this year, given that we are now in winter?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank my hon. Friend for the huge amount of work that he put into getting us to this place. The fact that we are in a position where we have devolution deals and places undergoing the process of local government reorganisation with the good faith he talked about is testimony to the work he has done. But it is absolutely right that we, as a new ministerial team coming in, look at the facts and at where we are and that we make a judgment.
Ultimately, what drives my hon. Friend and the decisions he made with colleagues, and what drives us and the decisions we are making, is ensuring that, when we look back on this in 2030, we will have effective, powerful unitary councils across the country delivering for their people, and strategic authorities built on strong partnership working—we know that is critical for unlocking development—and powerful mayors. With every area I speak to, the objectives are the same.
Our judgment is that if we give ourselves some breathing room to go through the process and do that with those places in the time required, we will be better and stronger on the other side. We will do this in partnership with local areas. Yesterday, I personally spoke to every single leader directly. We are going to do this in partnership, because there is a common agenda at the end of it. But it is absolutely right that my responsibility, and the responsibility of the Government, is to do everything we can to ensure that the process delivers the outcome that I think hon. Members across the House adhere to.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
But the Government could have done this right and come to Parliament with a statement today. Instead, once again we wake up to overnight briefings. Cancelling elections is always a bad idea, and there is a real suspicion that the Government are worried about being trounced in elections.
May make a local point about Lincolnshire? It is now in complete chaos, because we do not know what is going to happen. The Government have already forced an unloved office of mayor on us, our friends in North East Lincolnshire have withdrawn from the whole process, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer) wants to carve West Lindsey—my district—in half by creating a greater Lincoln, and the county council under Reform leadership has a different proposal. Nobody knows what is going on. Just put local democracy first by allowing the people of Lincolnshire to have the district council system of local Government that they love and know, and stop throwing everything up in the air and wasting so much money.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I reiterate that these are inaugural elections, and therefore we are not cancelling elections. [Interruption.] These are inaugural elections that were always subject to us laying a statutory instrument and subject to the consent of places. To the right hon. Member’s specific point, it is really important that we bring the House back to why we are going through the process of local government reorganisation. We are not doing it because it is fun, or just for the sake of it; we are doing it because of the state in which local government was left by the Conservative party—[Interruption.] Absolutely—take responsibility! We had a decade and a half of under-investment, leaving local government on its knees. The Conservatives ducked the decisions they needed to make.
Now we are gripping the mantle, and at the heart of the reorganisation process is the simple premise that we want stronger unitaries. We believe that is the way in which we can organise services to deliver for communities. The Conservative party should have got a grip and done that. It did not; it ducked that. We are now having to pick that up, so I will not have Conservative Members talking to me about the pros and cons of reorganisation. We are doing it because we understand that we need to. If they were more serious, they would have cracked on and got on with it themselves.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
May I welcome the additional £21.7 million per year announced today for the Cheshire and Warrington combined authority? I know my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), who is on the Front Bench, has campaigned for that for many, many years. Our region has massive untapped potential in life sciences, chemical manufacturing and digital. For too long we have watched while our friends in the Liverpool city region and Greater Manchester have been able to build a transport network and a skills strategy fit for the 21st century. Does the Minister agree that this is the difference that a Labour Government make?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank my hon. Friend for pointing out the funding. Just so that the House records it, let me say what we are investing in. In the Cheshire and Warrington combined authority we are investing £21.7 million. In Cumbria we are investing £11.1 million. In greater Essex we are investing £41.5 million. In Hampshire and the Solent we are investing £44.6 million. In Norfolk and Suffolk we are investing £37.4 million. In Sussex and Brighton we are investing £38 million.
This is about investment in places. At its heart, this is about resources and power so that local leaders can work in partnership to deliver for their people. I will not apologise for that; it is absolutely the right thing. I will come back to this point every single time: at the heart of everything we are doing is ensuring that we have strong institutions that can deliver for their people. I know that the Conservatives do not like me to talk about it, but the legacy we have is that huge swathes of our country have been held back—growth and investment have been held back. That is not a reality that we are willing to contend with, which is why we are doing the hard yards and the graft in order to unlock powerful institutions that can deliver for their people. [Interruption.] The Conservatives can bluster all they like, but at the heart of this matter is investment in places. We are committed to that, and it is a shame that the Conservatives failed to do that.
Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)
I could scarcely believe it last year when the county council elections in Essex and elsewhere were postponed for a year. Clearly there is no reason at all why they cannot go ahead in 2026—although, I know that the local Conservative administration is fiercely opposed to that. The whole local government reorganisation is a dog’s dinner, and the public do not understand what is going on. You are asking people in Clacton to vote in local elections year after year after year. You are telling them that you are going to get rid of a district council that they know, understand and respect, and replace it with a pretty amorphous unitary authority. If that is going to go ahead—I do not like it, but clearly it is—you need a senior elected figure—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The hon. Gentleman has used the word “you” three times. I am not imposing or cancelling elections anywhere.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The point of urgent questions is that they need to be short. The Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesperson also had limited time. Please can Members make their questions succinct, and can the Minister make her answers succinct too?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Let me reiterate that we are committed to moving forward with local council elections next year. On the fundamental question of local government reorganisation, which the hon. Member raised, let me say that at the heart of local government reorganisation is the creation of strong and effective councils that can deliver for their communities. I know that is a difficult concept for the Reform party, given the absolute shambles we are seeing in the councils it controls, whether in Kent or in Staffordshire. I know that the idea of strong and effective institutions delivering for their country is 100 miles away from Reform’s understanding of the point of government. Let me reassure him that we are absolutely committed to democracy and strong institutions, and we are committed to working with all councils to ensure that they deliver for their people.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
The north-east has perhaps the strongest sense of regional identity in the country, and it benefits immensely from the brilliant Labour mayor, Kim McGuinness, who has the devolved powers and funding to make a real difference to the lives of the people in the north-east. I know that the Minister is working hard to devolve more powers and, critically, more funding. Does she agree it is critical that that sense of identity, the strong institutions, the funding and the powers are in place in order for mayors to be successful?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that absolutely fundamental point. We have now had coming on to two decades of mayors working alongside their places, and the lesson—whether in Greater Manchester, the north-east or the Liverpool city region—is that where there is a strong sense of identity, strong constituent authorities, effective partnership working and common ground in terms of what is being achieved for both the people and place, the model is powerful. The Government are absolutely committed and determined to build the foundations to get there, because we want every part of the country to be able to have a powerful executive, like Kim in the north-east, working alongside strong local authorities to invest and deliver for their people. That is our commitment; that is what we are going to work through. We will take sensible, pragmatic decisions to ensure that that is the outcome we achieve by 2030.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I disagree with all of this. I believe in strong local councils that are truly democratic and reflect local communities. My amendment to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill last week was about my borough of Havering, whose identity is linked to Essex. Will this delay allow the Minister to look again at the possibility of Havering being part of Greater Essex—with certain conditions, I accept—and not part of Greater London? If there were a referendum in my borough, I have no doubt that the people of my constituency would rather be linked to Essex than to inner London. Will the Minister please reconsider the arrangements for my borough of Havering?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. We have seen the huge impact that the Greater London Authority and the Mayor have had in London. London is one of the most successful cities in the world because of that strong basis. I think it is a tragedy that the hon. Gentleman does not want to be part of this vibrant city—I certainly am incredibly proud to be a Londoner under the GLA and the Mayor of London.
To the more fundamental question, the approach that we have consistently tried to take, both with local government reorganisation—I know the Opposition like to refute this—and with devolution, is that we will try to work hand in glove with places and ensure that places can come up with proposals that work for their patch. The whole premise of devolution is that local leaders and their people know what is best for them. That may be defining their boundaries, which is why, in the context of local government reorganisation, we have said to places, “Come forward with your proposals based on conversations you have had with your people and your place,” or, in the context of devolution, places have come together and said, “This is the functional geography that makes sense for us.” We will always take that approach, because ultimately we believe that local people know their patch best, and it is our job to enable them.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
I am glad to hear that local council elections will go ahead in 2026, and I welcome the significant investment into the six priority new mayoral areas. I also welcome the fact that Greater Essex—my part of the world—will have the opportunity to complete much-needed local government reform before we elect our inaugural Mayor of Essex. Can the Minister confirm when that new investment will land with councils, which were so badly underfunded by the previous Government?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
It is important that we keep coming back to the investment. During the transition period—over the next two years—we will be bringing forward that investment because we know that places in the priority programme, such as Greater Essex, have already started putting together their investment pipeline, and we want to allow them to crack on and start getting on with things now. We will be working with them to unlock investment next year and the year after so that they can deliver for their people.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
To describe this situation as a “dog’s dinner” is offensive to the makers of Pedigree Chum. The deferral of the elections in Hampshire will delay major strategic infrastructure planning, such as the Wrecclesham bypass in my constituency, and deprive the people of Hampshire of an excellent mayor in Donna Jones. Most importantly, though, it is an affront to democracy. As the Minister will know, my seat is a cross-border Hampshire and Surrey seat, so I have three questions for her. First, will the unitary authority elections in Surrey go ahead as planned next year? Secondly, will the Hampshire unitary authority elections also go ahead rapidly? Finally, will we get a mayor for Surrey?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Surrey elections will go ahead as planned. We are moving forward with the Hampshire elections as planned, although we are now minded to move the mayoral elections for Hampshire and the Solent to 2028. On the hon. Gentleman’s question on the Surrey mayor, our ambition is to have mayors all across the country. We will move at the pace that places become ready so that we prioritise building strong partnership through strategic authorities and then mayors. We have learned the lesson of what mayors can do, and the intention is to have both mayors and strong, powerful foundation authorities.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
All Labour Members agree that we want power brought closer to our communities, and I have been clear in backing proper devolution in Norfolk and effective local government reorganisation—and the proposal for three unitaries. However, now that the mayoral elections have been postponed, can the Minister assure us that Norfolk and Suffolk will not lose out on investment, including funding that has gone to mayoral combined authorities, and that we will have a seat at the table over the next three years until 2028, so that our area does not lose out?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Absolutely. That is why we have announced £37.4 million per year, and it is why we have committed to providing some of that investment up front. Critically, though, we are absolutely committed to working with strategic authorities to unlock new powers for them, so that they can get on and deliver for their people.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a district councillor.
This is such a shambles. We have a local government sector on its knees as a result of decisions made by the Conservatives and, now, the Labour party. So much time and resource has been put into these mayoral elections by local government and officers over the past year; staff and venues for polling stations have already been booked. Does the Minister have any idea how much money has been spent on this over the past 12 months?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We are very clear that no area will be worse off as a result of this decision. Again, we are talking about four areas within the devolution priority programme, and we will work with those areas. We are providing capacity funding to all of them to help them with this process and help them set up their institutions, and we are committed to ensuring that they will be no worse off at the end of the process.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Unlike many Opposition Members, I welcome this announcement, for I know that the people of Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket will want the Government to get this process right. Does the Minister agree that we are not cancelling anything; we are simply postponing the mayoral elections, so that we can get this right, and so that we see the best of local democracy?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Yes. It is easy to plough on, but we care about the outcome we are trying to deliver, and about ensuring that at the end of this process, we have strong local government, strong strategic authorities and effective mayors. That matters for the people we are here to serve, so I will never regret us taking decisions that have that approach at their heart.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Does this latest and inconsistent decision underline that the whole of LGR and devolution is in a state of total chaos? The Government must be rueing the day that they bought the Department’s line that imposing a metropolitan concept on counties and the countryside was the right thing to do. Can the Minister explain, for example, why it was logical to cancel the district council elections last year, but not this year? Where is the logic in that? Is it not about time that she got together with her colleagues and cancelled this whole process, to save money, and so that people can get back to their jobs of running better social services, filling in potholes, and delivering for their local communities, as the excellent Tendring district council does?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We believe in unitaries; whether it is Cheshire or the other unitaries across the country, we can see that they deliver for people. I come back to the reason why we are doing this, and the fact that it takes some cheek for Conservative Members to say, “The status quo is fine.” The status quo is not fine—it is the Conservative party’s mess, created over 14 years, and Conservative Members should hang their heads in shame. We are acting and responding, because the status quo is neither sustainable nor desirable and will not deliver for the people we are all here to serve.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
It is disappointing that the Minister continues to refer to the Isle of Wight as “the Solent”, which is a body of water where nobody lives. She says that our council elections will take place next year unless there are exceptional or extenuating circumstances. Can she please confirm unequivocally that her plans for a mayor and a local government review are not exceptional or extenuating circumstances that are sufficient for cancelling our elections next May?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We are clear—I will keep saying this, and we have consistently said this—that we want to move forward with elections. The decision to delay the elections last year was not taken lightly. We all believe in the democratic process, and we all believe that it is absolutely right that leaders must face the electorate, so we will never, ever take the decision to cancel or delay an election lightly. There will have to be extenuating circumstances. Our plan and determination at the moment is to crack on with local elections.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
A democracy in which a Government can unilaterally chop and change the date of an election on a whim ceases to be a democracy altogether. This decision is taking the people of Eastbourne and Sussex for fools and must be resisted. Will the Minister give a cast-iron guarantee that the East Sussex county council elections will take place in 2026, and will she confirm that the mayoral election, which is now delayed until 2028, will take place under single transferable vote and not first past the post?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I confirm that the devolution Bill is coming through, and so the election will take place under single transferable vote. A statutory instrument will be laid before Parliament to lock into legislation the date of the mayoral election, subject to the consent of the constituent councils involved. As I have said consistently, we are determined to crack on with the elections, because we believe in the democratic process as much as the hon. Gentleman does, but it is right that we always create the space to reflect on and respond to any extenuating circumstances.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
This is an utter dog’s breakfast that is entirely of the Government’s making. Will the Minister apologise to Tim Passmore and other mayoral candidates for cancelling the elections next year? When will Norfolk and Suffolk get the £37.4 million investment fund that we were promised if we had a mayor, and not the £3 million—the crumbs—that she has promised today?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Of course, candidates have been selected, and I am very happy to apologise to them. I hope that, on the other side of this, whoever is mayor will have the knowledge that they have a strong unitary, and a strong strategic authority working in their interests. If this means that we will have a more powerful mayor who is delivering for their place, as a result of that strong partnership, then it is absolutely worth it. We have to put the people who the mayor is there to serve first.
We are committed to the investment. The full investment fund will come into place once the mayor is elected, but because we are keen for strategic authorities to crack on, we are bringing forward some of that investment. We will work with the areas, so that they can begin delivering for their people.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Last month, the Secretary of State clearly said to the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee that elections, both local and mayoral, will go ahead. He did not equivocate. He did not say that there were ifs or buts; these elections were going ahead. Can the Minister confirm why the Secretary of State appeared to mislead MPs, and what steps will she take to ensure—
Mr Forster
Inadvertently mislead. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that MPs can trust and believe what her Department says in future communications?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
To be very clear, the Secretary of State was talking about council elections; I urge the hon. Member to look at the transcript. I keep trying to make the distinction between council elections and the inaugural mayoral elections, provisions on which do not come into force until we have laid the SI before Parliament and we have the consent of constituent authorities. There is a distinction. We are determined to move ahead with local elections, but it is right that we have made a judgment on mayoral elections.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
This development is cynical and scandalous, and completely ignores the democratic rights of the people of Essex and beyond. This Labour Government are botching and rushing local government reorganisation for their own political ends. Given their cancelling of local elections this year, and now their cancelling of mayoral elections in Greater Essex and beyond, when will this Labour Government admit that they are treating voters with contempt, and that what they are doing is flying in the face of local democracy?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We are as up for elections as the Opposition. Candidly, they have a little bit more to be worried about. On the substance, I bring the hon. Member back to why we are doing this: it is because of the Conservatives’ lack of investment in local government and their failure to get a grip of the fact that the status quo is not working. What we are doing is not easy, but we are trying to do it in good faith, and I come back to the fact that at the heart of this, we are trying to ensure that we have strong unitaries, strong and functional partnerships, and a strong mayor. I will not resile from that commitment.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
The Minister knew from day one that local government reorganisation and the introduction of mayors were taking place simultaneously; she knew that throughout the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill Committee, so it is simply not credible to make this announcement now. Areas with delayed mayoral elections will have some funding brought forward. Can she confirm that those areas excluded from wave one of the programme, such as Wessex, will now be able to access funding, given that we were told that the reason why we could not have any funding was that we did not have a mayor? Now that the mayors do not exist, that money should be given to other areas, such as Wessex.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We are committed to unlocking the economic potential of all areas. I am clear that different places are at different stages in their journey to getting a mayor, and it is absolutely right that we ensure that those places can still access devolved funding and the powers to drive that journey. We are keen to work with areas, to encourage them to form strong strategic authorities, and to empower them to deliver on the ground and unlock growth.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
In Suffolk, people are asking what on earth the Government are playing at. We are being asked to have county elections in 2026, unitary elections in 2027 and a mayoral election in 2028. That said, elected politicians in a democracy should never be afraid of the voters. Can the Minister say to the House—incredibly clearly—that Suffolk’s county council elections, already postponed once, will not be cancelled next May?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I have said time and again that we will crack on with local council elections next year, but it is right, if there are extenuating circumstances and particular circumstances on the ground, that we reflect on that. We recognise the democratic necessity of elections. Some of these areas have not had elections for coming on for seven or eight years. We think it is right that leaders face their voters, and that is our overriding starting premise, but if there are extenuating circumstances on the ground, we will reflect on those circumstances.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
The Minister keeps talking about the principle, and why this is being done, but we should not move away from the fundamental question: who misled the Minister by saying that this could be achieved in 2026, but then came back and said, “No, sorry, it has to be 2028”? It is 18 months until elections in 2027, and we are talking about 2028. Is she not concerned about finding out who is telling her false project timelines? How can she have any faith that 2028 will be delivered? We are told that the aim is to deliver better public services, but how can that be true when the Government cannot even get the organisation correct, and when there is a gap of two years?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for asking that question. All our areas in the devolution priority programme have been working at pace, and I give them huge credit for working collaboratively across parties and across authorities to deliver this. I believe that we could deliver it all in 2026, but the judgment we are making is about whether we do that based on strong foundations. If the difference between 2026 and 2028 means that we have got the unitary process through, have strong unitaries and strategic authorities that are working well, and have created the foundations for an effective mayor, then we think it is worth taking the time and having the breathing space to ensure that the foundations are strong.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I am sure the Minister agrees that trust in our politics, and trust in our democracy, is absolutely vital. I am also sure she will regret that postponing elections gives some, including those who do not have our country’s best interests at heart, the opportunity to try to sow seeds of distrust. This morning she will have seen the Electoral Commission’s latest stats, which show some eye-wateringly large donations. Our elections are not being fought on an even footing if they can be bought by a small handful of individuals. Will she encourage the Minister for Democracy to use the opportunity of the elections Bill to take meaningful steps to increase transparency and clarity, and to tighten up the financial donation rules, in order to restore trust in our democracy?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Lady for making that powerful point. Yes, we absolutely will do so.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Last Friday, along with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn), I attended a meeting with the leader and the chief executive of North East Lincolnshire council. The chief executive produced a very thick report on why they do not want any further reorganisation in the council area. Up and down the country, councils are spending millions of pounds on producing reports about why they do or do not want to be a mayoral authority, and why they do or do not want reorganisation. Surely the Minister agrees that those millions would be better spent providing better services for their local communities.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We want investment to be spent on local communities—on that there is agreement—but I come back to the point that I have made time and again: the status quo is neither sustainable nor desirable, so something has to give and something has to change. The way that we are approaching it is to say to local areas, “Come up with your plan, and here is the set of criteria against which those plans will be judged”, but we cannot stand still and do nothing; we have to do something, and we are trying to go through a process in partnership with places.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Mandatory digital ID, abandoning trial by jury and now cancelling elections—these are the hallmarks of authoritarian regimes, aren’t they?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I do not believe that question warrants a response.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
There are deep concerns about the postponing of local elections—democracy has been in place for centuries. What impression does the Minister think this announcement gives to the general public, who have every right to exercise their civic responsibility in a timely manner? Is she not concerned about the message that it gives constituents about democracy in the United Kingdom?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The hon. Member is completely right to talk about how sacrosanct democracy is. We absolutely share that view, but it is right that as we think about inaugural elections for mayors—they have never been held before in some areas—we try to ensure that, on the other side of the elections, we have strong institutions that can deliver for people. I think constituents in those areas will thank us if, at the end of it, we have institutions that are delivering incredibly well for them because we have taken the time to get this right.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the Minister for her responses this morning.
David Simmonds
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance? When the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill was making progress in Committee, the Minister was very clear that elections to local councils would be considered for cancellation on request from the affected local authorities. She has told the House this morning that, in fact, it will be done only in a pandemic or exceptional local circumstances. There is clearly some risk that the House may be inadvertently misled on what the decision-making criteria for that cancellation may be. Can you give me some guidance as to how we can gain the necessary clarity on what the decision-making process for the cancellation of council elections will be?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. He will know that it was not a point of order but a continuation of the urgent question, and it could have been put to the Minister earlier. However, he has put his point on the record.
Business of the House
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)
The business for the week commencing 8 December will include:
Monday 8 December—Consideration of Lords message to the Employment Rights Bill, followed by consideration of Lords message to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, followed by consideration of Lords message to the Mental Health Bill [Lords].
Tuesday 9 December—Second Reading of the Railways Bill.
Wednesday 10 December—Opposition day (14th allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition. Subject to be announced.
Thursday 11 December—General debate on St Andrew’s day and Scottish affairs, followed by general debate on the impact of foreign interference on security, trade and democracy. The subjects of these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 12 December—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 15 December will include:
Monday 15 December—Second Reading of the Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill.
Tuesday 16 December—Second Reading of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.
Wednesday 17 December—Second Reading of the National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill.
Thursday 18 December—General debate on matters to be raised before the Christmas Adjournment. The subject of this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
The House will rise for the Christmas recess at the conclusion of business on Thursday 18 December 2025 and return on Monday 5 January 2026.
Jesse Norman
If I may, I would like to express my personal sorrow at the death of Sir John Stanley this week. The House may not know that he was the first person to reach and to comfort the dying Airey Neave, after Neave had been the victim of a bomb from the Irish National Liberation Army, a spin-off of the IRA. Sir John was also a highly effective member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
A couple of weeks ago, I invited the House to join me in supporting our cricketers down under. That was the kiss of death: they instantly lost the first test. So I am now thrilled, and I hope the House will join me in congratulating Joe Root on his majestic hundred in Australia in the present test.
Once again, the past seven days have not been a thing of glory for the Government. Not a single measure in the Budget has been scored by the Office for Budget Responsibility as positive for growth, while the OECD and a host of other experts have warned that the Chancellor’s tax rises last week will actually hold growth back. Except for seven Members, every Labour Member voted in favour of keeping the two-child benefit cap in 2024; last week, they voted in exactly the opposite way. Junior doctors will go on strike for the third time this year in the run-up to Christmas. In fairness, though, I should say that there has been one chink of light: the Government have rightly dropped day one protections in the Employment Rights Bill.
Yesterday, we were treated to the inglorious sight of the Prime Minister misusing the engagements question once again to make a party political broadcast at Prime Minister’s questions. We do not have a presidential system in this country, thank the Lord, nor do we insist on a rigid uniformity of practice in this House, but if the Prime Minister wishes to make a statement to Parliament, he may do so in the usual way, giving notice to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, or to the Speaker, and taking questions from colleagues in this House on the policy. I therefore ask the Leader of the House, as our spokesman in the Cabinet, to tell the House what he will do to prevent this practice from recurring. I am also asking Mr Speaker to make it clear in public that this will not be tolerated by the Chair in future.
It was reported this week that the Government will be drawing on German start-up companies to fill a supposed drone gap for the British Army. I am sure the whole House will share my view that the UK should seek to offer a welcoming environment for foreign investment, and all the more so after a Budget that has done nothing to support economic growth. I also recognise the value of having leading international companies competitively involved in the testing and development of drones. However, it is a serious concern that there appear to be no plans within the Ministry of Defence to provide strategic leadership, investment and support to start-up drone companies created, led and managed in this country and by British nationals. We have been promised a defence investment plan, but Ministers have been unable to say when this plan will be presented to the House. It looks as though they may be leaving it to the last full week of term, perhaps to avoid a proper measure of parliamentary scrutiny. Experience has repeatedly shown that, in times of crisis, the nation needs to have core capabilities solidly based in UK-owned and led domestic manufacturing. That was one of the lessons of the pandemic. It is hard to imagine a more significant emerging defence need than that of high-quality, high-technology and cost-effective drones. There are superb companies in this country ready to scale, as needed.
Last June, the Prime Minister called for what he termed a “national conversation” on defence. He made it clear, rightly, that the defence of the realm was not just a matter for the Ministry of Defence; the whole of our society, as well as the whole of Government, needed to be mobilised into a better understanding of the threat. Since then, that threat has become only more serious. I am delighted that the Prime Minister is in Lossiemouth today to make an announcement, but the sad fact is that he has said precisely nothing to lead that wider national conversation or raise awareness of the threat. Meanwhile, the public are uncertain on the need and rationale for new spending, and key aspects of our defence and security readiness are, if anything, getting worse. May we, at the very least, have a statement next week on what the Government are planning to do to support the UK drones industry in filling that important strategic need?
Sir Alan Campbell
First of all, I join the shadow Leader of the House in paying tribute to Sir John Stanley, who was a committed and long-standing Member of Parliament and a highly respected Minister. He gave 41 years of continuous service to this House and to his constituents.
Let me also congratulate one of our senior Doorkeepers, Paul Barwell, on his outstanding 20 years’ service to this House. I know all Members value the excellent support of the Doorkeepers, and I am sure the whole House joins me in thanking Paul for his commitment and service.
I join the shadow Leader of the House in sending congratulations to Joe Root on his inaugural test century in Australia. I also send—I hope on behalf of the whole House—our condolences to the friends and family of the legendary Robin Smith, who unfortunately died recently.
This House is embracing the Christmas spirit. We have seen the arrival of Christmas trees. I note that at least one came from Kielder forest in Northumberland; as a north-east MP, I am very proud and very grateful for that.
On wider matters this week, on World AIDS Day, the HIV action plan was published. It commits to one of the most ambitious public health goals of our time: ending new HIV transmissions in England by 2030. We will tackle the barriers to accessing treatment, such as stigma, discrimination and inequality, backed by the first ever national investment in engagement initiatives.
I hope that this weekend Members across the House will be supporting the UK’s 5.5 million small businesses on this year’s Small Business Saturday. Small businesses are the backbone of the UK economy. They provide essential services, create jobs and drive growth. The Government are determined to make the UK the best place to start and grow a business, fostering a culture for risk-takers in every community and high street by removing the barriers that had held them back too long. The festive season is a critical time for many small businesses and I hope they are set for a bumper Christmas.
To keep communities safe over the busy Christmas period, we announced a further crackdown on town centre crime. Police and local partners will work together to tackle shop theft and street crime across hundreds of our town centres. We also want people to stay well this winter. One of the ways we will be doing that is by rolling out online access to nearly every GP practice, benefiting patients across England. We promised to end the 8 am scramble. This is a massive step towards that ambition, making it easier and faster to get GP appointments.
Let me now turn to the questions from the shadow Leader of the House. He mentioned growth in the economy and the Budget. Of course, central to the Budget was our ambition to get growth moving. I gently point out that growth has been moving in the right direction and that we are the second-best performer in that regard in the G7.
On the start of Prime Minister’s questions, Mr Speaker has already made very clear his views on this subject. I, too, make it clear in Cabinet, on matters around statements and questions, that it is important that when Ministers come to this place, they are held to account and that they do so within the conventions of this House. As I have said before, in some senses Ministers, including the Prime Minister, cannot really win on this one, because if they do take time to update the House on something important, they are sometimes told, “That was not the right time to do it,” but if they do not tell the House about important events that are going on, they are criticised for that too. I do think there needs to be some balance.
With regard to the defence matters that the shadow Leader of the House raised, it is very important that we see investment in drone companies; indeed, there is a very successful and expanding drone company in my constituency. I will draw his concerns to the attention of Defence Ministers. I do not agree with the slant that he put on the Government’s approach to these matters. We take national security very seriously. The Prime Minister takes national security very seriously. He is aware of the current and growing threats, and is determined that our country be ready to step up and meet those threats. I will draw the concerns of the shadow Leader of the House to the attention of Defence Ministers and see whether we can get a statement at the earliest opportunity.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Last week was Parliament Week, and like Members across the House I had the chance to visit some of the brilliant schools in my constituency, to hear from Hartlepool children about the things that matter to them at St Teresa’s, St Peter’s Elwick, West View, and Eldon Grove academy, where pupils showed me their brilliant campaign comics on litter, bullying and the environment. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Hartlepool’s extraordinary young people, and the brilliant school staff who support them, for their outstanding contributions to our community?
Sir Alan Campbell
I do, of course, join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Hartlepool pupils and staff who organised the events that he refers to. I was pleased to be involved in a number of Parliament Week events myself, and I would encourage all Members across the House to engage with schools in their communities, not just on Parliament Week but throughout the year, to make sure that we engender a better understanding of this place.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I join the Leader of the House in his tributes to Sir John Stanley and Paul Barwell. He referred to the Christmas spirit getting going in and around the House, and I ask him to spare a thought for the Lib Dem staffers clutching coffees this morning after their Christmas party last night. I cannot confirm or deny whether I joined them.
Earlier this week, the Government announced a trade deal between the US and the UK on drug prices and medicines. Having reportedly rejected a price increase of £2.5 billion earlier this summer, the Government’s negotiators went back to the table and will apparently now pay £3 billion more instead. There is a live debate over how much the NHS should pay for drugs, which I respect. Big pharma has always wanted to drive up prices and has clearly not liked the purchasing power of the NHS, but the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence thresholds have not changed for some time, and there are some who argue that that means we are missing out on particular medicines. Others make the alternative argument that the opportunity cost of that spending in other areas of healthcare means that the thresholds should stay where they are.
Wherever we stand on that debate, two things are clear. First, this considered debate should not be settled by the bully-boy tactics of President Trump. He introduced 100% tariffs, breaking the World Trade Organisation rules on tariffs over this, and has come out with the explicit intention of putting Americans first. Secondly, the Government should explain how this huge price increase will be paid for. Daniel Elkeles, the chief executive of NHS Providers, says that
“it is not yet clear how it will be paid for”,
and there are fears among GPs, dentists and community pharmacists that they will be the ones who will suffer as a result of the increase in prices. Will the Leader of the House urge a Health Minister to come to the Dispatch Box to answer questions about the impact of this new deal?
Sir Alan Campbell
If my memory serves me correctly, the hon. Gentleman is going to have to get used to sleepless nights; he has a few ahead of him, I think.
The hon. Gentleman raises an important matter, but the reality is that, due to the strength of our relationship with the United States, we have secured the first and best deal on pharmaceutical products—indeed, it is the lowest rate offered to any country. This deal is a win for patients and for our life sciences sector, and that is an important part of our plan for growth. Better access to innovative medicines is critical to keeping people healthy and treating illness more effectively. We are protecting the NHS and its frontline staff with record investment and reforms to deliver better care. That also means making sure that we have the best deal in place on pharmaceuticals.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
It has been five years since the Cumberlege report shone a light on a shocking patient safety scandal. Last year, the Hughes report set out redress options for those affected by sodium valproate and pelvic mesh. Many of the affected individuals have faced complex, lifelong challenges, which have been compounded by the delays they have faced in getting support. Can we have a debate in Government time about what steps we can take to put the findings into action and provide the recognition and compensation that patients need?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue; I know it is an issue of concern to Members right across the House. It is a complex matter, and we are carefully considering the options for redress outlined in the Hughes report. I note that there was a very well-attended Westminster Hall debate on this matter earlier this year. I will make sure that my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary has heard her concerns, but I remind her, and indeed the House, of the opportunity to raise such matters more fully in the pre-recess Adjournment debate coming shortly.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call Martin Vickers, in place of the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
The Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), sends his apologies for his absence. In addition to the debates that the Leader of the House mentioned, there will be Westminster Hall debates next Tuesday on consumer-led flexibility for a just transition and next Thursday afternoon on the role of Fairtrade certification in UK business and trade. The second debate on Thursday afternoon is particularly important, because it was initiated by me; it is on the future of the oil refining sector in the UK. The following week, beginning 15 December, there will be a debate on Tuesday on planning policy for quarries and debates on Thursday on the literary and cultural legacy of Jane Austen and on community audiology. Those debates show what a vast range of interests there are across the House.
Turning to my own question, last Saturday I visited Humberside airport with the shadow Transport Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), where management outlined the challenges faced not just by them but by regional airports up and down the country. They are facing increased national insurance costs, and in the case of Humberside, they face the potential loss of business from Eastern Airways, which is in administration. If work in the North sea—on the rigs and so on—declines, they will face the loss of the helicopter transfers that they rely on. Will the Leader of the House provide Government time for a debate on the role of regional airports?
Sir Alan Campbell
First, I am grateful to both the hon. Gentleman and the Chair of the Committee for the update on Backbench Business, and I thank everyone on that Committee.
On the constituency matter the hon. Gentleman raises, the Government recognise the importance of regional airports for the communities they serve and the local economy. He outlines the challenge to Humberside airport. We do recognise the potential impact of the Eastern Airways issue on employees and the airport itself, so I thank him for raising the matter. I will raise his concerns with Ministers, and should he seek a meeting to see what can be done to help in that situation, I will arrange that.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
The first duty of any Government is to ensure the safety and security of all its citizens. The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention concluded that the detention of Jagtar Singh Johal violates international law. I ask the Leader of the House to urgently press the Foreign Secretary to update the House on what efforts have been made by the Government on the release of the British citizen Jagtar Johal.
Sir Alan Campbell
I note that 4 November was the eighth anniversary of Mr Johal’s arrest. We continue to raise concerns about his prolonged detention at every opportunity, and we emphasise the need for a prompt, full and just resolution to his case. I will draw my hon. Friend’s comments to the attention of the Foreign Office and ensure that Members are updated on any developments in this case.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
The Severn Area Rescue Association, known as SARA, is a volunteer-led lifeboat and inland search and rescue charity. It does fantastic work in north Worcestershire, along the route of the River Severn, and in the constituencies of many hon. Members. Although I welcome the Government’s announcement in the Budget last week that the requirement for vehicle excise duty will no longer apply to these organisations, will the Leader of the House support me in my endeavours—I have written to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs calling on the Government to reintroduce the flood team maintenance grant—to alleviate the pressure on such charities?
Sir Alan Campbell
I pay tribute to the volunteers up and down the country who do such important work, whether on the rivers in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency or along the coast in mine. He has generously referred to the Budget announcement, which is very welcome. I will ensure that he gets a response to the letter that he sent to the Secretary of State, to set out our position.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a member of Unite the union. The Leader of the House will be aware that the Birmingham bin dispute has gone on for many months. The city has declared a major incident and many of the workers are facing severe hardship. Will the Leader of the House urge a ministerial colleague to come to the House to make a statement on the role that the Government could play in resolving the dispute after all these months, which has caused such harm to the city and to the workers?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising this matter, which is raised often during business questions. It is very frustrating that the situation continues. The Government are absolutely clear that we want to see an end to the dispute at the earliest opportunity. I will raise his concerns with the relevant Minister and ensure that the House is updated when the situation changes.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
As part of the visa process, academics and researchers coming to our universities from other countries to do research in sensitive fields rightly have to go through extra security checks. This is known as the academic technology approval scheme. I have been supporting a constituent who had to apply for his visa to be extended, and the checks had to be done again. We had the usual delays, but sadly the gentleman’s father died. We tried to get the process expedited, but unfortunately it has been a frustrating process. The ATAS process is run and overseen by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, but everyone we spoke to there said they had never heard of it and referred us back to the Home Office, which has no power over it at all. Will the Leader of the House ensure that there is an urgent review of the oversight of the scheme, including how MPs engage with it, and update the House at his earliest convenience?
Sir Alan Campbell
It is important that we have clarity on these schemes, because the ability of academics to come to this country to work and study is an important part of the life of our higher education institutions. I will draw the issue to the attention of the Foreign Office in order to get to the bottom of it, find out what the accurate picture is and make it aware of the hon. Lady’s concerns.
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
Recently, a 12-year-old boy in Timperley in my constituency was stabbed with a screwdriver by a local adult man in a totally unjustified attack. Thankfully, my constituent survived this horrific ordeal, but both he and his parents were staggered to learn that the attacker has been released on bail. I share the deep concerns of the victim, his friends who witnessed the attack and all their parents about this decision, so could the Leader of the House help me raise—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. May I gently say to the hon. Member that this matter may well be sub judice and that the House therefore needs to tread very carefully when discussing it?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am sure the whole House will join me in expressing our deepest sympathy on this distressing attack and in wishing the young boy a full and swift recovery from this horrific ordeal. I am not surprised that it has caused such distress to his parents. I will tread carefully and say that I will draw it to the attention of the relevant Minister and make sure that my hon. Friend gets a response.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I was pleased to welcome pupils from Annan academy in my constituency to Parliament last week and to hear directly from those young people that many of them had actively participated in a consultation by SNP-led Dumfries and Galloway council to voice their opposition to an ill-thought-out proposal to cut free musical instrument tuition in local schools. I am sure the Leader of the House will agree that not only are the Annan pupils right that music tuition should not be only for those who can pay for it, but that they are to be praised for speaking out on an issue that directly affects them and that we should encourage all young people to do the same.
Sir Alan Campbell
Students at Annan academy have set a fantastic example and are right to champion the importance of music. We are topping up the music and dance scheme in England and are publishing a new enrichment framework. I encourage others who have some responsibility for these matters to look at it and see what they can learn and then to apply it themselves. The pupils’ example, following Parliament Week, would be fitting for a contribution to the pre-recess Adjournment debate.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
As one of the co-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group on HIV, AIDS and sexual health, I thank all Members across the House for joining in to recognise World AIDS Day on Monday and at Prime Minister’s questions on Wednesday. It is important that parliamentarians continue to show that cross-party support in highlighting that HIV is still very real for many people, but that by working together, we can be one of the first countries to end new HIV transmissions by 2030. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the Government on the new HIV action plan, which sets out how we will prevent HIV transmissions, scale up testing and address the stigma that sadly affects many people, including women and black and minority ethnic people? Will he also congratulate the many charities and organisations that are working, often on a shoestring budget, to ensure that this agenda is still firmly on the Government’s mind?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter and playing her part in ensuring that this issue is at the forefront of our minds. I also join her in thanking charities and organisations involved in these matters. As I said, the Government have introduced the HIV action plan, which is one of the most ambitious public health goals of our time. We will continue the success of the blood-borne viruses emergency department opt-out testing programme. We will trial HIV testing within the NHS app and improve awareness of HIV prevention for those at risk. As I said, it is important that we tackle the barriers to accessing treatment, such as stigma, discrimination and inequality. Not only are we making that commitment, we are putting investment behind it.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
Of the manifold carnival of basically lies that was the Vote Leave campaign, becoming £350 million richer a week was one of the principal lies. The sad reality, of course, is that we are £250 million a day worse off as a result of Brexit, which has forced the Chancellor to come after £66 billion of unreconciled revenue from the real economy. It was supposed to take back control but, well, this control does not feel very nice. It was supposed to stop immigration, but irregular immigration is through the roof. It was supposed to save the Tory party, but I give you exhibit A: the Tory Benches. Can we have a debate on Government time to get real about the catastrophic consequences of Brexit?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government’s position is to ensure that we get the best deal possible, working with our European partners. Many of the areas he talks about, quite frankly, have been hit negatively as a result of decisions which were democratically taken. It is important that we do everything we can to restore and to move on from that. Should he seek a Backbench Business debate, an Adjournment debate or even to contribute to the pre-recess Adjournment debate to raise these matters, I am sure that colleagues from across the House, actually, will share some of his concerns.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
There has been a significant increase in unmanaged houses in multiple occupation in Hillingdon. Despite calls for proper licensing, the Conservative council has taken 15 months just to bring forward a simple consultation. During that time, there has been additional antisocial behaviour, crime and significant community concern. Does the Leader of the House agree that residents deserve better than this? Can we make time in this place for a debate about a proper national regulatory framework for HMOs?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am very sorry to hear of the situation in my hon. Friend’s constituency; such concerns exist in constituencies across the country. Local authorities have powers to ensure that landlords comply with relevant regulations, and the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 introduces reforms to improve regulation of private rented sector properties, including HMOs. We keep the regulation of HMOs under review. Should my hon. Friend seek a debate, he might be able not just to put forward his concerns, but to hear from a Minister on how the Government intend to take matters forward.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
This House is at its strongest when we work across parties and in the interests of others, be they here in the United Kingdom or overseas. Does the Leader of the House share my concern—one shared across the House—about the democratic backsliding in Georgia? This country wants a close relationship with the Government in Tbilisi, and to re-engage on the Wardrop strategic dialogue, but we cannot do so while peaceful protests are being put down by water cannon infused with chemical weapons such as camite. If that is true, as I believe it to be, it could constitute a breach of international law. Will the Leader of the House encourage the Foreign Secretary to come to the House to give a statement on Georgia, and will he put on record his concerns about democratic backsliding there?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am happy to do so. There should be no democratic backsliding by Georgia. The UK Government are concerned about what is happening. We want to see that country continue on a trajectory in the direction of democracy. We are working, not just on our own but with European colleagues, to ensure that Georgia adheres to democratic norms. I will ensure that the Foreign Secretary hears the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns, and should there be a need for a statement at some point, I am sure that a Minister will make one.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
In Aylesbury, the average waiting time for a driving test at the local test centre is now 19 weeks. One constituent told me about the substantial financial toll, which can run into the thousands of pounds and places an unreasonable burden on families—that is not to mention the stress. I welcome the Government’s action, including deploying more driving examiners and reducing the ability of bots to book test slots, but driving instructors tell me that the problem is not solved yet. Will the Leader of the House advise me on what more I can do to ensure that we get new drivers on to the roads?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is doing just that by raising this matter on the Floor of the House, as I am sure she will continue to do—this matter is important to her and many other Members. As she points out, we are taking action to deliver additional driving tests and to prevent learners from being exploited by online bots. I will ensure that the Minister has heard what she said, and that they continue to keep the House updated on these matters.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Yesterday, in my role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on women in defence, and alongside Angela Owen OBE, who founded Women in Defence UK in 2011, I was pleased to chair a briefing to discuss the publication of this year’s Women in Defence charter data report. The report shows that women account for roughly 25% of the total defence workforce, but for only 21% of directors and 23% of board-level positions. If the Government are serious about building a defence sector that lives up to its promises of equality and inclusion, will the Leader of the House advise me on how I might meet the relevant Minister to discuss the progression of more women into leadership roles in defence?
Sir Alan Campbell
I pay tribute to the hon. Lady and the APPG for their work. We are serious about the matters that she raises. I will ensure that she gets an opportunity to set them out in person at a meeting with the relevant Minister.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
This week, in the wake of COP30, devastating floods across south-east Asia have affected the people of Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia, with 1,300 estimated to have died. Here in the UK, we are witnessing ever-more extreme weather events, be they the wettest winters or the driest summers. Such events are affecting global food supplies. Given the environmental and economic damage being done by climate change, as well as the economic opportunity that it presents, might we have a debate in Government time on the climate emergency?
Sir Alan Campbell
Tackling climate change is a priority for this Government. We are seizing the opportunities of the clean energy economy and will continue to bear down on reducing emissions in a way that does not just secure good jobs but lowers bills. My hon. Friend may wish to seek a Backbench Business debate, because these concerns are not confined to one side of the House, or he may wish to join us at the pre-recess Adjournment debate and make those points more fully.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
As the Leader of the House will know, I have long championed a cause supported by other Members of this House, notably the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey): nuclear test veterans. These were the young men who were sent to the other side of the world to witness the tests of Britain’s first nuclear weapons. In welcoming the engagement we have had with the Secretary of State for Defence and the Minister for Veterans and People, may I press the Leader of the House for a meeting with the Prime Minister? It has been promised. They did meet Boris Johnson when he was Prime Minister. We have ongoing issues about access to their medical records. I understand that the meeting with the PM has been delayed. The PM has said he supports them. I simply want the Leader of the House to use his immense authority and power to make sure that meeting happens.
Sir Alan Campbell
I am grateful for that overestimation of my influence and power. I will bring everything I have to bear to get the right hon. Gentleman the answer that he wants. The Prime Minister does care deeply about such matters. If a commitment has been made—and I do not doubt that it has—we will ensure that it is fulfilled.
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
The Environment Agency budget was halved over the decade from 2010, and that contributed to the illegal waste sites that still blight our countryside today, including Brambletree Wharf in my constituency, which has been there since 2018. It is fantastic that the Government are doubling the budget for waste crime enforcement this year to almost £60 million, but can we have a debate in this House on whether the Environment Agency is using its existing powers appropriately and, indeed, whether new powers are needed, given the scale of the crisis? I am appalled that it has recently decided not to use its powers to prosecute those responsible for Brambletree Wharf, which, in my view, is a clear dereliction of its duty and worthy of further parliamentary debate.
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is not the first Member to raise concerns about the Environment Agency, and I imagine that it will have heard her concerns. We are committed to tackling waste crime, which is a blight on local communities and the environment. As she points out, the Environment Agency has a range of powers. Of course, we keep looking to see whether it has sufficient power, but if agencies have powers, they should be prepared to use them. She may wish to raise this at the next Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions or in an Adjournment debate.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)
I am sure the Leader of the House shares my concern at the recent abduction of over 300 children and teachers from St Mary’s Catholic school in central Nigeria. This is part of a pattern of Islamist persecution of Christians in Nigeria and, indeed, around the world. Does he agree that this pattern exists, and will he agree to a debate in Government time so that the House can address it?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Government are very clear that they are against religious intolerance wherever it happens and whichever community or faith it comes from. The news from Nigeria is very worrying indeed; let us hope for a suitable outcome. The hon. Gentleman may wish to seek an Adjournment debate or speak in the pre-recess Adjournment debate to give further evidence about his concerns.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
One issue that literally keeps my constituents awake at night is noisy fireworks. It happens around weddings and around car meets, with young people setting them off at night. That is why I was pleased to support the ten-minute rule Bill introduced yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi). Given that this is a big issue around the country, affecting veterans, those with sensory issues, animals and others, will the Government consider taking over that ten-minute rule Bill, so that we can get it into law?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises an issue that is often mentioned around bonfire night but is also relevant as we approach end-of-year celebrations. It is important that we respond with proportionate measures. I am not familiar with the ten-minute Bill he mentions—I missed that one—so I cannot give him a commitment that the Government will take it over, but I am sure that the matter will continue to be debated. It is right and proper that he raises his concerns on behalf of his constituents.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Last week, I attended the impressive national emergency briefing on the climate and nature crisis, where 10 leading experts warned MPs about escalating risks facing the UK. The briefing was challenging and informative, but also encouraging, and it set out positive steps that we can take to mitigate the impact. Those experts have called for a televised national emergency briefing, so that the public can hear the same evidence, a call that is now supported by over 33,000 signatories of an open letter to the Prime Minister and the major broadcasters. Can we have a debate in Government time on the case for such a televised emergency briefing, so that people across the UK can understand the threats we are facing and the actions that are required?
Sir Alan Campbell
If such a televised briefing is necessary, it is within the gift of the media to arrange one. I am sure that people from all sorts of situations will wish to contribute and the Government’s voice will be heard too. We take these matters extremely seriously and people are becoming increasingly aware of them, and the more information we can get out there to inform the debate, the better.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
People in Norwich and Norfolk care deeply about their local environment. Last Friday, I met local leaders at a roundtable hosted by Nelsonspirit, a fantastic social impact business, and we discussed sustainability and how to protect our environment. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking local groups, like Nelsonspirit, and will he make time for a debate on local sustainability and environment initiatives and the role of Government in supporting them?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important matter and for her commendable work in her constituency. I would be delighted to join her in thanking Nelsonspirit and all the local businesses, charities and schools in Norwich for their dedication to improving sustainability and protecting the local environment. I gently encourage her to attend the Westminster Hall debate next Tuesday on consumer-led flexibility for a just transition, where she may want to raise the matter further.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr, Llefarydd. Ahead of the Budget, I wrote to the Chancellor outlining the desperate economic situation facing hospitality businesses in Wales. I was disheartened that the Chancellor ignored those warnings, adding pressure to the ongoing struggles of the industry, with business property relief a key concern for businesses like Anglesey Taverns on Ynys Môn. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on how the Government can work with business owners in Wales to find sustainable solutions to increasingly unmanageable costs?
Sir Alan Campbell
I gently challenge the hon. Lady, because the Government have not ignored warnings about the sector at all. In fact, there were measures in the Budget that are intended to help. There is one important day left, in the final week before the recess, to raise matters about the Budget when we discuss the Finance Bill, so she may wish to raise those issues then. The stages of the Finance Bill will then be debated, probably on the Floor of the House, and she may wish to try to get on to the Committee. However, I gently say to her that although some of the decisions taken in the Budget were difficult, their central intent is to bear down on the cost of living, and the hospitality sector will benefit from people having more money in their pockets.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
There is nothing more special and beautiful in life than seeing a child’s face light up when they get to see Santa, but not every family can afford to go to a grotto. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking all the amazing volunteer organisations, such as the Rotary clubs and the Lions clubs—I am a Doncaster Lion myself—whose members walk the streets, go to food banks and go to supermarkets to see the children and bring Christmas spirit to Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme and places across the country?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in thanking all the volunteers, particularly from the Rotary clubs and the Lions clubs, across the country for all their hard work. It is people like them who make the Christmas season so special. I wish him well in his Santa dash—I am sure he will make a dashing Santa.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
In Wokingham, we are lucky to have CLASP—caring, listening and supporting partnership—which is a charity that gives wonderful support to adults with learning disabilities. It says that there is a serious lack of awareness about the issues faced by adults with learning difficulties and autism, notably that they typically have a shorter life expectancy, often dying up to 20 years younger than most people. Will the Leader of the House join me in recognising the invaluable role that charities such as CLASP play in supporting and raising awareness for our most vulnerable residents?
Sir Alan Campbell
I pay tribute to that organisation and others across our country, and to the hon. Gentleman for raising this important matter on the Floor of the House. He will know that the Health Secretary takes these matters very seriously indeed. Should he seek a meeting with a Health Minister to expand on that, I will see if we can arrange one.
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
The No Tier Snooker Society in Congleton has brought joy to those living with early onset dementia and a supportive circle for their families. It is played with revised rules—hence the name—and is a model for initiatives in other areas. It was set up by Ian, with help from nurse Denise Parr, and I am so pleased to see it spreading further. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Ian on his excellent initiative, thank the volunteers and local businesses who have supported it and grant a Backbench Business debate on community initiatives to support those with early onset dementia and their family members?
