House of Commons
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. While the approved mileage allowance payment rates have not changed since 2011, I recognise that motoring costs have evolved significantly, and it is an important issue for many people who claim motoring expenses. We are, therefore, looking at the issue and will consider the matter further in the usual way, as part of a future fiscal event. Through steps such as freezing fuel duty, we are taking wider action in the meantime to ensure that people pay the lowest price possible at the pump, whether or not they use the approved mileage allowance payment.
Jim McMahon
I thank the Chancellor for that response; I welcome it, and so will millions of working people. This has been a long-standing campaign for Unison, and I am grateful to it and the RAC Foundation for taking on this case and to the Mirror for the coverage it has given to the campaign. The 45p a mile rate, set 15 years ago, is nowhere near the true cost of running a vehicle today, which was recently assessed at 67p a mile—and that was before fuel costs rocketed in the last week. Gemma, a social worker for over two decades, travels around 400 miles a month for work, which means she is paying over £1,000 a year just to do her job and care for other people. Gemma and the millions of working people like her will welcome the Chancellor’s statement today, but can this work be expedited, given the cost of living crisis?
Rachel Reeves
I genuinely thank my hon. Friend for all he has done to draw attention to this important issue. I am also grateful for representations from the trade union Unison, given that this particularly affects low-paid workers, including care workers like Gemma. We have a standard Treasury policy of keeping all taxes under review ahead of fiscal events, but as I say, this is one area that I will be keeping a very close interest in.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The Chancellor will review mileage rates, but with her fuel duty freeze coming to an end in September and the next fiscal event not happening until later in the year, will she commit to review that decision at the end of this parliamentary Session if petrol prices are significantly higher than they are today, for the sake of people’s cost of living?
Rachel Reeves
The price of petrol today is 8p per litre lower than if I had followed the plans that were left to me by the previous Conservative Government. From April, it will be 11p per litre lower. Of course, we keep these things under review, but oil prices today are 24% lower than they were yesterday, so things are very volatile at the moment. That is why, as I said yesterday, the most important thing we can do to address the cost of living challenges people face is to de-escalate the conflict in the middle east, which is exactly what this Government are attempting to do.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
On business rates, the Government have announced a support package for all businesses worth £4.3 billion over the next three years. We have introduced permanently lower multipliers for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, including those on the high street. In addition, every pub and live music venue will get 15% off its new bill from April. The Government will also bring forward a high streets strategy later this year.
Sir Ashley Fox
Many retail, hospitality and tourism businesses in my constituency traditionally give young people their first job, but with the Chancellor’s jobs tax, the unemployment rights Act and now huge increases in rates, many of those businesses are struggling to survive, so they just cannot afford to take on those young people. Does the Minister accept that his Government are the reason that youth unemployment is now higher in the UK than in the EU for the first time since records began?
Dan Tomlinson
One reason we have a challenge with youth participation in the labour market is the broken welfare system and the broken support system that we inherited from the previous Government. The proportion of young adults who are not in education, employment or training is broadly unchanged since the general election. It is too high, and it has to come down. That is why we are reforming our system and providing more support through actions such as our jobs guarantee. That is the right approach, as is the approach we are taking on business rates.
Wendy Chamberlain
I recently hosted a hospitality roundtable in North East Fife. In an area that boasts such attractions as St Andrews and the East Neuk, one would expect to find an industry in rude health, but that was not the case. Indeed, one business could not attend because it was taking difficult decisions in relation to the business that day. The Minister has outlined a number of things that are in the purview of the devolved Government, and I will be taking those up with the Scottish Government. As a Scottish MP and a Scot representing Scottish businesses, however, I am looking for things that the Government can do on a UK level. The Liberal Democrats have been proposing an emergency VAT cut for hospitality businesses for some time, so why will the Government not consider that?
Dan Tomlinson
Business rates are a devolved matter. The changes that we have announced and the support that we have put in will have consequentials for funding for the Scottish Government. VAT is a broad-based tax that raises a significant amount of revenue for the Treasury. That is important in ensuring that we can manage our public finances and bring in the revenue to be able to get borrowing down, which this Government are doing and previous Governments failed to do. When the Liberal Democrats last had the chance, their choice was to put up VAT rather than cut it.
Dr Chambers
Many businesses in Winchester that I speak to on a regular basis talk about higher energy costs and national insurance rises, and many bring up the increased red tape that has resulted from the Conservatives’ failed Brexit project. Businesses in Winchester say that they want growth, not continued red tape. About two weeks ago, I spoke to one such business, RJM International, located just off the high street. For some reason, the Government refuse to even consider reducing trade barriers to the EU by having a bespoke customs union, but industry wants it and the public are increasingly supportive. Why will the Government not even assess the economic case for a customs union and why are they clinging to a failed ideology at the expense of growing our economy?
Dan Tomlinson
This Government are fully committed to resetting our relationship with the European Union. As the hon. Gentleman highlighted, the previous Government did as much as they could to damage that relationship, damage our productivity and damage our working relationship with our nearest partners. We are seeking to change that: we are negotiating a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement; we are looking at electricity and energy; and we are looking at what more we can do to deepen our trading relationship, which will be good for productivity and jobs. People said that we could not make progress with both the EU and the United States, but we did not have to choose: instead, we are making progress with trading partners across the world.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Property valuations in York are particularly high, making it very difficult for businesses, not least this year and certainly over the next three years. Will the Minister say exactly when he will launch his consultations on pubs, on hotels, on business rates and on high streets? Would he be willing to come and meet businesses in York to hear why they are struggling with the decisions made by this Government?
Dan Tomlinson
We will be working across Government on the high streets strategy. Treasury Ministers will be working with colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Department for Business and Trade. We will make progress on that in the coming weeks, with the strategy to report by the end of the year. We are in the process of working on the details of plans for the review of the pubs and hotels valuation methodology, and I will be happy to engage with my hon. Friend and Members from across the House to get that on a firmer footing for the future.
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
The Government’s business rate relief package for pubs has been hugely welcome, but other high street businesses in the retail, leisure and hospitality sectors are struggling. Will the Minister consider increasing the small business rate relief threshold to encourage growth and hiring? Over half the high street small businesses surveyed by the Federation of Small Businesses said that they would be in position to invest in or grow their businesses if the threshold were increased.
Dan Tomlinson
Around one in three businesses continue to benefit from the small business rates relief and do not pay any business rates at all, with an additional 85,000 benefiting from reduced relief as that is tapered away. At the Budget, we also announced changes to small business rates relief so that we can provide an additional two years of support for those businesses seeking to expand into a second property, to support those businesses to grow and to support their communities and jobs.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
Traders like Sukibinder Singh, who owns Little Italy in Dudley, tell me how low footfall, empty shops and shoplifting are putting people off coming to the town centre. Will my hon. Friend set out what action he is taking on business rates and targeted reliefs to help bricks-and-mortar businesses to compete and prosper?
Dan Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend for her representation of Little Italy in her fantastic constituency. We are working on the high streets strategy. She is right to highlight that with long-term trends, whether the impact of the pandemic or of the shift to online retail, we need to look at this as a whole. On taxation and business rates in particular, we have for the first time provided a wedge in the tax system so that the rate that online giants pay for their warehouses is a third higher than the rate paid by the smallest businesses on the high street. There is a significantly higher multiplier for the larger businesses on my hon. Friend’s high street than for the smaller ones, but we will keep looking at the issue and at what more we can do to support businesses across the tax system.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
Small businesses are the backbone of our economy, but the Federation of Small Businesses is warning that they will face a cost cliff edge in April because of the cumulative impact of all the new taxes and responsibilities put on them at the same time. During the course of the Finance Bill, we Liberal Democrats have repeatedly called for an assessment of the cumulative impact of taxes on hospitality and small businesses, including business rates. When the Government bring forward their high streets strategy, will it include an assessment of the cumulative impact of all tax changes—yes or no?
Dan Tomlinson
When we bring forward the high streets strategy, it will look in the round at what more we can do on regulation, licensing and the decisions that are made in the Treasury to continue to support small businesses and those on our high streets. That is incredibly important, and we will continue to look at that closely.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
Through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, the Government are introducing a strong, new community right to buy. That will empower communities to take ownership of and protect local assets. Alongside those new powers, the Pride in Place programme will provide up to £5.8 billion over 10 years to support 284 neighbourhoods, enabling local people to choose to fund a range of activities, including developing or restoring important community assets.
Preet Kaur Gill
After 14 years of Conservative austerity, many communities like mine have seen the assets that matter most to them hollowed out. I welcome the Government’s community right to buy, because putting local people in control of local assets is simply common sense. In my constituency, Woodgate and Bartley Green will receive £20 million through Pride in Place funding over the next decade thanks to this Government. Does the Minister agree that tackling barriers such as access to finance will help communities to take ownership of local assets and rebuild neighbourhoods?
James Murray
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Pride in Place funding can be used for communities to take ownership of and support local assets, from youth centres to libraries and cultural venues. I am very glad to hear that the funding will make such a positive difference to her constituents in Woodgate and Bartley Green, and I am proud that this Government are putting people in control of what happens in their local area.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
Across my constituency, there are three things that small villages tend to have: a pub, a church and a village hall. The community asset policy will support community ownership of the pubs, but I am hearing from those who run large faith buildings that they are deeply concerned about the changes to VAT relief on listed buildings. Will the Minister agree to meet me and others who are literally trying to repair the church roof to discuss that uncertainty?
James Murray
As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, this scheme is operated by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, so I am happy to ask colleagues in that Department to come back to him.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
Stability is the most important thing that we can do to get interest rates and inflation down, and tackling the cost of living—especially given the global headwinds—is my top priority. At the Budget, we took money off energy bills and froze prescription charges and train fares. The Government’s cheaper fuel finder scheme is now online, and it shows petrol prices at forecourts across the country. Yesterday, some petrol retailers charged almost 180p per litre, while others were charging less than 130p per litre. This Government will not tolerate price gouging, and I will be meeting with petrol retailers this week to raise concerns and to get prices down at the pumps for all our constituents.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
The Trussell Trust’s recent “Hunger in the UK” report highlights the startling reality of food insecurity. It has found that rates are higher for private renters in receipt of housing benefit, either through local housing allowance or through the housing element of universal credit. Private renters on the lowest incomes cannot keep up with the rising cost of living, and maintaining the freeze on local housing allowance risks driving even more people into hunger and homelessness, because private renters receiving LHA will likely see an average shortfall of £243 a month. The Government have taken meaningful steps towards tackling food insecurity, but will the Chancellor build on this by lifting the freeze on local housing allowance?
Rachel Reeves
The Renters’ Rights Act 2025, which will come into force in the next month or so, will make a big difference to my hon. Friend’s constituents and to all our constituents who are contending with living in the private rented sector—particularly with issues such as evictions, but also with mid-term rent increases. At the same time, we have put £39 billion into our social and affordable homes programme so that more people can get a council house or a social home rather than living in the private rented sector. We are also getting rid of the two-child limit, which the Trussell Trust says will reduce demand for food banks.
Michael Wheeler
While cost of living pressures are affecting people across my constituency of Worsley and Eccles, young families face a perfect storm. Whether it is housing costs, expensive childcare or student loans, many young families are struggling, and research shows that the cost of living crisis is holding people back from even starting a family. Will the Chancellor outline what measures the Government are taking to alleviate the financial burdens on young families, in addition to their welcome moves to expand free childcare?
Rachel Reeves
We absolutely recognise the pressures facing families. Bringing stability back to the economy is the No. 1 thing that we can do for working families. There have been six cuts in interest rates since the general election, which has seen the average cost of servicing a mortgage come down by about £1,300 a year. The Renters’ Rights Act will come into force shortly to give greater rights to people in the private rented sector. The free childcare offer, which is now fully funded, ensures that parents with children aged between nine months and five years get free childcare if they are in work. From next month, the end of the two-child benefit limit will lift 450,000 children out of poverty.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Richard from Beverley tells me that he paid £304 for his last tank of heating oil, yet if he orders it again now—and he needs to do so within four weeks—it will cost him £862. Families across rural areas such as Beverley and Holderness rely on heating oil to keep warm, yet because they are off-grid, they get no protection from the energy price cap. Some 1.5 million people across the country are affected, so what steps can the Chancellor take to alleviate the situation for rural families such as Richard’s, who are facing a huge spike in the cost of living through no fault of their own?
Rachel Reeves
First, everybody gets support with their electricity bill, regardless of how they heat their home. However, I do recognise the unique issues around heating oil; we had representations from the Labour group of rural MPs over the weekend, and my colleague the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is going to meet all MPs with an interest in this area tomorrow. I very much urge the right hon. Gentleman to come to that meeting, but the most important thing this Government are doing is trying to de-escalate the crisis in the middle east, because that is the way to get prices down for all our constituents, whether for heating oil or at the pumps.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Inflation might be lower than projected, but prices are still rising. Fuel prices at the pumps might be lower than the Tories promised, but they are still higher than they were, and energy costs are still not down to what the Government promised in their manifesto. Will the Chancellor recognise that families are really struggling at the moment and put in an emergency package of measures to support them through the cost of living crisis?
Rachel Reeves
In April, people will get £150 off their energy bills and prescription charges in England will be frozen as will rail fares. At the same time, we are getting rid of the two-child benefit cap, which will lift 450,000 children out of poverty, but the most important thing we can do for the price of petrol, diesel and heating oil is de-escalate the conflict in the middle east and get vessels moving again through the strait of Hormuz. That is why this Government are putting such efforts into de-escalating this crisis.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
The level of poverty that 14 million people in the UK face is not inevitable; it is the result of political choices, and it damages our economy, costing around £75 billion each year. Will my right hon. Friend consider equalising capital gains tax with income tax and introducing a 2% wealth tax on assets over £10 million to lift people out of poverty and strengthen public finances?
Rachel Reeves
In my first Budget, I changed a number of taxes to ensure that the wealthiest are paying their fair share. We increased capital gains tax, reduced the number of tax loopholes, introduced VAT and business rates on private schools, extended the energy profits levy and got rid of the exemptions for private equity. In the Budget last year, I did more than any Chancellor has ever done to take children out of poverty. In the course of this Parliament alone, more than half a million children will be lifted out of poverty. I am proud to be the Chancellor who has delivered that.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
With tensions in the middle east pushing up global oil and gas prices again, households are understandably worried that yet another international crisis will mean higher energy bills and a higher cost of living at home. In my South Cambridgeshire constituency, like in others we have heard about today, many rural and semi-rural households have to use oil for heating, and they have seen prices double over the past week. I have heard that the Chancellor is considering measures to support them. Will she support the Liberal Democrats’ call to zero rate VAT on heating oil for three months for all those residential homes, and will she consider other measures to protect them from massive spikes in their bills?
Rachel Reeves
There are two things going on with heating oil. First, we have the conflict in the middle east, which we are trying to de-escalate, and secondly, we have price gouging. The way to deal with that is to ensure that customers are treated fairly and companies are not ripping off their customers. That is why we have asked the Competition and Markets Authority to look at the issues around heating oil, but we have to get to the root of the problem, which is that vessels are not flowing through the strait of Hormuz, and some businesses are using this crisis as an opportunity to rip off consumers. Rather than throwing public money at something when that is not the solution, let us deal with price gouging and getting the oil flowing.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Chancellor promised in her first Budget that she would not extend the freeze on income tax thresholds, because it
“would hurt working people. It would take more money out of their payslips.”—[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 821.]
In her second Budget, the Chancellor broke her promise with a £23 billion tax rise, bringing a million more people into paying higher rate tax. When people are set to struggle with the cost of living over this Parliament, why are the Government choosing to make their lives harder?
Rachel Reeves
Some people have short memories, haven’t they, Mr Speaker? I remember the Conservatives freezing those thresholds on a number of occasions. We said in our manifesto that we would not increase the headline rates of national insurance, VAT and income tax that working people pay, but I did say clearly at the Budget last year that we would have to ask everyone to make a greater contribution, because of the downgrade in productivity, which is a result of the mismanagement of the economy by the last Government over 14 failed years.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
At the spring forecast last week, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor showed that we have the right economic plan. Our plan has lowered inflation, borrowing, debt and debt interest payments. Our approach means that investment is up, helping to create the conditions for growth across the UK. Our firm approach to public spending is helping to keep public finances on a sustainable path.
John Glen
Given that the Chancellor has pencilled in 0.3% real-terms growth in public spending in 2029-30, and assuming that health spending is at its historical average, the special educational needs and disabilities spend is as per the proposals, and defence is at 3%, that will leave a 2.5% real-terms cut in unprotected Departments. What plans do the Chancellor and Chief Secretary to the Treasury have to fill that £13 billion gap in the 2029-30 envelope?
James Murray
If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the plans that we set out through our spending review, he will be clear that we are increasing spending by £50 billion a year by 2028-29 compared with the previous Government’s plans. At the same time, we are ensuring that taxpayers get value for money. We are making £3.9 billion of efficiency savings by 2029-30, rising to £5 billion by 2030-31.
Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Government’s spending plans look very, very iffy. The Minister has a chance of fitting in with the Chancellor’s fiscal rules—if there is no further downgrade on economic growth, which seems unlikely; if the Government have the backbone to rein in public spending and to increase taxes in the last years of the Parliament, which seems very unlikely; if the Government do not have to step in with any significant energy support because no money has been set aside; and if the Government can get £4.8 billion in salary sacrifice in 2029-30 revenues, which the industry says is a pipe dream. So here is another “if”. If the Minister’s spending plans start to fall apart, will he prioritise cuts in public spending over tax increases?
James Murray
I will give the hon. Gentleman an “if”. If he were honest and remembered his time in Liz Truss’s Government, he might not have the gall to make comments like that across the Dispatch Box—
Mr Speaker
Order. All Members are honest. Please think about what you are saying. You cannot individually attack a Member for not being honest. We are all honourable Members, as you well know. I call the honourable Minister.
James Murray
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I apologise unreservedly for the implication about the hon. Gentleman: I know that he is a very decent and honourable man, and I withdraw that comment. He may have unintentionally misled the House by failing to declare his part in the Liz Truss Government and the impact that that had on public spending. As he will know, we have stuck to the fiscal rules that this Chancellor introduced at the beginning of this Government in every fiscal event that we have had. Those fiscal rules are ironclad. We have sustainable plans for public spending, and we are ensuring that we are managing the economy in a way that the hon. Gentleman’s party could only dream of.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)
We became inured to the presence of food banks under Tory Governments over the last 14 years, but we should always remember that despite the incredible work done by those who run them, food banks should not need to exist, and this Government are committed to ending mass dependence on food parcels. That is why we have extended free school meals to children in families receiving universal credit and removed the two-child limit, which will lift 450,000 children out of poverty, and—according to the Trussell Trust, as the Chancellor said earlier—will significantly reduce the number of families using food banks.
Catherine West
Does the Minister agree that everyone—including financial institutions such as the mutual sector, which often outperforms the private banking sector in access to finance and branch closure issues—needs to play their part in helping families and households at this critical juncture?
Lucy Rigby
As my hon. Friend knows, we are a strong supporter of the mutual sector, for exactly the reasons that she has given. As part of our financial inclusion strategy, we are backing the sector with initiatives such as the new £30 million credit union transformation fund and reform of the common bond, which I look forward to introducing shortly.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to the work of the food banks, not only in my constituency but across the United Kingdom, in stepping up to plug gaps for families? Does she accept that urgent improvements in respect of benefit transitions and deductions are needed to prevent households from being pushed abruptly into crisis?
Lucy Rigby
As I have said, food banks should not need to exist, which is why this Government are committed to ending mass dependence on food parcels. I have also mentioned the importance of lifting the two-child limit on universal credit, which will result in the largest expected reduction in child poverty in a single Parliament since records began.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
Payments of both the basic pension and the new state pension will increase by 4.8% in April, in just a few weeks’ time, boosting pensioners’ incomes by up to £575 a year. The yearly amount of the full new state pension is projected to rise by about £2,100 over the current Parliament, reflecting this Government’s commitment to the triple lock for its duration.
Nick Smith
That is great news. Our pensioners deserve the best support, and will be glad of the extra income. I will shortly be organising events in my constituency promoting pension credit take-up. Some of my pensioner constituents, however, have lost money to the Safe Hands funeral scheme when trying to prepare for the worst of times. Will the Minister please meet me to discuss their case?
Torsten Bell
I am glad to hear that my hon. Friend is organising events to drive pension credit take-up, as he did last year. I know that Members on both sides of the House will be doing that throughout the year.
On my hon. Friend’s question about the failure of Safe Hands, he is a powerful advocate for his constituents. He will know that the Serious Fraud Office has recently announced that two individuals have been charged in relation to the case, and there are live criminal proceedings ongoing, but I know that my hon. and learned Friend the Economic Secretary, who is responsible for this matter, is always happy to meet him.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Nearly half a million pensioners living abroad will miss out on the state pension increase because we do not have reciprocal agreements with countries such as Canada and Australia. Several former Bath constituents have raised this issue with me. What discussions has the Minister had with departmental colleagues to rectify this injustice?
Torsten Bell
The hon. Member will know that it is a long-standing Government policy that the uprating of pensions is prioritised for residents in the UK, not least because the uprating levels reflect the path of earnings and prices in the UK. She will know that that was the Government’s policy under the Liberal Democrat-Conservative coalition Government, and it remains the case today.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
Thanks to this Government’s policies on pensions, which actively disincentivise saving into private pension schemes, people will increasingly rely on the support of the state. This is not sustainable. I asked the Minister about this yesterday, and he dodged the question, so I will ask him again: will the Government cancel pension fund mandation and abandon salary sacrifice caps—yes or no?
Torsten Bell
This Government have set out our policy. On the question of salary sacrifice, any responsible Government should look at the effectiveness of all tax reliefs. If salary sacrifice for pensions had not been reformed, the cost would have risen to £8 billion over the course of this Parliament. That is the cost of the entire Royal Air Force. If the Conservative party wants to be treated like a serious party that is committed to fiscal discipline, as it claims to be, it is time to grow up.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
The Government recognise the important contribution that hospitality businesses make to communities across the UK, including in Northern Ireland. Reducing VAT rates, or applying different VAT rates within the UK, would add complexity and come at a significant cost to the Exchequer.
Claire Hanna
As well as the business pressures, a majority of households in Northern Ireland and many businesses use heating oil as their main heating source, so they are particularly exposed to shocks such as that which we are experiencing due to the wrong-headed conflict in the middle east, and they are not protected by the energy price cap. The Stormont Executive have failed to regulate in this area, or to make any meaningful progress towards a transition to sustainable and secure energy. What interventions against extreme price fluctuations can the Treasury make for those not on the grid?
Dan Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Member for her representation of her constituents. The Chancellor has already said today, as she said yesterday, that we understand that there are particular pressures facing households that use heating oil for their heating. A meeting has been arranged for tomorrow with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, which I hope the hon. Member will be able attend to discuss this issue in more detail. We are also going to be in conversations with the Competition and Markets Authority to make sure that we have a fair market that provides a fair price for her constituents.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I support the call for a cut in VAT for the hospitality sector from the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna). She is right to say that oil prices are rising sharply. The fuel price at the pumps is rocketing, and families are struggling with the cost of living. In Northern Ireland, 60% of homes rely on heating oil. What steps will the Treasury take to cut fuel duty and remove VAT on domestic heating oil? Will it finally recognise the damage being done by the Energy Secretary’s net zero zeal in blocking further oil and gas licensing in the North sea?
Dan Tomlinson
We have made sure to freeze fuel duty since we have been in office. That has saved the average driver 8p per litre at the pump, and it will rise to 11p when the increase does not go ahead in a few weeks’ time.
If heating oil is an issue that affects the hon. Lady’s constituents, I hope she will be able to attend tomorrow’s meeting. We are looking very closely at this issue, and at the changes that we can see in oil and gas prices at the moment. As the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), said yesterday, it is too early to tell how things will pan out. We have seen significant increases, and today we have seen decreases. We will keep looking closely at what we can do.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
A number of hospitality businesses in my constituency have raised with me that the UK rate of VAT is much higher than it is in France and Germany. Will my hon. Friend ask the Office for Budget Responsibility to model the impact of VAT cuts, as studies have previously suggested that cuts—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry, but this question should be about Northern Ireland.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
I thank the Minister for his response. I have to declare an interest because I started a parliamentary petition exactly on a VAT cut for hospitality in Northern Ireland, the reason being that we have the Republic of Ireland with its very competitive VAT rate right up against us. Businesses saw the official Government response, because that petition got over 10,000 signatures, and they felt very despondent. I am sure that Treasury Ministers and the Chancellor will want to join me in trying to do everything we can to protect our hospitality sector. The Minister says this is complex to do, but would he agree with me that it is worth revisiting that idea?
Dan Tomlinson
This is a complex change to implement, but the Government’s position is that it is right to have the same rate of VAT across our country. During the pandemic, there was a cut—a temporary cut—to the rate of VAT and that came at the significant cost of £8 billion. We have to make sure that we can raise revenue from across the country in a fair and consistent way to support the public finances.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
Last week, the Office for Budget Responsibility set out its updated forecast for the UK economy, including for unemployment to peak this year before falling in each and every year thereafter. Longer-term problems for young people have been building in our labour market for far too long, with employment rates that are too low and levels of those not in education, employment or training soaring in the last Parliament. We will not allow a generation of young people to be left behind, which is why the Government have committed £820 million for the youth guarantee, strengthening employment support and guaranteeing jobs for the long-term unemployed.
Freddie van Mierlo
I first entered the job market in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, and it was a difficult time for young people, yet today they face even more difficult and uncertain times. The Chancellor’s jobs tax is bearing down on opportunities, and AI is making this worse by potentially pulling up the ladder on graduate jobs that previously included things such as note taking and supporting senior employees in meetings. Will the Chancellor correct course on the unemployment of young people and do more to support their career progress?
Torsten Bell
The hon. Member’s phrasing of his question was very telling about the challenges we all face in our labour market, because while we have seen more jobs created over the last year, there is a longer-term challenge with youth unemployment. If we look at the last Government, we never saw youth employment rates recover to the level seen under the previous Labour Government after the financial crisis, which was exactly the experience he mentioned.
It is important that we grapple with that long-term challenge, and there is the newer challenge with the huge increase in NEET rates in the last Parliament specifically. We absolutely need to focus on both of those, which is why we are focusing apprenticeship funding on young people in particular, why we are introducing the youth guarantee, and why we have the independent review led by Alan Milburn to focus on the root causes of these challenges.
Brian Mathew
The Government’s changes to employer national insurance contributions have made it more expensive for employers to take on staff, particularly in the hospitality sector, which employs a high proportion of young people and part-time workers. Does the Minister agree that these changes have made it more difficult for young people in Melksham and Devizes and across the country to get a foot on the career ladder and start their working lives?
Torsten Bell
I think all of us recognise that our hospitality and retail sectors have had a difficult time in recent years. For retail, that goes back before the pandemic, with the growth of online shopping. The squeeze on energy costs in the outrun of the pandemic has squeezed how much people are spending on hospitality.
Specifically on the hon. Member’s question about national insurance, I am sure he is aware that those under the age of 21 and on youth apprenticeships are exempt from national insurance entirely. I would gently point out that the youth employment pattern we see in the labour market long predates the changes to national insurance last year.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I am glad that the Government are introducing things like the youth guarantee and working to help those who are not in education, employment or training. However, as the hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) highlighted, AI is also an increasing concern. Businesses I have spoken to are concerned about the number of people they will not be employing in the future. The Minister has hinted that the Government are looking at this systemically. What conversations is he having across Government and, crucially, with businesses so that we can plan for what could be a real crisis in the future?
Torsten Bell
My hon. Friend has rightly been raising this issue for some time, predating the election. I will take the two parts of her question in turn. The impact of AI is something that is being looked at across countries—there is a unit inside Government looking at exactly that. More importantly, though, she mentions the crisis happening now, with some young people unable to get the job opportunities that we all want them to have, which they have not had for some time. We will bring forward further measures to strengthen the youth guarantee, which is an important measure to increase the employment support available to our young people and to ensure that a job guarantee is there for those who are long-term unemployed.
Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)
The unemployment situation in my constituency and across the Yorkshire coalfield is becoming a crisis. There are 1,980 people out of work in my constituency and 70 job vacancies—that is almost 30 unemployed people pursuing every single job. No Labour Minister would ever say that employment is a price worth paying, but will the Minister tell the House that he will equally prioritise tackling unemployment and reassuring the bond markets?
Torsten Bell
My hon. Friend and I have discussed these issues on many occasions, particularly as they are specific to his constituency and other coalfield communities. There are challenges, particularly with youth employment, which goes back to the last decade in particular, and we absolutely need to prioritise that. However, I would also say a word of warning on the view of the overall labour market. Looking at the employment level last year, which was around 75%, there have been only two years in peacetime in the past 100 years when Britain has had a higher employment rate. I think we should be a bit careful about talking down the resilience of the UK economy or, as in this case, the resilience of the labour market. We have had only two years in the past 100 in peacetime when Britain has had a higher employment rate than last year.
Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)
Last month, The Times reported that the Government may drop their pledge on minimum wage equalisation over fears of youth joblessness, and the BBC reports that the Government are considering a delay. Can the Minister advise whether the Government have considered any such delay or policy changes, and if so, what decision has been reached?
Torsten Bell
I want to offer my condolences to the hon. Gentleman for the recent loss of his father. It is something we all have to face at some point in our lives, but it is a lot to deal with. All our thoughts are with him at this time.
In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question, no, there is no change in Government policy. Our view is that we should see alignment of the national minimum wage and national living wage rates, but that should happen in the right way, which is with the guidance of the Low Pay Commission, which will continue to play an important role.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
The conflict in the middle east affects all of us, and I understand the anxiety felt by families and businesses. Rapid de-escalation in the middle east is the best way to protect businesses and working people from rising costs, which is why I continue to work closely with G7 colleagues to call for immediate de-escalation and to guarantee the security of vessels moving through the strait of Hormuz. I am clear-eyed about the situation we face. I will be both responsive to a changing world and responsible in the national interest to protect public finances and to help families and businesses with the cost of living.
Daniel Francis
I thank my right hon. Friend for her comments and support and echo what she has said about the situation in the middle east. The charity Shelter has long campaigned for people with no fixed address to be able to access bank accounts, including without ID. Which groups of people might benefit the most from the leadership shown by the Labour Government and from banks on this issue?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and pay tribute to my hon. and learned Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury for all the excellent work that she has done to take this agenda forward. The lack of a bank account does make it harder for people to secure stable employment and stable housing. That is why our financial inclusion strategy secured a commitment from the major banks to work with Shelter directly to make it easier for people without standard ID to access a bank account. This partnership with Shelter will particularly help to break the cycle of homelessness and support people to rebuild their lives, which we all want to see.
Sir Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
For every single year of the last Conservative Government, we froze fuel duty, and we did so to stand up for hard-working families. Given that petrol prices are surging at the pumps, why has the right hon. Lady chosen now to put up fuel duty?
Rachel Reeves
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the plans that we inherited from the previous Government would have seen fuel duty go up just a few months after the general election. We did not think that was the right approach, so we reversed the Conservative plans that we inherited to freeze fuel duty and to keep the 5p discount introduced during the pandemic. In April this year, under the plans that I inherited, fuel duty would have gone up again, but we do not think that is the right thing to do. Therefore, in a staggered approach from the autumn this year, the 5p cut introduced during the pandemic will begin to be unwound. At the same time, we have just introduced the cheaper fuel finder, which yesterday showed the divergence in prices paid by customers on petrol forecourts. Some paid 130p a litre and others 180p per litre, so it is really important that people use that cheaper fuel finder to shop around. I shall be meeting petrol retailers later this week to make it clear that we will not accept price gouging.
Sir Mel Stride
Given the rapidly rising cost of oil and gas, why does the right hon. Lady believe that it is better to import it than to extract it from the North sea?
Rachel Reeves
The price of oil and gas is particularly volatile at the moment, given the conflict in the middle east. My understanding, as we came into the Chamber today, was that prices of oil were down by something like 25% on the day. The most important thing that all of us can do to deal with what is happening to prices at the moment is to support de-escalation. That is the Labour party’s policy, but I am not sure what the policy of the Conservative party is. None the less, that is the best way to get down both the price of petrol at the pumps and of heating oil. The North sea will play an important part of our energy mix for many years to come, which is why I met North sea oil and gas companies just last week to talk about what more they can do and how we can help.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
Mr Speaker
Many Back Benchers did not get in earlier, so, please, it would help me if we could try to speed up.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
I thank my hon. Friend for his representations on this matter here today and over many months, and in Westminster Hall just a few weeks ago. The rural fuel duty relief scheme does provide that 5p discount and it will benefit his constituents on the islands and in the communities he represents. We will of course keep all our taxes under review. I will be happy to meet him to talk about this one.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
In times of crisis, the UK Government have often had to spend more on energy support for households and small businesses than other comparable countries, because our energy market is so broken. Hospitality and small businesses tell me that some suppliers simply refuse to supply hospitality businesses at all. If the Government are determined to refuse Liberal Democrat calls for an emergency VAT cut, can I please ask them whether, at the very least, they will consider our call to instruct the Competition and Markets Authority to investigate bad practices in the energy market affecting hospitality and small businesses, so that we can drive down bills through greater competition?
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
The hon. Lady is right to talk about the long-term answer here, which is more domestic energy security. That is why we are getting on with building nuclear power—whether it is in Wylfa, Suffolk or Somerset. On her specific question, the Chancellor and Ministers have been very clear with the CMA that, particularly at times such as these, we need to ensure that no companies are taking advantage of customers—whether they are customers filling up their domestic heating oil or hospitality businesses.
Damien Egan (Bristol North East) (Lab)
Rachel Reeves
I am proud to be the Labour Chancellor who has overseen the biggest uplift in defence spending since the end of the cold war. Just last week we announced a £1 billion helicopter deal with Leonardo, based in Yeovil, just down the road from my hon. Friend. Yesterday I confirmed to the House that the Ministry of Defence has access to the special reserve. That means that the added costs of deploying additional capabilities in the middle east will be funded entirely by the Treasury special reserve.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Rachel Reeves
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising the important issues with heating oil that his constituents are facing. I very much hope that he will be able to attend the meeting tomorrow. There are two key issues: making sure that vessels can again flow through the strait of Hormuz, which requires a de-escalation of the crisis; and stopping the price gouging that some businesses are engaged in at the moment. That is why I have asked the CMA to look at that too.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the important work of Co-operative Care Colne Valley, which is an excellent example of how co-operatives can deliver high-quality community-owned care for elderly and disabled people. His constituency is home to a number of other fantastic co-operatives, including the Green Valley Grocer and the Handmade Bakery. The Government are committed to doubling the size of the co-ops and mutuals sector, exactly because we recognise the very positive role that it plays.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
Businesses in the hon. Lady’s constituency, and indeed across the country, can know that, whatever instability we face in the world in the months and weeks ahead, the Government have done the right thing for the economy by bringing down inflation, interest rates, borrowing, debt and debt costs. All that puts us in the strongest possible position to be resilient going into the future.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
Lucy Rigby
I know how passionate my hon. Friend is about the Government’s priority to get more first-time buyers on to the housing ladder. As he and I have discussed before, people looking to buy a home can build their credit history through rent payments by using third-party services that report these things to credit reference agencies. I think that he and I would agree that better awareness of such services and the mortgages available that take account of tenants’ rental payments would be a good thing.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
Rachel Reeves
While only 4% of people in Great Britain use heating oil, I recognise that this is a particular issue for many constituents, and in Northern Ireland the figure is more than 60%. I am keen for the hon. Gentleman to take these issues to the meeting with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury tomorrow. We are working closely with the Competition and Markets Authority to stop price gouging. There is no reason why a company should be charging twice as much as it was for heating oil; we need to put a stop to those practices.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
The junction of Surrey Road and Prince of Wales Road; Wimborne Road, between Kinson library and Bear Cross; and Hankinson Road, around Winton rec—these are some of the more than 35 roads in Bournemouth West where residents have told me potholes are out of control. Lib Dem-led Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council has been given £7.5 million to maintain our roads and fix potholes. I will be writing to BCP council later today, but in the meantime, will the Minister join me in urging it to get its act together and finally fix our roads?
James Murray
As my hon. Friend makes clear, we need to ensure that our extra funding for local roads maintenance is spent effectively, and that local residents can hold councils like Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole to account. The Liberal Democrats have typically not been shy about mentioning potholes in their leaflets; now is their time to deliver.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Rachel Reeves
Alongside the Budget last year, we published the new North sea oil and gas strategy, which, for example, allows tie-backs, so that more use can be made of existing fields. The previous Government brought in the energy profits levy when energy companies’ profits went through the roof after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. That is still in place, so that when prices are high, we can bring money in to help people with their bills.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
I welcome the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s work to get the Leonardo helicopters contract over the line, as that will help protect defence jobs right across Dorset, Somerset and the wider south-west. Will the Treasury and Ministers continue to work with the Ministry of Defence to secure investment in the defence sector in Dorset and across the west country?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for what he said about the Leonardo contract at Yeovil, which supports many thousands of jobs in Somerset, and indeed Dorset. I am proud to be the Chancellor who has overseen the biggest uplift in defence spending since the end of the cold war; that has enabled us to support this investment and many others.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
Torsten Bell
I thank the hon. Member for his second question, and his enthusiastic volume of questions today. The Government balance the needs of public services with tax revenues. I gently point out that Liberal Democrat Members come to the House day in, day out, and call for more spending—we have heard that happen today—but then oppose every single tax rise or tax change required to make that happen. That is not what serious politics looks like. We need to take tax seriously, and it is time for some serious politics from the Liberal Democrats.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
The loan charge was a scandal that affected tens of thousands of people across this country, some of whom were on very low pay and not given a choice by their employers. At the last Budget, the Government put forward changes. What assessment has the Minister made of how those changes will impact people at the lowest end, including social care workers across the country?
Dan Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend for the question, and for the representation she has provided for her constituents and, through her work on the loan charge and taxpayer fairness all-party parliamentary group, for many across the country who have been affected by the loan charge. At the Budget, we made the decision to write off £5,000 from the liabilities of everyone who has been affected by the loan charge, so about a third of those affected will have their liabilities written off entirely. I look forward to continuing to engage with her and Members across the House on this important issue.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Following on from that last question, the loan charge and taxpayer fairness APPG, which I co-chair, wrote to Ministers on 1 July, 22 September and 25 November last year, with questions about the 2005 preferential deal with the large banks. Does the Minister feel that it is acceptable that we have not had a reply to those letters? When will we get one?
Dan Tomlinson
The letters that were sent will receive a reply very shortly. A decision was made that in the run-up to the announcement of the independent loan charge review, it would not be appropriate for the Government to set out in detail their views on a live issue that an independent reviewer was looking at. That review was published alongside the Budget. I apologise for the fact that the response has not come in the weeks since; it will be with the hon. Member and the APPG very shortly.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Two weeks ago, I held an emergency cost of living summit in Blackpool, after record numbers of families, particularly single mums, contacted us in food crisis. They could not access the council’s discretionary fund. Will the Minister outline how the new crisis and resilience fund will ensure that families in my constituency can get the support that they need, especially over the weekend?
James Murray
My hon. Friend is right to point to the crisis and resilience fund as an important lifeline for families across this country. We work with local authorities to make sure that the funding gets to the frontline, because local councils best understand where the most acute pressures are in their areas. I am, however, happy to discuss this with him later.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Heat batteries are the only clean heat technology certified by the microgeneration certification scheme that is excluded from VAT relief under the energy-saving materials framework. This penalises smaller homes and lower-income households that cannot accommodate a heat pump. Will the Chancellor commit to removing that anomaly, and meet me and representatives of the UK heat battery industry to discuss it?
Dan Tomlinson
The Government regularly assess whether to add energy-saving materials, including heat batteries, to the list of items covered by the current VAT relief, which is set to continue until March 2027. Any decisions would have to be announced by the Chancellor at a fiscal event, but I am happy to discuss the matter.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
Given the global situation, what discussions has the Chancellor had with Cabinet colleagues on helping to keep industrial energy costs manageable? Will she work with colleagues to bring in the British industrial competitiveness scheme, which would cut manufacturing energy costs by 25%, as soon as possible?
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate for the energy-intensive industries, and for manufacturing more widely. The supercharger is being extended from April this year. That will help 500 of the most energy-intensive businesses, and increase their discount from 60% to 90%—and next year, the BIC scheme comes in. Given what is happening in the middle east, we will continue to look closely at what we can do to help our energy-intensive industries.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Over 50% of properties in the Scottish Borders are not on the mains gas grid and are completely dependent on heating oil. They are being hammered by the increase to the price of heating oil over the last week or so, and they need to see concrete action from this Government to stop the excessive prices and the profiteering. What are the Government going to do?
Rachel Reeves
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We are trying to de-escalate the conflict in the middle east, because if we can get vessels moving again through the strait of Hormuz, we will deal with a lot of these problems. I am working closely with both Lloyd’s of London—I met its representatives yesterday—and my G7 colleagues to ensure that those vessels can get moving again. At the same time, I think that everybody has heard the stories in this Chamber and from our constituents about the problems of price gouging. We have to address that, and I have asked the CMA to look at it. Members across the House will have a chance tomorrow to set out their case to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in more detail, so that we have all the information needed to make the case.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
My constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme are sick and tired of poor-quality, dangerous roads. The county council has resources from this Government, and must stop being missing in action. What message does the Minister have for Staffordshire county council?
James Murray
My hon. Friend is right that we need councils across the country to use the extra funding that the Government have made available for local road maintenance to fill those potholes. Councils will have to publish their data online, so that local people can monitor, through a traffic light system available on gov.uk, how their council is performing.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Every year, the UK loses £33.4 billion in tax revenue, as multinational corporations and the super-rich choose tax havens over tax payments. However, the UN tax convention has the potential to solve this problem, so will the Minister show leadership, not ambivalence, and commit to securing an ambitious UN tax convention in this Parliament?
Dan Tomlinson
I am always happy to show leadership, and this Government—and, I may say, previous Governments—have worked hard with international partners, both in the OECD and the UN, to do all we can to reduce tax avoidance and evasion by multinational companies. We continue to work with our partners in the UK and abroad to clamp down on tax dodging.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
My constituent in Rochdale, Louise Marshall, wrote to me this weekend because she is worried sick about the massive price rise she is facing for heating oil. Can the Chancellor assure me, notwithstanding the meeting we are all going to have with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, that we can be absolutely crystal clear that under this Government, we will not tolerate price gouging or war profiteering from oil companies that try to rip off their customers?
Rachel Reeves
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The price gouging that we see is totally unacceptable, which is why we have already asked the Competition and Markets Authority to look at this. Whether we are talking about petrol at the pumps or heating oil, there is no excuse for any business to use this as an opportunity to rip off customers.
Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)
One of the things that makes our economy less resilient is high levels of debt. The Chancellor and I have both followed fiscal rules that allowed us to claim that debt was falling, when in fact it continued to rise, both in absolute terms and as a proportion of GDP. Does she think it is time to consider a new fiscal rule that actually reduces debt—for example, a rule that public spending will not increase faster than economic growth?
Rachel Reeves
Debt is lower in every year of the forecast that I published last week than it was in the plans that I set out in the Budget just back in November. The fiscal rules that I introduced in the October after I became Chancellor said, first of all, that we had to balance day-to-day spending with tax receipts, and that is important. They also stated that, subject to getting debt down as a share of GDP, we could invest in the things that can actually grow the economy. The right hon. Gentleman and I both know that growth is the best way to ensure that our public finances are sustainable, and that we improve living standards for working people.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
The Government’s new industrial strategy has signposted a path to further economic growth and prosperity. There are certain regions of the UK that can play a significant role in this growth, so would Treasury Ministers consider working with the Department for Business and Trade to make Cornwall an industrial strategy zone?
Rachel Reeves
In the Budget last year, we introduced the Kernow growth fund to support the Cornish economy because of its specific strengths around critical minerals, defence and clean energy. The National Wealth Fund and the wider Government will do everything we can to unlock the huge opportunities that we know exist in Cornwall.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Given the recent Institute for Fiscal Studies report that says that the Treasury’s excessively narrow focus on fiscal rules leads to dysfunctional policy making, and given recent global events showing the uncertainty of fiscal forecasting, does the Chancellor recognise that it is time to move to a more flexible and strategic approach to fiscal rule-making and fiscal policymaking?
Rachel Reeves
I totally reject the premise of that question. The fiscal rules that I introduced as Chancellor have unlocked £120 billion for capital investment. We will be spending £50 billion more on day-to-day spending by the end of this Parliament, but at the same time, we are bringing debt down, bringing the deficit down, bringing inflation down, and bringing interest rates down for all our constituents. Economic stability is the way to grow our economy and make working people in all our constituencies better off, and if we forget that, it is ordinary working people who pay the price.
Digital ID: Public Consultation
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister (Darren Jones)
Today the Government are launching a national conversation on how we will build and use digital ID as the means to access public services digitally on a mobile phone or computer.
Public services are meant to be there at the most important moments of your life: free childcare hours to help your children get a good start in life, getting your passport to go on your first holiday, passing your driving test and getting your first driving licence, asking for help if you lose your job, or receiving your state pension in retirement. But today, as the House knows, it is often too hard for people to get what they need when they need it. The current legacy system of call centres, paperwork and the need for people to tell their story multiple times to different parts of Government, with hours on hold and not knowing where they are in the process, is not good enough. I want to change that, and this Government will.
In its place, we will build a truly modern Britain where public services work for the citizen, through new digital public services that come together on the gov.uk app, so that help is there when people need it most. To do that, Government need to build the foundations for these new modern public services, and that is exactly what this digital ID system is for. It will be free to access for anyone who wishes to use it, and it will be built on three core principles. First, it must be useful. It needs to be easier than the old telephone and paper-based systems. Secondly, it must be secure. People will have more control over what data they share, and we expect nothing less than the level of security protections provided by banks for online banking services. Thirdly, it must be for everyone. We will not leave people behind, and the Government will help those who are less confident with technology or do not have other forms of ID, such as a passport.
With a digital ID, citizens will be able to log in to the gov.uk app and then, crucially, prove who they are. But unlike an ordinary login, the digital ID will work across different Departments and services, bringing those all together in one place in the gov.uk app, so that the public can access all the services they need in one place. This is different from building one giant Government IT system—that is not what we are doing. Services will remain on separate IT systems in their relevant Departments, and the NHS app and citizens’ health data will always remain separate, but the gov.uk app and digital ID will, over time, bring all other public services into one app on mobile phones—the front door to modern public services.
This will not be a new experience for citizens. The public already use these systems every day, from banking to shopping. Other countries are already far ahead of us, from Denmark and Estonia to Australia and India. Britain is having to catch up.
It is an issue of convenience and efficiency, but it is also one of fairness and equality. We all know who the status quo often favours: those with the resources, the headspace, and perhaps the pointy elbows or the pushiness to get themselves to the front of the queue or allow them to play the system. But public services are meant to be there when people need them most, and how the legacy system has sometimes treated people in these stressful or difficult situations is quite frankly an outrage, piling them up with bureaucracy and leaving them without the help they need.
Who is it who struggles to fill in the forms correctly or lacks the form of ID required? Who are the one in seven people across the UK who do not have a passport? They are often the strivers who are juggling work and caring responsibilities. This Government believe that everybody deserves a fair shot, and it is up to Government to give people support and a leg-up when they need it.
Today we are launching this national conversation to discuss how we will build and use a digital ID. We want to know where frustrations exist with the current legacy system and which services could be made easier via the gov.uk app. Later today, I will share a prototype of how a digital ID could work that shows how “government by app” could become a reality, joining up different Departments and services so that the public do not have to do the work themselves.
In the initial stages, the digital ID system will start by making it easier to complete simple administrative tasks, such as proving one’s right to work when starting a job. Other tasks, such as paying car tax, ordering a passport or sorting childcare entitlements, could become part of the same app. I understand that the idea of a digital ID has sparked significant public interest, so I have instructed my Department to ensure that this consultation goes further than any other that the Government have done before.
As part of the public consultation, which is live right now, we will invite a representative sample of the public at large—from all walks of life and all parts of the country—to form a people’s panel. [Interruption.] That deliberative democracy process will build on our experience of supporting Parliament’s citizens assembly on net zero in the previous Parliament. Working with over 100 citizens, we will debate the difficult questions, find ways forward and build a system that can secure the trust and support of everyone. [Interruption.] To those Members chuntering from a sedentary position about having a conversation with the public, I say, “What do you fear?” This Government are very happy to talk to the public about what we are doing, and I look forward to talking to hon. Members’ constituents if they are selected to be part of the process.
I understand that this will not be for everyone. I hope that the services we build will be so good that most people will wish to use them, but for those who do not, I want to make sure that help is on hand in their local community. That is why the roll-out of the digital ID will be accompanied by a digital inclusion drive to help people to access and use the services. I do not come to Parliament today with preconceived answers, and we will of course need to ensure that any future scheme is value for money, but I am interested to hear ideas about how we might use the people and buildings we already support through public expenditure to help local communities. We could use local post offices and postal workers, or libraries and jobcentres, to ensure that the majority of people can, if they need to, access digital assistance to use these services. For those who really do not wish to, traditional routes will of course still be made available.
As right hon. and hon. Members from across the House know, by the end of this Parliament, digital checks to verify someone’s right to work will be mandatory when they start a new job. It is currently a legal requirement for employers to check that a new employee has a legal right to work in the United Kingdom, but the often paper-based approach of photocopying or scanning a passport or utility bills, without further checks, is vulnerable to fraud and does not create a clear record for enforcement agents of when and where checks have been carried out. That is why the Prime Minister has asked for those existing checks to be conducted digitally by the end of this Parliament. It will still be the employer’s responsibility, but employees will be able to choose between using their Government digital ID—as we are setting out today—and using a passport, e-visa or other alternative method. It will be easier and quicker for individuals to demonstrate their right to work. For businesses, it will streamline and reduce the cost of compliance reporting. For the Home Office, it will create a digital audit trail of where checks have been carried out, to support enforcement where checks have not been carried out and to deter those who think that it is too easy to work illegally in the United Kingdom.
This is quite a technical consultation, but it is also a deeply political one. When the public voted for change they also voted for better public services. That is what Labour Governments at their best are all about: building new and innovative public services to support opportunity for all, rather than for just the privileged few—from the NHS in the 1940s, to the Open University in the 1960s and Sure Start centres in the 2000s. Today we are continuing that proud Labour tradition by building modern, digital public services that extend opportunity and support for people when they need it. This stands in stark contrast to political parties that wish to conserve the unacceptable status quo, or that offer to tear everything down and leave people on their own.
We want people across Britain to want this system, we want them to be part of it, and we want them to have the opportunity to shape it. This consultation is that opportunity. I look forward to the involvement of Members from across the House and of our constituents. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons) for his work on this issue to date, and the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith), for all the work that he will now do to make this a reality—for which I will take the credit if it goes well, and he the blame if it goes wrong. I commend this statement to the House.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement and for the briefing a short time ago.
It is said that in 1720, gullible investors were invited to put their money into
“a company for carrying out an undertaking of great advantage, but nobody to know what it is”.
Today, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister appears to be reviving that proud tradition. For months, his Department has insisted that digital ID was absolutely essential, and until a few weeks ago, it had to be mandatory—even for babies. However, after months of insisting that the scheme was indispensable, the Government are now asking the public to tell them just what it is indispensable for. There was a time when this was supposed to be the magic bullet to tackle illegal migration. Now, the Cabinet Office seems to be suggesting that it might just help to reduce hold times in Government call centres.
This great undertaking has gone from promising the elixir of eternal youth to the equivalent of, “Well, you never know, it might help if you have a slightly upset tummy.” The public know snake oil when they are offered it. We should not be surprised, because this never was a thought-through policy; it was always a distraction stunt. For years, officials have been looking at the ID file on the shelf, hoping for a Government desperate enough to pick it up, and last September they finally found one. Desperate for an announcement to shove Andy Burnham off the front pages before a tricky Labour conference—look how that turned out—the Prime Minister dusted off this scheme with no clear idea of how it would work, what it would cost or what the consequences would be.
After one of the Government’s many U-turns, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister now assures us that this digital ID will not become compulsory. Nothing is ever compulsory until it suddenly is. We know how this story goes. At first, it is voluntary, then it becomes strongly encouraged. Then, you discover you need it to open a bank account and see your GP. Before long, your phone battery dies while you are in the queue at Costa, and you are essentially a non-person: “Sorry, sir, no flat white for you. Computer says you no longer exist.” It is no wonder that even the Health Secretary wants nothing to do with this particular headline.
Of course, the Government tell us not to worry because the system will be secure. This is the same Government who cannot even keep their own Budget secret. How much confidence can the public really have that their personal data will not be misused, when the Minister who was responsible for the scheme this time last week had to resign following reports that he hired a firm to spy on journalists who had written negative stories about his organisation?
In November, the Office for Budget Responsibility put the cost of this boondoggle at £1.8 billion over three years, which is more than the cost of building and operating a new Type 45 destroyer—and nearly as dangerous if not used properly. The OBR did not change that figure in last week’s projections, so we can assume that £1.8 billion remains the best estimate. And for what? Britain has managed perfectly well for centuries without a peacetime national identity system. Society functions without citizens having to authenticate themselves to the state every time they wish to open an app or go about their daily lives. Before we rush headlong into constructing the world’s most elaborate digital clipboard, the Government should recognise some serious concerns. If their system fails, it will be expensive; if it is hacked, it will be dangerous; and if it expands, it will be intrusive. So what exactly is the overwhelming crisis in British life that requires us to take all three risks?
Until the Government can answer that question convincingly, the British public will view this proposal in exactly the same way that they view most grand Whitehall technology schemes: with deep suspicion, a modicum of mild amusement and a firm determination to keep their identity exactly where it belongs—in their own pocket, not floating somewhere in the Government’s cloud.
Darren Jones
I enjoyed the hon. Member’s response to the statement, and I thank him for lifting our spirit with it. Let me say two things to him gently. First, I am very confident that, because the public do their banking and shopping online in a quick and convenient way, the fact that the Government are saying, “You should be able to access public services in that way,” will seem perfectly sensible and pragmatic. If Conservative Members want to say that the status quo is the best we have to offer and we should not even try to make it better, then all luck to them. Secondly, I genuinely do not think that I heard—not for the want of trying—a single question in the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, so I have nothing further to add.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s decision to remove the mandatory element of digital ID, so that we can all focus on the benefits that easier access to public services should deliver for everyone. Usefulness, security and inclusivity are good principles, and I urge my constituents to take part in the consultation in any way they can. The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, which I chair, has heard really worrying evidence of lax data practices across Government, persistent IT failures and lock-in to expensive proprietary systems. Digital ID will be built in-house, as I understand it, by the Government Digital Service in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. Can my right hon. Friend commit that it will not be built on bad data and bad data practices?
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for her question; the Government look forward to working with her and her Select Committee as we develop these policies. She is absolutely right. We are focusing on building the app and the login system with digital ID, but the big prize in the years ahead is when we can get the old services off the old computers, into the app and working well. I do not underestimate the challenge of that process, but it presents an opportunity for investment and reform that will modernise those systems, deal with those legacy issues around security and the quality of data, and ultimately provide better services to the public. It will take a number of years to do, but I am confident that in the end, it is the only viable route to modern public services in our country.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I am grateful to the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. Let us be clear about why we are here. Following collapsing public support, strong opposition from the Liberal Democrats, a petition signed by nearly 3 million people—including over 5,000 of my constituents—and significant unease expressed by Labour MPs, the Government had no choice but to step back from a mandatory scheme. But in the spirit of being a constructive Liberal Opposition, we have some suggestions for the Government if they want this scheme to have any level of public support whatsoever.
First, any digital ID scheme must never be mandatory. People should not be forced to turn over their data simply to go about their daily lives. We cannot and should not turn people into criminals just because someone is unable or unwilling to obtain one. Any scheme must genuinely assure privacy, with very clear legal limits and strong technical protections to prevent misuse or surveillance. Individuals must retain ownership and control of their own data. The data must not be reused, sold or accessed beyond its original purpose.
The Government should also give assurance on the decentralisation of any register. A single point of failure puts the personal details of millions at risk, which is unacceptable. Any scheme must also have a clearly defined purpose set out in law. We could not support a system that extends into different parts of our lives over time, without clear and unequivocal democratic approval.
Robust safeguards are vital. Yes, it is about what this Government want to do, but it is also about what a potential future Government may wish to do with the power such a scheme would present. Can the Chief Secretary confirm that a digital ID scheme will never be mandatory, either for employment or to secure a home in the UK?
Darren Jones
I thank the hon. Lady and her colleagues for their engagement with the Government on this issue; we look forward to continuing to work with them on this. The good news is that on each of the principles she sets out, the Government agree wholeheartedly. I hope that means we will get the support of the Liberal Democrats, and we look forward to delivering these great reforms to public services together for the public.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
I hope to move on at 1.30 pm, because many Members wish to speak in the next debate, so if we could speed up questions and answers, that would be excellent. Ian Lavery will give a good example of a speedy question.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
The general public need to be on board with this or it will be a complete and utter failure. When it comes to the most deprived and those who lack the technological abilities to access these systems, what is my right hon. Friend going to do to make sure he can bring people onside, so that this scheme can be a success?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend is exactly right to call out the challenge of digital inclusion. We see in the private sector lots of services becoming digital but very little help for the public if they cannot use them. The great opportunity of this programme, as I said in my statement, is that if we can create opportunities in people’s local communities—whether in post offices, libraries, GP surgeries or jobcentres—so that there is someone nearby who can help them if they want help to use these digital systems, that would be a huge advancement on digital inclusion. I hope this programme will help deliver those outcomes.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
Before I purchase something at the supermarket, I want to know what the price is. The Minister seems to be lacking clarity on how much this is going to cost. Can he give that clarity?
Darren Jones
The consultation asks many questions about how we should build, implement and roll out this system. I am absolutely happy to tell the House that as of today, we do not know the answer. I would rather be honest with the House, as opposed to announcing a budget for something that then gets massively out of control in years ahead, as was often the case under the previous Government. I look forward to coming back to the House with updated figures after the consultation.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
The state holds vast amounts of data on all of us from the moment we are born, some of which we never see, are never able to correct and never know who has been looking at it. Does the Minister agree that digital ID provides the opportunity for residents in my constituency and beyond to take back control over their personal data?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend is exactly right. It is very difficult today to get information out of the public sector because it is often paper-based or on IT systems that we cannot access. With digital ID and the gov.uk app, citizens will have more control and more insight into how their data is being used and for what purposes in the future, which will mean they feel more in control of which data they are sharing with the public sector.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
When asked by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) whether he could guarantee that a digital identity requirement would never become mandatory, the Minister said he wholeheartedly agreed, but is it not the case that the original scheme that the Government were minded to put forward was mandatory, so how much faith can we put in that assurance?
Darren Jones
First, the Prime Minister’s announcement was that it should be mandatory for digital verification of ID. This scheme enables that, but there are other routes available to people if they wish to follow them. The other commitment I can give the right hon. Member is that I suspect it will be on the face of the Bill that we will bring to the House later this year.
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
Many people still have to repeatedly prove who they are to different parts of Government. Does the Chief Secretary agree that a trusted digital identity system could make public services simpler and more secure for citizens, while protecting privacy?
Darren Jones
That is exactly our ambition. We will all have constituents who struggle to get in touch with the right people with the right information and the right ability to make a decision when they are trying to access support or information. This will make it much easier for people to do without having to think about different telephone numbers, different logins, and different codes. It will be simple, on their phone and there for them when they need it most.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I commend the Minister for admitting that he does not know how much this is going to cost, but it is almost six months since this became Government policy, and now he has decided that it is time to consult the public. Can he tell the House how much it has cost us so far?
Darren Jones
Any costs incurred so far have been purely for civil servants to pull together the consultation and for the Department to hold discussions and roundtables with stakeholders. Government will need spending authority from Parliament to start this scheme being built, and that will be part of the Bill that will come to the House later this year.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
I am the mother of teenagers, and they cannot believe how difficult it is to access their data and interact with public services. They call it “cringe”, a bit like the response from the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood). If we are to be a modern, digital Britain, embracing AI and building an innovation-based economy, is it not right that our public services are also built in that frame and put us in the driving seat?
Darren Jones
I very much agree with my hon. Friend. We have to remember that taxpayers pay for these public services, but they have nowhere else to go, unlike in the private sector, where they can go to someone else if they are getting a rubbish service. It is a requirement for all of us in this House to make sure we are using taxpayers’ money effectively to build effective modern public services, and that is what this Government will be doing.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
I am almost speechless! This House is the properly accountable people’s panel, not some collection of stooges and trustees selected by the Minister. In any event, it is no good him telling us it is asleep—this parrot is dead, killed by lack of trust in the Government after the whole saga of Labour Together, isn’t it?
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and the clarification that participation in the scheme will not be compulsory to access public services. Will he say a little more about how he will persuade people that this tool will make their everyday lives easier? Will he also say what discussions he has had with the devolved Administrations to ensure the same opportunities apply across the UK, and explain how my constituents in Paisley and Renfrewshire South will participate in the people’s panel?
Darren Jones
As the House would expect, I have been engaging with the First Ministers and Deputy First Ministers of the devolved Governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland about the scheme. We have made an open invitation that, should they wish to bring devolved services into the app in the future, they are more than welcome to do so. In the past, we have seen examples of choices made by devolved Governments that we would rather avoid, if we can. For example, the Scottish Government decided not to be a part of the development of the NHS app in England, which resulted in a worse service for people in Scotland than in England. Ultimately, we want the system to be so useful and so effective that people will want to use it because it will be so easy that the alternatives are not attractive.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
It seems that even in the middle of an existing cost of living crisis, with another one looming, the Government have decided to plough ahead with a digital ID scheme that few folks actually want. Having committed so much money to the scheme already, and with the price of heating oil, gas, electricity and fuel soaring yet again, does the Minister believe that spending even more money on this unpopular idea is suddenly going to make it popular?
Darren Jones
There is a little irony in the SNP advising the Labour Government that we should spend more taxpayers’ money on worse public services, which is exactly what the SNP has been doing for the last 20 years in Scotland. I look forward to the hon. Gentleman being part of this process so that we can show him how it can be done.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for announcing that there will be a public consultation, as I know that my constituents value having the opportunity to have their say. As the mum to an 18-year-old, in the last two weeks, I have heard—I kid you not—“Mum, where do I get my national insurance number? Mum, I need to tax my car. Where do I get my MOT certificate? Mum?” And that is before we even start talking about what she is going to do when she enters the world of full-time work and becomes a homeowner. May I thank the Minister for proposing that we give people access to the data that is already held about them in a far more convenient way that matches our lives in the 21st century?
Darren Jones
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The good news is that there will be a “Dear Colleagues” letter coming out later today that will invite all hon. Members, on a cross-party basis, to hold a constituency event on digital ID so that they can submit those views to the consultation.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
The Minister mentioned that there is no set budget, so is this a blank cheque for Government spending? What will be the end point? Is this a white elephant, a black hole or just another project that will fall by the wayside? Why are the Government having a people’s panel when we have Parliament, and when people across the county are saying that they do not want digital ID?
Darren Jones
The consultation is open to anyone and everyone, whatever view they hold, so I encourage the hon. Lady to invite her constituents to take part. She asked about the cost of the scheme. As I have said, the Bill will come to the House later this year. A money resolution will be required, for the Government to spend money on the scheme. Future costs will be subject to the next spending review in 2027.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
I welcome the change to not demand a digital ID, and I welcome the focus of the work: listening to the public about how Government platforms can be made useful, relevant and efficient for residents. What checks will be carried out to hold the spend accountable and ensure that the services being delivered are relevant to residents in the UK?
Darren Jones
The hon. Lady is right that the grand idea is not just to improve public services, but to reduce cost by taking a more digital approach to delivery. At the moment, every call to a call centre or form that is filled out and passed from one person to another, is an additional cost to the taxpayer and money that is not spent on the help and support they need. Of course, the normal checks and balances will be in place, subject to the next spending review, and Treasury business case approval will be required for each service that is being onboarded to the app in the years ahead.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
I thank the more than 6,000 residents who signed a petition against mandatory digital ID. The scheme that has been outlined will inevitably save the Government billions of pounds, so will they commit to investing that money in bobbies on the beat to tackle antisocial behaviour in town centres such as Torquay and Paignton?
Darren Jones
There have been some estimates that if we are able to harness the full benefit of the gov.uk app and improve the productivity of customer services across Government, we could save tens of billions of pounds every single year. That is tens of billions of pounds of money that is being spent right now on poor public services that can be reinvested into the frontline to support people, or even given back to taxpayers in the years ahead.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
Before entering the House, I worked in tech building products to streamline ID checks, improving user interface and user experience in the process. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that will be the case with a digital ID? Does he further agree that making funded hours of childcare more accessible will be an important use case to explore?
Darren Jones
Childcare is a great example. To claim a 20% reduction in childcare fees, people must log into the HMRC website every three months, calculate the figure for 80% of the fees, do the card transaction themselves, find the nursery provider and send the money. On top of that, they get a form from the council every quarter with a code they must fill out—crazy. The whole point of gov.uk and digital ID is to make things like that quicker and easier for members of the public at home, so that the user experience is as good in the public sector as it is in the private sector.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
The public want faster, better public services, but the existing gov.uk app works very well—I suspect most of us use it. That is a massive difference from what the public do not want, which is a digital identity card system. The first mistake that the Minister has made is calling this statement “Digital ID”. Can the Minister be honest with this House and the British people: is this about improving the gov.uk app as it currently exists or is it about a digital identity card system through the back door?
Darren Jones
As I said in my statement, if people want to use online services, they can log into some websites in some Departments independently, but they must log into each one differently, as they do not talk to each other. The difference between one login and digital ID is that by proving who they are in the app, we can plumb those services into one place, so there is a front door to those services. I am confident that the public would expect that and would want to be able to vote for that in the future, in contrast to privatising the NHS, which they definitely will not vote for.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
In Europe today, it is possible to have a prescription issued in Tallinn, Estonia, and have it fulfilled in Lisbon, Portugal, but in my constituency, my local hospital cannot even send a prescription to a local pharmacy. May I urge my right hon. Friend to look carefully at what works in Europe, avoid reinventing the wheel and seriously consider interoperability with the EU’s identification framework?
Darren Jones
We are already in discussions with the European Commission on shared standards, primarily because in Northern Ireland, subject to the Good Friday agreement, members of the public can have an Irish passport or a British passport and still work in the United Kingdom. To honour that commitment, we will be building the system to recognise an Irish passport as well as a British passport, and in doing so meet the equivalence of standards with the European Union more widely.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
My long experience is that the Scottish Government are quite prepared to ignore consultations, especially on the views of my constituents. Will the Minister set out how this system will work if the Scottish Government do not co-operate in it and instead use it to try to take forward their independence agenda?
Darren Jones
As I have said to the House, I have been in touch with Ministers in the Scottish Government just this morning to extend an invitation to them to be part of this modernising approach to public services in the future, and I hope that they will welcome that. Of course, I hope more deeply that there will be a Labour Government in Scotland who will, of course, say that this is the right thing to do, showing that two Labour Governments can deliver better outcomes for the public. We should continue to hold the Scottish Government to account for poor public services, and encourage them to follow our way and deliver change for the public.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
I welcome the Government’s announcement that they have listened to the concerns of the Liberal Democrats and the public about the mandatory system, but the loss of trust resulting from these flip-flopping policies has caused much damage. There remains a question about whether connected systems and better services can be accessed through one login, which is the case in France. Why are the Government not focused on fixing one login, which they spent £100 million on last year? If they do put this system in place, what support will there be for individuals and businesses, which seem to be carrying the burden of this digital ID?
Darren Jones
Digital ID is the premium option of one login. In many ways, one login is a great system, but it still has lots of challenges, not least because we cannot pull all these systems together into one place for citizens. That is what digital ID enables us to do, because people can prove authentically that they are who they say they are and are not just logging in with someone else’s details. That is what makes the scheme much more exciting for public service reform in the future.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
My constituents have been incredibly vocal in telling me that they do not want this. Frankly, because trust in the Government has eroded so much, this scheme is dead in the water. If the Government go ahead with it, what will they do to ensure that there is no single depository containing the data of millions of citizens that could present a single point of failure from a security perspective?
Darren Jones
I can confirm that the Government will not be doing any such thing.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
My constituency led the way on this issue, with more than 7,000 people signing the e-petition against digital ID cards. The public see this scheme for what it is—a gateway to unprecedented state surveillance—and they do not want to be part of it. They see it as a waste of money and effort to create a 100-strong citizens assembly that is not even democratically accountable. Will the Chief Secretary be honest with the public and admit that if this digital ID plan is implemented, the slippery slope is greased with expansion tracking and repurposing?
Darren Jones
The hon. Lady is wrong. I look forward to bringing provisions in the Bill later this year to prove that case.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Can the Chief Secretary tell us what happens if the 100-person panel concludes that the scheme will not have the trust, confidence and support of people? Can he confirm that digital efficiencies such as using emails, not letters, and automatically chasing up medicals in the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency will not be delayed for this project?
Darren Jones
The outcomes of the deliberative democracy process will form a legal part of the consultation, so it will feed into the consultation in the normal way. This is the first time that Government have done that. I recognise that it is a bit of an innovation and a risk, but I am so confident we will get members of the panel to a place where they think it is a perfectly sensible thing to do that I think it will be a useful process. Other colleagues may wish to consider it for other policy areas in the future. It will take some time over the next few years to legislate, build the login and integrate it into the app, so we will come back to the hon. Lady’s question on future services towards the back end of this Parliament.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
Consistent polling has found that the public are not interested in digital ID and remain deeply concerned about the implications for their privacy. They have a sustained lack of trust in this Government to run the scheme. That is especially the case given the fact that this Government have sold out our NHS to Palantir and handed almost £700 million in taxpayer cash to Peter Thiel, as well as—potentially—the data of our patients. What is the Chief Secretary doing to uncouple our Government services from Palantir? Will he commit that no public money will go to Palantir to run this digital ID scheme?
Darren Jones
I am happy to confirm that the digital ID scheme and its build in the gov.uk app will be built as a sovereign capability within Government and within the UK. It will not be outsourced to a foreign company.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
May I thank the Chief Secretary for his inclusion of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee in the work so far and for his removal of the mandatory nature of digital ID? That is what caused so many of my residents in Newton Abbot to write to me and complain about it. Will he commit to continue to involve the Committee as this situation evolves and as the system is implemented?
Darren Jones
Members of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee know that I look forward to working with them and other Members on how we might legislate more innovatively through the Bill coming later this year, so that quicker digital transformation of public services is enabled through appropriate checks and balances in the House, without having to return to an enormous piece of primary legislation or have repeated Bills. I look forward to the Committee being a part of that when we legislate later this year.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
I suspect that my constituents will have at least these three concerns: that the digital ID scheme will become mandatory by stealth; that it will be vulnerable to IT failures; and that it will be in danger of malevolent hacking. Are those not real concerns? How will they be addressed? Will this proposal be China-proofed?
Darren Jones
On the question of mandation, I expect it will be on the front of the Bill coming to the House later this year that it is not mandatory. Should any Government in the future wish to change that, they will need to come back to this House to change the law in order to do so. That is the right and proper thing.
The hon. and learned Gentleman is right to have concerns, as we should in relation to any modern services, about cyber-security, hacking and the confidentiality and security of people’s data. That is precisely why we are building this in-house—in Government—with the National Cyber Security Centre as a sovereign capability to ensure that we are not reliant on external companies, whether they are in the UK or abroad, to cover those bases for us.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
My constituents are overwhelmingly against digital ID, and that appears to be the national consensus. Does the Chief Secretary agree that asking 100 members of the public to legitimise an already bad idea initially espoused by Tony Blair is a waste of time, resources and money? When will the Government go back to addressing issues that really matter to the public, such as the cost of living crisis?
Darren Jones
It is not for me to advise other Members on how to please their constituents, but if the hon. Gentleman asked his constituents, “Would you like better public services that are easier to use?”, they would probably say, “Yes.”
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
There is a clear and growing concern across the United Kingdom, including with myself and my constituents, regarding digital ID. The general public seek firm assurances about their personal autonomy. The Chief Secretary is a very honourable man and very much liked in this Chamber, but he will know—as you know, Mr Speaker—that Revelation in the Holy Bible refers to the mark of the beast and 666. Is it the mark of the beast that we are looking at, or is it George Orwell’s 1984? I ask that question because 1.5 million people in Northern Ireland—74% of its population—have said that they do not want digital ID. If we do not want it and the people of the United Kingdom do not want it, for goodness’ sake do away with it.
Mr Speaker
Mr Shannon, you kept saying “you”. Am I the devil, or is it the Chief Secretary? [Laughter.]
Darren Jones
May I suggest some of the gospels that might be a little more uplifting for the hon. Gentleman to read, as opposed to the section on Armageddon at the end? I reassure him that the gov.uk app and the digital ID login will be optional. Members of the public can choose to use it if they wish to; if they do not want to, that is entirely up to them. As I have said repeatedly to this House, I am very confident that we will build public services that are quick, easy and simple to use. That will be welcomed by people across the whole of the United Kingdom.
Points of Order
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The shadow Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), visited my constituency last week on 6 March. He did not make me aware of his visit to my constituency, as is the convention of this House, as he will know as an experienced Member of the Commons. As such, I would be grateful if you provided me with advice on preventing such discourtesy and disrespect from taking place in the future.
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. I reiterate—[Interruption.] I am dealing with a Member. I reiterate that I do not care whether it is Ministers, shadow Ministers or Back Benchers, the courtesy is that you must let the Member know before you get to their constituency, unless your visit is on private business. Show courtesy to each other. The public out there expect us to follow the rules, and the rules should be adhered to.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, the Government brought a statement to the House entitled “Protecting What Matters”. One might think that that could be preserving historic buildings or endangered wildlife, or simply affirming the importance of our Christian heritage. In fact, the statement was about defining anti-Muslim hostility. I am not going to debate that, but I seek your advice on whether a title of that kind is misleading—it cannot possibly have been deceptive, but it is certainly confusing. Is it fair to Members to entitle statements in a way that gives them no chance to anticipate what is going to be debated and prepare accordingly?
Mr Speaker
The right hon. Member is always here, so he should not have to worry about the titles. In fairness, I take that on board. The fact is that the Government are in charge of the titles of their ministerial statements. They have full responsibility; I have no responsibility for that. That is certainly on the record. I expect those on the Front Bench to have taken it on board that titles should be understandable and not misleading.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not know that point of order was going to be raised until I heard it, but I myself noticed, a little bit earlier, that there was a statement entitled “Pensions Update” that was really all about the WASPI women. I for one was misled into thinking that it was some routine, general statement about pensions. It would have been perfectly possible for the Government to have made it explicit that it was about the WASPI women, in which case it is likely that more Members would have been present.
Mr Speaker
I do not disagree, but I know that the right hon. Member has a sneaking understanding of what happens in government and how Governments might try to get away with things. He is another Member who is always around, as well. What I will say is that it would be much easier if the Government were to be very explicit and open, so that all Back Benchers from all parts of the House know what is going to happen. I will also say that if Members spent more time in the Chamber, they would not have to worry.
Domestic Abuse (Pets)
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the application of non-molestation orders and occupation orders to behaviour relating to pets; to amend definitions of controlling or coercive behaviour and economic abuse to include behaviour relating to pets; to extend the application of Domestic Abuse Protection Orders to pets; and for connected purposes.
Britain prides itself on being a nation of animal lovers. Indeed, the annual PDSA animal wellbeing report found that 51% of UK adults own a pet of some type, with 28% owning a dog and 24% owning a cat. While owning a pet brings joy and companionship to many, Britain’s high levels of pet ownership also mean that animals are too often subject to violence within the home, or are used as tools of coercion and control. However, this known reality is not currently reflected in family and domestic violence law in England and Wales.
At the moment, pets do not receive any meaningful legal protection or consideration in domestic abuse cases. This leaves many victims afraid to leave abusive situations due to concerns about their animals’ safety. Abusers can also retain legal ownership of pets, with limited legal mechanisms to transfer custody to survivors. This Bill, which is also known as Ruby’s law, seeks to change that by explicitly incorporating pets into family law protections such as non-molestation and occupation orders.
I am proud that this Government are committed to halving violence against women and girls and providing meaningful support to victims of domestic violence and abuse. Such efforts can only be strengthened by recognising the clear link between domestic violence and violence against pets. The statistics are stark: the Dogs Trust has found that 97% of domestic abuse professionals have dealt with cases where pets are harmed as part of coercive control by abusers. This involves controlling access to food, veterinary care and formal ownership rights, often preventing victims from seeking safety in a refuge or adequately caring for their pets. Another study by Dr Mary Wakeham found that in 88% of households experiencing domestic abuse, the abuser also abused pets. In most cases, this involved physical violence against pets as a form of control—pets are kicked, hit, thrown, or even poisoned. In 12% of cases, the abuser ends up killing the animal.
This accompanying animal abuse has a significant impact on survivors and their families. Victims often exhibit lasting psychological trauma as a result of witnessing or fearing harm to their pets. The emotional toll on children can also be particularly stark—studies show that 88% of children in abusive households have witnessed pet abuse. This often results in the children developing post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, or other behavioural issues.
Ruby’s law seeks to draw on international best practice in tackling these clear concerns. In the US, Canada and Australia, pets are explicitly included in domestic violence protection orders. California and Maine have passed laws allowing pets to be part of restraining orders, providing survivors with greater security and helping them to leave abusive situations sooner. The Northern Ireland Assembly has similarly shown significant support for introducing its own Ruby’s law, with similar proposals forming part of the Executive’s new strategy for ending violence against women and girls. For that reason, I particularly welcome the interest and support from the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann), who sadly is not in his place at the moment.
Turning to the substantive proposals of the Bill, Ruby’s law would seek to address current gaps in the Family Law Act 1996 by including pets in non-molestation and occupation orders. This would include the addition of provisions to ensure that pets are protected from harm and survivors are granted legal custody of their pets. Ruby’s law would also amend the Domestic Violence Act 2021 to explicitly reference pet abuse as a form of controlling or coercive behaviour under section 1 of the Act. This will require the police and prosecutors to take pet-related domestic abuse seriously by providing clear legal grounds for prosecution.
The Bill would also allow veterinary records, witness testimony and digital evidence of threat or harm to pets to be admissible in court as evidence of a non-molestation order breach, making it easier to prosecute abuse cases involving pet harm. Courts would also be able to consider animal abuse as an aggravating factor in sentencing and risk assessments of perpetrators, helping to protect women and their pets from further abuse. Offenders could also be required to attend behavioural intervention programmes aimed at addressing the link between animal cruelty and domestic violence.
I will close by paying tribute to Christina Warner. I have been working closely with her, and she has provided extraordinary leadership on this issue, drawing on her professional experience as a family law barrister. Ruby’s law is firmly aligned with the Government’s agenda of tackling violence against women and girls and supporting victims of domestic violence, and I urge Ministers to give its provisions serious consideration. Together, these changes would offer greater legal clarity and protection, increasing safety for both human and animal victims of domestic abuse. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Ruth Jones, Irene Campbell, Sir Roger Gale, Kerry McCarthy, Rachael Maskell, Adam Jogee, Sir Desmond Swayne, Ann Davies, Dr Neil Hudson and Robin Swann present the Bill.
Ruth Jones accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 April, and to be printed (Bill 402).
Courts and Tribunals Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:56 - The House divided: - Ayes: 203 / Noes: 311 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:09 - The House divided: - Ayes: 304 / Noes: 203 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The reasoned amendment in the name of the loyal Opposition has been selected.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am very proud to bring this Bill back before the House, because it will drive long-overdue reform to effectively evolve our 20th-century criminal justice system so that it is fit for the 21st century. This House will recognise that a particular kind of silence now echoes through the corridors of our courts. It is not the silence of a jury carefully weighing the evidence, or the hush as a judge delivers their verdict; it is the silence of waiting. It is the silence of victims who have been told, sometimes for the third or fourth time, that their trial has been adjourned because there is no judge, no courtroom, and no capacity to hear it. It is the silence of people like Katie, who reported her partner for actual bodily harm and rape in 2017 but, staggeringly, did not see justice until 2024, after waiting seven years. Her life fell apart over that period—it left her mental health in tatters and caused her to lose her job. This is an injustice. It is Katie’s injustice and the injustice of thousands of victims across the country, and this Bill seeks to redress that today. It builds on Sir Brian Leveson’s thoughtful and considered review. I am grateful to Sir Brian for all his work, particularly in getting us to this point with part 1 and part 2 of this Bill.
This Government inherited a justice system close to breaking point from the previous Government, who could and should have reformed it. The consequences of their inaction are clear: we have nearly 80,000 cases in the Crown court backlog. That is more than double the number in 2019. More than 20,000 cases wait for more than a year, and that includes around 2,000 rape cases. It is an average of 255 days before a Crown court case gets heard and finishes. For rape, it is a staggering 423 days. If we do nothing, the backlog is projected to reach 200,000 within the next decade. That is five times what it was in 2019. This is not a matter of efficiency; the progressive case for court reform is about whether the institutions of the British state can still deliver justice. For the people we were elected to represent in Parliament, when we speak about the rule of law, we do so as though it is a lofty constitutional principle, but the rule of law is not abstract. It is a public service. If that service cannot be delivered in a timeframe that allows victims to move on with their lives, the law is not ruling, but failing.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman is right that the rule of law is a living thing, and the connection between the public and the exercise of criminal justice is fundamental. Central to that is the age-old principle of juries and jury service. It is a direct engagement of the public in something that otherwise would be remote from the vast bulk of them. Does he retain my view that jury service is critical, and that juries should play a continuing part in the criminal justice system, or is he determined to minimise the number of jury trials? That is certainly what his proposal looks like to the vast majority of people in the Chamber.