Sir Alan Campbell
First, I express my thanks to the No Tier Snooker Society and other organisations that support those with dementia. When I play snooker, it inevitably ends in tears. As we know, community support is vital for those suffering with dementia and other diseases. That is a matter not just for her constituency but for everyone across our country. I will ensure that the Health Secretary and the Culture Secretary hear about the case she raised and see what further can be done.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
This week, it is the 14th birthday of Khaled, the son of the British-Egyptian former political prisoner Alaa Abd el-Fattah. Khaled will not see his father in person as Alaa was prevented from travelling to the UK by the Egyptian authorities in November. While I am sure the Leader of the House will wish Khaled a happy birthday, will he also assure me that the Government will help ensure that his father can travel here as soon as possible?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am happy to join the whole House in wishing a Khaled a happy birthday. Let us hope that his family concerns are addressed sooner rather than later. I will ask Ministers for an update on what they are doing and what hope we can have for the family to be reunited.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
Last week, I had the privilege of meeting a number of schools during UK Parliament Week, including Tenterfields academy, the Impact independent school and Leasowes high school in my constituency. I had some fantastic questions and really intelligent insights into democracy from those students. Leasowes high school had the opportunity to visit Parliament earlier this year, but I hear from other schools in my constituency that, despite the excellent service provided, it is very oversubscribed. Does the Leader of the House agree that the UK Parliament Week team do excellent work? Can he do anything to allow more spaces to open up so that more children can experience that learning about democracy?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in thanking the parliamentary education team for the work they do, not just during UK Parliament Week but throughout the year. It is important that schools like Leasowes can visit this place and see democracy at work. The educational travel subsidy, which is part of this matter and was raised by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) last week, will be considered at the House of Commons Commission meeting on Monday.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I am sure that the Leader of the House shares my alarm at the most recent stats from the Office for National Statistics showing that suicide rates are at their highest since the turn of the century, which bears out what I am hearing from my local mental health trust. Might he have a conversation with a Health Minister and encourage them to come to the Dispatch Box to update the House on the Government’s approach to suicide prevention and, in particular, what more can be done to support the work of those at the coalface, such as the wonderful Stockport Samaritans, as they undertake their lifesaving work?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am happy to thank not just Stockport Samaritans, but Samaritans across the country for the fantastic and very difficult work that they do. The question of suicide has been raised frequently in business questions, and it is certainly a key part of the Government’s recently announced men’s health strategy, because, if I am correct, suicide remains the biggest killer of men under 50. I will draw the hon. Lady’s point to the attention of Health Ministers; should she seek a meeting with them further to explore this matter, we will see what we can do.
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
Like others, to mark Parliament Week I had the pleasure of visiting Leigh Church of England primary school and hearing directly from students about their campaign to support teaching assistants. It was inspiring to see young people championing those who support them, showing real democratic engagement and care for their community. Will the Leader of the House join me in celebrating their brilliant campaign? As they will be listening intently to him, will he advise on other ways in which they can campaign to get this important message across?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in celebrating the incredible work of teaching assistants, and I congratulate the young people on their campaign in support of those who do work that is vital to our education system. The reality is that teaching assistants play a significant role in our children’s education and life chances. I will give some thought to how the campaign can continue, and I thank my hon. Friend for raising it on the Floor of the House. My advice to the children themselves is, “Work with your fantastic MP and see how this campaign can progress.”
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Many people on repeat prescriptions rely on NHS 111’s emergency prescription service to get the meds they need if they have unexpectedly run out. However, I have learned through my own experience that if somebody is in a moving vehicle, NHS 111 will not proceed to have a conversation with them until they are stationary. Many residents on long public transport journeys, for example, are therefore delayed in getting the medication they need. To address this issue, will the Leader of the House help me to arrange a meeting with the relevant Health Minister?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point on a matter I was unaware of. As someone who seeks a repeat prescription, I will ensure that I do not do it when I am travelling. That is a new one to me, and I will seek a meeting with a Health Minister so that we can explore it.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
Next week marks 70 years since Cumbernauld was designated a new town on 9 December 1955. It was part of a visionary programme that reshaped communities across Scotland and the UK. While we rightly celebrate that legacy of ambition and innovation, many new towns, including my own, face significant challenges, from ageing infrastructure to pressures on public services and town centres. Will the Leader of the House allocate time for a debate on the past, present and future of the UK’s new towns so that we can consider how best to support their regeneration and ensure that places such as Cumbernauld continue to thrive for decades to come?
Sir Alan Campbell
The towns created in the new towns movement included some of the fastest-growing local economies in the country, and I pay tribute to everyone who has been involved in the development and evolution of new towns. They were a very important part of our history, and they remain so. Our 10-year infrastructure strategy outlines what we will do to upgrade infrastructure to drive growth and raise living standards in every part of the country, including in new towns. With our new towns taskforce, we will create the next generation of new towns, with early investment in infrastructure, transport connections and environmental resilience.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
Yesterday I co-ordinated 36 MPs and Members of the other place in calling on the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to include in the forthcoming animal welfare strategy a timebound plan to end the use of farrowing crates and cages in farming. Will the Leader of the House confirm that the strategy will be brought out, as the Government committed to do, by the end of the year? Will there be a statement to this House, before rather than after the House rises for Christmas, that the strategy will include an end to the cruel use of farrowing crates and cages?
Sir Alan Campbell
I will certainly take that point back and find out where the strategy is. It is a really important strategy, and it is important that the Government bring it forward, not least because my postbag is full of people who are genuinely concerned about animal welfare, as I am. If we have said that it will happen before the end of the year, of course that is our ambition. However, I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that it is sometimes more important to get these things absolutely right than to hit an artificial deadline. I will go and find out where the strategy is and raise the matter with Ministers.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
The people of the Stotfold Good Neighbour Group have been far more than just good friends for lots of people in their community; they go above and beyond to be a crucial lifeline for many who would otherwise be isolated, helping with trips to the doctor and hospitals and crucial shopping trips. With the group having completed more than 15,000 connections for the town, will the Leader of the House join me in thanking all the volunteers who make it possible? Will he also join me in celebrating the very welcome news that they are being recognised with the King’s award for voluntary service?
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Stotfold Good Neighbour Group on receiving the prestigious King’s award for voluntary service, which is the highest award for local volunteering groups in the UK. I have said before, and it remains true, that volunteers are the bedrock of our communities, and I hope that the award gives them well-deserved recognition and appreciation.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Residents across Twickenham, Teddington, the Hamptons and Whitton are sick to the back teeth with South Western Railway repeatedly cancelling, delaying and putting on short trains. The service to every station in my constituency has become appreciably worse since nationalisation, despite promises to the contrary from Ministers, with local residents missing out on work, medical appointments and education. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on the performance of SWR?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Railways Bill will come to this House shortly, and Great British Railways will come shortly, but the hon. Lady raises the frustration of a lot of people with the underperformance of parts of our railways. The reforms we intend to introduce are absolutely central to ensuring that there are real improvements. Again, I gently point her towards either a Backbench Business debate or an Adjournment debate, because I am sure that many colleagues would want to take part.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
South Side Studios is a fantastic temporary custodian of the old Wilko shop on Leighton Buzzard high street. It has put on some brilliant events, such as salsa, more dancing, painting and Lego workshops—who does not like Lego? While it has had fantastic success in persuading commercial businesses to embrace meanwhile use, it has had rather less success with the local council, which has an old, disused care home that I am told costs £7,000 every week for security. Will the Leader of the House consider a debate on meanwhile use so that we can spread the news about the positive benefits it can bring?
Sir Alan Campbell
Let me pay tribute to the interesting work that South Side Studios does. The Government remain committed to the rejuvenation of our high streets and to tackling vacancy, and we support innovative solutions to this issue, such as meanwhile use and rental auctions. It is a matter for local authorities to consider temporary planning permission, but I hope that my hon. Friend’s local authority has heard about this matter. Once again, she is right to raise these matters—she shows that on this issue, as on many others, she is on the side of her constituents.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
May I thank the Leader of the House for his positive answers about the persecuted across the world each week? They are much appreciated. I am deeply concerned by the increasing targeted attacks on Christians in northern Mozambique, with more than 20 Christians killed in the past month. Will the Leader of the House join me in condemning those appalling attacks? Will he urge the Foreign Secretary to outline what concrete actions the Government will take to ensure the protection of Christian communities and the promotion of freedom of religion or belief in Mozambique?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter in the very sensitive way that he always does. The UK is committed to defending freedom of religion or belief for all, and we condemn attacks on religious grounds wherever they should happen and for whatever reason. The British high commission in Mozambique, alongside international partners, regularly engages with the relevant authorities and religious leaders to address violence and instability in the region. I encourage him to attend the debate on international human rights in Westminster Hall next week, at which I am sure his wise contribution will be appreciated.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
Last year, against a target of restoring 5,000 hectares of ancient woodland in England, we managed a grand total of zero. It is little surprise, then, that Government analysis published this week shows that we continue to see wildlife decline across the board, yet certain commentators continue to peddle spurious narratives scapegoating nature for the failure of a corporatist economic system to deliver prosperity for ordinary people. May we have a debate on the true value of nature to our society and on how we can finally reverse decades of decline in our natural environment?
Sir Alan Campbell
There are some opportunities before the Christmas recess—the Planning and Infrastructure Bill is coming back, and we have the pre-recess Adjournment debate—when my hon. Friend may wish to raise these matters. He is right to raise concerns about nature. We are concerned about the natural environment, but we must also ensure that there is a balance between the development that we seek and need and a healthy natural environment.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
My constituent Caroline lost her universal credit transitional protection after her earnings fell below the administrative earnings threshold. I wrote to the Department for Work and Pensions about her case in August, but since then I have received only a holding reply. Could the Leader of the House use his good offices to ensure that I get a reply for my constituent?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this case with me. If he gives the details of the case afterwards, I will certainly raise it with Ministers. Although a holding reply may be sensible at the time, it cannot go on forever, and he needs to get a substantive reply.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
Tomorrow marks the 10-year anniversary of Storm Desmond and the flooding of the city of Carlisle that forced thousands of my constituents from their homes. As we remember the horror of 2015, we also celebrate the incredible people of Carlisle who came together to support their friends and neighbours at that time. One group, in particular, went on to form the North Cumbria Search and Rescue team, whose work continues to be funded entirely by donations to this day. I invite the Leader of the House to thank North Cumbria Search and Rescue for its continued work to keep communities across north Cumbria safe.
Sir Alan Campbell
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important anniversary. I remember those terrible events very well. The anniversary gives us the opportunity to pay tribute to the fantastic people across the communities of Carlisle and the way they responded to the challenges of the flooding. I join my hon. Friend in celebrating the extraordinary work of North Cumbria Search and Rescue and all those who run those vital services, and not just in her area but across the UK.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
Last month, during consideration of a Lords message on the Employment Rights Bill, I said:
“I have proportionate respect for the work of the other place”.—[Official Report, 5 November 2025; Vol. 774, c. 978.]
However, this House and the public—especially young, lower-paid and insecure workers—expect a popularly elected Government’s manifesto commitments not to be held up, compromised or rejected by the other place. Will the Leader of the House therefore schedule an urgent debate, in Government time and in this, the elected Chamber, on whether we should now abolish the House of Lords?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend will know that the Employment Rights Bill will return to this House before the recess, and he may wish then to raise this point. Of course, it is important that this House, as the elected House, ultimately gets its way, but the upper House has an important role to play on many matters. We have had debates about these matters in the past, and I am sure that the debate about not just whether we reform the House of Lords, but whether we actually need a second Chamber, will continue into the future.
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
This week, residents in Rossendale have once again experienced massive disruption and delays due to roadworks. This time it was emergency works by United Utilities, where necessary four-way lights were not being operated according to the permit. My office has been working with Lancashire county council to get promises of action, but as of this morning there has been no change. My residents are rightly fed up with this happening time and again. Since being elected, I have called on the county council to properly enforce street works and to introduce a lane rental scheme, which could address congestion on our busiest roads. I am once again calling on the Reform council leadership to take urgent action. To shine a light on the issue, will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time on the issue of street works?
Sir Alan Campbell
I share my hon. Friend’s frustration. I understand just how disruptive street works can be for drivers and local communities, and it is really disappointing that the local authority has not responded positively on these matters. We are doubling fixed penalty notices for certain street works offences, but in the meantime I urge the county council to enforce the orders that my hon. Friend raises, not least because residents and road users may otherwise conclude that the Reform-led council is all talk and no delivery.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating schools and youth groups in my constituency for their phenomenal 53 engagements with UK Parliament Week? It is not a competition, but I would like to update the House that Rugby came 12th out of 650 constituencies, and second in the west midlands. I visited Ashlawn school, Rugby Free secondary school, Cawston Brownies, Binley Woods youth club and the Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh Rugby branch to discuss politics with young people, while English Martyrs RC primary, Clifton-upon-Dunsmore Church of England primary and the 1st Hillmorton Guides sent questions that I answered on social media. Their questions and enthusiasm for contributing to improving their community, country and world shows that democracy has a bright future. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to the brilliant parliamentary staff who worked so hard to ensure a very successful UK Parliament Week?
Sir Alan Campbell
I will certainly join my hon. Friend in thanking the parliamentary staff for their fantastic work, and thanking Mr Speaker for his leadership with regard to Parliament Week. I also congratulate my hon. Friend on something else: 53 is a huge number of engagements. I can see that he is very much wired into his local constituency and is doing a fantastic job of motivating people there. It is really important that schools and clubs engage, and I want to thank each of the ones my hon. Friend has mentioned as well as all the others who have engaged for making Parliament Week such a success. It is great that so many young people are involved and have, hopefully, not just a better understanding but a better interest in politics. They may wish to take that on into involvement at a local level—and who knows, we may see some of them sitting on these Benches in future years.
Camden Nursery Sexual Abuse Case
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Before we come to the statement, I should inform the House that the case concerned is still technically sub judice until sentencing. However, the Government have made the judgment that the House should have an opportunity to consider this matter, as it raises issues of national importance, and the accused has pleaded guilty. Mr Speaker has therefore granted a limited waiver so that Members may discuss the issues raised in the context of the case. Members should not speculate about sentencing issues and should also be cautious about prejudicing any ongoing investigations.
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will now make a statement regarding the sickening case of child sexual abuse at a nursery in Camden. Before I go further, I want to remind the House that a live police investigation is still under way and that the perpetrator is awaiting sentencing.
All Members and people across our country will wish to join me in expressing our horror at hearing of these appalling crimes. A 45-year-old British man, Vincent Chan, has pleaded guilty to 26 offences, which include multiple counts of sexual assault on a child by penetration, assault of a child by touching, and taking and making indecent photographs of a child, including category A images depicting the most serious abuse. He was employed by a nursery setting in Camden between June 2017 and May 2024. On 8 September 2025, he was arrested after evidence was uncovered on devices seized in a previous police investigation and was charged with the 26 offences in question on 9 September. Yesterday, Vincent Chan entered a plea of guilty, and sentencing will take place on 23 January.
In the meantime, the Metropolitan police have met families of all the children they have identified as victims of contact offences. In addition, the Met has written to the other families whose children attended the setting in question while the individual worked there to reassure them that where there is evidence of offences, the affected families have been contacted. Local children’s social care services are providing emotional and practical support to families and signposting them to specialist support services.
The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has been commissioned to set up a bespoke helpline as the first point of contact for anyone affected by these horrific acts. Details of the helpline can be found in communications from Camden council and the Metropolitan police. Specialist support is available for victims from the NSPCC helpline. People affected can be supported directly or referred to the right source of support to meet their needs, and the Government have provided funding to ensure there is sufficient capacity to support families.
Following a notification of a serious incident, the police, the integrated care board and the local authority completed a rapid review to establish the facts. That meant setting out a clear timeline of the events leading up to the incidents, the incidents themselves, the roles played by different agencies, and the safety of children at the nursery at each stage. Those initial findings are now being worked through quickly, but I can confirm to the House that the rapid review has concluded that a full local child safeguarding practice review is warranted. That wider review is being set up immediately. I am clear that it must shine the strongest possible light on these horrifying incidents, and that we must learn every lesson we can to make sure that crimes like this are guarded against at every step and every stage. It is critical that local safeguarding partners can continue their investigations, but I will work closely with them, with the child safeguarding practice review panel and its chair Sir David Holmes, and with Home Office colleagues to make absolutely sure that we have the most robust safeguards possible in place.
We must do everything in our power to protect children. I take my responsibilities as Secretary of State for not simply Education, but children, with the utmost seriousness. However, preventing cases like these requires everyone to believe in, and act on, the fundamental principle that safeguarding is everyone’s business. It is the duty of all of us right across our society to report abuse if we see it, and if we see or hear something that feels wrong, to question and challenge it. All of us owe it to our children to do the right thing. Keeping children safe is one of the most important duties of any society, and I thank our early years staff and wider children’s services workforce—those who work so hard, day in and day out, to give the children of this country the best start in life. I know that all committed early years and children’s services professionals will be just as horrified as we all are to hear about what has taken place, and just as distressed to think that something like this could happen in a place that should have been dedicated to keeping children safe and helping them thrive.
The defendant has now pleaded guilty to these sickening crimes and will be sentenced, but my thoughts this afternoon are not on him; they are with all the child victims of these vile and abhorrent crimes and their families, who are now trying to recover from the suffering and pain he has caused. My promise to them through these darkest of days, and my promise to Members in the Chamber today and to families across the country, is that not only will justice be served, but we will strengthen the ways in which we keep children safe. We will root out abuse wherever it hides, and we will never stop working to rid our society of this evil. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
This is an utterly horrific case. I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement, and I thank her officials and advisers, who took the time to brief me on it.
Any parent who has ever sent their child to nursery has had a physical reaction to this news. It is just so unspeakably awful, and the betrayal of trust that has taken place is abhorrent. I know that the thoughts and prayers of everyone in this place will be with the families and children affected, and all of our collective efforts must now focus on how we do all we can to prevent this from ever happening again. With that goal in mind, I have a number of questions about the case that I want to put to the Secretary of State, with the full understanding that much of what I ask might be covered by the serious case review. I am seeking her assurances that these issues will be looked at in the future, rather than expecting full answers now.
The first question is about the time it took for the images and videos on the devices in question to be looked at by the police. My understanding is that while the perpetrator was first arrested and the devices seized in June 2024, those devices were not examined, and the abusive content was not found by the police, until over a year later. This is obviously an unacceptably long delay, given that the case involved nursery children and a man who, in 2024, was barred from working with children. There clearly needs to be an expedited process for devices in cases involving children, particularly those who cannot speak and advocate for themselves. I would be grateful if the Education Secretary would confirm that she will raise this matter with the Home Secretary.
Secondly, I understand that closed circuit television was in use at the nursery, but the footage was wiped during the time it took for these serious abuse offences to come to light, so we do not have access to it. This is terrible, because with that CCTV, it might have been possible to identify affected children more easily, and to spare hundreds of parents the unimaginable terror that their children might have been affected. Obviously, this links to my first point about the delays in accessing the devices, but given that in other nursery abuse cases it has also taken time for offences to come to light, looking at the retention guidance for CCTV in nurseries seems a sensible step. It would be helpful to understand whether the Education Secretary is considering such a step.
Thirdly, this investigation was triggered by a member of staff at the nursery raising concerns. Can the Secretary of State confirm whether those concerns were investigated immediately by the nursery, at what stage Ofsted was notified, and what steps Ofsted took? Is the Secretary of State content that a rigorous and timely process was followed by Ofsted? It will seem unbelievable to most people that this abuse was able to go on under the noses of other staff and in the daytime, without anyone else being aware. Can the Secretary of State confirm whether other concerns were raised about Mr Chan previously, whether by other nursery staff or by parents, and what checks have taken place on safeguarding procedures at this nursery chain subsequent to this incident?
Lastly, according to reports, the perpetrator in question had 26,000 indecent images of children and 16 nursery devices at his home. Was it standard practice for these devices to be removed from the site? Why did nobody notice, and why was he allowed to have so many devices? Is the Education Secretary considering revised guidance about the use of devices in early years settings?
I stand with the Secretary of State, officials and the police as they do all they can to seek justice for victims. We in this House will do all we can to ensure that this never happens again.
Bridget Phillipson
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her response. I know she shares my commitment and determination to make sure that our early years settings are safe for our children, as parents and children rightly expect them to be. She has raised important areas related to policy. I will answer her points as best I can; she will appreciate that there may be limitations on precisely what I can say, but she raises important questions that will need to be considered through the work of the local review.
The right hon. Lady has rightly asked about the time it took for images to be looked at. That question will be considered in the local review, and I will of course discuss the point about children with colleagues at the Home Office. She also asked about the use of CCTV and devices—again, she is right to do so. To be clear, we believe that it may not have been the case that CCTV was in operation at the nursery—that came to light subsequently—but we will make sure that the review considers that important question. On the wider point about the use of CCTV and devices in early years settings, some of these settings already use CCTV, as she noted. Sadly, we know that it can never entirely prevent the prospect of abuse, and there may well be differing views among parents, carers and those in the sector about CCTV use in those settings. However, I appreciate that the issue has been raised as a concern in a number of ways, so I intend to appoint an expert advisory group to develop guidance for the sector on the safe and effective use of CCTV and digital devices. This guidance will set out best practice, technical information and clear expectations, and I will provide updates as that work progresses.
The right hon. Lady asked other questions; they are the right questions, and the local review will consider them further. She will understand that I cannot expand on many of the facts, but I appreciate the care and sensitivity that she has shown in her approach to this issue. I know that today, the focus of everyone in this House will be on the families—those who are suffering because of these despicable acts. We across this House stand with them as they get the support they need and the justice they deserve, and we as a Government will continue to take whatever steps are necessary to keep children safe, root out abuse wherever it hides, and rid our society of this evil.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Education Select Committee.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement.
Vincent Chan’s crimes are utterly horrific—the most egregious breach of trust imaginable, and every parent’s worst nightmare. My thoughts and, I know, the thoughts of the whole House have been with the children who are his victims, and with their families, ever since news of his crimes came into the public domain.
Incidents like this one, and the recent case of Roksana Lecka, who was convicted of abusing children at two nurseries, raise serious concerns about the effectiveness of Ofsted’s early years inspection regime, which currently rates 98% of providers as good or outstanding. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that Ofsted urgently brings forward reform of its early years inspection framework, so that it is fit for purpose? Will she review the current requirements for safeguarding training for early years practitioners, and the use of CCTV, to ensure that all staff are appropriately trained and the requirements are fit for purpose?
The Secretary of State’s colleagues in the Home Office have decided not to implement the version of mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse recommended by Professor Alexis Jay in the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse report, citing the workload that it would create. Does the Secretary of State agree that workload should not be a consideration when it comes to the safety of children? Will she urge her colleagues in the Home Office to rethink that decision, and to implement the more robust mandatory reporting obligation set out by Professor Jay, which includes criminal sanctions for non-compliance?
Finally, the Secretary of State spoke about the support that is quite rightly being provided to the victims of Vincent Chan and their families. Can she say a bit more about how support will be made available to those children and their families in such a way that they can draw on it throughout their life, whenever they need it?
Bridget Phillipson
The Chair of the Select Committee raises questions relating to Ofsted, as the shadow Secretary of State did, and I will respond in some detail to those. It is important that we understand what has happened here, so that, as far as we can, we prevent this from ever happening again. It is critical that local safeguarding partners conclude their investigations. We will work with them and the child safeguarding practice review panel.
We will also work with Ofsted to review the regulation of nursery chains. Ofsted keeps all settings under review, and conducts visits where risk assessments deem them necessary. The horrific crimes that we are discussing today are an important reminder that we expect providers to be vigilant across all early years settings. It is important that settings and staff report and act on concerns quickly, as part of an open safeguarding culture. I set out to the House my intentions around CCTV and the use of digital devices, and I would, as always, appreciate the input of the Select Committee and the Chair as we take that work forward.
On the wider need for reform in child protection and children’s safeguarding matters, on 9 April the Government published a progress update to address the recommendations from IICSA, including the recommendation on establishing a child protection authority to provide stronger national oversight of child protection. We will shortly launch a consultation on how we take that forward, and I will continue to discuss all the related matters with colleagues in the Home Office.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement, and for the briefing that officials provided to me. The details of this case are harrowing and deeply disturbing, and my first thoughts are with the families affected. I sincerely hope that they are getting all the support and care they need.
Sadly, however, this latest heinous case is part of a distressing pattern that is emerging in early years settings across the country, in which safeguarding practices have not been followed or are proving insufficient to prevent babies and young children from coming to harm. Less than three months ago, Roksana Lecka was jailed for eight years on 21 counts of child cruelty relating to her time working at Riverside nursery, Twickenham Green, in my constituency. Just last year, another nursery worker was jailed for manslaughter following the tragic death of Gigi Meehan in Cheadle. The BBC’s “Panorama” has exposed a worrying level of abuse and neglect in nurseries across the country.
The Secretary of State rightly says that lessons will be learned from the Camden case, but it is clear that we already urgently need to strengthen safeguarding in early years settings. The safeguarding panel review in the Twickenham Green case and the parents of the children affected have clearly set out three broad areas for change. The first is transparency around who is working in our early years settings, what qualifications and what training they have, and their history and vetting. What consideration has the Secretary of State given to an early years practitioner register, of the kind that Australia has recently proposed?
The second area for change is monitoring. In the Twickenham Green and Gigi Meehan cases, CCTV was vital in securing convictions, and it might have led to Chan being caught sooner. I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement today, but will she seriously consider mandating CCTV in nurseries, and making it a requirement for management to regularly review footage, and for Ofsted to routinely check footage at inspections? The third is accountability. The Vincent Chan and Twickenham Green cases involved nursery chains. Will the Secretary of State set out a timeline for when Ofsted will start corporate inspections of nursery chains, and will she ensure that when serious safeguarding issues are found in one setting, inspections are triggered across the chain?
No parent heading off to work should have to worry about whether their child is safe, but our most vulnerable are repeatedly being let down. The Secretary of State rightly said that keeping children safe is one of the most important duties in our society. Ministers urgently need to act to keep children safe, and we stand ready to work with them.
Bridget Phillipson
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her engagement with officials on these matters. We will be most effective if we work across the House to address the serious concerns that have been raised in this case, as well as in the other cases to which she makes reference.
I will ask the expert advisory group, when it looks at guidance, to consider the use of CCTV and whether it ought to be mandatory in early years settings. There are differing views across the sector and among parents and carers; although the use of CCTV could clearly have benefits, some have raised concerns about the potential for the misuse of the recordings. We need to ensure that any guidance or changes that are brought forward are in line with the evidence, so that it leads to the appropriate use of CCTV and devices in settings.
From next April, Ofsted will inspect new early years providers within 18 months of opening and move towards inspecting all providers at least once every four years, compared with six years previously. Ofsted will receive additional funding to enhance the quality of inspection by strengthening quality assurance processes and providing targeted training for inspectors. We are working with Ofsted to introduce reporting on larger nursery chains, so that issues that span a group of providers can be addressed. Ofsted will continue to keep all settings under review to ensure that visits take place when risk assessments deem them necessary.
The local review will be led by a reviewer who is independent of the local authority and local safeguarding partners. We will of course consider any of its recommendations that have wider implications for the sector and children’s safeguarding, and I will keep hon. Members updated on progress.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for Education for her statement and for reassuring us that the case is being given the importance and treated with the urgency it deserves. This is every parent’s worst nightmare. I pay tribute to my constituents and to the brave parents, who are here today to watch proceedings. They not only want justice for their own children, but want to ensure that never again are children put in this situation.
The parents in my constituency have a number of requests. I recognise that the Secretary of State will not be able to answer all of them, but I would be grateful if she could write to me. Has she considered enhanced background checks for everyone working with children, enabling the use of safeguarding CCTV in nurseries and early years providers, and a mandatory two-adult supervision rule for all nurseries and childcare practices? Is she looking into expanding Ofsted ratings to include a clear assessment of nurseries’ digital device policies and controls? Is she looking into establishing an independent, state-run safeguarding reporting body that parents can approach directly when concerns are raised, as they were in the case of this nursery? Such a body must be fully resourced to investigate childcare providers without reliance on internal nursery procedures.
Finally, will the Secretary of State ask the Prime Minister if he will meet me and affected parents to discuss not just this particular case, but how we strengthen the safeguarding process and the accountability of large childcare providers in our country?
Bridget Phillipson
I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the families for their bravery and courage. I cannot begin to imagine the trauma and pain that they are experiencing as a result of these heinous crimes. I am pleased that she is such a powerful champion and voice for children and families, both in her community and across our country. She raises a number of important questions. I will respond to her fully in writing to the best of my ability, given some of the limitations we are continuing to operate under in this case. I can give her the assurance that the Prime Minister would be happy to meet the families affected. At that meeting, we will be able to discuss further many of the questions that they have and many of the questions that she has rightly raised on their behalf today in the House.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
This case is appalling, and it is right that the thoughts of us all are with the families affected and that the Government should do everything they can to prevent such cases from occurring in future. When does the Secretary of State expect the findings of the review to come forward? What additional steps are the Government looking at to ensure that parents and anyone with safeguarding concerns can report them much more easily?
Bridget Phillipson
The local review will get under way immediately. It will be led by an independent reviewer, who is independent of the local safeguarding partnership. From the point at which they take up the post, there will be six months for that report to come forward. The chair of the national panel will keep in close contact with the local reviewer during that time to track progress and any emerging challenges or issues, and that will be shared with the Department for Education if necessary.
The hon. Member is right to highlight that safeguarding is a responsibility for all of us—to challenge, to question and to report what we see. The reforms that we will set out in response to Alexis Jay’s review, including through the child protection authority, will be an important means of reinforcing that. We all have to be ever vigilant and willing to challenge and question, but also to believe children when they are able to speak and tell us what they have experienced. We must take that seriously and act on their concerns. That is a responsibility not just for staff in early years settings, but for all of us right across society.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
This awful case underlines how important it is that we implement the recommendations from the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse as soon as possible. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) said, the Home Office has set out plans not to implement the recommendation on mandatory reporting in full. I spoke on Report of the Crime and Policing Bill to set out why that will leave children vulnerable. Will the Secretary of State ask the relevant Minister from her Department to meet me to discuss these concerns in more detail and to find a solution?
Bridget Phillipson
I understand the concerns that my hon. Friend raises and the importance of ensuring that we have the strongest possible protections for all children to keep them safe from harm. That is why we provided a progress update arising from the IICSA recommendations, which included the establishment of a child protection authority, and we will set out more shortly and launch a consultation on how we take this forward. I will speak to colleagues in the Home Office to ensure that my hon. Friend has the meeting that he requests to discuss this matter further.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
May I start by echoing the comments of the Secretary of State and all Members in saying that my thoughts are with the families affected by this awful case? There is a concerning lack of accountability once a setting shuts down, even if it is part of a chain. There is no mechanism to ensure that chain providers have corporate responsibility when harm occurs. How will the Minister address that? What assurances can she give parents that if a setting is closed down and de-registered from Ofsted, individual staff members are further checked and vetted before they go on to work elsewhere?
Bridget Phillipson
As a Department, we are working with Ofsted to review the regulation of nursery chains to ensure that parents can see strengths and areas of concern across the chain and that, where appropriate, action can be taken. I recognise the additional question that the hon. Member asks about the nature of regulation and the importance of preventing rules from being exploited. I will ensure that she receives a full response from Ofsted setting out its approach and any changes it is considering in relation to her questions.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
All our thoughts are with the families of the children affected by this appalling case. We cannot even begin to understand the impact it will have on those children throughout their lives. A whole load of support will need to be brought in to protect them and deal with the knock-on effects that they experience.
It brings to mind a case that has been brought to my attention involving another group of extremely vulnerable individuals. These are older children with complex and severe learning disabilities. I cannot talk too much about it, because it is a live case, but a parallel that struck me was that serious safeguarding concerns have been identified and given weight in one setting, when the organisation is part of a larger chain. In the case before us, it is a chain of nurseries and in the case I am referring to it is a multi-academy trust. It raises questions as to whether the body can be trusted with safeguarding more widely. Are there plans in place to look at corporate responsibility and to look at these things across the piece, rather than just as individual isolated incidents?
Another parallel is that I understand a whistleblower brought this case to the attention of the police in the first place. What measures will be introduced to protect whistleblowers in such cases, particularly when the person and the organisation to whom the whistleblower is reporting may be compromised?
Bridget Phillipson
My hon. Friend raises a number of important concerns about how groups operate in early years settings and schools, and the importance of ensuring that we have the right framework in place to take action where necessary. We are taking an active approach in early years and in schools, and are working with Ofsted on these key points. I recognise the limitations on what she can say about the case in the Chamber today, but the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey) or I would willing to meet her to discuss her concerns and what more we can do to ensure that we keep all children safe from harm.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) raises the question of whistleblowing. I will not comment on this case in particular, given that the local review is under way, but whistleblowers continue to enjoy protection under the law in the action they take to protect others from harm. In the progress against Alexis Jay’s review, we will be taking further action on mandatory reporting, as we have discussed today.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
The thoughts of the whole House are with the victims and their families, but will the Secretary of State join me in praising the Metropolitan police team that brought this case to charge—in particular, Detective Superintendent Lewis Basford and his team—and the Crown Prosecution Service? It must have been harrowing for them to investigate the case and bring it to charge.
More generally, an estimated half a million children are sexually abused in this country every year. According to the National Crime Agency, 840,000 individuals currently pose a sexual risk to children. Shockingly, there are 400,000 searches a month in this country for child sexual abuse images. This country, while still safer than many, clearly has a problem, and it often starts online. What more can the Government do to ensure that the owners of tech companies, not just the managers, are held to account when they are not taking action against the downloading and viewing of such images?
The Secretary of State mentions the child protection authority that might be coming forward. May I encourage her not to move away from the great work that the National Crime Agency is doing? It has done a lot more in this area over recent years and has had a lot of success. It has the resources, the manpower and the technology. I would not want its excellent work to be overshadowed by any new authority. Given that local police forces do not have the resources and are overstretched already, what more can be done at a national level to co-ordinate across police forces in England and Wales, including West Mercia in my area, and with the National Crime Agency so that we can see a reduction in the viewing of these images?
Bridget Phillipson
The right hon. Gentleman raises a number of important points, and he is right to thank the police for their thorough work in what has been an extremely complex and harrowing investigation. I pay tribute to all those who have been involved to this point in supporting the victims and families, and to those who will be involved in taking forward further work in this area.
The right hon. Gentleman is also right to draw attention to the scale of child sexual abuse that we still sadly see in our country. Before I came to this House, I worked with many of those who had been affected by child sexual abuse, and I understand the lifelong impact it can have on many people. I understand also that for a very long time, we have not been serious enough as a society about encouraging those who have experienced appalling abuse, including in childhood, to seek the support and advice that they will need, often for many years into the future. A key issue that we have often faced in that regard has been the fact that children, when they have come forward to report abuse, have not always been believed by those in positions of authority, and that has to change. The culture shift that is required is as important as any legislative measures that we need to take, so that children are believed when they report abuse. We need action to follow so that those in positions of authority face consequences for their actions and their failure to take forward allegations by children and others.
The right hon. Gentleman also refers to the appalling scale of what we see online. We will continue to work with Home Office colleagues on this issue, and I will look carefully at what he said about the development of the child protection authority. We will set out more details to the House in due course and update Members in this area, alongside a consultation that will allow views about the best way forward to be aired.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and for the urgency and respect that she has shown this particular case. May I put on the record that I agree with the sentiments of this House about the urgency with which we need to deal with this particular case and potential future cases, which we must stop?
The police have to be commended, but the trigger point was the whistleblower—that is where it started. We have to look at two things, because the pain that is being suffered by the parents is unimaginable, and the trauma of the children will be felt for years and generations to come. Can the Secretary of State assure me that unregistered, unregulated settings are looked at very quickly and that the lessons learned from this particular case are shared among all settings across the entire country, so that everybody learns the lessons—not just this particular setting or chain?
Bridget Phillipson
I agree very strongly with my hon. Friend. Alongside bringing forward the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, we are taking a number of important steps to improve safeguarding. The Bill brings forward bold new measures to keep children safe, including a legal obligation for safeguarding partners to work hand in hand with education and childcare settings, because we know that it is often teachers and early years staff who first see the signs of abuse and neglect. That runs alongside the establishment of the child protection authority, a new national body that will have expertise, authority and a single mission: to protect children. Through that work and the development of the child protection authority, we will be in a stronger position to make sure that where there are lessons to learn in individual cases, they are shared and spread much more widely, so that we can keep children safe from harm.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for her clear and reassuring commitment to take the necessary steps, which everybody in this House and everybody out there who is a parent, or who looks at this case, wants to see. It is almost impossible to comprehend what has happened—I just cannot take it in—but our thoughts are very much with the parents and children affected.
This is a devastating case, and there will be a prolonged impact on all the children and parents involved. I am very pleased that the person involved has pleaded guilty and is due to be sentenced—hopefully, he will get a strict punishment. What lesson can be learned from this case in relation to whistleblowing, to ensure that staff feel safe enough to report anything unusual without the fear of not being protected? The case was only discovered due to minor concerns, which turned out to be much, much more.
Bridget Phillipson
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The local review, which will come forward shortly, will put us in a position to consider what lessons there are from this case, but the wider questions require a policy response, either from Government or from others, about how we can do more to keep children safe. It is right that that work is done thoroughly and carefully, as we would expect.
There is, of course, the ongoing need to make sure that all settings are as safe as possible for our children. As part of that work, particularly around early years settings, we strengthened the requirements in September and introduced a wide range of strengthened safeguarding measures to the early years foundation stage. That includes enhanced recruitment practices to prevent further unsuitable individuals from working with children, and new whistleblowing requirements to help ensure that all early years educators understand how to escalate any safeguarding concerns.
Dawn Sturgess Inquiry
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the Dawn Sturgess inquiry, which has today published its report.
I start with Dawn Sturgess. The untimely and sudden death of a much-missed mother, partner, daughter, sister and friend is a deeply personal tragedy, and today we keep her and her loved ones in our thoughts and prayers.
On 4 March 2018, Sergei and Yulia Skripal were targeted by the GRU, the Russian military intelligence service. Three GRU agents flew to the UK intent on killing Sergei Skripal. Two agents, known as Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov, travelled to Salisbury and contaminated the door handle of Sergei’s house with the nerve agent Novichok, with callous and despicable disregard for others who might enter or leave that address. Sergei and Yulia were poisoned, and spent weeks in a critical condition. Others, including Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey, were harmed as they responded to the incident.
On 30 June 2018, Charlie Rowley gave his partner Dawn Sturgess a gift of a Nina Ricci perfume bottle. She sprayed her wrists with the contents. Tragically, the bottle contained Novichok and had been recklessly thrown away by Petrov and Boshirov as they left Salisbury four months earlier. Dawn died at Salisbury hospital on 8 July 2018. An inquest was opened, but it was clear that a proper examination of Dawn Sturgess’s death would require a statutory public inquiry, which has been chaired by Lord Hughes.
Today, after an extensive and painstaking process, the inquiry has published its report. The inquiry has found that those who were involved in the assassination attempt against Sergei Skripal were “morally responsible” for Dawn’s death, and that
“deploying a highly toxic nerve agent in a busy city was an astonishingly reckless act.”
The chair concludes that the operation must have been signed off at the highest level of the Russian state, including by President Putin.
In respect of the emergency services’ treatment of Dawn, the inquiry found that she received “entirely appropriate medical care” but that, tragically, her condition was “unsurvivable”. On preventability, the chair has concluded that the Government’s public health advice following the attack on the Skripals was reasonable. He also found that although there were failings in the management of Sergei Skripal, the risk of assassination by Russian personnel was reasonably assessed and, based on that assessment, he did not need a new identity.
The inquiry has been clear in its findings of responsibility, and we must respond equally unequivocally. I have previously described to hon. Members the acute threat that Russia poses to the UK and our national security. Its recent acts have ranged from murdering Alexander Litvinenko and using a deadly nerve agent in Salisbury to espionage, arson, cyber-attacks and the targeting of UK parliamentarians for interference operations.
Since 2018, the UK has been at the forefront of the response against Russia. In direct response to the poisonings, the then Government expelled 23 undeclared Russian intelligence officers. This triggered the expulsion of over 150 Russian diplomats by 28 countries, including NATO allies. The UK has subsequently committed to prevent the rebuild of Russian intelligence and to remove Russian dirty money in the UK, developed legislative powers to harden the UK’s defences against state threats, and delivered new port and border powers, increased security checks on goods from Russia, and banned Russian-owned or linked aircraft from entering the UK.
The invasion of Ukraine introduced a stark new reality and demonstrated Russia’s intent to undermine European and global security. The UK has led the way in standing by Ukraine and providing unprecedented military, humanitarian and diplomatic support. In total, the UK has committed £21.8 billion for Ukraine and sanctioned over 2,900 individuals, entities and ships. This Government are proud to be at the forefront of the coalition of the willing to support Ukraine in defending its sovereignty and security. This has inevitably made the UK a target for increased hostile activity by Russia. Following an arson attack in east London in May 2024, the then Home Secretary warned of a pattern of Russian malign activities across Europe that had reached UK soil. In response, the UK expelled the Russian defence attaché and removed diplomatic status from Russian properties believed to have been used for intelligence purposes.
We are determined that the UK remains a hard operating environment for the Russian intelligence services. In October last year, we sanctioned three Russian agencies and three senior figures who were attempting to undermine and destabilise Ukraine and its democracy. In July, the UK sanctioned and exposed three GRU units and 18 of its military intelligence officers for the targeting of Yulia Skripal and cyber-operations in support of Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine. Yet we are now grappling with an increasingly reckless methodology. The director general of MI5 recently highlighted Russian state actors turning to proxies “for their dirty work”, and
“recruiting proxies on social media platforms, instructing them via encrypted apps, and offering payment in cryptocurrencies.”
UK law enforcement has secured convictions in several significant cases just this year: six individuals spying for Russia; six men involved in an arson attack on a warehouse supplying Ukraine; an individual who attempted to offer services to Russian intelligence; and a former MEP who accepted bribes to promote pro-Russian narratives in the EU Parliament. These cases serve as a strong reminder for anyone—anyone—seeking to facilitate or undertake hostile activity for Russia on UK soil.
This Government remain committed to providing our law enforcement partners with the tools they need to tackle these threats. We have specified Russia on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme to make it even more challenging to conceal relationships with the Russian state. I can now announce that the Government are going further. Today, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has imposed a further cost on the Russian regime by sanctioning the GRU under the Russia sanctions regime, along with several associated individuals. These sanctions recognise the continued reckless and destabilising activity of the GRU, which seeks to undermine Ukraine, European security and the safety of the United Kingdom. They will include sanctions against eight GRU officers under the cyber sanctions regime and three GRU officers under the Russia sanctions regime who have been implicated in hostile activity across Europe. We are also summoning the Russian ambassador to hold Russia to account for its responsibility for the tragic death of a British citizen.
There has been extensive misinformation and disinformation relating to these horrific and barbaric poisonings. This inquiry has categorically rejected those falsehoods, and this Government continue to reject the lies spread by Russia through its propaganda and paid mouthpieces. I wish—I am sure on behalf of the whole House—to wholeheartedly thank Lord Hughes and his team. This was a considerable task of great importance, and they have collectively approached it with diligence, care and sensitivity. I also want to take this opportunity—I am again sure on behalf of the whole House—to thank the first responders, military personnel, scientists, medical practitioners and all those who responded to the attack. They are the very best of us, and I know that Members right across the House will join me in paying tribute to them for the important work they do to keep us safe.
Dawn Sturgess was the victim of an utterly reckless and dangerous act—a chemical weapons attack perpetrated by Russia on British soil—and the pain and suffering it has caused can never be undone, but we must honour Dawn Sturgess’s memory, uphold truth and justice, and keep everyone in our country safe. I commend this statement to the House.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I thank the Security Minister for advance sight of his statement. Let me set out straightaway that the Opposition of course fully support the Government’s work in keeping our country safe. I think I agree with and support everything the Security Minister said in his statement. I particularly welcome the additional sanctions that he announced on certain members of the Russian security services.
I join the Security Minister in remembering Dawn Sturgess, who lost her life as a result of this reckless and barbaric attack. Leaving highly dangerous chemical weapons lying around was a reckless undertaking by those Russian agents, and Dawn Sturgess’s death lies squarely at their door. I pay tribute to Sergei and Yulia Skripal for the bravery they have shown when faced with targeting by agents of the Russian state, who came to this country specifically with the purpose in mind of killing them.
I also pay tribute to the emergency services and security services, as the Security Minister did, who responded so bravely, and some of whom, such as Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey, were themselves harmed as they responded to the attack. The emergency services and security services, on that day and in the days following, distinguished themselves greatly, and I know the whole House will want to thank them for the work they did.
The chair of the inquiry concluded, as the Security Minister said, that this operation would have been signed off or agreed to at the very highest level of the Russian state by President Putin himself. I think that makes the important point that Russia is a dangerous and hostile state, and that Vladimir Putin is a dangerous and hostile leader—a man who, as this inquiry has found, personally sanctioned the assassination of civilians on British soil.
Of course, the atrocities that the Russian state and President Vladimir Putin have perpetrated are not confined to those we are discussing today. We have seen, on its own soil, the Russian state murder domestic political opponents such as Alexei Navalny. We have seen them shoot down civilian airliners, and we have seen them interfere across Africa. We have seen Putin support former President Assad of Syria in persecuting civilians in Syria, including supporting the use of chemical weapons. So we should be in no doubt at all about the threat that Russia and President Putin pose not just in Russia or Ukraine, but on our soil and across the whole world.
I think there is a lesson there for the way in which we in the west collectively consider the Ukraine conflict, which the Security Minister spoke about. I think the actions we have been discussing are one of many reasons that we in the west should be steadfast and unwavering in our support for Ukraine. The lessons of history are quite clear: appeasement does not work, and showing weakness when faced with aggressive dictators simply emboldens them. I hope people in our Government and other Governments, particularly the American Administration, keep that in mind as they conduct negotiations in the coming days and weeks.
I know that, quite rightly, the Security Minister will not be able to comment on details, but the House would appreciate an update and assurances about the work being done to protect us domestically against Russian threats. He did not mention cyber-threats in his statement —[Interruption.] I do apologise. He did mention them, and we know that Russia repeatedly and deliberately targets both governmental infrastructure and private sector IT infrastructure. So far as he is able to provide one, an update on the work he is leading to counter that would be welcome, as would any indication about whether we are proactively engaged in degrading Russia’s capability in that area. I appreciate that there are severe limitations around what he can say, but any indication he can provide to the House would be very much appreciated.
The lessons we can draw from this episode relate not just to Russia, but to any state where we have intelligence or information that they are engaged in aggressive hostile acts. We know, of course, that it is not just Russia: other states, including China, are engaged in different but potentially equally damaging espionage and other activity on our soil. The lesson that this episode teaches is that we cannot be complacent. We cannot, for example, prioritise economic links above national security. We need to be on the front foot when it comes to these threats.
In that spirit, and drawing that lesson from this episode, perhaps the Security Minister can explain to the House why China is not in the enhanced tier of FIRS, which in my opinion it should be, and why the Government appear to be contemplating granting planning consent for a super embassy for China on a very sensitive site close to sensitive communications infrastructure, and from which it is very likely China will conduct large-scale espionage activities? The lesson that this episode teaches us is that we cannot be complacent, and we must be active and energetic in protecting our national interest.
In general terms, I fully support the direction of travel the Security Minister has set out, and, of course, the Opposition will support him personally and the Government in the work they are doing to keep our country safe.
Dan Jarvis
I thank the shadow Home Secretary for his response and for the tone of it. I am very grateful. I think he will have noted, from my opening remarks, the gravity and seriousness I attach to the matter at hand. I know that he and other Opposition Members will have noted that in my opening statement I spoke seamlessly about the work done by the previous Government and this Government. I believe that standing against Russia and the threat it poses to our national security should be, and is, a shared endeavour across this House. I pay tribute to the work the previous Government did, in 2018 and beyond, in standing against the threat we face. Wherever possible, we should work closely together on it.
The shadow Home Secretary very accurately characterised the nature of the threat. I agree with what he said with regard to Russia and Putin. It is impossible to overstate the seriousness of this attack and the other activity he characterised.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke about Ukraine and I am grateful to him for doing so. Again, I want to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the previous Government for the commitment they made to defending Ukraine. It should be a matter of great pride across the House that, perhaps above almost everything else, it is something that binds this House together. There is a unity of purpose among us all in ensuring that we stand together to support Ukraine in its fight against Russia. I give him and the House an absolute commitment that we will continue the work of the previous Government.
Genuinely, I was really pleased that the right hon. Gentleman asked about cyber, because I am particularly keen to ensure that we co-ordinate our activity across Government as effectively as we possibly can. In truth, it was one reason why the Prime Minister made the machinery of government change back in September so that the Security Minister sits across both the Home Office and the Cabinet Office and can more effectively co-ordinate that work. He will know that the Government introduced the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill just a couple of weeks ago. From a Home Office perspective, we are working hard on the ransomware proposals that we consulted on earlier this year. He was right to make the important point about the work we do with regard to positively degrading the nature of the threats he described. He knows I am very limited in terms of what I can say about that, but I know he will join me in paying tribute to the very important work that the National Cyber Force does.
It did not come as a huge surprise that the shadow Home Secretary—in truth, I do not blame him for doing so—took the opportunity to raise the issue of China. I hope he has had the chance to look at what I said this morning at Cabinet Office oral questions and what I said in response to an urgent question from my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) yesterday with regard to the Government’s position on China. I hope he has had the opportunity to look precisely at what I said about the embassy.
With regard to FIRS, I completely understand the points the shadow Home Secretary made. The Government continue to keep that under very close review and I hope we will have more to say about it in due course.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
My thoughts, too, are with the family of Dawn Sturgess.
In 2010, Putin said:
“Traitors will kick the bucket, believe me.”
Post-Litvinenko, how can it be that our country can afford protection for, say, a former Prime Minister such as Liz Truss, but not for an asset such as Sergei Skripal? Yesterday’s story in the i newspaper underlines the issue about Russian agents infiltrating our society, and the points the Minister makes across the board are so well put, but given that, as we have heard, Putin has no concern for life, least of all in his own country, can the Minister confirm that he is working with all Departments across Government to assure the British public of their safety and security?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his contribution and the work he does in chairing the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy. The quote he described is chilling. In response to the point he made yesterday about the coverage in the i newspaper, I can give him the assurances he seeks and tell him and the House that we take all national security threats incredibly seriously. The Government have acted decisively by introducing tougher legislation, enforcing sanctions and working closely with our international partners to make the UK one of the most challenging environments for our adversaries to operate in. That continues to be an absolute priority in terms of securing our national security. I am absolutely determined to ensure that the United Kingdom is the hardest possible target for our adversaries.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
I thank the Security Minister for speaking for the whole House when he gave our sincere condolences to Dawn Sturgess’s family, paid tribute to the emergency and security services, and conveyed his thoughts to those affected in the Novichok attack.
Government’s primary role is to keep our country safe. The report into the tragic killing of Dawn Sturgess on the streets of the UK by Russian agents in their attempt to assassinate Sergei Skripal, is damning. The report found Vladimir Putin to be responsible for the death of an innocent British citizen on our shores.
Basic protections were not in place. Sergei was a clear target for Russian state assassins. The inquiry states that he was resettled in the UK under his own name. Russia used that to track him down and MI5 failed to rename him. Can the Minister confirm to the House why the security services left him in an “alarmingly accessible” situation, despite clearly being an identified target of Russian state assassination, including residing in Salisbury in his own name? How have the security services justified to the Minister their apparent failure to implement even basic protective measures, such as CCTV, alarms or secure accommodation? Worryingly for UK security, Putin’s assassins had no trouble locating him. That failure put him at risk, but also exposed the wider public in Salisbury and across the country. That contributed to the death of Dawn, an entirely innocent member of the public.
Last year, the Sturgess family’s legal team described the Skripals as sitting ducks due to failings that should have been foreseen by MI5. Given the preventable deaths and public risk, what accountability measures will the Government take to ensure MI5 protects both vulnerable individuals and the wider public? Considering the threat Russia poses to world security, especially security at home, will the Government finally seize the £30 billion in frozen Russian assets across the UK, including Sutton Place in my constituency?
Finally, the Government need to see the report as a turning point for the threat Russia poses to the UK. Will they launch an investigation into Russian interference in British politics to ensure no more UK politicians, like the former leader of the Reform party in Wales, are bribed with Russian money?