Mr Lammy
I absolutely retain the right hon. Gentleman’s view that juries are a cornerstone of our system. They are fundamental. This Bill is about protecting them. All Governments put thresholds on where juries sit. He will recall that one of his great heroes, Margaret Thatcher, made such a change in 1989.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for the progress he is making. I am for reform. My concern, as his own review in 2017 highlighted, is that this will fall on people from black and minority ethnic backgrounds and the inequalities that they already face. Can he reassure me, my constituents in Bradford West and people more widely that he will robustly review the impact of this Bill on people from minority ethnic backgrounds? Will he ensure that it is a meaningful review that holds weight?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend probably has more lived experience of the criminal justice system than many others in this Chamber. She has been a doughty campaigner on issues for ethnic minorities across our country for many years. I can give her that reassurance, and I will come to that point a little later in my speech. It is right that there will be a review, so that we understand exactly how our reforms—and, indeed, our criminal justice system in a deeper and better way—are affecting ethnic minority populations. I hope that she will engage in the ambit, scope and direction of that review.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is right to set out the importance of jury trials as a cornerstone of our democracy and justice system. They are in place for a very good reason. In the Lammy review, he previously emphasised the importance of jury trials and, in particular, the disproportionate impact on BAME communities. What has changed?
Mr Lammy
I know that when my hon. Friend is upset, his baritone deepens—it was not quite as deep today as it has been on other occasions. He will know that I take very seriously the review I did. I will say more about disparities in a moment, but if we look at that review, we see that it was clear that there is tremendous public trust in our juries. When I was asked by David Cameron to do the review, there was concern in some towns and cities and among some ethnic minority populations about situations where they perceived they had an all-white jury. They asked whether it was still fair. Broadly, it was found to still be fair, and there was no evidence that there were unfair trials in our magistrates courts, which do 90% of the work, or if a single judge is sitting on their own. For the reasons that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah), it is right that we review how the system is working and fully understand how these changes will affect the system.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister and the Government are caught between a rock and a hard place. They have to address the backlog while trying to ensure that jury trials are retained. The general public have deep concern that speed cannot come at the expense of fundamental rights. I know that the Secretary of State will ensure that does not happen, but can he reassure me that any reforms will preserve the right to have a jury trial where that is essential to justice, rather than making piecemeal changes that will, I suspect, prevent people who need jury trials from having them?
Mr Lammy
Juries remain a cornerstone, and I reassure the hon. Gentleman that what we are proposing is about protecting juries. Let us be clear, however, that the Bill is not just about juries; it is a whole package, and that is why I set out just a few weeks ago that investment was key. This is £2.78 billion of investment. As Sir Brian told us in part 2 of his reforms, modernisation and dealing with efficiencies in the system are fundamental.
Victims are worn down, people simply give up, cases collapse and offenders remain free to roam the streets, to commit more crimes and to create more victims. To restore swift and fair justice, we are pulling every lever available, with essential investment, modernisation and reform. Let me start by addressing the reform that has provoked the fiercest debate. The new Crown court bench division, or our so-called swift courts, are dealt with in clause 3 of the Bill. The new division will hear cases with a likely custodial sentence of up to three years, to be heard by a judge sitting alone. The independent review of the criminal courts predicts that this will reduce trial times by at least 20%, and Sir Brian believes that the gains could be greater still. It will free up thousands of hearing days for the more serious cases. That is not just Sir Brian’s view; analysis published today by the Institute for Government supports the modelling behind these reforms, and the predicted time savings that they will deliver. Let me be absolutely clear: indictable-only offences will remain for juries. The most serious crimes, including murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery and grievous bodily harm with intent will never be heard in the new division.
This is not a new principle. Judge-alone trials operate successfully in countries such as Canada, where judges told me that such trials were as much as twice as fast as jury trials, and they are already a normal, everyday part of our justice system. District judges sit alone in magistrates courts every single day, youth courts operate without juries, and family courts deciding whether a parent can see their child always sit without juries.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
When the Justice Secretary talks about juries, is it not right to point out that 0.4% of cases from the magistrates courts are appealed against, and that of that 0.4%, which is about 5,000, 41% are successful on appeal? What does he say about that?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is entirely right: 41% are successful, and that, of course, means that 59% are not. With the new permission stage, those 41% would still get through. It seems to me absolutely right that, in order to make the system properly efficient, we have the same set of standards. As is set out in the Bill, people would appeal from a Crown court beyond, as they appeal from the magistrates court to the Crown courts.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor has quite properly recognised the Government’s debt of gratitude to Sir Brian Leveson, but will he accept that the Government have been somewhat selective in adopting Sir Brian’s recommendations? He knows that Sir Brian did not recommend that all cases that are triable either way should have the right to elect for jury trial to be removed from them. He also knows, incidentally, that Sir Brian did not propose an increase in magistrates’ sentencing powers to up to two years; he suggested that it remain at 12 months. What the Lord Chancellor has not done is adopt some of Sir Brian’s recommendations in relation to encouraging early guilty pleas, which would have a significant impact on the backlog. Why have the Government selected for priority purposes the recommendations that would have an impact on the right of jury trial, and not some other recommendations that would have a similar effect on the backlog?
Mr Lammy
We have, of course, accepted the thrust of Sir Brian’s recommendations, but there are areas in which we have chosen to go further—the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right about that—because of the modelling, and what it says the effect on the backlog will be. He will recognise, when presented with the evidence, that the backlog would be heading to 200,000 by 2035—notwithstanding all that has been said about investment, which we are putting in, and notwithstanding all that has been said about modernisation and the efficiencies about which Sir Brian went into such detail in part 2 of his review—because, with all good will, the reform proposed in the Bill will not get through this Parliament until towards the end of the year, we felt that there were some areas in which we wanted to go further.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Ms Creasy
I think we all share my right hon. Friend’s passionate desire to support the victims who are waiting too long to get to court, but that means that we also owe them a debt of truth. The concern highlighted in the Institute for Government report is that magistrates courts will struggle to absorb such a large increase in demand, so we may not see the faster justice that he is promising under these proposals. Will he recognise that those of us who cannot support the Bill as it currently stands think that the way forward is to look at the data and consider whether juries are actually a red herring when it comes to the investment that we so sorely need because of the damage done by the previous Government?
Mr Lammy
That is why we have uncapped sitting days for the Crown Court, and that is why I am proposing further investment in our magistrates. I want to get the number of magistrates back to more or less where it was when the Labour party was last in government. It was 29,000 then, and it dropped to 21,000 under the previous Government. My hon. Friend is right—we will have to invest, and increase the number of magistrates—but I hope that, given her long-standing record of working with victims in particular, she will look hard at the Bill as it continues its passage, and will ultimately feel able to support it.
Mr Lammy
I am going to make some progress, because I think that otherwise I will upset you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I recognise that some argue that the reform risks eroding trial by jury, but let me make it clear that juries will remain the cornerstone of our democracy under these reforms. Far from diminishing juries, the Bill protects them, enabling them to be used in a timely fashion when it matters most. What we are proposing changes the threshold for juries; it does not change the fundamental right to a fair trial, which remains absolute. Since the Magna Carta, no part of our justice system has stood still. Governments of all stripes have changed jury thresholds—it has been business as usual for Governments. James Callaghan removed automatic jury trials for theft, burglary, actual bodily harm and certain drug offences in 1977, and Margaret Thatcher did the same in 1988 in relation to criminal damage.
There is not, and never has been, an automatic right to a trial by jury. In the current system, only 3% of criminal trial cases go before a jury. More than 90% of all cases are already heard, fairly, by magistrates and district judges across the country. Following our changes, about three quarters of Crown court trials will still be heard by a jury, including the vast majority of serious youth cases. We will also introduce judge-alone trials for complex and technical cases that tie up judges, juries and courtrooms for months—time that could be spent hearing violent and sexual offence trials. Our changes will ensure swifter justice and avoid undue burden on juries.
As the author of the Lammy review and a child of the Windrush generation, as a black man who has been stopped and searched repeatedly because of the colour of my skin, I know as well as anyone in the House that disproportionality in the justice system must be addressed, and now, since I published my review, 21% of judges come from an ethnic minority background. However, we must recognise that the status quo of the broken system does produce injustice, and the burden of that delay is not evenly shared.
Black people are 14% more likely to be victims of crime, and people from mixed ethnic backgrounds, such as my children, are 43% more likely. Defendants from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds are statistically more likely than white defendants to be held on remand before trial. As the backlog has grown, remand waits have increased from 16 to 23 weeks. There is nothing progressive about a young working-class black or white man sitting in a cell for months on end, with no judge, no jury, no end in sight. There is nothing progressive about a rape victim waiting years for their day in court. There is nothing progressive about the Tory status quo. That is why tackling delay is in itself a progressive cause.
Following extensive engagement with Members of this House to ensure that the full impacts of my reforms are properly scrutinised, I am, as I have said, committing myself to a full independent review, which will look at how our new reforms will affect particular groups—working-class people as well as ethnic minorities—and assess more broadly whether justice is being delivered, not just in our new division but in all parts of our courts system, in a way in which no Government have ever done before, because sunlight is, of course, the best disinfectant.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I think that all of us across the House share the Justice Secretary’s passion for delivering justice more quickly for victims. I visited Isleworth Crown court at lunch time on Friday and spoke to barristers there. They impressed upon me that it is extremely rare that juries and jurors are the cause of delays to court cases. Recently, there have been delays because the cells have been too cold for defendants or Serco staff to use. Defendants are routinely delivered late by Serco, and there are no contractual penalties. That is pushing cases back repeatedly. Why will the Justice Secretary not take action on those things, rather than restricting trial by jury, which will make a limited difference?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Before the Lord Chancellor responds, let me say that many Back Benchers wish to contribute. No doubt he is coming close to a conclusion sometime soon-ish.
Mr Lammy
We are piloting the national listing scheme at Isleworth Crown court. I refer the hon. Lady to my speech setting out what we are doing in relation to part 2 of Sir Brian Leveson’s review. She is absolutely right: we have to address all of the problem. Sir Brian was absolutely clear that we need investment, that we have to deal with the inefficiencies that the hon. Lady has talked about, and that we have to modernise our courts, but we also need reform. Look at the tables and graphs that the Institute for Government has corroborated today. If we are to see the backlog fall by the next election, we have to do all three things, not just cherry-pick.
Mr Lammy
I will not, given what has just been said by Madam Deputy Speaker.
The Bill will remove the ability of defendants to elect a jury trial for either-way offences. That is too often done by criminals to delay proceedings and wear down victims, preventing justice from being secured. Under our changes, the decision about where a case is heard will rest where it belongs: with a judge. It will be determined by the matter’s seriousness and suitability for jury trial, not by criminals gaming the system.
This Bill also strengthens the role of magistrates. As has been said today, magistrates’ sentencing powers are capped at 12 months, and cases that could be concluded quickly are too often pushed up to the Crown court, clogging up capacity that would be better focused on more serious crimes. We will extend magistrates’ sentencing powers to 18 months for offences that are triable either way. The Bill does not increase the maximum penalty for offences; it simply lets cases be heard by magistrates without unnecessary escalation, saving Crown court time for the most serious cases.
Mr Lammy
I will not, given what has been said by Madam Deputy Speaker. I have to make some progress.
We will also reform the appeals process from the magistrates court to the Crown court. At present, an automatic right to a full rehearing forces victims and witnesses to endure the ordeal of their case over and over again, even when there is little merit to an appeal. The Bill will introduce a new permission stage, which will allow judges to filter appeals and decide whether there are genuine points of law that require an appeal hearing. That mirrors the process for appeals from the Crown court to the Court of Appeal. To support that, we will allow audio recording in all magistrates courts for the first time, so that the record is clear and accurate, should an appeal be necessary.
Alongside reform, we are investing. There is a record £2.78 billion settlement for the coming year. That includes £287 million for vital repairs, digital upgrades and unlimited sitting days in the Crown court next year—the most ever funded in the history of our courts. We are modernising, investing in artificial intelligence and other technology, and expanding the use of video hearings to speed up justice. Working with the judiciary, we will bring in a new national listing system to end what some victims justifiably describe as a postcode lottery that has left some waiting longer than others. We will expand blitz courts to clear cases that are stuck in the system, and introduce new case co-ordinators in every Crown court to free up judges’ time.
Even with record investment and ambitious efficiencies, an unreformed justice system has a structural ceiling. That is why the third lever, reform, is essential. The projections are crystal clear: if we do nothing, we will have a backlog of 200,000 cases; if we invest and tackle the inefficiencies, as suggested by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), the backlog will be 133,000; if we pull all three levers, the backlog will be 49,000. The difference is 84,000 more lives on hold. Even if we implement all our measures, the backlog will get worse before it gets better—it will rise before we begin to turn the corner, prior to the end of this Parliament. It is important to be honest with the House: because of the seriousness of the situation, we must proceed with the full, undiluted package. If we step back from or water down action on any of the three levers, victims will continue to be forgotten.
This Bill puts victims first, as well as delivering the swift justice that they deserve. It will also strengthen protections for victims in court. In response to a Law Commission recommendation, clauses 8 and 9 tighten the rules of evidence in sexual offences cases, so that information about a complainant’s past can be used only when it genuinely matters, and cannot be used to fuel myths, to make insinuations, or to humiliate victims, as has been the case. Clauses 12 to 16 strengthen and clarify the use of special measures, ensuring that victims have access to screens, live links and support, so that they can give their best evidence and, importantly, stay in the justice system and the family courts. Clause 17 repeals the presumption of parental involvement—something that many people have campaigned for. That measure was created with good intentions, but it has contributed to a culture in which contact is prioritised.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
The campaign to introduce clause 17 was supported by my Conservative predecessor, Kate Kniveton, who bravely spoke about her experience of sexual violence. Will the Justice Secretary join me in congratulating Kate and all the other campaigners who have been involved in this change?
Mr Lammy
Absolutely. I also want to refer to the case of Claire Throssell—she is in the Gallery—and her sons, Jack and Paul. Claire’s loss is beyond words. She is with us today, and I know that the whole House joins me in paying tribute to her for her courage and her tireless campaign to ensure that others do not suffer as she has done.
Finally, the Bill brings the leadership of our tribunals in England and Wales, which have until now been separate, into the 21st century. The Bill brings tribunals into a judicial structure headed by the Lady Chief Justice. It modernises magistrates’ expenses rules, so that they reflect modern working life; that will help us to increase the number of magistrates across the country. The Bill also preserves the unique status of the Old Bailey as the central criminal court.
At its best, Labour has always been a party of institutional renewal. We do not worship at the altar of how things have always been; we ask how things can work better. We have a record of reforming public services that are failing working people. Despite opposition from small-c conservative institutions at the time, our movement delivered trade union legislation before we ended up in government. Bevan created the national health service, despite fierce opposition from the British Medical Association. Against economic orthodoxy, we introduced the minimum wage. Labour has a proud record of putting victims’ voices into the system. We introduced the victims code; we introduced the Victims’ Commissioner; and we bring experiences to this House, including those of Morwenna Loughman, Katie Catt, Vicki Crawford, Jade Blue and Charlotte Schreurs, some of whom are in the Public Gallery. Since taking office again in 2024, we have put victims first. We are introducing protections, so that therapy notes cannot be used against women. The tightened safeguards around how we use their sexual history are important and fundamental to this Bill.
The choice before the House is stark, and we cannot continue with the rising backlog. Clause 40 of Magna Carta is clear:
“To no one will we…deny or delay the right to justice.”
Today, that promise will ring hollow if we do nothing. Let us be the Parliament that chose to act. Let us be the Parliament that turned the tide. Let us be the Parliament that restored swift and fair justice to this country. I urge the House to support this Bill.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
“this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Courts and Tribunals Bill because trial by jury is a fundamental part of the United Kingdom’s constitution and democracy; it is wrong to remove defendants’ right to elect for trial in the Crown Court for all triable either-way offences; extending magistrates courts’ sentencing powers, and restricting the right to appeal against sentences and convictions in the magistrates courts, compounds the fundamental injustice at the heart of the Bill; reducing public participation in the justice system will undermine confidence in it; eroding the right to trial by jury will not make a meaningful impact, if any, on the backlog of court cases; and it calls on the Government to instead tackle the court backlog by improving case management and encouraging earlier pleas, increasing sitting days in the Crown Court, and increasing the hours per day that courts are able to sit by improving the use of technology and the efficiency of prisoner transport.”
Today, the Government attack an ancient English right that runs through our constitution, from Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights to trials taking place at this very moment in courts across the land. That right—that nobody should be seized, imprisoned or deprived of his standing in any way, except by the lawful judgment of his equals—is an essential part of our national inheritance. It is part of what makes our legal system the envy of the world. It is admired by jurists and legislators from all around, and it has been copied by all those countries—success stories, like America and Australia—that have followed our common law model.
However, this Government—without a mandate, without a case and without any evidence to justify their actions—have decided that our ancient rights are little more than an inconvenience that this Justice Secretary thinks he can sweep away with only the briefest consideration. Why? He says this is about efficiency and protecting the rule of law, but that is nonsense. According to the Government’s own impact assessment, reducing jury trials will cut the Crown court workload by about 3.5%, but even that number, as I will explain, is wrong. According to the Institute for Government, this Bill will reduce the Crown court workload by only 1% or 2%. In other words, rape victims, who are waiting for a year for their case to be heard at present, would have their cases heard just one week earlier. From the basics, such as getting defendants to court on time, to intensive case management, there is much more that can be done to make the courts more efficient without attacking jury trials.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
Has the hon. Member, since writing his speech, seen the updated information available about the percentage reduction in our courts?
Nick Timothy
The Institute for Government has made it absolutely clear that the figures that the Government have produced are based on assumptions that are not necessarily shared by anybody who knows what we are talking about.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
Would the hon. Member agree that legal judgment by peers or equals can include legal judgment by magistrates, and that indeed there is no ancient right to jury trial? To say so is to misrepresent the case.
Nick Timothy
Magistrates have their place in the system, but jury trials are fundamental to our inheritance, and to public confidence in the criminal justice system.
If the reason is not efficiency, why are the Government doing this? There are only two plausible explanations. The first is that this left-wing Government—determined to censor free speech, and indifferent to public concern about two-tier justice—simply want to do away with the hassle of juries. The second is that the civil service has long sought to do this, and after a line of wiser Secretaries of State than this one, they finally found a Secretary of State foolish enough to go along with it.
We can imagine the scene in the Ministry of Justice. A reshuffle is under way, and the Cabinet Secretary tips off Sir Humphrey, who promptly gathers his officials and asks them what the new Justice Secretary is all about. A private secretary plays the now notorious episode of “Celebrity Mastermind”. “What blue cheese is paired with port?”, asks the quizmaster. “Red Leicester”, says the right hon. Gentleman. Sir Humphrey’s eyebrow arches. “Which Marie won the Nobel prize for physics?” “Antoinette”, comes the answer. Sir Humphrey smiles a wry smile. “Which English King followed Henry VIII?” “Henry VII,” cries the right hon. Gentleman. Sir Humphrey looks around at his trusted officials, and says, “Finally, I think this time we’ve found our man.”
For this is not a new idea. Officials have been itching to do this for years, but wiser Secretaries of State have always said no. Under this explanation of events, the Justice Secretary accepted the advice of his officials, failed to interrogate their arguments, and without so much as a second thought, decided to do what was rejected even during the pandemic, when lockdown and social distancing rules meant criminal trials were postponed.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
I appreciate that the hon. Member is into storytelling—it may be his next job—but what did he think was going to happen to the courts system when there was a 23% cut under the last Government? It was going to crumble. Does he not agree?
Nick Timothy
Crown court waiting times were actually lower under the Conservatives until the pandemic. It is true that the backlog grew during the pandemic, but the pandemic came before the general election, so why, if it was so necessary, was this measure not in the Labour party manifesto?
I am willing to accept that my account may be unfair. Despite all the evidence provided by the Justice Secretary over the years, the policy might not be explained by his incompetence. Just as plausible is ideological vandalism, and we should take Ministers at their word. To be clear, I do not mean the occasion when the Justice Secretary insisted:
“Criminal trials without juries are a bad idea.”
No, I mean the explanation given by the Minister for Courts. She said, “This is ideological.” Asked if the Government would be doing this for reasons other than efficiency, she said yes. If we join the dots, this does make sense, because Labour Governments have tried to do it before—in 1999, 2003 and 2007. [Interruption.] The Justice Secretary says Margaret Thatcher did it. Not only is that not true, but if he reads “The Downing Street Years” he will get a lesson in conviction politics and strong leadership, which this Government do not understand.
Nick Timothy
I will not give way.
Of course, when the Justice Secretary’s predecessor, the Home Secretary, commissioned Sir Brian Leveson to conduct a review of the criminal courts, she knew what she was doing, because in an earlier review Sir Brian had already said that jury trials should be restricted, with magistrates deciding the mode of trial and appeals made to a circuit judge. Perhaps the Justice Secretary sees this, like the early release scheme, as another hospital pass from his predecessor, who like the hardened criminals she let out of prison early, got out of the MOJ before facing the consequences of her actions. If he does think that, he should not feel that he has to go ahead with it.
Yet here the Justice Secretary is today proposing not only what Sir Brian Leveson recommended, but an even more radical change. He is telling the House that he has no choice but to rush this very serious legislation through Parliament at breakneck speed. The Bill was published less than two weeks ago, after no consultation at all, and today he is already asking hon. Members to approve its Second Reading. He is allowing only five days for Members to scrutinise the Bill line by line in Committee. That is less than the Government allowed for the Railways Bill, the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill and the Pension Schemes Bill. It is about the same time the House once spent scrutinising the Salmon Act 1986, which introduced the offence of handling salmon in suspicious circumstances. It is less time than the 44 debates, statements and urgent questions this House has heard on Israel, Palestine and Lebanon since the election.
We are not talking about legislating to recognise the sentience of crustacea or regulate travelling circuses; we are talking about a fundamental change to our constitution, the operation of our courts and the rights of our people. In the words of His Honour Geoffrey Rivlin KC, this Bill is
“one of the most radical and revolutionary events in English legal history. Yet it has not appeared in any manifesto; it has not been put out for consultation; it has not been recommended by Leveson”.
He says that it
“has been ‘published’ with virtually no notice to anyone”.
What arrogance, Madam Deputy Speaker—what a disgrace!
If this Bill had been the subject of consultation and this Justice Secretary had spent any time listening to judges, lawyers and the public, he would know that it will fail on its own terms. He says that it will deliver justice for more victims, but in Canada and Australia—jurisdictions he cites as an inspiration—judge-only trials have seen more acquittals than jury trials. Indeed, the impact assessment predicts that fewer people will go to prison as a result of these changes. That should be no surprise: asking judges sitting alone to take responsibility for depriving somebody of their liberty is far more onerous than asking 12 fellow citizens who can discuss the evidence, argue the case and share the burden between them.
A corresponding danger to justice is posed by the proposals to increase magistrates’ sentencing powers to two years and to limit the right to appeal their rulings. As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) said earlier, no fewer than 40% of appeals against verdicts and 47% of appeals against sentences issued by magistrates are successful. Incredibly, the Justice Secretary seemed to suggest just now that these figures are not a cause for concern, but a cause for celebration.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
On appeals against magistrates’ rulings, is the shadow Minister aware—as I am, through my experience—that appeals are essentially a retrial in the magistrates court, and that many appeals are successful simply because the victim cannot face giving evidence for a second time and being retraumatised? Defendants will use that to retraumatise the victim all over again, particularly in circumstances where there is domestic abuse.
Nick Timothy
I do not accept that characterisation of magistrates courts. If that were a true cause for concern for the hon. Lady, this Bill would perhaps try to address what she says, yet it does not.
The Government’s claims about what the Bill will achieve are hopelessly confused. The Justice Secretary leans heavily on Sir Brian Leveson, who says that limiting jury trials will save 20% of court time, but there has been no modelling to justify this number, and Sir Brian has admitted that it is little more than a guess. When challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst), the Justice Secretary said,
“We will…publish our modelling alongside the…Bill”.—[Official Report, 3 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 109.]
Yet no modelling worthy of the name has been published. The impact assessment takes Sir Brian’s guess and uses it as the median estimate. This is fiction masquerading as science.
The Criminal Bar Association calls the impact assessment “meaningless verbiage”, “total gibberish” and something that
“would make the script writer of ‘In the Thick of it’ wince with embarrassment”.
It concludes:
“If anyone can make any sense of this, please get in touch.”
If the Justice Secretary wanted to accept that invitation right now, I would be willing to give way to him—but he does not.
The Government have overstated the length of trials for cases in scope of the proposed change by more than 100%. The better estimate has been made by the Institute for Government, where researchers have listened to judges and lawyers and understood that only 20% of Crown court time is spent trying either-way offences. Of course, half of those cases will remain jury trials because the likely sentence is above three years. The cases in scope therefore take up only 5% to 10% of Crown court time, so even if they could be tried 20% faster, it would save only 1% or 2% of court time.
Sir Jeremy Wright
My hon. Friend is making the point that consultation on and discussion of the Bill may be fruitful if we are to properly understand its effects. One difference the Bill will make is that when a judge tries a case on his or her own, in the absence of a jury, they will be required by the Bill to give reasons for any conviction that they conclude is appropriate. Does my hon. Friend think that the Government have considered the potential impact of that on likely appeals of those decisions to the Court of Appeal?
Nick Timothy
My right hon. and learned Friend is exactly right. I was planning to turn to that point, because the Bill creates a problem not only in the burden of time it creates, but in the politicisation of our judiciary.
The Bill does create new time burdens. When juries deliberate, judges do other work in court, including on other trials. If judges deliberate instead, the court time used to hear other cases is lost. Because a defendant’s right to a jury trial will depend on the likely custodial sentence if he is found guilty, if the Bill becomes law, a judge will, for the first time, be needed to first conduct a hearing to determine the likely sentence. The Bill says that the parties involved should make representations; in cases with several defendants, the judge would need to hear from all their representatives and the prosecutor, taking up hours of time. There is more: defendants often plead guilty after the plea and trial preparation hearing, but before trial. In these cases, the sentencing judge—possibly not the same as the allocating judge—will have to hear the submissions all over again.
Then there are the reasons for conviction or acquittal, as my right hon. and learned Friend has just said. Juries do not have to provide reasons, but the Bill says that judges must. That will inevitably take many hours per case—time that right now is used to try cases.
Nick Timothy
I will make some progress.
This opens up new risks. The publication of judges’ reasons is likely to lead to more appeals and more court time being taken up. As questions are posed about judges’ reasons, we are likely to see the politicisation of judges and judicial appointments—something that will be made worse by the blurring of our adversarial model and the European inquisitorial role of judges. Under our model, judges are entitled to intervene and seek further information to help the jury with their assessment; in a judge-only trial, where the judge inevitably takes on a more inquisitorial role, those interventions and requests will inevitably be portrayed as the display of bias.
This will be made worse when it comes to the role of the judge in deciding on the admissibility of evidence. A judge usually sees all manner of material that is prejudicial to the defendant but deemed inadmissible, which does not matter when it is a jury who decides innocence or guilt. When a judge sees prejudicial material and deems it inadmissible, however, it will be difficult for anybody to believe that the information was simply erased from their mind. Judges may be professional and fully committed to their impartiality, but they are not superhuman.
Nick Timothy
I will not.
It is not difficult to see how this, too, will undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system and put judges in an impossible situation.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making some very important points. There is a more fundamental point about public perception, which he may come on to in a moment. If we pass this legislation at a time when confidence in this place and in conventional politics is at an exceedingly low ebb, we will be sending a signal to people that this place does not trust 12 good men and true to make decisions, and, in fact, that we want to take that decision away from them. Does he agree that that will further erode confidence in conventional mainstream politics?
Natalie Fleet
The right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden) is absolutely right to talk about confidence in public institutions, because that is what we are addressing today. I stand before the House as a victim who would not report because I do not want to be retraumatised over years. I speak on behalf of the victims in the Gallery and the victims out there in the country. That is where I want us to restore confidence. That is what we need to do today.
Nick Timothy
I totally understand what the hon. Lady says, and we are all interested in the best interests of victims. [Interruption.] To suggest otherwise is absolutely appalling, and the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) should withdraw that comment.
I completely agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden). I was concerned by the Justice Secretary saying that he is proud of the fact that his party does not just look to the past and to how things have been; I think one of the problems with Labour is that it is too careless with how things have always been. This is exactly what we are talking about. This is an ancient constitutional and legal right, and Labour is being careless about it.
Nick Timothy
I will not give way again.
We are talking about a fundamental change in the way that we try criminal cases, and the cases in scope are not minor; they are cases where the likely sentence is between 18 months and three years in prison. Before Government Members decide how to vote this evening, they need to search their souls and ask themselves three vital questions. Is this Bill just? Is it thought through? Is it going to make our courts more efficient? If they are honest with themselves, and if they ask judges, lawyers and their own colleagues, such as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East, they will know that the answer to all three questions is no. None of the great Labour Prime Ministers would ask them to take this step—not Clement Attlee, not Harold Wilson, and not James Callaghan, as the Justice Secretary earlier claimed. As Home Secretary, Roy Jenkins would never have invited MPs to put their conscience aside and vote for what they believe, deep down, to be wrong—and, as I understand it from the media briefings, neither would the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner).
Government Members know the policy was not in their manifesto, they know that there has not even been a consultation, and they know that it is wrong to rush this through the House after just five days of scrutiny in Committee. They know, too, that in perhaps just a few months, this Prime Minister will be gone. I do not believe that they wish to look back in the years ahead and remember voting to attack an ancient English right and to undermine what makes ours the best legal system in the world, all for a Prime Minister who takes them for granted and who they will soon replace. We will vote against this terrible Bill today, and so should they.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
There are shy of 60 people wishing to contribute. I urge Members to keep their contributions brief.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
Madam Deputy Speaker, you and I have been friends for some time. I think you were elected in 2015. Soon after that, your talents were recognised and you were quickly given a ministerial brief. You know my politics, as we have crossed swords many a time, so you know it pains me to congratulate the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), the shadow Justice Secretary, on his outstanding contribution; there was really nothing in it that I could disagree with. None the less, I do welcome the intervention of my right hon. Friend, the Justice Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister, because it is true that since he has been in post, he has secured the biggest investment for the criminal justice system in decades, amounting to something in the region of £2.5 billion. I commend my dear friend for that work, which I know will have taken some serious graft with the Treasury officials and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
It is true that much of this Bill is absolutely critical, including the actions to reduce the backlog. No Member of this House wants to see victims of crime languishing, waiting for months and years for their cases to be heard. The Labour Government’s policy on reducing violence against women and girls is crucial as well. It is also right to say that the previous Government savaged the criminal justice system, underfunding it during the austerity years. But I have to be honest: it was not just the previous Tory Government who did that. The criminal justice system has been badly treated and badly funded for decades.
There are parts of this Bill, though, that are unworkable, unjust, unpopular and unnecessary, including jury trial curtailment, the extended powers for sentencing in the magistrates courts, and the removal of the right to elect jury trial for offences with less than three years’ tariff. It is concerning that the Government are doing away with the automatic right of appeal in the magistrates courts—that is essentially what is happening—because, as I said in an intervention, about 0.4%, or around 5,000 cases, go to appeal and 41% of those appeals are successful.
I am afraid to say that the analogy used by the Justice Secretary, of somebody stealing a bottle of whisky, is an unfortunate one. I do not pretend to be a terribly eminent lawyer—I was prosecuting and defending the theft of Mars bars in my second six pupillage before I was elected to this House in May 2010—but never did I see a situation in the magistrates court in which a defendant was advised to elect for a trial when they had allegedly nicked a bottle of whisky. That scenario is for the birds, to be perfectly honest. It is on the same level as the Justice Secretary, in his MOJ video, referring to a scraped knee in an A&E triage situation—it is unfortunate and disappointing, and he could do much better. The Institute for Government report, published today, states that the MOJ modelling is sound, but that it relies on several uncertain assumptions. That is a very grave concern.
I am not going to detain the House terribly long. Yesterday evening, I had what I can only describe as an incredibly honest and robust, but constructive, discussion with the Deputy Prime Minister, and I am glad to say that that discussion produced something of an offer. I think it is absolutely imperative that one of our number—one of those of us who are opposed to these changes for principled reasons—has a seat on the Public Bill Committee. Colleagues told me that this was impossible. They said, “It’s never going to happen.” They said that the Chief Whip would never concede to allowing one of the so-called rebels on to the Bill Committee. But, following the Deputy Prime Minister’s representations to the Chief Whip, that guarantee was made. For that reason and for that reason alone, I will abstain from voting on the Bill today.
Let me put it in this way: I will abstain today because I think there is a possibility of making progress, and because I trust my right hon. Friend to negotiate in good faith with colleagues who are opposed to the Bill. What I do not appreciate is MOJ officials spinning the line that “even Karl Turner was unable to persuade enough people to rebel against this Bill.” That is not right, it is unfair and, frankly, it is unbecoming of a Secretary of State in any Department. None the less, I abstain today and I sincerely urge my colleagues to abstain as well. I am more confident now than ever before that the worst parts of the Bill will be defeated by amendments. I sincerely ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to let the Bill pass its Second Reading, so that we can make progress on getting rid of the bits of this Bill that are completely unworkable, unpopular, unjust and unnecessary.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats will be voting against the Bill, and we have tabled a reasoned amendment that sets out why we fundamentally disagree with the approach of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Courts Minister to tackling the Crown court backlog. Our views have been well aired in this place over the last few months, but today is an opportunity for us to lay out the reasons why the Bill should not progress in its current form.
Something that we agree on is that the current backlog is unacceptable, untenable and unsustainable. We agree with the Government that that is because of the historic and monumental failings of the previous Conservative Government, whose complacency and mismanagement of the justice system left the criminal justice system on the brink of collapse. It is a shameful legacy.
The backlog in our criminal courts now stands at 80,000. That disgraceful situation deprives victims and defendants of justice for years—cases are now being listed for the end of this decade. This has a huge impact on the quality of evidence, and it even causes victims to pull out of cases because so long has passed since the crime and they just want to move on with their lives. It also leaves defendants’ lives on pause while they await the opportunity to prove their innocence. The system as it stands fails everyone. Something must be done about this crisis, and it must be done now.
Sir Brian Leveson was clear in his report that the fundamental drivers of the ever-increasing backlog were systematic underfunding, the readiness of defence and prosecution teams, and the availability of witnesses, victims and defendants, but he did not identify juries as the cause of the problem. Between 2016 and 2024, the number of ineffective trials increased from 15% to 25%. In that time, the average court sitting time fell from 3.8 hours per sitting day to 3.2 hours. Juries are not the problem; inefficiencies are.
In my Crown court in Chichester, all cases were suspended for a fortnight in January because the heating system failed and it was too cold in the building. Across the country, there are stories of courts closing due to crumbling roofs, water pouring into courtrooms, gas leaks and general poor maintenance over many years. Juries are not the problem; crumbling infrastructure is.
Dr Chambers
I visited the Winchester courts recently and spoke to about a dozen barriers, who were all concerned about us taking a sledgehammer to jury trials, not only because they are a fundamental part of our justice system, but because doing so will not even help to clear the backlog, as jury trials are not the limiting factor. They reiterated that it is about defendants and prisoners getting to court on time, the number of sitting days and the crumbling infrastructure. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should listen to the professionals, who know what the problems are?
Jess Brown-Fuller
Joanna Hardy-Susskind put it well today, when she said:
“I have seen the adjournment of two rape trials this year. It’s only March. Nothing in Lammy’s proposed Bill would have saved the trial dates in either case. Nothing.”
Barristers across England and Wales are reporting delays to their cases because of the failed prisoner escort and custody services contracts—something I have asked the Justice Secretary about many times. These issues regularly cause cases to run late because the defendant has not been delivered on time from prison, or because there is nobody on site to bring them up from the holding cells. Juries are not the problem; Government contracts are the problem.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
I have been a civil and a criminal law practitioner. The civil courts are not that far from the criminal courts when it comes to delays, but there are no juries in the civil courts, so does the hon. Lady agree that the delays are due to a lack of investment?
Jess Brown-Fuller
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention; I have also seen the amendment that his group has tabled, and I agree with that.
Trial by jury is deeply enshrined in our conscience and constitution, and it is respected all over the world.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the original clause 39 of Magna Carta has guaranteed an individual’s right to due process in the court for 800 years, and that trial by jury is at its heart? This Bill asks the right question but gives a reckless answer. There is no modelling or evidence to show that this move will reduce the backlog.
Jess Brown-Fuller
I agree with some of what my hon. Friend said. I do agree that trial by jury is one of the only parts of our justice system that is still actually trusted. The possibility of being tried by one’s peers is fundamental to a fair trial in this country. The Deputy Prime Minister himself recognised that point in the Lammy review in 2017, and then again during the pandemic when curtailing the right to a jury trial was proposed to deal with the increasing backlog.
Emily Darlington
I am trying to understand the hon. Lady’s point. Is she saying that we should now extend jury trial to all trials, or that we should keep the status quo? Is she saying that it is sacrosanct and so should in fact be extended? I am confused.
Jess Brown-Fuller
I am happy to make it absolutely clear for the hon. Member. If I was allowed to get on, I could make that point. Trial by jury is not the problem. We agree that there is a problem that needs to be solved, but curtailing the right to a jury trial will not achieve what the Government and the Opposition want: the backlog coming down.
Leveson’s report proposed a bench division with a judge and two magistrates. The Government have gone further and proposed a swift court with just one sitting judge. Did they choose to ignore Sir Brian Leveson’s proposal of a Crown court bench division with a judge and two magistrates because, although they agree—I think—that the lay element to a trial is an important part of the system, they know that they do not have enough magistrates and are likely to struggle to find enough willing to preside over lengthy cases? Does the Courts Minister really believe that defendants opt for a Crown court trial because they want their cases to be heard in a Crown court building—because of the facilities or because it might have better coffee—rather than because they want a trial by jury?
Jess Brown-Fuller
I will make some progress.
If the Deputy Prime Minister and the Courts Minister believe that this is fundamentally the right thing to do practically and ideologically, why did it not feature in the Labour party manifesto? Like many Members, I take issue with the Deputy Prime Minister’s messaging around the Bill. He chose to describe defendants as “offenders”, rather than applying the principle of innocent until guilt is proven. He also described a case that carries a sentence of up to three years as akin to having a grazed knee and seeing a consultant. I think most of the public outside this building would argue that three years’ imprisonment is a life-changing sentence. If I were tried for a crime that I was arguing that I did not commit, I would like that to be in front of a jury of my peers.
I believe the Government are wasting severely limited political capital on something that will not shift the dial. They stated themselves that they expect all the measures in the Bill to show just a 5% decrease in the backlog by the end of this Parliament and a return to pre-covid backlog levels only in a decade.
Instead of these drastic changes, we are urging the Government to look at alternative options to reduce the Crown court backlog. We should look at measures that have been tried and tested before, such as those piloted during the pandemic to supercharge the Crown courts, when extended sitting hours allowed am and pm trials. Used in select courtrooms, that method can funnel through cases that have been stuck in the backlog for years. In the original pilots, the approach cleared 3.5 cases per courtroom each week, compared to fewer than one in courts operating standard hours. That is how we can begin to reduce the backlog without removing liberties that we should all hold as sacred. Will the Government please give consideration to the Liberal Democrat proposals, which would not only boost efficiencies in the Crown courts but would make the experience for jurors, victims and judges better, and could attract retired judges back into the system to preside over half-day cases?
Another glaring flaw in the Bill is that more serious cases will be heard in the magistrates court, where there is a higher income threshold to qualify for legal aid. Many more defendants who could be accused of crimes that carry sentences of up to 24 months will be unrepresented and defending themselves. That is very likely to drag out hearings, which will lower the overall savings that the Government claim to be making with these reforms. How will the Government respond when magistrates courts start pushing cases with longer sentences back to the Crown court as they struggle to absorb the additional work, as happened with the previous reform of magistrates’ sentencing powers?
The Government are also proposing to abolish the right of appeal from the magistrates court. Why does the Deputy Prime Minister believe that should be done when 42% of appeals from the magistrates court are successful? If the Government are willing to include an important clause on the presumption against parental responsibility in the Bill, why will they not extend the scope of the Bill to address the fundamental reforms needed in the broken family court system?
The Government’s proposals are opposed by the Criminal Bar Association, the chair of the Bar Council, the Law Society, the Four Bars, the Secret Barrister, Judge Rob Rinder, Jo Hamilton OBE, many Labour Members and 3,200 legal professionals, who have written to the Deputy Prime Minister today. If they will not listen to all those organisations and people who have spent their lives committed to making the criminal justice system, which has been poorly managed by successive Governments, as effective as possible for victims and defendants, who will they listen to?