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the importance of keeping our country safe. I assure him that we take that incredibly seriously. We will of course look very carefully at the detail of this report. He asked about the accountability mechanisms in Government. I assure him that the Home Secretary and I take our responsibilities to hold the security services to account very seriously indeed—that is a process that the new Home Secretary and I dedicate a significant amount of time to every single week. But we have to be crystal clear that the inquiry’s report states unequivocally that responsibility lies with the Russian state. The chair of the inquiry found that the operation to assassinate Sergei Skripal was authorised at the highest level, and concluded that it would not have taken place without the approval of President Putin. The use of a military-grade nerve agent on British soil was a violation of international law and a truly despicable act, and the responsibility for that lies with Russia, and Russia alone.
The hon. Gentleman asked, entirely reasonably, about the confiscation of sovereign Russian assets. I assure him that we take that incredibly seriously as well. Our priority is to ensure that all the options that we consider with regard to that matter are in line with international law and are economically and financially responsible, but Russia must be held accountable for the terrible damage it has done in Ukraine. We will do whatever we can to ensure that Russia is held accountable and made to pay for its actions.
The hon. Gentleman’s final point was an important one about Russian interference in our democracy. I chair the defending democracy taskforce, which has recently had its mandate renewed by the Prime Minister. These are matters that we take incredibly seriously. We use the taskforce as the fulcrum point across Government to ensure that we have a whole-of-system response that draws together Government Departments and law enforcement, and I assure the hon. Gentleman of the priority that we attach to that work. It is something that I believe should be a cross-party endeavour, so if he or other Members of this House wish to discuss it with me further, I am always very happy to do so.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
The day a British citizen died on British soil as a result of a Russian attack ought to have been a wake-up call for everyone in this country. I recognise the steps that the previous Government took and that this Government are taking to address that threat. The reality is that Russian planes and ships menace our airs and waters, their cyber-attacks have hit our NHS and councils, including Redcar and Cleveland borough council, and their propaganda has been disseminated by British politicians and online. Does the Security Minister agree that, as far as the British public are concerned, this is not a distant threat elsewhere in the world; it is here and now, affecting them today? Can I also push him specifically on social media disinformation, and what steps he can take, working with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, to address it in this country?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the threat. It is not a distant matter; it quite literally impacts the lives of our citizens every single day. I give him an assurance of how seriously we take these matters. He is also right to raise the issue of misinformation and disinformation. Again, through the defending democracy taskforce, these are matters that we keep under very close review. He is right to mention the important contribution that is required of DSIT. We work very closely with DSIT and other Government Departments on these matters. We keep a constant vigilance. I think that, in truth, there is more that we need to do, and I will have further conversations with ministerial colleagues about that particular matter.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Member of Parliament for Salisbury.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I thank the Security Minister for early sight of his statement, and I thank him most warmly for the way in which he has presented the Government’s response this afternoon. As someone who spent a previous life in Salisbury and south Wiltshire, he has served the people of my constituency very well. I am also very pleased with the remarks of the shadow Home Secretary.
Today’s report was written as a consequence of the need to bring clarity and to understand unequivocally who was responsible for what happened in 2018, but it is important to remember the huge impact it had on Salisbury, and the tragedy that befell Dawn Sturgess, Charlie Rowley, Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey, and Yulia and Sergei Skripal. The report is very clear about where culpability lies: it lies with President Putin. Russia was responsible, and Putin as an individual was responsible. He personally ordered what happened in Salisbury, and we should never forget it.
Putin is a ruthless dictator, not someone with whom deals can be done. Contrary to one of the candidates in the general election last year in Salisbury who said that he admired him as a political operator, I do not. I never will. I welcome what the Minister said on additional sanctions, and I encourage him and his successors always to pursue energetically, and with continued vigilance, further such measures as required. I welcome what he said about more sophisticated threats emerging on cyber, and I urge him to extend that to look at what happens with our cloud infrastructure.
I have just one question. Paragraph 6.25 of the report refers to the issue of regular written assessments, which were lacking in terms of the ongoing care of Sergei Skripal. I think that is the only element that needs serious review for individuals like him in future, but I thank the Minister again for the way he has spoken today, which will give huge comfort to my constituents in Salisbury and to the families of those so tragically affected.
Dan Jarvis
I commend the right hon. Gentleman for the dignified and diligent way in which he represented his constituents and his constituency at the time, and for his service since, including today’s. I know that it will be hugely appreciated across the House, and certainly in the great city of Salisbury and across the wider great county of Wiltshire. He is absolutely right: responsibility for this dreadful attack rests at the top of the Russian regime with President Putin. I give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks that this Government, and I am sure—I certainly hope—any successor Governments or Ministers, will be incredibly vigilant and pursue whatever measures are required. I have noted the point he made about the cloud, which I think is a good one. On his specific point about regular written assessments, I will take that away and look at it closely. Again, I commend him for his service to the great city of Salisbury.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for his statement and pleased to hear of further sanctions. He stated that Dawn Sturgess was the victim of an utterly reckless and dangerous act. I would go further and call it a heinous crime, the responsibility for which lies with Vladimir Putin, among the many other such crimes for which he is responsible. The Minister also said that we must honour Dawn Sturgess’s memory. My plea to him would be that we do so by never allowing Vladimir Putin to escape responsibility or accountability for the crime that was perpetrated in Salisbury that day.
Dan Jarvis
I completely agree with my hon. Friend, who puts it very well. The greatest legacy, as well as remembering the tragic loss of life in this case, would be to ensure that our collective defences as a country are tightened to the extent that such an attack could never happen again. Of course, the Russian regime will constantly test our defences and we will have to remain incredibly vigilant. It is the responsibility of the Government to ensure that we have the appropriate levels of resource, and that the United Kingdom is the hardest possible operating environment for Russia and its proxies, but he is right to remind us of where responsibility for this heinous act lies: with President Putin.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)
I, too, welcome the Minister’s statement, and indeed the additional sanctions that he announced. It is absolutely right that we do everything we can to resist Russia’s attacks on our security and its attempts to suborn our democracy, and I wholeheartedly agree with him. It is obviously right that the traitorous former MEP that the Minister mentioned is now in prison. I speak as the Member representing Amesbury, the town that Dawn Sturgess was in when she took the fatal poison, but it was represented at the time by my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen). I want to acknowledge his leadership throughout these difficult years for Salisbury and Amesbury.
It appears from the report that the NHS did a good job in its immediate response to the medical emergency that Dawn suffered, but it is also apparent that, when it comes to the wider system of support for the community in Salisbury and Amesbury, the response was somewhat messy—perhaps for perfectly understandable reasons. Can the Minister assure the House that the Government are looking generally at our public safety response in the event of such crises, and can he say what more can be done to ensure that in any future event local communities are properly supported?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Member for the very sensible and constructive nature of his remarks. I recognise his service as a Wiltshire MP and his obvious constituency interest in this matter. I also genuinely welcome his condemnation of the treachery that we have seen recently, and I am glad that he made that point. He raises a sensible and constructive point with regard to the NHS, and I can give him the assurances that he seeks regarding the Government’s attention to these matters. One of the reasons why the Prime Minister took the machinery of Government change back in September to ensure that I, as Security Minister, sit across both the Home Office and the Cabinet Office was to maximise the leverage and co-ordination across Government with regard not only to national security policy, but to our resilience, and we have recently undertaken the largest ever resilience exercise across Government. He is right to raise that point. I give him an assurance of the seriousness with which we take these matters. We will, of course, look very carefully at the report’s recommendations in that regard. I am grateful to him for his comments today.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
The number of Russian spies operating in the UK is the highest it has been since the cold war—not my words but those of the head of Counter Terrorism Policing. I welcome the sanctions today on the GRU, but the Security Minister will know that the United Kingdom is probably regarded as Russia’s No. 1 enemy—not the United States but the United Kingdom. He will also know that there are other agencies that are operating internationally and have an international footprint, such as the FSB and SVR. While noting and recognising the importance of, shall we say, diplomatic reciprocity, what more can be done, to quote him, to have a “hard operating environment” for both those agencies? Are other Russian political dissidents safe here in the United Kingdom?
Finally, on the proliferation of chemical weapons, we know that a chemical agent and a nuclear agent were used in some of the cases outlined today, so given the breakdown in many countries and the security around chemical weapons in those countries—whether in Africa or other parts of the world—how confident is the Minister that the security services are aware of where those chemical weapons might be and where they might be tempted to be deployed?
Dan Jarvis
I am, as always, grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the expertise and experience that he brings to these matters, not least given his very long-standing service on two relevant Committees in this place. He mentioned Counter Terrorism Policing. Let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work that they do. I have a very good and close working relationship with CTP. They do extraordinary work and it is a privilege to stand alongside them. They are exceptional in the work that they do.
It is in part a symptom of the work that the previous Government and this Government have done to make the UK the hardest possible operating environment that increasingly Russia and other malign states are seeking to use criminal proxies to do their bidding and business in the United Kingdom. There is a lot of work taking place, not only across Government but with our allies in Europe, who we are working very closely with, and further afield to ensure that we are best placed to target malign states that are using criminal proxies. The director general of MI5 referenced that in his recent annual lecture on the threats we face.
On the right hon. Member’s point about the UK being a hard target, he will understand better than most that I am very limited in what I can say about that, and that it would be unwise to give detail that would be helpful to our adversaries. However, I can give him an assurance of the seriousness with which we take these matters. He raised an important point about dissidents. It is an issue that I keep under very close review. We make sure that we have the right mechanisms in place to provide security.
The right hon. Member’s point about chemical weapons was well made. We work very closely with our international allies to ensure that we are doing everything that we can to minimise the risk and threat. It is not easy work, and there are no guarantees of its success, but I give an assurance of the seriousness with which we take it. Our approach is to work closely with our allies.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
I join the Security Minister in acknowledging the memory of Dawn Sturgess, and the sacrifice made by Dawn’s partner Charlie, Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey and the fearless first responders. In the seven years since this attack, an emboldened Putin has increased his aggression across Europe. Can the Minister assure the House that all the lessons that come out of this inquiry will be acted on in full? Will the UK Government continue to work with our EU partners in standing up to Putin’s aggression in Europe? Will the Government underscore the point that our multilateral defence of the international rules-based order is our strength, and his isolationist aggression will forever be his weakness?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his comments, and I can give him the assurances that he seeks. As he will acknowledge, the report was published less than a couple of hours ago, but the Government will look very carefully at its findings. I give him and the House an assurance that where there is a requirement to act, we will not hesitate to do so.
The hon. Member’s point about our EU partners was well made. We value our relationships with our neighbours, EU partners and Five Eyes colleagues, and I recently met members of the G7 to discuss these matters. When it comes to standing up to the threats that we face, we are much stronger when we join up with our international partners, and that is the right approach. I completely agree with what the hon. Member said about the rules-based order; I am sure that all Members of this House do. That is the right approach. Respecting international law and standing with our allies is the best way to defeat Putin.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Have the Government formed a view as to why President Putin—the killer in the Kremlin—chose to target Sergei Skripal after he had been pardoned and exchanged? Nothing that I am saying now derives from my time chairing the Intelligence and Security Committee, but I recall speculation in the press that it was because Mr Skripal had been actively involved with either the British state or the military, or had in some way been, shall we say, active in opposing the Government of the country from which he had been exchanged. If that is the case, surely the conclusion in paragraph 8.18—that the only measures that could have prevented the attack
“would have been such as to hide him completely with an entirely new identity”—
should have been considered. It is rather surprising that it was not. Was Skripal engaged in anything that made him a target?
Dan Jarvis
The right hon. Gentleman knows the very high regard in which I hold him. He has asked me some important questions, but they are not necessarily questions that it would be in the interests of our national security for me to get into in any great detail. I can say that I have formed a view about the motive that underpinned this particular attack, but I am not going to get into it today. The point he made about the detail of the report was also raised by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster). I can give him an assurance that we will go very carefully through the all the detail of the report, and I will consider what he has said today. The conclusion that I draw, which I think is the conclusion that Lord Hughes has drawn, is that responsibility for the attack lies with the Russian state. It is the Government’s responsibility to do everything we can to guard against the threat posed, mindful of the nature of that threat.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
To the extent that he is able, can the Minister please explain what steps he is taking to secure UK commercial ports, given recent reports of individuals with links to the Russian military entering via those routes?
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Lady raises an entirely reasonable point. She will understand that I will not want to get too much into the detail of that. We look at these matters carefully, and we work across Government and with law enforcement and the intelligence agencies on them. Again, one reason why I sit across two Departments is to ensure that our response is co-ordinated as effectively as possible. She is right to raise this issue; we are doing everything we can to counter it.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
The Minister has referred to the threat that Russia poses to UK national security. A former Irish Teachta Dála who was also a deputy chief of an Irish army unit has said:
“If you are looking to affect a western country with extensive assets and poor security culture, then Ireland is ground zero…It is a playground for them.”
He was specifically speaking of Russian intelligence. The Minister has rightly referred to working with EU and international partners. May I seek an assurance that he is also working with the Irish Government and Irish security forces to ensure that the Republic of Ireland does not become a soft way into Northern Ireland and, indeed, the rest of the United Kingdom?
Dan Jarvis
That is an entirely reasonable challenge, and I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurances that he seeks.
Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Past
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We now come to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. Tonia Antoniazzi will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which time no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of the statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement. These should be brief questions, not full speeches. I emphasise that questions should be directed to the Select Committee Chair and not the relevant Minister. Front Benchers may take part in questioning.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting me the opportunity to make this statement, following the publication on Monday of our report, “The Government’s new approach to addressing the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland”.
Getting the approach right is key to protecting more than 20 years of fragile peace in Northern Ireland, which is a truly remarkable achievement. However, the past still casts a shadow over the present for many people, particularly those who have lost loved ones or who were injured or suffered significant trauma during the conflict. Unresolved cases of killing, torture and serious injury can poison relations in the present. Our report is a unanimous cross-party document. It is the culmination of a year’s work, and I am grateful to our Committee specialist, Dr Joe Ryan-Hume, and our specialist adviser, Dr Eamonn O’Kane, for their diligent and sensitive contribution to that work.
In December last year, my Committee launched an inquiry into the Government’s then emerging plans. We received almost 80 pieces of written evidence, and held eight evidence sessions with representatives of victims and survivors, veterans, retired police officers and human rights groups. We also heard twice from the Secretary of State. Importantly, too, we visited Northern Ireland to hear at first hand from people directly affected by the troubles. As a cross-party group, we recognise the significance of raising these concerns with a unified voice, and I am deeply appreciative of my colleagues’ collaborative spirit in shaping a report built on consensus. This was considered, constructive and consensual work, done at pace, so that we could produce a report before the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill returns to the Floor of the House for its Committee stage. It is our hope that the detail in the report can frame the parameters of the debate, in this House and beyond, on a host of issues.
I will start with the commission. We found that the current main legacy investigation body, the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, has been unable to garner the trust and authority necessary across the communities to carry out its work effectively. It was clear that its roots in the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 hampered it from the beginning, and that fundamental reform was inevitable. There remain, however, several outstanding issues.
On investigations, the Government must address the lack of a specific requirement for the investigations process to be ECHR-compliant, and the de facto exclusion of most troubles-related sexual crimes from the commission’s remit. On case referrals, the Government’s plans to widen the range of people and organisations who can refer a case to the new legacy commission seem sensible, but changes could still be made to the definition of “close family member” to make it more inclusive and reflective of the reality of modern family life. The centralising of appointment powers, so that they are held by the Secretary of State, was also raised as an issue. Greater transparency and clear guidance on appointment processes are needed to bolster confidence.
The Government’s proposal for reform of the commission’s governance and oversight may answer many of the concerns that we heard, but several remain. For example, concerns have been raised about the proposed victims and survivors advisory group—about who its members will be and how they will be appointed, and about the potential duplication of the role performed by the victims forum in Northern Ireland.
I turn to resources. All the reform, good will and political impetus in the world will not lead to truth and justice if there is not enough money, either for investigatory or information-disclosing bodies. The ICRIR has pointed out the increase in demand on its services—something that we hope will only continue under the new commission. If the commission is to receive relevant information in a timely manner, the resourcing of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and other organisations that will face new demands for their records will also need to be considered.
Let me turn to the proposals for inquests. The Government’s plans for an enhanced inquisitorial mechanism through the legacy commission are seen by some as an improvement on the system produced by the 2023 Act. However, concerns persist, including about why judges presiding are to be appointed by Ministers, rather than through the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission.
I turn to veterans. As I said at the outset, we took evidence from veterans’ representatives during our inquiry. The Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner, who we heard from twice, told us most recently that the Government had been listening to veterans’ concerns “to an extent”, but added that what was proposed was not really protections for veterans, so much as safeguards for all witnesses. Indeed, the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors described the measures to us at the same hearing as
“welfare…that you would want to afford to anyone involved in the process of engaging with the Legacy Commission.”
We concluded that by packaging proposals as protections, rather than safeguards available to all, the Government risk undermining trust in the process among the very groups —veterans and others—in whom they hope to instil confidence. We also said that the reopening of previously defective investigations should take place only where necessary for the purposes of European convention on human rights compatibility, or owing to new evidence.
Information disclosure has been, and remains, one of the most significant issues with legacy policy. The Northern Ireland Troubles Bill assigns the Government a new role in balancing information disclosure with national security—something that Ministers did not undertake under previous legacy measures before the 2023 Act, or with Operation Kenova—hence concerns persist about trust, appeal rights and how the provision will operate in practice.
The Government plan to move information retrieval matters to the new Independent Commission on Information Retrieval. Again, Ministers will need to strike a balance, this time between safeguarding the information provided to the commission, so that individuals have the confidence to engage with it, and verifying that information, so that the public have confidence in the commission’s reports. We also hear that there is a lack of detail on the body’s relationship with the Legacy Commission and the extent to which an information firewall will exist between them.
With regard to the ICIR and in other areas, the Government of Ireland will also have to play a part. There must be more detail on the Irish Government’s timeline for introducing similar structures to those being provided here, and also more information on the proposed legacy unit in the Garda. To be clear, throughout our inquiry we consistently heard about the lack of commitment to address legacy in Ireland. We were also told by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission that there has been a lack of compliance in the Republic of Ireland and a lack of commitment to beginning and completing article 2 investigations.
I and some of my Committee colleagues met Irish Government officials on Monday as part of a visit to Dublin. We were encouraged by the dedication and determination of those involved to establish legacy mechanisms. At this juncture, we urge Dublin to move at pace to show its commitment and mutual good faith, and to maximise confidence and the likelihood of successful outcomes.
On Monday we also met TDs and Senators from across the political spectrum. We agreed that the framework, the Bill and our report represent an opportunity to take forward legacy policy. Among the many issues we discussed, we reflected on what it might mean if people from one community heard those in another community say “sorry”. Reconciliation is difficult and cannot be forced on anyone. My Committee colleagues and I plan to explore it in more detail next year, but it is clear right now—not least from the brave testimony of victims and survivors during our inquiry—that reconciliation stands a chance of succeeding only if accompanied by people’s admissions, and acknowledgment, of the truth.
In conclusion, legacy is not only about addressing the past; it is about laying the foundations for a better future. It has been a privilege to lead this vital inquiry, and I am deeply humbled by the courage of those who I have had the honour to meet. Our Committee’s report gives the Government the opportunity to pause and reflect on a process that is vital to the future of Northern Ireland. If they do so, they will help ensure that we all seize this chance to put the people who matter most—those who lived through the troubles and still experience its effect today—at the heart of this new approach. We owe it to them to get this right.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I agree entirely with the Chairman of the Committee that reconciliation depends upon uncovering the truth. Does her Committee’s report go into the incompatibility of that aim with the reinstatement of trials that the previous legacy Act would have prevented, given that when people face the prospect of being put on trial, they are less likely, rather than more likely, to say what actually happened?
Tonia Antoniazzi
With regard to veterans going on trial, we did take evidence and heard those concerns, and it is reflected in our report. I would happily have a conversation with the right hon. Member to pursue that further. His expertise in this field is welcomed by all members of the Committee from across the House, so I thank him.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent statement on our important report on the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland. I want to acknowledge the Committee staff, Chloe and Joe, who are sitting in the Gallery, who helped put our report together. The clear message from the families, the representatives and the victims, to whom I pay tribute, who we met across the Province was that they want answers, justice and to finally move on. With that in mind, will my hon. Friend set out how she thinks Members of this House can engage more properly and effectively with colleagues in the Oireachtas and the Northern Ireland Assembly to ensure that we give full voice to all those affected by the troubles?
Tonia Antoniazzi
Having met the Good Friday agreement Committee and other Members in Dublin, it is imperative for us, and for Members of Parliament who have not spent time in Northern Ireland, to engage with what life is like for people and the legacy they live with. I commend my hon. Friend for his efforts in encouraging cross-party and cross-country collaboration with our counterparts not just in Dublin, but in Northern Ireland.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I apologise—I have only just seen this report. I was not aware that it was coming out in this statement, so forgive me if the hon. Lady has already covered this.
Two questions have emerged. The first is that one of the biggest criticisms as the Bill went through the House of Commons and that still remains—I say this as somebody who served in Northern Ireland and is among the veterans—is what appears to be the treatment of veterans and of those who committed the atrocities in one and the same way. It is their real concern that they are getting mixed up now with the idea of those who started this process and committed the most awful atrocities.
The second element is the role of Ireland. Its refusal to carry out parallel inquiries and to play a full part on topics like the Omagh bombing are big questions that have been asked. To what degree does the hon. Lady think the Government should address those questions seriously, because there was a distinct refusal on the Front Bench to deal with that last issue in any form?
Tonia Antoniazzi
I thank the right hon. Member and respect that he served in Northern Ireland, as we know many people have. The Irish Government have pledged to co-operate with the UK public inquiry, but it was clear from what we heard that victims’ families are frustrated with the decision not to commit to their own inquiry on the Omagh bombing, and that the lack of progress on the Republic of Ireland’s inquiry remains a profound obstacle to uncovering the truth. But we did hear positive statements when we were in Dublin, and I do have a greater understanding of why, alongside the troubles Bill going through Parliament now, there may be a misunderstanding. We urged them as a Committee to be more transparent and open with us and with the UK Government, so we know what they are doing and that they are not hiding anything from us.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
Again, I thank my hon. Friend for the work done on the report. Building on the question from the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), does the report highlight the importance of ensuring that we have ECHR-compliant processes in place if we want to ensure that there is full buy-in from the institutions in the Republic of Ireland in being able to answer the questions that victims and families need them to answer?
Tonia Antoniazzi
I thank my hon. Friend for her dedication and work on the Committee, and her ability to ask the questions that need asking. The absence of a clear requirement for ECHR compliance has been an issue. The fact that we are now moving forward with ECHR-compliant investigations is important. Those conversations with Dublin and the Irish Government are key. As I said to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), that will be important moving forwards.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I am grateful to the Committee for its report and to the hon. Lady for her statement. Further to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), protections for veterans really mean a lot to those who served in Northern Ireland. It is important to stress that when the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland announced these measures back in September when the House was in recess, he said the protections were specifically for veterans. Subsequently, he admitted in response to my written questions that they were available to all potential participants. Does she agree that we need absolute clarity on whether the protections are unique to veterans or would actually apply to former paramilitaries?
Tonia Antoniazzi
The hon. Member makes a good point, but what we need to do is get that clarification from the Secretary of State. I am not here to give an opinion; I am here to present the findings of our report. The Government call them “protections”. Should they be protections and who are they for? We need clarity around that.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend, who chaired the process diligently, often in receipt of very difficult evidence from those who served and also those involved in the reconciliation process. On our visit to Dublin, it was great to understand how much of an improvement there has been in relations between the UK Government and the Irish Government, because that is the only way we will deliver what the people need us to deliver.
On reconciliation, the report lays out a path for what the Government must do to ensure that reconciliation is not lost as part of the process, as part 4 remains the same as it did in the previous Bill. Could the Chair of the Committee give us more detail on what she thinks the Government need to do to ensure reconciliation is delivered at the same time?
Tonia Antoniazzi
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. We have not seen much detail on reconciliation, but our Committee will consider it. I commend the Government on their much-improved relations with the Irish Government. It is testament to the Secretary of State and his new Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick), that we are in this position, and I am very grateful to them for it, but we need to make reconciliation work going forward, as my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) says.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I thank the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee for her report. It has been a pleasure to serve under her chairship on that Committee for the past year, and it is a personal sadness that I no longer serve on it. She mentioned that the Committee received evidence about a collective loss of confidence and faith in the ICRIR. Will she take this opportunity to make it clear that we also received evidence setting out that there was no loss of personal faith or confidence in the leadership of that organisation? Sir Declan Morgan impressed us all with his honour, decency and candour. He just happened to be leading an organisation that was compromised for the very fact of its birth.
Tonia Antoniazzi
I thank the hon. Member for his service on the Committee, where his background in academia played an important role. Sir Declan Morgan brought integrity to the commission, and I thank him personally for his work. The evidence shows that it was not him but the set-up of the institution he was leading that caused it to fail.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for the evidence sessions. The Northern Ireland Troubles Bill will go into Committee of the whole House, so those sessions will be the only opportunity for witnesses to come put forward and give their testimonies on the Bill and the current legislation. Forty-two amendments and five new clauses have already been tabled, which shows the interest in it and the further work that needs to be done on it.
On the warm words of the Irish Government, I have been involved in those conversations for 14 years and heard a lot of warm words, but we have never seen anything on legacy from the Irish Government, either on paper or in delivery. Will the Chair of the Select Committee continue to put pressure on her own Front Benchers to produce some action in that regard?
In one recommendation, the Committee suggests that the
“exclusion of…Troubles-related sexual crimes from the commission’s remit”
ought to be addressed in the Bill. In that case, will the Chair of the Select Committee support my amendment 4, which would do that?
Tonia Antoniazzi
I thank the hon. Member for his contribution and for our engagement. It is unfortunate that he is unable to join the Committee—I find it disappointing, but that is how the procedures work. I have heard what he and others have said about the Irish Government’s warm words. As a Committee, we will continue to have dialogue and very frank conversations with them, and with our Government, to get the answers that he and others in Northern Ireland require.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and its members for all they have done. In the last paragraph of her statement, she mentioned the “people who matter most”. I believe that those who matter most are those who served and died in uniform and sacrificed themselves for freedom and liberty. The IRA murderers have never been made accountable for all the things that have happened. I think of 10 December 1971, when my cousin was murdered. Those who killed him and his friend Daniel McCormick escaped across the border 54 years ago. We have been waiting for justice for 54 years—and we are not the only ones. I know you would not let me rattle off a list of names, Madam Deputy Speaker, but there are so many people who want justice. We want justice; our families want justice. How will the legacy of the past ensure that those who served this country, and their families, get justice?
Tonia Antoniazzi
The hon. Member is well respected. I will endeavour to fight for his family in their loss, and I will ensure that the Committee does everything it can to provide justice and evidence, and make that wrong a right.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I have no doubt that the House will join me in backing the statement that we all value and respect the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
Bill Presented
War in Ukraine
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Sir Bernard Jenkin, who will speak for around 15 minutes.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House again condemns President Putin’s war of aggression in Ukraine, which is nowin its fourth year of tragedy and destruction; condemns the atrocities committed by Russia in Ukraine, in particular the abduction of Ukrainian children; supports efforts to negotiate a durable and lasting peace agreement; asserts that this must reaffirm all Ukrainian sovereign territory as recognised in international law, including any occupied territories; believes that Ukraine’s sovereignty must be guaranteed by all parties including by all NATO nations and by the EU, to mirror Article V of the NATO Treaty; further believes that Ukraine must be free to sustain capability to deter a future Russian attack; also supports increased economic sanctions further to reduce Russian revenues from the export of oil and gas; and urges the Government and the UK’s allies to accelerate military support for Ukraine, and to release frozen Russian assets for the financing of increased military spending in Ukraine as soon as possible.
The motion stands in my name and those of many right hon. and hon. Members from across the House. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for providing time for this debate—the first full debate on Ukraine since February. The motion can be summarised very simply: Ukraine must and can win.
The Russia-Ukraine war was never some regional territorial dispute, as some would like to believe. It has now moved far beyond conventional geopolitics; it is not about territory and cannot be solved by Ukraine ceding territory to Russia. That is because it is an existential clash between competing visions of how global security should be organised, and indeed of the nature of our society. It is the result of a long-standing intellectual current within Russia: a mix of imperial nostalgia, nationalist theology, and a deliberate rejection of democracy and the Western rules-based order. Furthermore, that ideological framework is not fading but growing, adapting and continually finding new ways to justify the unjustifiable, both at home and abroad. Russia’s view of a desirable world order is one based on spheres of influence and the right of big countries to impose their will on smaller neighbours.
Putin and his henchmen are not politicians as we understand the word. They are intelligence officers and soldiers who have turned the tradecraft of the KGB into the statecraft of the Russian state, in the pursuit of building their world order and destroying ours. For that gang of autocrats, an independent Ukraine is not just inconvenient; they cannot tolerate Ukraine’s independence because it threatens the very foundations of their own idea of Russian identity. Their war in Ukraine is only part of a much larger war in their minds—a war that involves the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe, whether we like it or not. Yes, this war has come to us. I am reminded of the words of Leon Trotsky—and I use the word “you” advisedly as I quote him, Madam Deputy Speaker:
“You might not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.”
Putin and his henchmen have been saying for a long time that they are at war with us. In the past few weeks alone, expert commentators such as Fiona Hill, Eliza Manningham-Buller, the former director general of MI5, and Lord Robertson, the ex-Secretary-General of NATO, have all affirmed that Russia is at war with us—and yes, I mean Russia, not just Putin. This is because Putin’s gang of ideologues are skilled at exploiting the resentments of the Russian people in a highly controlled information environment, so that the people accept their lies and support what they have been told: that Russia is in some fight for its survival against the hostile west.
Some western policymakers find this reality unpalatable. They prefer the illusion that Putin might accept some compromise—some deal whereby Ukraine might trade land for peace. But let there be no mistake: that is not just wishful thinking; it is dangerous, because it both ignores the motive for Russia to wage this war and denies that Russia has already unleashed war against Europe and the United Kingdom.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
David Burton-Sampson
The hon. Gentleman is giving a great speech, and I agree with his points. With spy ships through the channel and submarines off the coast of Scotland, does he agree that it is vital for not only Ukraine but the rest of Europe that we work closely with the coalition of the willing throughout this conflict?
Sir Bernard Jenkin
Of course I agree with that, and I will come back to how we work with our allies later.
The first thing we must understand is how the character of war has changed. In today’s war, everything is a weapon: disinformation, terrorism, sabotage, assassination, psychological manipulation, malign influence, cyber-attacks, economic warfare, menacing undersea cables—even energy, food and fertiliser are used as weapons. Let us also not forget that Russia has weaponised the abduction of Ukrainian children, which is just one of the atrocities that it inflicts on the occupied territories. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) cannot be here, but I hope that her cause will be taken up by someone else in the debate.
Make no mistake: we are today already under a sustained assault through a co-ordinated campaign that merges all these weapons and others, and these attacks are steadily increasing in audacity and seriousness. They are sometimes reported in the press but often downplayed by wishful Governments who are unwilling to acknowledge these attacks for what they are. They can appear to be isolated acts of espionage, sabotage or diversion, but they are not. They are elements of a systematic, strategic offensive designed to undermine public trust in our Governments and our democratic systems, to fragment our societies, to establish groups that destabilise our countries from within, and above all, to probe our defences and to find weaknesses to exploit further. This is a test of the resilience of our entire society.
This is hybrid warfare, or grey-zone warfare, but the term “total war” might be more accurate as a description. “The New Total War” is the apposite title of a recent book authored by the former Member for the Isle of Wight, Bob Seely. The Baltic and Nordic countries and Poland are currently the main targets, but so is the UK. Indeed, the UK is singled out by Russia as public enemy No. 1 because Russia sees the UK, quite rightly, as a bulwark against threats and coercion that intimidate some other countries.
But grey-zone warfare is by no means the only threat the UK faces. Our critical national infrastructure is exposed, particularly offshore. NATO and the UK lack comprehensive air defence. Just this week, Putin said Russia is “ready” for war with NATO. We have to be honest when we answer this question: how ready are we?
There is also a dangerous narrative taking hold that Ukraine is losing the war with Russia in Ukraine and that we must just accept this. That is wholly wrong. There are in fact detailed assessments, publicly available, which demonstrate that Russia cannot win militarily, so long as NATO countries continue to give military and financial support to Ukraine and economic sanctions against Russia are maintained and strengthened.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I give way to the hon. Lady and thank her for her support.
Helen Maguire
Is the hon. Member aware that the Russian state is so deprived of military equipment currently that it is taking tanks out of museums to try to get them on to the battlefield?
Sir Bernard Jenkin
That is certainly true, but the Russians are also depending more and more on what they produce in their factories rather than their legacy stock, which is making the war more and more expensive for them. They are not in an ideal position.
The initial Russian dash for Kyiv was disastrous for the Russian army. The Russians failed from day one to establish air superiority over Ukraine, which is effectively a no-fly zone for Russian military aircraft. Ukraine has succeeded in developing technology and tactics that make Russian attempts to advance extraordinarily costly. Ukraine’s ability to strike at Russian military and economic assets deep in Russia is increasing. There is absolutely nothing inevitable about a Russian victory over Ukraine. If we continue to sustain Ukraine and to undermine the Russian economy with sanctions, Russia will be forced to change its calculus for carrying on.
Nevertheless, Putin is projecting confidence that he is winning, but let us be clear: this is not because of the military situation but because of a lack of political will in so many NATO countries. If Putin wins, it is only because we let Putin win, as we let him win in Georgia, the Crimea and the Russian oblasts of eastern Ukraine before he embarked on the attempt to take Kyiv. He proved that we are soft, and his confidence is based on his continued belief that nothing has changed.
It has often been pointed out that the combined GDP of all NATO is vastly greater than Russia’s, so we should have nothing to fear, but that advantage only matters if we have the will to use this economic superiority to defeat Russia’s expansionist agenda. War is about nothing if it is not about willpower. Sadly, with a few notable exceptions such as the Baltic states and Poland, we have yet to demonstrate that willpower to win.
That is particularly due to the United States. First, the vacillation of President Biden and his fear of fuelling escalation gave Russia time to build up its war machine and exploit wider alliances. Now, the despicable and disastrous attitude of President Trump seems to offer Putin the opportunity to achieve everything he wants: the subjugation of Ukraine, the humiliation of NATO and the enlargement of the Russian sphere of influence at the expense of European security. Ironically, the effect of the Trump Administration’s 28-point peace plan has been to encourage Putin to keep the war going. That is because Trump appears ready to give President Putin everything he wants—Ukraine as a Russian vassal state. There is no incentive for Putin to stop this war under these circumstances, while the US is seeking to force Ukraine and Europe to accept peace at any price. It sometimes looks as if European resolve might also crumble. Trump thinks he is the master of the universe, but he is in fact being psychologically manipulated by Putin with flattery and—I make no bones about it—with bribes.
But something positive in Europe may finally be happening. Despite the tendency of European leaders to focus on the differences between them, Merz, Macron, our own Prime Minister and the leaders of NATO and the EU have shown remarkable unity. There is a realisation that a so-called peace agreed on Trump’s terms would not be peace at all. Putin would continue his campaign by other means. There would be little or no deterrence to discourage Putin from resuming military action on some bogus pretext at some future date. As Kaja Kallas, the European Union foreign policy chief, has explained:
“Russia has never truly had to come to terms with its brutal past or bear the consequences of its actions”.
She has argued that the nature of the Russian regime means that
“rewarding aggression will bring more war, not less”.
She is right: Putin will come back for more.
The democratic world cannot forget the lessons of history. The attitude of some is an eerie parallel of what Chamberlain said about Hitler’s annexation of the Czech Sudetenland, which he described as
“a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing.”
Let this House never forget that Russia signed the 2004 Budapest memorandum, which probits the use of military force in Ukraine. President Putin disregarded that undertaking when he annexed Crimea and then attacked eastern Ukraine. How many times do we need to learn this lesson? In Putin’s world, Russia recognises no international law, only its own absolute sovereignty, so a Russian signature on any treaty is not to be trusted, unless it can be externally guaranteed by people who have the necessary force.
Putin is already taunting the UK and NATO with hybrid war attacks. A Russian ship firing lasers at UK military aircraft in neutral airspace would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. This cannot just be ignored. Russia is testing NATO responses and mocking our slow pace of re-arming. The consequences of remaining passive would be dire for the credibility of NATO as a deterrent force. Letting Russia have its agenda would also increase Russia’s credibility with neutral countries, at the expense of NATO and our allies. They will see the EU and NATO as representing waning powers, unable to contain Russia as we did during the cold war.
The agreement on much tougher proposals at Geneva last week, while still engaging with Secretary of State Rubio, is a real achievement. The latest news that Putin has again refused to stop the war exposes him as the true aggressor. This is a war that he could instantly stop oh so easily. So long as Europe and NATO continue to support Ukraine, and Ukraine refuses to settle on Russian terms, then Putin will not agree to a ceasefire, until he realises that there is no diplomatic shortcut open to him.
The biggest risk we face is that Trump loses interest in his peace effort and withdraws support for Ukraine. However, there is already evidence that Trump’s power over the Congress is waning. Abandoning Ukraine would split US politics. We must hope that the US will also continue with intelligence support, but we should be ready for that to stop. If necessary, Europe should offer to pay for that intelligence, if that enables that intelligence support to be continued.
Settling for a fake peace on unsustainable Trump-Witkoff terms would be far worse. We in Europe have to accept that President Trump’s actions have demonstrated that he does not care about Ukraine, and his commitment to European security is, at best, ambiguous. The right plan is for European NATO to be ready to continue to support Ukrainian resistance to Russia’s demands whatever happens, to continue to support Ukraine’s military, and to help to finance Ukraine’s increasingly effective defence industries. That is why today’s motion refers to the release of the €140 billion Russian frozen assets in Europe, which is vital. Russia will then continue to suffer the astronomical attrition, on men and matériel, at vast financial cost. More intensive sanctions must also bite on their economy.
In truth, we can kid ourselves about the Russian economy, but it remains pretty resilient. However, sanctions have reduced foreign exchange earnings by some 20%—they come only from the export of oil and gas—and Russia’s domestic banks are now the only buyers of Russian Government bonds. This is not a long-term sustainable position for Russia. Secondary sanctions applied to the Russian shadow fleet, and to countries that enable that shadow fleet to exist, have made and can continue to make the export of oil and gas less and less profitable, or even loss-making for Russia.
Above all, we see the Russian army advancing so slowly in Ukraine, taking tiny areas of land at incredible human cost. We are seeing a land war that Russia cannot win. It has taken all of this year for Russia to take the small town of Pokrovsk, and at the cost of some 100,000 casualties.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
They have not really taken it.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
My right hon. Friend is right: the Russians have not already taken the town, although they say they have. The US ambassador to NATO pointed out recently that a snail crawling from the Russia border westwards would now be in the middle of Poland, had it left at the same time as the beginning of the invasion—that is how badly the Russians are doing militarily.
There is no breakthrough that would give Russia strategic military success, so Putin escalates by ramping up hybrid warfare on NATO states. He wants to move the focus of the war on to fresh battlefields. He attacks Ukrainian energy infrastructure. He could launch a miliary attack on a NATO member country using a form of warfare for which that country, unlike Ukraine, is not prepared. Such an attack on an ally would necessitate a response by the UK, if deterrence is to remain credible. It might even involve UK troops in Estonia, for example. Our troops are not prepared for the kind of drone warfare that we are seeing in Ukraine. If Russia did that, what would we do? I leave that question hanging in the air.
An attack could involve a missile attack on targets within the UK, for which we are equally unprepared, or on our offshore assets. Our allies in Germany, Poland and Finland take very seriously the real risk that Europe may be drawn into a more military confrontation with Russia, and a lot sooner than is comfortable to acknowledge.
What must we do in the face of this now obvious threat to our security? We must acknowledge and explain to our population that we are indeed at war now, and we must explain the nature of the hybrid threat. We must call out Russian hybrid attacks for what they are and we must devise robust responses, as well as increasing our own defences. Are these interceptions, and no more, a sufficient response?
We must constantly adapt the use of sanctions, realising that, like any weapon, Russia will devise countermeasures to evade them. We must, as a real priority, increase our military and economic support to Ukraine, however difficult that might be. We need to make it clear, by both our words and our actions, that Russia cannot win this war. I say to the Minister for the Armed Forces, who will respond to the debate, that it is not enough for us to repeat the mantra “for as long as it takes.” What does that mean? It has already taken far too long. We must commit to supporting Ukraine until Ukraine achieves victory, and soon, and that is possible.
What does that victory look like? Ukraine must be able to sustain itself as a secure and independent sovereign state, as part of the family of free and democratic nations. Victory is no threat to Russian territory or sovereignty—there is no plan or objective to topple President Putin—but this victory is the only way to prevent Russia from discrediting NATO and corroding the confidence that we democracies can and must use to prevent despots from degrading the global international order.
To help to achieve peace, we in the UK must accelerate our own war readiness, as the Defence Committee set out in its recent report. The noble Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, who oversaw the Government’s strategic defence review, recently remarked:
“We are under-prepared…we’re under attack and we’re not safe”.
Changing that does not simply mean strengthening our armed forces, although that is essential; it also means adapting a lot of things in our country so that we can survive and fight a war. That will be difficult, even painful, so the sooner we start, the better, because it is weakness that encourages Putin—the stronger we are, the less likely we are to be attacked.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for securing the debate and for making such an eloquent speech—he made all the points that I was going to make in my speech, but I will make it nevertheless.
Today is 1,379 days since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, but let us not forget that Ukraine had already been at war with Russia for eight years. We all remember the rhetoric from the Kremlin: that Kyiv would fall in three days. Last week we heard from former Russian ground forces commander, Vladimir Chirkin, who made a rare criticism of the Kremlin from inside Russia. He said that Russia had not been prepared for its invasion of Ukraine. It is instructive to the House to quote him:
“we had the traditional underestimation of the opponent and overestimation of our own military”
as Russia had been buoyed by confidence from its five-day war in Georgia in 2008. He continued:
“During the first few weeks, we were taught a serious harsh lesson, and the former Defence Minister tried to find a face-saving exit from the situation, calling what was happening a ‘gesture of goodwill.’”
Chirkin also criticised the entire Russian intelligence community for telling the leadership that 70% of the Ukrainian population supported the invasion, which turned out to be entirely false. We know that well over 90% of Ukrainians—even in the east, in the south and in Crimea—support the continued sovereignty of Ukraine. That was one of the first times that a top Russian official has made such public criticism of Russia’s war effort—something that can lead to criminal charges in Russia.
Let us be under no illusion: in this country we are in our own war with Russia. Every day, the Russians undertake hybrid attacks against us, but here, unlike in Ukraine, where children are under direct threat of death and abduction from Russia, our children are under threat of online manipulation. Although our buildings are not under immediate threat of destruction by Russian drones, our borders are being tested by reconnaissance and dummy drones to assess our readiness for a full-scale war.
I have been to Ukraine seven times since the start of the full-scale invasion, and not just to Kyiv or Lviv; I have travelled that great country in its time of greatest need, visiting Vinnytsia, Zhytomyr, Odesa, Chernihiv, Mykolaiv, Kherson oblast, Dnipro, Zaporizhzhia and my sister city of Kharkiv, which has had a relationship with Leeds since not long after the full-scale invasion began. I have seen at first hand the strength, courage and determination of Ukraine and the commitment to Ukrainian culture, language and identity.
I know that the Ukrainian people will never allow their identity to be subsumed by Russia. That is why the Russian practice of stealing Ukrainian children, Russifying them and then, when of age, sending them back to Ukraine to fight for Russia is so abhorrent. It is the worst, most dystopian war crime one can imagine. We need to ensure that Russia is prosecuted at the International Criminal Court for that. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) for her amazing work in leading the APPG on that matter.
There is so much that we can say about the needs of Ukraine. I do not think we should use the debate to provide a running commentary on the war, or on the stalled peace talks, which Russia has disingenuously used to try to pursue its original war goals. I do want to talk about what could turn the dial.
As we all know, only maximum pressure on Russia and placing Ukraine in the strongest possible position will create a scenario where a ceasefire can be agreed. The twin approach of seizing Russian state assets for military aid and squeezing the Russian economy through the strongest possible sanctions regime may create those conditions, and it would certainly put Ukraine in a much stronger position than it is now.
We all know what assets are held in Euroclear, and we need those assets to be seized and repurposed for the self-defence of Ukraine. Euroclear has been holding about €200 billion belonging to Russia’s central bank, which is the majority of an estimated €260 billion in sovereign Russian assets held in the west. The full seizure of Russian assets is clearly proportional to the crimes committed by the Russian state against Ukraine, and any post-war settlement will incur huge reparations, so the seizure of assets is paying forward a long tradition of post-war reparations.
I welcome the news yesterday that the European Commission plans to move forward quickly with the reparations loan to Ukraine using frozen Russian assets, or an EU loan based on common borrowing, with a figure of €90 billion being reported, which is significant. That second option is due to some reservations from the Belgian Government, who host Euroclear in Brussels. I welcome Ursula von der Leyen’s statement that Ukraine must have “the means to defend” itself
“and take forward peace negotiations for a position of strength.”
I am sure the entire House agrees with that.
Publicly available information indicates that the United Kingdom has frozen private, corporate and Russian assets belonging to sanctioned individuals amounting to £28 billion. Will the Minister indicate the total value of sovereign Russian state assets currently frozen in the United Kingdom and whether the Government are prepared immediately to allocate those funds not subject to the approval of international partners, such as Euroclear assets, to support Ukraine during this difficult time?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
It is interesting that although we have all mounted pressure on the UK Government, and the Foreign Office in particular, to seize these assets and use their capital value—most of the assets are in cash now anyway—the answer has been a refusal. I understand the nervousness about resulting market instability, but the Government have said that the interest from the capital can be used, even though you cannot own the interest if you do not own the capital. We are dancing on the head of a pin. Would it not be better if the Government were clear, seized the capital once and for all, and regularised the use of that money, one way or another?
Alex Sobel
I agree. It is not just that the profits or interest from assets held here should be repurposed; we should look at how those assets are being managed, and maximise them, for use for Ukraine’s purposes. I will conclude my question to the Minister: will the United Kingdom be part of the reparations loan to Ukraine scheme, alongside the EU, if or when that comes about?
I will be brief on sanctions, as I have spoken about them many times before. More action is needed on two issues: we need to complete the sanction regime against the shadow fleet, and to sanction third-country imports to Russia. We also need to strengthen our enforcement in those areas. The shadow fleet is not just a way of Russia moving its fossil fuel exports and financing its illegal war; the unseaworthiness of the vessels is a danger to both people and the environment. In recent days, two Russian shadow fleet tankers went up in flames in the Turkish Black sea—again, that is a danger to people and to the ecosystem of the Black sea.
The shadow fleet is estimated to number about 630 vessels, and nearly all of them are old and in a poor state of repair. The recent large sanction packages from the US, EU and UK are welcome, but obviously the fleet evolves over time, and as many as 200 vessels are not yet sanctioned. We also need to use much more diplomatic muscle to ensure sanctions enforcement, in order to prevent the shadow fleet from not only docking, but using nearshore waters for repairs, refuelling and supply, which sometimes happens even in countries that have sanctioned the shadow fleet. Crippling the shadow fleet is crippling Russia.
The Government have moved on third-party sanctions. For instance, Kazakhstan has had a huge surge in imports of British luxury cars. UK automotive exports to Kazakhstan between January and April 2023 were 3,900% higher than in the same period in 2022. I was unsure whether there really was such a surge in interest in our vehicles in Kazakhstan, so I looked up the guidance on exporting to Kazakhstan from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, and it states—I will be slightly long on this—that
“Russia is going to great lengths to circumvent sanctions, and continues to procure Western military, dual-use, and other critical goods through third countries, including beyond battlefield technologies. Russia relies on deceptive tactics, such as indirect shipping routes, falsification of the end-uses of goods and professional evasion networks.”
Kazakhstan might receive an order from a Russian importer for goods that are subject to UK sanctions, and so cannot be obtained directly in Russia from the UK. The Kazakh firm orders the goods from a UK supplier without informing it—or others involved, such as bankers, insurers and shippers—that the end user of the goods is Russia. The UK supplier exports the goods to the Kazakh firm, which exports them to Russia. That practice, and others like it, constitute the circumvention of sanctions. The risk of that happening may affect all parties in a supply chain.
That FCDO guidance is clearly helpful and instructive to anybody trading with Kazakhstan, or pretty much any other country neighbouring Russia that is not a member of NATO or the EU—or Ukraine, obviously. I know that the Minister is not from the Department for Business and Trade or the FCDO, but how many UK firms have had export licences revoked because they have traded with countries neighbouring Russia for the purposes of sanction evasion? My concern is that we have the guidance and know what is happening—we see a rise in exports of certain goods—but we are not taking action against individual companies. The answer would be instructive. Taking action would put us in a much stronger position when it comes to supporting Ukraine and trying to stymie the Russian economy.
To conclude, what we do in the next few months will decide the fate of Europe for the next 50 years. Will we scale up our support for Ukraine and ensure that the Ukrainian people have a democratic future in the European family, or will we slow-walk and slide slowly into our own military conflict with Russia? This is the time for us all to stand with Ukraine and ensure not just its future, but all our futures. Slava Ukraini!
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
If Members keep their contributions to under 10 minutes, we can get everybody in. I call the Father of the House.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Western societies are visibly divided over how to respond to Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, and those divisions play directly into Vladimir Putin’s strategic aims. Putin’s method has always been to widen fractures within democracies, and to exploit hesitation among allies.
At one pole of the debate are those who believe that any compromise with Moscow would amount to a betrayal of Ukraine and a surrender on moral principle; at the opposite pole are soft apologists for Putin, who dismiss support for Ukraine as naive, or attribute it to sinister global conspiracies. Those extremes distort sensible discussion, and we must fight against both ends to strengthen the thoughtful, strategic centre ground of this debate. Giving in to either extreme just makes it more difficult to develop and deploy a coherent western policy. The responsible course is to steer between absolutism and appeasement, while protecting both Ukrainian sovereignty and our own national interest.
The Ukrainian armed forces have performed very well, and have proved that they can defend their homeland. Ukraine continues to hold the line across hundreds of miles. There are those who claim that the Russians are winning, or that their victory is inevitable, but the history books are replete with examples of outcomes deemed inevitable that never happened. Experience on the ground shows that this war will not be a slam dunk for either side.
Predictions of imminent Russian victory ignore the reality that Ukrainian defences remain resilient and adaptive. War is the mother of invention, and the Ukrainians have been extremely innovative in adapting their offensive means, as well as defending against Russian countermeasures. As long as Ukraine retains control of the territory it holds, claims that Russia is “winning” do not stand realistic scrutiny. Morale, ingenuity and international support have enabled Ukraine to deny Putin the strategic breakthrough he seeks.
We in the United Kingdom have been one of Ukraine’s most consistent and substantial supporters, and we should be proud of that. We should be open to further support where prudent, while maintaining our clear position that the UK will not become an active combatant.
Critics who deride President Trump’s peace efforts overlook the value of initiatives that at least attempt to move the conflict towards negotiation. Putin’s rejection of recent proposals underscores that the obstacle to peace lies in Moscow, not with Ukraine or among Ukraine’s friends. I hope people will forgive me for not being entirely rude about our closest ally, but let us be honest: many people are attacking Trump’s proposals just because they are Trump’s. If the proposals had come from Mr Biden or a prospective President Harris, critics may have been cautious, but they would not have attempted to stand in their way. We should not let political prejudice undermine our careful examination of substantial proposals for ending the active conflict.
President Trump is putting forward constructive proposals, and we should understand them and be supportive, if necessary, while questioning them. It is easy to demand endless resistance from the comfort of our own homes, but it is our Ukrainian friends who are paying the price in blood, lives and the future of their country. There is no virtue in insisting on absolute maximalist goals while others must bear the human cost of achieving them.
Ukraine and Russia once enjoyed deep cultural, social and economic ties, and Putin has singlehandedly killed all that. He alone is responsible for turning two neighbouring peoples against each other. It will take multiple generations before Ukraine and Russia can be friends again, but we can try to help them to at least stop making war, and at least try to end the killing. Of course, the ideal solution is for Russian forces to withdraw; if they did that today, everyone would rejoice. However, we must deal with the reality: they are not going to do that.
Cessation of hostilities is therefore the necessary first step. Responsible policymakers must prepare for outcomes that fall short of our ideals, while still ending the bloodshed. President Trump’s efforts to encourage negotiation represent an attempt to find practical steps towards a ceasefire. I agree that no agreement can be legitimate without the free and sovereign consent of Ukraine, which cannot be dictated to by Washington or Moscow. We should be absolutely clear that we cannot advocate for any agreement—this is the important thing—that forces Ukraine to give up territory it currently holds. To pressure Ukraine into ceding land would be akin to surrendering the Sudetenland. We left Czechoslovakia absolutely defenceless in 1938—that must never happen again.
There is more that we can do on our side in the west, not just when it comes to sending money and matériel to Ukraine, but by changing our behaviour. We need to increase economic pressure on Russia. Sanctions and financial constraints remain one of the few non-military tools that can meaningfully weaken the Kremlin’s capacity to wage a war. Germany, I am afraid, and some of our European allies continue to buy Russian energy in various forms, undermining our collective leverage. We must ask our partners whether they are actually making constructive attempts to secure alternative sources of energy; we hope they are. The slow pace at which some European countries have diversified their energy supply undercuts the effect of sanctions. Europe’s over-reliance on Russian hydrocarbons is yet another compelling reason for the United Kingdom to pursue nuclear energy with renewed determination.
We must also learn the lessons of history. Russia’s economy, measured in nominal GDP, is roughly comparable to Italy’s, and it is therefore far from the superpower that people often talk about. I mean no insult to our wonderful Italian friends. The disparity between Russia’s global posture and the actual size of its economy highlights how vulnerable Moscow is to sustained economic isolation, and that is how we are going to win in the long term.
Although the military dimension of the conflict is vital, it alone will not produce a decisive victory or a durable settlement for Ukraine. Economic pressure, diplomatic alignment and long-term energy resilience across Europe are equally important; they are vital to a successful strategy. The goal of diplomacy must be to find a workable, if imperfect, path to ending unnecessary killing. Ours should be a humane policy—to be strong, and to get a fair peace that stops the killing. The longer the war continues, the greater the damage to Ukraine’s economy, infrastructure and demographic future. The continuation of the conflict also damages Russia, although its citizens have little say in the matter.
The United Kingdom has offered sanctuary to many thousands of Ukrainians, supporting their education, welfare and community integration. Public good will remains high, but history teaches us that political and social patience cannot be taken for granted indefinitely. I will end on this point. My fear is that there will come a day—it may still be years away—when the British Government and the British public feel that we have done enough, and that is that. The American Government may say the same. If a peace arrangement is not reached before fatigue sets in among Ukraine’s allies, Kyiv may find itself dangerously exposed. Allowing that to happen would serve no interest except Vladimir Putin’s and would hand him an undeserved strategic victory. The prudent course is to sustain and, if sensible, expand our support for Ukraine, while actively exploring diplomatic routes towards peace. Working constructively with our American allies gives us a chance, however modest, to help end the killing.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for securing today’s very important debate, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) for his leadership of the important all-party group to which he devotes so much of his time. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the bravery of the Ukrainian people in the face of an unprovoked, premeditated and barbaric attack by Russia against a sovereign democratic state. Putin’s invasion—which will be four years ago come February—has resulted in millions fleeing their homes, hundreds of thousands of casualties, and relentless attacks on hospitals, homes and schools.
Like many Members who will speak today, I am particularly concerned for Ukraine’s children, many of whom have been subjected to state-sanctioned abductions to the Russian Federation. I welcome the Government’s new sanctions that target those supporting Vladimir Putin’s cruel attempts to forcibly deport and indoctrinate Ukraine’s children and erase their Ukrainian cultural heritage. However, this issue was not mentioned in President Trump’s 28-point plan for peace between Russia and Ukraine. I am therefore proud to add my name to an open letter to the Minister calling for the rights of children to be upheld in any peace agreement. That letter was released today, and was organised by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter); she really wanted to be able to contribute to today’s debate, but as has been mentioned, she has unfortunately been called away on other business. I also pay tribute to the decision of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly to join the international coalition for the return of Ukrainian children, and to the appointment of Swedish MP Carina Ödebrink as special envoy on Russian abductions and deportations of Ukrainian children. I look forward to supporting her in her new role.
In my role as leader of the UK OSCE Parliamentary Assembly delegation, and as the recently appointed chair of its parliamentary support team for Ukraine, I have listened to evidence from brave Ukrainians who have defied all the odds. At our Crimea platform summit in Stockholm just last week, the OSCE PA reiterated our unwavering support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. President Pere Joan Pons reminded us of the wider implications of Ukraine’s struggles, saying:
“When we stand with Ukraine, we defend something bigger than any one nation—we defend the idea of Europe itself: its liberty, its dignity, and the right of every nation to choose its future”.
President Pons and I appointed fellow PSTU member Boris Dittrich as a special rapporteur with a dedicated mandate to push for the release of the three OSCE officials who are unlawfully being held in Russian detention: Dmytro Shabanov, Maksym Petrov and Vadym Golda. At the OSCE’s autumn session in Istanbul, President Pons and I met with Marharyta Shabanova, wife of Dmytro, to discuss our efforts. I hope the UK Government will also look into how they can support those officials’ release.
I am proud that this Labour Government have stepped up for Ukraine. The UK must uphold its promise to deliver £3 billion of military aid to Ukraine every year for as long as needed. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex that “as long as needed” should not be forever, but as soon as possible. The UK’s military, financial, diplomatic and political support for Ukraine must remain iron-clad. I am pleased that in recent weeks, alongside our allies, we have reasserted our steadfast commitment to Ukraine and a European security architecture based on the principles of the UN charter and the OSCE, despite blatant abuses by Russia.
Looking around the Chamber today, I am also heartened by the cross-party support for Ukraine. The UK has provided £457 million in humanitarian assistance since the start of the full-scale invasion, including £100 million of humanitarian support; £20 million to double this year’s support to Ukrainian energy infrastructure; and £40 million for stabilisation and early recovery, which the Foreign Secretary announced in Kyiv in September. That funding is vital, and I know it has been warmly welcomed. We must continue to stand with Ukraine, confront Russian aggression, and hold Putin to account for his war crimes. While other countries may choose to look away, our country’s response must be one of strength, resilience and unity for as long as it takes.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) on his opening remarks, which were specific and precise; I will try not to repeat many of them, but to get into some of the other issues.
My personal connection with Ukraine goes right back to a matter of months after the original invasion. I was involved with a Scottish charity called Siobhan’s Trust, which went out there to help those who were fleeing at the Polish border. When that had settled a little, the charity decided to cross the border and carry on feeding people who had been dispossessed behind the frontline. I see the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) in his place; I call him an hon. Friend in this, because he came out there with me to see the same remarkable charity. It is a wonderfully bonkers British charity. The team wear kilts, put the pipes in their mouths, and dance and entertain the Ukrainians only a few miles behind enemy lines, risking themselves at the same time. They show the remarkable bond that we in this country have forged with the Ukrainians in their hour of need. The charity is peculiarly British, and that is what we are about.
We know what this is all about. We do not need this House to lead this debate. In truth, if we were to ask ordinary people on the high streets of this great country, they would immediately react, “We stand with Ukraine.” Why? Because they know what it is all about. History tells us what happens when countries fall: they do not rise again unless somebody else can rescue them. There is nobody to rescue countries like Ukraine if it is not us, after all our experiences of the second world war and our determination to ensure such a brutal war never takes place again. It is happening now.
I have to remind the US that, even if it is not a guarantor, it certainly has an obligation to Ukraine under the Budapest memorandum. It cannot sweep that aside. The obligation came about mostly because Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons. I wonder whether Putin would have invaded if it had kept its nuclear weapons. Ukraine was misled by the west. We said that we would stand by the Ukrainians, and away went their nuclear weapons Then, of course, Putin eventually decides to invade—at first piecemeal, invading part of the territory, and then fully later on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex is quite right that the Russians have been both singularly appalling in the way that they have behaved and incredibly poor in terms of their military activity. That notwithstanding, they would never have done this if Ukraine had kept its nuclear weapons, which would have been its major line of defence.
I have travelled many times to Ukraine to visit charities and others and have spoken to many Ministers in Kyiv about the difficulties and problems, including in Kharkiv, not long after Ukraine had driven the Russians back. Another Deputy Speaker, the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins), was with me in Kharkiv, and we saw the devastation. How quickly the Ukrainians repair it is another marvel: I saw many buildings that had been shot at and blown apart—people had died—and by the next time I went to see them, which was a year later, they were back up and standing. That is a phenomenal testimony to the capability of the Ukrainians to recognise that, despite this terrible war, they have to keep on making efforts to live as natural and normal a life as they can.
President Zelensky has rightly become the signal and the character of the defence. I know there has been a difficult relationship with the White House over his desire to wear fatigues—that strikes me as a rather petty point but, no matter how big they are, some people can be incredibly petty. His whole character, responsibility and defiance in staying in Kyiv, when Russia attacked and was determined to find and kill him, shows the courage of the Ukrainians embodied in one man. We need to support him in difficult times.
We know that Ukraine is not perfect. Which country can put its hand on its heart and say it has never had corruption? Which countries have come out of the Soviet Union and not struggled with corruption? The only way people could exist in a Soviet country was through corruption, because that was how to get things done, because things were so bureaucratic and hopeless and people were not properly paid. The Ukranians are trying to get on top of that. They want to be a democracy, and they want to have freedom and human rights. Even if nothing else had happened, surely it should have been our responsibility to stand by Ukraine in its attempt to get that done. We only have to go back 150 years in this country, and we were riddled with corruption. We changed how we ran things, we changed the civil service code and we changed payments, and we got on top of it for the most part. When we talk about our lack of corruption, it came after a number of years of hardship many years ago in our history. Those who complain about corruption and point the finger should point the finger at themselves, because it is a misunderstanding of history and our obligation to a people who wish to be free. They will one day be utterly free, if we stand with them.
Russia has engaged in appalling war crimes. If people go to the battlefield, they will see what the Russians have been doing. They deliberately target civilians, so that the military will come to try and help them, and then they get a bigger target. The whole nature of warfare has been turned on its head in Ukraine. A soldier who had had his leg blown off told me the other day, “There is no safe space behind the frontline, as there always was before. You have to go miles back before you can even begin to think of putting up some kind of hospital or first aid centre, because those drones fly all day and all night. What they do is hit one soldier and lay them out, dead or alive. Then, as the others run to him, they rain down on them with their explosives.” That is why more than 50,000 people in Ukraine today who have been serving on the frontline need prosthetics.
Ukraine has the most advanced prosthetics laboratories that I have ever seen. They could teach us a thing or two. There is a whole problem with the tourniquet, because it cannot be released. Soldiers cannot get to the wounded soldier lying on the ground, because they know what will happen if they go to them, so the wounded soldier lies, often for an hour or more, with a tourniquet destroying their arm, even though it may be saving their life. They end up with terrible prosthetics requirements into their shoulder blades. Do they moan and complain about that? No, they do not. They sit down technically and work out how to solve it. We have a lot to learn from them, including on the battlefield and how they counter the drones. The Ukranians are way ahead of us, and I hope that the MOD realises that it is not us who can teach them a lesson, but they who can teach us. I spend time trying to bring companies over from Ukraine to give us that technology on drones and all these other areas where we should learn from them.
The other point I want people to learn is that we seem to talk about Ukrainians as though they were capable of little themselves. They had no defence manufacturing capability worth talking about, but today they manufacture more than 50% of their own defence needs. They do it unbelievably efficiently and they do it under regular fire from Russia. I have visited companies in Ukraine where half of the place gets blown up and in about four days they are back manufacturing and fixing things. Those are things that we used to do when we were in the second world war being bombarded. The Ukranians show the same resilience, the same application and the same flexibility.
We must stand with Ukraine. We stand with Ukranians because of what they want to be and because it is our responsibility to defend those who seek freedom and democracy as their cause. It is as simple as that. The UK has been the most united over this, and I applaud colleagues from all parts of the House, because we have all stood together. It is noticeable that when we talk to Ukrainians, they always raise that point. The UK is united, and that is the most important point.
I will finish on sanctions. The problem for us is that we have failed to settle our sanctions responsibility to the degree that we should have. There are huge problems over the shadow fleet, as has been mentioned, and over individual sanctions, which we should have been using on a number of occasions. It is remarkable that with the one thing we had complete control over—the sale of Chelsea football club—£2.5 billion has sat there for three years, because we defined the ability to use it so poorly that there is now a dispute as to whether Abramovich’s own companies have a right to use the money, or whether we can seize it. We have to deal with this. If we cannot deal with that one issue, it shows how bad it will be for us in seeking reparations across the board.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
Do we think for a moment that Russia would pause seizing any assets it could to fund the conflict? Is it not ironic that the Russians use the rule of law against us, despite the fact that they have no respect for it themselves?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
It is, of course, a fact that we stand by the rule of law and teach others to do so, but the reality is that this whole problem could be resolved if there was greater resolve—by the way, this is a criticism not just of the present Government but the previous one—in the Foreign Office and the Treasury to leave no stone unturned and resolve this matter by seizing the money.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
The will is non-existent.
I will conclude by simply saying that Ukraine should not be written off. The issue is not whether Ukraine has to make a deal now because it cannot win. Winning, for the Ukrainians, is getting back their land, their rights and their country. It is written into the constitution of Ukraine that the land that Russia occupies is theirs. People talk glibly about handing over territory as a way of resolving the conflict, but this would only lead, as has been said previously, to Russia moving again within a matter of months or years and seizing the rest of Ukraine. Putin does not care about territory; he cares about Ukraine. He believes Ukraine should be part of Russia, and he will never stop. If we show weakness by agreeing to some stupid 28-point plan, which would sell the Ukrainians down the river, Putin would come back. We would walk away and say, “Well, we did our best.” That is not good enough.
I urge the Minister to make it absolutely clear that we do not agree with any of the 28-point plan, which would sell territory for peace. But it would not be peace; it would be a short-term abdication of responsibility that would lead to the death of many millions.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) on a fantastic speech, and on taking the initiative to get the Backbench Business Committee to agree to this debate. It is good to see the strong cross-party support continuing.
I appreciate the support that the UK Government have given and continue to give to Ukraine, but we are now at an absolutely critical time for the country. It is vital that we continue and intensify our support for Ukraine, because Putin cannot be allowed to get away with his illegal invasions of Ukraine and his evil programme of seeking to eliminate Ukrainian identity altogether.
A strong show of western solidarity and support for Ukraine is essential, not just to restore peace to Ukraine but to deter Putin from further aggression that would ultimately affect the security of the whole of western Europe, as hon. Members have said. It is not just the countries closest to Russia that are affected; we have already witnessed numerous Russian-provoked incidents across Europe, involving a range of hybrid warfare techniques.
I applaud my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for his efforts in setting up the coalition of the willing and encouraging support for Ukraine, but I would be grateful if the Minister addressed some specific issues. First and foremost is the issue of finance, with external funding for Ukraine secured only from 1 March 2025. There is real concern about the ongoing uncertainty surrounding the EU’s ability to issue guarantees that are backed by frozen Russian assets—most of which are located in Belgium—making Ukraine’s military and political planning extremely difficult.
Will the Minister enlighten us on the contingency measures being developed to mitigate a potential funding gap? How might the United Kingdom contribute more actively, particularly given the £25 billion in frozen Russian assets, as reported in the annual review by the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation? If the guarantees are not approved in time and the financial situation is not resolved, how does the Minister anticipate Ukraine’s strategy would need to evolve?
In the meantime, while Ukraine is facing uncertainty about future funding, Russia, as many Members have referenced, continues to find ways around sanctions. As just one example, Ukraine’s military intelligence—the HUR—recently published a detailed breakdown of the industrial network behind Russia’s Iskander-M ballistic missiles, and noted that 13 of the 49 companies involved in the Iskander supply chain are not currently sanctioned, even though they are directly contributing to the production of weapons used against civilian targets in Ukraine.
Once the components reach Russia, where do they go next? Ukraine’s intelligence service has highlighted that Moscow has already helped North Korea upgrade its KN-23 and KN-24 missile systems. I appreciate that the UK has already done a lot to strengthen sanctions, but in the light of such an example, as well as the use of the shadow fleet and third parties, as described by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), will the Minister look at what more we can do to stop sanctions being flouted and to work with allies to make sanctions as effective as possible? Strengthening sanctions is a key way of helping Ukraine, especially as financial pressure remains a core pillar of Ukraine’s resilience strategy.
Continuing on the issue of resources, it is very worrying that Italy has announced a temporary suspension of its participation in NATO’s PURL—prioritised Ukraine requirements list—programme for procuring US weapons for Ukraine. According to the Italian Foreign Minister, Antonio Tajani, this pause is linked to ongoing peace discussions and the premise that, in the event of a ceasefire, security guarantees, not weapons, will become the central requirement. However, this announcement creates yet more uncertainty for Ukraine, and obviously has serious implications for allied burden sharing within PURL. What assurances can the Minister give about UK support for the PURL programme to support Ukraine, and what contingency plans are there to make up any shortfall caused if the Italian withdrawal from the programme becomes permanent?
On security guarantees, General Zaluzhnyi, the former commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian armed forces, wrote recently in The Telegraph:
“We Ukrainians strive for a complete victory, but cannot reject the option of a long-term end to the war… But all this is impossible without effective security guarantees.”
He went on:
“Such security guarantees could include: Ukraine’s accession to NATO, the deployment of nuclear weapons on Ukrainian territory or the deployment of a large allied military contingent”.
Again, what is the current UK thinking about the scale of the security guarantees necessary to give Ukraine the security it would need in any form of peace?
As we know, there are many aspects to the Ukrainians’ resilience, and we witnessed them on a recent visit to Ukraine. We have all heard about the appalling suffering on the frontline and the terrible plight of those living under Russian occupation, but the impact on the rest of the country is of course enormous. The Ukrainians are tackling so many challenges, such as the damage done by drone attacks night after night to both buildings and morale, and dealing with the internal displacement of people. We visited the town of Vinnytsia, a city the size of Swansea, which is welcoming 17,000 internally displaced Ukrainians. Vinnytsia is also welcoming the businesses and factories re-establishing themselves there and a university that has moved en bloc from the occupied area.
There is also the challenge of getting online Ukrainian education through to children in the occupied areas. As the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) mentioned, there are the challenges faced by seriously injured soldiers. They are picking up their lives again and showing huge resilience, as so many Ukrainians have done. There is the challenge of getting back the stolen children. There is the challenge of finding the ingenuity to develop drones, automated vehicles and anti-drone technology. There are the challenges of rehousing projects, attracting foreign investment and getting appropriate insurance. Again, what further help can the UK Government give? I would like the Minister to respond on these specific challenges. I think we all agree that we really must support Ukraine now, before it is far too late.
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for bringing this very important debate to the House.
It is very disappointing that the Chamber is not full and that we do not have the Prime Minister sitting there. I cannot think of a more important subject for us to be debating in the United Kingdom—the almost certain outbreak of war, as far as I am concerned. I am very sorry that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) is not here to tell us his view on Russia. I think we would all be very interested in what he had to say.
Ukraine is defending the western world against Russia. There is no doubt about that. The Baltic states, Finland, Moldova, Poland and Estonia are all building up their military forces. They expect that Putin has territorial ambitions on their land, too. In the meantime, all over Europe Russia is conducting sabotage: rogue drone flights, towing anchors over our power lines and data links, cyber-attacks, exploding packages in courier flights and even assassinations in the UK.
In the previous Government, even Boris Johnson was much more supportive in his response than our current Government. France and Germany are very much leading the way now, with Britain timidly following on. The Chancellor raised £28 billion in the recent Budget and £40 billion this time last year, yet we have a target to increase defence spending from a very modest 2.4% of GDP to only 2.5% by 2026. Whether our Prime Minister or Chancellor will admit it, we are at war with Russia already. Surely the Budget would have been the perfect time to have announced a substantial new contribution to Ukraine to help it fund the defence of western Europe?
Why is our Prime Minister being so timid in his support for Ukraine? Is he still hoping that President Trump will stop his flip-flopping and actually firmly support Ukraine? Is he not upset that the United States no longer donates arms to help Ukraine, but sells the arms to Europe? Just yesterday, Trump boasted that Ukraine is forced to pay “top dollar” for weapons to give to Ukraine. This is war profiteering. Does our Prime Minister read the Wall Street Journal, where he will have read a detailed report on Steve Witkoff and Trump’s own son-in-law, Jared Kushner, meeting the Russians to carve out multibillion dollar deals for the benefit of themselves and major American companies? Donald Tusk declared:
“We know this is not about peace. It’s about business.”
Did the PM see Steve Bannon stating that Russia was America’s true ally in world war two and that they should be allies again? Did he read the press yesterday where a German general, Christian Freuding, said that he no longer has peer group contact with US generals and that channels had been
“cut off, really cut off”.
My mother is American, from a long line of Republican supporters. She is appalled that the party of Reagan and George Bush has decided to ally itself with Russia, rather than its traditional allies of Britain, Germany, Canada, Japan and its many other old friends. I appeal to our Prime Minister to grow a bit of backbone with Trump, side firmly with European nations and once more ensure Britain is the leader of the world’s civilised countries in supporting Ukraine.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
I add my commendation to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for securing this important debate. Hearing the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) speak reminded me of our trip to Ukraine earlier in the year. Thinking of surreal moments, it cannot be more surreal than being on a road outside Kharkiv watching him try to fix a car that was not working properly.
In recent weeks, it has become painfully clear that many of us underestimated the sophistication and intent behind the Trump Administration’s manoeuvres regarding Ukraine, Europe and Russia. What at first seemed like a genuine pivot towards supporting Ukraine now appears, in retrospect, to have been a carefully orchestrated performance designed to protect Russian assets, pave the way for future business dealings and shape a narrative in which Ukraine’s defeat was treated as inevitable.
At the heart of that strategy lies the $300 billion in frozen Russian sovereign assets that hon. Members have mentioned repeatedly this afternoon. For many years, including in this place, we have debated whether those assets should be used to help Ukraine defend itself and rebuild. But we now know from reports that US officials have been placing intense pressure on European Governments to leave those assets untouched, and indeed insisting it is their view that they be returned to Russia after any peace deal, while feigning, for months, a willingness to ramp up support for Ukraine.
That illusion was crucial, because the more Europeans believed that Washington might still back Ukraine, the less likely European Governments were to take unilateral steps, including seizing or repurposing those Russian assets. It was a calculated sleight of hand, and it succeeded. Even now, European leaders remain hesitant, while Washington has now made its position unmistakably clear that Ukraine is expected to accept a settlement that has been shaped by Russian interests—because, I believe, it is Trump’s assessment that Russia will ultimately prevail.
We have to face the facts: the September-October pivot, when Trump and Vance claimed that Russia was losing and Ukraine could win, was most likely theatre. Trump has always accepted the Russian narrative of inevitable Ukrainian defeat, and once the pretence ended, US officials made their message clear to the Ukrainians: “Accept a deal now or face a worse one later. Russia can fight indefinitely; Ukraine cannot.” In my view, this is not diplomacy; it is coercive pressure on Ukraine, and it carries an unmistakable message that the United States Administration are now structuring their policy around the assumption of a Russian victory in the long term. Many of us will be incredibly worried that Trump will pressure Ukraine into giving up territory and ultimately fail to give any meaningful security guarantees. It is for Ukrainians who have paid a price in blood to decide for themselves what price they are prepared to pay for peace.
What does this mean for Europe and for Britain? First, it means that we must accept the truth that if Ukraine is to resist Russian maximalist aims, we must step up now, not in six months or in two years. Secondly, it means that the fate of Russian sovereign assets is not a technical financial matter but a strategic one, and every delay, hesitation and concession on this issue weakens Ukraine and emboldens the Kremlin. Thirdly, it means we must recognise that 2026 will likely be the decisive year in this war. Yes, Russia faces mounting economic difficulties, fuel shortages and internal discontent, and the Kremlin still insists on its war aims, but its capacity to sustain the war is not limitless, and a sense of futility in Moscow is a necessary condition for peace. Ukraine’s ability to hold the line, supported through European unity, is central to bringing that moment closer.
I do not think that we have touched this afternoon on the fact that Ukrainian resilience is not endless either. There are hundreds of thousands of cases of desertion—a stark measure of exhaustion and eroding morale among frontline soldiers. Many units are under-strength and increasingly reliant on poorly trained conscripts rather than experienced volunteers. Some brigades operate without adequate rest, rotation or munitions. Commanders describe troops who are physically depleted, mentally exhausted and losing confidence in the strategic direction of the war. The result is a brittle front, with units stretched to breaking point, lacking resilience and vulnerable to sudden local collapses. Without substantial support, I really worry that the Ukrainian military could face a cascading breakdown as Russia continues to pile on the pressure.
The strain on Ukraine’s civilian population is equally acute. After three years of missile and drone attacks, millions of Ukrainians endure repeated power outages, damaged infrastructure, deep psychological trauma and limited access to heating, electricity and clean water. Mental health support has deteriorated sharply, especially as winter approaches. Displaced families have exhausted their savings, livelihoods have vanished, and the cumulative stress of air raids, mourning for the dead and uncertainty has driven a marked rise in depression, anxiety and long-term trauma. Communities live in a cycle of destruction and partial recovery, eroding resilience with each passing month.
We should be clear-eyed about our own position. We had warning after warning, but we never did enough—the invasion of Georgia in 2008, the annexation of Crimea in 2014, and the full-scale invasion several years ago, yet still we did not ramp up defence spending. The British armed forces have experienced years of hollowing out, cuts to troop numbers and chronic under-investment. Only now are we finally beginning to reverse some of that decline, but can we honestly say that the pace is adequate to the threat we face?
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
I am struck by what my hon. Friend has just said. About eight years ago, during Trump’s first term, I was in the United States with a group of Latvian MEPs. I remember being almost bemused by how often the Latvians wanted to turn whatever discussion we were having to defence. To some extent, it was kind of annoying me by the end, but now I realise that I was completely and utterly wrong; they knew what they were doing in that instance and I did not. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to sell this concept of a peace dividend? I was really sold on it, but it did not exist at that moment, because investment is required first in order to get peace in the long term. What we are really looking for is peace in Europe in the long term, so once again we genuinely do need a peace dividend.
Tim Roca
I completely agree. As the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) raised earlier, it is the Baltic countries—Poland, Finland, those that have had direct experience of Russian aggression—that are most clear-eyed about the Russian threat. We do not want a wishy-washy peace that does not deliver genuine security. There has to be genuine security as the basis of any peace.
We in this House must not dodge. We are building a coalition of the willing, and in any peace agreement we may potentially be asked to agree to put British troops on the ground and contribute to maintaining ceasefire lines or to deter Russian aggression. We have to be honest about where the British public are at, and I am not convinced that the British public are yet psychologically in the place they need to be in for that commitment. We all have a duty to contribute to the understanding of the threat that Russia faces to our security here at home. We must speak honestly with the country about the risks that we face, the commitments we may be asked to make, and the moral and strategic imperative of ensuring that Russian aggression does not succeed. If Ukraine falls or is coerced into a settlement that gives the Kremlin what it could not win on the battlefield, Europe will not be safer.
An essential truth that has been revealed in recent months is that Ukrainian resilience is not infinite. Its morale depends on it knowing that the world has not forgotten it. Every air defence system, shell, economic sanction on Russia and measure to support Ukraine and its statehood matters—not just materially but psychologically. Every equivocation, delay and wavering signal emboldens Putin and his gang of thugs. We are clear that Ukraine is fighting not only for its freedom but for the principle that aggression should not be rewarded. I believe that Members of this House agree with those principles. Therefore, we must act with urgency, clarity and resolve.
I think there have been two references by hon. Members this afternoon to Munich. We are 87 years on from what was described as a “total and unmitigated defeat”. Today, I do worry that the Trump Administration’s push for peace, shaped by Putin’s interest, risks making the same mistake in pressuring Ukraine to accept a settlement that serves the aggressor rather than justice or security. Let us be clear in this place that we stand with Ukraine to uphold its sovereignty and security, because we do not want to repeat the errors of the past.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) on securing this debate and setting out so many key points in his opening speech.
It has been 1,379 days since Russia launched its full-scale invasion in Ukraine—1,379 days of Ukrainians fleeing for their lives, 1,379 days of Ukrainians forced from their homes, and 1,379 days of Ukrainians fighting for their country and for Europe. As we stand in this House and debate today, the devastating war continues. The UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine has reported that the total civilian casualties from January 2025 to October 2025 are 27% higher than during the same period last year. The number of casualties for the first 10 months of 2025 has already exceeded the total for all of 2024. Since the full-scale invasion began in 2022, there have been over 53,000 civilian casualties and 14,500 deaths. Alongside civilians, the number of military casualties stands at around 400,000 for Ukraine and over 1 million for Russia. It has been a complete loss of human life.
I begin with those horrific statistics not to overwhelm Members with numbers but to confront us with the brutal reality that they represent. Each figure we cite serves a purpose. They help us to understand the scale of the suffering in Ukraine and the enormity of what is at stake. We must never let statistics blind us to the truth behind them, which is that these are people just like us—parents trying to protect their children, the elderly refusing to abandon the homes that they built, and young people who only ever asked for the chance to live in people. Lives full of hope and routine have been interrupted and devastated by a barbaric war that they did not choose, yet they fight. As we consider these numbers, let us remember the Ukrainians whose stories we cannot fully capture and let that guide the seriousness of our debate.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is not only an assault on a sovereign nation, but an assault on democracy itself and a flagrant violation of international law. Yet despite this brutal aggression, I know that Ukraine remains unyielding in its fight for freedom. When I visited Ukraine in October, I witnessed the resilience of a nation at war. I was told that, just hours after bombs tear through towns and cities, shattered buildings are boarded up, not simply to hide the destruction, but so that children, families and ordinary citizens can wake the next morning and try as best they can to live their lives, striving for normality in the shadow of war.
Every day, the world is witness to military vehicles rolling through towns and cities, missiles striking innocent civilians and drones patrolling the skies with the intent to kill both military and civilian personnel. This is a war without morality, driven not by principle but by a hunger for territory and the attempted annihilation of Ukrainian identity. Amid the rubble, the grief and the dust lies another, silent and enduring threat. When I was in Ukraine, I saw at first hand the immense challenge of explosive ordnance contamination. Ukraine is now the most heavily contaminated country on earth, with 139,000 sq km polluted by unexploded ordnance.
This is a nation that once fed much of Europe. Before 2022, 71% of Ukraine’s land was agricultural, more than half of it arable, the highest proportion of any European country, but today farmers cannot work their land. Their fields, once the breadbasket of Europe, have become battlefields. In one extreme case, I learned of a farmer going out to farm his land in the tractor while his son was on the lookout at the side, shooting down drones to protect him. Farmers are so desperate to reclaim their livelihoods that they try to clear the land themselves, with horrific consequences. Children, tragically unaware, pick up pieces of unexploded ordnance, believing them to be toys. Save the Children’s recent blast injury report cites the figure of more than 3,000 children having been killed or injured by explosive weapons in Ukraine since 2022, while the number of children maimed surged by 70% in just one year, from 339 in 2023 to 577 in 2024. There can be no greater tragedy and no greater moral failing than a war in which the innocent and the vulnerable, our children, become its casualties.
The cost of explosive ordnance is not only human. A joint report by Ukraine’s Ministry of Economy and the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change estimates that landmine contamination is costing Ukraine an estimated $11.2 billion annually, the equivalent of 5.6% of its pre-war GDP. What further exacerbates the issue is Russia’s errant use of anti-personnel mines. Human Rights Watch has reported that Russian forces have used more than a dozen types of anti-personnel mines since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine began. In Ukraine, I was shown the POM-3. This device is barbaric. Once delivered and deployed, the mine operates on the seismic principle, which means that once it detects a human footstep, it will detonate. These mines cannot tell the difference between a soldier and a civilian, and Russia does not intend them to. Innocent civilians are at risk from mines that they cannot even see.
The Ottawa treaty, which Russia is not party to, prohibits the use, production, stockpiling and transfer of these weapons, and requires action to be taken to prevent and address their long-term effects. In recent months, five European states have formally withdrawn from the convention entirely, and in July Ukraine communicated its intention to introduce a suspension. Countries including Austria, Belgium, Norway and Switzerland have formally objected to the suspension, while others are still considering such steps. It risks seriously undermining the convention’s object and purpose, as well as broader international humanitarian law instruments, by suggesting that states can opt out of humanitarian obligations during war.
I stand unequivocally with Ukraine, and I recognise that there are no easy decisions when states confront the terrible reality of war, but I remain deeply concerned that any step away from international conventions risks further harm to civilians. As the Mines Advisory Group has warned:
“International Humanitarian Law…including the Ottawa Convention, is designed precisely for times like these.”
International law is not a luxury for peace; it is the foundation of humanity amid conflict. The UK must lead in its commitment to international law and uphold the standards that the world will depend on in future conflicts.
Alongside sustaining the international pressure, we must look to our own responsibilities. With global mine action programme funding due to end in 2026, the Government should commit to allocating a proportion of the UK’s de-mining assistance through the Ministry of Defence budget and should recognise eligible mine action activity as contributing towards relevant defence spending targets. Given the ever-dwindling humanitarian funds in the FCDO, utilising the MOD budget would safeguard continuity beyond 2026 and maintain the operational tempo necessary to confront the largest explosive ordnance contamination that Europe has faced since the second world war. I hope the Minister will address that later.
Surrey Stands with Ukraine is an amazing charity in my constituency. It provides medical aid and supports physical and mental rehabilitation for Ukrainians. It has told me of the urgent need for a register of trusted UK-Ukrainian humanitarian aid organisations, so that people can see instantly that they are credible. The charity has received medical kit from Government organisations and private companies, but if it was on a trusted list, that would empower more businesses to come forward and support its work. So far, it has shipped an incredible 168 vans of aid, £4 million of medical aid, a long-reach-ladder fire engine called Dinah, and 250 generators to communities in Ukraine. Anything that this Government can do to empower businesses to offer support, and encourage individuals to donate, would make a difference to the lives of the thousands of people affected by this war.
While we wait with bated breath for a peace plan that delivers for Ukraine, this Government must continue to support Ukrainians. The proposed Ukraine-UK health collaboration would help those providing vital services, such as the Superhumans clinic, which offers free prosthetics and reconstruction to children, civilians and military personnel affected by the conflict. When I was in Ukraine, I met Zakhar Biryukov, a former member of the Ukrainian special forces. Zakhar had been warning civilians to stay away from mined areas when his helicopter came under fire. He lost both his legs and an arm, and suffered severe facial injuries. Zakhar now dedicates his time to supporting new amputees arriving at the clinic, telling them that everything will be okay. His hope, courage and optimism, his refusal to be broken, and his will to never give in to the Russians is something that I will never forget. He left a deep impression on all of us who met him. A health partnership would also deliver experience, knowledge and relationships. It would greatly support UK conflict preparedness and NHS resilience to related shocks and mass casualty incidents.
Russia is becoming increasingly aggressive across Europe and even more bold in its quest for knowledge. The former leader of Reform Wales was recently jailed for accepting bribes to help pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
That former leader in Wales of Reform UK was a constituent of mine. We have been calling on the Prime Minister for an independent review and an investigation into Russian interference in our democracy. Does the hon. Member support that?
Helen Maguire
I do, wholeheartedly, and thank the hon. Member for intervening on that important point.
In 2020, a delayed report into Russian interference in the UK led the then Foreign Secretary to tell the House that it is almost certain that Russian actors sought to interfere in the 2019 general election through the online amplification of illicitly acquired and leaked Government documents. This trend of Russian interference is only increasing. Yesterday, I read a report from GLOBSEC on how Russia is using criminality as a tool of hybrid warfare in Europe. If Members have not already read it, I urge them to do so. The brazen and dangerous act of the Yantar ship endangered the lives of RAF pilots and showed the lengths to which Putin will go to ascertain his military power and undermine Britain’s defence. Tomorrow is too late; this Government must act further today. They must stand up to Putin’s belligerence, seize the £30 billion in frozen Russian assets across the UK, and funnel those into Ukraine’s defence.
I have the highest hopes for a peace deal, but am concerned about Trump’s deal. The President treats this deal as if it is a business transaction; he is throwing out the international diplomacy rule book and ignoring history. Trump’s plan would displace thousands, rip territory from Ukraine and weaken Ukraine’s military capability. With Putin rejecting the latest peace proposal, the stakes are higher than ever before. There can be no deal that impinges on Ukrainian sovereignty. Russia is the aggressor here. Russia lined up its troops at the border and launched an illegal invasion. There was no provocation by Ukraine. The UK must lead on the robust defence of Ukraine in considering any peace plan that now comes forward. A peace plan for Ukraine cannot weaken its defence capabilities, cede territory to Russia or refuse Ukraine NATO membership.
Putin has already said that he is ready for war with Europe, and as we speak, Russia is provoking our maritime ships, attacking our cyber-security and destroying undersea cables. Ukraine has already experienced what happens when it is weakened and is forced to give up its nuclear weapons. Let us ensure that that does not happen again. It may be 1,379 days since Russia invaded Ukraine, but that is also 1,379 days of solidarity. We stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine. Slava Ukraini!
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
One of the advantages of being called at a late stage of the debate is that I can put my hand on my heart and truthfully say that every single speech in this debate so far has been outstandingly good. I have agreed with virtually every word of every one of them, and looking at the calibre of the remaining people, including all three Front-Bench representatives, I have every confidence that the standard will be maintained till the end.
A former occupant of your chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, used to give courses in good public speaking technique. He always said, “If you wish your speech to have any useful impact after the event, it should not contain more than one, or at most two—and that is stretching it—key points.” So here is my one key point, which, I am delighted to say, has been touched on very effectively by the hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith), among others: any settlement that does not have a military presence on the ground of unoccupied Ukraine from the country or countries offering a security guarantee will be a disaster. I ask the House to consider Europe at the end of the second world war, when the tripartite alliance had largely broken down, and Stalin was in occupation of eastern Europe and, of course, the eastern half of Germany, which his troops had conquered. The west was in occupation of the remainder of the European continent—literally, in the case of West Germany.
What would have happened—knowing what we know now about the nature of Soviet communism—if, instead of the victorious western allies maintaining a very large military presence in occupied western Germany, they had said, “Right, we’ll demilitarise this and clear out, but we’re going to give the West German politicians who follow a security guarantee that if any trouble happens, we will stand by them”? The only thing that stopped a conflict breaking out between the Soviet occupying forces and the western world was the fact that, right up against the dividing line between Soviet-dominated East Germany and the rest of Germany, there were western allied troops, and it would have been impossible for the Soviet forces to move against West Germany without immediately triggering a major military counter-action.
I have often said—and I make no apology for saying it again—that it is worth looking at the two halves of the 20th century. In the first half, we had two global conflicts—two world wars. In the second half, despite the intense ideological and military rivalry between the communist world and the democratic western world, we had no global conflicts—no third world war. I put that down to two factors. One was unprecedented: the nuclear balance of terror. But it was not enough to stop all forms of conflict, because it is possible for conventional conflicts to go ahead under the threshold of the nuclear balance without necessarily triggering Armageddon. That is why we have to have strong conventional deterrent forces, too.
So, what was the other factor preventing the cold war from becoming the third world war? It is quite clear that it was the most successful alliance in history: the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. It grieves me to say that because of some of the occupants of high office in the capital of our ally the United States, the future of the NATO alliance—and therefore the future of world peace, frankly—is hanging by a thread.
It was the chief staff officer and representative on the war time chiefs of staff committee of Winston Churchill, General Sir Hastings Ismay, who became the first Secretary-General of NATO. He is credited with having made the rather pithy but nevertheless very accurate observation that the purpose of the alliance at the time it was founded was threefold: to keep the Americans in, to keep the Russians out, and to keep the Germans down. That third element fortunately became redundant as West Germany developed into a democracy—so quickly, in fact, that in May 1955, 10 years virtually to the day from the surrender on Lüneburg heath of the Nazis to General Montgomery, Germany itself was admitted to the NATO alliance.
I ask people to take another counterfactual look at history. If the Kaiser had known in 1914 that if he invaded neutral Belgium, he would immediately be at war with the United States of America, would he have done it? I think the answer is no. If Hitler had known in 1939 that if he invaded Poland, he would immediately be at war with the United States of America, would he have done it? I think the answer very probably is no to that as well. Therefore, the secret to keeping the peace in the world is to keep America engaged with the security of Europe.
America is going through a phase at the moment—which seems to hinge on a number of personalities who hold power in that great democracy, apparently with the approval of a majority of the electorate—in which its commitment to European and thus world security is in doubt. This is the chance for Europeans, whether inside the EU or, like us, outside it, to show that we can do our bit. We have to keep the show on the road until America once again stands up for the policy of the second half of the 20th century, which stopped the third world war, rather than it reverting to its policy of isolationism from the first half of the 20th century, and standing by, which caused two global conflicts that could have been prevented.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) on setting the scene incredibly well. As the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) said, all the speeches have been incredible, and the ones that follow will be equally good. We are here for a purpose, and it has been good to hear Members’ comments.
We are almost four years into the war in Ukraine, and we continue to hear of the devastation impacting people there. I want to focus today on one issue: the atrocities and war crimes carried out by Russian soldiers, and accountability for them. I told the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex yesterday that that would be the subject matter of my speech. I want this to be a reminder of the vicious attacks that the people of Ukraine have been subjected to. This Government, in conjunction with the US, must do more to seek peace and support those most in need. I do not doubt whatsoever the commitment of our Government, our Prime Minister and the Labour party—that is never in doubt. This House is united in support of Ukraine.
Thinking back to the early months of the war in 2022, I remember the efforts of all our constituents, who filled bags and bags of clothes, blankets, hats, scarves, wash items and so on to be sent to Ukraine. I remember well the collective efforts of all the churches, who organised lorries-worth of donations to support the people of Ukraine after the attacks inflicted by Russia—those who lost their homes, workplaces and livelihoods, and the hundreds of thousands of people who fled to Poland for some sort of safety. I had an opportunity to meet some of them, and the desperation, loneliness and desolation of those who were displaced was something I have remembered many, many times. The pictures and videos that were released of the attacks were heartbreaking. I for one will not forget those; I do not think anyone will.
I remember hearing about one of the attacks early on in the conflict. The Russian army column going towards Kyiv was held up on the road by Ukrainians using shoulder-held next-generation light anti-tank weapons—NLAWs—that are made by Thales in Northern Ireland. I know that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), knows Thales well, because he has been there many times. So that early in the war, this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland had already committed to helping Ukraine. The extra money given by the Government to the defence sector has created 200 more jobs in Northern Ireland, including at Thales.
To return to the subject of crimes that have taken place during the conflict, I remember the story that when the Russians advanced, they came upon a forest house. They shot the husband, who was trying to ensure that nothing would happen to his wife, and then they violated her, while the wee boy sat and watched it all.
Alex Sobel
The hon. Member is giving a typically impassioned speech about the horrific nature of the aggression against Ukrainian children by Russia. We have heard about that happening in many different ways. Last week, MPs attended a screening of “We Are Home”, about Ukrainian children who have been displaced within Ukraine and who have had to leave their homes because of the Russians. We all know about the Russians abducting Ukrainian children. Does he agree that we need to see the strongest possible action on returning those children from Russia and on the prosecution of the perpetrators in the international courts?
Jim Shannon
Yes, I agree with that. I wish that the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) had been able to be here today because she has spoken valiantly in this House about bringing back the 30,000 children who have been kidnapped and undergone Russification. The Russians are trying to make them Russian and make them fight for Russia against Ukraine—it is obscene and it really bothers me greatly.
I have no idea about the name of the family I mentioned, but the reason that I remember that case is because I think about that wee boy, whose mother was being violated, and her screams—
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
The hon. Member mentioned the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter). Recently, she was good enough to organise an extraordinary showing of a film called “Children in the Fire” in one of the Committee rooms. It explained in detail, through some very personal stories, the devastation that children have faced during the conflict, and we had the privilege of meeting some of the children, some of whom had been previously abducted and had escaped Russia. It was an extraordinary moment that was deeply revealing and emotional. I am grateful to the hon. Member for paying such close attention to the plight of children in this conflict: it is a horror that none of us should accept.
Jim Shannon
We all appreciate and understand that horror that children have had to endure.
The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and I were among the first in the House to wear the Ukraine ribbon. I have worn it every day since then and I will wear it until the war is over—I may even wear it after the war is over, in solidarity with the Ukrainians. I will always plead their case in this House, as other hon. Members do, and no sanction from Putin will ever stop me from doing that.
The monitoring by the United Nation’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights reports that some 50,000 civilians have been killed or injured in Ukraine since February 2022, with thousands of verified civilian deaths. Many have also reported that the death toll could be significantly higher. I am prepared to be proved wrong, but due to the lack of reporting, I suspect that it probably is higher. Roughly 5 million to 6 million people are registered as refugees abroad, with a further 3.5 million internally displaced within Ukraine.
The human rights monitoring mission in Ukraine stated that since 24 February 2022 there have been hundreds of cases of conflict-related sexual violence. Girls from as young as eight to women as old as 80 have been violated by Russian monsters who think that they can do whatever they want. I want to see justice for those families. When the war ends, accountability for the actions of those who have murdered and killed across Ukraine has to be a part of the peace that comes. The Ukrainian ombudsman referred to 292 cases of sexual violence—how many have gone unrecorded?
I remember—we all do—the case of Bakhmut. Whenever the Russians retreated, left or were forced out, a mass grave was found of over 200 men, women and children who just happened to be Ukrainians. The Russians thought they could murder them. Accountability? I tell you what: I want to see accountability for that.
Sir Julian Lewis
Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that point 26 of the 28-point Witkoff plan is a general amnesty for everyone? That would mean that whoever committed the most atrocious war crimes would never be held accountable at all.
Jim Shannon
I did notice that. I want to be clear to the right hon. Gentleman and everyone in the House that we will never sign up to that. These people think they can get away with it. Of course, being a Christian, I know that they will suffer in the next world—it will be damnation for them—but I want to see them getting it in this world. They can get it in the next world as well.
Abuse has included torture, sexual torture, humiliation and sexual violence. Videos are going about where Russian soldiers have filmed themselves torturing—cutting off limbs and, in some cases, private parts of the anatomy —and then they have shown it around all their friends as if that is something to be proud of. Amnesty? I don’t think so. It is time to make them accountable for it all.
Churches across eastern Ukraine in Donetsk and Luhansk have been destroyed. Pastors of the Baptist church—I happen to be a member of a Baptist church—went missing in the early years of the war, and there has not been any account of where they are; they have disappeared. It is about accountability—what has happened to them? I suggest that the Russians have been involved in that as well. There is no accountability.
Members have referred to the nightly attacks on civilian targets—apartment blocks, civilians, children and women—not military targets. The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex referred to that in his introduction and the thinking behind it. There has to be accountability for all the things that are happening. It is horrifying to think about the reality of the situation.
According to the Institute for Religious Freedom, by early 2023 at least 494 religious buildings had been destroyed, damaged or looted because of war; by late 2023, the total number of religious sites affected had grown to 630. There is a systematic campaign by Russian soldiers and by Putin himself to go against the evangelical and Ukrainian Orthodox churches right across Ukraine. The all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, which I chair, has undertaken incredible work on this matter so that all religions and communities can be represented. Damage has affected Orthodox churches, Protestant churches, prayer houses, Jehovah’s witness kingdom halls, Catholic churches, mosques, synagogues and others in a systematic campaign by Russia against religious churches and freedom of belief, which we all believe in. [Interruption.]
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am conscious of the time, so I will conclude. I look towards the United States of America for greater intervention. President Trump has done great when it comes to Israel—nobody can deny that he was probably the motivator for that—but he does not seem to be doing the same thing with Russia; his bias is clear. After five hours of talks yesterday between Putin and Trump’s senior negotiator, we are still no further forward as there was no breakthrough on securing a peace deal. It is time for President Trump to join the EU, European countries and NATO to ensure that Putin is forced to the table of negotiation and the table of peace.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for bringing this very important debate to us today. It is an opportunity for the House to condemn the evil actions of Putin in his illegal invasion of Ukraine and to assert our strong support for President Zelensky and the Ukrainian people. Our support is even more important now, as it is clear that President Trump’s support is constantly wavering. It is so sad that President Trump is ready to once again sell out Ukraine and its people and to agree a carve-up of land with President Putin. This is a Putin who openly says that he is ready for war with NATO.
Residents in Wokingham regularly write to me expressing their disgust at Putin and Trump, and they call on the Government to do more to support Ukraine. It is painfully obvious that we cannot rely on Trump to defend European freedoms. For that reason, the Government must continue to focus on defending British territory and playing a leading role with our European neighbours to defend Europe from the Russians. We must build trust with Europe; it is in our national interest. It is also in Europe’s interest that it should work with us—a fact that I am sure is not lost on many Europeans.
Our Government must continue to offer support to President Zelensky, along with France, Germany and NATO. They must join him in future negotiations with President Trump, so that Europe can show a strong and united front against the Russian aggressor and against any bullying tactics from President Trump. Trump so often looks more like an appeaser from the 1930s than an important leader in the most successful alliance, which has defended our freedoms in the west, including the USA, for much of the last 30 years.
I hope the Minister will reject the joint plan of Putin and Trump and will continue to stand up for Ukraine.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
I was in Ukraine in September with colleagues from the Labour Benches—I was the lone Liberal in a Government delegation. Against what seemed to be mountainous odds, the Ukrainians have defied a superpower that has unleashed a torrent of wanton death and destruction. In war, truth is often the first casualty. Propaganda, misinformation and disinformation swirl, but Ukraine and Ukrainians have truth on their side. Their weapon is truth, and their cause is their very survival.
Some wish to muddy the waters on this matter. As if it was not clear enough who the good guys and the bad guys are, the Russians have been engaged in a campaign of the systematic abduction of Ukraine’s future—its children—who have been swallowed up into re-education camps, where they face psychological torment and indoctrination. It is a process of de-Ukrainianisation, and some estimates say that up to 40,000 children have suffered that fate. This is rancid and wicked; it is an attempt to go beyond the dismantling of a state and to delete the identity of a people.
Britain has a proud history of standing up to tyranny and leading the fight—a glance at any 20th century history book tells us that—but we in the west could have gone harder and faster. Western Governments spent the first weeks and months of the war establishing what weapons systems could be sent; all the while, Ukrainians were being slaughtered in Russian shelling. Weapons systems that were deemed too provocative and escalation-inducing in the spring were flowing to Ukraine by the winter, while thousands perished in bitter fighting. The frontline is a horrifying meat grinder—a graveyard on the very edge of our continent.
It was Churchill who said:
“You cannot reason with a tiger when your head is in its mouth.”