I have a huge amount of respect for the Courts Minister and for the Deputy Prime Minister, which is why I am disappointed to be here making this speech. It is not too late for them to change course.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
The number of outstanding cases in the Crown court is 79,619. The outgoing Conservative Government promised to reduce the backlog; it should have been 53,000 by April last year. Their abject failures led the present Government to ask one of the country’s most foremost experts on the criminal courts, Sir Brian Leveson, to propose comprehensive court reforms—reforms without precedent in half a century. Sir Brian produced his review in two parts, totalling over 1,000 pages and 180 recommendations. The Bill legislates where legislation is necessary to implement parts of Sir Brian’s review.
Given the current dire situation, with many victims waiting two or more years for their cases to be resolved and defendants spending far too long in custodial remand, the Government are right to propose structural change; otherwise, they would be endorsing perpetual delay.
Andy Slaughter
Not yet; I am conscious of the time.
The removal of the right to elect for either way offences in clause 1 is the single most significant measure in reducing the caseload of the Crown court, with the Bill’s impact assessment indicating that that change will see 16,000 fewer sitting days in the Crown court each year.
In clause 6, the Government propose to increase the maximum sentencing power of the magistrates court to 18 months. We are told that will save a further 8,000 sitting days in the Crown court. Taken together, those two measures—ending election and extending magistrates’ powers—represent a sizeable shift of the caseload out of the Crown court and into the magistrates court. That will deliver on the main objective of these reforms, which is to ensure the capacity of the Crown court to try the most serious criminal cases in a fair and timely manner. There has been less scrutiny on how magistrates will cope with their new responsibilities; I will deal with that in a moment.
Clauses 3 to 5—the provisions that have attracted the most debate—will establish the Crown court bench division to enable cases with a likely sentence of three years or less to be tried on indictment without a jury. Clause 4 will allow trial by judge alone for some complex and lengthy cases. Compared to the other measures in part 1 of the Bill, those will have a less significant effect on the backlog, but a still substantial 5,000 Crown court days will be saved.
I accept the Government’s argument that there is a strong case for modernising how the Crown court operates. Some improvement will be achieved through adopting the measures on efficiency set out in part 2 of Sir Brian Leveson’s review, or the additional resources promised under the concordat with the Lady Chief Justice that will remove restrictions on court sitting days, but those are unlikely to be enough on their own. Given the crisis that the criminal courts are facing, I am willing to support the creation of the Crown court bench division and the other measures in part 1 of the Bill.
I do not accept the case made by some that the proposals represent the end for jury trial and that the Bill should be opposed on that basis. Of the 3% of criminal cases that currently go before a jury, about a third—some 4,000—of the less serious of those offences, such as possession of class A drugs, car theft, affray and large-scale waste dumping, will now go before a judge alone. I do not believe that undermines the jury system, although it will undoubtedly change how some cases are tried. Therefore, arrangements for judge-only trials in the Crown court need to be carefully reviewed once they are in force to test whether they deliver the time saving promised without undermining the right to a fair trial.
I turn to my reservations on the proposals. I am concerned that magistrates courts will not be able to cope with the increase in caseload envisaged by the Bill. The work of the magistrates court is delivered by a range of dedicated public servants: magistrates, district judges, legal advisers, His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service staff, probation, the Crown Prosecution Service and legal aid lawyers. However, we know that recruiting and retaining many of those key personnel are long-standing problems.
The Lord Chancellor wrote to the Justice Committee last week and told us that the Ministry of Justice hopes to recruit thousands of magistrates and hundreds of legal advisers and district judges over the next year or two. I am concerned that those are very ambitious targets, and that even if the recruitment bear fruit, they will not meet the challenge of diverting 24,000 days of complex hearings from the Crown court each year while dealing with the existing problems in the magistrates court, which has its own backlog.
Clause 7, which seeks to reform appeals from the magistrates court, will require electronic recording of proceedings. That strikes me as a significant change. The impact assessment is not clear about how much that will cost, but I doubt whether it can be delivered either quickly or cheaply.
Another area of concern is the process for allocating cases for judge-only trials. Prosecution and defence lawyers will wish to make written and oral submissions, and some may seek to challenge decisions on allocation by judicial review. To those concerns should be added the differing eligibility for legal aid in the Crown and magistrates courts and concerns that the loss of a lay presence in determining innocence or guilt risks losing diversity and adding unconscious bias.
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
In the magistrates court, only those who earn less than £21,000 a year—less than a full-time job at real living wage rates—are entitled to legal aid. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is real danger in that in terms of access to justice?
Andy Slaughter
That is exactly the point that I somewhat briefly alluded to; I am glad that my hon. Friend outlined it in more detail. The Government really must address that before the Bill concludes its passage through this House and the other place.
In relation to both restriction of jury trials and the decision not to accept Sir Brian’s recommendation that a judge should sit with lay magistrates in the Crown court bench division, the point has been made that the lay element is being limited too far. I could say a lot more, but I am conscious of the time. Many details need to be worked out. I see why the Government are giving themselves until March 2028 to implement the Bill’s proposals.
As the Bill progresses, I hope that the Government will listen to Members of this House and the other place and to those with an interest in the criminal justice system—from lawyers to victims—on how it can be clarified and improved. The Justice Committee has held evidence sessions and been in detailed correspondence with the Lord Chancellor, the Courts Minister and Sir Brian for several months. Our current call for evidence closes tomorrow, and on 17 March we will hold a further evidence session.
I do not have time to cover the other important but less controversial parts of the Bill, but I would like to recognise the Law Commission, which has done the hard work on the proposals on evidence in sexual offence prosecutions that lies behind clauses 8 to 12. I also pay tribute to the campaigners who worked tirelessly for the removal of the presumption of parental involvement. Those measures will help to ensure that some of the most vulnerable in our society are protected by our courts.
Finally, I know that the Lady Chief Justice will be pleased that the Government have found a legislative vehicle to bring the leadership of tribunals within the wider courts structure. That is a good thing. Overall, this is a necessary package of reforms. I look forward to working with the Government to improve it as it progresses through Parliament.
Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and Tavistock) (Con)
I should declare an interest at the beginning. I am a member of the Bar—that is not uncommonly known—I still practise at the Bar, and I have the honour to be a criminal barrister and a member of the Criminal Bar Association. I have spent 44 years at the Bar. I have defended and prosecuted in some of the largest criminal trials that this country has ever seen—and some of the longest.
I have been experienced in seeing how juries react to circumstances of adversity and circumstances that challenge and test the very boundaries of humanity in the appalling nature of the crimes they are forced to adjudicate upon. Without exception, they have responded in a manner that I think generally gives rise to the hugest admiration, not to say awe, from those who are otherwise engaged in the administration of justice.
There is something about the gathering of 12 ordinary citizens, chosen at random and brought together into the crucible that a criminal trial produces, that strips away ideological and racial prejudice or preconception, and that causes them to focus upon a single question: is the allegation true, or is it not; and can we be sure, or is there any doubt?
Again and again, throughout our legal history, the wisdom and capacity of juries have been repeatedly vindicated every time they have been analysed, tested or sought to be examined by those who research these matters.
Sir Geoffrey Cox
Not just now, but I will come back to the hon. Member.
We in this House are engaged in ideological strife. Every day of our lives we are engaged in a political battle, and frankly, sometimes we do not always live up to the highest standards that even our own parties have set. In the course of my legal career, I have been led—when I say “led”, I mean that I was a junior in the courts—by some distinguished Labour Members of Parliament who continued to practise in the criminal courts and regarded it is a noble honour to do so. Peter Archer, the former Solicitor General, led me in the early 1980s; John Morris led me just eight weeks before the ’97 election, when the Blair landslide swept in—oh, halcyon days to those across the aisle, or some of them, anyway; and Bob Marshall-Andrews led me right up to the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords. What remarkable men they were.
Those men would never have countenanced—not for a single second—the compromise of principle that Government and Opposition Members are now being asked to make. I knew these people, and I knew them well. John Morris would never have countenanced it. Peter Archer would never have countenanced it. Bob Marshall-Andrews would never have countenanced it.
Sir Geoffrey Cox
Not now—later. I will.
I want to appeal to Labour Members. We are engaged in ideological strife. But in the Venn diagram that any society depends upon for the sustaining of sufficient points of common ground to keep a society together, jury trial is one of those that appear in a point of intersection between the vast numbers of this House and outside it.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Sir Geoffrey Cox
I will give way to the hon. Member for Colchester (Pam Cox) first, if she can give me just two seconds. I want to develop this theme, because it is very important to me.
There are some things that have to be above politics. If there are not, we have no society to defend. Jury trial is one of those institutions that have been defended by those across the aisle from me, on the opposite extreme of the political spectrum, and by those on our side of the House, out to the furthest waters of the right. Why is that? Because the administration of justice must be a non-ideological space. Jury trial unites us all for a simple reason: it is the most powerful instrument and engine of social justice that this country has ever invented. It is a safeguard against oppression. It is a built-in defence against establishment and administrative power.
Pam Cox
We could think of this exchange as Cox v. Cox. The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentions legal history. I have more than a passing interest in that and am minded to think of the Summary Jurisdiction Act 1879, which moved a lot of cases from a jury system into the magistrates system. The architect of that was Disraeli, a former Conservative Prime Minister. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not agree that many politicians across this House have acted to shape jury trials over time?
Sir Geoffrey Cox
There has always been a summary jurisdiction—invariably never for offences of dishonesty, and invariably never for offences that might lead to the destruction of the reputation of those who are facing it.
If one Member of this House, who must be disqualified if there is a sentence of imprisonment of more than 12 months, after the passage of this Bill is arraigned before a court on a case that might involve 12 months and one day, he or she will lose the right to a trial by jury, despite the fact that that might be an offence of protest. It might well be an offence where the Member of the House has felt so powerfully that they must breach the law that they are arrested and arraigned on a potential sentence of up to three years. Three years is a long time. As that could easily be an offence of protest, are we therefore saying that those who seek to go to jail, such as the suffragettes, should lose their right to trial by jury—a jury that is not obliged to follow the diktats or directions of a judge on the law; a jury that is entitled to reach its decision on its judgment about what is fair? I say—
Sir Geoffrey Cox
Not just now.
I say to the House, in all conscience, that jury trial is precious. Why? It is precious because it unites all parts of the political spectrum. It is precious because it allows the people of this country to be directly engaged in the adjudication of guilt or innocence in thousands of cases across the country.
At a time, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden) pointed out when he rose to intervene, when our institutions are under unprecedented attack, is now the time to transfer a massive chunk of the administration of criminal justice and the decisions on the guilt or innocence of a fellow citizen to a representative who unquestionably will be seen as a representative of the state? It is the jury that protects us from the allegation that the state is deciding upon that citizen’s future. That is what protects, preserves and enhances the reputation of the administration of justice.
Karl Turner
It was telling when Jo Hamilton OBE wrote to the Justice Secretary—I think it was yesterday—to respectfully remind him that, as a victim of the Post Office Horizon scandal, under the legislation proposed, not one of the 900 sub-postmasters who were convicted would have been entitled to a trial before their peers. What does the right hon. and learned Gentleman say to that?
Sir Geoffrey Cox
I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. Postmasters, postmistresses, postmen—those whose honesty and integrity are integral to their employment and who, for a breach of trust, would not receive three years’ imprisonment—would all be deprived of their jury trial, and at a time when the sharks and the vultures are circling around the institutions of this country. We are now on the brink of undermining—I believe irredeemably—one of the most precious of those institutions, which commands almost universal assent. Let me say why.
Sir Geoffrey Cox
No, I am not giving way. I am mindful of time and I must complete what I have to say.
This is a time when not just this House but the judiciary and the courts are under attack. The unprecedented attacks upon the judiciary and the legal profession are deplorable. Institutional trust is under siege, and now is not the time—[Interruption.] I am trying to make a speech that is non-partisan—[Interruption.] It really is not. I remember vividly when I sat where the Lord Chancellor now sits and he was on this side of the House. I remember the fire that breathed from his soul as he spoke about justice. I can hear him now, in my mind’s eye, speaking on this subject, and I know that he would have been saying the direct polar opposite of what he is advancing today in the House. I would say that he was his wiser self in those days. He was his best self then, because at that time he was motivated by those who were oppressed, who were poor and who faced the full phalanx of the state reined against them. It was this Secretary of State in a different guise who was their champion and their voice.
A jury trial is the most potent weapon and instrument against oppression and injustice. It serves not just those who are wealthy but those who are poor, and not just those who have a voice but those who do not. It is the 12 members of a jury who will give a hearing to people who otherwise have no hearing—
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Geoffrey Cox
I will not take interventions now, and certainly not if they are of the quality that we have had up till now.
The reality is that jury trial is the cornerstone of our justice system. Do away with it and we are in trouble. Let us look at the way in which this Bill operates. It automatically presumes jury trial for everything that will have a likely sentence of three years, and those will involve some grave offences. However, in relation to serious, complex or lengthy cases, it could cover any allegation, so long as a judge concludes that it is appropriate that it should be dealt with without a jury. Apart from the excluded offences, which I accept exist, it is not just fraud trials but all kinds of trials that will be tried without a jury if a judge concludes that is appropriate.
The moment we make jury trials subject to the individual view of a judge as to whether that is appropriate or not, we drive a hole through the fundamental, accepted right that all of us on both sides of the House have accepted over so many years, which is that if someone is accused of a serious crime that could destroy their reputation, disqualify them from the House of Commons, wreck their professional reputation or result in the loss of their employment—as with the postmasters and postmistresses—they should be able to be judged by 12 people.
There is a reason why summary justice is called “summary”. There is a reason that summary justice was always subject to a complete rehearing. It has been suggested that there is no right to a jury trial. Of course there is no written right, but there has always been an accepted consensus, on both sides of this House and throughout the system of this country, that jury trials are precious for those kinds of cases, particularly those involving allegations of dishonesty. The right to elect is crucial. That is what this Bill is undermining. That is what is so dangerous about it. And undermining it on what basis? Arbitrary rules and arbitrary divisions. Why three years? Why not next year four or five? Why not extend it gradually, little by little, until we reduce—
Sir Geoffrey Cox
No, I am not giving way. Let me make that clear now. I want to finish in a moment.
The reality is that jury trial is too precious a thing to lose. We are faced with a question of principle here. The savings that the Government claim will be made are contested by many expert analyses from the profession, the Institute for Government and others. They are based on questionable assumptions. Are those savings sufficient for us to abrogate a fundamental principle that attracts almost universal assent across the political spectrum, which is so rare in our institutional and political life? Are they sufficient for us to take this highly unprecedented and questionable step? I would submit that they are not.
I would submit to the House that we should pause long and hard before we encroach upon this fundamental principle. I have seen it work in practice over 40 years and, as I have said, I have never failed to be awe-inspired by the sheer quality of attention and fairness that a jury brings to its deliberations. Summary justice can never replicate that. We are about to take a step that will irretrievably damage the quality of justice in this country.
I do not watch television much, but sometimes I watch something called “Digging for Britain”. It is apparent from that programme that we can tell when a civilisation starts to degrade when the quality of its architectural constructions changes; they start to look cheaper, and there is less attention to detail. If we take this step, we will be degrading our system of justice. A summary justice trial is summary—the clue is in the name—but that has always been corrected by the power to have a full rehearing in the court above: the Crown court. The Bill is even taking that away. We are ensuring that many thousands of people will be dealt with summarily in cases of great importance to their life and reputation.
I can only appeal to the House—ineffectually, perhaps; and I regret that I have attracted comments from Labour Members suggesting that my comments are controversial. They come from the heart, and from my 44 years’ experience of a system and a profession that I love. If I have attracted the ire of Labour Members, I apologise for that; I was hoping to induce reflection on the sheer importance of the institution about which we are to take this important decision.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We are now on a speaking limit of six minutes. I call Catherine West.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)
I hope to be a little more brief and less pompous than previous speakers. I am indebted to the many who serve, day to day, in the Wood Green courts, and in other parts of the London circuit. I thank them for their hard work in this rather thankless legal environment. I commend the Minister for Courts and Legal Services on her active engagement with Members across the House on these principles and proposals. I also thank the Select Committee for its important work scrutinising the Bill. I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) say that he was looking to abstain in the vote on Second Reading, so that he could hear more debate as the Bill passes through the House. That is the spirit in which debate on the Bill should be listened to; there should be less bombast, and more practical solutions for victims of crime.
We need to end the court backlog and ensure access to justice for all. We also need to properly fund our justice system. Congratulations to the team who have got £2 billion out of the Treasury to fix our courts. I welcome the recent announcement of the investment in criminal legal aid—the 24% overall uplift in funding—and of the £287 million to be invested in vital repairs and digital upgrades to court buildings. The day I visited Wood Green, it was a heatwave. We were sitting there—everyone had all their legal coats, dresses and wigs on—and I had the most ordinary plate of fish and chips from the canteen that I have ever had. Given the basic conditions that victims, security teams and legal personnel experience when they go to court, we need to get this money out the door and spent on improving the estate, so that we can have more confidence in the system.
We need to be aware that the legal aid funding for magistrates court cases often barely covers costs. That is one of the serious concerns that I know Labour Members have about what is being proposed. As it stands, there is an automatic right to appeal a magistrates court conviction in the Crown court. Forty per cent of appeals against conviction from the magistrates court to the Crown court are successful. The Bill would end the automatic right to appeal a magistrates court conviction, which is one of the concerns raised by the eminent legal constituents who contacted me yesterday.
Thinking more in depth about the legal aid question, the means-tested threshold is just £22,000. Those in full-time, minimum-wage jobs may not qualify for that in a high-value, expensive city like London. If the Bill becomes law as it stands, will our defendants who are not eligible for legal aid, but who barely manage to keep their heads above water, be expected to draft their own grounds of appeal? I suspect that might lead to more costs in the long term, so we need to look at that.
Why is the court backlog so great? Will the Minister say more about defendants? I am sure that some people will make points about defendants possibly gaming the system—that is what I have been hearing. I have no doubt that there is an element of that, which has to be clamped down on, but let us not ignore the delays in police investigations, often due to the cuts that the police endured over the previous decade, and the sheer churn. If a woman has to wait four years for her case, how many police officers does she see? How many times does she have to repeat her dreadful situation to them? That is a trauma in itself. How many victims’ champions have had to listen to story after story?
Let us not ignore all the other elements of this system, such as delays to do with the police, and sometimes the Crown Prosecution Service. There is also a large churn in expertise there; it has become an unattractive place to work, due to the stretch on the service provided. Decisions are therefore being made at a slow pace; it is quite frustrating, on all counts.
One of my constituents, a practising legal aid solicitor of many decades’ standing, recently told me that his 19-year-old client was just sentenced for an incident that occurred in November 2024 when he was 17 years old. The client was not gaming the system; he pleaded guilty, yet he faced all those delays, so the delays are very real.
The preferred option, from my point of view, would be to have a pilot scheme, and to see after three or four years which system is best: the pilot scheme, or the scheme that we have. Of course, for that to happen, I would have to vote for the Bill’s Second Reading, wouldn’t I? I am being pragmatic and helpful, and am following the lead of Members who have given a lot of thought to this, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East, as well as the Select Committee. I look forward to following the Bill closely as it goes through its stages, including in the upper House, and to coming up with a good solution at the end of this process.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Quite unusually, I have served as a practising barrister in courts and have also served on juries. I never fail to be impressed by the extraordinary care that juries take in deciding a case. Undoubtedly, the stand-out speech of the debate so far has been by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox). He addressed us like a jury; it was actually rather wonderful. He posed a question to us that is always posed to a jury, and which is emphasised by the judge at the end of the case: are you certain? Are we sure that trial by jury is guilty? Frankly, I do not think that the Government have made the case so strongly that we can be certain of the outcome.
We are debating something of deep and fundamental seriousness. No one doubts that the backlog in the criminal courts is serious. Everybody agrees—I follow the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) in saying this—that justice delayed is justice denied for victims, whom we would certainly always put first, and for defendants alike. We know that Parliament has a duty to act. The question before us, however, is not whether we solve the backlog, but how we solve it. The concern many of us have is that we may be tempted to treat trial by jury as just some procedural device that can be adjusted for administrative convenience. Leaving aside the fact that there was no mention of this measure in any manifesto, trial by jury is not merely a procedure of the courts; it is one of the constitutional foundations of our liberty.
As William Blackstone wrote in the 18th century,
“Trial by jury ever has been, and I trust ever will be, looked upon as the glory of the English law”.
It would have been inconceivable to Blackstone that what he called the “grand bulwark” of an Englishman’s liberties might be voluntarily and needlessly surrendered.
Sarah Russell
What does the right hon. Gentleman say about the freedom of women to walk the streets without fearing for their physical safety? What does he say about the freedom of women who have made allegations of rape, and who are waiting six years between reporting to the police and having a trial? Does he recognise that those are liberties that matter, too?
Sir Edward Leigh
Of course that is an important point—we are not debating that. Of course the backlog is wrong, but this is not the right way to correct it. The backlog is caused by administrative delays or, if hon. Members want, cuts to the judicial system; it is not caused by trial by jury. Of course we put defendants first.
Sir Edward Leigh
I may give way in a moment.
Others, not necessarily in our country, have commented on this. Alexis de Tocqueville observed in the 19th century that the jury
“places the real direction of society in the hands of the governed”.
That was in his book, “Democracy in America”, and the great republic has followed our example.
Sir Edward Leigh
I am not suggesting that jury trials have been abolished. If the hon. Member listens to my speech, she will hear me talk later about jury trials for people who are accused of, for instance, shoplifting.
The freedom of the citizen is not solely determined by the state, but by his or her peers—that is the important point. The senior judge and legal philosopher Lord Devlin captured this perfectly when he wrote:
“Each jury is a little parliament.”
The jury trial is the point at which ordinary citizens participate directly in the administration of the King’s justice. The existence of the jury tells a citizen that the determination of justice ultimately belongs to free people of good character, not to bureaucrats, officials or state-appointed mandarins. That is why the principle has deep historical roots in our constitutional tradition, and why this debate is so fundamental.
As long ago as 1215, Magna Carta declared that
“No free man shall be seized or imprisoned…except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.”
For more than eight centuries, that principle has stood as a reminder that liberty must always be guarded against the power of the state. Today we are told that this safeguard must be weakened because the courts face a serious backlog. A temporary administrative crisis should not lead us to dismantle a permanent constitutional protection; that is the point. It would be the height of folly.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Sir Edward Leigh
I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me, but Madam Deputy Speaker wants me to proceed.
The backlog did not arise because juries exist; it arose because the system itself has been placed under strain for many years. Opposition Members, like others, have a responsibility here. If the courts are struggling, the answer is to repair the system rather than weaken the principle. Many sensible proposals have been suggested, such as restoring bigger and longer court sitting patterns, opening additional courtrooms, and treating the backlog as a genuine national crisis that requires urgent resources.
Many people have pointed out the flaws in the Lord Chancellor’s plan. Several senior legal figures have written to The Times explaining that the proposals are “unworkable”. Perhaps there is one possible compromise: to at least preserve the absolute right of those of good character to a jury trial. If a person of good character—perhaps a Member of Parliament—is accused of something such as shoplifting, which would be quite a minor case, it can have a devastating impact on their career and life.
Sir Geoffrey Cox
The other logical absurdity is that, under the Government’s proposed reforms, somebody with a previous conviction may well go above the three-year threshold, so those who have a string of previous convictions will get a right to jury trial, but a person of good character will not.
Sir Edward Leigh
That is a very fair point.
I ask Members to look to their conscience. If they, a Member of Parliament—a person of good character—were accused of shoplifting, what would they choose? They would choose trial by jury, would they not? They would not choose to be tried by a magistrate. The task before us is to solve this practical problem without undermining our constitutional safeguards. The danger that we face is the temptation to sacrifice a long-standing liberty for the sake of short-term administrative convenience.
The Lord Chancellor is a friend of mine and a good man. He is not a villain; he approaches things with the best of intentions—I say that without doubt. The problem is that we may not always have individuals as good natured and well intentioned as him. We accept that he is genuinely trying to solve a problem, but I fear that he is doing it with the wrong mindset. Constitutional safeguards are not designed for moments when power is exercised by good men; they exist precisely because future holders of power may not always be so wise or so restrained. We have become so used to our state of freedom that we are in danger of imagining that it is the natural state of mankind. History teaches us that it is not. We have reached our advanced state of structured freedom, responsible government and parliamentary democracy through centuries of slow, organic growth. They grew through the common law, through Magna Carta, through Parliament and through the principle that the community—the people—participate in justice.
Henry Tufnell (Mid and South Pembrokeshire) (Lab)
The right to a fair trial is fundamental to our democracy. For certain offences, a fair trial will always be a trial by jury. However, it has been long been the case that the right to a trial by jury is contingent on the offence. The Interpretation Act 1978 set out the three-tier classification of criminal offences, and created a category for less serious offences that would be tried only by a magistrates court—without a jury.
The question of which crimes fall into that category has been revisited periodically. The Criminal Justice Act 1988 reclassified three groups of offences—common assault, taking vehicles without consent, and criminal damage under a certain value—as summary-only offences to be dealt with in magistrates courts, without a jury. In the same year, the Thatcher Government passed the Road Traffic Act 1988, which made driving while disqualified a summary offence. It is not new for a Government to make choices about who can access a jury trial by reclassifying offences to reflect changes in wider society and technology.
This Government face important choices about how to address the urgent problem of the backlog in our Crown courts. As hon. Members have powerfully illustrated, justice is being delayed for far too many victims, witnesses and defendants. The scale of the problem demands ambitious and radical reforms, and to deny the need for them is to downplay the impact that our broken criminal justice system has had on the lives of so many people. One measure at the Government’s disposal to tackle the backlog is restricting the right to a jury trial to a smaller number of offences. Although jury trials account only for about 3% of criminal trials, they take up 60% of Crown court hearing time. The Government’s increased investment in magistrates courts, and the expansion of their powers, would also help to reduce the burden on Crown courts.
However, magistrates courts are feeling the effects of 20 years of under-investment, and have an open caseload of over 370,000 cases and counting. Turning the tide on capacity pressures will take time. High conviction rates in magistrates courts, as well as increased sentencing powers and the reduced right to appeal proposed in clauses 6 and 7, risk lengthier sentences and adding to our ballooning prison population. Reducing the burden on the Crown court is vital, but the Government must be careful not to rely too heavily on lay magistrates in doing so.
There is a practical middle way that could see swift and effective reductions to the Crown court backlog and avoid overloading the lay magistrates courts: give district judges greater powers to try criminal cases. District judges are valuable and experienced members of our criminal justice system, and they have years of professional experience behind them. Many sit as recorders in the Crown court and go on to become Crown court judges themselves. Many also have experience of trying the most serious cases, such as rape, when sitting in the youth court, so why should they not be trusted to hear more serious adult cases? If their jurisdiction were increased to offences carrying up to three years’ imprisonment, they could take on cases such as assaulting an emergency worker, dangerous driving and indecent exposure.
To make this work, the right to elect to have a jury trial would need to be limited to offences with a maximum penalty above three years. That is slightly more than Sir Brian Leveson’s recommendation of two years, and the effect would be immediate: far fewer cases sent to the Crown court, quicker hearings before experienced district judges, fewer unnecessary referrals to the Crown court and more time for the Crown court to focus on more serious crime. This would still require important choices to made about the right to a jury trial itself. The Government could reduce the maximum sentence for certain offences that are currently set between three and five years—offences where sentences above three years are rarely imposed. That would allow them to fall within the jurisdiction of district judges.
Critics may say that this looks soft on crime, but in truth it simply reflects sentencing reality. For example, actual bodily harm carries five years under section 47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, but 98% of custodial sentences between 2020 and 2024 were for three years or less. For knife and offensive weapon offences, the average sentence is just eight months. Those offences could also reasonably have their maximum sentence reduced to three years, thus restricting the right to elect to have a jury trial.
I refer to Scotland’s sheriff courts as a useful model. Like district judges, sheriffs are legally qualified and experienced and have the capacity to handle both low and mid-level offences. Between sheriff courts and the lay justice of the peace courts, the majority of local criminal business is covered, reserving the High Court for more serious cases.
If we want justice delivered quickly and fairly, we must use every tool at our disposal, so I ask my right hon. Friend: will he consider expanding the powers of district judges as part of this Government’s ambitious plan to invest in and reform our justice system?
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) on defending trial by jury, which is a long-standing right that people have enjoyed—albeit only in certain circumstances—and we should think very seriously before taking it away. One hundred senior barristers and KCs have written to the Secretary of State to say that taking away this right for those cases would be an “irremediable error”, and many others have criticised the move.
When I visited the magistrates court in my constituency, magistrates told me of their challenges in recruiting, which must place serious doubts on the assumptions that have been made about the time savings that would result from this Bill. I also have serious concerns about the removal of the right to appeal those cases in the Crown court.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The Criminal Bar Association says it is “fundamentally opposed” to restricting jury trials, with around 90% of criminal barristers being against these proposals. This was not in Labour’s manifesto, and there has been an admission that the plans are ideological rather than practical. Does the hon. Member agree that weakening trial by jury will not solve the crisis in our courts and risks undermining a safeguard that has protected our justice system for over 800 years?
Gideon Amos
I do. The hon. Member is right: the problem with these reforms is that they are not going to speed up the criminal justice system or solve the backlog issues. We have rehearsed all the challenges that the system faces—we know what they are, and they need to be addressed, but abolishing trial by jury for those affected will not do that.
Madam Deputy Speaker, if I may, I would like to spend a few minutes on a missed opportunity in this Bill: dealing with the state of our immigration and asylum system, which we all know the Conservatives left in an appalling state. The asylum backlog more than doubled in just two years, from 70,000 to 166,000 people waiting in 2022. Instead of processing those claims, the Conservatives opened over 400 asylum hotels. As the Government began clearing up the—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman might like to stay within the scope of this Bill rather than discussing asylum hotels.
Gideon Amos
The point I wish to make, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that this Bill should address the challenge faced by the immigration system. Alongside the Bill, the Government have a parallel proposal to abolish the current system and to replace immigration tribunals with a new appeals system. I believe that that should be debated in the House and that it is relevant to this Bill, but I will move quickly through my points about this issue so as not to irritate you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
This Bill offers an important opportunity to address the immigration system. I am concerned that the creation of a new body and the abolition of the appeals tribunal is not the right approach, and that it will devalue the tribunal judges who are ready and available to sit and hear more cases. I genuinely welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement of an extra 26,000 sitting days for that chamber, but extra days will not be useful if there are not enough judges to sit for them. In the words of a judge who wrote to me,
“there are not enough judges and if the Home Office does not do the work quicker at their end, which is where the delay is, it makes no difference.”
There are enough immigration and asylum tribunal judges, but we need them to be allowed to sit for more than 220 capped days to deal with the backlog. I tabled a written question on this point. Those judges are prevented from being paid more than salaried judges, and therefore there is an effective cap on their sitting. Those are the kinds of issues that we need to deal with, as well as dealing with the backlog in the criminal courts and allowing our courts to be used for two sittings each day—am and pm—as my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester explained. Those are the kinds of measures that would speed up the criminal justice system, not the abolition of trial by jury for those cases that would be affected.
Some hon. Members have made the point that trial by jury is not necessarily a constitutional right in all cases, and we understand that. However, denigrating trial by jury as unimportant or a minor right does not help the argument of those who are seeking to abolish it for certain cases. Looking back, it has been called in case law a
“highly valued part of our unwritten constitution.”
Going back to the 18th century, Lord Justice Camden said that it was
“the foundation of our free constitution”.
In the 20th century, Lord Justice Devlin said that
“it is the lamp that shows that freedom lives”.
Catherine Atkinson
I fully agree that jury trials are a hugely important part of our justice system, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that the way that summary offences, either-way offences and indictable-only offences are classified has altered over the years? That classification was changed in the 1970s and in the 1980s, and it is incorrect to try to portray our legal system as one that is unchanged in 800 years.
Gideon Amos
Of course I accept that the legal system has evolved and changed, and that the right to trial by jury has changed, but my concern is that in serious cases, where someone could be imprisoned for up to two years and their reputation destroyed, people would want to be tried by jury. Our legal system currently protects that right, but that would be swept away by this Bill.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
We already have judges who make decisions on cases where children are taken away from parents, so does the hon. Gentleman not consider those to be serious cases? Some 90% of cases are dealt with by magistrates, so does he say that justice is not achieved in those cases?
Gideon Amos
Of course magistrates do a vital job, but when I visited magistrates in my constituency, they explained that they seriously doubt that it will be possible to recruit sufficient people to meet Ministry of Justice estimates about cost saving and time saving.
To conclude, for me cases that will result in imprisonment of up to three years—or up to two years if they come before a magistrate—are serious enough to warrant the right of defendants to request a trial by jury. Those are the protections currently in place in law. We should hold on to those protections and defend them as a guarantee of our liberty in this House and in the country.
Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)
I want to start by pointing out that in this debate, we have called more barristers to speak than we have called women. It would be wrong of us not to realise that we are the absolute epitome of the British establishment. I have never come across as many barristers in my life; before I came here, the only time I ever saw a barrister was when I was helping a loved one who faced trial. This is about the reality of the real world, but we are more likely to have victims watching on than we are to have victims on these Benches. The voices of victims have been lacking from this debate. We have heard about the Bar Council and we have heard lots of references to men, but Claire Waxman emailed every single MP and said, “I want you to listen to the victims—their voices, their stories and the realities of the waits that they endure.”
We have a system in this country where you can rape somebody and get away with it. It happens every single day. For too long, society has told women that it is their fault that they have been raped and that nobody will believe them if they do report, so five out of six of them do not. And if they do go to trial, they will face years of re-traumatisation, which is why 60% drop out. You know what is worse than being raped? I can tell you from personal experience: facing years of waiting to see if people believe you.
We all have a role to play in eradicating our rape culture, but today we see the state stepping up for victims. This is about making sure that they are supported and believed by our institutions, harnessing the nation’s sense of urgency to do more, and smashing the status quo by cutting the standard half-a-decade wait for justice. We know that if we do not invest and modernise our courts system, everything else is just tinkering around the edges. A young woman named Sienna came up to me last week and said, “Natalie, I just don’t get it, but you do. What is happening? This is just complete common sense to everybody I speak to and everybody at work—I am a police officer. I just don’t get it. Where is the catch? Why are people so angry?” So what I want to do now is talk the House through the arguments for the status quo to remain.
We keep hearing that we need more money. We are having record investment—and—I’ll tell you what—it is not enough. Trials by jury are part of our history, but we have to adapt. When trials are taking twice as long as they did in the year 2000, we need to keep up. Judges alone cannot hear trials. We have already heard about district judges and the work that they do; we need a jury of peers. I want to point out that nobody questioned the legitimacy of the trial of Gisèle Pelicot, the bravest woman I look up to. I am not saying that we should abolish jury trials. What I am saying is that if we create capacity and protect juries for the most serious trials, I will do everything I can to get as many rapists as I can into those courts.
Hon. Members will hear that this is a class issue—and, yes, it is. This is about victims versus the establishment, which we are hearing far too much from today. Instead of putting themselves in the place of the defendant and imagining how that would feel, I am asking Members to put themselves in the shoes of the victim, because a quarter of us women become one. Imagine if this was you. This is not about denying anybody justice; it is about enabling victims and innocent parties to have a more efficient path to getting that justice.
Once again, courage calls to courage everywhere. I call on our Government to replicate the courage of victims and use it to get our justice system moving. Show that we can be bold disruptors, smashing the status quo, taking the difficult choices, taking on the arguments, delivering for victims across the land, who need leadership and decisive action, and rebalancing power between victims and perpetrators.
I back these reforms not because I am made to, but because they are right—because I want my granddaughter to grow up in a world where women can be believed, get fast justice and move on with their lives. I tell the 200 women in this country who will be raped today: I am sorry that you will have to wait until 2030 for a trial, but today we are doing something about it, and I am so proud to walk through the Lobby on your behalf.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet). Although she is on the opposite side of the debate from me, she always speaks with huge passion on these issues. I should start with a couple of declarations. First, my wife is a sitting employment judge, and therefore the tribunal element of the Bill pertains to her. Secondly, like many right hon. and hon. Members in this Chamber, I was a barrister immediately prior to coming into this place, and I maintain my practising certificate. I hope the hon. Lady will indulge me if I pontificate on this issue for a few moments.
While I was not a criminal barrister, I did a significant amount of inquest work, so I had face-to-face, first-hand experience with jurors, and I can say without a shadow of a doubt that they are the most remarkable, ordinary people, who give up their time for civic engagement. They sit there quietly, listening to the evidence; they take their role seriously; and they sit in judgment and make findings of fact. That is a huge constitutional principle. We have talked about rights, and I am not going to pretend that there is an innate right to a trial by jury, but there is a firm constitutional principle of ensuring that justice is not merely done to the public, but that it is done with the public.
We all know about the problem of court backlogs. It would be a farce to pretend that this is not a significant and serious issue—it is a failure of the state that we have got to this place. It is a failure of successive Governments, and we recognise that across the board, but the question we have to ask ourselves is not whether trial by jury should be abandoned; it is whether the reforms that are before this House, with the scrutiny that has been undertaken and the impact assessment that accompanies the Bill, constitute sufficient evidence for making such a reform to this country’s constitution.
What the Bill asks for is very clear, and we have to be honest about it. We are asking for a shift in the balance between the state and its people, and that may lead to inequality before the law. Take the prime example raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox): that of two individuals who, on a factual matrix, committed precisely the same crime. Those individuals appear before the court, but one has a string of previous convictions. Are we really saying that a person should be denied the opportunity of a jury trial if they have not previously been of bad character? That is a nonsense, and it does not achieve what we should be seeking to achieve.
The further point, of course, is that if we are making such a constitutional change on the basis that it will enable us to deal with the backlog in the criminal courts, why is there no sunset clause in the Bill? Why are we not saying that the purpose of the Bill is to shift the dial and make progress, but that we recognise that it should not be a blank cheque for the state? We should recognise that if this change has to be made—although I do not believe it does—it should be made on a limited basis, because if we are to change a right that is older than most institutions in this country, the least Parliament should do is base its decision on more than just an assumption in the impact assessment.
Let me turn to the modelling, which was also raised by the shadow Justice Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy). In this House on 3 February, I asked the Lord Chancellor a question about the 20% reduction in the time taken by court hearings. He gave me a very clear answer—that he accepted Sir Brian Leveson’s findings, but that the Government would publish their own modelling alongside the Bill. However, page 10 of the impact assessment is very clear that the Government have adopted Sir Brian’s assumption. That is an assumption; it is not modelling. There is a distinct difference. Analysis is helpful, but modelling is critical, and if we are weighing up the evidence base for the Bill, we have to have more than analysis alone.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
Can my hon. Friend give us his views as a practitioner on something that has not yet been mentioned in the debate, which is the usefulness of juries in protecting the institution of the judiciary? At the moment, if there is a string of sentencing that the Government or politicians do not like, there is not a lot they can do about it. If it is judges who are handing out those sentences, they will come under direct political attack, as we unfortunately see from time to time. The distance and insulation that a jury gives is not just a protection for the citizen, but a protection for the judiciary and its ongoing integrity.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
My right hon. Friend is right. There is a reason that judges wear a wig and barristers wear a wig and gown. It provides a shield between the arm of the law and the citizen. To dilute that would fundamentally upset the settlement that has been reached over hundreds and hundreds of years.
Alicia Kearns
Drawing on my hon. Friend’s point, we have also heard much argument that somehow reducing down to one judge would be a fairer and less biased system. As a woman, I do not feel that one person—we have to be honest with ourselves, they will likely be a man—who does not share my life experiences is more likely to be less biased than a jury of my peers. If the Government really want to tackle this issue, they need simply to turn to page 67 of their own manifesto, where they promise fast-track rape cases with specialist courts for every Crown court location. Surely that would be a better policy. It would make sure that women, when they give evidence, are hearing from a jury of their peers, who are more likely together to understand life experiences than one individual.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
My hon. Friend is right. First, there is the argument that this is of such constitutional significance that it should have been in a manifesto. Secondly, there is the argument that there was a proposal within the manifesto that the Government are not bringing forward. Thirdly, this is about getting the right settlement for the public, where they are judged by a body of their peers on the evidence before them. That is as opposed to a distant judge, who perhaps at times appears aloof, which fails to achieve that balance. We are being asked today to curtail a constitutional safeguard that has been apparent for so many years, and it goes much further than Sir Brian’s report. There were many good things in that report, but this legislation goes much further than any of his suggestions.
We have to ask what the real issues are. They are plain to see. There are too few judges and too few advocates able to prosecute or defend the cases. There are too few functioning courtrooms. Removing jury trials will not fix any of that. There is a further issue that the Government have failed to address, which is around the recruitment of magistrates. We know that in this country, recruitment cycles of magistrates have often not returned the numbers required. The presumption must be that the reason the Government did not adopt Sir Brian’s recommendation of having two magistrates as wing members was because they knew they could not recruit a sufficient number of magistrates to implement it. There is logic on that front, but if we are pushing more cases down to the magistrates court, who will be able to hear them and listen to them? Who will be able to draw those conclusions?
My final point, which I will make briefly, pertains to parliamentary scrutiny. The Bill will be rushed through this House and through Committee. It will get a mere five days in Committee, but it is of such constitutional importance. There is strong feeling across the House both for and against these proposals. Would it not be wiser in such circumstances to adopt an approach similar to what we do for armed forces Bills, for example, where we have a Select Committee of the House? Members with experience within the law and with experience of being victims could scrutinise the legislation and come back with a report. We could then do Report stage on the Floor of the House. That way, the country can know that we have given this legislation the due regard that it deserves.
There is a reason that jury trials have endured, and it is because they command the trust of the public. They ensure that the law is exercised with public participation. If the Government believe in diluting that right, they must provide the evidence for that change, and thus far they have failed to do so.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I propose putting in place a five-minute time limit after the next speaker.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
I thought long and hard about speaking today. I will allow right hon. and hon. Members from the legal profession to make the legal arguments better than I can, and will allow Members who rightly have procedural or rights-based concerns for defendants, which I share, to raise them. I trust that those points will be satisfactorily covered. I want to focus my remarks on a particular perspective that I feel has been too often ventriloquised in this debate, and I hope that the House will be gentle with me as I do so.
I have spoken before in this place about having post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of being the victim of a crime, but I have never specified the nature of that crime, and in doing so now I am aware that I am waiving my right to anonymity, and aware of the personal consequences that come along with that.
I care profoundly about rape victims facing intolerable delays for their day in court. I know only too well what that feels like, because, after being raped at an event that I attended in my capacity as a Member of Parliament, I waited 1,088 days to go to court. Every single one of those days was agony, made worse by having a role in public life that meant that the mental health consequences of my trauma were played out in public, with the event that led to my eventual sectioning for my own safety still being something that I receive regular social media abuse about from strangers to this day.
But here is the kicker. In this debate, it feels as if experiences like mine have been weaponised and are being used for rhetorical misdirection in relation to what this Bill actually is. The violence against women and girls sector has not had the opportunity to come together to discuss it, and the Government’s framing and narrative has been to pit survivors and defendants against each other in a way that I think is deeply damaging.
We have been told that if we have concerns about the Bill, it is because we have not been raped, or because we do not care enough for rape victims. The opposite is true in my case; it is because I have been raped that I am as passionate as I am about what it means for a justice system to be truly victim-focused. It is because I have endured every indignity that our broken criminal justice system could mete out that I care about what kind of reform will actually deliver justice for survivors and victims of crime more widely. In our manifesto, we promised specialist rape courts. This Bill is not that.
The transition away from jury trials in certain cases might itself take up operational time, with changes to an already overstretched system entrenching issues and delays. The timeline for these changes to take effect is 2028-29. We know what works because it is already happening in a few key areas, including pioneering work in Liverpool and Preston Crown courts in the north-west. This is a bearing down on waiting lists that could be taking place in months, not years—proven, meaningful and significant reductions in waiting times for complainants and defendants, rather than speculative, unevidenced reductions that the Institute for Government says could be as little as 1% to 2%, and coming years down the track. It is worth saying that the Bar Council believes that even that 1% to 2% reduction is wishful thinking, so we risk offering false hope to rape victims, rather than real change.
We know that juries are more diverse than the judiciary, and an unintended consequence of these changes could be that women from minoritised backgrounds are less likely to come forward, not more. Juries do not make perfect decisions, but neither do judges. An unintended consequence of measures that enabled pre-recorded evidence has been significant slippage in case handling, which is where the most significant procedural delays are. A clear re-prioritisation is needed here, alongside the expansion of recorders in cases involving rape and serious sexual offences.
The second thing to say is that the Bill does little for instances in which a rape victim actually comes to court. I still have almost as many nightmares about my experience on the witness stand as I do about my rape. The defence barrister, who had previously faced investigation after a witness took her own life following cross- examination in a different rape case, does not seem to have learnt much from that experience, and went for me in a way that undermined all the progress I had made in therapy and led me to blame myself for the eventual acquittal. We need far greater safeguards for those giving evidence. Actually, we need a reframing of the fact that legally you are a “witness” at your own trial. It is wild to me that we are still arguing, after many years, about a person’s right to a free transcript of their own trial, particularly as the recent move to allow access to sentencing remarks does nothing to help with closure for those whose cases sadly do not end in a conviction.
Ms Creasy
I know at first hand the strength that my hon. Friend is showing in making this speech, and I know why it matters for us to be confident that what we bring forward actually will change this situation—that we will not go down rabbit holes and be distracted by changing juries, but will focus ruthlessly on the victim’s experience. I want to speak on behalf of everyone in the Chamber in saying that we are with my hon. Friend every step of the way, and we are so damn proud of her today.
Charlotte Nichols
I thank my hon. Friend.
The third thing to say is that, for me, closure began after a successful civil process following the acquittal. My rapist may not be considered to have met the criminal threshold for guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, and is out there on the streets as a free man while I live with the life sentence of what he did to me, but what has been established, at a civil standard of proof, is what happened. It found that I had been raped, and a compensation order was made that recognises me as the blameless victim of a violent crime.
Despite the recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, we are still nowhere on civil remedy, including movement on the criminal injuries compensation scheme reform. Shamefully, the tariffs have not been uprated in line with inflation since 2012 and have no eligibility for non-contact sexual offences, which can cause significant and lasting harm.
Finally, the VAWG sector has been under-invested in for such a significant period that the best things that we can do to drive down waiting times and improve the experience of victims require money, and the Treasury remains unwilling to adequately cough up. I welcome the announcement of independent legal advisers, but the £6 million that sits alongside this is woefully inadequate. I could not have made it all the way to trial without my independent sexual violence adviser, Jaz, whose support saved my life, but I had to wait seven months to be allocated one, given how under-resourced the system is. That is not good enough.
I have enormous respect for many of my Front-Bench colleagues, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) and for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), but from where I am sitting it feels that, despite their best efforts and the publication of our groundbreaking VAWG strategy, we could do so much for rape victims that does not involve the Lord Chancellor using them as a cudgel to drive through reforms that are not directly relevant to them. As a starting point, Rape Crisis England & Wales has called for five key demands in its “Living in Limbo” report. Do not say that this Bill helps deliver justice for rape victims until it actually, materially does.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
I speak today in favour of the reasoned amendment standing in the names of Reform UK MPs. Although it has not been selected for debate, I would like to draw hon. Members’ attention to the wording, particularly where it says that
“the right to trial by one’s peers…has been an essential part of UK freedoms for centuries.”
As a magistrate of 20 years and a chairman of the court for 17 of those years, I hope that I have something to offer this debate. During those 20 years, I was part of a judicial process in which I, together with two fellow magistrates, sent many defendants to prison. I will never forget the first time I was part of a bench that sent someone to prison. I can still see that young man’s face, and see his distraught parents at the back of the court. I had to fight back my own tears, as a mother feeling for his mother and her pain, knowing the life-changing impact that our decision would have on that young man’s life. I should say that I toughened up pretty quickly.
On many occasions, I found myself chairing a trials court that would inevitably start late or end up with magistrates twiddling their thumbs when trials cracked or fell apart. That could be for a variety of reasons, but it was often due to last-minute pleas by defendants who had been presented with irrefutable evidence, or to the failure of the Crown Prosecution Service to prepare adequately for the case.
The process in the magistrates court is already inefficient, and a sizeable backlog of cases exist—reportedly, over 370,000. It is worth pointing out that a magistrates bench operates as a mini-jury, with three magistrates sitting on a trial to ensure a majority verdict, so it represents trial by the people, not the state. Be in no doubt: a prison sentence of up to three years will change someone’s life forever. A prison sentence of that length will mean the loss of employment, and therefore the loss of one’s ability to pay a mortgage or rent, often resulting in the loss of one’s home, which may in turn lead to a family being made homeless. A prison sentence often means the break-up of a family, with permanent damage inflicted on the partner and children in that family, whether by becoming outcasts in their community, being bullied at school, or adopting learned behaviour and offending themselves later in life.
For one individual—one judge—to have the power and to be the only perspective in administering a prison sentence is not justice. Furthermore, a single justice acting alone may come under pressure from politicians not to send defendants to prison due to a lack of prison space available, regardless of whether that defendant should in fact receive a custodial sentence. There may also be cases where a single justice is more lenient towards defendants from ethnic minorities for fear of being called racist if custodial sentences are frequently given by that judge to such defendants from ethnic minorities, regardless of the demographics of that court area.
With this Bill, there is no scrutiny of a judge, no ability to question that judge’s decision and no majority vote. A life-changing prison sentence can be given on the judgment of an individual with a single perspective and prejudice, without any checks and balances. The state will be administering justice, not the people. Everyone deserves the right to trial by their peers. In this Bill, the Government are removing trial by jury for serious crimes that attract prison sentences of up to three years. These could be serious domestic violence incidents, sexual assault, theft, fraud and so on.
This Bill is intended to speed up justice and cut court waiting lists, but there is no credible evidence to suggest that will be achieved by these changes. Courts need investment and to be run more efficiently to speed up justice. Solicitors need to be on time and ready for trial. So much of the delay is caused in the process before the case even comes before a jury. These proposals are the exact opposite of justice. These proposals go against the foundations of law and order in this country.
Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)
When I was working for a living as a building worker, rather than being here, if there was a backlog of work, we were told to work through the night and at weekends, and on not very much additional pay. I wonder how it is that, today in our country, one tenth of all the courts are not even sitting, despite the backlog that the Deputy Prime Minister has told us about and many others have spoken about. Why is it that, when there is a backlog, manual workers, as I was, are made to work hard, and rightly so, to catch up, but the barristers, judges, solicitors and all the other accoutrements of a court are simply told, “Well, we’ll make it easier for you by reducing the amount of jury trials that are going to be held.” It is rather odd.
Jon Trickett
No. I have only five minutes, and I will have to move fast.
The Deputy Prime Minister did convince me, and I am sure all of us, that there is a backlog, and it is not reasonable or fair, in terms of justice, that people should wait so long. Obviously, today we have heard some very powerful speeches from victims that reinforce the case. However, he has not shown to my satisfaction that the cause of the backlog is the juries. In fact, there is much evidence to show that they have a marginal impact at the most. The cause of the backlog is all sorts of things, including the failure of the courts to meet for long enough hours, as other working people have to do all over the country.
Let me reflect for a moment—in a sense, going back to the basics—on why juries are in place, and I think it is to do with the fact that the Crown has the power, uniquely, to imprison people and deprive them of their liberty. No other organisation has that massively powerful capacity. The point is that, in a case where the Crown—or the Government, acting on behalf of the Crown—is operating in an unreasonable, unfair or even oppressive way, what the person facing imprisonment has is the jury system. Twelve people drawn from the citizenry of our country at random are able to speak together and make a final decision about whether the Crown has made out the case that that person should be imprisoned. That is a fundamental part of our constitutional system, and the idea that we should begin to abandon it is mistaken. Some hon. Members have said today that we have done similarly in the past, but making mistakes in the past does not at all justify continuing to make mistakes in the present. I have not heard the case made that juries are a bad thing in principle, although we are reducing them.
One further point I want to raise is the question of how the backlog occurred. Again, no one has made the case that the backlog occurred because of some sort of permanent, strategic problem with the way our judicial system works. It is the product of a series of cuts by Governments of both parties, to be honest, and of a number of failures—there was privatisation, and all sorts of other issues. If those changes are contingent, rather than permanent, and a temporary problem that can be resolved, why are we destroying an element of the jury system? If the Deputy Prime Minister had said that the world and the country had changed, and that our way of looking at the judicial system had to be reformed, he might have had a case, although I would not necessarily agree with it. However, he has not said that. He has said that this is a contingent problem.
When I was working for a living, I regularly used a ratchet—I do not know if the DPM has ever used one. A ratchet is a device that moves in only one direction. In the jury system, citizens have had, over centuries, a ratchet that gives protection from an oppressive Government. If the Deputy Prime Minister had come to the House and said that he was going to do some things that were extraordinary but temporary, to deal with the problems facing all victims, I might well have been prepared to listen to him. However, he has not said that; instead, he says that this will be a permanent change to the way that we do things. I am not convinced. This is oppressive, authoritarian and, quite honestly, much as I admire the Deputy Prime Minister, reactionary.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
We have heard a great deal from Government Members about the necessity of these court reforms. They say that in order to tackle the backlog in our courts, we need to curb jury trials, but previous statements from Ministers betray the Government’s true intentions. On 7 January, standing at the Dispatch Box, the Minister for Courts and Legal Services said,
“People ask me, ‘Sarah, would you be doing this if there was not a crisis in our courts?’ I say yes”—[Official Report, 7 January 2026; Vol. 778, c. 284.]
It would be bad enough to attack the time-honoured right to a jury trial in the name of administrative efficiency; to do so for ideological reasons, without candidly making that ideological case to the public, is a disgrace.
The British people can see what is really going on. The Government want to curb jury trials because they do not trust the public. They think that judges know best, and would rather the justice system was run entirely by them. We know this to be the case because whenever the Government have a choice to make between the British people and their friends in the legal profession, they are on the side of the lawyers, every single time. We saw this “judges know best” approach in the Prime Minister’s disastrous Chagos giveaway; we see it on asylum, immigration and the European convention on human rights; we see it in the Government’s plans to allow prosecutions of veterans who fought in Northern Ireland; and now, we see it in their plans to curb jury trials.
However, jury trials exist for a reason. They are designed to ensure that the judiciary can never stray too far from the public’s conception of justice and fairness. At a time when public trust in the judiciary is low, can it really be sensible to take away this crucial backstop?
I will take just a single example of the divergence between public morality and judicial opinion. According to research conducted by the Free Speech Union, there is a huge gap between the successes of defences based on the right to free speech in judge-led cases and in cases heard by a jury. In judge-only cases at magistrates courts, just 16% of free-speech defences succeeded; in Crown court cases, where juries very often sit, 28% of free-speech defences succeeded. There is a clear divergence between the public’s appreciation of justice and the views of the judicial establishment.
The result of this Government’s plans will be to further alienate the public, and to drag the justice system further away from the views of the British people. If that is what they want, they should at least be straightforward about it.
Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)
This has been an incredible debate. I pay tribute to those who have felt able and courageous enough to share their personal circumstances with the House, and to the campaigners in the Public Gallery who have come along to hear a debate that will help make a success of their campaigns.
I go back to what my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) said: no Second Reading, no Bill. If we want to keep the good bits, we have to keep the Bill. If we want to change the bits that my hon. Friend mentioned, we have to give the Bill its Second Reading and get it into Committee. That is probably what we should do.
I was a magistrate for 20 years. I stood down in 2023, when I was selected as the candidate for Corby and East Northamptonshire. The case for reforming our justice system has been made. Every time a victim waits months for justice, they are being failed, and trust is lost. Justice delayed is justice diminished. I thank the Minister for spending some time with me, to discuss this issue. I welcome many of the things that we spoke about, including bringing the number of magistrates back up to previous levels. To bring down the backlog, we might have to look at the number of court buildings that the last Government closed, because once a magistrates court is full, it is full.
The courthouse in my constituency was closed, along with our police station. Kettering lost its courthouse, as did Daventry and Towcester. The reality is that justice no longer feels close to our people. I have some concerns, which I spoke to the Minister about, but let me come back on a couple of points. First, the amendment of the official Opposition talks about people’s right to elect which court they go to; if they are in a magistrates court, they can elect to go to Crown court. I was magistrate for 20 years and I never saw one person do that, because there are consequences: a judge in a Crown court has greater sentencing powers than a magistrates court. To those howling about this ability being taken away, I say this: in Scotland, defendants cannot elect what court they go to; the court decides that, so I do not see much wrong with that proposal.
Concerns have been raised, both today and previously, about defendants causing delays. I did not really see much evidence of that, but I do not see a need to stand in the way of the changes being proposed. The constitutional right to trial exists for offences with a sentence of more than three years, but we need to look at that, because that was not what Leveson recommended.
There are various other concerns that I have expressed, but let me say this to those who do not want any change at all: that position is not acceptable for victims, workers in the sector, or our constituents. Our system must deliver justice that is fair, timely and trusted. There are those who think that today is the end of the process. I have seen people saying, “This is D-day”, or “Today, MPs are going to scrap this, that and the other.” That is not the case. This is Second Reading. Once the Bill passes its Second Reading, as I think it will, we can start to look into the detail, and make the changes that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East mentioned.
I believe that there should be some changes, and I believe that is the view of Members from across the House. I hope that the Government will work with colleagues across the House to produce a Bill that Members can feel comfortable supporting, that strengthens trust in our justice system, and that delivers justice for victims.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
We all know that years of underfunding and under-investment have caused a crisis across our legal and justice systems. I commend some of the people who spoke earlier about their experiences, particularly the hon. Members for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) and for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols). It takes immense courage to stand up in the Chamber and put those experiences on record. They came at this from a different point of view. I have immense respect for them. Of course, they are doing what we should be doing here. Victims and survivors—their voices, stories and needs—should be at the heart of the justice system, and they are, as we know, facing unacceptable delays to justice. The Government, of course, must speed up the process. Only the state can do that. It is only through the state that the citizen can get justice, so there is an undeniable need for reform.
The second part of the Bill makes immensely important interventions that will make a real difference to victims. They include the repeal of the presumption of parental involvement, and measures relating to the admissibility of evidence and special measures in court, and they are to be welcomed. The question that we are debating, however, is the degree to which clauses 1 to 7 are the major reforms needed to speed up the process. Removing the right to jury trial for offences that are triable either way and imposing a single-judge model are serious changes to individual rights, as we have heard. They go beyond what Sir Brian Leveson recommended that the Government do to address court backlogs, and they increase the risk of bias and miscarriages of justice, increase the risk to the safety of judges, and increase pressure on legal aid services.
Although nobody denies that action is necessary, we have to bear in mind that the Institute for Government estimates that the Bill will save only between 7% and 10% of total court time, and that judge-only trials will save only 1.5% to 2.5%. There is little concrete evidence that these are the right sorts of changes to make, and we fear that they will not achieve what we want.
I turn to Wales, because the problems are not the same everywhere across the England and Wales jurisdiction. Welsh Crown courts make up only a small proportion of the overall court backlog. Indeed, the Lady Chief Justice said that Wales is disposing of—wait for it—
“more Crown Court cases than it receives”.
That suggests that our Crown court backlog is actually going down. The legal reform charity JUSTICE points to Welsh Crown court measures that were taken to increase efficiency when those courts faced covid-era backlogs as examples of practical steps that have helped to keep clearance rates high.
Rather than us restricting a fundamental public right in order to tackle a problem, what would be useful in Wales is action to tackle the operational issues that our courts face, which we all know about. We need better data tracking, modern systems, improved pay, measures to address the Tory court closures, and proper building maintenance. Some of those things are pretty boring, but we will not make a difference until we address them.
We fear that the Bill could make things worse in Wales. Although there were 2,663 outstanding cases at the Crown court in Wales as of December 2024, there were nearly 12,000 outstanding cases in magistrates courts; they have serious capacity challenges that look set to increase as a direct result of the Bill. We also have serious challenges in Wales in recruiting magistrates, especially Welsh-speaking magistrates.
The hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) mentioned a pilot scheme. It seems to me that, rather than making a huge, untested change of this gravity, a pilot scheme is exactly what we should be looking at, if we are to make changes to jury trials, because then we would actually know the effect. We need a pilot scheme with a sunset clause, rather than changes that will break the system everywhere to address an urban English problem.
It is undeniable that there is a crisis in the court system, and that we need changes to address it, but we need different solutions to address different problems in different areas. We must not break something in which there is so much trust at a time when we should be doing everything in our power to protect trust in politics—and, I fear, trust in the law, too.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
I have spoken in this place about my experience of being a magistrate before being elected. I remember the weight of responsibility vividly. I recall the mornings in courtrooms, as we weighed defendants’ circumstances and mitigations against the urgent need for public safety. I have seen the sheer graft of the staff who keep our legal gears turning, but I have also seen the cracks that turn into chasms. There is nothing more frustrating than sitting on a bench and seeing a case adjourned for the third or even fourth time, not because of legal complexity, but because the system simply could not cope.
This is not just about administrative efficiency; it is about people. For too long, victims have been the forgotten party in our courtrooms, treated more like pieces of evidence than human beings. I note the offence taken by the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) at being reproached for not mentioning victims enough in his opening speech. I gently suggest that if he had devoted as much time to victims as he did to talking about “Mastermind”, he would probably not have received the charge in quite that way.
The Victims’ Commissioner has been clear that survivors are bearing the brunt of a system under unprecedented pressure. She rightly pointed out that delay is the enemy of recovery. Every day that we shave off the backlog is a day we give back to a survivor to rebuild their life. I particularly welcome the measures to remove bad character evidence and the removal of assumed parental contact. That is a huge step for domestic abuse and sexual violence survivors and campaigners, and it is no exaggeration to say that it will save lives.
Magistrates are the backbone of our legal system, but we are also the most human element of it. We are everyday people drawn from all walks of life—teachers, retirees and neighbours—volunteering to give something back to the community and to deliver justice locally. We move the system from feeling like something far removed and distant from our communities—a private club, even; alien and abstract from most people’s lives—towards what it should be, which is a public service for every citizen.
I note the remarks of the Magistrates’ Association that these proposals are a “vote of confidence” in our magistracy. It is therefore surprising to hear the Opposition’s sudden change of heart, as when they increased magistrates’ sentencing powers to 12 months back in 2022 the impact on the Crown court was undeniably positive. It leads us to wonder why Opposition Members are so vehemently against our increasing those powers further—is it a matter of principle, or is it simply because it was not their idea?
As anyone who has worked in the system knows, magistrates can implement changes quickly. We are the speedy end of the system and the key to unlocking the backlog.
The Government’s impact assessment is striking: increasing magistrates’ sentencing powers is projected to save 8,000 Crown court sitting days by 2029. Just think about that: 8,000 days of judicial time redirected to the most harrowing cases such as rapes, murders and serious assaults, ensuring that victims of the most complex crimes are not left languishing for years.
In my communities, local justice has too often felt like a distant concept, but my constituents deserve to see justice delivered by people who actually understand the streets they live on. Local justice delivered by local people is how we restore trust, and it is how we deliver the fair, swift justice that communities like mine rightly expect.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I should first declare an interest as an NHS consultant paediatrician who has given evidence in court in that capacity. The references to the Magna Carta are particularly profound for a Lincolnshire MP, because one of the copies of Magna Carta from 1215 is kept in Lincoln. The Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox) talked eloquently and at length about jury trials, why they should remain, and why removing the right of appeal for magistrates court decisions is the wrong thing to do, so I will not focus on that in the few minutes I have.
I will focus on clause 17, which removes the presumption of involvement of parents in their child’s life. When there is dispute over who cares for a child, courts can make decisions: they can decide who a child is to live with; they can decide who has contact with the child, for how long, and when; they can decide what form that contact takes, whether it is by telephone, in a supervised contact centre or face to face; and they can make specific decrees such as where the child is to go to school.
The law is clear that when courts are making those decisions, the welfare of the child is paramount. They can take into account the child’s wishes if old enough and capable of making decisions in that respect. They can think about whether the child has been subject to any harm. They can talk about whether the child is at risk of further harm. They can talk about whether the parents are capable of providing for the needs of the child. However, section 1 of the Children Act 1989 is clear that the courts must presume, unless shown otherwise, that the involvement of both parents is in the child’s best interests.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Does the hon. Lady recognise that in 2020 the harm panel said that that section creates a “pro-contact culture” that puts children at risk, and that post the publication of that review, it received no response from her Government?
Dr Johnson
That is why I have explained that the presumption is that the parents have involvement. The court must take the risks to the child into consideration and, unless shown otherwise, give contact to both parents. If the child is at risk, however, the court has the absolute right to prevent the child from seeing those parents or to restrict contact to different forms and timeframes. The welfare of the child is key in those decisions.
That is in line with international law, which I know the Government are fond of. The UN convention on the rights of the child says that parents and children should maintain
“personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child’s…interests.”
Dr Johnson
Not for the moment. Article 8 of the European convention on human rights provides the right to family life and suggests that consideration be given to all alternatives before ordering no contact. The Government, however—
Josh Fenton-Glynn
In talking about the right to family life, the hon. Lady is talking not about the rights of the children, but about the rights of the abusers. If we start from the idea that an abuser has the right to contact their children, we end up with bad decisions. That is why, in the past 30 years, 67 children have died when contact should not have been granted. That is the change that we are making, those are the lives that we are saving and that is why it is important to do this today.
Dr Johnson
I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I will continue my speech and perhaps he will listen to what I have to say.
The purpose of court decisions is, as the hon. Gentleman said, to prevent unsafe contact and to prevent tragedies. As a paediatrician, I have seen situations where children have been given back to parents and have come to significant harm as a result. I have dealt with and looked after those children, and unfortunately they have not been protected or saved in every case. The law is there to prevent unsafe contact, but the children’s needs must be put first, with the power to restrict access where they are in danger. The court must listen to all the evidence available, but no system is infallible and sometimes judges get it wrong. When they do, the outcomes can be hugely tragic, leading to the loss or serious injury of a child.
I know that this legislation has been brought forward with good intentions. The test is whether it will prevent such harm and such tragedies. I think that it might not. The reason is that the impact assessment produced by the Government says that it is “unlikely to materially change” the outcome in court. If that is the case, what is the point of the legislation? Will it, on the other hand, reduce the likelihood of children seeing their parents? Will that, in and of itself, cause some harm? Will it prevent some children from having the contact they need with their family members? Will it prevent the tragedies that we wish to prevent or not? Will it isolate those children who will come to harm? Do we have the right risk assessments to do that?
Every single one of us in this House wants to protect children. We need to improve the risk assessments and ensure that social workers have time to make proper risk assessments so that they identify the children who may be at risk and separate them from those who are not. We also need to improve the representation of children in court. I was once in court, in the witness box, and the barrister who was representing the children got up to speak. He asked me a question, but he had forgotten the name of one of the two children in the family and I had to remind him from the witness box. We really need to improve the quality of the representation of children.
Dr Johnson
I will not.
This legislation is potentially just a distraction—something that makes people feel like they are doing something and making a difference, when the impact assessment that the Government have produced suggests it will not. Is this change going to make any difference or not? Is this a lost opportunity to improve the risk assessments, children’s representation and social work and to actually make a difference?
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which includes my status as a barrister.
Let us remind ourselves of the issues here. It is unacceptable that criminal trials should be listed today for 2030. That is a failure of the state. It is a failure of the state to provide a fundamental public service—that of justice. So the Government have to act, and I do not accept the argument that things have to stay as they are. I welcome the Government’s £2 billion investment in the criminal justice system and the decisions to lift the cap on Crown court sitting days, to implement efficiencies, to invest in the estate and to streamline case management. All of that is overdue and should have been done by the Conservatives. This is about ensuring that trials actually go ahead. However, the Government believe that that will not be enough to address the backlog without structural change, and I have not heard any attempt to argue to the contrary.
I turn to the most contentious element, which is the permanent removal of the right to elect jury trial for either-way cases. As hon. Members have said, this rests heavily on Sir Brian Leveson’s assessment of a minimum 20% time saving in the Crown court. Sir Brian has been candid that his estimate is based on modelling and is an informed qualitative judgment, not a hard empirical fact. The Ministry itself accepts that this modelling might not fully reflect real-world operations, and when dealing with a safeguard as important as trial by one’s peers, where liberty is at stake, the distinction between modelling and hard data matters. Most people seem to agree that those measures will save time, but there is a dispute about how much they are likely to save.
Karl Turner
What does my hon. and learned Friend say about the fact that judges will have to give detailed reasons for their judgments and for why they have decided on a case in a particular way? I declare an interest: my wife is a judge and it takes her days, and often more than a week, to come up with the reasons for the decisions that she has taken.
Tony Vaughan
I practised as a civil lawyer for most of my career, and I have been challenging written reasons and decisions my whole career. I do not have a problem with judges issuing written reasons in the criminal jurisdiction. I think it is a way of getting more transparency about why those decisions have been made. That is my personal view.
Ideally, I would have piloted this system first and gathered the data, and only then, if that data showed that the measures were necessary to reduce the backlog, would it have been difficult to rebut. If Sir Brian is right and these reforms clearly cut waiting times, that will be good for victims and public confidence. However, if the proposals are rolled out nationwide and he and the Government are wrong, and the gains are negative or outweighed by harms to fairness, equalities or public trust, particularly for minority defendants, it will be important that this House should not have tied its hands.
Removing the right to elect jury trial takes out around half of our jury trials. It is a very real interference with existing safeguards and it should not be a permanent change before we know that it works in practice. That is why I believe there must be a clear statutory mechanism in the Bill allowing Parliament to reverse this change if it does not work. In my view, we need a time-limited mandatory review on the face of the Bill to track timeliness, conviction patterns and equalities impacts, with an explicit power to require Ministers to restore the right to elect if the reforms do not deliver. A clause of that nature would be a statement of confidence in Parliament’s oversight, rather than of a lack of faith in the reforms, as has been suggested.
Expanding judge-only trials requires us to address the fact that the judiciary do not reflect our country’s diversity. Replacing lay juries with a single judge demands an intense focus on how we improve judicial diversity, and particularly transparency in appointments. For example, judicial references must be disclosable so that there is accountability for providing objective, evidence-based references if we are to improve the recruitment and promotion pipeline for women and minority ethnic judges.
One of the last cases in the courts that I was involved in before I was elected to Parliament was a judicial review of a decision of the Judicial Appointments Commission not to promote a district judge into a more senior position. The whole case was about why she could not see the reasons that she was not promoted. That secrecy, which is behind what many campaigners believe has been a process of secret soundings or a tap on the shoulder, has resulted in the situation that we have of a bench recruiting in its own image. That concept was recognised by the Lammy review, and it is a very real thing that we must address if we are to expand judge-only trials.
We face a grave crisis, but if we are to curtail long-standing rights, we must build robust safeguards into the Bill. I hope that Ministers will work constructively with Members across the House to ensure that we tackle the backlog effectively while strengthening confidence in our justice system.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
It was a privilege to be here for the powerful and effective speech from the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols).
When literally thousands of venerable members of the legal profession are saying so clearly that jury trial restrictions will not be effective or practical and may be counterproductive, and that they threaten our rights, surely the Government must listen. The Green party’s reasoned amendment sets out clear reasons for the awful court backlog that is letting down so many victims—it talks about Conservative underfunding over many years—and sets out the missing resources that will help to properly solve it. It is rare for us to agree with some colleagues on anything, but the fact is that we are all right on this point. We need alternatives to the restrictions on jury trials in the Bill, including intensive listings, more sitting days, legal aid investment, better buildings and better services to deliver defendants to court.
The Green amendment also raises the question of whether these measures are yet another part of the Government’s wider attack on civil liberties. They are building a toolkit for tyrants also out of digital ID, facial recognition surveillance on our streets and the erosion of fundamental asylum rights—all things contrary to our British values and which should not be packaged up for this or any future Government to use against minorities, protesters and dissidents. This is all so dangerous. Can the Minister truly deny that the growing acceptance by juries of defences of proportionality or necessity in some protest cases was not a factor in the inclusion of the unnecessary and dangerous curtailment of jury trials in the Bill?
The category of triable either-way cases where jury trials will be restricted includes several of the specific offences created or made more serious by successive Governments in the wake of successful non-violent protest action. By successful, I mean non-violent actions that have—yes—caused inconvenience but which did what non-violent direct action is for: directly aiming to prevent harm to people or the environment, or to create a stir that raises public awareness of serious injustice. Actions made into more serious offences have included interference with infrastructure, blocking roads or demonstrating in airports, specific tunnelling offences, conspiracy to lock on to each other during protests, or symbolically using statues in actions, as well as some kinds of noisy protests—for being annoying.
Along with the wider principle here, I am so concerned, in connection with rights and liberties around dissent and resistance to state power, that juries could no longer be able to judge the public interest or proportionality of the actions of defendants of these kinds of charges. Such people have achieved so much progress throughout our history—that, nobody can deny. The Bill should not affect our citizens’ rights in this way. It should be about real investment in our courts to ensure that justice is not delayed for the victims, who we all care about.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
No one is denying that after 14 years of desecration by the Conservatives, the backlog in the Crown courts is out of control and stacked against victims, but curtailing jury trials is not necessary to tackle it. There is no evidence that these plans will fix the problems in our criminal justice system, and the Institute for Government has suggested that restricting juries could save less than 2% of court time.
It is no wonder, then, that thousands of lawyers have written to the Government to oppose these plans. They do acknowledge, like many of us, that the Bill contains some good provisions, including the repeal of the presumption of child contact, which has been long campaigned for by many of us in this House and by organisations such as Women’s Aid and Right to Equality, and led by the incredible Claire Throssell, who joins us in the Special Gallery. The Bill will also make transcripts available from the magistrates court, which has been long campaigned for by Charlotte and the team at Open Justice for All, among others, and supported by many of us in this House. However, on the curtailment of jury trials, I have spoken with many rape victims who feel that their trauma is being instrumentalised to undermine and restrict a fundamental cornerstone of our democracy—all for cost-cutting purposes. Of course, they want reform of the criminal justice system, but they want it to be evidence-led.
The value and importance of a jury system cannot be overstated. The House will be aware that I was cleared by a jury in 2021 after a vexatious trial driven by malicious intent. Originally, my case was set to be heard in a magistrates court. I am not saying that that would have led to a different outcome for sure, but for someone of my background—working class, Muslim, and a woman of Bangladeshi heritage—the risk of a miscarriage of justice would have been much higher, without a shadow of a doubt. Back in 2017, the now Justice Secretary said in his report:
“Juries are a success story of our justice system. Rigorous analysis shows that, on average, juries—including all white juries—do not deliver different results for BAME and White defendants…This positive story about the jury system is not matched by such a clear-cut story for magistrates’ verdicts… In particular, there were some worrying disparities for BAME women… Of those women tried at Magistrates’ Court, Black women, Asian women, Mixed ethnic women and Chinese/Other women were all more likely to be convicted than White women.”
The Bill will entrench structural discrimination, and I believe that Justice Secretary knows it. Indeed, I am also alarmed by the proposals to introduce trial by judge for some financial and fraud cases. As the Criminal Bar Association has highlighted, over 78% of barristers have said that it is important for juries to be able to evaluate complex evidence and prevent overreach in financial and fraud cases. In my case, the jury considered evidence over eight days—that was necessary, in my view.
Karl Turner
I have just looked at the recent stats. In 2025 there were 67 ethnic minority circuit judges and 42 judges of unknown ethnicity, while there were 637 white judges, the vast majority of whom were men. What does my hon. Friend say about that?
Apsana Begum
My hon. Friend highlights important and vital statistics that illustrate an issue in the legal system: it does not reflect the wider diversity of communities who experience and go through the criminal justice system.
The majority of women in prison are survivors of violence against women and girls; nearly 70% of women in prison report having experienced domestic abuse. They are more likely to have been tried in a magistrates court for either-way offences that could have been considered by a jury. I am very worried that the proposals in the Bill will result in more victims being jailed. This really matters. Three-year prison terms are life-altering sentences, but under the Bill they could be handed out by a judge.
The Government have no mandate for a decision of such magnitude—it was not in the Labour party’s 2024 manifesto. Instead of restricting jury trials, I urge them to invest in and properly fund our criminal justice system in order to address the issue of court backlogs. Everyone—every single one of us—should have equal rights in our legal and court systems. Jury trials are a fundamental legal safeguard against miscarriages of justice, and surely our society should be based on true fairness in the course of delivering justice.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
We have heard some powerful speeches today, none more so than that from the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), and we heard something very striking from the Justice Secretary: he told us that juries are the “cornerstone” of our criminal justice system. What is a cornerstone? A cornerstone is the most important part of something, on which everything else depends. What is the cornerstone of democracy? It is voting. We would not think of getting rid of voting, but we are invited in this House to get rid of the cornerstone of jury trials in a huge spectrum of cases.
Dr Tidball
Does the hon. and learned Member agree that, in fact, we are getting rid of them in only a quarter of 3% of cases that go through the court process?
Jim Allister
We are getting rid of them in thousands of cases, which will deny to those who are accused in those cases the right that each one of us would claim for ourselves: to be judged by our peers. We are doing it in cases that involve a large sentence. Three years is no trifling sentence—it is a substantial sentence that is life-changing, and yet we are suggesting that we should move away from that cornerstone of justice in all those cases.
Emma Foody
I ask the hon. and learned Member two questions. First, does he not accept that magistrates are indeed peers? Secondly, does he agree that 12 months is a pretty considerable, life-changing sentence as it stands?
Jim Allister
Judges, no matter how intellectual, erudite or experienced they might be, do not have the life experiences of 12 jurors. I spent my professional life as a junior and senior counsel in the criminal courts of Northern Ireland, and therefore I have substantial experience of appearing in not just jury trials but judge-alone trials, because for decades we had Diplock courts. I can tell the hon. Lady from my experience that if I was charged with an offence, without doubt I would choose the jury rather than the judge alone, because whether we like it or not, the most experienced judge becomes case-hardened. You will get far more empathy, either as a victim of crime or as a person accused of crime, from a jury. Why? Because they have the lived experience and so are likely to show an affinity with you, be you the victim or the accused.
It is an immeasurable advantage in our justice system to have those deciding the facts of a case be those who have the feel for what it is to live in that community and know what it is to have empathy with either the person accused or the victim. They are in a far superior position to some case-hardened judge who has heard it all before and, frankly, cannot deliver the quality of dependable justice. I know from my experience that even many people who were convicted would have said, “Well, at least it was my peers who convicted me. I have more confidence in what they did than what a single judge would do.”
What is a jury? When we abolish juries, we are abolishing not just an established right going back 800 years. We are abolishing a protection against arbitrary power. We are abolishing the honest broker. Who brings a case against an accused? The state. Who is the honest broker in that? The jury. The jury, who have that affinity and that lived experience, are in a far better position to reach a sustainable and credible verdict. In the end, it is about public confidence in our criminal justice system, which matters hugely.
Far more public confidence is generated in our criminal justice system through jury trials than through judge-alone trials. The point was made earlier that around 41% of all summary trials that go to appeal are overturned. What does that tell us? It tells us of how case-hardened some of those who are hearing them are, it tells us of the summary nature and the speed with which some of the cases are heard, and it tells us that an injustice was done in 41% of those cases. Are we in the business of accentuating injustice? Surely not. Surely we are in the business of extracting injustice from our system, and we will do that far stronger and far better through maintaining, not diminishing, jury trials. As the Justice Secretary said, jury trials are indeed the cornerstone. Take away the cornerstone and you have begun to demolish the edifice in which we all have so much pride: our criminal justice system.
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
At the heart of the reforms before us today is one word and one simple question: the word is victims and the question is, how do we ensure that victims actually receive the justice that they are promised?
Hon. Members will know that before coming to this place I served as a police officer over three different forces. During that time I saw at first hand the impact that crime has on people’s lives. I met victims at some of the worst moments that they will ever experience, often after deeply traumatic incidents. What always stayed with me was the faith that victims place in our justice system. They believe that if they report what has happened, come forward and endure the stress of an investigation and a trial, the system will ultimately deliver justice. They believe that the institutions of this country—the police, the courts and the rule of law—will stand behind them.
When victims report a crime, they are making a promise to us and to the justice system that they will follow through and endure the issues that they have to endure. The least we can do is to ensure that the justice system keeps its promise to them. However, today that faith is being tested far too often. I regularly meet victims and victims’ groups who speak about the anxiety, uncertainty and sheer exhaustion that comes with waiting for their case to reach court. Many have done everything we have asked of them—reported the crime, given evidence and supported the investigation—only to be left waiting months and years for a conclusion.
Through my work on the Justice Committee, I have heard extensive evidence about the state of our courts. The reality is stark. The Crown court backlog has more than doubled since 2019. Trials are taking longer and for some of the most serious offences, particularly rape and sexual assault, victims are waiting well over a year on average for their cases to conclude. Behind those numbers are real people: victims who cannot move on with their lives, families left in limbo and witnesses forced to relive traumatic experiences as hearings are delayed or postponed. Justice delayed really does become justice denied.
Before going further, I want to recognise the people who keep our justice system running: the magistrates, judges and court staff all do extraordinary work. Magistrates in particular give up their time voluntarily to serve the public and uphold the rule of law in their communities. Too often we talk about the pressures on the justice system without recognising the people who are holding it together. They deserve our gratitude, but they also deserve a system that properly supports the work that they do, and that is why this reform is necessary.