Today, Ukraine is on the frontline not by choice, but by the accident of geography. I do not believe Putin will stop at Ukraine; it is Ukraine today, and it will be somewhere else tomorrow. He has had his sights on Georgia for almost two decades. In 2008, we watched on our television screens the Russian tanks roll through Georgia. Ask the Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania; ask the Finns and the Swedes, for that matter, both of whom departed from their long-standing doctrine of neutrality and secured accession into the NATO club. Ask the Poles, who have ramped up their defence spending because they see that their history with Russia is rhyming, and are not prepared to take any chances. This has all come in response to the Kremlin’s war in Ukraine and its perpetual neighbourhood sabre-rattling; anyone comfortable enough to suggest otherwise is either naive or mendacious. Have we not learned the lessons of the last century? Be deeply suspicious of those who characterise Ukraine’s independence as a provocation—some act of NATO encroachment, or poking the Russian bear. There is a very simple reason for ex-eastern bloc countries tilting west: it is because we are free. We are not societies in which those who criticise the regime go missing—where dissent ends in disappearance.
While many hailed Trump’s return to the White House as a potential turning point in this war, believing he held the key to bringing Putin to the negotiating table, any hints of Russian overtures have thus far been vanishingly hollow. During the furore in the Oval Office back in February, which made for very uncomfortable viewing indeed, the noises coming out of the White House were particularly troubling; it truly felt as though the President of the United States was playing to a Kremlin gallery. Branding Ukraine’s elected wartime leader a “dictator” was just one peevish outburst in a maelstrom of absurdity, and as Washington’s stance spins capriciously on a dime, Putin becomes even more emboldened by this weird game of cat and mouse. It was Theodore Roosevelt who said:
“Speak softly and carry a big stick”.
The problem is that although Trump may be speaking softly with Putin, his stick—or other such euphemistic accoutrement—seems to be very much holstered. In 1994, Britain signed the Budapest memorandum, and I remind the Administration in the White House that the United States was also a signatory to that agreement. Among other things, it represented a commitment to respect Ukrainian sovereignty. To rewrite history, or to conveniently forget it, would be to bend to despotism.
Let us not overlook the broader picture, either. Other potential foes are watching and manoeuvring to see if we and our allies across the free world have the resolve, resilience and ability to respond decisively and in a co-ordinated manner. This is a litmus test of sorts—a barometer for future engagements to see whether we will stand by our partners. Do we seriously think that China’s assertiveness around Taiwan or the way it has behaved with Hong Kong has no correlation whatsoever with the war in Ukraine? I, for one, have very serious objections to the proposed Chinese super-embassy, very close to home indeed—a foreign fortress in the heart of our capital that could serve as a base for nefarious activities on British soil, including espionage, sabotage and coercion, not to mention Russian rapprochement with the North Koreans.
The stakes could not be higher. Irredentism is on the march, and the international order established after 1945 hangs in the balance.
Rachel Gilmour
I am going to finish—sorry. We risk returning to a brutish bygone era in which tyrannical thugs take what they want. Who wants to live in such a world? We all want peace, but appeasement of the Kremlin is not the chess move of a pacifist or an anti-imperialist. It is not anti-war; it is the acceptance of revanchist thuggery over the will of a people to live free from an occupying power. Peace cannot be on the aggressor’s terms, and Ukrainian submission cannot be on the table. After all, peace is not just the absence of war; without justice, there is no peace. Slava Ukraini.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for securing this very important debate. There have been plaudits and praise enough for all the speeches made by Members across this House—they have been an extraordinary collection of speeches and thoughtful interventions that show intellectual clarity and deep emotional connection. I am grateful to all Members who have spoken.
It is absolutely clear that Vladimir Putin poses an existential threat to Ukraine and a once-in-a-generation threat to European security. For far too long, he has been allowed to wield grotesquely disproportionate influence over global diplomacy and security, and the consequences have been catastrophic. While the global geopolitical scene may have been shaken and upended by his imperial ambitions, the true cost of this war—the fullest cost—has been borne by the people of Ukraine, in the form of the atrocities committed and the suffering of the Ukrainian families who are the direct victims of his malicious and destructive impulses.
Today in Ukraine, there is active hand-to-hand combat, the military lines are active and volatile, and Ukrainian cities face relentless bombardment. Critical infrastructure is targeted, civilian lives are under constant threat and the human toll grows. Since February 2022, Ukraine has reported more than 14,000 civilians killed and more than 38,000 injured. More than 1 million Russian personnel have been killed or injured, and the Ukrainian military toll is more than 46,000 killed and 380,000 wounded. How many more lives need to be lost?
This war did not begin in 2022, with Russia’s full-scale invasion. As we know, it began in 2014, with the illegal seizure of Crimea. That annexation set the stage for the violence, brutality and inhumanity we see today. Russia’s aggression now threatens European security as a whole. Millions of Ukrainians have been displaced from their homes, entire communities destroyed and the social fabric torn apart, leaving trauma that will span generations.
As we have heard several times today, the most harrowing horror of all is the systematic abduction of Ukrainian children. At least 19,000 children have been taken, stolen, cynically and evilly—abduction and exploitation as a most appalling weapon of war. A moral red line has been crossed, and crossed again. This vile human injustice is yet another cost that Ukraine has had to bear. Against that backdrop of human suffering and strategic fragility, we must give Ukraine the leverage it needs in any negotiations and support its efforts to push Russian forces back.
Let me be absolutely clear: Trump’s original 28-point proposal was not a peace deal; it was a horrific geopolitical compromise—a foul capitulation that would serve only to embolden the aggressor. It would force Ukraine into neutrality; limit Ukraine’s ability to defend itself; ban NATO deployments; lock Ukraine out of NATO; recognise Russian sovereignty over Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk; lift sanctions on Russia; invite Russia back into the G8; and even force Ukraine into elections within 100 days. That is not peace—not even close. It rewards and legitimates Russia’s decade-long aggression, and signals to every authoritarian regime around the world that conquest works.
Yes, peace talks have taken place, and the Liberal Democrat position is clearer than ever. First, emergency legislation is vital to seize frozen Russian assets and repurpose them to fund Ukraine’s defence, reconstruction and humanitarian rehabilitation. Secondly, the return of every abducted Ukrainian child is a non-negotiable red line. Thirdly, there must be no reward for Putin: no G7, no G20 and no rehabilitation into the international community. Finally, no settlement can force Ukraine to concede territory. If lands are ceded, one question will echo loudly: what about the children stolen from those territories? Russia already claims them as Russian, and ceding territory may be taken as tacit confirmation of that appalling logic.
That is precisely why peace cannot be built on appeasement directed from Mar-a-Lago. It must be justice as seen from Kyiv. It must be built on a foundation that allows Ukraine not only to survive the war, but to rebuild afterwards: rebuild its infrastructure, its communities, and its way of life as a coherent, bordered, bounded and fully sovereign state. Ukraine’s right to freedom and self-determination is immutable. Any settlement must respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity and its sovereign choice to make alliances and coalitions, free from the long arm of Russia and Putin.
This moment is about more than rebuilding Ukraine; it is about rebuilding European security. Russian aggression has made one truth clear: Europe must take greater responsibility for defending Europe. We face the greatest challenge to European security in several generations. The United States has, regrettably, shown itself to be unpredictable and capricious. At any moment, President Trump could shift his attention, whether by choice or necessity, towards the genuine threat of China or the somewhat more local distractions that he sees in Venezuela, Mexico, Greenland or, dare I say it, even Canada, leaving Europe exposed. That is a strategic reality that we cannot ignore. Multipolarity brings both opportunities and new responsibilities. Europe can and needs to act collectively. Europe can and needs to co-ordinate defence procurement, intelligence sharing and economic solidarity. Europe can and needs to step up to the moment, and the United Kingdom can and needs to take a leading role.
We are living through an unusual moment in geopolitics. We can see the future with rare clarity and certainty. Our Prime Minister and Chancellor have hinted repeatedly, particularly in the lead-up to the recent Budget, about the need to rebuild bridges with Europe for the sake of our productivity and our economy. To that, I would add Europe’s collective security, defence, resilience, military-industrial procurement and innovation. Yes, it is a challenge and it requires political courage, but the UK should keep pursuing the deepest possible participation in Security Action for Europe, deepen co-operation, strengthen shared defence planning and align ourselves once again with the partners who share our values and our security.
Those in Europe who are dragging their heels need to lift their heads to the horizon and see the bigger picture. We face a generational challenge. We are stronger together. If we fail to act now, we will be judged by history as the generation who allowed these atrocities to take place, who allowed invasion and occupation by violence to redraw Europe and reshape the future, and who failed to put national self-interest aside to secure the cause of freedom, liberty, democracy and the international rules-based order.
To conclude, we cannot afford to be bystanders in this fight. Justice is what we owe Ukraine and what we now must deliver.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
May I begin by congratulating my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) on securing this important debate, together with his co-signatories, the Chair of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale)? All four are long-standing stalwarts and champions of the great cause of defending Ukraine. I congratulate them not only on securing this debate, but on their timing, enabling us to scrutinise the evolving situation amid a flurry of reports about the peace talks, frozen assets and continued wild rhetoric from Vladimir Putin.
When it comes to those talks, we all surely want peace in Ukraine. We all want an end to the fighting and the bloody slaughter of civilians and military personnel at a scale not seen in Europe since world war two. No one wants or deserves that more than the people of Ukraine. When we say that it must be a lasting peace, it is because the long-term security of Ukraine cannot be sacrificed for an illusory short-term cessation of hostilities on unacceptable terms, and certainly not for some kind of transactional economic gain for other nations, least of all Russia. We have constantly stood shoulder to shoulder with the Government, not just in supporting Ukraine as they did in opposition, but in being clear that the only tolerable peace is one secured on terms acceptable to the Government in Kyiv. We stand by that position, in total solidarity with Ukraine, for moral and practical reasons.
Morally, this war has a clear and flagrant aggressor—Putin’s Russia—which invaded a free and sovereign democracy. That is contrary to those who have echoed Putin’s own propaganda and blamed NATO for provoking this invasion. We are also clear that this invasion was wholly unprovoked and motivated by what my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex described in his excellent speech as the inherent nature of the Russian regime—its rejection of our democratic values and its desire to restore former glories by abolishing Ukraine’s independence.
On the practical side of the argument, supporting Ukraine is self-evidently an act that strengthens our defence, checking Russian expansionism. Indeed, I remain deeply proud of the last Government’s decision to rapidly arm Ukraine from the weeks prior to Russia’s invasion in February 2022, which helped Ukraine’s brave armed forces to avoid an early capitulation that would have left the Russian forces rampant, directly threatening ourselves and the rest of Europe.
The devil’s advocate might argue that if, morally, peace is the right way forward, and if we are also applying practical common sense, that speaks to seeking a compromise that may be painful for Ukraine but unavoidable if we are to see an end to the fighting, because surely Russia needs to be satisfied with the terms if there is to be a mutually agreed end to the war. To that, I would make the argument, as I have from the outset, that the most important moral and practical reason that as a nation we should all be cautious in welcoming any kind of uneasy peace deal, is that Russia gaining from its flagrant aggression would send a message that emboldens all our potential strategic adversaries, ultimately making the world less safe for us and all our allies.
With Putin unsurprisingly rejecting any compromise and showing the reality of his position by launching another massive drone attack on Ukraine, what exactly can be done? First, despite Putin’s cynicism, it is clearly important that all possible diplomatic efforts are made to support Ukraine, and we would be grateful if the Minister could update us on the latest developments. Secondly, we welcome the sanctioning of the GRU, which we heard about from the Security Minister, and support using all possible economic tools to pressure the Russian regime.
On the issue of economic tools, it has been reported that the European Commission is proposing the use of Russian assets to provide €90 billion to Ukraine in the form of a reparations loan. Further to the question from the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley, who made an excellent speech, can the Minister confirm whether the UK will pursue a similar or different approach? What legal solutions are the Government currently pursuing so that we can move beyond using just the profits from sovereign assets, and will we prioritise mobilising those assets for the immediate war effort?
Thirdly, echoing the comments of the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) and others—we are at war, as he said—and the reminder from the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) about Putin’s comments this week about his being ready for war with Europe, we must ask about our own readiness. On the crucial matter of defence spending in the UK, and given the concerns expressed yesterday by no less than Lord Robertson, the author of the strategic defence review, who questioned how seriously the Chancellor takes the need to increase defence spending, I have a specific question for the Minister: in what financial year will UK defence spending start to rise beyond the NATO-declared figure of 2.6% of GDP in 2027? That is a crucial question.
I turn to the other points in the many excellent speeches made in our debate. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke movingly about the atrocities in the war. Of course, he reminded us that one of the reasons we stand by Ukraine so strongly is because of the sheer brutality of the war, which was forced, unprovoked, on the people of Ukraine.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) made an excellent point when he said that surely it is in the economic domain that, in the long term, we can exert the greatest pressure on Russia, not least given the economic mismatch at play against the west.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) made a brilliant speech. She and the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) both compensated for the absence of the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter), who has led an amazing campaign, by reminding us about the terrible Russian war crime of child abduction. I join the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South in welcoming any sanctions that target those involved, which is a very good point.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) asked an interesting question, which is entirely hypothetical, as to whether the invasion would have occurred had Ukraine still possessed nuclear weapons, which of course it gave up, in good trust, through the Budapest memorandum. I wonder whether he is aware that in July 2016, during an historic debate on the renewal of the nuclear deterrent, the first intervention on the then new Prime Minister, Theresa May, was from our former colleague Andrew Selous, who asked exactly the same question. He asked it after the annexation of Crimea, and it is a question that we must still ask. It was answered brilliantly today by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), who has cared about these matters for a long time, when he reminded us that there was no third world war. There were conflicts elsewhere, but we did not have a repeat because of the deterrents that the two sides had. The conclusion we draw is that we must learn from that ourselves and always continue to invest to our own deterrent, despite the fact that it is extremely expensive.
Along those lines, the hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) asked a very important question about security guarantees. I hope the Minister will respond to that and set out his thinking on the sorts of security guarantees that would be involved if there were to be a lasting peace.
The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) said that he feels that 2026 may be the decisive year of the war, and I am sure he is correct. It is going to be decisive, one way or the other. As such, it is quite clear that we must continue to provide all possible military support and so on.
The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), who was always a very good contributor on these matters from the Liberal Democrats Front Bench, made the very good point that unexploded ordnance poses a threat not just to civilians, but to farming and food production. Many Members made excellent speeches, and it is a real privilege to join them in speaking today.
To conclude, I know that, like me, the Minister believes passionately that the UK could be a leader in uncrewed warfare, and one way we can do that is by partnering with Ukrainian companies. As such, it was a real privilege recently to visit the new factory being set up in Suffolk by Ukrspecsystems, a cutting-edge Ukrainian drone company. It is committed to producing such equipment here in the UK and creating jobs in my county of Suffolk. It is a reminder that our two nations’ deepening co-operation covers everything from military capability to acting in concert with allies on the diplomatic front and looking to the future with the 100-year partnership first proposed under our Government.
However, the most important aspect of our partnership is our values. We are both democracies facing a shared threat from Putin’s despotism, and it is a shared threat. The Novichok inquiry has today described Putin as “morally responsible” for the death of a British citizen on our home soil as a result of a nerve agent. We also see Putin as unambiguously morally responsible for all the suffering he has inflicted, without provocation, on the people of Ukraine. As I say, it is a shared threat. We support the Government in seeking a lasting peace acceptable to the Ukrainians, and I hope that the shared message of cross-party support for Ukraine sent from this Chamber today will provide some comfort to its people amid the horrors of war.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Al Carns)
First, I express great thanks to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for pulling together this debate. I have listened to the truly outstanding speeches and contributions from all Members on both sides of the House, but I would like to begin by paying tribute not to us, but to the brave men and women of the Ukrainian armed forces who, day in and day out, are fighting for national survival. They are fighting for freedom, for justice and for the right to self-determination, and I believe there is no more honourable thing to be doing.
Today in this House we have sent a clear and resounding message to Vladimir Putin that no matter how he tries to justify his illegal war in Ukraine, no matter how he blames other countries for conflict that he alone is responsible for, and no matter how he thinks he can intimidate Europe—with drone incursions, spy ships and reckless activity—we see him and we know exactly what he is up to.
My hon. Friend the Security Minister updated the House earlier on the consequences of Putin’s reckless and despicable activity here on the British mainland. Dawn Sturgess’s needless death was an unspeakable tragedy that will forever be a reminder of Russia’s reckless aggression. That is why he today announced in the House sweeping measures to include sanctions on the entire GRU—the Russian military intelligence agency—and 11 actors behind Russian state-sponsored activity.
The UK will always stand up to Putin’s brutal regime and call out his murderous machine for what it is, which is why we are united in our determination to support Ukraine for as long as it takes to achieve the just and lasting peace that the people of Ukraine fully deserve, to keep tightening international economic sanctions on his economy and to keep working with our partners to protect Europe from the threats he poses.
I thank Members on all sides for their speeches, and I would like to reflect on some of the comments and themes. The hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) mentioned many valuable points. The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) mentioned a really useful saying about NATO, and we may want to think in a similar way about these negotiations—keeping the US in, keeping the Ukraine at the very centre and keeping Europe focused. It is on the diplomatic points that were mentioned that I personally believe the Government have driven—we had a leading role in ensuring that the 28-point peace plan is relevant, has Ukraine at its very centre and has Europe all pushing together in a unified manner. Our Government and our Prime Minister have done a fantastic job in that regard.
When we talk about assets—I will talk about them in a bit more detail later—I am quite confident that by the end of the year we will, hopefully, collectively with Europe, have unlocked a huge amount of assets to apply more pressure on Russia and to fund Ukraine’s defence. For clarity, on our own readiness, by 2027 we will be spending 2.6% on defence.
The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex mentioned that the war in Ukraine has spread, and the argument has been made across the House that we are at war. I would argue that the war in Ukraine is geographically constrained, but the conflict is not. We see that moving across and around all the conventional themes of war, specifically in the cyber domain, the influence domain right here in the United Kingdom, and, of course, in the political domain, with the funding of political parties to cause division and strife across the political divide.
The hon. Member also talked about whether Ukraine was losing. I am a firm believer, at the strategic level, that Ukraine and NATO are absolutely on the front foot. Sweden and Finland have become part of the greatest defence alliance the world has ever seen. Russia has taken 1 million casualties. It is just worth thinking about that: 1 million casualties. It is almost the population of some eastern Baltic states. It is more casualties than America took in the entire second world war. In a lot of cases, we have isolated Russia from the west. Its economy is under significant pressure and just this year it has taken 380,000 casualties on the frontline.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way and for his response to the debate. I know his personal commitment to these issues is very strong indeed, but may I just take him back to the point he makes? He pulls back from the idea that we in the NATO countries are already in a kind of war with Russia. I have to tell him that there is a tendency to try to sanitise the severity of the threats we face. How effective does he think is the Government’s “conversation” with the British population about the threats we face? How successful does he think that is? A lot of us feel that we are not seeing it at all. The Government are not leading this conversation. Indeed, it is almost being shut down because of the pressures of domestic politics, and the lack of support from the public for having such a conversation makes it very difficult. Will he comment on that, because it was in the strategic defence review?
Al Carns
I thank the hon. Member for his contribution. It absolutely was front and centre of the strategic defence review. There will be a couple of announcements coming in the next couple of weeks about how we hope to change the narrative and better explain, in a relatable manner, the threats or crises that take place away from our shores and how they impact us here in the UK. A small example, although attribution and where it came from is still to be understood, is the £1.5 billion bail-out for Jaguar Land Rover. That is half the two-child benefit cap for a year. That relatable statistic suddenly hammers it home to individuals in all our constituencies. They may not be focused on international policy, but they understand the ramifications for the way we live here.
Energy prices and the cost of food—one of the biggest impacts on the cost of living—are caused by the war in Ukraine. More people were plunged into poverty across the globe because of the war in Ukraine. We need to make more of a conscious effort, collectively, to describe these threats, and how they resonate here and globally, in a more forceful manner, so that people understand why taking an active stance on some of these conflicts is equally as important not only for the countries involved but for the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex also mentioned, in his fantastic opening speech, NATO and whether we are ready. Another description is required when we talk about the UK and our readiness to defend. We are a part of NATO. Statistically, when we look at the scale of NATO forces available, we see that we outnumber Russia by a significant amount, whether in the air force, maritime or land domain. I agree with his comments about the remarkable unity that Europe and the UK have shown when engaging with the 28-point peace plan—in some cases rejecting it and changing it to ensure that Ukraine is at its very centre. European and UK leadership has been second to none in that space.
One subject that has resonated across the House today is the issue of the abducted children. My hon. Friend the Members for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter), who could not make it here today, and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) have all mentioned the impact on families and children in particular. This is not new. It is part of Russian doctrine. It was used in Afghanistan. In every conflict, they round up the children, move them to Russia for re-education and indoctrination, then bring them back. We are seeing an appalling abduction of Ukrainian citizens by Russia on a scale that is described by the Yale Humanitarian Research Lab as the largest wartime child abduction since world war two. It is absolutely shocking and despicable.
The UK has raised this issue at the UN and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, and I pay tribute to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South in highlighting the OSCE officials in Russian custody: Dmytro Shabanov, Maxim Petrov and Vadym Golda. We have committed £2.8 million to help Ukrainian children come back, and have been an active member of the International Coalition for the Return of Ukrainian Children throughout. Since the beginning of September, the pilot tracing mechanism has already identified over 600 additional children who were deported to the Russian Federation or relocated within the temporarily occupied territories.
I agree with the view that the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) holds of Zelensky. His leadership, courage, determination and conviction are an example to not only the Ukrainians but the world of how a state that in some ways is dwarfed by Russia has stood up against one of the biggest militaries in the world. I also agree, being relatively self-critical of the west, about there being some institutional arrogance when it comes to defence technology. That links to the point made about Ukrspecsystems. There are false lessons from Ukraine, but there are many more real ones that we need to adhere to, learn and integrate into our armed forces—in particular, about the integration of uncrewed systems data and electronic warfare. This point will be made throughout the defence investment plan. To be clear, we did not agree with the 28-point peace plan, and have worked very hard to change it, to put Ukraine at the very centre of it, and to look at what is acceptable. I hope to discuss some of the implications of that later.
The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) brought up a really good point about unexploded ordnance and the use of landmines in the conflict. There are millions of landmines, now rendering large swathes of Ukraine inaccessible to the farmers or families who once owned the land. It will be a generational problem to solve, and one that Members from all parties will need to deal with collectively.
From my perspective, our support for Ukraine is unshakeable. I say to the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), and my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) that, from my perspective, we are doing the most we can to support Ukraine. We are spending £4.5 billion on military support to Ukraine. We are leading the Ukraine Defence Contact Group, which has already delivered and harnessed £50 billion-worth of support for Ukraine. To make that more tangible, that is 5 million rounds of ammunition, ranging from 60,000 rounds of artillery all the way through to 100,000 drones this year alone and 140 lightweight missiles. There is much more to do. The defence industry is powering up across Europe. If we look at our defence industrial base, and our societal resilience in dealing with this conflict, I think we can see that we are waking the sleeping tiger in Europe.
I also think that the constant threats and hyperbole from Vladimir Putin are a direct consequence of significant pressure, and of him having to live with the moral indignation of being responsible for over 1 million casualties and the devastation of large swathes of Ukraine. Like the right hon. Member for Gainsborough, I personally do not think that there is division in the UK; we are unified across the parties. I do not think that there is division in Europe, particularly among the large players in this space. I believe that we have unity when it comes to the 28-point peace plan and putting Ukraine at the very centre of that negotiation. Ukraine must keep fighting, and the UK will be with it throughout.
The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex, my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), and for Llanelli, and many others mentioned frozen assets. We support the continued pressure on the Russian assets that are fuelling this illegal and barbaric war across Ukraine, and the pressure on Russia’s economic tentacles, but we must put increased pressure on Russia. It is worth noting that we have clamped down on Russia’s war machine and economic support mechanism. We have already sanctioned over 2,900 people and companies, and with our allies, we have already put in place £450 billion-worth of sanctions, which is the equivalent of two years of fighting.
We are moving forward with plans to use the full value of immobilised Russian sovereign assets to support Ukraine. We welcome the European Commission’s action just this week to bring forward concrete plans to meet Ukraine’s urgent financial needs—plans that will support the defence of the nation. I look forward to hearing more detail on that, hopefully by the end of this year.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I want to raise a point that I have just been told about. There is a debate right now in the Bundestag about the sanctions regime, and the German Chancellor Herr Merz has given up other visits in the last 24 hours to go to Belgium to persuade the Belgians to agree to proposals on sanctions. There is pressure around this. I have just been asked to ask the Minister whether he would say that this is a very worth- while visit, and that the British Government support the intention of getting Belgium to enter into the scheme with the lion’s share of the Euroclear funds. That would make an enormous difference to support for Ukraine.
Al Carns
I was in Germany just last week, and when I left, I muttered, “Germany is back.” I think that representatives from Germany going to Belgium to help unlock a significant amount of resource for Ukraine can be nothing but a good thing.
Many Members mentioned the increase in hybrid conflict. The conventional war that Russia is waging is the most barbaric that we have seen since, I would argue, world war one or world war two. Nevertheless, Europe and the west must accept that this attritional, force-on-force, game-of-chequers approach is accompanied by a sophisticated chess match, the consequences of which are as deadly. I believe that Russia is probing to find weaknesses in our security and critical national infrastructure. It is manoeuvring and flanking to change opinions, both on social media and in political parties, and is seeking to circumnavigate sanctions at every opportunity, and it is doing so with like-minded autocratic regimes. We must work doubly hard to identify, expose and deter those threats, and we should have the capability to defeat them, should they prevail.
I disagree with the comments of the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) about timidity and a lack of leadership. In the foreign policy space, the UK, in conjunction with our European allies, has helped the Americans come to a more workable solution, and the Ukrainians have been put right at the heart of that—and I think that the Prime Minister has demonstrated exceptional leadership in that. We are still seen to be leading this fight. I look to the Conservative Benches. Whether it be Storm Shadow or Challenger, collectively we have led on this, from a UK perspective. I do not think that we are lacking in any way.
Sir Julian Lewis
One way in which we could continue to lead would be by giving a very firm commitment that if the frontlines are indeed frozen, a coalition of the willing would have military assets on the ground, at the invitation of unoccupied Ukraine, so that there could be no question but that a future attack would trigger a response from that coalition. Otherwise, any security guarantee is not worth the paper on which it is printed.
Al Carns
The right hon. Member makes a very valid point. We have led over 30 countries in the coalition of the willing in designing safe seas and skies and secure borders. We have a capability that is well thought-through and well-planned, and it will be ready to go, if required.
The reality is that a secure Europe needs a strong and sovereign Ukraine, and Ukraine must have credible security guarantees if it is to defend itself, as many Members have mentioned. That is why we have led the coalition of the willing; and be in no doubt: we are ready to deploy and deliver our commitment, should the peace be negotiated to allow us to do so. We continue to put in £3 billion a year—£4.5 billion this year—and we will continue to play a leadership role in the Ukraine Defence Contact Group.
Pokrovsk was mentioned early on, and it was rightly pointed out that it has not fallen yet. The Ukrainians are holding a valiant defence of that town. It is worth mentioning, when we talk about tactical success or failure, that Russia has advanced only 15 km over the last year, equivalent to 4 metres a day, and has taken 170,000 casualties to fight its way into Pokrovsk. That is a world war two scale of casualties. Russia has suffered over a million casualties to gain only around 1% of Ukrainian territory; that brings home the impact of the conflict.
Day after day, for almost four years, the Ukrainians have fought with incredible courage, determination and ingenuity. The UK and Europe stand together, more so than ever before, and Putin’s continued aggression binds us closer together. We are collectively spending more on defence than at any time since the cold war, with more joint exercising, more joint planning and more joint capability development, because Ukraine is at the forefront of European security. If Putin opts for a long overdue ceasefire, we will continue to lead the coalition of the willing to establish credible deterrence in Ukraine. If that is not forthcoming, we will continue to work with allies to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position by upping military support and upping the pressure on Putin’s war machine.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) gave a great speech that quoted Churchill, so may I finish on one, also?
“When I look back upon the perils we overcame across the great waves, the gallant ship has sailed, we will not fear the tempest. Let it roar, let it rage.”—[Official Report, 7 May 1941; Vol. 371, c. 946.]
Ukraine will come through.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
Within the last few minutes, I read that President Zelensky is on a state visit to Dublin, but his arriving plane was buzzed by four mysterious military-grade drones. That is what we are up against, and there is not sufficient awareness of that. The fact that this Chamber is sparsely populated this afternoon suggests that this whole debate is yet to get into the mainstream of our politics and our national discourse. I emphasise again that the Government have yet to deliver the national conversation that they promised in their strategic defence review. I recognise the efforts that people in the defence community are making, and that includes Ministers, but involving the whole of Government, the whole of the Opposition and the whole of politics is what is required.
I hoped that this debate would demonstrate the unity across the House that has indeed been shown today. I thank every colleague, from every part of the House, for their contribution, and all those who signed the motion who could not be here today. The motion was intended to be a clear statement of our national intent. I imagine that it will go through without a vote, so that the signal will be sent to the world about what this country believes, and what it believes must be done. But I come back to the point that we need to underline our will and signal the force of our intent if we are to achieve what we want to achieve, and to lead our allies from the front. I believe that the United Kingdom is capable of doing that, and is to some extent doing its best to achieve it, but also that other countries are looking to us to take a stronger lead and set the best example, in line with the achievements of our history and our values. I am very grateful that this debate has taken place, and it has been an honour to lead it.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You sit in the Chair and are not allowed to speak, so many in the House may not realise your role in all this. You have visited Ukraine with me and others, and you have been a stalwart champion of all that we have been debating today, so I wanted to make sure that the House recognised the incredible attention and support that you have given.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all Members here for speaking in support of Ukraine, and for making such important speeches.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House again condemns President Putin’s war of aggression in Ukraine, which is now in its fourth year of tragedy and destruction; condemns the atrocities committed by Russia in Ukraine, in particular the abduction of Ukrainian children; supports efforts to negotiate a durable and lasting peace agreement; asserts that this must reaffirm all Ukrainian sovereign territory as recognised in international law, including any occupied territories; believes that Ukraine’s sovereignty must be guaranteed by all parties including by all NATO nations and by the EU, to mirror Article V of the NATO Treaty; further believes that Ukraine must be free to sustain capability to deter a future Russian attack; also supports increased economic sanctions further to reduce Russian revenues from the export of oil and gas; and urges the Government and the UK’s allies to accelerate military support for Ukraine, and to release frozen Russian assets for the financing of increased military spending in Ukraine as soon as possible.
Domestic Violence: Support for Victims’ Families
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
I applied for this debate so that I could raise the case of Paula Leeson on behalf of her family. I should start by reassuring all parties that this is no longer a live criminal investigation and, as well as having spoken about this case previously in the Chamber, all the details contained within have been widely reported in the media.
The Leeson family believe that Paula was killed by her then husband Donald McPherson in 2019. That Mr McPherson is currently a free man is, they believe, a damning indictment of a justice system that has badly failed them. I want to place on the record my view that the Leesons have not had the justice they deserve, and that lessons must be learned when prosecuting other acts of domestic violence and when supporting victims’ family members.
Before getting into the details of this tragic case, I want to pay tribute to the Leeson family, particularly Neville Leeson, Paula’s brother. My office has been supporting Neville in his mission to get justice for Paula since I was elected, and I cannot begin to imagine the pain he has endured since Paula’s death. Whenever I speak to him, I am struck by his love for Paula and his dedication to pursuing justice for his sister, but also his unwavering dignity in the face of such hardship.
Paula’s case is complex, and some of the details are, quite frankly, hard to believe, so I will do my best to summarise them now. In 2019, Paula, an otherwise healthy woman, died fully clothed in a shallow pool while on holiday in Denmark with her then husband Donald McPherson. Despite Paula having 13 separate injuries on her body, an initial investigation by the Danish police accepted Mr McPherson’s version of events that he woke from a nap to find Paula unconscious in the pool, and that he then failed in his attempts to resuscitate her. These attempts, he claimed, were the cause of bruising around her neck.
In the hours after Paula’s death, Mr McPherson, a convicted conman, was withdrawing money from their joint account to pay off significant financial debts. We now also know that prior to her death, Mr McPherson took out multiple fraudulent life insurance policies on Paula without her knowledge. Upon her repatriation to the United Kingdom, Greater Manchester police opened a criminal investigation into Paula’s death, and in March 2021 that case went to criminal court. The judge presiding over the case decided that because it could not be ruled out completely that the injuries to Paula were from rescue or resuscitation attempts, he had no choice but to stop the trial at the halfway point and instruct the jury to issue a not guilty verdict after just two weeks.
The Leesons were understandably devastated by this verdict, but they did not give up. They pursued a civil claim against Donald McPherson in the High Court to prevent him from claiming the life insurance policies he had taken out on Paula. In September 2024, the judge presiding over the civil case concluded that it was his “firm view” that Donald McPherson deliberately and unlawfully killed Paula Leeson by compressing her neck in an arm lock, rendering her unconscious and causing her to drown. Crucially, the civil trial heard evidence not presented in the criminal trial, including evidence from a pathologist, who said:
“It was difficult to envisage how the extent of the bruising to Paula could be caused during the attempts to resuscitate her alone.”
There was also evidence from the Fitbit that Paula was wearing when she died. It demonstrated a sharp rise in her heart rate, consistent with an adrenalin response to a violent attack. The Fitbit showed a decline in her heart rate thereafter, consistent with her being rendered unconscious, drowning and dying. The timing of the spike and decline in heart rate directly contradicted Mr McPherson’s timeline of events.
Following the verdict in the civil trial, the Leesons pursued a criminal retrial. That was a long and arduous process in which the Leesons experienced unimaginable stress and uncertainty. In September, the Director of Public Prosecutions declined the request for a criminal retrial. That was a devastating blow to the Leesons from which they have not recovered. The Director of Public Prosecutions made what he admitted was an incredibly difficult decision using parameters set by the Criminal Justice Act 2003. To put it simply, those parameters meant that he was able to grant a retrial only if there was new and compelling evidence, and it was in the public interest for the application to proceed.
The DPP concluded that neither the Fitbit evidence nor the pathology evidence were new. That is because the Fitbit evidence was available to the prosecution in the initial criminal trial, but it was not used because they felt that it would not advance their case. Similarly, the prosecution did not instruct the pathologist I have mentioned to present evidence at the criminal trial, despite having the option to do so. Evidence from Donald McPherson’s laptop showing deleted searches on both drowning and murder was also not deemed compelling new evidence of guilt because the time those searches were made could not be conclusively proven.
The Leesons believe that the prosecution made a significant error in not using the Fitbit or pathologist evidence in the initial criminal trial. They believe that that error has now prevented the DPP from granting a retrial that they believe could give them justice for Paula, and I am inclined to agree with them. I ask the Minister whether we might consider some flexibility in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, so that a potential mistake from the prosecution at an initial trial does not then rule out the possibility of a retrial ever being granted. Can the bar that must be met for a retrial be reassessed in this context? The Leesons understandably believe that the parameters set by the Criminal Justice Act are now preventing it from doing the very thing that it was designed for. I appreciate that this is a complex issue, and that Paula’s case is in many ways unique, but it would bring great comfort to the family if the Minister and the Government considered that specific issue, and Paula’s case in a wider context, to see what lessons can be learned.
I will end my remarks by sharing what Neville said to me yesterday:
“Once again, we find ourselves alone having to fight for justice for Paula because of the failures of the criminal justice system and a Criminal Justice Act 2003 which works very hard to help the criminal over the victims and their families.
Neither Paula nor my family are responsible for all the failures of the criminal justice system for Paula, and yet we are expected to endure the consequences of their failures for the rest of our lives. Is Paula’s life worth less than anyone else’s life? It shouldn’t be this way.”
I agree—it should not. If that is the consequence of our current legislative framework and settlement, I say to the Minister that the current framework, and the parameters that it sets, do not feel right to me.
I sincerely hope that there is something we can do to bring the Leesons some comfort after the horrific ordeal they have endured. I hope that bringing this debate to the Floor of the House, to make this a matter of public record for ever, will be of some small comfort to them, too.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) on securing this important debate. I would like to start by sending my sympathies to the family of Paula Leeson and responding to Neville, who spoke in this Chamber through his MP, by telling him that he is not alone; he has a fine champion in his Member of Parliament, who has brought this issue to the House. I can reassure him and the House that I am seized of this matter and will certainly be looking at all the issues raised in my hon. Friend’s speech.
The tragedy that the Leeson family have suffered is simply unimaginable. They continue to campaign in Paula’s memory with extraordinary dignity and courage, and I commend them and their MP, my hon. Friend, for bringing this matter to the Government’s attention. As they will no doubt be aware, the legal decision at the heart of their case is a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service, which is rightly independent of Government. Members will be aware that I am unable to comment on the details of that specific decision by the DPP, but I am very happy—indeed, I am keen—to meet my hon. Friend’s constituents to discuss this case in more detail, if they would find that helpful. I have made inquiries this afternoon and am informed that the Director of Public Prosecutions would also be happy—indeed, keen—to meet my hon. Friend’s constituents to discuss the case.
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 clearly has to strike a balance between ensuring there is finality in criminal proceedings and, as the Act attempts to do, offering a recourse to look again when it is appropriate. I am happy to have that conversation and look again at whether that legislation strikes the right balance.
Before I go on to speak about wider Government initiatives to assist victims of domestic violence and abuse, I want again on behalf of the Government to send my deepest condolences to all those who knew and loved Paula Leeson. That the justice system has seemingly confounded their pain and suffering is deeply regretful, and I assure them that I will look into any aspect of our system to make sure that this cannot happen again. As I said, I am aware that the DPP has been in touch with the family and is very happy to meet again to discuss the details of this case.
Let me be abundantly clear: this Government are committed to putting victims at the heart of the justice system, especially when it comes to confronting the scourge of violence against women and girls. Working with Home Office colleagues, we at the Ministry of Justice will always keep victims at the forefront of our mind, investing in more support, reforming our justice system to ensure justice is served—and served expeditiously —and clamping down on the tools that too often allow those who abuse women and girls to thrive.
When the history of this Government is written, it will speak of the incredible work done by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), and the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), on the violence against women and girls strategy—ambitious but practical, reforming the fundamental injustices that too many victims face in our law and order system and protecting those women and girls who need protection.
I know that the domestic abuse and violence that was suffered, or allegedly suffered, by Paula Leeson has an impact on entire families, not just the direct victims, so I want to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West about some of this Government’s initiatives to support victims of domestic abuse. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 already recognises the profound impact domestic abuse can have on children. Section 3 makes clear that where a child sees, hears or experiences the effects of abuse perpetrated by or against a parent or relative, that child will also be treated as a victim of domestic abuse. That is an important measure, making it easier for children to access support such as mental health services.
Domestic abuse can have lifelong impacts on victims. Victims and, where appropriate, their families need vital support to help them cope and rebuild their lives and engage with the criminal justice system. Ensuring victims receive the right and timely support is a key part of this Government’s mission to halve violence against women and girls. That is why the Ministry of Justice will be investing £550 million in victim support services over the next three years—the biggest investment in victim support services on record. We will be increasing funding for victim support services year on year over the course of this Parliament, recognising the need to meet the rising cost pressures of delivery, to ensure that these vital services can continue to offer victims the support that they need.
We know that many police and crime commissioners use the funding that we are giving to commission specific support for victims and their families in their areas. Some areas use wider sources of funding and work in collaboration with local partners, such as the South Yorkshire, Cleveland and Essex police and crime commissioners who have commissioned outreach work in schools with child victims of domestic abuse.
Police and crime commissioners also have a current role funding vital victim support roles, such as independent domestic violence advisers who provide emotional and practical support to victims of domestic abuse. Earlier this year, we published statutory guidance on IDVAs, which aims to improve the consistency of support delivered to victims and raise the profile of the IDVA role. We recognise the important work that police and crime commissioners and mayors do to commission vital support services for victims and witnesses. Ensuring ongoing support to victims in future governance arrangements will be a key priority for this Government.
The MOJ has commissioned national services, such as the 24/7 live chat service, which can be accessed anonymously and provides 24/7 support to victims of all crimes, and the My Support Space platform, which provides informative guides for victims and those supporting them. In the tragic case of bereavement by homicide following domestic abuse, the National Homicide Service, delivered by Victim Support, can provide emotional, practical, specialist advocacy and peer support.
We are taking steps to improve the justice system’s response to domestic abuse and violence, from the first time someone calls the police, to court, all the way through to the way that perpetrators are managed after sentence, which is the issue that my hon. Friend has brought to the House. We have introduced domestic abuse specialists in 999 call centres in selected areas so that, when a victim calls the police, specialists can support first responders to properly and rigorously assess the risk, and ensure that there is an appropriate response. The Sentencing Bill, currently making its way through Parliament, will create a new domestic abuse flag at sentencing. This will help prison and probation services manage offenders effectively and will ensure victims that are better supported.
We are taking action to ensure that survivors of domestic abuse and their children are better protected in the family courts. We are expanding the pathfinder courts, which are helping to ensure that more children’s voices are heard and victims are better supported. Under the pathfinder model the proportion of children seen by social workers increases from around 30% to 80%. That means their wishes and feelings can be ascertained directly and in a manner of their choosing.
Tackling domestic abuse is important right across Government. The Home Office has invested a further £19 million to provide vital support to victims of violence against women and girls. That includes over £6 million for the national helpline supporting victims of domestic abuse, honour-based abuse, revenge porn and stalking, and £450,000 to provide additional advocacy to families who have been bereaved by domestic homicide, as well as suicides and unexpected deaths that have taken place following domestic abuse.
I hope that my remarks setting out the broad policy agenda that this Government are pursuing have reassured hon. Members and those watching that this Government take this issue particularly seriously. We are committed to making sure that the right support, help and protections are in place for victims of domestic abuse and violence and their families.
Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West for raising this case, which he has raised repeatedly in the House since he was elected last summer. As he accepts, it raises complex issues around our criminal justice system, which I will continue to look into. I will conclude where I started by sending my profound condolences to those who have lost loved ones connected to the debate and commending all those who fight and work for change.
Question put and agreed to.
Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fifth sitting)
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 51, in clause 11, page 9, line 33, leave out paragraph (b).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 52, in clause 11, page 10, leave out lines 28 and 29.
Ian Byrne
Good morning, Sir Roger. The offence of misleading the public is aimed at deterring wrongdoing related to the system, rather than to individual gain or loss, which is adequately covered by the offences under clauses 12 and 13. I feel that proof of harm is therefore inappropriate and will render clause 11 potentially ineffective in a number of contexts.
The provision of this new offence and of the clause 5 offence dealing with the duty to assist are vital in making a duty of candour practical and effective, rather than merely aspirational. It is important to recognise that they are different from the codified misconduct in public office or MIPO offences under clauses 12 and 13. The new offences will enforce the proper functioning of public authorities and official investigations, and prevent cover-ups. That is crucial to what we are trying to do with this legislation.
The MIPO offences deal with individual wrongdoing by the misuse of office for personal gain, or by causing detriment through gross negligence. The new clause 5 and clause 11 offences are therefore complementary to, but distinct from the MIPO offences, in practice and in principle. Subsection (3)(b) inappropriately and unnecessarily adds the ingredient of “harm” to a victim, but the fact that it is contrary to principle is not the central objection.
The real problem is that subsection (3)(b) significantly reduces the effectiveness of the provision, which aims to deter cover-ups rather than punish actual harm to identifiable individuals, although harm to victims may in fact be caused. In some cases, that will not be problematic, but it will negate the provision in other cases where it absolutely should apply: for example, the falsification of crime statistics or the false denial of something previously admitted by state agents to the media concerning a matter of substantial public interest—both actual, real-life cases. That is why I have moved the amendment, and I hope the Minister will recognise that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
It is a privilege to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby for outlining his concerns. I hope I will be able to reassure him as to the Government’s intent.
Clause 1 of the Bill clearly sets out that public authorities and officials are expected to act with candour, transparency and frankness at all times. Criminal sanctions should be reserved for the most serious cases. The condition that an act has to have caused, or had the potential to cause harm will achieve that effect. It will not be a bar to prosecution in those cases, and I hope to explain why.
The definition of harm is broad. It includes physical harm, psychological harm, including distress, and economic loss. I reassure the Committee that distress was added on the suggestion of Hillsborough Law Now. That is a non-exhaustive list and it can include other types of harm. The condition includes harm or the potential for harm. The offence does not require there to be proof that the act has caused harm to an individual. In cases such as Hillsborough and Horizon, evidence of harm caused by cover-ups is clear and apparent. We have designed the offence with historical incidents of state failure in mind where, at a minimum, potential distress could be identified and in many cases much more serious harm.
The requirement for an act to have the potential to cause harm is a key condition to ensure that the offence applies only to serious cases. The harm threshold ensures that the public, the police and prosecutors are able to distinguish between those actions that meet the threshold for criminal sanctions and those that should be dealt with through other routes, such as an organisation’s complaints process, or covered by other aspects of the law. The nature of public life is that it is not uncommon for public officials or officeholders to be accused of being untruthful when going about their daily tasks. If it is used to trigger police investigations into vexatious claims, or to engage in political lawfare, rather than for the grave examples of state cover-ups that the Bill was meant to deal with, it risks undermining the offence itself, as well as the intention of the Bill.
The creation of an offence of this kind is a bold step. Hillsborough families spoke of the importance of individual accountability, and we listened. It is clear from our engagement across the public sector that such a strong new measure will—as drafted and when properly implemented—have a serious and real deterrent effect. We are confident that it and every other measure in the Bill will drive forward a culture of candour and truthfulness. I hope that reassures my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby, and I request that he withdraws his amendment.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 30, in clause 11, page 10, line 4, leave out paragraph (b).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 5.
Amendment 53, in clause 11, page 10, line 33, at end insert—
“’journalism’ means articles for media outlets and news sites. It does not extend to press statements, commentary and social media posts.”
Tessa Munt
It is a pleasure to serve with you as Chair, Sir Roger. Amendment 30 removes the exemption for journalism from the offence of misleading the public, showing that no one, including journalists or public officials writing in a journalistic capacity—including in internal newsletters—can avoid accountability for knowingly or recklessly providing false or misleading information. The purpose of tabling the amendment is to close the loophole that might allow public officials to evade that accountability by presenting misleading information under the guise of journalism. The rationale is to strengthen public trust in Government communications, ensure consistency in applying the law regardless of the medium used, and prevent deliberate attempts to mislead the public through media channels.
The amendment responds to various concerns raised by accountability campaigners, transparency advocates and parliamentary scrutiny bodies that the exemption could be exploited, undermining the effectiveness and credibility of the offence. We have seen with cases that we heard about last Thursday when the Committee took evidence, and with some cases that we discussed on Tuesday, that we cannot ignore the damaging role the media has played in many situations. Some of those examples shed light on public servants using the media to set the narrative, with some of the most awful and damaging consequences for people’s lives and for shedding light on the truth.
We know that—appallingly—the media has been used to set the narrative. With amendment 30, we are thinking about the public and how they perceive this place in particular, and the power structures that move around it. The sense is that legitimacy is key.
Ian Byrne
I want to reinforce what the hon. Lady said regarding the definition of journalism. It must be tightly defined to prevent the bogus defence that we have seen recently, as made by Stephen Yaxley-Lennon—also known as Tommy Robinson. If the purpose of this exclusion is to exempt public service journalists—for example, those working at the BBC—from scope, then it should say that explicitly. There is no reason why it cannot say that. Otherwise, public officials and servants are not journalists, and there is no reason to exempt a lie asserted in the course of writing or broadcasting.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Sir Roger. I rise to support the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills and to draw attention to some examples of why the amendment is important. Members will be familiar with the hacking problem that we had some years ago. In fact, I think one journalist actually served a prison sentence in relation to that. There were many others who may or may not have been involved in that affair. Members will recall how the programme on the Post Office brought huge attention to that scandal and, in fact, led to a major review of the situation. A similar programme called “The Hack”, which may not have gathered as much attention, highlighted the vast extent of the problem of collusion between journalists and the police. Members will also recall that Leveson 2 was cancelled. Leveson 2 was, as I recall, designed to provide stronger regulation for journalism and the media in general. I think we should be concerned about this very sweeping exclusion for journalism, and I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say on that.
Tessa Munt
I want to put on record that I recognise that journalism has an important place in shedding light on various situations. I understand that, but I am concerned that this particular wording covers everything. I write journalistically every day of my life. I suspect that I have effectively written a whole bunch of journalism in my notes. I publish stuff from my notes, speeches that I make in Parliament and all sorts of things that could be considered journalism. I am going to plead with the Minister to find a way, maybe through discussions with Members, to contain the provision in some way so that we can keep the good—we do not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater—and somehow define what it is that is actually meant by journalism. I wait to hear from the Minister on that.
The Chair
Order. I gently say to the hon. Lady that Members are allowed to speak more than once, but that was an intervention.
Alex Davies-Jones
On Second Reading, we had a very healthy debate on journalism and the impact of media in state failures. It has laid heavily with me. It was a big focus of the debate, and we have taken the issue forward with colleagues across Government and the media to look at how we can best support individuals—victims, especially—when the media has such a crucial role to play.
Amendment 30 seeks to remove the exemption in the offence of misleading the public for any acts done for the purposes of journalism. The purpose of the exemption is to avoid capturing journalistic activity by public service broadcasters that might otherwise meet the definition of a public authority. That is to ensure that the offence does not impinge on press freedom or existing regimes for media regulation. Although behaviour that meets the threshold for the scope of the offence would clearly be unacceptable, we do not believe that this offence is the appropriate vehicle for determining the veracity of media reporting. Without the exemption, only public service broadcasters would potentially be subject to this criminal offence for their journalistic activities and reporting, while other broadcasters would not. The approach ensures that PSBs are still captured in respect of their other public functions—for example, an incident that took place at the BBC itself—but excludes journalistic activity. I hope that that satisfies the concerns of the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills.
Seamus Logan
Before the Minister moves on, one needs to cast one’s mind back to events that took place many months ago, when newspaper and other media reports led to a hotel housing asylum seekers being attacked. One of the rioters sought to burn the hotel down, which could have led to great loss of life. That initially stemmed from media coverage. That is why it is important to try to articulate this provision in a more sensible way.
Alex Davies-Jones
I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman. I have spoken about the need for responsible media reporting to prevent disinformation and misinformation. This provision, however, covers only public authorities. We are therefore capturing only public service broadcasters, so the types of journalism that the hon. Gentleman describes are totally out of scope of the Bill. We would effectively be restricting the BBC, but other journalists would not be captured by the legislation. We need to raise this more broadly with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and look at it across Government. I recognise his concerns, because I share some of them.
It is very important for the Bill to define what a “journalist” is. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby, alongside colleagues at Hillsborough Law Now, has raised concerns that the exemption, as it is currently drafted, could be interpreted more broadly, which was certainly not our intention. He made a very important point about what defines journalistic activity.
In particular, there are concerns that the exemption might be considered to apply to officials who are not journalists themselves but who are involved with, for example, preparing journalistic materials, such as briefings or press releases by other public figures making public comment, who might improperly seek to use this exemption as a defence for their actions. That is certainly not our intention and I have tabled amendment 5 to provide more clarity.
Amendment 5 clarifies our intention that the exemption is limited to journalistic activity by public service broadcasters and those working for them. This is defined with reference to the Online Safety Act 2023. Because amendment 5 achieves the same aim as the amendment that my hon. Friend tabled and hopefully satisfies his concerns, I kindly request that he does not press his amendment to a vote.
Tessa Munt
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: 5, Clause 11, page 10, line 4, at end insert “by—
(i) a recognised news publisher, within the meaning of Part 3 of the Online Safety Act 2023 (see section 56 of that Act), or
(ii) a person in the course of working for such a publisher.” .—(Alex Davies-Jones.)
This amendment clarifies that the journalism exemption from the offence of misleading the public only applies to media entities and those that work for them.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 2, clause 11, page 10, line 35, at end insert—
“(10) A prosecution for an offence under this section shall not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Director for Public Prosecutions.”