The reality is that cases today are more complex than they once were. Digital evidence, mobile phone data, body-worn cameras and modern forensic techniques have all improved the fairness of trials, but they have also made cases longer and more demanding to process. The measures in the Bill seek to address that. Giving magistrates greater sentencing powers will allow more cases to be resolved in the magistrates courts, freeing up Crown court capacity for the most serious offences. Similarly, allowing courts greater flexibility in determining where cases should be heard helps to ensure that the most serious crimes are not competing for court time with cases that could be resolved more quickly elsewhere.
Another important aspect of the Bill is the modernisation of the courts. For too long, our justice system has lagged behind the technology available to it. Victims still face unnecessary barriers when trying to access transcripts or understand the progress of their case. Using technology more effectively can make the system faster, more transparent and more accessible.
Finally, I will briefly address the removal of the presumption of parental involvement from children. For many years, survivors of domestic abuse and campaigners have raised concerns about what has sometimes been described as a pro-contact culture in parts of the family courts system. Organisations, such as PEEPSA—Prevent, Educate and Eradicate Post Separation Abuse—that support survivors of post-separation abuse have welcomed the Government’s decision to repeal the presumption of parental involvement. They have long warned that a pro-contact culture can risk sidelining the safety of children and survivors.
Kirith Entwistle
Too many women have told me that the family courts felt like an extension of the abuse that they were trying to escape. Does my hon. Friend agree that ending the presumption of parental involvement is a crucial step towards ensuring that children’s safety, not the automatic assumption of contact, is the starting point in every case?
Matt Bishop
I completely agree. Children must never be used as a tool through which abuse can continue after separation.
Removing the presumption also sends a clear message that children’s safety and wellbeing must always come first. Reforms of this scale will rightly be scrutinised as the Bill progresses, but the alternative—doing nothing—is simply not acceptable. Without reform, the backlog will grow, victims will continue to wait and confidence in our justice system will continue to erode.
Justice is the foundation of public confidence in this country. When victims lose faith in the system, the rule of law itself begins to weaken. This Bill is about restoring the faith and ensuring that when victims come forward, the justice system is ready to stand behind them. For that reason, I am pleased to support the Bill today.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Members will be aware that a large number of people still wish to speak, so I will reduce the time limit to four minutes after the next speaker.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
I support the reasoned amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, which declines to give this Bill a Second Reading. I do so because while there are some useful measures in the Bill, at its heart is an unjust proposal. The Government’s plan to curtail jury trials is wrong.
Sarah Russell
I respect the hon. Gentleman and understand that his concerns about the Bill are genuinely rooted. None the less, the presumption of parental involvement being revoked in this Bill is absolutely critical, and I do not understand how he can proceed with a reasoned amendment that would kill the entire Bill on that basis.
Sir Ashley Fox
The right to a trial by jury is central to the English legal system. It has its roots in Magna Carta. It ensures that the public participate in the administration of criminal justice and gives protection to citizens from politically inspired trials. It is regrettable that some parts of the Labour party seem to take delight in tearing up long-held principles that underpin our constitution simply because it is politically expedient to do so. They are shredding our constitution without much thought as to the consequences.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Removing jury trials is surely an erosion of the criminal justice system. As the hon. Gentleman has alluded to, one judge cannot provide the same scrutiny as 12 random jurors. If the need is to reduce the backlog, maybe we should consider using courtrooms 100% of the time to actually reduce the backlog in the first place.
Sir Ashley Fox
I agree with the hon. Lady’s point. The Government are changing the balance of power between the citizen and the state, then pleading delays in Crown court trials as justification.
This policy of curtailing the right to jury trials is ideological. In January, the Courts Minister was asked about the plans to overhaul jury trials. She admitted that she would be scrapping jury trials even if there was no courts backlog. I wonder how many Labour colleagues agree with her. I think that is disgraceful, and I suspect that there are more than 80 Labour MPs who agree with me.
There is no doubt that the Crown court backlog is a serious issue. The Leveson report contains many useful proposals to improve the criminal justice system, and I will support them, but the backlog was not caused by the right to trial by jury, and it will not be alleviated by curtailing that right.
In my view, the solution is to increase the capacity of the Crown court, and in fairness, parts of the Bill aim to do that. However, why does the Lord Chancellor think that abolishing jury trials for those likely to receive a sentence of three years or less is the right thing to do? Senior judges, legal professionals, and even learned Labour MPs have all warned that removing juries will make only a marginal difference—if any—and as a former solicitor, I agree. Judges themselves have said that the supposed time savings are inherently uncertain. Single-judge trials still require full evidence, witnesses, legal argument and detailed, reasoned judgments. That takes time; in fact, the Bill risks leaving courtrooms empty while judges write up their decisions instead of hearing other cases.
There are other reforms that we should make before sacrificing the right to trial by jury. To take one example, the Lord Chancellor should look at the wider efficiency of the Ministry of Justice. For the past two years, the MOJ—which includes the courts service—lost the highest number of days to sickness and absence per member of staff in the whole of Whitehall. Each employee took an average of 10.7 days of sickness, which equates to over two working weeks a year for every member of staff. Not only is that 30% higher than the civil service average, but it is double the average of the private sector. I have always thought that sickness is a fairly good indication of how well a company, charity or Department is run, and perhaps if the Lord Chancellor focused his efforts on improving the efficiency of his own Department, he might start to see the whole system improve.
The Lord Chancellor should also look at the listing practices of different court circuits in England. The western circuit, which covers Somerset, has a much lower backlog than London does, and the Liverpool circuit is probably the most efficient in the country. Why does the Lord Chancellor not try to replicate the listing practices of the Liverpool circuit before taking this disastrous step? He has previously said that cutting jury trials would be a mistake—in the past, he thought that was wrong. I believe that his first judgment, according to his conscience, was the right one, and I urge him to reconsider his plans.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
I welcome much in this Bill, including the investment in legal aid, the additional sitting days and the funding for our courts. However, I want to focus my remarks on two proposals within it: the restriction of jury trials for either-way offences, and the removal of the automatic right of appeal from the magistrates court to the Crown court.
I speak as someone who began their legal career as a prosecutor in the 1990s. The kind of backlogs we see today simply did not exist in those days, even though more cases were heard in the Crown court because magistrates had sentencing powers of only six months. The delays we face today are not caused by jury trials. I remember that as shadow Justice Minister I repeatedly challenged the previous Conservative Government about the consequences of the decisions they were making. Courts were closed, judicial sitting days were cut, court staff were reduced, and legal aid was placed under enormous strain. At the same time, the system had to cope with the demands of modern digital evidence, delays in disclosure, problems with prisoner transport and the disruption caused by covid.
The Government argue that these reforms are necessary to reduce the Crown court backlogs, and often point to the delays faced by victims of sexual and domestic abuse. I take those concerns very seriously—a substantial part of my career as a prosecutor was spent as a designated child and sexual abuse specialist and rape specialist. I worked closely with victims, witnesses and families affected by these traumatic offences. If I believed that the abolition of jury trials would genuinely allow those cases to be heard more quickly, I would support it, but I do not.
There is also the issue of removing the automatic right of appeal from the magistrates court to the Crown court. This change will disproportionately affect defendants from poorer backgrounds who may not have legal aid representation. We know that a significant proportion of those appeals succeed, which raises serious concerns about access to justice.
These two proposals will disproportionately impact the most vulnerable in our society, particularly those from socially, economically and educationally deprived backgrounds. My constituency ranks as the 38th most deprived in the country. For many of my constituents, the criminal justice system already feels distant and difficult to navigate. We should be careful not to introduce changes that risk criminalising and disadvantaging them even further.
There are real reforms that could address the delays. The first and foremost is the Labour party’s commitment to having properly funded specialist rape courts. I know that lawyers and judges will be prepared to sit at weekends to tackle those cases. Secondly, we could be more like the civil system, where timelines are set so that cases progress properly. If any of the parties do not act properly, there could be financial sanctions for them. I know we will be opening more courts and courtrooms, but we need to expand the number of judicial sitting days. We also need to review the contracts with Serco and other bodies that produce defendants in court, because a lot of delay is caused by defendants not being produced at court. The prosecution and the police need to be able to present their evidence to the defence as soon as possible, and the defendant needs to be legally represented, so that additional evidence can be considered. As a result, we could have pleas at a much earlier stage. We need to look at those things first, put them in place, and see what happens, before we get rid of or restrict jury trials.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
There is absolutely no doubt that long delays in criminal court shake public confidence, and I can only imagine the distress of victims forced to wait years for justice. In my role as an MP, I have supported those who have experienced repeat offences as they wait for stalkers to face justice. It is tragic that cases collapse because victims cannot face reliving their experience, or witnesses’ memories fade. It is not just victims who are harmed by these delays. Defendants, who are innocent until proven guilty under the law, are also having their life suspended, and those defendants deserve fairness.
I am deeply worried about the income thresholds for legal aid in the magistrates court. It is ridiculous that someone in an entry-level minimum wage job will not automatically be eligible. How is that justice? Do the Government really believe that unless someone can afford to fund their defence, their freedom should be at stake? I hope that if this Bill passes Second Reading, the Government will put forward some substantial changes.
At the heart of my concern about this Bill is the fundamental shift in the role of the magistrate and the bench division. A typical magistrates trial lasts five to six hours; a similar case in the Crown court is likely to take three to four days. That is for good reason, as more legal direction ensures that victims and defendants understand the process and upholds the integrity of justice. I am deeply concerned that if complex cases carrying sentences of up to 24 months in prison are passed over to the magistrates court, they, too, will become longer, creating even bigger backlogs, and just shifting the problem somewhere else. What assessment has been carried out—I have asked this on several occasions—of the capacity of magistrates to sit in multi-day trials? Those trials require attendance day after day, so younger working magistrates will be far less likely to be able to take part in them.
The Magistrates Association has deemed that 17,000 magistrates are needed, and we have only 14,000. Previous recruitment drives have not generated enough applicants. Where is the evidence that our communities can find these extra people, who can give this extra time? The other problem is the age of magistrates. While there are some notable exceptions in the Chamber, 81% of magistrates are over 50. That is much higher than the average age of a judge. This proposal widens the demographic gap between the court and those facing justice. Juries provide broader diversity in age and background.
This Bill is a real diversion. We have an insufficient number of magistrates now; where is the evidence that people will be willing and able to fulfil this critical and increasingly difficult role, in which they can take someone’s liberty for up to two years? That is a huge responsibility for somebody who is not legally trained. Speaking of legally trained people, I have raised the issue of access to legal advisers before. The Lord Chancellor has indicated that there will be more money for legal advisers, but that was before this proposal came forward. I raised the matter after seeing the issues locally. I see no evidence that enough legal advisers are willing to work at this lowest rung of the court system to support magistrates.
I also wanted to raise the issue of the processes in the magistrates courts. One of my constituents, having been denied the right to go to the Crown court, has been told that she has just 27 minutes to plead her case, which she feels is a denial of her rights. We are talking about cases in which liberty is at risk, and a criminal conviction could lead to the loss of employment or travel rights, and could have a reputational impact for years to come, so we really must consider the effect of this significant move on both victims and defendants.
I wonder whether the Lord Chancellor can tell us who said that
“juries are representative of local populations”,
and
“a filter for prejudice”;
that
“Criminal trials without juries are a bad idea”,
and that the Government should not fix backlogs by abandoning a
“valuable tradition for short term benefit”
in either-way trials.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
In my previous work as a solicitor, I represented women who had suffered terrible violence, and people who had been pushed to the margins of society. I have seen at first hand how fragile access to justice can be, and how years of under-investment have taken a wrecking ball to our justice system. Change is clearly needed, but the reforms before us, removing the right of defendants to elect trial by jury, do not appear to be a proportionate answer to that problem. The evidence does not support the claim that the reforms will deliver the benefits suggested, with projections suggesting that the impact on the backlog may at best be modest. That raises an obvious question: if the contribution that these measures will make to reducing the backlog is uncertain, why are we being asked to make such a profound and permanent change to one of the central safeguards in our criminal justice system?
Members have spoken about a range of offences, from theft to drug-related crimes, but when people are taken to court over action to advance causes in which they believe—in the past it was the suffragettes; today it is the climate activists and Palestinian protesters—it is ordinary people, their peers, who recognise the moral imperative behind their actions to prevent greater harm. The freedoms that this system protects are not abstract. They exist precisely to safeguard individuals against the power of the state when they stand accused of a criminal offence, and that is why we should be cautious before curtailing them.
There is also a serious question about the impact that these reforms may have on black and ethnic minority defendants. The Justice Secretary’s own review, published in 2017, highlighted deep disparities and a troubling lack of trust in parts of our criminal justice system. One of his key messages was that fairness must not only exist, but must be seen to exist. Juries who are drawn from our communities play an important role in public confidence. Reducing access to jury trial could risk further eroding trust among certain communities who already feel disproportionately affected by the criminal justice system. It is therefore essential that if these reforms proceed, their impact on black and ethnic minority defendants is specifically examined, transparently and rigorously.
None of this is to deny the seriousness of the backlog crisis. The courts must function efficiently, and the victims should not have to wait years for justice. However, if the purpose of these reforms is to address the backlog, I suggest that we should understand why they are being introduced as a permanent alteration to our justice system, rather than a time-limited measure.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I will support the Government tonight, because it is clear that decisive action is needed to tackle the backlog that so many Members have described, but does my hon. Friend agree that if the Government are genuinely confident about the package of reforms that they are presenting, it would be fair and proportionate to add a review clause or the equivalent to ensure that we are clear about whether we actually need some of these measure?
Abtisam Mohamed
I do agree. The logical approach would be to treat this as a time-limited measure—or the Justice Secretary should consider a mandatory time-bound review, assessing the impact of these changes not only on the backlog but on trial outcomes, on equality before the law, on public confidence, and specifically on black and ethnic minority defendants. All those matters must be included in a review if it is to be robust. The review must not only allow Parliament to examine the evidence but, if the reforms fail to deliver the benefits claimed or produce serious unintended consequences, allow us to revisit and, if necessary, reverse them. That would be a constructive and responsible approach.
Efficiency in the courts is important, but justice is equally important. I say to the Justice Secretary that if we are to take a step as serious as limiting the right to jury trial, at the very least Parliament should have the right to rigorous scrutiny, a meaningful review, and the clear possibility of reversal if this policy does not work.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
May I begin by paying a huge tribute to the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) for her testimony to the House today? It was a privilege to be here to hear it, and it will last long in the memory.
I do not have a huge amount of experience of jury trials; in fact, what I have experience of is the antithesis. When we were training to go to Northern Ireland in 1992, the IRA was wont to put us on the horns of a dilemma, in terms of whether we could open fire or not. We used to do cine ranges, and they would pause the action. I remember saying to my trainer, “Can I fire?” He said to me, “That is a very difficult situation, sir. That is when you remind yourself that it is better to be tried by 12 men than to be carried by six.” It was quite chilling, particularly given that two of my guardsmen were involved in a judgmental shooting a few months later. It turned out that you do not get tried by 12 men; you get tried by one. Those guardsmen were convicted of murder and sent away for life, so I have seen this issue from the other side.
There has been something of a consensus in today’s debate that justice delayed is justice denied, and that the backlog needs to be reduced. I do not think that there is a consensus on whether halving the number of cases that go to jury trial, and removing from thousands of victims and defendants the right to jury trial, will actually reduce the backlog in the way that the Deputy Prime Minister suggested.
In the absence of my experience of jury trials, I want to spend some time outlining the concerns of a constituent who wrote to me. His name is Sir Ivan Lawrence KC, and he is a former Member of Parliament. He says:
“After 63 years conducting jury trials at the criminal bar, sitting as a Recorder, speaking to countless ex-jurors, and discussing with lawyers in other countries their jury systems, I can confidently say that, despite the waste of jurors’ time that often occurs, our system contributes to justice in almost certainly the fairest and most efficient way.
The great point about juries is that ordinary people trust the twelve members to spread their judgment and to use ordinary common sense. Those who have been accused of dishonesty, however small, or of violence, however petty, could have decent lives totally ruined, if common sense is replaced by the strictest application of the law which may be required of judges.
Jury trial is not merely an important and traditional human right, and a clear form of democracy. Juries are, like our judges, totally independent. Any wrongs that may occur are redressed by retrials or appeals to higher courts. Those accused of crimes are more likely to turn up for their trials and, when they do, are less likely to need handcuffs, leg-irons, or expensive incarceration.”
I have listened to Sir Ivan Lawrence, and I am reminded of my grandmother’s words: an ounce of experience is worth a tonne of enthusiasm.
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I, too, pay tribute to those Members of the House who made exceptional contributions, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols). Her bravery today will be the debate’s real stand-out moment.
As we all know, the backdrop to this Bill is a court system that is facing crisis; that has been the case throughout the criminal justice system for many years. People up and down the country are waiting years for their day in court. When the justice system breaks down, it is our constituents and victims in our areas who pay the price. Although I will not address the presumption of contact in my speech, I pay tribute to the campaigners in this House, in the Gallery and around the country who have made sure that a measure on the presumption of contact is included in the Bill. It is a really special moment.
In the last six months, a number of my surgeries have been attended by constituents who are bearing the brunt of court delays—victims of serious crime who have been waiting years without justice and without closure. That is why, in the House today, I will be supporting this Bill on behalf of my constituents, who deserve timely justice.
We also have to remember the remand population, which has not been talked about much today. It is well publicised that our prison estate is in absolute crisis, having reached capacity and been totally stretched. While the Government are making the necessary reforms to address that and are building up capacity, they can ill afford to have the remand population at its current level. Frankly, those people are entitled to their day in court, to get their verdict and to be able to get on with their lives one way or the other.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is nothing progressive about a working-class man spending a year on remand—without a judge or a jury, and without any end to his turmoil in sight—when he may in fact be innocent?
Sally Jameson
I completely agree. Whether they will be found innocent or guilty, people are entitled to their day in court, and within a reasonable amount of time, as are the victims who need to have their cases heard. Frankly, that also allows prisons to get on with the important work of punishing those who are guilty and focusing on rehabilitation.
I want to take the opportunity of this Bill to push for a further reform of courts policy—I know the Minister is aware of this issue. I understand the reasons it is not in the Bill, but there was a particular case in my constituency. Somebody arrived for their day in court and ready for their trial, but because one of the jurors went sick, the judge decided it would not go ahead, even though the minimum number of jurors was available. They had to wait for a new trial date, which was many months later and, sadly, in the time they were waiting, the defendant—the perpetrator—died. In that case, justice delayed really was justice denied. Will the Minister meet me at another time to discuss whether there can be, if not a legislative change, a policy change on the expectation on judges to carry out trials when the minimum number of jurors is in attendance, unless there are exceptional circumstances?
Kirith Entwistle
I recently met judges in Bolton who spoke about issues with prisoner transportation that are also causing serious delays. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should also look at that as a means of speeding things up and improving efficiency?
Sally Jameson
Yes, as someone who was regularly held back from going on my dinner break because we were waiting for prisoner transportation, I would always welcome further improvement of prisoner transportation. I am all for that.
To close, we are not the first Government to change the threshold for jury trials, and because of the scale of the crisis we face, the circumstances demand that we must do so again. I am backing this whole package of reforms, because I know from my constituents that they want a courts system that delivers timely justice, supports victims and, frankly, allows them to move on with their lives. The alternative—and I think it is important that we explore the alternative—is that we manage the slow decline of our courts and watch victims walk away and public confidence drain away. We can modernise the system so that justice is delivered swiftly, fairly and for everyone, and that is what I choose today.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I call Paulette Hamilton on a four-minute time limit, but after her I will be reducing it to a three-minute limit.
Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)
I rise to speak on a Bill that is both necessary and difficult. Let me start by saying that I support its intention to tackle a Crown court backlog that has more than doubled since the pandemic, leaving victims waiting years for justice. Let us be clear what the backlog means: as the Victims’ Commissioner has warned, some trials are now listed for 2030. The bench division serves a purpose by enabling judge-alone trials for lower level cases, which means we can free up capacity and expect hearings to take about 20% less time.
I represent Birmingham Erdington, a working-class constituency with a proud and diverse ethnic minority community. It is from the perspective of my constituents that I must scrutinise this Bill.
Clause 3 removes a defendant’s right to elect for a jury trial for either-way offences, replacing it with a judge-alone trial in a new bench division for offences likely to attract sentences of three years or less. Crucially, this is not a temporary pilot—it contains no sunset clause. This is a permanent structural change to one of the oldest rights in our justice system. The intention to speed up our justice is honourable, but my concern is about trust and perception.
Paulette Hamilton
I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution.
For ethnic minority communities, that right has been seen as a vital protection against fear of bias, whether conscious or unconscious. A diverse jury of 12 brings the common sense of the community into the room; a single judge, however learned, does not offer that same representation.
Sarah Russell
The Judicial Executive Board produced a report on judicial bullying and racism in 2022, but has never published it. Does my hon. Friend agree that that backs up her point that there are concerns about the judiciary?
Paulette Hamilton
I absolutely agree. That does back up what I am saying.
I am not suggesting that our judiciary is biased, but perception matters, so I ask the Minister for two specific assurances. First, the Bill contains no clear statutory review, and there is no start or end date. Clause 3 allows the new provisions to be brought into force by regulation with a three-month minimum lead-in time, but beyond that, scrutiny is absent. I welcome that the Justice Secretary has announced a review. Can the Minister confirm the exact timeframe for that review? When will it begin and, crucially, when will it end?
Secondly, if there is to be a review, I urge the Minister to make its scope explicit. Will the Minister commit today that any review will break down data by ethnicity? We need to know if this new system is leading to disproportionate outcomes for ethnic minority defendants.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a very good speech and putting victims at the heart of what she is saying. I share some of her concerns about the legislation as it stands, but does she agree that we should vote for it today, so that we have the opportunity to influence it and improve it in the interests of public trust as it passes through the House?
Paulette Hamilton
I agree absolutely. Unless we work together to sort this out, we will not get a decent Bill that everybody can be happy with. To just throw it out at this stage would serve no purpose for anyone.
The crisis in our courts demands action, and the Government are right to act. I urge the Minister to commit today to strengthening the scrutiny of these measures and putting a clear review on the face of the Bill. Let us prove to my constituents that their faith in justice is still well placed. I look forward to working with the Justice team on the Committee to strengthen this clause.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
I am delighted to speak as an enthusiastic supporter of the Courts and Tribunals Bill. I wish to put on record my thanks to both the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Courts and Legal Services for their excellent work before the Bill came to this place, which included consulting with Back Benchers at every opportunity.
This is a critical piece of legislation that will rebuild our buckling criminal justice system after years and years of neglect. I will keep my remarks focused on the important context within which this Bill should be considered. We must, in this place, be absolutely clear that the previous Government left the criminal justice system on the brink of collapse. It is important to acknowledge this challenging landscape, so that victims, those who work within the criminal justice system and the wider public can all appreciate exactly why this Government are taking forward the bold measures in the Bill.
Whichever part of the criminal justice system we inspect, we see the devastating impact of the swingeing cutbacks and gross mismanagement of the previous Government—cuts to prisons, cuts to the Probation Service, cuts to legal aid, cuts to the Crown courts, cuts to policing and cuts to the Crown Prosecution Service.
What I find most frustrating is that we too often forget our inheritance, and we must not do so when we go into the Lobbies this evening. We cannot forget the chronic backlog of cases in the Crown courts that we inherited. We must always understand that this is not a static problem, but a compounding one. If we do not proceed with the measures in the Bill, we will not be able to improve the situation in the Crown courts. Instead, it will deteriorate further and the backlog will spiral out of control. The situation is simply inexcusable. We must understand that it is impossible to defend the status quo. Without structural reform, the criminal justice system will continue to buckle, which is why I am such a keen advocate of it.
Sir Ashley Fox
The hon. Member seems entirely ignorant of the success in Liverpool Crown court, where from 23 June, Operation Expedite reduced court delays by one third. Does he not think that it is worth replicating that experiment, which has been so successful in Liverpool, before curtailing the right to trial by jury?
Lloyd Hatton
I completely accept that there have been successes in some parts of the country, including in Liverpool, but that is not the case elsewhere, which is why a much wider package of structural reforms is essential. I firmly believe, in response to that point, that we must pull every lever at our disposal to stabilise the system and begin to turn the corner on the rising backlog in the Crown court. We need transformative change, backed up by investment and modernisation, to fix the problem. That is not optional; it is essential. That is why, in my view, the reforms in the Bill form a coherent package designed to deliver system-wide change. We cannot indulge in a game of pick and mix and simply implement the measures that we prefer. We must understand that, to relieve the scale of pressure currently facing the Crown courts and the wider criminal justice system, this Bill must make its way through this place.
Jess Brown-Fuller
If the hon. Gentleman believes that we should not have a pick and mix approach to Sir Brian Leveson’s proposals, why does he think that the Government have chosen only some of the measures and not others?
Lloyd Hatton
The Government can put certain measures into one piece of primary legislation, but there could be others down the line to pick up the recommendations of the review.
We must remember that magistrates, prison and probation officers and police officers will not thank us if we preside over an unreformed system in which Crown courts are allowed to crumble and backlogs are allowed to balloon for years to come. Every aspect of reform is required, otherwise cutting the backlogs and providing more timely justice will never be achieved, and we in this place will have done too little.
Finally, I add my voice to the chorus of parliamentarians who have been speaking up for victims who have so far been failed by the status quo. At the heart of the criminal justice system are people waiting for justice—waiting for wrongs to be put right, for fairness, for their day in court and for closure.
The progressive case for court reform is not a technocratic exercise in efficiency; it is a fundamental argument about how our legal institutions serve the British people, because when the criminal justice system breaks down, it is the most vulnerable who always pay the highest price. We must not lose sight of that today. We can either manage the slow decline of our courts, watching as victims are neglected and abandoned, and public confidence drains away, or we can support the Bill and modernise and repair the system so that justice is delivered quickly and fairly. I enthusiastically choose the latter option.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a member of the Bar.
I rise to oppose the plan to curtail jury trials, because restricting jury trials is wrong in principle and wrong in practice. Trial by jury is not some quaint tradition that we can trade away when Ministers feel the pressure. As has been said, it is one of the great democratic safeguards in our justice system; it allows ordinary citizens to be judged by their peers and the power of the state to be held in check. It is dangerous to challenge that principle, because there is a reason for it: the balance between the state and the citizen. History teaches us that changing that balance in favour of the state is a dangerous road to go down. The power that we are giving the state is not simply the power for it to issue a fine; we are talking about people losing their liberty.
Catherine Atkinson
I, too, am a passionate believer in the jury system, but Sweden—which is No. 1 in the World Justice Project’s global rankings—does not use jury trials at all, and neither do Norway, Germany or the Netherlands. In France, Denmark and Canada, only the most serious cases are dealt with by juries. My hon. Friend is not suggesting that those countries do not have liberty, is he?
Imran Hussain
What I am saying is that there is a reason that we protect this liberty—this cornerstone of our system of justice and democracy. When we see this much of a change in state power, I will tell my hon. Friend who is at the receiving end first: it is black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, working-class communities, elderly communities and women who are disproportionately impacted.
Warinder Juss
Does my hon. Friend agree that the restriction of jury trials in some cases is just one among a whole range of measures, and that in order to protect really vulnerable victims—for example, rape victims, who will have a jury trial—we need to make the process quicker? That necessarily means that, for some other cases, the decision to take away juries is a measure to protect the most vulnerable.
Imran Hussain
These are not competing interests. I thank all hon. Members who have made brave and passionate speeches today—I salute their courage. Of course we want to see justice delivered to victims as soon as possible, but there is not a shred of evidence that suggests that curtailing jury trials will do that. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) addressed that point with great passion.
Let us be clear about what the proposals mean in practice. The Government are suggesting that people could face lengthy prison sentences following judge-only processes in a new category of so-called swift courts. Frankly, that should send a chill through every democrat in this country. Ministers claim that this is about efficiency, but no argument has been put forward in this debate to support that. Restricting jury trials would deliver only limited time savings in the Crown court system—hon. Members have made that case time and again today.
The core point is that undermining fundamental rights will not fix a backlog caused by years of under-investment, court closures, reduced capacity and a criminal justice system stretched to breaking point. Ministers have published impact assessments, but they have still not shown that curtailing jury trials will meaningfully solve a backlog caused by years of under-resourcing.
Jonathan Davies
My hon. Friend is generous in giving way. He is making important points about potential overreach of the state. Might I suggest that this is not the end for the Bill and that if there are concerns—people are rightly raising issues—we can progress them in Committee and at subsequent stages to ensure that the Bill is where it needs to be to retain public trust.
Imran Hussain
I will come to that point. I note, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I did not get an extra minute for taking an intervention—will I get one?
Imran Hussain
Okay. Perhaps I have been too generous with my time.
The real fear is that these changes will not simply speed things up but change how justice is done. In the limited time I have—it is a tragedy that I have only three minutes to speak in a debate of this magnitude, amending cornerstones of our democracy—I ask the Justice Secretary to take advice from the Member he was a number of years ago, when he made some of the most powerful arguments for the jury system. I ask him to look back at his old self.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
First, I pay tribute to all the hon. Members across the Chamber who have contributed to the debate with their life experiences, from barristers and prosecutors to criminal justice experts, as well as the powerful victim testimony we have heard. I welcome to the Gallery those victims who have put themselves forward and articulated their convictions to improve the lives of all our residents and communities; I thank them and salute them for their service.
I thank Sir Brian Leveson for the time he took in coming forward with his proposals and Ministers for the time they have given to me. I have held Westminster Hall debates concerning Kent court waiting times and found Ministers to be respectful and to engage on issues; I thank them for that.
As a former police officer, I always say that you should judge an individual on their patterns of behaviour, and as many of my hon. Friends have said, we inherited a terrible situation in our criminal justice system, with see-sawing numbers of police officers, morale at a record low and a rise in crime. We saw the botched privatisation of the Probation Service, and the prison system was left in a state of disrepair when we inherited it in July 2024. I am afraid that the Conservatives’ track record, which is in the dock today, is part of the reason we are debating these issues.
As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I know that the National Audit Office report, “Reducing the backlog in the Crown Court” was clear. The Leveson report gives a number of solutions to reducing the backlog. I will touch on a couple of points in the minute and a half I have remaining.
First, the criminal justice system has never been preserved in aspic. We have seen evolution over time as sentencing guidelines have changed, and we have seen different types of cases referred to and dealt with in the magistrates court. During the last Government, magistrates’ sentencing powers were extended to 12 months. We have also learned from Canada and Australia, which have gone through similar challenges on these issues and got into a stronger position. We should learn those international lessons. The criminal justice system is always evolving.
Secondly, I welcome the investment—an extra £2.2 billion —in the criminal justice system. That will reform our courts, with a removal of the cap on court sitting days, and digital improvements. Fundamentally, my constituents want to see justice delivered, and I cannot stand idly by when people in my surgeries are waiting three to four years for their court cases to be heard because of a failed system.
All these reforms should be debated in Committee. I am disappointed that the Opposition will not vote for the Bill to support that process.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
Many of my constituents tell me that they are disillusioned with politics and the institutions that shape their lives. They feel alienated, with the system appearing remote, unresponsive and unaccountable—here we are again. I fear that my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary’s proposals to limit the right to trial by jury risk deepening and encouraging that mood of cynicism and distrust. Generally, 90% of the Bill is spot-on, but 10% of it needs to be looked at very closely in future stages.
There is a cultural importance to jury trials. For nearly two centuries, the legitimacy of the criminal justice system has rested on a simple idea: that guilt should be judged not by the state alone, but by a person’s peers. It is quite simple, really. The public sees trial by jury as a fundamental right—one that embodies fairness and equality before the law. There is an existing mistrust of judges and magistrates—and do you wonder why, when three quarters of the judges are Oxbridge graduates, the majority attended public schools, and only 10% of magistrates and judges are from ethnic minority backgrounds. That sort of thing has really got to change, because the situation is not acceptable.
There needs to be more scrutiny of the proposal to limit defendants’ rights to appeal a magistrates court conviction, because the current position is, quite frankly, indefensible. It is not acceptable. The right to appeal is fundamental to natural justice. If this proposal reaches the statute book, it will trigger—in my view and in the view of many experts—an avalanche of judicial reviews and appeals to the European Court.
There are commendable elements in the Bill, particularly those that strengthen protections for women who have survived sexual violence, as we have heard today, but the proposals to curtail the right to trial by jury offer no discernible benefit. They risk undermining centuries of legal tradition, damaging trust in our institutions, and threatening social stability at a time when the fabric of our society is already under strain.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
Anyone who has worked on the frontline of the criminal justice system knows that the Crown court crisis has been years in the making. Underfunding, austerity, covid and the changing nature of crime, with cases becoming increasingly complex and evidential volumes growing exponentially, have compounded the issue.
The changes in the Bill offer a pragmatic solution, and it is important that we are all clear about what is being proposed. The Bill does not abolish jury trials; it simply adjusts the threshold at which a case warrants a jury’s involvement. Magistrates are absolutely capable of hearing cases commanding a sentence of up two years; they already do in the youth court and there has been no outcry that young people do not get justice because of it.
As the Crown court backlog has increased, so has the percentage of cases committed to that court, because defendants have overruled the magistrates’ decision, and that is despite the sentence, in the most serious version of the Crown’s case, not exceeding the magistrates’ maximum powers. One may wonder why a defendant would seek to take his case to a court with greater sentencing powers, but the calculation is clear. The longer the wait for a trial, the harder it will be for witnesses to have a clear recollection of events and the more likely it is for victims to withdraw. Indeed, in one of my cases, a defendant hoped that the 96-year-old victim of burglary would die before the trial took place.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
This is the crux of the issue that we are discussing today: how do make sure that justice is given to victims as quickly as possible? Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill enables us to do that?
Linsey Farnsworth
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that this is about getting justice to victims, which defendants game the system to prevent.
Arguments against the Crown court bench division seem to presuppose some measure of unfairness of having a single judge deciding guilt or innocence, but district judges have sat alone in the magistrates court for decades, and there have been no campaigns suggesting that they should be abolished on the grounds of unfairness or otherwise. The Crown court bench division is predicted to save 5,000 sitting days in 2028-29. As well as reducing the time spent in the courtroom, fewer jury trials will also free up administrative staff, who are feeling under immense pressure.
For those who suggest that greater investment and efficiencies alone will be sufficient, I remind them that Sir Brian Leveson has said that this alone cannot solve this crisis. That accords with my experience of working as a Crown prosecutor from 2003 right up until just before the general election, during which time countless efficiency initiatives were introduced but were ultimately unable to prevent the crisis from developing. Efficiencies alone cannot turn this around.
Lloyd Hatton
I thank my hon. Friend for making such an eloquent speech. Does she share my concern that if we were, heaven forfend, to walk away from the crucial reforms in this Bill, the police officers, prison officers, CPS staff and those who work in our Crown courts would not thank us for the mess that we would be leaving them, with the Crown court system grinding to a halt and backlogs ballooning?
Linsey Farnsworth
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I thank all those people working in the criminal justice system who, frankly, have been propping up the system with the generosity of their time, working extra hours over and above, and giving everything. They have propped up the criminal justice system in that way for years.
If we do not act now, the wait time for cases to reach trial is projected to increase, and the consequences will be stark. First, justice will be delayed. That means victims waiting years for closure and a chance to heal, it means the wrongly accused waiting years for their name to be cleared, and it means those who have offended waiting years until they can be rehabilitated. Secondly, if we do not act, we will not fix the vicious cycle of interconnected crises: the staffing crisis, the prison crises, the recidivism crisis and the VAWG crisis.
We finally have a Government brave enough to grip these problems through record levels of investment, through the emergency early release scheme, through sentencing reform and through the measures in this Bill. The Bill rebalances the criminal justice system to ensure that jury trials are always available for the most serious cases, that cases are heard sooner, that victims are treated more fairly, that our criminal justice system continues to provide justice now, and that it is future-proofed for years to come. I wholeheartedly support the Government and this Bill.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
I rise to speak in favour of the Bill, but first I want to remind the House why these reforms matter to victims. When the powerful wave of the MeToo movement washed over us in 2017, almost 10 years after the incredible Tarana Burke began the MeToo programme in US schools and women began to share their stories, I froze when I heard on the radio what Harvey Weinstein had been doing in plain sight. I spent the rest of the day scrolling through courageous women’s stories online, and despite my horror at each of their experiences, I felt relief and hope. I felt relief that we could share our stories of experiences that I know every woman in this Chamber and, unfortunately, every woman and girl in the UK, has at some level had to endure. And I felt hope that this would be a watershed moment and that there would be no more Harvey Weinsteins. Recently, however, we have come to learn of the monstrous abuses committed by Jeffrey Epstein and his associates, reminding us that this fight is by no means over.
Regardless of whether a victim has survived a high-profile repeat offender or abuse from someone they knew and trusted at home or at work, they deserve justice. The Tories utterly failed victims in their 14 years. They ran up a huge backlog. Some women victims have said recently that they have waited 10 years, and that is a 10-year sentence for them. We cannot accept these delays. Over 90% of all criminal cases are already heard fairly without a jury by magistrates.
Clause 8 of the Bill puts restrictions on evidence or questions about a survivor’s sexual history. That should never have been part of the trial in the first place. Clause 17 will mean that courts will no longer have to start from the presumption that parental involvement will always be in the interests of a child. Women’s Aid has called this
“a significant shift in the ‘pro-contact’ culture”
that puts children at risk. This change will be incredibly encouraging for one of my constituents whose ex-partner was convicted of child sex offences and who has seen her children’s wellbeing massively impacted. I pay tribute to the campaigners here today, who have worked so hard to make this happen. Today we can move the dial towards a system that does not unfairly advantage perpetrators and does not retraumatise victims.
Sarah Russell
On that point, there is a backlog in the family courts of 110,000 cases, more than what we are discussing, and legal aid rates for family law have not gone up since 1997. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is an important move but we need to do more?
Catherine Fookes
I agree that we need to do more. As a recipient of legal aid myself in the past, I know how important it is that its budget is increased.
It is almost 10 years since the birth of the MeToo movement. We must now ensure that we deliver on the hope that it engendered. Real change is needed. I back survivors of domestic abuse and sexual violence, and I therefore back the Bill.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
When debating justice, I am first minded of the victim’s right to a process producing a fair and timely verdict and the defendant’s right to know that justice has been served fairly and without delay. There is much to commend in the Bill, including the removal of the presumption of parental involvement, protecting children from becoming the proxy target of a perpetrator’s abuse and the better handling of evidence.
The listing backlog is not universal. York Crown court’s cases are being listed for 2026-27. The Government must learn from successful courts and think about instituting things like Nightingale courts to deal with the backlog. When I visited York Crown court, I was told about the dysfunctional IT system and how difficult it was to connect to achieving best evidence videos. I was told about the PECS contracts. I say to the Government that we should in-source that work to ensure that we do not see those delays. Estate improvements are also vital, not least in a Crown court built in 1777, like York.
I want to focus on the removal of jury trials. We know that the judiciary lacks diversity, as we have heard, and I fear that is the result of unconscious bias, as academic papers have pointed out. We need to ensure that we have stronger deliberations of trials, and therefore to hand that to a jury would give more security.
The final point I want to impress upon the Justice Secretary is a political one. When victims and defendants have lost confidence in the establishment and the elite, including the judiciary, a bridge to maintain confidence between them and their communities and the justice system is vital. As has been put to me, without that, a victim is less likely to have confidence in someone whose experiences are a million miles from their own. The same is true for a defendant, having been failed by the establishment time and again. Maintaining the bridge to justice with people who have walked in their shoes, grown up on their street and faced the same challenges enables the victim and the defendant to know that at least the court understands, even if it has not found in their favour.
For someone to have their truth told to those from their community serving on a jury, and to know that the evidence has been deliberated well, upholds confidence in the courts and in justice, but to break that trust breaks justice and builds barriers. Justice must not only be done but be seen and felt to be done. It is easy for Ministers to get lost in the data and miss the purpose of justice, and I believe that it is this miscalculation that we wrestle with today. It is about who holds power and, ultimately, trusting that power.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
A foundational principle of our constitution is that everyone is bound by and entitled to the benefit of the law, but the long-running crisis in our justice system has stretched that principle to breaking point. Other right hon. and hon. Members have covered in depth the disastrous decisions by the previous Government that have got us to this point. I would only add that on my visit to Chester Crown court last month, they told me about a recent trial that had to finish at 3 pm each day because they could not get the light bulbs in the court replaced.
The Government have invested significantly in court infrastructure, legal aid and uncapping sitting days, but it is clear that investment alone will not be enough to deal with this crisis. We also need to reform the system and make it fit for how criminal justice operates today. A raft of measures in the Bill will do that, alongside important reforms such as the removal of the presumption of contact.