This amendment requires the Director of Public Prosecutions to consent to the prosecution of anyone for the offence of misleading the public.
Dr Mullan
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir Roger.
As we all know, clause 11 creates the new offence of misleading the public, which is intended, quite rightly, to capture the most serious and culpable instances where public officials knowingly or recklessly provide false or misleading information to the public. The motivations behind the clause are entirely understandable. In the past, we have seen, through scandals and tragedies, how deeply harmful it can be when institutions withhold the truth or put out statements that they know to be false.
However, there is no doubt that, as the Minister herself said earlier, this is a new area of the law. She referred to the fact that politicians often debate what does or does not count as misleading information. Members of the Committee grumbled when I raised this issue at our first sitting, using the live example of what we have been going through in the last couple of weeks, but we have also heard how contentious legislating in this area can be in relation to the media and the role they play. This is a novel area and one that we have to tread carefully in, recognising that we are not able to anticipate fully how this offence will be used, not just by current prosecuting authorities but by different actors under a different regime, or by private citizens. We also know that there have been attempts to prosecute individual politicians for offences of misleading people, so this is very much a live issue. With an offence of this seriousness that is framed in this way, we must ensure that it is applied proportionately, fairly and with great care. That is the purpose of the amendment; it is to ensure that no prosecution under the clause can be brought without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Although clause 11 sets out a structured test for what counts as being “seriously improper”, and the explanatory notes make it clear that the offence is intended to target only the most egregious conduct, the reality is that the clause interfaces with the political environment in a way that few other offences do. “Misleading the public” is a phrase that, regrettably, is used daily in our political discourse. Accusations of “misleading the public”, made fairly or unfairly, are frequently levelled in debates, campaigns and correspondence. Therefore, we need to be absolutely certain that this new criminal offence cannot become a vehicle for politically motivated complaints, vexatious charges, over-zealous private prosecutions, or attempts to use the criminal law to litigate policy disagreements. Requiring the personal consent of the DPP is a well-established constitutional safeguard in precisely this kind of context. It would ensure that decisions to prosecute are taken objectively, independently and at the highest level.
It is not only political actors that we must consider. Senior public officials, regulators, police chiefs, NHS managers or anyone else in a position of public authority might find themselves being accused of misleading the public in complex and fast-moving situations. Often, such situations involve imperfect information, operational pressures or competing obligations. The clause rightly makes it clear that accidental or inadvertent misleading of the public should not be criminalised. However, we must ensure that establishing the threshold for a prosecution remains firmly under the control of the independent prosecuting authority, and not subject to either the ebb and flow of public anger or the risk of tactical litigation.
Some may reasonably argue that the CPS would in practice be involved by discontinuing prosecutions and bringing them under the Director of Public Prosecutions, but that in itself could create a storm for an individual subject to that action. That is why we think a tighter safeguard should be required.
It is not in the amendment, but I would like to ask the Minister about what thought has been given to whether prosecution should be subject to the Attorney General’s permission. Forgive me: I do not know if that is already part of the legislation; I do not think it is, but the Minister will know. For example, when it comes to public order offences—another potentially contentious area—we ask the Attorney General to give permission for prosecution to serve as a safeguard against the inappropriate use of measures.
My final, more general point about clause 11, which we touched on earlier, is about the maximum sentence of two years. What are the Minister’s thoughts on whether there have been any common law versions of a prosecution for this sort of thing in which someone was given a sentence of more than two years? Are the Government sure that this is not unnecessarily constrained compared with the current common law position, which is unlimited? I appreciate that the offences in question are normally more to do with misconduct rather than misleading, but it would still be helpful to get that reassurance.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the shadow Minister for raising this important issue. We agree wholeheartedly with the intention behind the amendment, and I can assure him that the Bill achieves that intent. Schedule 3 makes further provision regarding clause 5 and clause 11 offences. Paragraph 2(2) sets out that,
“Proceedings for an offence under section 11 may be brought only by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.”
With that clarification, I hope the shadow Minister will withdraw his amendment. Hopefully, I can answer some of his other queries as we move through the debate.
Clause 11 creates a new offence of misleading the public, which is designed to capture the most serious incidents of misleading the public, such as the behaviour seen after Hillsborough, where officials intentionally spread a false narrative to protect their reputation and caused harm as a result. That, as the shadow Minister rightly states, is punishable by up to two years in prison. We all know the harm that caused and how, three decades on, families are still fighting for justice and accountability for what the spreading of that narrative did. The Independent Office for Police Conduct report on Tuesday was clear: a lie was told; a false narrative was spread to protect reputations and avoid consequences. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that no family ever has to go through what those families went through and continue to go through. I can only imagine how hard that report was to read and the pain that they continue to feel.
The new offence will ensure that when a public official has misled the public, there is accountability. To have committed the offence, an authority or official must have acted with the intention to mislead the public or been reckless as to whether their actions would do so. By reckless, we mean a person acting with the knowledge that there is a risk that they might mislead the public and taking that risk without reasonable justification. It does not include accidental mistakes or inaccuracies. They must have known or ought to have known that their act is seriously improper.
It will be for the judge and the jury to determine whether that test has been met, but clause 11(3)(a) sets out minimum conditions that must be present: that the act—
“involved dishonesty that was significant or repeated…in respect of matters of significant concern to the public”.
That will avoid capturing minor instances of lying or misleading on trivial political or private matters. The act must have caused or have the potential to cause harm. Harm, as we have already discussed, is broadly defined, including economic, physical or psychological harm, including distress. The purpose of this is to avoid capturing inconsequential matters, such a Minister lying about where they went to university or competing in a chess tournament or a local government official overstating their council’s performance. Although these sorts of lies should entail professional consequences, we do not think they meet the bar for criminal sanctions. The individual must also have departed significantly from what would have been expected of them in carrying out their functions. This is to ensure that where it may be necessary to mislead someone as part of a person’s job—for example, as part of an undercover police operation—that is not captured.
This clause as introduced does not apply to devolved matters. We have written to all the devolved Governments to request that the offence be extended in their jurisdiction in line with the other provisions on duty of candour, which apply across the UK. The Northern Ireland Executive, the Welsh Government and the Scottish Government have all confirmed their agreement to extend the offence, and we will be extending the offences accordingly. We hope to bring forward amendments on the territorial extent on Report to ensure full coverage for the United Kingdom.
Subsection (4) also excludes any act done for the purposes of journalism. That is to avoid capturing public service broadcasters and those working for them who would otherwise meet the definition of a public official. That is to ensure that the offence does not impinge on press freedom or existing regimes for media regulation. Although behaviour that meets the threshold for the scope of the offence would clearly be unacceptable, we do not believe that this offence is the appropriate vehicle for determining the veracity of media reporting, as we have already discussed.
Subsection (6) includes a reasonable excuse defence, with specific defences for the exercise of functions by the intelligence services and armed forces on active service. That is necessary to make it clear that when officials can prove that they misled the public to protect national security or this country’s defence operations, they are not subject to criminal sanctions. I stress, however, that this will not prevent the successful prosecution of members of the security services or armed forces who mislead the public for any other purposes, such as personal gain or to protect their reputation.
This is a transformative offence that will ensure that when something goes wrong and public officials lie to the public, there are serious consequences. It will act as a powerful deterrent against the sorts of state cover-ups that we have sadly see all too often.
The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle asked me about offences which potentially attract two or more years in prison. I will write to him on that and come back on the specifics, as well as on his question about the Attorney General. With that, I commend clause 11 to the Committee.
Dr Mullan
I thank the Minister for explaining the clause to us. She has provided the reassurance that we are looking for, and I look forward to receiving further material in writing. I recognise that the Government are attempting to craft an offence that has a high threshold and does not interfere with the wide range of situations that people might seek to apply it to, but I worry that we might end up seeing such questions tested in the courts repeatedly before there is a settled view on what they translate into in reality. I am not sure that it will be as simple as we might think in reality. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3
Offences under Part 2: related provision
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Amendment 57, in schedule 3, page 44, line 31, after “section 5” insert “or section 11”.
Schedule 3.
Ian Byrne
Amendment 56 is to schedule 3, which place limits on extraterrestrial jurisdiction for offences. I am gravely concerned, because often in the history of cover-ups, those responsible have sailed off into the sunset with fat pensions, unscathed and untouched by justice. The whole point of the Bill is to close that down, but I have a real fear about the current draft of the Bill. Whether an offence is committed outside the UK should be absolutely irrelevant; it should be right within the scope of the Bill.
Paragraph 1(1)(a) and (b) is open to being construed cumulatively. If caught by clause 5 and clause 11 offences, an individual has to be both a UK national and inhabiting a residence in the UK. There have been many cases where former public officials have retired abroad and been non-compliant with official investigations, and that cannot be allowed to happen. The IOPC report showed that police officers who had been involved in the corruption of Hillsborough had absolutely got away with it, with no sanctions put on them, and lived the rest of their lives with full pensions. It really worries me that people like them could evade by justice by moving abroad.
If accepted, amendment 57 would provide that paragraph 1(2) should apply to clauses 5 and 11, to absolutely ensure that public bodies and individuals within bodies who have failed the British people can be adequately held to account wherever they are in the world. I really hope the Minister considers the amendments, by which we is to strengthen the scope of the law and make sure that those who are responsible for cover-ups and who have harmed people using the hand of the state are held accountable, wherever they reside.
Dr Mullan
Despite not relating directly to the Bill, the matter of pensions has come up in Committee a couple of times. We do need to explore that, because there are many situations where people walk off into the sunset. It seems to me that the one lever we still have over people is their pensions. Have the Government considered how such a provision might be used in the future? The Opposition will be looking at it.
Alex Davies-Jones
I will happily raise that issue with the Pensions Minister in our discussions.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby for tabling the amendments. I hope to be able to provide some clarification. Amendments 56 and 57 seek to ensure the same extraterritorial extent applies for the offences of failure to comply with the duty of candour and assistance and the offence of misleading the public.
The intended effect of amendment 56 is already achieved in the Bill as drafted. In schedule 3, paragraph 1(1), the disapplication does not apply if any the criteria of sub-paragraph (1)(a) or (b) are met. It is already an “or” list, not an “and” list. That follows the standard parliamentary drafting convention. To add an unnecessary “or” between sub-sub-paragraphs (a) and (b), when that is already the meaning, would risk putting the position in doubt in other legislation across the statute book and could cause confusion.
Paragraph (1)(2) refers only to the clause 5 offence because the clause 11 offence applies only in England and Wales. A case could not be heard by a court in Scotland or Northern Ireland. However, as I confirmed earlier, we have in principle agreements to extend clause 11 offences to Scotland and Northern Ireland, and we are working with the devolved Governments to draft amendments, which we intend to bring forward on Report, so that the offence is UK-wide.
Alex Davies-Jones
Yes, they are indeed.
Schedule 3 works alongside clauses 5 and 11 to make some additional provisions about the offence of failing to comply with the duty of candour and assistance and the offence of misleading the public. Paragraph 1 provides that an offence may be committed outside the UK only if the person who committed the offence is a UK national, an individual who habitually resides within the UK, or a body incorporated in the UK. In practice, that means that UK civil servants working abroad are captured, but country-based staff employed by UK embassies, who perform a range of predominantly administrative or maintenance roles are not. These are local staff subject to local laws and regulations instead and their exclusion is consistent with other precedents.
Paragraph 2 provides that consent from the Director of Public Prosecutions in England and Wales or from the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland is required before proceedings for the breach of duty of candour offence may be brought forward. I hope the shadow Minister is reassured on that point. The same consent is required in England and Wales for proceedings for the offence of misleading the public, which as I just said, currently only applies in England and Wales, but we are making provisions to apply it to the UK as a whole.
Paragraph 3 makes it clear that where a body commits an offence and a relevant person, for example a director, manager or partner, consented or connived, both the individual and the body are liable. Finally, paragraph 4 provides that where an offence relates to unincorporated bodies, proceedings must be brought against the name of the body.
Alex Davies-Jones
I will speak to each of the clauses in turn. Clause 12 will introduce the first of two new statutory offences to replace the common law offence of misconduct in public office. In its 2020 report, the Law Commission recommended that the common law offence should be abolished and replaced with two new offences that broadly replicate the coverage of the common law offence. In acting on those recommendations, the Government do not intend to change significantly the type of conduct the criminal law will capture. Like the common law offence, the new offences are intended to capture only wrongdoing at the most serious level.
The clause establishes the new offence of seriously improper acts, and is designed to capture the conduct previously caught by the concept of wilful misconduct under the common law offence. The seriously improper acts offence is committed when a person who holds public office uses that office with the intent to obtain a benefit for themselves or another person, or to cause detriment to someone else. They must know or ought to have known that any reasonable person would regard their act as seriously improper.
The offence can capture a wide range of conduct. “Using” an office can include both acts and omissions. “Benefit” and “detriment” mean any benefit or detriment including, but not limited to, financial gain or loss, protection or enhancement of or damage to a person’s reputation, and benefits or detriments of a physical or sexual nature, whether temporary or permanent. When we talk about protection or enhancement of or damage to a person’s reputation, we intend to capture serious situations where someone uses their office in the way that we associate with the aftermath of the Hillsborough disaster: the manipulation of evidence in order to protect the reputation of a person, including an organisation, or the spreading of allegations about other people, designed to damage their reputation.
The clause is about not the usual back and forth of everyday politics, but severe abuses of power that undermine the very basis of public service. An act is seriously improper if a reasonable person would consider it so. There is a list of factors that the jury must consider to make that determination, including the extent to which the act involved an intention to mislead or be dishonest by withholding, covering up or misusing information. A defence is available if the person can show that they had a reasonable excuse for their action—for example, a public office holder has to disregard one fraudulent benefits claim to uncover a more serious, larger scale benefits fraud. The offence is indictable and carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment. That puts it on par with similar statutory offences, such as bribery and fraud.
The consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions will be required to bring a prosecution under the offence. That is to safeguard against the risk of spurious claims against public officials, including politicians. We have already heard examples of that. It will ensure that only cases that are serious in nature and justify criminalisation are prosecuted. It does not require the personal consent of the director—consent can be delegated—so it should not cause any undue administrative burden.
The clause will ensure that serious misconduct and corrupt behaviour by those in public office will continue to result in criminal sanctions, and that those who abuse positions of public trust are held to account for their actions. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Clause 13 establishes the new offence of breach of duty to prevent death or serious injury. It is designed to capture the conduct previously caught by the concept of wilful neglect of duty under the common law offence. The new offence is committed when a person who holds public office either causes or creates significant risk of causing someone else to suffer critical harm, in breach of a duty to prevent other people from suffering such harm. They must know that they are under such a duty, and their act must fall far below what could reasonably have been expected of them in the circumstances. The offence requires that the person be under a duty to prevent critical harm that arises by virtue of the public office that they hold. That means that the offence can be committed only by public office holders whose roles inherently involve a duty to prevent critical harm—for example, service personnel, firefighters and the police. It does not apply to public office holders whose roles do not put them under a duty to protect the public from critical harm.
The offence is made out only if the public official knows or ought to know that they are subject to that duty. The breach of duty must cause either critical harm or a significant risk of that harm materialising. It will not capture cases where a negligible or insignificant risk of harm is caused. The breach of duty must also have been intentional or reckless. These are both very high criminal thresholds. To act recklessly means to proceed in full awareness of the potential outcome and in circumstances where it is unreasonable to take the risk.
Only the most serious breaches of duty are captured by the offence. The requirement that the act must fall far below the standard that could reasonably be expected of the person in the circumstances ensures that minor or honest mistakes and legitimate but risky operational decisions made in challenging circumstances will not be captured. For example, a law enforcement officer having to decide in the moment whether to take a particular risky operational decision would be caught by the offence only if they intentionally recklessly breach the duty, their act falls far below the standards reasonably expected of them in those circumstances, and they have no reasonable excuse for their actions.
The offence will be triable on indictment only and will carry a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment. That is commensurate with other offences where a failure of duty leads to serious or critical consequences, such as gross negligence manslaughter. As with the offence in clause 12, the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions will be required to bring a prosecution under the offence in clause 13. That is to guard against the risk of spurious claims being made against public officials in this position and to ensure that only the most serious cases are prosecuted.
Clause 14 clarifies the territorial application of the new offences in clauses 12 and 13. It makes clear that a public office holder can commit the seriously improper acts or breach of duty offences by their actions either within England and Wales, or in other UK territories such as Scotland or Northern Ireland. The offences in clauses 12 and 13 may also be committed by acts done outside the United Kingdom provided that, at the time of the act, the public office holder is either a UK national or habitually resident in England and Wales. The clause ensures conduct like this could be caught by the new offences.
Dr Mullan
I want to make some brief points. I welcome the maximum sentences, which are clearer and in a more natural range, and there is not the uncertainty that I think we still have with the misleading the public offence.
I want to ask the Minister about the role of MPs, however, because she will know that our privilege to speak in the Chamber, including to make allegations of defamation, is unfettered. We can say things that do damage people’s reputations and that cause all sorts of issues, but we are immune from civil procedure. I am not sure how the common law has dealt with equivalent sorts of scenarios, but I can imagine an MP trashing the reputation of a business and that business going under, causing huge harm to an individual who then feels as though they should be able to have a say through this route.
I think we all agree that, although it can be abused, that privilege is really important to the operation of our democracy. Even if not now—the Minister may not have considered this before—it would be helpful to have a written note on the Department’s view about the potential misuse of that privilege to say whatever we want in Parliament, without restriction.
Tessa Munt
I previously asked for some clarity on coroners. I accept the position on His Majesty’s chief coroner, and the Minister confirmed about His Majesty’s area coroner. I presume senior coroners are also included in that remit, but I want to be very clear, because they are the people who very often see exactly what is happening on the ground.
Alex Davies-Jones
Yes, I can confirm that.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 13 and 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15
Holders of public office
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient consider:
Government amendments 11 to 13.
Schedule 4.
Alex Davies-Jones
All the Government amendments relate to our measures on the offences of misconduct in public office. Government amendment 11 adds members of the Parole Board to schedule 4 to the Bill, which sets out the list of those who are considered public office holders for the purposes of the new statutory offences in part 3 of the Bill: seriously improper acts and the breach of duty to prevent death or serious injury. The amendment is not being made because there has been a change in policy; rather we have determined that making explicit reference to the Parole Board is a clearer approach than relying on paragraph 21 of the schedule to capture this body. As the offences currently extend to England and Wales only, the reference added to the schedule is only to the parole board that operates in that jurisdiction.
Government amendment 12 ensures that all those carrying out the judicial functions of the coroner are included in schedule 4, regardless of how they are appointed. A deputy chief coroner can be appointed in two ways: those qualified by being a High Court or circuit judge are appointed by the Lord Chief Justice, and those qualified by being a senior coroner are appointed by the Lord Chancellor. The amendment makes it clear that we intend to capture both. It is not a policy change, merely a drafting refinement.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 17 stand part.
Schedule 5.
Alex Davies-Jones
Clause 16 abolishes the common law offence of misconduct in public office, which our new statutory offences will replace. It also sets out arrangements for the transition to the new offences, ensuring that the common law offence will continue to apply to any acts done, or begun, before its abolition. The clause also makes it clear that we are not affecting other offences, or the civil tort of misfeasance in public office.
Clause 17 and schedule 5 amend existing legislation to reflect the abolition of the common law offence and the introduction of the new statutory offences. Schedule 5 sets out the specific—and minor—changes to three pieces of existing legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 16 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clause 18
Parity etc at inquiries and investigations
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 14 to 17.
Schedule 6.
New clause 5—Conduct of public authorities and access to legal aid for seriously injured survivors who are participating in inquests or inquiries—
“(1) Legal aid must be made available, without a means test, to seriously injured survivors who are participating in inquests or inquiries where there are reasonable grounds for believing the matter under investigation relates to the conduct of public authorities tasked with carrying out public functions, or public officials working for bodies in a public capacity, in connection with the discharge of their public duties.
(2) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the Act receiving Royal Assent, make regulations to—
(a) add civil legal services to Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 in connection with proceedings relating to seriously injured survivors who are participating in inquests or inquiries as under subsection (1);
(b) amend the Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) Regulations 2013 (S.I. 2013/104) for the purposes of providing criteria for a determination for legal representation in respect of cases under subsection (1).
(3) This section comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed.”
This new clause would extend civil legal aid to seriously injured survivors who are participating in inquests or inquiries where the conduct of public bodies or public officials is in question.
Alex Davies-Jones
Clause 18 and schedule 6 represent a milestone moment in addressing the disparity in power often faced by bereaved families and other affected persons in the inquest and inquiry system. They provide for non-means-tested legal aid for bereaved families at all inquests where a public authority is an interested person, the widest expansion of legal aid in a generation.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
Clause 18(e) provides for non-means-tested legal aid to bereaved family members at inquests. The Bill is intended to introduce UK-wide legislation. I understand that the Minister has engaged in positive talks with the Scottish Government over a number of months because of the devolved nature of Scottish legal aid at fatal accident inquiries. Are we any further forward with those talks? Will the Scottish people enjoy the same access to legal aid as the rest of the UK?
Alex Davies-Jones
I can confirm to my hon. Friend that we have a strong and positive working relationship with the Scottish Government and all the devolved Governments about the Bill. The Scottish Government have written to ask us to extend the provision to Scotland. We are working with our colleagues in Holyrood and across the UK to see how we can best apply that. I will happily update my hon. Friend on those discussions, which are positive and ongoing.
The provisions in the Bill on legal aid go further, setting out a common framework of obligations and accountability for public authorities and their legal teams when they participate at public inquiries and coroner investigations. I will now get into the detail. Parts 1, 2 and 3 of schedule 6 impose a common framework of obligations on public authorities and their legal teams in respect of their participation across statutory public inquiries, non-statutory public inquiries and coroner investigations. The schedule inserts proposed new section 34A into the Inquiries Act 2005 and amends section 42 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 to provide that guidance may be issued by the Lord Chancellor to set out the principles that should guide the conduct of public authorities in respect of public inquiries and coroner investigations.
Schedule 6 inserts proposed new section 34B into the 2005 Act and proposed new section 42A into the 2009 Act to place a public authority that is a core participant at an inquiry, or an interested person at an inquest, under a duty to engage legal representatives to act for the authority only if, and in so far as—this is important—it is necessary and proportionate, and to take steps to ensure that those representatives conduct themselves in accordance with the guidance from the Lord Chancellor. In our evidence, we heard how bereaved families feel at an inquest when they turn up with their legal aid-appointed person—or are sometimes not even given a legal aid-appointed person—and the public authority has an army of barristers. This measure seeks to curtail that and to ensure equal representation and parity of arms.
The schedule amends section 41 of the 2005 Act and section 43 of the 2009 Act to make provision for an “overriding objective” to be created in an inquiry or inquest. In particular, that may include objectives for, or in connection with, ensuring that relevant affected persons are able to participate fully and effectively, maintaining the inquisitorial nature of proceedings, and that they are given sufficient information about proceedings.
The schedule also inserts proposed new section 34C into the 2005 Act and amends schedule 5 to the 2009 Act to create a power for an inquiry chair or coroner to raise concerns and report the matter to the person who has overall responsibility for the management of the public authority—or such other person who has power to take action—as to the conduct of a public authority or its legal representatives. A person to whom the report is made must give the inquiry chair or coroner a written response.
Part 3 of schedule 6 makes further modifications to schedule 5 to the 2009 Act to provide that where a report is made by a coroner, a copy must be sent to the chief coroner. Part 3 also amends section 36 of the 2009 Act to add those reports and their responses to the matters that must be summarised in the chief coroner’s annual report to the Lord Chancellor. It further amends section 43 of the 2009 Act to provide that regulations made under that section may make provision in respect of reports made by coroners in relation to concerns over the conduct of public authorities. Part 2 of schedule 6 makes it clear that changes made to the Inquires Act 2005 by part 1 of the schedule should apply to relevant non-statutory inquiries, albeit with certain modifications as set out in paragraph 2(3).
Part 4 of schedule 6 makes expanded provision for legal aid at inquests. It details a number of amendments to the legislation and regulations underpinning the legal aid system. Those, when taken together, keep applications to open or reopen an inquest in scope of legal aid; set out that, where a public authority is an interested person in the inquest, non-means-tested legal aid for the inquest can be accessed by families; and provide for conditions in relation to advocacy funding.
Part 4 begins with four amendments to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, known as LASPO. The first two amendments are technical and update references to “the Coroners Act 1988” to say “the Coroners and Justice Act 2009”, which has largely repealed and replaced the 1988 Act. The third amendment brings applications under section 13 of the 1988 Act into scope of civil legal services. Section 13 allows bereaved family members to submit a request to open or reopen inquest proceedings to the High Court. The Government recognise the importance of bringing such applications into scope of legal aid, and this amendment to LASPO delivers that. Unlike inquests, section 13 applications are adversarial court proceedings in the High Court. As per determinations for section 13 applications under current ECF—exceptional case funding—legal representation will be provided, rather than legal help and advocacy funding, and applications will be means-tested.
The fourth amendment to LASPO insert a new paragraph into part 3 of schedule 1 to the Act to set out the conditions under which an individual can access funded advocacy services at inquest proceedings. The conditions are that, first, a public authority must be an interested person at the inquest and, secondly, advocacy must not have already been made available to another family member of the deceased in relation to the same inquest or a linked inquest. Whether an inquest is linked—that is, whether it is investigating deaths stemming from the same incident—is a matter for the coroner hearing the case.
Part 4 of schedule 6 then turns to amendments to the supporting regulations. The first set of amendments are to the Civil Legal Aid (Financial Resources and Payment for Services) Regulations 2013. There are three amendments to regulation 5, in particular sub-paragraph (m) and proposed new sub-paragraph (ma). Those sub-paragraphs allow for the financial means test to be disapplied when an individual applies for legal help or advocacy at an inquest where a public authority is an interested person. The third amendment at sub-paragraph (n) is a purely technical amendment that facilitates the changes. By disapplying the means test for legal aid at inquests where a public authority is an interested person, the changes will truly make a difference for the bereaved. This will be a key turning point in rebalancing the system.
Part 4 of schedule 6 also amends the Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) Regulations 2013. The amendments ensure that not only legal help, advice and assistance but advocacy is available as an appropriate form of civil legal services at an inquest where a public authority is an interested person. They also ensure that legal representation is an appropriate form of civil legal service in an appeal to the High Court to open or reopen an inquest under section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988. The amendments will ensure that the bereaved have access to the appropriate form of legal aid for the proceedings that they are experiencing, ensuring that they are appropriately supported at each stage.
Finally, amendments 14 to 17 are minor technical amendments. They amend a reference in schedule 6 to a new paragraph inserted by the Bill into schedule 5 to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, and relocate the position of a new paragraph inserted by the Bill into the same schedule to the 2009 Act. I commend the amendments, and the clause and schedule, to the Committee.
Dr Mullan
This is one area of the Bill where we need some clarity about how exactly it will operate. Before becoming an MP, I worked for a patient advocacy organisation, so I saw at first hand just how challenging inquests can be for patients’ relatives. I spoke to so many families who had to sit and watch while a portrayal of events, which they had no ability to challenge, was given at an inquest. I am sure that many Members have dealt with individuals who have had an experience with a coroner, outside of the big national scandals, that was not as they would want it to be. There is an underlying challenge that coroners are very different from other public bodies, agencies and office holders, because to some extent they can just do their own thing. That makes it very hard to achieve a consistent approach.
I have a number of questions. First, who exactly will decide whether the public authority’s costs are reasonable? The chief coroner was very clear that she felt that coroners were not equipped to do that, and even if they were, it would take time and resources. We all need to understand what the process will be. Importantly, will there be a mechanism for someone to challenge that? If the coroner is not personally engaged with everything that this Government are trying to do with the Bill—as we are sympathetic to—and they do not make any reasonable attempt to control a public body’s costs in line with what we are asking of them, what is the route for challenge?
I have heard concerns from people who work on the frontline of a public body. Sometimes, the reputation of the organisation is defended, but conversely, the reputation of an individual can be at risk in these sorts of situations—I go back to my experience in healthcare. We would not want a perverse scenario where the organisation throws an individual under the bus and makes no particular effort to ensure that their role is adequately explained and defended—accepting that we do not necessarily agree technically that it would be defending, but rather inquisitorial.
Complex family arrangements were raised in the evidence sessions. How exactly does it work if the parents are divorced? The Minister touched on that towards the end of her speech, and mentioned that another family member must not have applied for funding. Again, would there be a limit? Could every single individual family member get help? How would that be determined? The question that politicians always have to come back to is that of funding. Is this new funding that has been allocated to the Ministry of Justice outside of its existing budget, for what we imagine would be a significant increase in legal aid spending? Will the Minister reassure those people who have an interest in other areas of legal aid spending that they will not be reduced as a result of this new area of legal aid spending? I just want to understand where the money has come from.
Alex Davies-Jones
I am grateful for those questions. On who will police the spend, it will not be for the coroner to police it; it will be for the public bodies themselves. They will be under an obligation, because they will also be funding the legal aid for the bereaved families, depending on which public authority or arm of government it comes under. If it is health, for example, that Department will fund the legal aid costs of the bereaved families; if it is the Prison Service, the funding will come from the Ministry of Justice; if it is police, it will be the Home Office, and so on.
Alex Davies-Jones
No, there is no new money for this legislation. Therefore, we hope that the spending that public authorities carry out for inquests will match how much they have to fund for the bereaved families. We hope that this will also be a deterrent against arming up officials when going towards what should be an inquisitorial process.
Alex Davies-Jones
Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes a good point. This is to encourage good behaviour. It is to encourage public authorities to not come armed with many barristers, and to discourage the David and Goliath story that we have heard far too many times.
On the shadow Minister’s point about individuals within a public authority potentially not being represented, that is not something that we want to curtail. For example, a frontline healthcare worker could have representation via their union and the public authority could have representation. This is about making sure that the family has adequate legal representation too. I will come back to his other points after I take another intervention.
Tessa Munt
Does the Minister feel that this provision might actually lead to some clarity about the amount of money that is spent by local authorities on defending themselves and their position, and the actions that they may have taken? It is almost impossible to get them to cough up. They just say, “Oh, well, it’s business as usual—that’s what we always do.” I am hoping that this measure will give clarity.
Alex Davies-Jones
The hon. Lady is bang on the money, literally. I cannot tell her how frustrating it has been as a Minister trying to figure out a way forward on this—trying to figure out the cost to the public purse and the taxpayer—when we do not have that data. This will enable us to have the data on exactly how much is being spent by public authorities and Government Departments on legal aid.
This is taxpayers’ money. We heard evidence from the bereaved families that one of the biggest kicks in the teeth for them was that they as taxpayers were funding the legal support for the public authorities that were accused of having a hand in the death of their loved one. That is totally perverse and unacceptable.
Alex Davies-Jones
I welcome that point. We have put new powers in the Bill for the coroner to challenge public authorities if they are acting inappropriately. What they bring forward has to be proportionate and reasonable. There are powers on the coroners there. They have to compile a report and complain to the relevant bodies or those individuals with the power to take action against the public authority for not acting in accordance with the guidance set out by the Lord Chancellor or the provisions in the Bill.
Dr Mullan
But that is kind of circular, because it takes us back to the coroners. Are the coroners in a position to do that? It is not something they have to do at the minute. As we heard in evidence, judges do that—it is part and parcel of their work—but it is not part of what coroners do. What are we doing in terms of support, information and guidance, and then monitoring that they actually do it?
Alex Davies-Jones
I have a very close working relationship with the chief coroner, as the hon. Member would probably expect given my role. We work together very closely, and we have had significant conversations about how to work together going forward and about the implementation of the Bill, which will be crucial to its effectiveness. It is important to recognise that coroners, although distinct in their nature, are the judiciary. They are independent and they do have relevant expertise in this regard. I will be working closely with the chief coroner on implementation.
I am not sure whether the hon. Member heard what I said about annual reporting, but any experiences of a public authority failing to abide by the coroner’s instructions will have to be put into the annual report that the chief coroner will provide to the Lord Chancellor—all of this has to be captured—and we will not hesitate to name and shame those who are failing to abide by the duties in the Bill.
Seamus Logan
I may be misreading the evidence—if I am, I accept that—but I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the evidence given to us by Chris Minnoch and Richard Miller during the Committee’s second sitting, last Thursday afternoon. I came away from that sitting with a very distinct impression that those two witnesses were of the view that the legal aid system might need to be expanded. We find that view from Mr Minnoch, the chief executive of the Legal Aid Practitioners Group, at columns 60 and 61. He seemed to suggest that his expectation was that legal aid would be expanded in this context.
Alex Davies-Jones
We are expanding legal aid. The provision of non-means-tested legal aid for bereaved families at an inquest or inquiry where there is a public authority as an interested person is the biggest expansion of legal aid for a generation.
Seamus Logan
That is fair enough, but the Minister stated earlier that there are no additional resources as a result of the application of the Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones
That is correct. There is no new money for this; it has to be found out of existing Government Department budgets. This is in order to, as we have debated, figure out exactly how much is being spent by public authorities and by local government departments on legal aid and on their contribution to an inquest or an inquiry. We will be working with the legal aid providers very closely and we will be monitoring this, as I am sure will the Treasury, but that is the determination of this Bill and that is the mechanism by which we will be operating.
Seamus Logan
If I interpret the Minister correctly, what she is saying is that, through the application of the Bill, there may be a need to review the position in due course.
Alex Davies-Jones
I can confirm that we are working very closely on a way forward on the framework for the legal aid mechanism of the Bill. I will happily update Members and the House as we progress on how that will be implemented, and we will be working with providers on that.
On the shadow Minister’s final point, about complex family relationships, we are alive to this issue and are working with organisations and officials to see how we can best approach it. We have made provision in the Bill for one advocate adviser per bereaved family, but we recognise that there are complex family arrangements, so there are provisions in the Bill for other family members or other interested people to make an application under LASPO to access more legal aid. However, we have heard the concerns raised in Committee, and we are looking to see what more we can do to support families.
Tessa Munt
I have had discussions with the Minister about the Bill’s relationship with the families of those who are deceased, and I am rather hopeful that she will consider new clause 5. It has been implied that people who are seriously injured or survivors are included in the Bill, but I would like to be very specific about that particular group. The new clause seeks to ensure that those who are seriously injured but are survivors have equal access to legal support, without means testing, as bereaved families when participating in inquests, inquiries, investigations and independent panels. Many survivors face really complex legal processes when dealing with trauma, and without non-means-tested legal aid they may be unable to engage effectively or have their interests represented. Extending legal aid to that group of people would remove financial barriers, ensure meaningful participation opportunities for them, and help to ensure that inquiries and inquests—in which I have been involved myself—can fully examine the conduct of public bodies and public officials, and promote accountability and justice. Will the Minister please address that?
Alex Davies-Jones
As the hon. Member said, her new clause 5 seeks to extend civil legal aid to seriously injured survivors who are participating in inquests or inquiries where the conduct of public bodies or public officials is in question.
The Bill’s expansion of legal aid ensures that it is available to bereaved families in an inquest where a public authority is an interested person. It follows that a seriously injured survivor who is also a family member of the deceased will already be able to apply for legal aid under the Bill. Survivors of serious incidents are more likely to have active participation in an inquiry into what has happened more generally than in an inquest, where the coroner is seeking to determine facts around a death. However, injured survivors can apply for legal help and advocacy at inquests via the exceptional case funding scheme. Applicants may be eligible for that where not providing legal services would breach, or risk breaching, the applicant’s rights under the European convention on human rights. Alternatively, survivors may work with family members of the deceased receiving legal aid to contribute to the instruction of legally aided lawyers.
Section 40 of the Inquiries Act 2005 already gives the chair a specific power to award publicly funded legal representation to individuals or organisations involved in an inquiry, subject to the conditions set out by the sponsoring Minister. In recent inquiries, such as the Post Office Horizon IT inquiry and the Grenfell inquiry, chairs have used that power to ensure that all core participants are funded where that is fair, necessary and proportionate. It is therefore not necessary to expand the scope of civil legal aid to inquiries.
I also note that new clause 5 raises a significant practical and definitional challenge: it does not set out what constitutes “reasonable grounds for believing” that the matter relates to a public authority’s conduct, which would be necessary in order to make regulations implementing the measure and for operationalisation. It could also draw the scope of legal aid more widely than intended, such as by including the perpetrators of terrorist attacks.
In summary, the new clause is unnecessary in the light of existing routes to access legal help and advocacy. It would duplicate provisions already available for inquiries under the Inquiries Act by introducing legal aid for core participants for the first time, and, in doing so, would introduce complexities about who would fund those legal costs. That could lead to delays and make the scheme harder to operationalise and manage. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills not to move the new clause.
Tessa Munt
I seek a little clarity. The Minister made reference to somebody who is seriously injured. They might be part of the proceedings as a friend of the family of somebody who has died. We have seen fairly recently people being injured in a terrorist attack in which colleagues around them have died. They might have something very specific to add, but they might not be a friend of the family. I want to be really clear whether, if somebody was present and seriously injured, and had something to add, but was a colleague and not a family member, there would be any barrier to them being considered as helpful to the family in an inquest or investigation.
Alex Davies-Jones
I recognise that, and I will happily engage with the hon. Lady further to ensure that we have no gaps.
Tessa Munt
I am very grateful to the Minister for that assurance.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 6
Conduct of public authorities at inquiries and inquests
Amendments made: 14, in schedule 6, page 54, line 2, leave out from “paragraph” to “and” in line 3 and insert
“(d) insert—
‘(e) the matters reported under paragraph 7A of that Schedule’”.
This amendment is consequential on amendments 16 and 17.
Amendment 15, in schedule 6, page 55, line 24, leave out “2A and 7” and insert “7 and 7A”.
This amendment is consequential on amendments 16 and 17.
Amendment 16, in schedule 6, page 56, line 1, leave out “2” and insert “7”.
This amendment, together with amendment 17, relocates the position in which a new paragraph of Schedule 5 to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 is inserted.
Amendment 17, in schedule 6, page 56, line 3, leave out “2A” and insert “7A”.—(Alex Davies-Jones.)
See the explanatory statement for amendment 16.
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
New Clause 1
Post-legislative assessment of the legal duty of candour for public authorities and public officials
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish a report into—
(a) the impact of the Act’s provisions on increasing public confidence that public authorities’ internal processes are fit for purpose in identifying and investigating failures when they first arise following a major incident.
(b) the role of the standing public advocate in assessing public authorities’ responses to affected individuals and relatives of bereaved victims following a major incident or where there is a major public concern that public authorities may not be acting in the best interests of those affected by a major incident.
(2) The report must assess—
(a) extending the public advocate’s powers to facilitate the gathering of information from those people affected by a major incident to support official inquiries and investigations to help ensure that all public authorities and officials are acting in accordance with the duty of candour set out in this Act.
(b) the case for facilitating a mechanism whereby the public advocate can instigate an independent panel to collate evidence and information following a major incident to support the oversight of public authorities and officials’ responses to major incidents.
(c) the costs of establishing independent panels as compared to non-statutory inquiries, or statutory inquiries under the Inquiries Act 2005 in line with paragraph (b).
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the Report before Parliament.”—(Ian Byrne.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Ian Byrne
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston cannot be here to move the motion because of her father’s illness. She really wanted to be here, and I fully support the new clause, so I am going to speak on her behalf.
New clause 1 proposes a post-legislative assessment, within 12 months of the passing of the Act, of how its provisions on the duty of candour and equality of arms are increasing public confidence in public authorities. Specifically, it would examine whether the internal processes of public authorities are fit for purpose in identifying and investigating failures as they first arise after major incidents. The assessment would also consider the role of the independent public advocate in evaluating how public authorities respond to affected individuals and bereaved families following such incidents.
The report would have to explore whether the powers of the independent public advocate should be extended to facilitate the gathering of information to support inquiries and investigations, to ensure that public authorities and officials act in accordance with the duty of candour. It would also have to examine the case for empowering the independent public advocate to instigate an independent panel, similar to the Hillsborough independent panel, and assess the costs compared with non-statutory and statutory inquiries.
The new clause would ensure that, soon after the Act comes into force, Parliament would receive a clear, evidence-based assessment of whether it is delivering on its aims, and whether the role of the independent public advocate should be strengthened to secure faster truth, greater transparency, and better support for bereaved families after major incidents.
When Hillsborough Law Now launched in 2022, it not only supported the measures in the Bill but called for the establishment of an independent public advocate with powers to set up independent panels like the Hillsborough independent panel. For more than two decades, the legal system failed to deliver truth or justice to the Hillsborough families. In some cases, it even facilitated the propagation of a false narrative, including by officers named in the IOPC report published this week.
It was the Hillsborough independent panel, which was established in 2009 and reported in 2012, that finally set the record straight. I wholeheartedly support that statement. Its process was non-legal, document-based and grounded in transparency rather than adversarial proceedings. In two years it achieved what the legal system had failed to do in 24. One of the key lessons of Hillsborough is that the legal system can fail. The two witnesses, Jenni Hicks and Hilda Hammond, spoke powerfully on behalf of this new clause, and the need to look at how panels in the style of the Hillsborough independent panel can help to achieve justice. I want to put on record that I thought they spoke really eloquently. We cannot claim to have learned the lessons fully unless we provide bereaved families with access to a similar process at an earlier stage.
The Public Advocate Bills introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston in the Commons in 2016 and by Lord Wills in the Lords in 2014, set out to create an independent public advocate with meaningful powers, including the authority to instigate independent panels akin to the Hillsborough independent panel. The intention was to give bereaved families a route to truth and transparency at an early stage, and to ensure that public authorities could be held to account quickly and that failures in process could be addressed before they became entrenched.
However, the office of the independent public advocate, as currently established under the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, does not yet carry the powers originally envisaged, as the independent public advocate outlined in last Thursday’s evidence session. I think she is open to having more powers to achieve what my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston is looking to set out with the new clause. As it stands, the office of the IPA lacks the statutory authority to gather evidence from those affected, and it cannot initiate independent panels to collate information and assess public authorities’ actions.
I cannot say it strongly enough: the Hillsborough independent panel uncovered what happened at Hillsborough because it had access to the police documents and the reports, so it could see the scale of how some police officers had changed the evidence of those who were at Hillsborough. I include in that my own father, whose report of his experience at Hillsborough was changed beyond all recognition. When he eventually saw what the police had put down for him, it caused him great distress, along with many others. What my right hon. Friend has outlined in the new clause is so important, and without the powers in it the advocate cannot replicate the approach that finally succeeded in the case of Hillsborough, when transparency, document disclosure and independent oversight finally brought truth, in a fraction of the time that the legal system had taken.
The gap in the powers has real consequences today for families who experience disasters or major public incidents. If we are serious about learning the lessons from Hillsborough and other tragedies, which I believe we are, we need to ensure that the independent public advocate has the appropriate authority and resources to act effectively, and that Parliament can scrutinise whether the office is delivering on its intended purpose. New clause 1 would provide for that, and I support it fully. I urge the Minister to consider what my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston laid out in the new clause, and to discuss how we move forward on it.
Dr Mullan
I rise to speak in support of some of the sentiment and principle of the new clause, particularly subsection (1)(a) on understanding the impact of the provisions. As discussed, some of this is very novel and we will not always be sure how it pans out. I am not necessarily convinced that “within 12 months” is the right timescale. Thankfully, these things do not happen that often, in the scheme of things, and I am not sure that 12 months is quite enough time to see whether the new system has bedded in, and for there to be examples that we can review. I do not support the timetable, then, but it is important that the Government have a clear strategy for assessing and understanding how everything works in practice.
Tessa Munt
I have to disagree a little with the hon. Gentleman. A year is probably a good time in which one can make an initial assessment. We can then recognise what is happening on an annual basis.
With reference to our earlier discussion, might the Minister consider the annual report be the appropriate vehicle to look at what is spent on legal fees, and how that might reduce or increase? It will probably not increase. I believe the IOPC spent £80 million in the span of time for which it considered Hillsborough. If we get the new system right, sums like that £80 million will be reduced to very little, because the IOPC will be able to do its job swiftly and accurately, and to inform the Minister exactly what it has saved out of that £80 million pot, which was ridiculous.
Seamus Logan
I rise to support the new clause, the right hon. Member for Liverpool Garston and the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby. I believe this to be an important proposal. If the new clause is adopted, would it actually result in a saving to the public purse?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank all Members who have spoken in the debate on the new clause, which seeks to provide for a post-legislative review of the duty of candour and to include an assessment of the role of the Independent Public Advocate.
As the Committee knows, Cindy Butts has now started as the first ever standing advocate of the independent public advocate. Hers is an excellent appointment. Sadly, she has already been deployed to support the victims of the horrific attack on Heaton Park synagogue. The IPA will bolster the support offer and amplify victims’ voices back to Government. The Deputy Prime Minister and I have been in direct contact with Cindy to discuss her early experiences in post, and we will continue to engage with her on the delivery of her role and to better understand the experiences of victims.
Under the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, the IPA has the power to produce reports, and has broad discretion on what matters relating to a major incident to include. Such reports may, for example, highlight concerns about a public authority not co-operating or not behaving with candour, or about the cost of what is entailed.
Additionally, the Act requires a statutory review of the independent public advocate’s role and its effectiveness, 18 months after its first deployment. That review period commenced on 3 October, following the attack at Heaton Park synagogue. The resulting report will be laid before Parliament, as required in legislation. It is right to allow the new role sufficient time to bed in. We will keep listening to victims’ experiences and will conduct the review before we consider any further changes. However, I am not taking those off the table—I reaffirm that commitment to the Committee.
The Prime Minister recently commissioned a new ethics and integrity commission to report on how public bodies can develop, distribute and enforce codes of ethics so that they effect meaningful cultural change and ensure that public officials act with honesty, integrity and candour at all times. On the publication of its report, and when the Hillsborough law has received Royal Assent, the commission will act as a centre of excellence on public sector codes of conduct, providing guidance and best practice to help all public bodies to put ethics and integrity at the heart of public service delivery.
Tessa Munt
I would be grateful if the Minister could include me in those discussions, because I am very keen that we get this right.
The Chair
Before we proceed, we have reached a witching hour. I am prepared, as are the officials, to see this through, provided that we do not engage in long debate. Let me be absolutely clear: these are important and serious issues and there is no question of the debate being curtailed. There is plenty of time. But if it is possible to expedite things in a manner that means Members do not have to come back later this afternoon, as Chair I am prepared to do that. We will see how we get on.
Tessa Munt
On a point of order, Sir Roger. I have not a clue where I am—have I missed amendment 41?
The Chair
No, you are all right.
Clause 19
Crown application
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones
In the spirit of brevity, let me just say that the clauses contain standard provisions around Crown application. They confer powers to make consequential amendments as set out in the Bill’s regulation-making powers, they provide definitions throughout the Bill and they set out its territorial extent. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 20 to 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25
Commencement
Tessa Munt
I beg to move amendment 41, in clause 25, page 22, line 23, leave out subsections (1) to (8) and insert—
“This Act shall come into force on Royal Assent, save for sections 9, 10 and 18, which will come into force six months thereafter.”
This amendment clarifies that the Act should come into force straightaway except for those sections which require the provision of codes or guidance.
Tessa Munt
The amendment seeks to clarify that the Act should come into force straight away, except for clauses 9, 10 and 18, which require the provision of codes or guidance. I seek purely to ensure that the Hillsborough law comes into force as soon as possible, as families have been waiting so many years for justice.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Lady and all Committee members for ensuring that our feet are held to the fire on our plans for implementation. We agree that the families have been waiting far too long and deserve implementation as swiftly as possible.
Amendment 41 seeks to amend the commencement provision in clause 25. It would provide that the Bill, with the exceptions of clauses 9, 10 and 18, would come into force immediately on Royal Assent. Clauses 9, 10 and 18 would then automatically come into force six months following Royal Assent. As I said, we agree that the families have waited long enough. The public deserve change and renewed confidence in the services that exist to protect and serve them.
Let me be clear: we will bring the measures into force as soon as is reasonably practical. However, we cannot prescribe commencement on the fact of the Bill. That is not the right approach and would create practical difficulties. Ultimately, implementing the legislation without the necessary frameworks and arrangements in place could result in unintended consequences and difficulties that cause further distress and disappointment. By retaining the power to commence regulations, steps can be taken to ensure a smooth transition, so that the provisions achieve their objective without negatively impacting ongoing proceedings.
I reassure the hon. Lady and all Committee members that we are not dragging our feet. We want to implement the Bill as swiftly as possible, and we will do so. We are working at pace to facilitate market readiness to expand legal aid rapidly. We are also working with coroner services to help them to prepare for the effects of an increase in the number of lawyers who will appear at inquests.
In addition, the major increase in demand will mean that we also need to look at making significant changes to the Legal Aid Agency’s operational and digital systems. I remind Members that this comes at a time when the agency is recovering from a major cyber incident, with all digital systems yet to be fully restored. Without sufficient time for the legal aid market and the Legal Aid Agency to prepare, there is a risk that bereaved families will be unable to find legal aid lawyers or to access legal aid funding at inquests, which could be delayed as a consequence. We do not want that. Our priority is to deliver the reforms as soon as possible while ensuring that the system is equipped to provide specialist advice to bereaved families from day one.
None the less, we recognise that the Hillsborough families, along with the wider public, deserve clarity on when the Bill will come into force, which is why, very soon, we will set out a clear plan, including the timelines for implementation and for the commencement of the Bill as a whole. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills to withdraw the amendment.
Clause 25 sets out when the Act will come into force. Part 5 of the Bill, which includes the technical provisions, including on regulation-making powers and territorial extent, will take effect immediately. The other parts of the Bill will come into force on a date specified by the relevant authority in regulations. I reaffirm that we will not delay bringing the Bill into force, and I look forward to updating the House very soon on the planned timeline for its implementation. Clause 26 simply provides the short title of the legislation. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Tessa Munt
I accept the Minister’s assurance that she is going to get her skates on, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 25 and 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones
On a point of order, Sir Roger. I would appreciate the Committee indulging me briefly, because it is customary at this point to say a few brief words to mark the end of Committee deliberations. I thank the Opposition Front-Bench team, and I pay tribute to all the Members who have served on this really important and powerful Bill Committee. The Bill is better for having been scrutinised by them all, so I thank them.
I thank you, Sir Roger, for keeping us in very good order, especially at times when we all lost where we were. I also thank the Government Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Ossett and Denby Dale, on her birthday. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I thank the Clerks. I want to say a huge thank you to the brilliant team at the Ministry of Justice and the Cabinet Office. That includes, but is not limited to, our officials Nikki Jones, Emily Dunn, Tom Blackburn, Sam Wright, May Wong, Sam Dayan, Georgina Rood, Terry Davies, Jonny Fitzpatrick, Catriona MacDonald, Naomi Sephton, John Smith, James Parker, Rachel Boylin and Rachel Bennion —both my Rachels. I thank the Hansard Reporters and the Doorkeepers, and I look forward to the debate on Report, which I am sure we will come to very soon.
The Chair
That was, of course, all strictly out of order and not a matter for the Chair. [Laughter.] While we are out of order, I add my thanks, on the Committee’s behalf, to the Officers of the House, without whom we could not do this job at all.
Exceptionally, I would like to say something else. This has been a highly sensitive and at times difficult piece of legislation to put through. It affects people whose lives are still affected many years after events. I hugely appreciate, and I know that Mr Dowd appreciates, the manner in which you have conducted yourselves. It has been exemplary. Thank you very much indeed.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Acquired Brain Injury Action Plan
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con) [R]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the potential merits of a comprehensive acquired brain injury action plan.
Dickens wrote,
“Reflect upon your present blessings—of which every man has many—not on your past misfortunes, of which all men have some.”
There are few greater misfortunes than an acquired disability. Among those, a brain injury can challenge every aspect of life, whether people can walk, talk or think—or at least think straight. The effects are various: they can be mild or severe, and recovery will often take not just weeks or months, although the initial trauma can be treated in that timeframe, but many years. However, an improvement can be made over the long term.
Most of us think, “This will never happen to me.” I guess that is true of most misfortunes, including ones of this severity. Brain injury is the leading cause of disability and death among people under 40 in the UK. It can happen at any time, in any place. The causes, again, are various. One thinks of sporting injuries, or perhaps an attack—a violent incident. Of course, the principal causes are things like road traffic accidents, motorcycle and car accidents. Acquired brain injury, for the reasons I have given, has long warranted more attention than it has received, both publicly and among policymakers.
While the Department of Health and Social Care plays a central role in dealing with the immediate trauma caused by the sorts of accidents I have described, many other Government Departments have a relationship with the effects of brain injury. That is well illustrated by the work done by the all-party parliamentary group for acquired brain injury, which I am now proud to chair, and published in a report to which I will refer later in my speech.
We made the case that a cross-departmental approach to brain injury is required, for exactly the reasons I have set out. Of course, it affects the Department of Health, but it also affects the Department for Culture, Media and Sport—I spoke about sporting injuries a moment or two ago. It affects the Ministry of Justice, because such a high proportion of the incarcerated have brain injuries. It affects almost all aspects of Government, on which I know other contributors to this debate will focus, so a lateral approach to the way that public policymakers consider brain injury and its effects is critical.
As you will know, Dame Siobhain, as an extremely experienced and very wise Member of this House, might I say—
Sir John Hayes
I was hoping it might. Lateral policymaking is not easy in Government, because of the way Government works and ministerial responsibilities are exercised. It is a challenge, therefore, to get that sort of approach adopted by a Government of any colour or persuasion.
Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman is making a typically thoughtful contribution, and I congratulate him on securing this debate. I also thank Clare Harrison, a constituent of mine, from the Brain Injury Group for bringing this important matter to my attention.
The right hon. Gentleman makes a point about the Government’s role, and as he mentioned, sporting injuries populate such issues. Among those affected are former professional footballers, who are four times more likely to develop a neurodegenerative disease, support for which is patchy. For female former professional footballers, that support is non-existent. Will he join me in encouraging the Minister to consider the creation of an independent, football-funded body, alongside any wider action plan that his APPG is advocating for?
Sir John Hayes
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s contribution. He makes a valuable point and an interesting suggestion that I will reflect on. He is certainly right that more can be done to affect brain injury in the first place. I have spoken a bit about its effects, but he is right to speak at greater length than I did about its causes. In the area of sport, of course, he is right that we now know that heading a football does all kinds of damage that no one imagined a generation or two ago. His suggestion is well made and worthy of further consideration.
Around 350,000 people a year are admitted to hospital with acquired brain injury—that is one every 90 seconds. About 125,000 of those are admitted following a traumatic brain injury, around 43,000 with brain tumours and others following strokes. I pay tribute to Lincolnshire brain tumour support group, of which I am president, and to Headway, which I will say more about in due course. The end result of those admissions is that about 1.3 million people are living with the consequences of acquired brain injury every day. They and their families, loved ones and friends, and the communities of which they are part, are dealing with the effects.
According to our all-party group’s latest report, the cost to the UK economy through healthcare, social care, lost productivity and wider public services is £43 billion annually, which equates to 1.3% of GDP. Of that, £20 billion is accounted for within the NHS and social care budget for acute long-term care, £21.5 billion is attributed to lost productivity, £1.5 billion is spent in the criminal justice system and the Department for Education—yet another Government Department that needs to be involved in the consideration of this issue in the lateral way I mentioned—and about £1.9 billion is spent on benefits. Leaving aside the human cost and the visceral effects brain injury can have on affected individuals and those who care for them, this has a considerable effect on Government, the Exchequer and the public purse.
Those ramifications only scratch the surface of the wider social cost. The real cost is in lives disrupted, plans abandoned and ambitions jettisoned as a result of brain injury; in parents seeing a child’s personality change overnight and carers stretched to their limits, with little or no respite, because symptoms are dismissed as being mild or imperceptible or attributed to some other cause entirely. Although less obvious, those effects are just as devastating. When those costs are added to the ones I have described, the all-party group estimates that the real cost of acquired brain injury is £91.5 billion. That is about half of what the NHS spends every year. It is extraordinary that this issue is not given greater consideration. I am delighted that this debate gives us a chance to do so, at least for this short time. I thank all colleagues across the House who have been part of these efforts.
We have argued for what we call a right to rehab. Putting aside the substantial financial cost, the physical and emotional costs are still higher. The estimates do not include many of the costs associated with homelessness, addiction, mental health services and psychiatric stays. The cost to the NHS and welfare of lengthy treatment and recovery is huge and rises quickly during spells in hospital before one even receives community support and longer-term social care provision. Much of this could be prevented, and many of the costs could be reduced, if we had the right to rehab.
Much work has been done on this subject, including by Headway, which I mentioned earlier, and the United Kingdom Acquired Brain Injury Forum. A report from earlier this year, commissioned by the APPG, urged the Government to invest in specialist neuro-rehabilitation to save long-term societal costs. The report called for brain injury to be treated on a par with cancer and dementia. A statutory right to rehab in every region means that specialist neuro-rehabilitation services after an acquired brain injury would be put in place.
None of the failures that we see today in response to brain injuries is inevitable. The Ministry of Defence already guarantees the right to rehabilitation for military personnel, so we have a precedent. We want to build on that precedent, across Government, for those affected by brain injury.
We know from the MOD the results of having that right for rehabilitation—shorter recovery times, better outcomes, restored lives and improved prospects. The same approach is being piloted by the National Rehabilitation Centre, where every £43,000 invested in rehab yields savings of up to £680,000. That is a remarkable 16:1 return on investment.
Now is the time to extend the entitlement adopted by the MOD much more widely. We must establish a national neuro-rehabilitation framework that guarantees that access to specialist care is not a lottery, but a certain path to recovery. In doing so, money would certainly be saved, but life chances would be improved immeasurably, too. High-quality rehabilitation reduces the risk of homelessness, addiction and a drift into lawlessness. It allows people to contribute, return to work and rebuild lives and relationships—to begin to stand tall again.
Now is the time for the Government to act. I have every confidence that the Minister will rise to her feet at the summation of this debate and tell us that she has not only thoroughly studied the all-party group’s report—daily, perhaps—but that she is ready to respond in the way that we invite.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), who chaired the APPG before I did—I was his vice-chairman for many years. He drove the original version of the report, which was republished more recently. It is an outstanding piece of work. We all know that APPGs vary, but this one is focused on the subject for which it is responsible and is determined to make its voice heard, because of the all-party support it attracts and because of the salience and significance of this subject.
Given the number of people affected by brain injury, the comparatively low cost of effective interventions, such as rehabilitation and community support, and the ongoing lack of support services, there continues to be a strong need for a proper strategy to be put in place.
I spoke earlier about a lateral approach. We are calling for a national strategy on brain injury. Around 60% of prisoners report having an acquired brain injury. We discussed that at a recent APPG meeting, where we heard from experts in the field. I have served as a Minister in multiple Departments—I will not list them all—and I know that cross-departmental working is tough, and the Minister will know that too, but it can be done. It requires structures to be created that facilitate Ministers to come together. The Cabinet Office might be able to play a part. I served in the Cabinet Office and its purpose, in a sense, is to deal with those issues that could otherwise fall between the cracks and departmental silos. However it is done, we need a national strategy.
As far back as 2001, the Health Committee published a report on head injury, issuing 28 recommendations that included, as a matter of urgency, finding ways of improving methods of data collection on incidence, prevalence and severity. In 2005, the national service framework for long-term neurological conditions was launched; it contained many good ideas, but had no mandate and no funding. In 2010, the National Audit Office published a report, “Major Trauma Care in England”, which highlighted the need for improvement in major trauma care. That led to the establishment—you may remember it, Dame Siobhain—of trauma networks, with a centralised and specialised approach to trauma care and service across the country.
The excellent work of the APPG for acquired brain injury, which was reformed in 2017, showed that there was a strong case for a cross-party commitment to action. I have already spoken about the 2018 report, which called for a national reconsideration of rehabilitation and the collation of reliable statistics, given the problems with data collection and analysis that prevail.
To be fair to the previous Government, our report was well received by Ministers. Indeed, they responded to what we had called for by committing to publish a strategy on acquired head injury in 2021. The following year, there was a call for evidence to inform the development of such a strategy. The previous Government said that they were going to do it, committed to the principle and welcomed the work that we were doing. However, we then, of course, had the inconvenience of an election—one of the aspects of democracy that sometimes gets in the way of these sorts of things. Therefore, the work was not brought to a conclusion.
Earlier this year, the current Government announced their intention to develop an “action-oriented, and accountable” ABI action plan
“with input from NHS England and other Government departments”.
It was due to be published “this year”—well, the year is running out, Minister. However, there are still a couple of sitting weeks left: a statement could be brought to the House and perhaps a document could be published that responds to the calls that we have made. We have the work that the previous Government and this Government have done. There has been no party politics; over time, Ministers have recognised the challenge—the scale of the problem—and the reasons for addressing it, which I have set out.
We can hope that this Minister, who I know is dutiful and diligent, will rise to exactly that challenge. I do not know whether I am flattering her, Dame Siobhain—I am doing my best.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
I think that may be your modus operandi.
Sir John Hayes
Following representations from myself and others, the Minister, who has responsibility for public health and prevention, kindly responded to say that the Government will publish an action plan in 2026. I hope that it will be published as early as possible—if not before Christmas, perhaps as an early new year’s resolution.
After years of campaigning by charities and MPs, the excellent news is that there now seems to be momentum on this issue, which is what sufferers and their families deserve; it is what they warrant and certainly what they need. The plan needs to include a focus on better community rehabilitation and on how that will help to achieve real change for people with ABI. It could also include national training for local authority and integrated care board commissioners, and for social workers, on the complexities of ABI. I have talked about the subtlety of the effects that ABI can have, including the changed personality that many people experience as a result of a brain injury. Addressing such subtle changes requires a level of understanding and expertise, so national training could be really important and of immense value.
I hope that the plan will also include funding for community-based specialist brain injury services. Staggeringly, the vital research by Dr Alyson Norman found that a third of serious case reviews in social services involved someone with a brain injury. Dr Norman lost her own brother to suicide after he suffered a lifetime of untreated brain injuries sustained in childhood.
Given that brain injury is no less than a hidden epidemic, it is imperative that the Government take further action to collect statistics about it, so that we can accurately ascertain the numbers impacted. We need a UK-wide consensus on which conditions are classified and coded as brain injury, and to make that data freely available. Access to hospital admission data on brain injuries must be free; currently, charities face significant costs.
The charity Headway, which has done so much in this field, is not an immensely wealthy organisation and so those costs are significant to it. I hope that we get some reassurance on that point. Research by Headway has shown that over three quarters of brain injury survivors encounter daily challenges due to the hidden nature of their injury, and that nine out of 10 people affected by a brain injury cite societal misunderstanding as a major obstacle in navigating life with a hidden disability. Collecting those facts and figures is important because of the nature of acquired brain injury.
I will not say too much more about the costs to the sector, except that over the past three years several local Headway charities have permanently closed, including one in the last month. Three local volunteer branches have also shut down. That is because of rising costs of all kinds, which I do not need to list here. Closures really do risk brain injury survivors feeling lost. This is an area of work and a need that can go unrecognised and unseen. The feeling of isolation and loneliness—this is, as I described, a hidden epidemic—can place immense strain on families as survivors are no longer able to access, for example, the specialist daycare centres that they might otherwise enjoy.
We need to find a way of granting exemptions for charities from things such as the employer national insurance charges. I hope that the Minister will look at that, or even speak about it in this debate. Some 57% of Headway charities say that they have experienced delays in receiving payments from local authorities and integrated care boards. Some charities have even had to employ additional staff members purely to chase the debts that they were owed. These are small organisations with limited budgets; they just need help.
I know that other hon. Members want to contribute to the debate and can see their eagerness to do so, so I will draw my remarks to a close. For survivors, a head injury is just the beginning; the real challenge after survival lies in the days, months and years that follow. Individuals and their families struggle to navigate, with minimal support, a fragmented and underfunded system of rehabilitation. I know that because more than 40 years ago, like so many other young people, I suffered a serious head injury. But the key for me is that it did not stop me from doing what I wanted or being what I became. That is fundamental for anyone with an acquired disability.
It is a matter of record that I decided to become a Conservative MP when I was seven—I was probably six, actually. That did not alter as a result of my head injury, but it might have done. I have seen those much more seriously affected by the traumatic injury they endured. As I looked at them I thought, “There but for the grace of God go I”, so I was determined thereafter to do all I could to fight for people with serious head injuries who struggle with their effects. I have been determined to champion their cause and to turn my hopes on their behalf, and their hopes too, into reality.
I started with Dickens, one of our greatest writers, and I will end with Tolstoy, the great Russian writer. He wrote:
“As long as there is life, there is happiness. There is a great deal, a great deal before us.”
For everyone, regardless of what they suffer, to be able to glean that happiness, through the care and support that they receive, should be the ambition of every Government Minister and every Member of this House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
I ask that Members consider a four or five-minute time limit on their speeches so that everybody can be heard this afternoon, although I do not want to do that on a forced basis.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for securing this debate and for all his ongoing work leading on this issue.
One of the most remarkable features of the human brain is its ability to change. Neuroscience tells us that the brain has what is known as plasticity: the ability to rebuild, adapt and form new connections after injury. But that is not automatic; as with any muscle, recovery happens only when the brain is exercised, challenged and supported.
If someone breaks a leg, we do not simply discharge them and hope that they walk again; we provide structured rehabilitation, physiotherapy and ongoing care. Yet for many people with brain injuries, that is exactly what we do not do. Too often, rehabilitation is determined by postcode rather than need. Some parts of our country offer specialist support; others offer little or nothing at all. Patients are discharged from hospital and sent home often not because they are ready, but because the hospital bed is needed. Families suddenly become care co-ordinators. People struggle with memory, fatigue, speech and personality change without professional help.
Let us be clear about the scale of the issue. As has already been mentioned by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, acquired brain injury is the leading cause of death and disability among people under 40 years old. Every year, around 900,000 people experience a brain injury and over 160,000 of them are hospitalised. Around 350,000 hospital admissions involve an acquired brain injury.
As has already been mentioned, the cost is enormous. Analysis shows the real cost is over £43 billion, with wider wellbeing costs exceeding £91 billion. We also know that every £1 spent on neuro-rehabilitation saves £16 for the state. Yet community services are underfunded and overstretched, and voluntary organisations warn that systems are close to collapse. This is not just moral failure; it is also economic failure.
Behind every statistic is a life, and one of those lives belongs to my constituent, Jonathan Purnell. While playing rugby 34 years ago, Jonathan suffered a massive brain haemorrhage—he was 27 years old. He spent three years under neurosurgical care, and when discharge day finally came, he believed he was starting again, but then the reality hit him, as he describes it, “like a steam train.” There were no services, no pathway and no road map to recovery, so he built his own. Out of his experience, determination and quiet defiance, Jonathan created the 1492 Group, not as a charity in theory, but a lifeline in practice—a place for people with brain injuries to come together, share, rebuild and be heard. I am so proud that it operates today in my constituency of Hartlepool.
Jonathan did not wait for the system to change; he began the change. Today, he is not only a survivor, but a force—a campaigner, an advocate and a builder of hope for others still trying to understand their new reality. He should not have to do this alone, and no one else should either. The case for reform is overwhelming. The Government have committed to their acquired brain injury action plan—a process, I have to say, that started as a strategy in December 2021. How long does it take to get this done? It started in December 2021, and here we are in December 2025.
What matters now is delivery. We need a statutory right to rehabilitation, consistent national provision, proper data collection and sustainable funding for community services. Above all, we must ensure that people with brain injuries are not written off because recovery is complex. Brain injuries change lives, but failure to act destroys them. Jonathan Purnell shows what is possible, and the Government must now do what is responsible. I urge the Minister to set out a clear timescale for that action plan, the necessary funding commitments and the accountability mechanisms. When it comes to acquired brain injury, warm words are no longer enough: people need support, and they need it now.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) on securing this important debate. Every 90 seconds, someone in the UK is admitted to hospital with an acquired brain injury. Participation in sport carries some of the highest risks. This is most evident in children, adolescents and young adults.
The University of Bath was recently named sports university of the year, and we are all very proud in my constituency. It is a national leader in making sports such as rugby safer while preserving the hugely positive health and community benefits of participation. Rugby is at the forefront of developing ways to identify and manage brain injuries and, crucially, to prevent these injuries in the first place.
It is about improving safety without losing what makes sports so valuable, exciting and enjoyable for players and communities. The University of Bath works directly with teams and governing bodies to research, trial and refine new safety protocols, ensuring that evidence rapidly translates into safer play at all levels. One such example is the Activate exercise programme, an evidence-based strategy to cut youth concussions by up to 60%, which has now been adopted internationally.
The University of Bath is also partnering with schools, including Beechen Cliff school in my constituency, to use instrumented mouthguards to monitor head impacts and guide approaches to preventing injuries in young players. I pay special tribute to Headway Bath, which provides specialist relief, cognitive rehabilitation and support to adults who have suffered an acquired brain injury and their families and carers.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
My hon. Friend is right to congratulate Headway Bath. These local groups are so important in providing support within our constituencies and are sometimes used by us to signpost people on. I highlight Graham Geddes, who set up Headway North East Fife in my constituency and has been nominated as volunteer of the year. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to support this vital charity?
Wera Hobhouse
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. I congratulate her branch of Headway on its wonderful work and the award it is about to receive. What would we do without local charities leading the way and, often, guiding us?
In Bath, North East Fife and other constituencies across the country, Headway provides day services throughout the week, online groups and bespoke one-to-one outreach rehabilitation support. That vital support makes a real difference to the lives of sufferers of acquired brain injuries, but I am sure many hon. Members will echo the fact that local Headway charities are under severe financial strain. Seven have closed in the last three years and others are struggling to meet rising demand with shrinking resources.
This debate is a crucial opportunity to ensure that the ABI action plan tackles these challenges. The 2024 report of the Lancet commission on dementia prevention, intervention and care estimates that almost half of dementia cases worldwide could be prevented or delayed if we act on 14 modifiable risk factors. Among them is traumatic brain injury, which alone is estimated to contribute to around 3% of global dementia cases.
As we have mentioned, some high-contact sports, such as rugby and boxing, carry a higher risk of traumatic brain injury, but we must not forget that regular physical activity is one of the most powerful tools we have to protect brain health. Exercise improves memory, supports thinking skills and lowers the risk of dementia through its wider benefits to cardiovascular and metabolic health.
Addressing the full range of modifiable risks such as high blood pressure, smoking, physical inactivity and obesity, alongside reducing exposure to head injury, means we could lower dementia risk for an estimated 27 million people worldwide. Our task now is not to pit exercise against safety, but to balance the risks of head injury with the overwhelming health benefits of sport. Protecting athletes of all ages from avoidable head injury must sit at the heart of that effort.
I echo the call from Alzheimer’s Research UK for dedicated funding from national Government, sport governing bodies and research councils to advance research into the complex relationship between sport, traumatic brain injury and dementia prevention. I hope that the Government listen.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) on his opening remarks. We have served together on the all-party parliamentary group for acquired brain injury for a number of years. He gave a very effective summary of the impact of brain injury. I thank Chloe Hayward and everyone at the United Kingdom Acquired Brain Injury Forum and its constituent organisations for all the work and campaigning they do to improve services for people with acquired brain injuries.
There are so many aspects of this issue, including sport, other conditions and the justice system, but I will focus on children. I thank the Child Brain Injury Trust for its long-standing support in my constituency. A few weeks ago, its representatives accompanied me on a visit to Chopwell primary school, as they have come to other schools in past years, during GloWeek, which is always a big hit with children in Blaydon and Consett. It turns out that road safety is even more memorable if there are high-vis armbands and a visiting police car and fire engine. The purpose is not just entertainment; it is to say to children, “Be seen and be safe,” because so many acquired brain injuries in children are from road traffic accidents. It is entertaining, but it has a very serious message: “Let’s avoid those brain injuries in the first place.”
UKABIF and N-ABLES—the National ABI in Learning and Education Syndicate, a young people’s group—point out that acquired brain injury is an under-recognised and often hidden condition that can affect every aspect of a person’s life. About 40,000 children and young people report to hospital with an acquired brain injury every year, but it is likely that many thousands more have an undetected mild brain injury.
UKABIF and N-ABLES also say, however, that even mild injuries can be associated with a range of cognitive, behavioural and emotional symptoms, which can inevitably have an impact on a child’s education and health—indeed, on every aspect of their life, as we have heard. For those with moderate and severe injuries, the effect on all aspects of their life is often profound. The UK’s major trauma centres and advances in healthcare are saving more children’s lives than ever—thank goodness—but investment is needed in the quality of those lives after a brain injury. We hope those children will have a long life, but the support remains desperately poor. It is actually left to families and schools to provide much of that support.
Brain injuries are common, but the symptoms often go unrecognised or are mistakenly attributed to conditions such as autism or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Even with a diagnosis, there is no special educational needs category for acquired brain injury, which forces schools to record affected children under more generic categories. Many teachers say that they have never taught a child with a brain injury, but the evidence suggests that one child in every class will have sustained one by the time they leave school. It is vital that clinicians, teachers and carers consider the question, “Could this be a brain injury?” If that question is not asked, too many will miss out on the specialist support that they need. That is true not just at school but throughout their lives.
Rates of brain injury are alarmingly high in our mental health system, in prisons, and among those accessing domestic abuse support services. The risk of suicide is two to three times higher following a brain injury. One in four people report suicidal thoughts within a year of diagnosis, and that risk persists throughout life. Despite that, more than half of people with neurological conditions have not been asked about their mental health in the past three years.
Many people experiencing suicidal thoughts might not even be aware that they have a brain injury, particularly survivors of domestic abuse who might have experienced repeated mild injuries rather than one significant event. Research suggests that up to half of survivors have experienced brain injury, yet frontline support workers are rarely aware of that link. This matters because people experiencing mental health issues as a result of their brain injury require specialist neuro-psychiatric support. Often they are excluded from mental health services or told that the services they need do not exist.
With fewer than 20 full-time neuro-psychiatrists in the UK, there is a postcode lottery in accessing support, so those most likely to experience high rates of traumatic brain injury and mental illness also face the most significant barriers to accessing healthcare. That includes those who are homeless, those who struggle with substance abuse or those in prison. Some 60% of offenders are thought to have a brain injury, and yet there are no secure services in the UK for women with an acquired brain injury. Given the links between domestic abuse, offending, brain injuries and suicidality, that is particularly concerning.
What steps is the Minister taking to improve the integration of mental health and neurological care, and to ensure that clinicians are trained to recognise and respond to the needs of patients with brain injuries? The national service framework for long-term neurological conditions emphasises the need for provision at all levels, delivered through co-ordinated networks of specialist hospital and community rehab services. Having met local professionals in the north-east—in Newcastle and south of the River Tyne—I know that community provision varies significantly by postcode, some receiving none at all and others receiving great support. Without support, patients go on to have poorer outcomes, relying more heavily on other parts of our NHS and the care system.
What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that we develop the care pathways we need to give patients the best chance of recovery? I welcome the Government’s commitment to a more focused action plan, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on what steps will be taken to achieve it. If we get this right, we can transform outcomes for thousands of people and build a system that supports them throughout their lives.
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) on securing this debate and thank him for his hard work as chair of the APPG.
I want to pay tribute to Brainkind Fen House in my constituency of Ely and East Cambridgeshire for its incredible work to support people with acquired brain injuries. It provides a safe and secure space for patients, with rehabilitation and support so that people can thrive after brain injury. In preparing for this debate, it shared with me the story of my constituent Florence, which I want to share today.
Florence gave birth to twins, which should have been a very special time in her life. Unfortunately, just two weeks later, she suffered a stroke resulting in a brain injury. Her ability to speak became severely impaired. She found it difficult to walk or use her hands. Let us imagine being a new mother and suddenly finding that our body will not let us care for our babies. Florence went to Brainkind Fen House and after just five months of rehabilitation with its clinicians, she regained the use of her hands so she can now change and bathe her babies. Her speech recovered and she is able to walk again. I cannot do her story justice on my own, so I will quote her directly:
“I felt helpless. My whole world had crumbled. But Brainkind offered so much support. They made me realise I’m not alone. The staff rallied round, organising donations of toys and clothes for my children so we could spend time together. Then, as I began to recover, they took me shopping so I could buy things for my children for the first time.”
Florence’s story is a special one, showing us the vital role that specialists play in ensuring that an acquired brain injury is not the end, and that there can be light at the end of the tunnel.
I was also privileged to meet an individual at an event at Parliament this week; the event was on a different subject, but she wanted to talk about acquired brain injuries because, at the age of 16, her brother suffered an injury and was almost a completely different person afterwards—something we have heard from others. Two things she said stood out. She said it was almost as though he had gone through a “factory reset,” and she had to mourn the brother she once knew and bond with the brother she now had, because they were two different people. She said, “His smile is different”. Everyone she spoke to did not notice any difference, but she did. His facial muscles moved differently, and as someone who had known him all his life, she could spot that when others could not.
That story shows the pain these injuries can cause to a person’s loved ones. In this case, it caused a sense of grief; her brother had not passed away, but the brother she knew was gone, and she now had someone else to bond with.
Brainkind Fen House gives strong support to brain-damaged people and a range of therapies to help them recover. There are strict criteria for continued NHS funding after the first few months, which means that small improvements are not always sufficient to secure funding for ongoing rehabilitation. The person is then moved into long-term care, with little, if any, further support.
I have another case in which the person was responding to rehab, but the funding was coming to an end. After significant advocacy from their parents and the staff at Fen House, the funding was extended. That person is now waiting for a suitable flat, and his parents are fighting for a care package to support him in independent living.
People should not have to fight for this support, and it should not need an MP’s intervention. We need a clearer, fairer process to ensure that people get the rehab support they need, and then the appropriate housing and care support as they move back into the community. I ask the Government to publish the acquired brain injury action plan as soon as possible, and to include in it the right for those who have suffered to have access to a named GP. That must go hand in hand with better social care for disabled people and free personal care.
The stories I have shared highlight that more needs to be done, not only to help patients but to understand the impact on their friends and family. I hope this debate highlights the need for urgent action, so we can do more to support patients and their loved ones.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I thank the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for securing this debate and for the work he is doing as chair of the APPG for acquired brain injury; I worked with his predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), on these issues.
I want to speak about the case of Imran Douglas, the deceased son of my constituent Amy, to illustrate why an acquired brain injury strategy and action plan should no longer be a matter of if but when. Imran was born in 1995 and suffered a brain injury as a result of a road accident when he was just 17. He was in a coma, and when he woke up he was found to have significant personality changes. Imran was taken into care, having never previously needed psychiatric assessments or had any run-ins with the authorities or the criminal justice system.
While in care, Imran committed a horrific act of murder—something which his mother, my constituent, has always maintained was a brutal and undeserved attack for which Imran was responsible—of an elderly person who was completely innocent. Imran was then transferred to hospital, and in 2013 pleaded guilty to murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. Imran was the first 18-year-old to be sent to Belmarsh prison following his sentencing. He lasted less than a week, because he killed himself.
A subsequent inquest into Imran’s death found a lack of planning and a failure of care by some of those responsible for his welfare while he was in custody, who were aware of Imran’s condition. It spoke to
“a systemic lack of communication between, and within, almost all the agencies involved most notably within Feltham Young Offenders Institution.”
In other words, he should not have been transferred to Belmarsh prison. Since his suicide, Imran’s mother Amy and his father Masum have been fighting for a serious case review. They have been fighting for several years but have never been granted one.
Over the years, Imran’s parents have worked with the Acquired Brain Injury Forum and various other campaign groups for changes in the law to identify brain injury at much earlier stages, and ensure that people in this country have the right to support in that regard. I pay tribute to them for their efforts over the years to deal with the pain of that loss and the tragic circumstances around it, and to use their energy and time to campaign for change. They know, as I do, that any action plan must be wide-ranging, comprehensive and multifaceted, because the prevalence of acquired brain injury among those with contact with the criminal justice system is reported to be around the 46% to 60% overall, between 50% to 87% among children, and 78% among women.
I have supported the work of Brainkind, an organisation that has evidenced the impact of brain injury on domestic abuse survivors. Its report, “Too Many to Count”, found that one in two survivors of domestic abuse may have sustained a brain injury, often through blows to the head or through non-fatal strangulation. As chair of the domestic violence and abuse all-party parliamentary group, I know that our membership is well aware of the correlation between women in prison and undiagnosed conditions such as acquired brain injury.
What is important for a revised or shorter action plan is to ensure that Departments and services speak to one another—that should be worked into the action plan itself—and that there are duties placed on national bodies, Government services and social services to collect and analyse data, and to share it with each other. Ultimately, if we look at the case of Imran, even just data collection and sharing between services could have perhaps prevented his death.
It is also important to ensure that the action plan invests in awareness training and support. Brainkind is doing some work around that, and has developed a new free tool—not a diagnostic tool, but a tool that professionals can use for support when working with survivors of acquired brain injury. Those are the areas that we need to look at if we want not just to present, but to deliver an action plan that can be passed through as soon as possible.
My constituent Amy has shown incredible resilience and fortitude; she is someone who reflects on what happened to her son and commits herself to trying to change things in society. While she continues to advocate for changes to the way in which serious case reviews are conducted, and to the difficult, onerous processes around them, she knows that the picture is much larger. It is a nationwide issue and it needs a national framework.
I mention Amy again because there is a need for serious case reviews, and I saw what she and Imran’s father Masum went through in trying to secure one. From my engagement with the all-party parliamentary group for acquired brain injury, and with other survivors and families that I have met, I can say that the thresholds that need to be met for a serious case review are applied inconsistently by local government and social services across the country. That is why there are not that many serious case reviews—I appreciate that they are reviews of serious cases, but the threshold seems incredibly high, even when a situation presents itself where it is probably better to have one than not.
I raise that issue because some of these matters could be addressed through a strategy and a more focused, shortened, action-oriented plan for the issue. A number of campaigners have called for data collection, analysis, awareness, training, data sharing and collaboration. I started engaging on these issues and matters as a result of my constituents’ case. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) mentioned, since about 2020 we have had lots of discussions, meetings and engagement. Progress was made under the previous Government to present a strategy, but we need to deliver it now. It has been five years since I started engaging on these issues. We need a society where no one loses their life to murder or suicide. I hope that the Minister can relay to us some form of timeline for when action plans and strategies can be delivered.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair this afternoon, Dame Siobhain. I sincerely thank the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for securing this debate, for his thoughtful remarks and for his advocacy on this subject over many years.
As we have heard, an acquired brain injury is an injury to the brain occurring after birth, often caused by a car accident, a fall or, as hon. Members have said, a sports incident. The consequences can be profound. Acquired brain injuries can alter movement, senses, memory, reasoning, personality and emotions. In other words, they can change the entire direction of a person’s life and the lives of their families and carers.
Although the injury itself may often be sudden, the struggle that follows is not. For better or worse, it is shaped by the systems meant to support recovery. At present, those systems are failing far too many people. For years we have seen the same problems persisting: too little access to specialist rehabilitation, chronic workforce shortages, incomplete data, fragmented commissioning and Departments that do not work together. Those failings translate directly into poorer recoveries, greater long-term disability and immense emotional and financial strain on families and the economy.
The NHS 10-year health plan committed to delivering effective rehabilitation in the community—a promise that was warmly welcomed, but it is frustratingly vague. We know that access to rehabilitation is central to enabling people with an ABI to live fulfilling, independent lives, and that rehabilitation works best when delivered by a skilled multidisciplinary team. Despite that, rehabilitation remains underfunded, understaffed and inconsistent across the country. Earlier this year, the UK Acquired Brain Injury Forum published a report that laid bare the scale of the challenge and the opportunities to tackle it. It is estimated that acquired brain injuries directly cost the UK economy £43 billion every year, while ABI-related wellbeing costs amount to £91.5 billion. Crucially, as the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) said, neuro-rehabilitation yields a remarkable 16:1 return on investment.
The message is clear: investing in rehabilitation is not only the right thing to do morally, but one of the smartest decisions economically. Yet local capacity is shrinking when it should be expanding. Headway UK recently revealed that delays in receiving payments from local authorities and ICBs have had severe impacts on local brain injury services. My constituents in Mid Sussex are lucky enough to have Headway Sussex, which partners with brilliant local organisations such as Carers Support West Sussex. However, in the past two years alone, almost 10% of local Headway groups have been forced to close their doors. Each closure represents a community losing vital expertise and support.
There has been some progress. In October 2025, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence published new guidance on rehabilitation for chronic neurological disorders, including ABI. The evidence underpinning that guidance showed what people with ABI have known for a long time: that many do not feel empowered to share feedback, that often rehabilitation is considered only once symptoms already affect daily life, and that people with acquired brain injuries typically need cycles of intensive treatment followed by lighter ongoing support. The new NICE standards set out clear minimum expectations across all health, mental health and social care settings, but they are just that—expectations.
In July, in response to a written question from my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour), the Government confirmed their intention to publish an acquired brain injury action plan in autumn 2025. As the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings noted in his opening remarks, we are yet to see that plan. This follows years of long overdue commitments from the previous Conservative Government, who, having consulted in 2022, promised an ABI strategy back in 2024. People with an acquired brain injury should not have to wait any longer. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I believe the Government must publish that action plan without delay, and it must include a commitment that every person with an acquired brain injury has access to a named GP.
Continuity of care is essential and at the heart of Liberal Democrat policy, but our vision goes further. We are fighting for better social care for disabled people, including free personal care, more support for family carers, more respite breaks and paid carer’s leave. That would offer desperately needed stability to families who have been carrying the burden alone for too long. We would extend the right to flexible working to everyone and give every disabled person the right to work from home, unless there are compelling business reasons not to.
We want people with an acquired brain injury to live not only independently, but with dignity and opportunity. To make that a reality, we would adopt new accessibility standards for public spaces, modernise the blue badge system and incorporate the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities into UK law. We would also introduce adjustment passports, ensuring that support and equipment stay with the person, not the employer, when someone changes jobs. Those are practical reforms, grounded in common sense.
However, we simply cannot talk about acquired brain injuries without talking about the crisis in social care. People with long-term conditions such as an acquired brain injury often have the most complex needs, yet they are among those suffering the most from the failings of the system. Hundreds of thousands of people are waiting for care, and many are stranded in hospital beds because the support they need simply does not exist in the community. In my time since being elected, I have heard that from constituents in Mid Sussex. The situation is bad not only for those individuals, but for the NHS, and it is disastrous for the taxpayer.
The Liberal Democrats would fix the back door of the NHS by introducing free personal care based on the successful Scottish model, creating a social care workforce plan, establishing a college of care workers, raising the carers’ minimum wage and ensuring that unpaid carers get the respite breaks and financial support they deserve and need. The Liberal Democrats would reverse the increase in national insurance contributions and invest directly in community nursing. We would create an independent pay review body, implement a 10-year retention plan and expand access to flexible working and childcare. We would reduce reliance on expensive agency staffing by rebuilding a flexible and sustainable NHS workforce.
People with acquired brain injuries and their families and carers deserve better. Our country, which bears the enormous economic and social cost of inaction, deserves better too. It is time for the Government to act, so I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say today.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) on securing a debate on a subject that I know is important to him, to many of our constituents and to the whole House. The brain is so important. It is responsible for moving and thinking, homeostasis, consciousness, our senses and how we interpret the world—essentially, it makes us the people that we are. Acquired brain injuries are therefore an important issue.
As other hon. Members have said, acquired brain injuries are the leading cause of death and disability in those aged between one and 40. Every 90 seconds, someone somewhere in this country—over 330,000 people per year—is admitted to hospital with acquired brain injury. They can have difficulties with walking, with talking, with moving, with thinking skills, with tiredness and fatigue, and with changes in personality. People can have one large brain injury with devastating effects, but they can also have multiple, small, almost unnoticed brain injuries, the cumulative effect of which can be quite severe, and the long-term effects of which can lead to dementia.
The previous Government began work on an acquired brain injury plan and made a public call for evidence in 2022. Unfortunately, that work was interrupted somewhat by the general election. It has been picked up by the current Government, who say they will publish such a plan; it is nearly the end of the year, and I hope they are not going to break that promise, and add to the list of the many other plans that they have delayed. Will the Minister tell us when the plan is going to be published? When it is published, will it include the evidence given in response to the 2022 public call for evidence by so many stakeholders, charities and other relevant organisations?
What should that plan contain? I will look at it from the perspective of this Government, who are looking for the three shifts in healthcare. First, they want to move toward prevention. It seems sensible to prevent brain injury in the first place, if we can, and we know some things that we can do. When I was a teenager, horse-riding and skiing were usually done without helmets; that would be very unusual now. We have not been so successful with cycling: people know that wearing a helmet is wise, to prevent brain injury, but if we looked outside into Parliament Square, we would see lots of cyclists, many of whom are not wearing a helmet that could protect them from brain injury. What are the Government doing to make people more aware of ways that they can protect themselves from brain injury? Concussion management guidance for those taking part in elite, amateur and school sport is important, as others have said today.
Stroke is a form of acquired brain injury and I spoke to representatives of the Stroke Association earlier this term. They talked about two things that can help to prevent or limit brain injury from stroke: first, blood pressure checks and identifying previously undiagnosed hypertension, and secondly, mechanical thrombectomy, which limits the injury that occurs.
The previous Government rolled out blood pressure checks to thousands of pharmacies across the country. Will the Minister update us on what further steps have been taken to identify undiagnosed hypertension since she came into office? The previous Government also began to roll out mechanical thrombectomy. I understand that this Government intend to ensure that a universal service for that technique is available by Easter next year. Essentially, mechanical thrombectomy is when an interventional neuroradiologist takes a wire into the vessels, floats it up into the brain and mechanically removes a clot. It is particularly helpful for people who have had a large stroke where the damage is not yet complete in the brain. Damage can be limited significantly by the use of that very clever procedure.
Earlier this week, I was kindly invited to visit the mechanical thrombectomy service in Romford and see the work done there. I was told about the delay that can occur due to inter-hospital transfer. The Minister, in response to written parliamentary questions, has talked about what constitutes a universal service: it is being able to access a service within four hours. One limit to that ability, as I understand it, is that when someone who has had a stroke attends a hospital that does not offer a mechanical thrombectomy service, the time it takes to transfer them to a hospital that does, after acceptance for the process, affects people’s ability to have that lifesaving in some cases, and certainly disability-saving, treatment.
When I was a junior doctor, I was lucky enough to care for people taking part in the total body hypothermia for neonatal encephalopathy trial—the TOBY trial. Essentially, we took babies who had suffered a brain injury around the time of birth and cooled their whole body to reduce the brain injury that they suffered. That was very effective, and became standard practice. What is the Minister doing to help people who want to do research into other ways of reducing brain injury? How is she helping with research, and what is she doing to sponsor it?
What work is the Minister doing with the social care teams at the Department for Education? One of the sad things that I have seen during my time as a consultant paediatrician is children with inflicted injury—particularly babies. In many cases their injuries should have been preventable because those families were known to social care before the injury occurred. What is being done to protect those extremely vulnerable children? There are other causes of acquired brain injury too. Could the Minister talk about what she thinks the most important causes are and what she and the Government are doing to reduce their incidence?
The other shift that the Government want is from hospital into the community. I was lucky to meet Headway Lincolnshire this week, which told me that there were only 12 in-patient beds available for acute brain injury rehab across Lincolnshire. That is not sufficient. When the charity provides counselling services, it has to do so online from outside the county because there is no one available in the county to provide them. What is the Minister doing to ensure that there is good neuro-rehab across the country, including in rural areas? Also, what is the Minister doing to make sure that rehab is long term? Neuro-recovery takes a long time. It is not just a case of a couple of appointments on leaving hospital; it needs to be over a more sustained period.
For people suffering complex injury, there are many professionals involved. Some people will have a physio, an occupational therapist, a speech and language therapist, nurses, doctors, carers and many others. NICE’s new neuro-rehab guidelines, published in October, talk about how it is difficult for patients to negotiate that, and they recommend a single point of contact. Does the Minister plan to ensure that that NICE recommendation is delivered? If so, how and when?
I would like to pay particular tribute to a young lady I met recently who is one of my constituents. She experienced a traumatic brain injury as a child, but with her determination, great family and community support and rehab, she has made a good recovery and is training as a nurse so that she can help others who suffer as she has. She is an incredibly impressive young woman. She highlighted to me the need for better rehab and school support. I urge the Minister to ensure that they are delivered.
The final shift that the Minister has talked about is from analogue to digital. Digital offers us huge capacity in rehabilitation from acquired brain injury. I talked to a gentleman who had had a stroke and was admitted to a rehab unit where he got involved in Wii Fit—a Nintendo game from some time ago. He was using it along with another person who was recovering from a stroke at the same time, and they became very competitive at these balance and movement games. That really helped them to recover. What is being done to make rehab more fun or competitive? Some of the exercises that people are asked to do can be quite difficult. How can we make them more enjoyable? There are apps available to improve communication, memory and fine motor skills, and virtual reality can help with cognitive rehab. How is the Minister ensuring that those are available to all who would benefit from them?
In summary, we need a detailed plan looking at prevention, acute treatment and rehabilitation. I hope it will not be delayed in the same way as all the other Government plans seem to be. I also hope that it will contain a delivery chapter that sets out not just what the Government want to do, but how they want to do it and when they want to do it by. Will the Minister confirm whether the relevant workforce will be included in the plan, or whether we will have to wait for the long-delayed workforce plan? Neuro-rehabilitation is really difficult, but many people show huge courage and determination in their work to rehabilitate. We need to support them in every way that we can.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) on securing this important debate on an issue that touches many thousands of lives across the country. I acknowledge and thank all hon. Members for the stories of their constituents that they have shared today.
I begin by paying tribute to the right hon. Gentleman and the all-party parliamentary group for acquired brain injury for shining a light on what has too often been an invisible issue. Through its recent report, “Right to Rehab: The Cost of Acquired Brain Injury to the UK Economy”, the all-party group, ably supported by the UK Acquired Brain Injury Forum, has demonstrated both the human and the economic imperative for action. That report reveals the staggering £43 billion annual cost of ABI to our economy. It makes a compelling case for improved rehabilitation, cross-Government co-ordination and investment in specialist services. That work has helped to drive vital conversations across health, justice, education and beyond to ensure that people living with ABI are no longer overlooked.
Recently, I was delighted to be able to attend and speak at the UKABIF annual ABI summit last month, where I met key stakeholders, including people with lived experience, for a panel discussion on the stage and at a separate meeting afterwards. I have taken away some important calls for action from those discussions. The Government have also listened to the calls of the all-party group and others for a dedicated plan. I reassure the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings and others that we remain committed to delivering on that promise.
In the coming months, in the first half of next year, I confirm that we will publish the acquired brain injury action plan, a landmark step in delivering the joined-up approach that people with ABI deserve. I also confirm that when we publish it, that plan will draw on a wide range of evidence, including the evidence that was submitted in the 2022 call for evidence. The plan will set out clear priorities across health, social care, education, justice and beyond in a bid to move towards rehabilitation and long-term support being better embedded throughout public services. It will reflect continuing engagement with clinicians, charities and people with lived experience. It will provide the blueprint for improving outcomes, reducing inequalities and supporting independence.
Sir John Hayes
All the Minister has said so far is incredibly welcome. On ministerial engagement, given what she said about the cross-departmental working, which I called for earlier, is she engaged with the Ministers in those Departments in drawing up the plan and, if so, how?
Ashley Dalton
I am just coming to that, so the right hon. Member’s intervention was very timely. As has been highlighted, the plan matters, because ABI is not just a health issue; it touches education, employment, justice, work, benefits, housing, homelessness and many other areas of life. Without co-ordinated action, too many people will continue to fall through the gaps.
In the first instance, therefore, I have started conversations with ministerial colleagues who have responsibility for education at the DFE, for the criminal justice system at the MOJ, for housing and homelessness at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and for work and benefits at the Department for Work and Pensions. The Department also reached out to those working on transport, sport and defence, among others, asking them to commit to tangible actions in the ABI plan. I note the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith)—he is no longer in his place—and we will give that consideration.
The plan will build on already excellent work that is going on across Whitehall, helping to tackle the impacts of ABI directly or indirectly. That includes the Ministry of Justice’s update to its new neurodiversity action plan; working with the Department for Transport on its road safety strategy; the Department for Education’s planned consultation on an updated version of supporting pupils with medical conditions at school; and the Home Office-led work to tackle domestic abuse.
I also confirm, as was raised by the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), that the Government are committed to advancing research into ABI in sport. We recognise the significant impact of sports-related head injuries on long-term health outcomes. Through the National Institute for Health and Care Research, we are co-funding a major initiative, the UK traumatic brain injury platform. In addition, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport established the concussion in sport research forum, in which we are working alongside them.
We recognise that developing the plan is taking slightly longer than we had originally wished, but I reassure right hon. and hon. Members that that is not because of a lack of commitment; it is because we want to get it right. We want to take ABI stakeholders with us and to set the plan against the new health and social care landscape described in this summer’s 10-year health plan. In Manchester last month, I had the opportunity, as I said, to hear directly about potential solutions and opportunities from those at the coalface.
ABI affects every facet of life, and creating a plan that truly delivers requires co-ordination across multiple Departments and extensive stakeholder engagement, as well as alignment with wider reforms and developments such as the 10-year health plan, neighbourhood health services, new NICE guidance on rehabilitation and NHS England’s recently refreshed service specification for adult neurology services. That will mean that, although the report may be slightly delayed, it will have a comprehensive cross-Government approach to drive real change by improving rehabilitation, reducing inequalities and supporting people with ABI to live independent and fulfilling lives.
I know that the all-party group, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash), and the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett), all recognise that rehabilitation is the cornerstone of recovery and independence. Reports from the APPG and UKABIF have made it clear that timely, specialist rehabilitation can transform lives. Rehabilitation is what turns survival into quality of life, enabling people to return to work, education and their communities. The APPG has consistently championed a statutory right to rehabilitation because it knows that too many people face fragmented services and missed opportunities, and as a result their health deteriorates once they are back in the community.
What the final action plan will say on community rehabilitation will be worked through carefully with stakeholders and with NHS England to ensure that we get it right. We must ensure that our proposals are feasible and viable. However, at the absolute minimum, it will highlight the new NICE guidelines on rehabilitation, setting the expectation that the NHS should take these into account, as well as showcasing the best practice that already exists.
Many hon. and right hon. Members raised data sharing. I am keen to pursue better data sharing on ABI across Departments and the NHS to ensure that our response is joined up and that it improves patient identification, care and support. Rehabilitation is a central focus of our 10-year health plan, which recognises that timely, high-quality rehabilitation reduces long-term disability, improves quality of life and saves significant costs for both health and social care. By embedding rehabilitation into integrated care pathways, expanding community-based services and investing in specialist multidisciplinary teams, the 10-year health plan will ensure that support is available when and where it is needed, including for people who have experienced ABI. That commitment reflects a shift towards person-centred care, helping people to regain skills, to return to work or education, and to live fulfilling lives after serious illness or injury.
Through the 10-year health plan, we are introducing neighbourhood health centres and deploying multi- disciplinary teams to provide holistic support to people with conditions like ABI. We know that every ABI journey is different, and recovery depends on care that reflects individual needs, goals and circumstances. That is why the plan promises to expand personalised care approaches, giving people a say in their care. We commit, therefore, to providing 95% of people with complex needs with a personalised care plan by 2027. That means that people with ABI will benefit from structured and co-ordinated support that is tailored to their needs. The expansion of personal health budgets outlined in the health plan will give people greater flexibility, choice and control over their care.
Our digital transformation commitments will make a real difference too. By improving data sharing between health, social care and rehabilitation services, we can ensure continuity of care and avoid delays. Digital care plans will allow patients and professionals to track progress and adjust goals in real time. Those innovations mean more personalised and co-ordinated care. I am really keen to explore better data collection and sharing between the NHS, patient groups, researchers and those with lived experience across my long-term conditions portfolio, which includes ABI. There are ongoing discussions within the Department on how we might be able to improve the quality of, and access to, health data. I know that there is some great data out there, but too often access to it is too restricted.
The Government will publish the 10-year workforce plan in spring 2026. This will set out action to create a workforce that is ready to deliver the transformed service set out in the 10-year health plan.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) mentioned mental health. NHS talking therapies have a specific pathway for people with long-term physical health conditions, including ABI, and all ICBs are expected to expand services locally by commissioning NHS talking therapies services integrated into physical healthcare pathways, including those for ABI.
Together with the ABI action plan, the 10-year health plan and the 10-year workforce plan will represent a step change in how we support people with ABI. The action plan will deliver a joined-up approach across health, social care, education, justice and beyond, ensuring that rehabilitation and long-term support are no longer fragmented. The 10-year health plan complements this by embedding personalised care planning, expanding community rehabilitation and harnessing digital innovation. These commitments will mean better access to timely, tailored services, improved continuity of care, and a focus on independence and quality of life. By working collaboratively across Government, the NHS and stakeholders will turn these plans into action and deliver the outcomes that people with ABI deserve.
I have covered as many issues as possible. There are some that I do not have immediate information about, but I will write after the debate to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), about her question on mechanical thrombectomy. By working together right across Government and making sure we have joined-up data and joined-up thinking, we will bring forward the action plan on ABI in the first half of 2026 to deliver the outcomes that people with ABI deserve and need.
Sir John Hayes
This has been an extremely good debate. Contributions from across the Chamber have illustrated how strongly Members feel about the need for exactly the kind of strategy that the Minister has confirmed the Government will introduce. It is welcome that the Minister has recommitted to that plan. I offer thanks and a warning. The thanks are because she clearly understands and takes this seriously. The warning is that if we do not see the plan, we will be back, and next time we will be altogether more fierce.
While we have been debating these matters, tens of people, scores of people, have been admitted to hospital with an acquired brain injury—extraordinary. I can tell from all the contributions, including from my great friend on the Front Bench of my party, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), and from Members across the House that the plight of those with ABI is our cause and their needs are our mission. Let us do all we can to ease their plight and meet their needs.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the potential merits of a comprehensive acquired brain injury action plan.
Seafarers’ Welfare
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered seafarers’ welfare.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. The UK is an island nation. Our history and economy have been defined by maritime trade. That is certainly true in my constituency of Thurrock. Part of our local identity is shaped by our position as a key port in the Thames estuary—from the instrumental role Thurrock played in the D-day preparations to the arrival of the Empire Windrush at Tilbury to help to rebuild the nation in the post-war period.
The shipping industry has driven economic growth. The port of Tilbury in my constituency, and the nearby London Gateway, act as key links in the supply chain that keeps our country moving, bringing significant investment and economic opportunity into the region. Some 95% of this country’s goods and services arrive by sea, with Thurrock’s ports receiving more than 65 million tonnes of cargo a year to quite literally keep our country moving.
It is easy to forget the people at the heart of the industry: the seafarers who staff the ships to bring goods to our shores. Their impact in Thurrock and the country as a whole is profound. More than 160,000 seafarers work in the UK shipping industry. Without them, and international seafarers, our supermarket shelves would be empty within seven days. As we enter the run-up to Christmas, the busiest time of the year for the shipping industry, many of us will be opening presents brought here on ships.