I intend to focus specifically on the proposals for the Crown court bench division. Parliament has taken a view on where the line should be drawn between offences disposed of by magistrates and offences that require a full Crown court trial with a jury, owing to a different level of severity and jeopardy for the defendant. Elsewhere in our system, it is not unprecedented for serious matters to be decided by a judge alone, such as in the family court. The question is whether the Government have struck the correct balance in their proposals, and whether there are sufficient safeguards for defendants. I have two points to make in that respect.
Although Sir Brian Leveson intended for the three-year threshold in the presumption on whether a case should be allocated to the bench division, judicial discretion would be maintained for exceptional circumstances. It is not difficult to imagine cases in which the broader public interest is best served by a jury trial. One wonders how the Colston four would have fared in a judge-only trial. The last word on where such cases should be tried should sit with a judge who has considered all the arguments and nuances.
Leveson recommended that the bench division consist not only of a judge but of two magistrates, in order to retain community involvement in the judgment, as well as to address the diversity gap in the judiciary. The Bill’s proposal to try by judge alone eliminates all community involvement for that class of defendant, treating them differently from those facing charges of both lesser and greater severity. The 2022 University of Manchester study “Racial Bias and the Bench” found that over half of respondents had witnessed one or more judges acting in a racially biased way towards a defendant in their judicial rulings, summing up, sentencing, bail, comments or directions.
I have listened carefully to Ministers’ arguments, but I am nevertheless concerned that significant risks remain. I intend to support the Bill’s Second Reading, because it contains important reforms to our criminal justice system, and it is essential that we deal with the crisis that has failed victims for too long, but I also intend to continue engaging with Ministers, and I look forward to my concerns being addressed as the Bill progresses.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
I was recently contacted by a constituent who was raped more than three years ago. Her initial court date was set for February last year, more than two years after the offence. She prepared for that day practically, mentally and emotionally, only for the hearing to be pushed back by 24 hours at the last minute. That happened three times in a row—three nights without sleep, three mornings of preparation, three days of reliving her trauma with no progress being made. The case was then postponed again, this time for an entire year. She went through another 12 months of stress and uncertainty, hoping to close this painful chapter of her life in January of this year, but the date was once again pushed back, this time until November. All my constituent wants is to receive the justice that she deserves and move on with her life. Our justice system is failing victims by delaying justice. Justice delayed is justice denied.
Rachel Taylor
I really feel for my hon. Friend’s constituent. Warwickshire police used to have one of the worst records in the country for charging in rape cases, but they have turned that around and now have one of the best. Does he agree that, for the police to continue doing their work investigating the accused, our court system must support fair and timely trials? Only then will we restore public trust in our justice system.
Warinder Juss
Yes, the measures are all about getting timely justice, which is why I will support the Bill.
This Labour Government inherited a system on the brink of collapse, and in which cases like my constituent’s are all too common. We must all recognise that action is sorely needed, and I welcome the Government’s commitment to reform. I thank Sir Brian Leveson for his detailed and thoughtful review—part 1 was completed last July, so the Bill is not being rushed. His review has played a significant role in shaping the reforms in the Bill. I know that there are mixed opinions about the proposed changes to jury trials, but the independent review of the criminal courts was carried out because of the truly appalling backlog in our criminal justice system. I have heard of trials in the most seriously affected courts being listed into 2030. I heard this morning that victims are saying that waiting three years for their case to come to court was worse than the rape itself. Jury trials do take longer, and I would have preferred the Government to follow Sir Brian’s recommendation that a new bench division be created, in which a judge and two magistrates try cases without a jury.
However, I trust this Government to take the necessary steps to repair our justice system while preserving the sanctity, fairness and integrity that underpin justice in this country. Any proportionate and appropriate amendments to the Bill can be made in Committee. I also welcome the investment that this Government have made in modernising our court system, to try to reduce the backlog while ensuring that victims do not face unnecessary delays and inefficient processes when seeking justice.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I recently visited Leeds Crown court, where I saw the benefits of some of that investment in a victim support suite, which ensured that victims, particularly of violence against women and girls, were safe and secure. Does my hon. Friend agree that both the investment and the reforms that we are considering are necessary to deliver swift and fair justice for victims?
Warinder Juss
Absolutely. I have had discussions with Sir Brian Leveson on a number of occasions, and he confirms that no one measure will achieve the reforms we need; we need to take a number of measures, of which the restriction in jury trials is just one, to achieve what we are trying to achieve.
I also welcome the additional safeguards for victims in rape and serious sexual offences cases, drawing on recommendations from the Law Commission. These new procedures will ensure that vulnerable victims of these horrific crimes are protected throughout the justice process, prevent further trauma, and ensure a move away from lines of questioning that perpetuate harmful rape myths and stereotypes.
The backlog in our courts and the delays denying justice to victims require bold and drastic action, and we need to take that action now. I therefore welcome this Government taking concrete steps to address the crisis that we have inherited, and I will support this Bill. Although I have concentrated on jury trials, there are other measures in the Bill that I welcome, such as the move away from the presumption of parental involvement in family courts, which will allow the Government to put the best interests of children first. We need drastic action, and we need to take it now, so I welcome everything the Government are doing.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
There is lots in this Bill that I really support, but I am ideologically opposed to restricting the right to jury trial, because it undermines the foundations of our democracy, and I have not seen any evidence to show that it will go anywhere near tackling the backlog.
Madam Deputy Speaker,
“Our jury system may be centuries old, but it is still fit for purpose today. Successive studies have shown that, on average, jury verdicts are not affected by ethnicity… including in cases with all-white juries… ‘one stage in the criminal justice system where B[A]ME groups do not face persistent disproportionality is when a jury reaches a verdict.’”
Those are not my words—they are the words of the Justice Secretary, written in his seminal 2017 review. While the findings are nearly a decade old, the research by Cheryl Thomas on which those conclusions are based still holds true today.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that after enduring 14 years of Conservative government, now is the opportunity to implement the Lammy review in full?
Kim Johnson
I really appreciate my good friend’s intervention, and I do agree. The review was a great piece of work, and it contains some really great recommendations that will work, particularly on joint enterprise.
Only 10% of Crown court judges are from ethnic minority backgrounds, and just 1% are black—a figure that has remained the same for a decade. When trust in the police and the criminal justice system remains chronically low among black communities, and when we know that these systems produce disproportionate outcomes, particularly in relation to joint enterprise, why are we pouring yet more fuel on the fire? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, particularly when we all know that evidence exists but is being ignored.
All hon. Members recognise that the backlog needs to be tackled, and that victims need to be given the swift justice that they deserve, because justice delayed is justice denied. However, we need evidence-based solutions, focused on what is causing the backlog. The Institute for Government says that the proposals will save only between 1% and 2% of court time. To put that into perspective, that means that rape complainants and victims who are currently waiting for around a year for their case to be heard may see their cases brought forward by just a week.
Last month, I was pleased to visit Liverpool Crown court with the Criminal Bar Association. I had the pleasure of hearing from Judge Andrew Menary, under whose leadership Liverpool courts can now proudly boast the lowest backlog in the country. His work in bringing together prosecution and defence teams to negotiate common-sense solutions to avoid cases needlessly going to court, speeding up access to justice for victims and ensuring fair outcomes for defendants, make him a leading light in our country. I am pleased that the Government are looking to roll out these solutions.
I know that the Justice Secretary cares deeply about tackling racism in the justice system; it is on record that he has been trying to do exactly that for decades. I urge him to listen to the strength and breadth of feeling in the House today, and across the legal profession and our country, including to the voices of the 3,000 signatories of a letter to the Prime Minister. Once the right to trial by jury is removed, we may never get it back again. Justice needs juries, and today we must defend them.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
The Opposition have chosen to misrepresent this Bill. That is their choice, but it does the delivery of justice in this country no favours. That misrepresentation has centred on one of the Bill’s many provisions—the proposed changes to mode of trial—but this Bill does not abolish jury trials. It moves some cases to the magistrates courts, introduces bench trials for certain other cases, and introduces reforms to either-way proceedings. If implemented, the Bill will mean that the accused in either-way cases will no longer have the ability to overrule the decision of a magistrates court about the mode of trial, namely where their trial should be held.
I want to offer a different perspective on this point. The current right to elect for a jury trial is not an ancient right. Instead, we can think of it as an anomaly—a legal practice created in the 1850s that survived reforms in the 1970s—and court modernisers have been calling for the practice to be closed down for decades. I focus on the history, because it is important for us to be aware of how others before us have used democratic processes to enact judicial reform in the public interest.
In 2001, Lord Justice Auld noted that
“our system is probably unique in that, in a large range of offences…the accused, not the court, decides how and where he is to be tried.”
Lord Auld recommended that this element be abolished, but that is the system that the Opposition are defending. When they defend that anomaly, they are delaying justice and undermining victims.
Last year, more than 4,000 defendants opted for a jury trial. As the Magistrates Association reported to the Justice Committee, some will have done so in the hope that the resulting delay would deter victims from continuing. We know that many stopped prosecutions are caused by victims dropping out—demoralised, defeated and denied justice. This Bill turns that dreadful situation around through a whole package of measures, but in part by ending the either-way anomaly.
This Bill preserves jury trials for the most serious cases. If it did not, I would not support it. It also allows those presiding over a bench trial to reallocate the case to jury trial if new evidence emerges to suggest that the defendant might receive a sentence of more than three years. That is an important point that has been overlooked so far in this debate.
There is more that I could say about the other measures introduced by the Bill, and about the desperate need to do more for sexual offence victims; for example, I would love us to fast-track RASSO courts at pace. We have a once-in-a-generation chance to improve our courts, so let us take that chance today.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
We have heard many moving speeches today. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), and for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet), for sharing their personal experiences.
Jury trials are a really important mechanism in the British legal system, and should not be taken for granted, so I want to share my experience. A number of years ago, I was asked to be a witness in a trial in which somebody I knew was being prosecuted for harassment. Just a couple of years ago, I was the victim of harassment myself. The detail of these cases are not needed, but the premise is. In the earlier case, the trial was led by a judge. While I was inexperienced, I felt that the judge and legal representatives worked hard to ensure that both sides of the case were examined and presented as openly as possible. Fast-forward some years, and I found myself in a different situation. I was a victim, alongside a number of individuals, of direct harassment. In that case, the perpetrator wanted to proceed with a jury trial, and they got that choice.
The trial was postponed repeatedly and went forward after the third rescheduled date. Each postponement meant more delay, more cost to the public purse, and more stress for the victims. The delays were extremely frustrating and meant that justice—whatever the jury may have decided—was delayed for a long time. Those of us who were victims were unable to move on, and that is what it is like for so many victims. I would be grateful if the Minister could elaborate on how victims will be supported by the proposed changes.
In the first trial, as a witness, I was cross-examined by the opposing counsel. In the second trial, I was cross-examined by the person who committed the crime against me. I could see that the jurors were uncomfortable with the perpetrator’s line of questioning. We should spare a thought for those jurors—people from across society doing a really important job for the public by serving on a jury. Many of them would have had to rearrange work commitments; would have lost money, if they were self-employed; and would have had to catch up on work in the evenings, just to make justice happen. In my view, the defendant should not have been able to delay the case in the way that they did, and the jurors should not have had to sit through a trial that could have been managed effectively with just a judge.
Finally, we should spare a thought for taxpayers, including those in North West Leicestershire who have been in touch. I understand their concerns. They do not want to see the loss of jury trials, and they will not; we will see a restriction of jury trials. We should recognise that there are too many cases in which perpetrators can choose to go for a jury trial, and that is being used by people simply to delay justice. As we have already heard, justice delayed is justice denied, and victims deserve so much better.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
I rise to support this Bill, particularly clause 17— Jack and Paul’s law—to finally repeal the presumption of contact in the family courts. It is the result of 11 years of campaigning by my incredible constituent Claire Throssell MBE, who is in the Gallery today, following the tragic deaths of her beautiful sons, Jack and Paul. They were killed in a house fire by their father, a known domestic abuser. Their dad lured Jack and his nine-year-old brother Paul into the attic with the promise of a train set, but he started 14 fires around their family home, killing himself in the blaze.
Jack and Paul’s deaths happened during a two-hour, court-ordered, unsupervised contact visit permitted by a family court and allowed to go ahead by the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service. The state failed Jack and Paul; it failed to put their wellbeing first, after a decade of their father’s abuse, neglect and coercive control of them and their mother. This House must act today and vote through this Bill to save the lives of a future generation of children by ending contact at any cost.
The presumption of parental involvement is a legal principle in the Children Act 1989 that means that any parent, even those who are known domestic abusers, should always be given contact with their children, but the retention of presumption continues to be fatal. Some 68 children—that we know of—have died at the hands of known domestically abusive parents since Women’s Aid started research on this issue. This Bill presents a life-changing opportunity to prevent such deaths and puts children’s wellbeing at the heart of our family courts.
Sarah Russell
Does my hon. Friend agree it is absolutely crucial that we fund contact centres properly, so that there are properly supervised options for courts to order?
Dr Tidball
I do indeed. In combination with the provisions in the Bill to effect structural reform, to stop criminals from gaming the system and to triage trials effectively, such measures will embed a child-centred and victim-centred approach in the courts.
Kirith Entwistle
I commend my hon. Friend on her exemplary campaigning on behalf of her constituent Claire Throssell. Does she agree that it is not right that rape victims are waiting 400 days to be heard?
Dr Tidball
I do indeed agree with my hon. Friend.
When Jack and Paul died, Claire promised them that no more children should lose their lives like they did, at the hands of an abusive parent. When I first met Claire, I told her that if I was elected, I would do all I could to help her. That was in 2023. On the 11th anniversary of the boys’ death, in October last year, I took Claire to No. 10 Downing Street to meet the Prime Minister—the first Prime Minister to personally commit to fulfil Claire’s promise to her beautiful boys.
I ask this House to vote for the Bill today, so that we can collectively fulfil Claire’s promise to her sons Jack and Paul; so that children like Jack and Paul are listened to, not ignored; and so that no more towns like mine are left to grieve. I urge this House to make that world a reality and support the Bill.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
While there is lots to welcome in the Bill, I fear it has been completely overshadowed by plans to restrict jury trials. This is not what victims are asking for—they need changes that are backed by evidence and that will result in genuine improvements to the criminal justice system. Jury trials are not what has led to the backlog, and these reforms will not reduce it.
I have a close friend who is a survivor of rape, and she is alarmed by this proposal. After a three and a half year wait for her trial, the delay made her suicidal. She desperately wants action on court backlogs, but she opposes these plans and is outraged that her trauma and that of thousands of survivors is being used to justify what she sees as effectively a cost-cutting exercise. As learned Friends know, courts could be instructed to prioritise rape cases and have them heard in a set period of time, such as six months. As my brave hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) asked, where are the specialist courts? None of these things require legislation. We need to address the backlog in our criminal courts, but any steps taken should never jeopardise equality or access to justice.
Kim Johnson
My hon. Friend is talking about not jeopardising equality. Does she agree that more needs to be done to recruit more people from diverse communities, to ensure that our systems are far more diverse and represent the communities they serve?
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She will have heard people talk many times in this Chamber about the lack of diversity in our judicial system.
Last July, I met the Bar Council, because when a sector has issues we should talk to the workers—more often than not, they have the solutions. In my view, that has always been the Labour way. They had a number of recommendations that should be considered—for example, that defendants who are awaiting trial should be remanded at a conveniently located prison close to the court, because Serco, the company tasked with prisoner transportation, persistently fails to transport prisoners in good time. This wastes the court’s time and results in a new court date having to be set. We should end that privatisation and bring prisoner transportation back in-house.
We should provide greater flexibility for hearings and allow virtual courts, so that more cases are heard; permit all available judges, including those who have retired but are below the age of 75, to sit as many days as they are available; invest in more court staff and support; and list trials from Monday to Thursday, so that all short matters can be dealt with on one day—namely, Friday—minimising disruption for all other court users, such as jurors, witnesses and defendants. These are all simple changes that would significantly maximise sittings while preserving the basic foundations of our criminal justice system. The wholesale change that we ought to be considering today is the complete reversal of the austerity measures introduced by the coalition Government, which led to this mess, but that has been overshadowed by the proposal to restrict jury trials.
Finally, racial bias in our criminal justice system is well documented. Any reforms should address this head-on, but to conduct a post-legislative review on discrimination is deeply insulting to those communities that are impacted. As I said earlier, this Bill was our opportunity to fully implement the Lammy review; instead, we will have a situation where there is no automatic right to appeal, when black women are 22% more likely to be convicted. To quote Ife Thompson, one of the brilliant lawyers who was protesting outside Parliament today,
“In a justice system that already produces racially discriminatory outcomes, removing juries means removing one of the few spaces where ordinary people and some real diversity still exist in the courtroom.”
We all have to have red lines, and racism in our justice system has ruined so many lives in our communities. I cannot support this measure, and if it is not removed from the legislation, I will not be supporting this Bill.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Sarah Russell to make the final Back-Bench speech.
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
I draw attention to the fact that I am a solicitor with a current practising certificate who has appeared before tribunals historically.
I will speak briefly today about the £1.3 billion maintenance backlog in our courts. We have heard that the Justice Secretary will commit £287 million to it. That is a large sum of money, but it is not enough.
I want to talk about the fact that legal aid rates have not gone up since 1997. The Justice Secretary is looking at increasing them significantly, but unfortunately that is moving them from £40 an hour to £60 an hour. In private practice, most solicitors would expect to be billing about five times that to run their firms. It is just not enough.
Sarah Russell
I am afraid I will not.
When we look at how much these measures will bring down the backlog in totality, it is simply not enough. When the time from reporting a rape to an actual trial is, on average, six years, bringing down the backlog slightly by the end of the next Parliament is just not enough. I have significant concerns about the restrictions on access to jury trials.
Anyone who has read Baroness Harman’s independent review of bullying, harassment and sexual harassment at the Bar should have real concerns about the attitudes of some barristers towards women and ethnic minorities. Not every barrister exhibits those traits, but they are a systematic problem. She talks about the fact that:
“A recurrent theme in the submissions was that there is a tolerance of misconduct at the Bar which is learned and passed down from generation to generation. I was told that some barristers, particularly men of the older generation, ‘have no idea how outdated and offensive some of their views are, nor do they care about the impact of sharing those views with others who may be offended by them’.”
Kim Johnson
The Justice Secretary identifies that we have these problems, and he talks about the delivery of training on racism and misogyny to support people to be brought into the 21st century. Does my hon. Friend believe that those kinds of training courses can work?
Sarah Russell
Obviously not everyone is exhibiting these traits and training can help, but my understanding, from what I have heard anecdotally, is that substantial numbers of members of the judiciary are not up to date with the training requirements that they already have. I would welcome hearing more from the Secretary of State about exactly how those training programmes will be developed, brought forward and made mandatory in a way that is effective.
It is of significant concern that Baroness Harman had to make a recommendation on the importance of the Judicial Appointments Commission taking into account findings of misconduct when considering who to appoint as judges. It is astonishing that she had to recommend that that should be required. How has the Judicial Appointments Commission been operating to date?
I stand here as someone who does not like to criticise the judiciary. I know that it has many hard-working members who have been operating in a difficult environment for a very long time. We have to be honest in saying that most of the rates that I have referred to were not put up by the new Labour Government either. We have had cuts to the justice system for 25 years, and that is why it is on its knees. We can do things within the context of the current system that might make it somewhat better, but I go back to my original question: when rape trials are taking six years from arrest to prosecution, what are we going to do to make wholesale change? Nothing I have heard so far has convinced me that what we will do here today, whichever permutations we go with, will fundamentally transform those waits.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It has been a positive debate in terms of the exchange of ideas, and there have been some fantastic contributions. I pay particular tribute to the hon. Members for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) and for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) for the very personal way in which they made their cases. There is consensus that for victims, the current waits are terrible and an experience that they should not have to go through. It is not only damaging for them as individuals, but some of them drop out as a result. We see perpetrators who would have been found guilty walking away and escaping justice, and we see defendants who would have been found innocent having to wait too long to have the accusations over their head removed.
Dr Mullan
Not yet.
We must have a serious discussion about why that is. It was disappointing for those who sought to put forward a credible analysis of what has happened that the Justice Secretary and most Labour Members did not mention the word “covid” once. In reality, the backlogs in the Crown court under this Government before covid were lower than those we inherited from the previous Government.
It is fair to say that for many years—25 years, as we heard from the hon. Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell)—it has been accepted that not enough political attention has been paid to our justice system. The question is, what do we do about it? There is no single answer to that question, because there is no single problem. A whole variety of things are going wrong in our justice system. We are seeing late pleas because of insufficient early advice, faulty courtrooms, a lack of reports from probation services, and problems with prison transport. All those problems, and others, cause the delays and other issues.
The central recommendation of the Leveson report was for more sitting days— 130,000—and that will require more venues, more court staff, more prosecution staff, more solicitors and more barristers. However, as I have mentioned, there are simpler things that we can do ahead of that, and we need look no further than Liverpool Crown court under the leadership of Andrew Menary. At a time when the national average wait from charge to trial is 321 days, that court manages an average wait of 206 days. As far as I am aware, neither the Justice Secretary nor any of his team has visited Liverpool Crown court to speak to the judge and hear how he does that. In fact, he achieves it partly through the use of early guilty pleas. Nationally, we lose court time because too many people—31%—plead guilty on the day of a trial. In Liverpool, the proportion is just 6%. Those are not bold reforms. They are not measures that allow a Secretary of State to give a grand speech and consider himself a great reformer. It is just hard work, or what one Member described as “pretty boring” stuff that gets the job done.
As was pointed out by the hon. Members for Warrington North and for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), these reforms will not only fail to achieve what the Government claim they will; they will be an overbearing, destructive distraction from that sort of hard work. And what will the Government gain? Certainly not what they claim in the impact assessment, which is full of assumptions and fantasies, and certainly not anything that might be described as modelling. The Government want us to believe that 24,000 Crown court days will simply be converted into 8,500 magistrate days, but they have no evidence for that claim. They want us to believe that trials without juries will be 20% shorter, but they have no evidence to support that claim either.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
Has the shadow Minister seen today’s statement from the Institute for Government, which has backed the Government’s modelling and overturned its previous position? He might want to reflect that in his comments.
Dr Mullan
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman read the entire statement. What the institution actually said was that the modelling
“relies on several assumptions—some of which are highly uncertain.”
Did he read that part of the statement? I do not think he did, because it claims that there will be reductions of only 2% in trial time as a result of these reforms.
What are we being asked to give up? We are being asked to give up 800 years of English legal history. A sledgehammer is being taken to the cornerstone of our system, and to fundamental rights. Thousands of accused people risk spending years in prison, losing their livelihoods, losing their families, losing their homes, and not being able to make the simple request for a forum of their peers to make that decision—a part of the justice system that is trusted and supported more than any other. That is perhaps why it is being defended so robustly by those within it. Just today, thousands of retired judges and retired and working legal professionals asked the Justice Secretary to think again. What has been the Government’s response to that? It has been to denigrate the role of jury trials.
We have had the appalling sight of the Lord Chancellor comparing three years in prison to a scraped knee. We have heard the Minister for Courts say that being accused of an offence of sexual assault, which could be considered either way at the moment, was not serious—an accusation that, if proven, would lose someone their livelihood. It is shameful and desperate stuff from a desperate Government. In contrast, what did the Prime Minister say? He said:
“The right to trial by jury is an important factor in the delicate balance between the power of the state and the freedom of the individual. The further it is restricted, the greater the imbalance.”
Now he asks us to upend that balance in a historically unprecedented way.
Of course, we can talk about the facts and figures, as woeful and thin as they have been, but at the end of the day, these decisions come from political instinct and a deep sense of what is right and wrong. That is not shallow; it is based on knowledge and years of experience —the sort that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox) have. That experience told them, before they saw the figures, that the Government’s approach was not going to work. They have been proven right by the figures.
Is it any surprise that the Prime Minister does not understand this? Time and again, we have seen that he is absolutely devoid of any sort of deep political instinct. His only instinct is to chop and change his mind as it suits him on any particular day. No wonder he has been, more than any other Prime Minister in recent history, an agent of the civil service. He has forgotten the golden rule that civil servants advise and Ministers decide. The Conservatives have said yes to more resources, to efficiency and to the hard work of getting things done, but we have said no to eroding a fundamental right, no to more overbearing state power, and no to gutting and scouring away the mechanism by which all of us watch the watchmen.
The Courts Minister tells us that the Bill has been introduced on a point of political principle, whereas other Members have argued that it is a matter of necessity and resource. Too often, Labour Members have said yes to a Prime Minister to whom they should have said no. They have an opportunity tonight to say no to the Prime Minister when it counts. Let us hope they have the courage to do so.
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
It is my pleasure to deliver the closing speech for this Second Reading of the Courts and Tribunals Bill. I thank right hon. and hon. Members for all their contributions. A consensus has broken out across this Chamber that the acute backlog in our criminal courts represents an injustice. We have a record and rising backlog of 80,000 cases, and behind each and every one is a victim and somebody accused of a crime. Lives are put on hold, immiserated by the fact that today we are seeing trials listed in 2030.
A consensus has broken out that we cannot sit idly by and do nothing. We have to act based on pragmatism, on what works and on the principle of fairness to ensure that every citizen in this country has the right to a fair trial. Whether someone is a defendant or a victim, it is deeply unfair to make them wait years for justice. Victims’ lives are put on hold, and witnesses’ memories fade. People are pulling out of trials, allowing perpetrators to walk away. That is not justice at all. That is what we mean when we say justice delayed is justice denied, and we have to act.
How do we frame these principles? We make a choice. Traditionally, our justice system has had two central parties: on the one hand, the prosecution; on the other, the defence. Victims have only a walk-on part. That will change, because the measures in this Bill place victims at their heart, and I pay tribute to them today. Again, consensus reigns in endorsing the fine speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball), who paid tribute to her constituent Claire Throssell for her campaign. The measures in the Bill repeal the presumption of parental contact.
We have heard powerful speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet), for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) and for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack). Their voices have been added to those of the countless victims I have met throughout this process, who have implored me to act and to challenge the injustices in our court, the delays and the nature of the justice process, which means that so often they feel they have been put on trial. That is why, as part of the reforms that we are bringing forward, we have centred victims by delivering a package of over half a billion pounds to support victims’ services. Today we have announced that there will be independent legal advisers for rape victims and that we are changing the law on the rules of evidence, which means that rape myths will be busted in our courts. Of course, as the Victims’ Commissioner has said, there is a need to address the delays.
We are being asked to vote on a reasoned amendment, and before I turn to the remarks made by other hon. Members—
Sarah Sackman
The right hon. Member has not been here for the entire debate, so I am afraid that I am not going to address his comments.
The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) moved a reasoned amendment that would drive a coach and horses through this Bill. Politics is about choices, and to govern is to choose. We know what choices those on the Opposition Benches would make about our justice system, because it is writ large in how they gutted legal aid, shut criminal courts and capped sitting days. They have presented many criticisms, but one thing I have not heard is an apology, nor have I heard an alternative plan for how to address the backlog.
This Government have brought forward a plan built on three pillars, or three levers that we choose to pull. The first is investment in uncapping sitting days, removing the financial constraint on how much our courts can sit and putting record investment into criminal legal aid. I have heard the important contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), the hon. Members for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) and for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), and my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) about needing to look at the availability of legal aid, because of course access to justice is vital.
The second lever is modernisation. Many Members across the House have pointed to the wasted time in our inefficient and broken court system, with the time it takes to bring prisoners to court, the courtrooms empty because of disrepair—we are now investing in courtrooms —and problems with listing and how we adopt best practice from successful courts such as Liverpool. These are all valuable suggestions, and as the Deputy Prime Minister said in his vision speech last week, we are taking them all forward because we have to pull every lever.
Thirdly, the conclusions of the independent review of criminal courts led by Sir Brian Leveson were clear: investment and efficiency alone will make a dent, but they will not bring down the backlogs. We have to bring forward structural reforms to alleviate the growing pressure on our Crown courts. That was caused not simply by covid or by lack of investment; these long-term changes in our criminal justice system have been coming down the track for decades. Crown court trials take twice as long as they did 20 years ago, the police are making more arrests and it is right that we have more procedural protections. All this means that our system is creaking under the demand, as the modelling we have put forward demonstrates.
The way we are going to bring about transformation is through people—the brilliant people who work every day in our criminal justice system. I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth), for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop) and for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson), to the CPS, the police and the prison staff, and to the defence and prosecution barristers who power our criminal justice system, because we will need them. As many have pointed out, we will also need our magistrates, and I commend my hon. Friends the Members for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) and for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron), who demonstrated how magistrates will power our system. These are lay justices—
Sarah Sackman
I will give way, but I am mindful of the time. I have to wrap up on time.
Sir Edward Leigh
I do not expect an answer now, but will the Minister take away one point that I and others made, which is that people of good character should have an absolute right to a jury trial? She need not answer now, but will she at least consider that point?
Sarah Sackman
I will not respond to that point now, but I will say that there needs to be equality before the law irrespective of background.
That brings me to the point raised by the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) about rushing. We are not rushing. This Bill, as seen in the vibrant debate we have had today, will receive ample scrutiny. I have taken on board the suggestions from right across the House, whether it is the idea of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell) about district judges, or those of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner). We will engage in constructive dialogue to strengthen the Bill. One of the most important ways in which we will do that is through a review, to which the Deputy Prime Minister has committed, focused primarily on the racial disparities and the inequalities in our system.
I am not here to defend the status quo. We know that for too long, marginalised communities, working-class communities and racial minorities—
Sarah Sackman
I will not give way, because I have a lot of comments to cover.
Members representing those communities have been vocal in this debate. We hear you, and that is why we will be bringing forward a review in Committee. I pay tribute to the contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton), for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed), for Bradford West (Naz Shah), for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), for York Central (Rachael Maskell), for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) and for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson). Something that came through in their comments was the importance not just of justice being done, but of justice being seen to be done. The justice system that we reform needs to command the confidence of communities, and we will work constructively to ensure that the review that we put on the face of the Bill does just that.
I return to the central theme, which is the need to act. For too long, those on the Conservative Benches were prepared to sit idly by while they presided over a crisis in our prisons, a crisis in probation and, now, a crisis in our courts. We have heard loud and clear from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) and my hon. Friends the Members for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton), for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne), for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes), for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) and for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) that there is a necessity to act. As Sir Brian Leveson himself said,
“if not this, then what?”,
and if not now, then when?
Politics is about choices. This Labour Government choose modernisation over tradition, investment over decline, and to put victims and communities first in a transformed, modernised justice system in which our public and our citizenry can have confidence.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Business without Debate
Petitions
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
The rise in houses in multiple occupation within the Old Bexley and Sidcup constituency is having a profound impact on the local community, leading to antisocial behaviour, parking pressures and pressure on local amenities and services. Over 2,300 local residents have shown their support for preventing more family homes from being converted to HMOs through this petition and a corresponding online petition.
The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to introduce new legislation to prevent the loss of family homes through conversion to houses in multiple occupation; and to ask the Mayor of London to ensure the next London plan realises the vital role of family homes in Bexley and provides protection for them against being divided into HMOs.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Old Bexley and Sidcup,
Declares that the rise in houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) within the Old Bexley and Sidcup constituency is having a detrimental impact on the local community, leading to anti-social behaviour, parking pressures and pressure on local amenities and services; notes that this uncontrolled growth in HMOs is leading to a loss of family homes, preventing families from getting on to the property ladder and preventing couples from starting a family; further declares that the powers available to the local council are not sufficient to prevent the loss of family homes and over-proliferation of HMOs; and further notes that a corresponding online petition on this issue has received a separate 2,347 signatures.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to introduce new legislation to prevent the loss of family homes through conversion to houses in multiple occupation; and to ask the Mayor of London to ensure the next London plan realises the vital role of family homes in Bexley and provides protection for them against being divided into HMOs.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003167]
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
I rise to present this petition on marking the UN International Day to Combat Islamophobia. In 2025, 45% of religious hate crimes committed in the UK were directed towards Muslims, a 92% increase since 2023. At a time where anti-Muslim hostility is on the rise online, in the media, on our streets and in our politics, the UN International Day to Combat Islamophobia is a time to come together to challenge this racist hatred and work towards a more tolerant and cohesive society.
The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take action to support marking the UN International Day to Combat Islamophobia on 15 March across the UK.
And the petitioners remain, etc.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Manchester Rusholme,
Declares that the UN International Day to Combat Islamophobia, marked on 15 March, is an important reminder of the unacceptable levels of hatred, discrimination and abuse that Muslims, and those perceived to be Muslim, continue to face worldwide; further declares that public understanding is crucial to tackling prejudice; notes that 45% of religious hate crimes committed in the UK in 2025 were directed towards Muslims, representing a 19% increase on the previous year; further notes the recent rise in Islamophobic disinformation circulating online and in the media; further notes that the UN International Day to Combat Islamophobia is marked by several governments worldwide, including the Government of Wales in 2025; further declares that recognising the UN International Day to Combat Islamophobia would reaffirm the Government’s commitment to tackling all forms of racism and xenophobia, and encouraging a more tolerant and understanding society.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take action to support marking the UN International Day to Combat Islamophobia on 15 March across the UK.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003168]
Extreme Climate and Weather Events: National Resilience
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
I am a Cornish MP, and we are a people on the edge. With sea on three sides and cut off from England by a river and a precarious train line, we have become used to being at the centre of a world that is a long way from everyone else. That has made us resilient, independent and proud. But being at the edge of the country has meant that we are often at the sharp edge of climate change. We are closer to its effects, and the weather often hits us slap in the face, even on a normal day.
We know that extreme weather events are becoming more frequent, and 2025 was the warmest year on record. Four of the five warmest years since 1884 have occurred in the past five years, and the record for the highest UK annual mean temperature has been broken six times since 2000. Last year, the Met Office warned that the likelihood of experiencing temperatures above 40° is now 20 times greater than it was in just the 1960s. In the summer, hosepipe bans are now common, and we had one in Cornwall, despite our copious rainfall, that went on for months and into the autumn of 2023. This winter was also the duchy’s wettest since records began in 1836. Cardinham had 55 consecutive wet days, and we were battered by three storms in quick succession: Goretti, Ingrid and Chandra.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing forward the debate. She is right to refer to the terrible weather we have had. Before Christmas, I think we had 43 days in Northern Ireland when there was no sunshine. Flooding incidents are not just happening in her constituency; they are also happening across Northern Ireland, in Fermanagh, Down and Armagh. Defences and embankments are under strain, and some areas remain vulnerable despite ongoing monitoring and mitigation. Some watercourses, such as the Newry canal and the Shimna river, have even burst their banks in times of extreme storms and rainfall. Does she agree that we must prioritise investment in river embankments and flood defences and ensure that high-risk areas receive immediate attention—the very thing that she and all of us in this Chamber want?
Jayne Kirkham
I agree with the hon. Member. We must prioritise flooding, which is becoming more and more of a risk. Every week when I get on the train—which has often been a bus—from Cornwall to London, I see what looks like a lake or sea, but it is in fact the Somerset levels submerged under floodwater.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. Storm Chandra hit the Somerset levels terribly badly. Water falling on already saturated land caused huge issues for many people. Farmers play a crucial role in managing our floodwaters. One farmer, Mike Curtis, who farms in Muchelney, took me and the Water and Flooding Minister out when she visited at the beginning of the month, showing the amount of water that can be stored on their land to save many other communities and thousands of homes in Bridgwater and Taunton from flooding. Mike told me that they are happy to store that water on their land to stop flooding further down the catchment, but does the hon. Member agree that farmers like Mike, as they are providing a public good, should be properly and fairly compensated?
Jayne Kirkham
I agree that farmers have been incredibly helpful in so many ways; I am thinking about Storm Goretti and all the work they did with clearing trees. Of course, hopefully some of the work that this Government are doing on the sustainable farming incentive will also enable them to do that work to store water. We need to build resilience on a national and local level, but we are not currently fully prepared.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend and I worked together on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee to push for the inquiry on extreme weather events to which her debate refers. The fire service is often the first agency on the scene after flooding, a storm, a landslip or a wildfire, but under the previous Government it was cut back significantly. The fire service is called out more and more often. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is more important than ever?
Jayne Kirkham
I agree; the fire service is absolutely fundamental, particularly in Cornwall, where it did amazing work during Storm Goretti.
In its response to the UK’s third national adaptation plan, the Climate Change Committee called on the Government to urgently refresh NAP3, as it fell short of preparing the UK for the climate change that we are experiencing, and adaptation progress is too slow, has stalled or is sometimes heading in the wrong direction. We are still reliant on short-term emergency measures, which cost more in the long term.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member from across the border on securing the debate. She will know that the south-west was hit particularly hard by the recent Storm Chandra, including parts of my constituency that were left submerged. Does she agree that we must now embed a truly comprehensive climate resilience strategy across all Government Departments and agencies at the heart of decision making—one that shifts our posture as much as possible from reaction to prevention?
Jayne Kirkham
I agree. I was going to say that that kind of cross-departmental strategy is so important, because all Departments are impacted and can do things that could help, but that is made difficult when Departments are so siloed.
The EFRA Committee, on which I sit, has an ongoing inquiry into climate and weather resilience. Farmers are heavily affected by extreme weather events, and that impacts on our food security and prices. British farm businesses were down £800 million in 2025 because of crop failures, and three of the five worst harvests on record have occurred since 2020. However, the risks go beyond farming. According to the Environment Agency, 6.3 million homes and businesses are at risk of flooding, but over the past decade one in 13 homes were still built in high-risk flood zones.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
The hon. Lady mentions the Environment Agency, which is causing quite high levels of stress. I should declare an interest: my partner is a farmer, and we had an 80-acre lake for some weeks on the farm. The Environment Agency started thinking about bringing the pumps only after the storms had come. What we need is for the pumps to be there already, so that they can start to pump water away as the storms come in. Otherwise, everybody gets flooded and it is really catastrophic.
Jayne Kirkham
Of course, the EA has struggled with funding for the past 10 years, after it had been cut so badly.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
The hon. Lady is being very generous with her time. In my constituency, several homes along the seafront were very badly damaged by storms in February, and as they cannot be lived in, the residents have been evacuated. Seafront protection, which is a responsibility of the Environment Agency, is key—particularly if those people are to live in their houses again—but the Environment Agency tells me that there is no emergency funding, and it cannot suddenly shore up the sea defences. The work would have to go through the normal process of allocation, and it might take up to two years before money can be allocated to improve the coastal defences in front of the houses of Torcross. For the people who have been moved out of their homes, that is an absolute disaster. Does she agree that, as we encounter more extreme weather events, the Environment Agency must be more flexible and nimble, and should be able to access funding quicker in order to shore up defences?
Jayne Kirkham
Yes, a great deal of work will have to be done in future, because this will not get better; it will get worse.
Businesses that rely on electricity and broadband are paralysed by outages during extreme weather events, and hospitals risk losing power or water. Heavy rainfall has even led to overflowing septic tanks and sewage spilling out on to streets in Cornwall, creating serious risks to public health. So much of Cornwall’s economy depends on our coast. When beaches, cafés, coastal roads and car parks are under managed realignment in the new shoreline management plan epoch, coastal places will lose their staple industries, and entire communities face existential threats from rising sea levels and coastal erosion. A lot of work is being done across Government, particularly on the water industry and flooding preparedness, which I welcome, but we need to protect communities from the inevitable march of climate change and act with greater urgency.
The urgency of the situation was obvious when Storm Goretti struck Cornwall on 8 and 9 January 2026. It triggered a rare Met Office red warning, with gusts of around 120 mph, and inflicted severe damage on our homes and infrastructure. We lost over 1,000 trees, 121,000 customers lost power, and thousands lost access to clean water. Roads were blocked, communities cut off, and schools, care homes and hospitals faced unprecedented strain.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this really important debate to the Chamber. Does she agree that the railway is a key part of the infrastructure and communications she is talking about, and we must focus on getting the final phase of the Dawlish rail resilience programme completed, along with the other measures? Dawlish and Teignmouth saw massive damage in these storms, with Teignmouth pier washing up on Dawlish beach and Dawlish beach itself being destroyed. Does she agree that the railway going down would be disastrous for Cornwall?
Jayne Kirkham
The hon. Member feels my pain. Yes, of course we need a strategic plan for our rail in the south-west. That is fundamental, and I will come on to it later.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
The hon. Member mentioned Storm Goretti. She and I attended the online meeting on storm recovery with Ministers two days after the event. What troubled me in that meeting was the culture that exists among service providers, and indeed Government Departments, of always seeking to reassure Ministers that everything is under control and presenting a very different picture from the one that I was seeing on the ground in west Cornwall, where my constituency was the worst hit. Does she agree that, following Storm Goretti, we need to ensure that we genuinely learn lessons about what actually happened on the ground and how we can recover best and put the right resources in place to help communities in future?
Jayne Kirkham
I understand the hon. Member’s point, and I know that his constituency was the worst affected, with people losing their water as well as their power. I agree that we must learn the lessons from Goretti.