Yet the workforce are often overlooked. Seafarer charities call this phenomenon sea blindness—out of sight, out of mind. They remind us that welfare standards slip when no one is watching, particularly aboard deep-sea vessels. Many workers live in cramped conditions, performing physical roles with limited opportunities for rest. When crews are small, long shifts mean that sleep deprivation and chronic fatigue are common. This can be incredibly dangerous, especially when staff are handling complex machinery. It also drives poor mental health among crews. Loneliness and isolation are common, as they are separated from their families for often months at a time.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
The Queen Victoria Seafarers Rest, established in 1843, has a long history of serving those in need, both on land and at sea, including through its accommodation centre in my constituency, which is a safe haven for many hundreds of active and retired seafarers, including from the Somali community, who are in need of a home. Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to Alexander Campbell, who is in the Public Gallery and who leads a fantastic team? Does she agree that although charities are central to meeting the statutory obligations to seafarers, they are underfunded, and that we need to address the deep inequalities in the provision of seafarer welfare at UK ports?
Jen Craft
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I will come on to talk at length about the charitable contribution made by organisations such as the Queen Victoria Seafarers Rest. I am familiar with its work in her constituency and in mine. I do not think we can overstate the contribution that organisation makes to the welfare of seafarers, and to maintaining the shipping industry as a whole.
Mental health among crews is at a low and, tragically, suicide rates are higher among seafarers than among the wider population. We must do a much better job of supporting seafarers and ensure that they receive the same support as our domestic workforce. The Government have a key role to play in that.
The Employment Rights Bill is a critical step, paving the way for a legally binding seafarers’ charter that will help to root out poor practice in the industry. It aims to limit maximum periods of work at sea, improve safety training and strengthen laws around mandatory rest. Importantly, the Bill also combats unacceptable fire-and-rehire cycles. Trade unions such as the RMT have shone a light on these issues and stood up for British workers when they have been at the sharp end of the practice in the past.
The challenge now is to ensure that our interventions make a real difference for workers. If international partners are able to sidestep their obligations, UK nationals will lose out. We must not allow a situation in which the welfare and pay protections afforded to British seafarers put them at a competitive disadvantage.
It is encouraging to see our Government working to combat the issues, teaming up with signatories to the international maritime convention to drive up standards together. Tackling abuse and malpractice in the seafarer sector will, however, require a co-ordinated international approach. I would welcome any update from the Minister on engagement with our international partners to that effect.
Next year, new amendments to the international maritime convention come into force, including measures to strengthen repatriation rights. They will be critical for seafarers. Across the world, ship owners who face legal disputes or financial challenges are abandoning vessels in ports. Crew are left without pay, food or access to vital medical equipment. The issue has grown increasingly severe, and 2024 was the worst year on record, with more than 2,000 seafarers left to fend for themselves. Many have family at home who rely on their income. When a ship is abandoned, whole communities suffer.
The issue is more common abroad, but the UK has been affected on several occasions. Even when vessels are not abandoned, seafarers may find themselves stuck for weeks following ship arrests. This has happened several times in my constituency, with a notable incident at Purfleet-on-Thames last year that also highlighted why port-side support services are so important.
Several charities do excellent work in this space, including the Queen Victoria Seafarers Rest and the Merchant Navy Welfare Board. I offer my thanks for their tireless efforts, and for the tireless work of their volunteers—especially those who serve in my constituency at the Queen Victoria Seafarers Rest in Tilbury. I am incredibly impressed by their support for seafarers who come into port. They offer a brilliant service, including port transport, free wi-fi and fresh food. They also run a bar, host social events and assist with safeguarding concerns when necessary.
The latest Seafarers Rest project, wrapping 3,000 Christmas presents for seafarers, is well under way. I was pleased to lend a hand last month. Every seafarer receives either a hat, scarf or pair of mittens; SIM cards so that they can contact their family; a little bit extra and a chocolate bar. Importantly, they all receive a handwritten card thanking them for their efforts, on behalf of the people who are on the receiving end of all their hard work. For many people, this is the only Christmas present they will get.
While I was at the Seafarers Rest, one of the volunteers shared the story of a sea captain who came to visit. He was 17 the first time he went to sea, and he spent Christmas away from home. He was Norwegian, and he went to a similar set-up—not in this country but abroad—and was given a Christmas present. He still remembers it and still has the woolly hat that someone, somewhere knitted for him. He said it meant the world and lifted his spirits. So the efforts the volunteers put in do not go unnoticed, and we should all be grateful for what they do.
Unfortunately, such support is not in place across the country. Facilities like the Queen Victoria Seafarers Rest in my patch exist at only about 40% of all UK ports. Where services are available, many face financial uncertainty. Meeting their running costs can be a challenge, with most sites needing £170 a day to keep the doors open. Their funding comes from a variety of sources: funds from the Government, donations from shipping companies or port authorities, and fundraising efforts by the centres themselves. Some welfare centres have strong partnerships with the local port, but that is not the case across the board. In practice, voluntary organisations bear most of the financial burden for welfare support, relying on fundraising efforts to fill the financial shortfall and subsidise the costs that should fall to shipping companies to care for their own workforce.
There are long-term solutions that could be explored. A small opt-out levy charged to vessels entering UK ports could be a game changer. Just £50 per visit would make a significant difference. To put it in perspective, the cost of bringing a large ship into port often exceeds £100,000, so a small £50 donation would represent only a fraction of that cost.
Throughout the country, 25 ports have already implemented similar schemes, with varying levels of success. Levies have been most effective where port owners communicate with shipping companies, emphasising the importance of independent welfare support. Humber port, for example, raised over £72,000 last year by being proactive with its levy system. However, in ports where intervention is more limited, ships that often pay £100,000 or more in fees will regularly refuse to make a £25 donation. Currently, the total income generated from levies represents only 3% to 4% of the funds that UK charities require. I urge the Government to look into the idea and to work with ports and shipping companies to explore how to scale up schemes across the country.
Several other countries, including France, Germany and New Zealand, already have successful models in place. I encourage Members with significant ports in their constituencies to contact the local port authority to ask whether they would consider implementing an opt-out levy. For many vehicles, £50 represents less than 0.03% of docking costs. A levy would create a reliable, long-term funding stream for seafarers’ welfare. It would make a huge difference and give the organisations that work tirelessly to support them financial security into the future.
The Government are making historic progress on seafarers’ welfare, but it is vital that we continue to build on that momentum in ports and at sea. I look forward to the implementation of the mandatory seafarers’ charter and the Employment Rights Bill, which will deliver significant change, but we can go further in supporting the seafaring community, whose needs are often overlooked. The Government have a key role to play, working with ports, shipping companies, trade unions and international partners to drive better employment standards and improve welfare support. We must all remember what seafarers do for our country: their contribution is invaluable and cannot be overlooked.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) on securing this important debate, because we are indeed a maritime nation.
Sir Christopher,
“I must go down to the seas again, for the call of the running tide
Is a wild call and a clear call that may not be denied”—
John Masefield’s poem “Sea-Fever” brilliantly captures the magnetic draw of the ocean which, as an island nation, we feel acutely. Yet to be a sailor is not for everyone. My father was a sailor all his working life—a marine engineer who qualified on steam power and ended up on jet engines. His career spanned deep-sea tankers and roll-on, roll-off ferries, and he visited much of the world—or at least sailed past it. However, the salt water in his veins was not passed down to me, for I get seasick in a bath. That does not mean that I cannot appreciate what it is to be a sailor, and I want to express how important maritime traffic is to this country.
My Dumfries and Galloway constituency has the ferry port of Cairnryan, which is a vital link with our friends in Northern Ireland. Our stunning coastline is studded with harbours—Kirkcudbright, Garlieston, the Isle of Whithorn, Port William and Portpatrick—which are used for leisure craft while the working boats win a valuable harvest of seafood from our pristine waters. Yet for all its romance, the sea is a tough place to make a living and, like all coastal communities, Dumfries and Galloway knows just how steep a price it can exact. The motor vessel Princess Victoria left my hometown of Stranraer—ironically with the motto “Safe harbour”—on 31 January 1953, but it never reached Larne. The more recent losses of the trawler Mhari-L and the scallop dredger Solway Harvester, with all 12 hands, are still raw.
Happily, support for our sailors comes from many sources, including the Mission to Seafarers Scotland and the Scottish Nautical Welfare Society, but I want to highlight the charity Combat Stress. As well as reaching out to veterans of the Royal Navy, it also helps with the mental health issues of former members of the merchant navy, which was Britain’s lifeline in wartime, and is very much the same today. As a journalist, I worked closely with the late Colonel Clive Fairweather, who was second in command of 22 SAS and commanding officer of the King’s Own Scottish Borderers. This tough infantryman was clear that Combat Stress’ outreach to the merchant navy was key. He would say:
“Worse things do happen at sea”,
acknowledging the strain that a life on the ocean waves can exert.
We all, in our comfortable lives, owe a debt of gratitude to the men and, increasingly, women who sail the planet’s one great ocean for us all. They are the ones who answer the call of the sea that was captured so well by Masefield:
“I must go down to the seas again, to the vagrant gypsy life,
To the gull’s way and the whale’s way where the wind’s like a whetted knife”.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I genuinely congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) on securing the debate, which she introduced eloquently. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am the convenor of the RMT parliamentary group.
I want to start by referring to the loss of life in the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. A few weeks ago, we lost a crew member. The Royal Fleet Auxiliary has civilian crew; they are not Royal Navy, but they work alongside it. During a debate a few weeks ago, we were passed a note saying that one of our RMT members had lost his life overboard. I can now say that his name was James Elliott. On behalf of us all, I want to repeat our condolences to his family. I also pay tribute to the RFA for the essential role it plays alongside our Royal Navy and the work it does in protecting our shores. These are civilian crew. There was some confusion on the day, because the BBC reported that it was a member of the Royal Navy. It is important that we improve communication, because that caused some distress among a number of families who were trying to find out what had happened.
I met some RFA-RMT representatives today, who asked me to raise the fact that in the defence review there is a reference to the Royal Fleet Auxiliary that is causing some confusion about the role it will play and what investment there will be. I ask the Minister to pass on to his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence the message that the RMT would welcome a meeting with the Secretary of State or a Minister as soon as possible to discuss the defence review.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock said, one of the issues is that seafarers’ welfare is directly related to the conditions of their employment, which are governed by the International Labour Organisation’s maritime labour convention. That is the primary legislation that sets out legal standards for seafarers. In this country, the UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency is the competent authority for ensuring that every UK vessel, or vessel entering our ports, complies with that legislation. There are specific legal responsibilities under the convention on welfare standards.
As my hon. Friend said, we have 160,000 seafarers—unfortunately, fewer and fewer are British, but that is the overall number. They work on UK and internationally flagged ships in UK ports. At the moment, there are 120 Maritime and Coastguard Agency staff who undertake surveys and inspections. Last year, they undertook about 2,800 inspections and 3,000 surveys on UK-flagged ships, and 1,500 port state control inspections on international ships. There are 100,000 vessels calling into UK ports every year, and there is a real concern that, with so few staff, the ratio of inspections for the ships is insubstantial. For some time now, there have been calls for an increase in resources for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.
My hon. Friend raised our concern that, for the last 40 years at least, there has been a tendency for shipowners to flag elsewhere, rather than the UK, with the aim of reducing labour costs. They do that, as my hon. Friend said, by putting pressure on the workforce. The number of ships registered elsewhere is startling. The practice of registering under a flag of convenience has begun to dominate the industry. Ships are registered in places such as Panama, the Marshall Islands, Liberia, Cyprus, the Bahamas and Malta, and that undermines the ability to maintain standards of basic welfare for seafarers. Huge numbers of ships are registered in the Philippines, Indonesia, China, India, Ukraine and Russia. Some of those countries undertake no inspection of their vessels whatsoever. They fail to manage welfare standards, which has resulted in a reduction in those standards and even, as my hon. Friend said, in tragedies, because of the pressure the workforce are under.
Like my hon. Friend, I welcome the fact the Government are seeking to address a range of these issues. The mandatory seafarers’ charter that has been introduced in the Employment Rights Bill is a huge step forward for us, and I congratulate the Government on it. The charter arose, as my hon. Friend said, partly out of the P&O scandal, whereby P&O just sacked its entire workforce. That was a scandal recognised across the House, and it should not have happened. P&O sacked its entire workforce, introduced agency staff on lower wages with no holiday or sick pay, and paid the minimum amount that it could possibly get away with. Exactly as my hon. Friend said, that means that those agency staff are working under intense pressure, which inevitably has consequences for safety.
Safety is one of our main worries, which is why the mandatory seafarers’ charter is so important. It was introduced to protect seafarers in the short-sea ferries sector, regardless of their nationality or the flag of the vessel they work on. It will cover standards of pay, roster patterns and other employment conditions through collectively bargained standards in the industry. It will also set out maximum periods of work at sea and minimum periods of rest, which is absolutely critical. There will be robust requirements to manage seafarer fatigue, which is an issue that my hon. Friend raised so forcefully. It will reinforce training requirements for operators, such as familiarisation with the vessel, to support safety and skills, so that the seafarers have the time to understand and appreciate what is needed on a particular vessel. There will also be strong standards of sick pay, holiday pay and pension rights, which is vital.
This charter is a major breakthrough, and the unions really welcomed it. Progress is being made and at the RMT union executive meeting this morning we discussed that. The RMT welcomes the detailed consultation that will take place in the coming months and the roll-out of the charter itself.
However, I will now raise the issue of discrimination within the sector. I have been involved in this campaign for nearly 30 years, but the issue has gone on for 50 years. It remains legal to practise nationality-based pay discrimination against non-EU nationals working as seafarers on UK-flagged ships. That is a discriminatory practice. It originates in part 9 of the Race Relations Act 1976, which explicitly permits racial discrimination against seafarers recruited overseas to work on UK-flagged ships for lower pay and longer periods than UK nationals.
Way back in 2009, I was involved in the fight against this discrimination. Gordon Brown’s Labour Government initiated the Carter review to make recommendations on ending discriminatory seafarer pay differentials. Susan Carter, who led the review, recommended in 2010 that nationality-based seafarer pay differentials should be prohibited on all UK ships. The proposal was supported by the union, but unfortunately it was rejected by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Government who came into office in 2010.
The estimate emerging from surveys by the union is that tens of thousands of seafarers working today in the UK shipping industry are paid less than UK seafarers, simply because of their nationality and the flag of the ship that they work on. This situation impedes progress to improve seafarer welfare overall, both at the national level and the international level. The UK Government introduced secondary regulations in 2011 to do the bare minimum to avoid legal action by the European Commission over the continued practice of nationality-based pay discrimination among seafarers. I attended the Committee that agreed those regulations. They have been subject to two reviews that have never been concluded, which contravenes the post-implementation review regulations for a review to be carried out every five years.
Another consultation was held just before the 2024 general election, and the current Government are now seeking to reconsult. With one action—one effective piece of regulation—we as a Government could end nationality-based pay discrimination on UK-flagged ships. It would raise welfare standards in shipping and reinforce our country’s reputation as the gold standard in seafarer welfare and maritime safety provision. I urge the Government to act on this swiftly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock mentioned support for charitable organisations and others in supporting seafarer welfare and the potential of a levy. Levies operate very successfully in many other countries. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency and the Merchant Navy Welfare Board have recommitted themselves to joint working on seafarer welfare and met last month to do that, which we welcome. However, without the resources, effective action will be very limited.
We have looked at what has happened elsewhere. Levy systems, including mandatory payments, are used by other maritime nations. They fund seafarer port facilities. We have heard some fantastic examples of those today. In New Zealand, the then Labour Government introduced a mandatory levy to fund shore-side facilities in 2022, which influenced the thinking in Australia as well. In Europe, France has operated a mandatory seafarer welfare levy system since 2016, and there are levy systems in Germany, Spain and Romania. It is critical that we introduce such a system.
One example of the issues that we are increasingly dealing with at the moment is the abandonment of seafarers. They are recruited in one country, reach our country and then abandoned by the ship owners. That is happening more frequently across the globe. Yes, we can legislate for protections as best we can, but we need the wherewithal—the resources going into the charities and agencies that can help those seafarers, who are lost in a foreign country and bereft of support. Overall, a real programme of reform is needed.
Raising the issue of mental health has been one of the strong concerns within the seafaring unions. There has been report after report across the movement about mental health issues and the stress placed upon people, and the increased number of suicides taking place as a result, and it does relate to the person’s employment. If we get the seafarers’ charter operating effectively, it could transform people’s lives and take that pressure off them, as well as save people from harm and save people’s lives.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) on securing this incredibly important debate and raising awareness of the plight of seafarers. She spoke with heart about the unseen strain and pressure on seafarers. I hope that, in some small way, this debate can help to shine a light on those issues.
The UK’s history can be viewed through the lens of the river and the sea. A main artery of the lifeblood of this island nation flows through my constituency of Gravesham: the Thames. Trade, travel, tourism and troops have flowed up and down the Thames since pre-Roman times and the river still shapes Gravesham today. Many of us have personal connections with the sea, and my household is no different. My late father-in-law worked for long periods of time on the sea laying underwater cables, which put a strain on his family.
Aside from the River Thames’s history, and all the people who have sailed and worked on it, it provides job opportunities for local businesses, employment, leisure and tourism. The Port of London Authority in Gravesham works safely around the clock so that one of the UK’s busiest ports flows without becoming gridlocked. It has a vision of the future where a trading Thames is the key commercial hub for the UK; of a destination that people can enjoy and where they can play and live; and of a natural Thames. All those things require the support of seafarers—those highly skilled professional men and women. I have also seen the immense work that goes on, day in, day out, to keep the river moving and keep it safe.
At this point I wish to pause and pay tribute to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. My local branch in Gravesham, despite some recent criticisms, is essential and has helped so many who have fallen into the water. The RNLI’s mission is simple: to save lives at sea. My heartfelt thanks go to it.
This debate is for all those who work, sail and live on the sea and the river. I am hopeful for the future of the Thames and for the agenda to modernise it, invest in it and prepare it. We must ensure that the people working to deliver the growth that our country desperately needs are supported. I recently met a group of young apprentices who have started their working-age life with the sea and the river. There is pressure to ensure that the seafarer job is well protected so that as the ambitions of those apprentices grow, our country matches that ambition with the job that they look to flow into. Our country desperately needs that. My plea to the Minister is to hear the concerns that have been raised. I hope that we can help protect and support seafarers in the future.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for securing this important debate, and for setting out why this issue matters.
Three years ago, the country watched in disbelief as P&O Ferries carried out one of the most disgraceful attacks on workers’ rights in recent memory: 800 loyal seafarers, men and women who had given years of dedicated service, were summarily dismissed over video call—no consultation, no notice and no dignity. It was a scandal that shocked the maritime sector. It shocked people across the country and it shocked people in Sussex communities, given that at Newhaven we have our much-treasured ferry service to Dieppe—thankfully not operated by P&O.
From the moment that outrage unfolded, the Liberal Democrats were clear and principled. We demanded urgent answers from the Conservatives’ then Transport Secretary, Grant Shapps; we demanded justice for the workers and families whose lives had been thrown into turmoil; and we demanded a fundamental change to ensure that nothing like that could ever be allowed to happen again. Hard-working seafarers and their families should never suffer because of corporate neglect or corporate greed.
In the months that followed, we pressed the Government to tighten the rules around how ships that are registered to operate in the UK treat their workers. We supported the Seafarers Wages Act 2023 as a necessary first step. It requires ships that make frequent calls at UK ports to pay at least the UK national minimum wage for time spent in our waters, but we also made it clear that the Act did not go far enough.
We have championed the calls of maritime unions and the UK Chamber of Shipping for stronger safeguards: measures to stop companies engaging in port-hopping to dodge basic obligations; collectively agreed standards on roster patterns, pensions, crewing levels and training; and tougher enforcement so that operators cannot simply ignore the law with impunity. After all, laws mean very little if bad employers know that they can bend or dodge them entirely, and we now know exactly how determined some operators have been to do just that.
In 2024, it was revealed that P&O’s replacement agency workers were being paid just £4.87 an hour—a shocking, exploitative wage that made a mockery of the protections that Parliament had tried to strengthen. Later, when the then Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh), rightly described P&O Ferries as a “rogue operator”, the Prime Minister dismissed her concerns to protect a £1 billion investment by P&O Ferries’ Dubai-based parent company. Once again, workers’ rights were treated as secondary.
Of course, public outrage did have consequences. In August 2025, Peter Hebblethwaite, the chief executive officer, who admitted to breaking consultation law, finally resigned. But accountability for one individual is not enough; we need systemic change. No worker, whether on land or at sea, should be discarded at the convenience of their employer.
That brings me to the Employment Rights Bill, and in particular the provisions on fire and rehire. The Liberal Democrats welcome the parts of the Bill that strengthen protections for workers and curb the disgraceful practice of firing staff, only to rehire them on worse terms. Under the Bill’s provisions, dismissals will be deemed automatically unfair unless an employer can provide clear evidence of financial difficulty and show that changes were truly unavoidable.
The Bill represents progress and it moves us in the right direction, but large parts of it are unfinished and critical details have been left to secondary legislation or promised consultations, including a long-awaited seafarers’ charter. That does not give workers or responsible employers the stability and certainty that they deserve. People whose livelihoods depend on those reforms should not have to cross their fingers and hope that the details are sorted out later.
Unions are rightly concerned about carve-outs that may allow companies on the verge of collapse to bypass protections. We accept that businesses face genuine existential threats, and sometimes they need flexibility, but we must ensure that exceptions are not exploited by those who simply want to trim costs at the expense of their staff. Workers must not be treated as disposable.
As the Bill gives Ministers new powers to implement international maritime conventions and a seafarers’ charter through secondary legislation, we must insist on ambitious and enforceable standards, including on maximum periods of work at sea and minimum periods of rest, as well as measures to manage fatigue, strong training requirements and protections that cover every seafarer who works in our waters. We need not just vague promises but real rules with real enforcement and consequences for those who break them.
John McDonnell
I welcome the hon. Lady’s engagement on this matter and the list of issues. Those issues will be subject to consultation, which will be part of the negotiation. I want to reassure her that the RMT strategy is usually not just crossing its fingers.
Alison Bennett
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reassurance.
An issue too often overlooked while talking about seafarers is their mental health, as the right hon. Gentleman drew to our attention in his contribution. We know that life at sea can be tough, isolating, demanding and physically and psychologically draining: long stretches away from family, stress, exhaustion and the unique pressure of maritime work all take a heavy toll. Seafarers rely on the NHS for mental health support, just like anyone else, but our NHS is in crisis after years of Conservative neglect. Mental health waiting lists have spiralled, and thousands of people are waiting months, and sometimes years, for the care they urgently need. That includes the people who keep our essential maritime supply chain moving.
Liberal Democrats believe that mental health must be treated with the same seriousness and urgency as physical health. That is why we are campaigning for regular mental health check-ups at key life points, just like blood pressure or eyesight checks. We are also calling for prescriptions for people with chronic mental health conditions to be free on the NHS, because we believe that no one should have to choose between treatment and financial strain. We will also create a statutory, independent mental health commissioner to advocate for patients and their families and carers. Those reforms matter for everyone, but are especially vital for communities such as seafarers, who often face some of the toughest working conditions.
The P&O Ferries scandal was a turning point. It exposed deep flaws in our system—in employment law, in enforcement, and in the way that successive Governments have allowed bad employers to exploit loopholes at the expense of ordinary workers. It also presented us with a choice: to accept this broken system or to build something better. The Liberal Democrats would choose to build something better. We choose fair pay, safe working conditions and dignity at work. We choose an NHS that supports people’s mental health properly, not one that is forced to ration treatment. We choose an economy where responsibility, fairness and respect guide the way businesses operate. Britain can be better than P&O Ferries’ behaviour—and Britain must be better. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on how the Government aim to chart a course towards that destination.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. As an island nation, Britain has always been reliant on our sailors, as other Members have said. For centuries, we have depended on them to protect our nation, to transport goods around the world and to deliver the products of our national endeavours across the seas to other countries.
The continued significance of maritime trade to our economy cannot be overstated. Of all international freight traded with the United Kingdom, around 85% by weight and 55% by value is moved by sea. Our seafarers also play a vital role in connecting communities across the United Kingdom, whether that is in our Scottish islands or the Isle of Wight, where my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) has introduced proposals around fares on ferries, demonstrating that those services remain essential to our national fabric.
Even for those of us representing constituencies that could not be further away from the sea—Mid Buckinghamshire proudly holds the title of the second-most landlocked constituency in the country—the importance of the maritime sector to the UK’s past, present and future prosperity is abundantly clear. I therefore thank the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for securing this debate. It is right that we recognise the work of the estimated 23,700 UK seafarers active at sea, according to data from 2024, whose skill and dedication power this indispensable industry.
Understandably, the debate has referenced the actions of P&O Ferries in 2022. For all who observed that situation, the conclusion was unmistakeable: P&O’s decision was wrong. That is why the then Secretary of State for Transport, Grant Shapps, condemned it in the strongest possible terms. Indeed, during my time on the Transport Committee in the last Parliament, we heard very detailed evidence—often difficult to listen to—about the scandalous and wholly inappropriate behaviour of P&O. As the Minister will know from his briefings, the last Government acted swiftly in response. It is worth briefly reflecting on those steps, as they represented meaningful progress in protecting seafarers’ rights and, therefore, as the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said, their welfare.
First, the Seafarers Wages Act 2023 ensures that those working on ships that provide a regular international service from the United Kingdom are paid at least the equivalent of the national minimum wage while operating in UK waters. This reduces the incentive for operators to employ overseas labour on worse terms and conditions—although I heard the arguments put forward by the right hon. Gentleman and the discrimination that he highlighted, which is still a wrong to be righted.
John McDonnell
I was elated at first to attend a Statutory Instrument Committee dealing with these matters, until I discovered that the Government had redefined the nature of British waters. Restricting the measure to UK waters was even less effective.
Greg Smith
The point of my comments on the actions of the previous Government is not to say that they were wholly conclusive and the end of the matter. But I believe the steps that were taken by the previous Government did demonstrate a step forward, as I think the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged in the debate—perhaps not the entire length of step that he would have preferred.
Greg Smith
I heard the reference that the right hon. Gentleman just made.
Secondly, the last Government introduced a statutory code of practice on fire and rehire that was intended to ensure that employees are properly consulted and treated fairly. Importantly, it included powers for employment tribunals to increase compensation by 25% where an employer unreasonably fails to comply. Thirdly, the start of the seafarers’ charter was launched, with operators including Brittany Ferries, Condor Ferries, DFDS, Stena Line and, at the time, even P&O was committing to work towards meeting the requirements of that charter. The charter placed seafarers at its heart, from ensuring they are paid equivalent to the national minimum wage throughout their engagement, to establishing two weeks on, two weeks off tour of duty baselines on high-intensity routes, and providing appropriate training and development opportunities.
Crucially, the charter also committed to providing social security benefits, such as sickness benefits, family benefits and medical care, and adopting roster patterns that properly account for fatigue, mental health and safety. That demonstrated a clear commitment to ensuring that seafarers’ welfare is not an afterthought but a priority. The framework further made it clear that, where provisions differed from those mandated in the maritime labour convention 2006 or any other standard, the higher standard would apply. I acknowledge that progress. Many Members rightly believe that more remains to be done. It is therefore appropriate to turn to the measures set out in the Employment Rights Bill that returns to the House of Commons next Monday.
Some hon. Members will know that I had the good fortune to sit through the 21 Committee sittings on that Bill as a shadow Business and Trade Minister, speaking for the Opposition on its many and varied proposals. During that process, we saw the ever-expanding scope of Government intervention illustrated vividly, with the Bill growing from an initial 149 pages when first introduced to 320 pages the last time it left the House of Lords.
Some Members may ask why that matters. As I said on Report, although the Bill contains many good and well-intentioned measures, the Government have struggled to get the balance right between the rights of employees and the needs of the employers who create the jobs in the first place. When it came to provisions relating specifically to seafarers, such as changing collective redundancy notification requirements for ship crews, the Opposition did not oppose them. Indeed, I explicitly recognised their relevance in preventing the sort of unacceptable conduct we have seen in the past. However, we also flagged concerns. For example, the Bill grants the Secretary of State broad powers to detain a ship without clearly defining how long the detention could last. That is a perfect illustration of the need for balance. We must uphold the highest standards of seafarer protection while avoiding measures that may deter responsible businesses from operating in the United Kingdom.
That links to a broader point recently emphasised by my party. One of the most important ways to protect workers’ rights is to ensure that people remain in work. We can and should tackle fire-and-rehire practices, but if we overburden the economy with excessive taxation and growth-suppressing regulation, the outcome will be the worst of all worlds—fewer jobs and weaker protections.
With UK unemployment having risen by 0.9 percentage points since the election and reached an estimated 5% by September 2025, we cannot ignore the reality that the welfare of workers, including seafarers, depends on the Government restoring economic stability. We owe it to seafarers to create an economy in which their livelihoods are secure and not vulnerable to the Chancellor’s mismanagement. Ultimately, I welcome all sensible and proportionate measures that prevent scandalous behaviour and advance the welfare of seafarers, because our maritime workers deserve nothing less.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. Before I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft), I pay tribute to Lord Prescott, whose unfortunate passing was just over a year ago. Beginning with his career as a trade union official in the National Union of Seamen, and then as Deputy Prime Minister and in his work on transport, he was a defiant champion of the rights of seafarers right across the country. He was—how shall I put it?—a salty sea dog to the end and passionately defended workers’ rights in a sector that he cared about so dearly.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock for bringing forward this important debate. I commend her for her thoughtful remarks and her continued advocacy on behalf of her constituents, seafarers and those who support them.
Growth is this Government’s No. 1 priority. The maritime sector not only powers that mission, but is critical in delivering the goods and materials that people across the UK rely on in their everyday lives. As we approach Christmas, I hope we can take the time to appreciate our maritime workforce—their skill and hard work will mean that our tables and our stockings have everything we need for a very merry Christmas—while also recognising that lots of merchant seafarers will not be home themselves this Christmas, and the toll that takes on their families and their mental health. My grandfather on my mother’s side served in the merchant navy for 50 years, so my family is extremely cognisant of that.
I am delighted to hear about the incredible work of the Queen Victoria Seamen’s Rest in Tilbury in supporting those men and women. I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock for supporting the Queen Victoria Seamen’s Rest and for highlighting its important work here in Parliament. The Seamen’s Rest has a long and fascinating history. It has always been there—for more than 180 years, I believe—to support seafarers and provide them with accommodation and welfare. I have not yet had the opportunity to visit the centre at Tilbury, but I am aware of the work that the Seamen’s Rest has done through its centres to ensure that hard-working seafarers have well-deserved facilities and support when visiting ports across the UK.
Keir Mather
In the Christmas spirit that we are experiencing in Westminster Hall today, how could I refuse? It would be wonderful to visit. I look forward to continuing to learn about the work of the Seamen’s Rest, not only in Tilbury but at its centres in Immingham, Felixstowe, Bristol and other places.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for inviting those from the Queen Victoria Seamen’s Rest to join us in the Public Gallery, because it gives me an opportunity to place on the record my thanks and gratitude to its chief executive, Alexander Campbell, for all his hard work to pilot his organisation. I thank him for the enormous difference he will make to seafarers’ welfare across the UK, not only at this time of year, but year round.
The Government are undertaking wide-ranging work to enhance the support that we give to seafarers’ welfare charities. We have grants that provide a scheme called MiFi, which is about giving wi-fi access to seafarers in the United Kingdom. We have a vehicle replacement programme for the Merchant Navy Welfare Board to ensure that seafarers can get to where they need to receive support, and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency sits on the board of the Merchant Navy Welfare Board to provide a crucial link between these charities and Government.
I will go into more detail on the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock, but I want to acknowledge that we have more progress to make in the space of levies being paid when ships make port in the United Kingdom to contribute towards seafarers’ welfare. It is extremely encouraging to see how many ports have adopted that on a voluntary basis, but we always want to push to go further. She made an important point about international co-operation, and I was pleased—as I am sure was my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell)—to meet Nautilus and the RMT only yesterday to discuss some of the obligations through the International Labour Organisation. I will come to that in greater detail in a moment.
The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) spoke of the tragedies that have affected his constituency and reminded us of our obligation and duty to improve the welfare and safety of our seafarers—that is a duty for every generation lucky enough to have the privilege to serve in government. Being a native son of Hull, it would be remiss of me not to mention that we approach the anniversary, in January and February, of the triple trawler tragedy in 1968, when we lost three Hull trawlers, the St Romanus, the Kingston Peridot and the Ross Cleveland, with an enormous loss of life. That started a campaign in Hull for improved safety at sea, with dedicated radio equipment on every ship, which was pioneered by Lillian Bilocca, a pioneer in seafarers’ rights. She pushed Harold Wilson’s Labour Government to make those important changes for seafarers’ welfare, and we carry that legacy forward today.
Turning to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington, as I said, it was a pleasure to meet the RMT yesterday. We have an urgent need to protect life at sea, and I join him in sending condolences to James Elliott’s family. I thank everyone in the Royal Fleet Auxiliary; they work so hard to keep our nation safe. I will be certain to pass on to the relevant Minister my right hon. Friend’s request for a meeting with the Ministry of Defence.
My right hon. Friend also made an important point about nationality-based pay. In June 2025, the Government published a post-implementation review that recommended an amendment to the regulations, which currently allow nationality-based differential pay. Officials are progressing this work and aim to publish a consultation in spring next year, and we look forward to the RMT’s contribution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan) pointed to the incredible work of the RNLI, and I too will take the opportunity to champion its work. I also place on the record my thanks to the Port of London Authority for the work it does to encourage safety on the River Thames in the areas where it has a footprint. Robin Mortimer and Jonson Cox do a lot of work in that space. When I visited, they made important points about pilot safety and about minimising the health impacts of the strain on pilots as they go out to make sure the largest ships can dock in our country.
The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), despite having the second most landlocked constituency in the country—I think Selby might be somewhere on that list as well—raised some very important points. He spoke about having a competitive tax regime to encourage foreign direct investment and to encourage shipping operators to use the United Kingdom. The tonnage tax regime that we have in the United Kingdom is seen as competitive in attracting that investment.
I am glad that the shadow Minister recognised the wrongs that were committed during the P&O saga, but he also highlighted the positive work that there is to do in relation to people and skills. I believe that enshrining in the Employment Rights Bill the rest and fatigue management provisions he spoke of is integral. I hope that his passion for maritime allows him to overcome some of his other doubts and to support the Bill as it makes further progress through Parliament.
I now turn to the points made by the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett). We are expanding the scope of the Seafarers Wages Act through the Employment Rights Bill, which will include additional powers to regulate safety, including through roster patterns, fatigue management and training, as well as remuneration beyond just pay in UK waters. That will deliver on our promise to create a mandatory seafarers’ charter. We will be consulting on the use of those powers in 2026. In the light of the hon. Lady’s remarks and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington, I am certain not to be remiss in ensuring that the consultation is as robust as possible and that our trade union colleagues are able to play their full part in it.
The Queen Victoria Seamen’s Rest is one of the many charities that support seafarers both domestically and internationally, but that work is spearheaded by the Merchant Navy Welfare Board. Raising the standards of seafarer welfare is a priority for the Government. That is why earlier this year the Maritime and Coastguard Agency launched The Seafarers’ Charities Forum, which aims to boost welfare through the exchange of information between the MCA and seafarers’ charities. We hope that will enhance mutual understanding of current initiatives, regulatory developments and welfare programmes, as well as identify opportunities for strategic alignment and joint action to improve seafarers’ living and working conditions. I commend all who are involved in that important initiative.
The Government are committed to growth, but none of the growth opportunities that we have will be realised without high standards of welfare for seafarers, in the UK and internationally, which is why we are ambitious about strengthening their rights. As I said, the Employment Rights Bill will improve employment protections for seafarers with a close connection to the UK, and protect the pay and working conditions of those working on services calling frequently at UK ports. That will build on the voluntary seafarers’ charter that was launched in 2023, under the previous Government, and we are working with a number of major operators to roll it out across their services. That will really help to raise standards, but it is voluntary, which is why we want to seek powers in the Employment Rights Bill to have a mandatory charter.
On international engagements, we are proud to have supported the amendments to the maritime labour convention that were agreed in April, but there is more work to be done in that space, and we can do it.
I want to pause at this point to record the thanks of the House and, more importantly, of seafarers around the country and far beyond for an organisation whose work is pivotal to the welfare of seafarers: the Marine Accident Investigation Branch. The MAIB continues to provide an essential service to seafarers. Its reports, which are of the highest quality, have saved countless lives over the years and ensure that the sector learns the lessons of the regrettable incidents that do still occur.
The MAIB is a vital component in the constellation of organisations that support the sector and one to which I am proud to put my name, but I am equally proud of the other ways that my Department supports the sector. One example, which I have alluded to, is our continued support for the MiFi project, which enables seafarers visiting UK ports to connect to the internet so that they can remain in contact with friends and family in their home countries. I am also pleased that we continue to fund the Merchant Navy Welfare Board’s vehicle replacement programme to make sure that seafarers can get to where they need to go.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock and other colleagues for drawing the House’s attention to the important but oft-neglected issue of seafarer welfare. Since becoming maritime Minister, I have been struck by the dedication and skill of those who work in the sector, and I believe that, working together with parliamentarians, colleagues across Government, industry partners and our wider social partners, we can make a positive impact on the lives of those who serve at sea. I again thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue and I commend everyone who has taken the time to take part in this debate.
Jen Craft
I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate. The 3 pm shift on a Thursday is not a great one, especially when we are low on numbers, so I am grateful to Members for being here.
I offer my thanks to all those who go to sea. The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) spoke eloquently about the call of the sea, but also its inherent dangers. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) highlighted a specific example. The loss of James Elliott brings home the real dangers for those who make their living at sea and the debt of gratitude that we all owe them. My right hon. Friend also spoke about flags of convenience, which is a real problem and an issue when it comes to investigating crimes at sea. For example, sexual assault against female seafarers is on the increase, but women often fail to find the justice they need. Perhaps that is something we can pursue.
I thank my neighbouring MP, my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan)—we are separated by only a body of water—for raising the work of the RNLI. I am incredibly grateful for the work that it does saving lives at sea. Without its vital voluntary contribution, I am sure the lives of many more who make their living at sea would have been lost. I welcome what the Minister said about looking at how we can promote the levy system and take it further. That is one thing that would make a real difference to onshore welfare provision for seafarers.
The Minister also updated us on some of the work he has been doing internationally, particularly in looking at reducing the pay differential between UK-based seafarers and others. I look forward to working with him and colleagues to make sure that those who make their living on the sea, to whom we all owe a debt of gratitude, receive proper remuneration and thanks from the nation.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered seafarers’ welfare.
Cancer Services: North-west London
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Karin Smyth
Thanks to our investment and modernisation of the NHS, the Government are putting cancer services on the road to recovery by opening up community diagnostic centres on evenings and weekends, building new surgical hubs and investing in new radiotherapy machines… This year, an extra 193,000 patients received a timely diagnosis or the all-clear compared with the previous year.
[Official Report, 25 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 194.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister for Secondary Care, the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth):
Karin Smyth
Thanks to our investment and modernisation of the NHS, the Government are putting cancer services on the road to recovery by opening up community diagnostic centres on evenings and weekends, building new surgical hubs and investing in new radiotherapy machines… This year, an extra 193,000 patients received a timely diagnosis or the all-clear compared with the year before the election.
Mental Health Conditions, Autism and ADHD
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
I am announcing today the launch of an independent review into the prevalence of, and support for, mental health conditions, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and autism.
Over the past decade there has been progress in reducing stigma and an increase in public awareness of mental health conditions, ADHD and autism, and the importance of psychological wellbeing. Yet the prevalence of common mental health conditions for adults has increased to one in five, and many people who are autistic or have ADHD are struggling to access the right support. This Government have already taken significant steps to stabilise and improve NHS services, but there is much more to do.
I am deeply concerned that many adults, young people and children with mental health conditions, ADHD and autism have been let down by services and are not receiving tailored, personalised or timely support and treatment.
That is why I am announcing this independent review to understand the rises in prevalence and demand on services to ensure that people receive the right support, at the right time and in the right place.
The review will look to understand the similarities and differences between mental health conditions, ADHD and autism, regarding prevalence, prevention and treatment, the current challenges facing clinical services, and the extent to which diagnosis, medicalisation and treatment improves outcomes for individuals. This will include exploring the evidence around clinical practice and the risks and benefits of medicalisation. The review will also look at different models of support and pathways, within and beyond the NHS, that promote prevention and early intervention, supplementing clinical support.
I have asked Professor Peter Fonagy to chair this review with the support of two vice chairs, Professor Sir Simon Wessely and Professor Gillian Baird. They each have specific expertise on mental health and neurodevelopmental conditions and extensive clinical and academic experience.
The review will appoint an advisory working group, which involves a multidisciplinary group of leading academics, clinicians, epidemiological experts, charities and people with lived experience, to directly shape the recommendations and scrutinise the evidence.
I have asked the chairs to provide a short report within six months setting out conclusions and recommendations for responding to the rising need, both within Government and across the health system and wider public services.
The terms of reference will be published on gov.uk.
[HCWS1132]
Biometrics, Facial Recognition and Similar Technologies in Law Enforcement: Legal Framework
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
The Government are committed to giving the police the tools, clarity and confidence they need to keep the public safe in a fast-changing world. Facial recognition technology is one such powerful and effective tool, and the Government want to support its adoption with a clearer legal framework.
Over the past year, we have taken time to listen carefully to all sides of the debate about facial recognition and evaluate the available evidence. We have heard how this can be a valuable tool in tackling serious crime. However, we have also heard legitimate concerns about this powerful technology. There are questions we must address about the state’s powers to process its citizens’ biometric data proportionately, maintaining public confidence, and how we balance this with ensuring the police are able to utilise technology within a clear, easy-to-understand framework.
That is why I am pleased to announce that the Government are today launching a public consultation titled, “Consultation on a new legal framework for law enforcement use of biometrics, facial recognition and similar technologies”.
The consultation seeks views on a wide range of issues, including which technologies should be covered by the new framework—such as biometric, inferential, and object recognition tools—and which organisations it should apply to. It also explores when and how these technologies should be used, what safeguards are necessary to protect privacy and other rights, and how to ensure their use is demonstrably proportionate to the seriousness of the harm being addressed.
Throughout the consultation, we hope to hear a broad range of views from the public, experts, and stakeholders to help shape a legal framework that will enable confident, safe, and consistent use of facial recognition and similar technologies at significantly greater scale.
This consultation will play an essential role in helping the Government design a framework that means law enforcement can properly harness the power of this technology while maintaining public confidence over the long term.
The consultation will run for 10 weeks and provides a valuable opportunity for the public to have their say. A copy of the consultation will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and published on gov.uk.
[HCWS1129]
FIFA Men's Football World Cup 2026: Licensing Hours
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
I am pleased to launch a consultation on extending licensing hours in England and Wales for the semi-finals and final of the FIFA men’s football world cup next summer, contingent on any of the home nations teams—England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland—reaching those stages of the tournament. The consultation is aimed at members of the public, local licensing authorities, licensed premises, and other interested parties in England and Wales where these proposals apply.
Depending on the outcome of the consultation, the Government propose to make a licensing hours order under section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003 that would contingently extend opening hours for matches that kick-off at 9pm or earlier on the days of the semi-finals (14 and/or 15 July) and/or final (19 July), so that they would end at 1am at the latest—i.e. early in the morning following the match, rather than 11pm on the day of the kick-off in the UK—for the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises in England and Wales.
The extension would enable communities to come together to celebrate this achievement and support their national team, as well as provide a welcome boost to pubs and other on-trade businesses. The tournament will be held across several US states, Mexico, and Canada, which are 5-8 hours behind UK time, and matches could continue well into, or not kick off until, the early hours of the morning. In those cases, licensed premises will be able to use the temporary event notice process to extend beyond 1 am, should they wish to do so. The TENs process allows police to object or place conditions on a notice, thus ensuring additional safeguards for the public where venues may wish to stay open later.
The extension would be contingent on one or more of the home nations reaching those stages of the championship, and would not take effect should none of these teams reach those stages of the tournament.
I am seeking to use a contingent order to extend licensing hours for the semi-finals and the final to ensure that there is sufficient time to consult publicly on the proposed extension and follow the required parliamentary procedure.
A copy of the consultation will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and published on gov.uk. The consultation will run until 15 January 2026.
[HCWS1130]
Devolution Priority Programme
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
Devolution is a critical lever for delivering growth and prosperity for local communities, through bringing local transport back into public control, making people’s daily commute easier, tailoring local skills training to local employer’s needs, so people can get a good job, and driving regeneration of local areas, so people feel proud of the place they live in.
For too long decisions have been made centrally in Whitehall, away from the places and communities those decisions impact. Mayors and other local leaders are best placed to identify and invest in the projects and infrastructure that reflect the needs of local people and drive growth, but they need long-term funding certainty to harness their region’s potential.
Today, I am therefore pleased to confirm the long-term funding offer to the six areas on the devolution priority programme. Once mayors are in post, the six mayoral strategic authorities will receive close to £200 million collectively per year for 30 years through their investment funds. These funds will be split equally between capital and revenue, and they will be un-ringfenced, so local areas can choose how they want to invest this money in local priorities. This investment will promote growth in the six areas, and as the baseline of our funding commitment, it will be additional to devolved funding streams from other Government Departments, such as adult skills funding and transport funding.
Each area’s individual yearly investment fund allocation, based on their populations, are as follows:
Cheshire and Warrington combined authority: £21.7 million per year
Cumbria combined authority: £11.1 million per year
Greater Essex combined county authority: £41.5 million per year
Hampshire and the Solent combined county authority: £44.6 million per year
Norfolk and Suffolk combined county authority: £37.4 million per year
Sussex and Brighton combined county authority: £38 million per year
Beyond the allocations based on population, each new mayoral strategic authority will be supported to build core capacity to ensure they can deliver for local people. All six areas will receive £3 million each as a minimum flat payment over the next three financial years, in addition to an initial payment of £1 million each when the statutory instruments are laid in Parliament, to help with the costs of establishing the new authorities.
The Government recognise that mayoral strategic authorities are most successful when they are built on a strong history of partnership and joint delivery. Moving forward, we will therefore seek to facilitate the establishment of foundation strategic authorities in areas without a foundation of collaboration, to build local capacity ahead of areas accessing mayoral powers. These foundation strategic authorities will be empowered to deliver for their residents in the interim. The Government plan to engage with local leaders about creating a new wave of foundation strategic authorities to ensure more residents can see the benefits of local control.
For devolution priority programme areas, as they have already made great progress towards the establishment of their mayoral strategic authorities, the Government ambition to foster collaboration ahead of implementing mayoralties will be facilitated by allowing for a meaningful period of time between the mayoral strategic authorities’ establishment and inaugural elections.
Cheshire and Warrington and Cumbria have previously requested a delay of their inaugural elections to May 2027, to align with the majority of planned local elections, which could help voter turnout and enable further local savings. These areas have both successfully established unitary authorities.
The Government are also minded to hold the inaugural mayoral elections for Sussex and Brighton, Hampshire and the Solent, Norfolk and Suffolk, and Greater Essex in May 2028, with areas completing the local government reorganisation process before mayors take office. This is because devolution is strongest when it is built on strong foundations; therefore, moving forward we will ensure strong unitary structures are in place before areas take on mayoral devolution.
The Government intend to establish mayoral strategic authorities in all the devolution priority programme areas as soon as possible, to ensure sufficient time for meaningful preparatory work and to continue to build local collaboration. We will provide each devolution priority programme area with a proportion of their investment funds to ensure they can start delivering on key local priorities and deliver the benefits of devolution on the ground ahead of the mayors taking office. Cheshire and Warrington and Cumbria will therefore receive half of their annual investment funds in 2025-26, while Sussex and Brighton, Hampshire and the Solent, Norfolk and Suffolk, and Greater Essex will receive a third of their annual investment funds in both 2026-27 and 2027-28.
Our commitment to ensuring areas across England can access the growth benefits of mayoral devolution holds firm. We will continue to engage with local leaders across the devolution priority programme towards the establishment of these mayoral strategic authorities.
[HCWS1128]
Automated Vehicles Regulatory Framework
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
I wish to provide the House with an update on further steps the Government are taking to implement the Automated Vehicles Act 2024 and kickstart economic growth. Self-driving vehicles have the potential to increase opportunities and break down barriers for how people and goods move around the country, making transport safer, greener, and more reliable. Strengthening road safety, improving accessibility, and ensuring safeguarding remain central to this vision.
The AV Act delivers one of the most comprehensive legal frameworks of its kind, with safety at its core. It sets out clear legal responsibilities, establishes a safety framework and creates the required regulatory powers. This includes measures designed to protect all road users—pedestrians, cyclists, disabled people, and vulnerable groups—through a consistent, evidence-based safety framework.
The AV Act implementation programme supports the Government-wide programme of work using artificial intelligence to deliver the plan for change, with AVs providing a core example of how AI could bring tangible benefits to the public. This technology has the potential to enable safer journeys, improve access to essential services, and enhance independence for people with accessibility needs.
Today, we have published an ambitious call for evidence on developing the AV regulatory framework. This call for evidence will help inform secondary legislation, guidance and policy development, ensuring the AV regulatory framework remains proportionate, forward-looking and responsive to emerging technologies while upholding strong safeguards for public safety, data protection, and responsible operation.
The call for evidence is split into two main chapters: “getting AVs on the road” and “once AVs are on the road”.
Chapter 1 seeks further evidence relating to:
Vehicle type approval: the assessment of whether the vehicle is technically safe before it is allowed on to the GB market; this is closely linked to the ongoing work at the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe to develop automated driving systems regulations.
Authorisation: the new process of authorising a self-driving vehicle for use on GB roads without a driver, allowing legal responsibilities to shift to the authorised self-driving entity when the vehicle is driving itself.
User-in-charge: if a self-driving feature requires a responsible human inside the vehicle, that human is the driver while the feature is disengaged, and becomes a UIC when the self-driving feature is engaged. The UIC will not be responsible for the way the self-driving vehicle drives when the feature is engaged.
Transition demands: a time-bound demand for the UIC to take control of the vehicle when a self-driving vehicle needs to safely transfer control to a human driver.
Operator licensing: the use of vehicles with self-driving features that do not require a human driver to be present while active in vehicles which may have no human on board at all.
Insurance: AVs must be insured to legally drive on our roads, but motor insurance for AVs will be different from that for conventional vehicles. As a result, insurers will need timestamp data recorded by the vehicle, showing if the system was active, to determine liabilities.
Chapter 2 seeks further evidence relating to:
In-use regulation: ongoing monitoring to confirm that vehicles continue to meet the self-driving test requirements, and in particular, the requirement to be able to safely and legally drive themselves once on the road. In-use regulation will also monitor where authorisation requirements and operator licensing requirements continue to be complied with.
Sanctions: a new set of civil and regulatory sanctions available to Government. They include compliance notices, redress notices and fines as well as variation, suspension or withdrawal of an authorisation or a licence.
Incident investigation: a process for no-blame incident investigation involving AVs, similar to existing aviation and rail investigation branches, allowing for continuous improvement based on real-world evidence
Cyber-security: appropriate cyber-security controls must be in place throughout the vehicles service life; this extends to the security of the operation centre and includes cyber, personnel and physical security.
Questions relating to data, costs and benefits appear throughout the call for evidence, and there are stand-alone sections on accessibility and environmental impacts. While the focus of the call for evidence is on the safety framework, we are particularly mindful of potential accessibility benefits and so have included accessibility considerations.
We seek views from a broad range of respondents, including road users, industry, academics, road-safety experts, accessibility specialists, first responders, trade unions, and the wider public. Their insights will help ensure that as AV technologies develop, they do so in ways that strengthen safety, widen access, and safeguard the public.
A copy of this publication will be placed in the Library of each House and published on gov.uk.
[HCWS1131]