Utility teams worked around the clock with local authorities, engineers and emergency responders to restore essential services. National Grid brought in 1,350 staff from all across the country, and tree surgeons were deployed, but we saw failures in the systems designed to keep people safe. The storm was a wake-up call. It exposed vulnerabilities in our infrastructure and emergency planning that could affect anywhere in the UK as extreme weather becomes more frequent.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
My hon. Friend talks about this affecting anywhere in the UK. Does she agree that it is simply unacceptable that all six Cornish constituencies appear at the bottom of the rankings in terms of mobile connectivity, and that any plan to improve our resilience has to include a focus on telecommunications and our ability to get messages into our villages, some of which were completely cut off not just physically but in terms of communication as a result of Storm Goretti?
Jayne Kirkham
As my hon. Friend’s constituency is next to mine, he will know that we have exactly the same problems in Truro and Falmouth, and I will move on to that next.
I have had wash-up meetings across my constituency since the storm, and we have been talking to Ministers. I welcome the suggestion that Cornwall could serve as a pilot area for emergency storm resilience measures, some of which I will talk about now.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
There has been a huge amount of progress towards what a good devolution settlement for Cornwall should look like, but it is also increasingly evident since Storm Goretti that part of that deal has to be infrastructure resilience. I really welcome the idea that we pilot some of these storm resilience measures, but will my hon. Friend join me in asking the Minister to speak with colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and work to get the investment needed to underpin that?
Jayne Kirkham
Yes, I agree.
One of the most profound lessons that we must learn from Storm Goretti is to increase communications infrastructure, particularly in rural areas. Many of our constituents were left without power or broadband in areas that have weak or no mobile phone signal, so they struggled to get help. Although we are frequently told by the four network providers that they have 99% 4G coverage, that does not ring true to anyone in Cornwall, where we struggle to get a signal on a regular basis.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
The hon. Lady is being very generous with her time, and this has been a fascinating debate. Runnymede and Weybridge is frequently hit by flooding, but I have noticed that one problem is that there are so many different responders, sometimes seemingly acting independently. When residents contact the flood line, they find that it operates more like an intercom service, as opposed to taking information and giving them a direct response. I am calling for a flood control centre—a single point of contact that can co-ordinate flood response and preparatory works in my area. I am happy to speak to the hon. Lady after the debate about the work that I am trying to lobby the Government about. By the sounds of it, that could also help with the response in Cornwall.
Jayne Kirkham
That sounds like an interesting proposal. Our local resilience centre was in Exeter, and I think that is why the category 1 responders did not declare a major incident; Exeter is a long way away from us, so I understand the hon. Gentleman’s idea of having a flood control centre.
When Goretti hit, the Cabinet Office activated the national alert messaging. That was important and successful as an early-warning system, but it was impacted by the patchy mobile coverage. We need a more truthful method of measuring mobile coverage, and a means of applying pressure to the providers, so that they meet their obligations. Goretti also exposed the fact that most mobile masts do not have back-up generators or battery reserves, making them vulnerable to power loss. This contrasts with the expectations placed on water and electricity companies, which operate under more established resilience duties. Telecoms are just as essential, and the civil contingencies framework should reflect that in practice, not just in statute.
During Goretti, many residents with no internet or mobile signal found that digital landlines did not work without power. Ofcom’s rules require only one hour of battery back-up for vulnerable customers, which is inadequate. An Ofcom technical report from last year noted that about two thirds of the population would be able to make emergency calls in a power outage of under an hour, but the number who could do so after six hours was redacted, and was described as being “far fewer”.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
I met constituents in Boscastle last week who reminded me about the terrible events of 2004, when there were huge floods that were devastating. The hon. Member mentioned the one hour of battery back-up, which is absolutely farcical and totally inadequate, but it was explained to me that even if someone had a back-up battery in their house, they could have problems, because the internet service provider’s unit and the street unit could be completely without power. Even if those battery back-ups had unlimited usage hours, people would still not have internet access in those emergencies.
Jayne Kirkham
That is why a satellite link across villages might be something to consider.
On broadband, Openreach and service providers do not have a good system of fault notification. During Goretti, they were unaware of faults, and the notification of faults solely through third-party providers did not work well, as residents struggled to get through. A more direct method of reporting faults and an interactive map, maybe like the one that National Grid uses, showing the location of faults and realistic time estimates for restoration, would be helpful. That is particularly pertinent in Cornwall, as last month Wildanet withdrew from several Project Gigabit contracts, leaving nearly 8,000 rural premises in limbo, without the high-speed broadband that they were promised. We must not leave them behind.
We must also ensure that our transport systems are robust. We have talked about the recent storms damaging Dawlish. The sinkhole between Dawlish and Teignmouth also led to closure of the rail line, which is the only line in and out of the far south-west. When the Goretti alert went out, all Cornwall’s MPs were stranded in the south-east. I could not get home, and we had to hire a car the next day. My son was alone in the house, 300 miles away. The Valentine’s day storm of 2014 led to the far south-west being cut off for eight weeks. In that time, the region lost anywhere between £60 million and £1.2 billion, according to Devon Maritime Forum. Since then, work has been done to make the line more resilient, but the strategic long-term plan that we have discussed for rail across the south-west is an urgent priority, as without it, our economy will stagnate.
I will also mention energy resilience. I support the Government’s ambition to increase the UK’s energy security by investing in renewables. I was so pleased to attend the launch of the local power plan last month, which will allow communities to own and benefit directly from the energy that they produce. Locally produced and managed power will be more resilient.
Rural areas such as mine have a high proportion of properties off the gas grid. Approximately 14% of Cornish households rely on oil for heating, compared with a national average of below 5%. There is an alternative in the form of hydro-treated vegetable oil, which has been trialled in Cornwall, but the incentives are not there. Meanwhile, I have spoken to constituents who have been refused planning permission to put solar panels or turbines on properties that are listed or in conservation areas, as many in our area are. Ensuring that as many people as possible can benefit from local renewable energy will allow us to be more resilient to shocks.
An issue that became apparent during the storm was the lack of community emergency plans. In my constituency, some parishes had them, and some did not, but even the existing emergency plans did not work if people did not know who should be putting them into action. The will was there, and the Cornish spirit came to the fore—neighbours checked in on each other, and farmers helped to clear fallen trees—but there was an overall lack of co-ordination.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for calling for this really important debate. There are vulnerable residents across Cornwall, and particularly in South East Cornwall. The ability of different data collectors to work alongside each other, and ensure that we know where the vulnerable people are and that they can be reached quickly, is really crucial. The ability to use data in a responsible way is really important. Does she agree that we must do more to collect that data and share it across Cornwall?
Jayne Kirkham
I agree. A better way of sharing data must be found. Different utility companies and the council had different lists, and the parishes could not get hold of them at all. That is a really important issue.
Caroline Voaden
On the point about utility companies, we had a major gas outage in South Devon at the beginning of the year. We had a problem that is probably very familiar to MPs in Cornwall; the utility company could not trace who owned the second homes, because the homeowners were not there. As the utility company was working through an intermediary energy supplier, it did not have the data on who the customer was. That meant that the power was switched off for about three days, when it could have been switched off for only a few hours. Does the hon. Lady agree that that is a serious problem in areas like ours, where there is a large proportion of second homes?
Jayne Kirkham
I do. Second homes are a whole other debate.
Every parish should be able to identify a community hub that residents can go to in an emergency. It should have a generator, battery packs, blankets, food, and a pre-registered list of volunteers. I know that parishes in Cornwall are considering that, but it could be encouraged across the UK and co-ordinated at a higher-tier council level—maybe across a local or national level. We could look again at the Bellwin scheme, and at how category 2 and category 1 responders respond to these issues.
Finally, there is a conversation to be had about personal resilience. We all need to be more prepared. Having a basic emergency kit sounds simple, but it makes a big difference.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating people like Flood Mary? She has, for many decades, gone up and down the country, having been flooded herself, trying to inspire people and educate them about what they can do in their home to protect themselves.
Jayne Kirkham
That is exactly what we need more of. In an emergency, we need a camping stove, water, a battery-powered radio—BBC Radio Cornwall was fantastic during Storm Goretti—torches, spare batteries, power banks and so on.
Storm Goretti highlighted to all of us how essential it is to improve our resilience in the face of extreme weather events. Cornwall is an ideal location to pilot national resilience measures, and I hope that the lessons learned from the storm will enable us across the country to become better prepared for extreme climate and weather challenges.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Dan Jarvis)
Let me begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) for securing this important debate. Her dedicated advocacy for the resilience of rural communities, particularly in the wake of Storm Goretti, is well-known across this House and in her part of the world. She has spoken powerfully this evening about the experience of communities in Cornwall, following recent extreme weather events, and I join her in paying tribute to the local communities, first responders and emergency services that step forward in these moments of crisis.
The Government’s first responsibility is to keep the country safe. We are absolutely committed to taking all measures necessary to build national resilience to external shocks or threats that could cause disruption to our way of life, now and in the future. The UK benefits from world-leading weather warning and information services, which provide information and advice to the public when bad weather is forecast. Weather events can have wide-ranging impacts on communities, including on homes, health, transport, energy and communications, and the relevant lead Department for each of those affected areas has a responsibility to work closely with stakeholders on the recovery from an emergency.
We are absolutely committed to building resilience on both a national and a local level, and while we acknowledge the Climate Change Committee’s assessment of the third national adaptation programme, we are not simply relying on short-term measures. Alongside delivering the actions in the programme to address climate risks to the UK, we are taking significant, long-term action now to become more resilient to the effects of climate change, such as flooding and overheating. We are building new reservoirs and cutting water leaks to help secure our water supplies. This includes a record £10.5 billion investment in flood defences to protect 900,000 properties.
Dan Jarvis
I will make a little bit of progress. It also includes £30 million for coastal adaptation pilots in the East Riding of Yorkshire, Norfolk and Suffolk, and £104 billion in private investment for new water infrastructure.
I was privileged to meet community members and first responders shortly after Storm Goretti, and to hear at first hand about the challenges they faced. I was very pleased last week to see His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales visit Helston, in the constituency of the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), shining a spotlight on the strong spirit and resilience of the people of Cornwall.
In the period preceding the storm, our world-leading weather warning service played a significant part in the initial Government response. The storm made landfall on Thursday 8 January; the Met Office issued a rare red national severe weather warning across the Isles of Scilly and parts of Cornwall. The storm brought a combination of heavy rain, significant snow and strong winds to England and Wales. Emergency alerts were quickly dispatched to half a million residents in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, advising them to remain indoors until the danger had passed. The conditions resulted in widespread power outages and disruption to transport networks. The national response was managed by the Cabinet Office, which co-ordinated meetings with health and environmental experts and senior Government officials. The Cabinet Office has committed to a comprehensive review of the response to Storm Goretti, which aims to ensure that lessons are captured across Government to improve our response to future severe weather events.
The Government are also acutely aware of the challenges faced by British farmers due to extreme weather, which can impact harvests and consequently influence food prices. Despite these challenges, the UK maintains a resilient food supply chain that is underpinned by diverse sources; robust domestic production; and reliable import routes. During a recent visit to Aberystwyth University, I visited the Institute of Biological, Environmental and Rural Sciences, a leading research institute dedicated to advancing the sustainable production of food, feed, and plant-based resources. I also met Aled Jones, the former president of the National Farmers’ Union Cymru, and we discussed the vital importance of securing our nation’s food supply. I recognise that the Government must work collaboratively with farmers and the NFU to ensure that our food supply is safeguarded for the long term.
As has been mentioned, our telecommunications networks are a vital part of the UK’s critical national infrastructure and our emergency response in weather-related crises. They support the functioning of essential services and keep people connected when they need it most. The public switched telephone network often relies on overhead cables that can easily be damaged during severe winds, and most handsets rely on power supplies. Telecoms companies are upgrading landlines from analogue to digital, with over two thirds of lines across the UK already having been migrated. We recognise that telecoms resilience is underpinned by a resilient power supply. Through close co-ordination with the energy sector, the emergency planning community and industry, we are strengthening back-up power arrangements, improving situational awareness, and ensuring that the sector is ready to activate mitigation measures when risks escalate.
Draft Goods Vehicles (Testing, Drivers’ Hours and Tachographs etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Goods Vehicles (Testing, Drivers’ Hours and Tachographs etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Alec. We both know a thing or two about changing weight categories—[Laughter.] I could not resist. Might I say you are looking very well for it?
The draft regulations will be made under powers in the Road Traffic Act 1998 and the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023. They will alter in three ways the rules that apply to zero emission vans weighing over 3.5 tonnes, up to and including 4.25 tonnes, which I will hereafter refer to as 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero emission vans. First, 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero emission vans will be moved from the heavy vehicle testing system into the class 7 MOT testing system. Secondly, the date of the first test will change from one year after initial registration to three years after initial registration, with annual testing thereafter. Thirdly, the regulations will move 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero emission vans from the scope of the assimilated drivers’ hours rules into the scope of the Great Britain drivers’ hours rules. The GB drivers’ hours rules do not require the driving time to be measured using a tachograph, meaning that vans will not be required to be fitted with one. The aim of the changes is to ensure that 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero emission vans are regulated in the same way as internal combustion engine vans that weigh over 3 tonnes, up to and including 3.5 tonnes.
Domestic transport is the highest greenhouse gas-emitting sector of the economy, accounting for something like 30% of emissions in 2024. There is therefore an imperative to shift towards zero emission vehicles, particularly in the road freight sector, where the number of vans has been consistently increasing, rising by 9.5% between 2019 and 2024.
At present, 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero emission vans fall into the scope of some heavy vehicle regulations because their maximum authorised mass is over 3.5 tonnes. However, 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero emission vans are often like-for-like replacements for internal combustion engine vans weighing under 3.5 tonnes. They may be used for the same purposes and are often visually indistinguishable.
Two areas where there are currently different rules for 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero emission vans are roadworthiness testing and drivers’ hours. These vans are required to undergo a heavy vehicle test, with a first test one year after initial registration and then annually. They are also required to follow the assimilated drivers’ hours rules. The different regulatory requirements for 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero emission vans act as a disincentive for businesses looking to make the switch to a zero emission van.
Any 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero emission vans will be moved from within the scope of the Goods Vehicles (Plating and Testing) Regulations 1988 into the scope of the Motor Vehicles (Tests) Regulations 1981. The practical effect is to move these vans from the heavy vehicle testing system into the class 7 MOT system, and to alter the date of the first test, as already described. That will benefit operators of 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero emission vans by allowing them to be tested at the larger network of class 7 MOT testing stations, providing greater choice for operators. The class 7 MOT is also cheaper, which, combined with the later first test, will reduce costs for businesses with 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero emission vans.
The regulations will increase the minimum tyre tread depth requirement for 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero emission vans by amending the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986. That will ensure that they have the same requirement as other vans that undergo class 7 MOT testing.
These vans will also be removed entirely from the scope of the assimilated drivers’ hours rules and will therefore fall under the GB drivers’ hours rules instead. Some 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero emission vans may already be in scope of a limited exemption from the assimilated drivers’ hours rules, which is contained in paragraph 6 of the schedule to the Community Drivers’ Hours and Recording Equipment Regulations 2007. However, that exemption applies only to vehicles operating within a 100 km radius of their base. The regulations before us will remove that distance limit for those vans but retain it for other vehicle types currently covered by the exemption.
The change in drivers’ hours rules applicable to these vans will provide greater regulatory consistency for van operators, as internal combustion engine vans weighing under 3.5 tonnes are already in scope of the GB drivers’ hours rules. The GB hours rules do not require that tachographs are used to monitor driving time, removing an additional cost currently experienced by zero emission van operators. The extra administrative burden for fleets where drivers regularly switch between different types of vans, and therefore different sets of drivers’ hours rules, is also removed by the regulations.
The Government have introduced other regulatory changes to support operators of 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero emission vans. In June 2025, regulations were introduced allowing holders of category B driving licences to drive zero emission vans up to 4.25 tonnes without any additional training. The same regulations also provided 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero emission vans with towing allowances equivalent to those available to their lower-weight internal combustion engine counterparts. In addition, there is already an exemption from operator licensing for alternatively fuelled vans weighing up to 4.25 tonnes.
Alongside measures specific to this weight class, the Government are promoting the use of zero emission vans via the zero emission vehicle mandate. The ZEV mandate sets sales targets for manufacturers of cars and vans, with a headline target for vans in 2026 of 24%, on a pathway to 100% by 2035. Greater flexibilities were added to the mandate in October 2025 to support manufacturers in reaching those targets.
The Government also provide grant funding for zero emission vehicles and the installation of charge points. Vans weighing up to 4.25 tonnes are eligible for the plug-in van grant, with a maximum discount of £5,000.
Ensuring that road safety is maintained after the introduction of these changes has, of course, been a key consideration during the development of the regulations. Class 7 MOT testing is already used for vans with similar dimensions to 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero emission vans. Although these vans are heavier, they may be equipped with features, such as regenerative braking, that can support safer driving. Under the GB drivers’ hours rules, the maximum daily amount of driving is only one hour longer than the limit used under the assimilated rules. In addition, the daily duty limit of 11 hours will restrict drivers from working on other, non-driving tasks, such as loading and unloading, for excessive periods. Following the implementation of the regulations, road safety data will be closely monitored, and the number and severity of collisions will be analysed to understand the regulations’ impact on road safety, if any.
The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments did not report on the regulations or draw any issues to the attention of the House. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee did publish a report on the regulations, drawing the House’s attention to the fact that when the powers available in the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 expire after 23 June 2026, the Government will not have powers to amend the limited drivers’ hours rules. The Government are actively looking at solutions to close or mitigate that gap in powers at the earliest opportunity to maintain a functioning statute book. That includes introducing primary legislation, where needed, as soon as parliamentary time allows.
The SLSC also raised the issue of divergence between Great Britain and Northern Ireland created by the regulations, which apply only in Great Britain. The Department for Infrastructure in Northern Ireland has said that it will monitor the implementation of the changes in Great Britain. However, any decision to make similar changes in Northern Ireland will rest with the DFI Minister. Officials in the Department for Transport and the DFI are working together to manage the changes for operators of 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero emission vans travelling between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This area is devolved to Northern Ireland, so it is for the Northern Ireland Executive to legislate on, should they wish to do so. This is not a type approval issue, and regulations concerning drivers’ hours and tachographs are not included in the Windsor framework.
In summary, the regulations will remove barriers to businesses making the switch to using a 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero emission van. They introduce regulatory alignment with the equivalent internal combustion engine vans, helping to support the transition to a net zero transport system. I commend them to the Committee.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I thank the Minister for explaining the proposed regulatory changes, which the Liberal Democrats support. Of course, the rules of physics still apply, and these electric goods vehicles will be heavier, so I simply ask the Minister whether he agrees that that underlines the importance of the work the Government are doing on the road safety strategy to reduce the risk and impact of collisions.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec.
The role of goods vehicles, whether heavy or relatively light, is critical to our economy. We know that the transportation of goods and logistics contribute billions to the UK’s GDP, yet they are often a forgotten element of our economy. In principle, therefore, I cannot object to measures that reduce the cost of doing business and that ensure that those using goods vehicles are not unduly burdened by the Government’s policies on electric vehicles. It would be a preposterous endeavour for the Government to encourage and mandate the use of electric goods vehicles and then to proceed to keep in place rules that would prevent them from carrying the same quantity of goods as their internal combustion engine equivalents. In addition, it is important to be proportionate when considering MOTs and driver hours. If we place too great a burden on individuals, without any demonstrable safety benefits, that places a cost on business that is not in the spirit of how the rules are drafted.
However, we must acknowledge the context of these changes. They are not merely attempts by the Government to make proportionate changes to the regulatory burden to help business; they are against the backdrop of an initiative to move all drivers to electric vehicles. In the car market, with fleet sales put to one side, we have seen a stalling of electric vehicle demand, and market share even decreasing, with a Government mandate in place. Furthermore, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders has highlighted that in 2025, despite small increases, battery electric van demand remained well below mandated levels, with the steep 2026 ambition set by the Government requiring urgent review.
In that context, it is understandable that the Government are trying to pull every lever they can to try to stimulate demand, but at what price? Appropriately—the Minister mentioned this in his opening speech—the Government talked in their impact assessment about ensuring that there is no negative safety impact. In addition, it makes sense to monitor matters such as roadworthiness test failure rates. Nevertheless, when discussing direct and indirect costs in the impact assessments, the Government seem to have forgotten that the policy’s overall impact is to increase the weight of vehicles. Road damage increases exponentially with axle weight, and it would be a mistake not to recognise that this broader change, which encourages heavier vehicles, is unlikely to come without a cost to our roads. We need the Government to have a comprehensive understanding of whether these heavier vehicles could have any impact on road safety.
I am not pretending that this statutory instrument on its own will alter our roads, but it is part of a broader trend where the Government have acknowledged that there will be heavier vehicles. Are the Government therefore making a broader assessment of the impact of this change on road surfaces? What assessments will they make?
Furthermore, I hope the Minister can answer some specific technical questions on ensuring that the changes are practical. The specific changes to tachograph requirements will cause a divergence, and the Minister spoke in his opening remarks of the impact on Northern Ireland. I would be grateful if he could say more on the discussions the Department for Transport has had with officials in Northern Ireland to mitigate any impact, ensuring that we operate as one country—one United Kingdom—and one economy.
Lastly, it is important that the Government retain the power to alter rules relating to matters such as road safety. When discussing aviation safety secondary legislation in September last year, I raised with the Government the impact of the expiry of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023. At that time, they responded that they would have until the middle of this year. As we are fast approaching that point, do the Government truly have a plan for what they will do, as that legislative gap emerges, with regard to this statutory instrument?
Simon Lightwood
To pick up on the point from the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, the Government are absolutely committed to greater road safety. I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South in her place today; she steered us through the first road safety strategy in more than a decade, and it is well overdue. It was published on 7 January, and sets out our vision for a safer future on the roads for all. As part of the long-term improvements outlined in the strategy, officials are working with industry to publish clearer maintenance standards for light goods vehicles.
On the effects of these vehicles on road surfaces, the overall road wear effects caused by electric vans are relatively small, because wear and tear on roads is dominated by heavy goods vehicles and buses, with a much smaller impact from vans and cars of any type. In addition, although EVs can be heavier than equivalent petrol or diesel vehicles, passenger cars have been increasing in weight on average for many years now. That trend has been driven by consumer choice and improving safety features for passengers, and many petrol and diesel cars are as heavy as EVs.
On the zero emission vehicle mandate, the Government are committed to decarbonising our road transport and ensuring that the UK successfully transitions to zero emission vehicles, and the ZEV mandate is a crucial part of facilitating that transition. It sets out annual headline targets for the proportion of new zero emission cars and vans sold in the UK, starting at 10% for vans in 2024 and rising steadily to reach 70% of vans by 2030, on a pathway to 100% by 2035. Demand for zero emission vans is growing, making up nearly 10% of the market in 2025, and showing 36% year-on-year growth compared to 2024. However, the Government acknowledge that the van transition requires further support, and we offer generous grants to support up-front purchase of vans, and installations of workplace and residential chargers.
On the devolved Administrations and divergence, these regulations apply in Great Britain only, as this policy area is devolved in Northern Ireland. Officials in the Department for Infrastructure in Northern Ireland have been updated on these regulations, and are currently considering the potential impact of introducing this legislation on regulatory divergence between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. They are also considering the impact of the proposals on drivers’ hours and tachograph requirements presented by the EU Commission, which mirror the changes in these regulations.
I thank everyone for their time today and for their questions. This common-sense move by the Government will take the burden away from those using internal combustion vans, and ease them into the transition to zero emission vans. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Higher Education (Fee Limits and Fee Limit Condition) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Higher Education (Fee Limits and Fee Limit Condition) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. To begin, I would like to take this opportunity briefly to explain that in the explanatory note for the statutory instrument, there was a discrepancy, in that it stated that the percentage increase for 2026-27 was 2.7% when it should have stated 2.71%, and that the percentage increase for ’27-28 was 2.8% when it should have stated 2.68%. I can reassure hon. Members that a correction slip has been arranged regarding that, and the other figures in the draft SI—the consequential figures in monetary terms—are not affected. The SI, which was laid in draft on 5 February, increases the limits on tuition fees that higher education providers can charge students studying undergraduate courses at “approved (fee cap) providers” in the ’26-27 and ’27-28 academic years.
Our higher education sector is critical to delivering a key mission of this Government—economic growth. It does that through world-leading research and innovation, supporting businesses up and down the country, and by equipping people with the knowledge and skills that they need to thrive. In one way or another, higher education plays a part in the lives of most people in this country, whether through direct participation in university, through research or through its role in our local communities. We are all impacted by universities.
The sector is also crucial to our future prosperity and wealth as a country, but now it is facing severe challenges. Office for Students analysis suggests that without mitigating action, 45% of institutions face a deficit in ’25-26. English providers are attempting to manage significant financial pressures, including the £1.7 billion loss, in aggregate, on domestic teaching and the need for providers to draw on other income to cover it. Such challenges have been unaddressed for far too long, and seven years of frozen tuition fees, plus over-optimistic strategic and financial planning and potential issues with governance, have contributed to the financial challenges facing providers.
The Government have not shied away from these decisions. We started to fix the foundations by increasing fee limits for ’25-26 and boosting the sector’s income, but we must go further if we are to put the sector on a stable footing and provide it with the greater financial certainty that it needs. That can be achieved by boosting incomes, with conditions about improving the teaching quality.
That is why, through this draft SI, we intend to raise fee limits for a further two years. That is necessary to ensure that the sector can face the challenges of the next decade and that students today and in the future can receive a world-class higher education. It will mean that for the ’26-27 academic year, from 1 August ’26 onwards, tuition fee limits for undergraduate courses will increase by 2.71% and, for the ’27-28 academic year, from 1 August ’27 onwards, by a further 2.68%, in line with forecast inflation based on the RPIX inflation index. That means an increase to £9,790 for a standard full-time course in ’26-27 and to £10,050 in ’27-28. It means an increase to £11,750 for a full-time accelerated course in ’26-27 and to £12,060 in ’27-28. The fee limits that apply to lower fee foundation years for classroom-based subjects, such as business, social science and humanities, that begin on or after 1 August ’25 are preserved at ’25-26 levels for ’26-27 and ’27-28.
I recognise that people have concerns about the student finance system and the affordability of higher education. We inherited a broken system and we take borrowers’ complaints seriously. We have already committed to reintroducing maintenance grants and to future-proofing our maintenance support offer by increasing loans for living costs with forecast inflation every academic year from ’26-27. We will continue to look for ways to make the system fairer. The Government are firmly committed to ensuring that access to higher education is based on ability and aspiration, not financial means.
Eligible students can continue to apply for up-front fee loans to meet the full cost of their tuition. Given the inherited fiscal situation, we are making those necessary decisions to protect taxpayers and students. The Government continuously review student finance to ensure that it remains fair, sustainable and supportive of students from all backgrounds.
We have an expectation of the higher education sector too. We expect it to do more to improve access for those from disadvantaged backgrounds, and to focus on efficiency and specialisation to deliver the very best value for students and for the country. We will make future fee uplifts conditional on higher education providers achieving a high-quality threshold through the Office for Students quality regime. That will protect taxpayers’ investment in higher education and reward providers for high quality. We will set out further details on future changes to tuition fee caps in due course.
We are clear that the diversity of the sector is a strength, but each provider needs to be clear on their distinctive role in the system and to move away from a one-size-fits-all approach. Each provider needs to be well run, delivering the very best value for students and operating as efficiently as possible. To conclude, the draft SI will put our higher education sector on a more secure footing, giving it greater financial certainty and therefore enabling it to deliver the world-class higher education that current and future generations deserve.
The Chair
I am minded to allow consideration to continue, notwithstanding the fact that the explanatory note is in effect inaccurate. I appreciate the Minister’s courtesy in correcting that, but in future those things should be done in advance and in writing, and put on the Table so that all members of the Committee can see. I shall be saying to my fellow Chairs that that should be the rule that we adopt. For the convenience of all Members present, I shall now let us proceed with our consideration.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I think you were very magnanimous about the inaccuracies in the documents before us.
The real and growing burden on young people already struggling in a difficult labour market will only be added to by the draft regulations. The right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), now the Prime Minister, was elected leader of the Labour party on a pledge to scrap tuition fees altogether. The Education Secretary promised graduates that they would pay less under a Labour Government, offering “breathing space”, in her words, at the start of their working lives. Yet in office, Labour has done the exact opposite.
Tuition fees being raised by 3.1% to £9,535 was labelled “economically and morally wrong” by university chiefs. Perhaps the Government will be grateful that the impact assessment makes no reference to the impact on young people. The Government then froze repayment thresholds, an effective tax on graduates that Martin Lewis himself called
“not a moral thing to do”.
This is not breathing space; it is an attack on students.
To add insult to injury, universities did not even benefit, because every penny of those higher fees was wiped out by Labour’s job tax. Now, having already hammered students and graduates, the Government return to do it again, raising maximum tuition fees further to £9,790 next year and £10,050 a year later. That is after the Conservatives froze university tuition fees for eight years. The reality of plan 2 student loans means that millions of graduates’ debt is growing faster than they will ever be able to repay. I see that in my own team—they are looking at fees that go up and up, and at £72,000 or £80,000 of debt. That is something that we must fix. We must reflect on how we got there and ensure that we learn from mistakes and correct them.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
I find it quite astounding that the hon. Lady is making this statement, given that her party’s coalition Government with the Liberal Democrats almost tripled—tripled—tuition fees to £9,000 in 2012.
Alicia Kearns
Forgive me, but I did not hear a question in that intervention. It is basic courtesy in the House to ask a question in an intervention, but I congratulate the hon. Member on getting some points with the Whips there. If he had listened to my wording, I said that we should reflect and learn from how we got here. I was acknowledging that we must learn when we make mistakes—that is exactly what I just said. He takes me on to my next point, so I thank him for recognising that I said that we must learn from mistakes, but as there was no question, I cannot answer one.
The average plan 2 graduate must now earn £66,000 a year just to begin paying down their balance. Raising the fee cap makes that problem worse, not better. Youth unemployment stands at 16.1%, which is the highest in more than a decade, and higher than the European average; it is the first time our country has been in that place since records began. Graduate recruitment is at a record low, yet the Government’s answer is to load more debt on to young people’s shoulders. That is a betrayal of the young generation.
Young people deserve better than this, which is why the Conservatives are proposing a genuine new deal for young people. We will abolish real interest rates on plan 2 loans so that balances can never spiral beyond inflation again. We will guarantee fully funded apprenticeship places for 18 to 21-year-olds, and introduce a first job bonus to get young people into work and saving for their futures. Martin Lewis said that the Government’s approach is
“not a moral thing to do”
but, in contrast, he has welcomed our plan, and said that it is the right thing to do.
Higher fees without better outcomes is not a higher education policy. It is yet another broken policy from Labour, who are simply burdening young people with more and more debt.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Sir John.
I will speak briefly. The Liberal Democrats will not be supporting this draft instrument. We understand why the Government brought it forward: universities are under severe financial pressure and the sector needs sustainable funding. We absolutely accept that problem, but that does not mean that we accept the solution. Our position continues to be that any changes to fee limits must be part of a wider package of reform.
Students deserve to know not just what they will pay but whether repayment terms will be fair, whether the system as a whole will treat them honestly and that the terms will not be changed against them when it is convenient. At the moment, young people can see that those questions do not have satisfactory answers, and that is why we have called for a royal commission on graduate finance to address them properly.
Reform of student finance is only half the picture. We are also clear that fee increases should, in return, come with clear expectations on universities about demonstrable financial sustainability, transparent reporting of how money is spent and accountability on student outcomes. None of that conditionality is on offer here. Asking students to pay more while the underlying system remains unreformed, without clear accountability for how the money is used, is not something we can support.
The Chair
Minister, I assume that the correction slip that you drew the Committee’s attention to is going to be produced and delivered today.
Josh MacAlister
I thank Committee members for their contributions today. I will endeavour to respond to the points made by the hon. Members for Rutland and Stamford and for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire, but before I do, let me reiterate the importance of this statutory instrument for putting our higher education sector on a secure financial footing and providing the financial certainty that it needs. I have not heard how either the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats would propose to do that in the absence of this statutory instrument for the financial years under discussion.
There are few phrases to describe the position of the Conservative party other than “crocodile tears”. The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford highlighted repayment thresholds. I have not had the chance to look at her speeches or voting record from the time, but from 2012 onward the Conservative Government of the day designed and introduced the very system that she is now criticising. In the year that the system was introduced, they made a commitment not to freeze thresholds but to increase them. However, in their very first year, they froze the thresholds.
Josh MacAlister
I would be delighted to give way if the hon. Lady will answer this question: how many other times were thresholds frozen by that Government?
Alicia Kearns
I do not want the Minister to unnecessarily age me in this debate, so I want to put on record that, unfortunately, I cannot give him that data on my voting record because I was just finishing university then and was still enjoying the joys of life.
Josh MacAlister
I am pleased to hear that that is where the hon. Lady was at that time. The Conservative Government and the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition froze thresholds 10 times.
Ian Sollom
The Minister has made that point in several debates. I would just like to explain that the commitment was to raise thresholds from when the first cohort graduated, which was in 2016. That was indeed why Martin Lewis investigated the issue and considered judicial review in 2016. There was no freezing of thresholds prior to that. They were due to rise from 2016. I am sure the Minister did not mean to misinform us.
Josh MacAlister
Certainly not. In fact, the current student loan system—I believe it is plan 5—which is due to come online with the first graduates this year, has been increased in line with inflation by this Government. The point stands that the choice of the Government back then was to maintain the threshold where it was and effectively freeze it, capturing many more people into the system. The cumulative effect of 10 threshold freezes in a decade where inflation was ticking up is being felt by students now.
It is somewhat galling to hear that the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are outraged that this Government, who were able to find the money to lift the threshold in our first year in office, are now balancing difficult decisions so that we can make sure that we have the funding needed for further education, since over half of students do not go to university and need a well-resourced skills system. Both parties seem now to be walking away from their responsibility to make a system that they designed work effectively, which is unfortunate.
The Committee will know how crucial this sector is for our economic growth—I am sure this is felt across the House. Members will recognise its importance in contributing to research and innovation and the impact that it has on local communities and the lives of students. Challenges in higher education have been left unaddressed for far too long, and providers have suffered a significant real-terms decline in their income.
The Government have not shied away from the decisions that are needed. We took action to raise the fee cap in 2025-26, and we have committed to bringing back maintenance grants and future-proofing maintenance loans for students, but we need to go further so that that our higher education sector can continue to deliver the world-class education and research that this country and future generations deserve.
Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)
I want to make a short intervention, as we may divide on this instrument. Although the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats do not have a leg to stand on in this debate, I have to take issue with the idea that by simply increasing the fee structure, we put universities on a secure and stable footing. They rely on cross-subsidy from international students, and it is widely debated outside this place as to whether the funding model in chaos and crisis.
In the end, we have a stonking great majority in the House of Commons, and we need to be thinking about reform that goes much further so that the university sector is fit for the modern day—especially for the AI revolution that is coming.
Josh MacAlister
I appreciate my hon. Friend drawing the Committee’s attention to the wider debate around higher education funding at the moment. It is true to say that fee income is only one line of income for universities and that they are facing a whole bunch of pressures in a competitive environment. The Government are committed to looking at the student loan system and making it fairer. I have made that commitment, as have the Prime Minister and the Education Secretary.
One urgent point that I would draw the Committee’s attention to is that a number of years of freezes on the tuition fee cap has eroded the income value, which is a significant income stream for universities. If that were to continue, it would further heighten the situation. As a Minister, I have spent time listening to MPs making very powerful representations about the challenges that universities in their constituencies face because of the legacy of the erosion of the value of the fee income. If we were to not increase fees in line with inflation, which is what we are talking about here, it would further add to that funding challenge that universities face. I do not think it would be responsible for us to do that, given that the financial years we are talking about are pretty imminent.
Alicia Kearns
The Minister has opened the box on the topic of funding for universities by mentioning how central that funding is. One of my gravest concerns is the amount of money that is coming from the Chinese Communist party into our universities. Does the Minister believe that by taking this action today, the Government will be able to focus on cracking down on those universities that seem to think there is no problem with taking vast sums from China, which then threatens MPs by saying that it will not take the children of sanctioned MPs at its universities or that it will withdraw all funding from universities if the Dalai Lama speaks at them or there are efforts by Hongkongers or others? Given that the Government are taking action to make sure that universities have a more valid footing, will he make sure that those funding streams are cracked down on?
The Chair
Order. We are not debating how universities are funded by overseas territories, but I will let that go. Minister, you may respond very briefly on that point, and then we will move on.
Josh MacAlister
I am sure that the Committee will be delighted that I will give a short answer, and I can provide a point of reassurance. Of course, universities have responsibility to ensure that they contribute to upholding human rights and freedom of speech, and they have an important role to play in that. We have plans to strengthen their role and responsibility in that respect along with the role of the Office for Students. It is an important point to highlight, even though it is not directly relevant to this SI.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Employment Rights Act 2025 (Investigatory Powers) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 12 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Employment Rights Act 2025 (Investigatory Powers) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. The draft regulations are narrow, necessary and strictly consequential. When Parliament passed the Employment Rights Act 2025, it took the clear policy decision to bring the criminal enforcement functions of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority into the new Fair Work Agency. Those functions include the ability for the GLAA, as provided for in schedule 4 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, to obtain authorisations to acquire communications data in the most serious cases of labour exploitation.
The sole purpose of this instrument is to ensure that this capability continues seamlessly when the Fair Work Agency becomes operational in April. It updates the statutory reference that currently names the GLAA, so that the same powers are available to the new agency when carrying out serious exploitation investigations that were previously undertaken by the GLAA.
Let me be clear about what the draft regulations do not do: they do not create new investigatory powers; they do not widen the scope of existing powers under the 2016 Act; and they do not lower statutory thresholds, alter authorisation routes or touch surveillance, entry or financial investigation powers. All those sit in primary legislation and remain entirely intact. This statutory instrument simply avoids an unintended enforcement gap following the transition.
Members of the Committee may also have noticed that an earlier version of this instrument was withdrawn. This was done to correct a technical drafting point where the original text duplicated a removal of the GLAA from schedule 4 that already occurs automatically under the primary Act. The corrected instrument before the Committee today makes no change to substance or policy.
Turning briefly to safeguards, communications data is not the content of calls, texts or emails—it is the who, when and where, not the what. In practice, this means information such as subscriber details, phone numbers, call durations, IP addresses, email logs and location data from mobile devices, but never the content itself. It can only be acquired by the Fair Work Agency for serious criminal investigations—that is, for offences that carry at least a 12-month custodial sentence, and only when necessary and proportionate.
In practice, the GLAA has used these powers sparingly, and only in some of the most complex and organised exploitation cases, often where victims are too frightened or unable to come forward. Those safeguards carry over in full to the Fair Work Agency. Every application will continue to go through single point of contact gatekeeping, and routine cases will continue to require authorisation by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office, which will continue to inspect and oversee use of these powers, exactly as now.
It is worth underlining that the value of these powers lies not in their frequency of use but in their precision. Communications data is a targeted tool that helps investigators build a clearer picture of organised exploitation, where victims may be isolated, threatened or unable to speak freely. It allows enforcement bodies to corroborate other intelligence and identify links between offenders and locations. Used properly, and under strict oversight, it is a vital element of the wider framework that Parliament has already put in place to confront the most serious forms of labour abuse.
To illustrate the value of these powers in practice, I can point to a recent case in which communications data played a vital role. Forty one vulnerable workers were brought to the UK with promises of decent work and accommodation, only to be exploited by an organised group. Their wages were taken, false identities were created and they were housed in unsafe and overcrowded conditions. Managers within the employing business even assisted the exploitation by diverting wages and acting as unlicensed gangmasters. Access to communications data enabled investigators to uncover the links between the organisers and those inside the firm, revealing patterns of wage diversion, false accounts, excessive deductions and, crucially, further victims. Faced with that clear evidence, the offenders pleaded guilty and received custodial sentences.
On transparency, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner will continue to report annually on the use of the powers, providing Parliament with a clear overview of how they are exercised. Additionally, the Fair Work Agency will report on its use of the powers in its annual report. As we bring three enforcement bodies together, the aim is a clearer system for workers and a simpler one for responsible employers.
Those who exploit workers, particularly through coercive, abusive or criminal practices, must not be given the opportunity to exploit gaps during transition. Ensuring the continuity of capability from day one of the Fair Work Agency is essential to that. The draft regulations provide that continuity without changing the law on when or how investigatory powers may be used, without broadening the Investigatory Powers Act and without altering any of the strong safeguards that Parliament has put in place.
This is a precise and technical instrument that ensures that Parliament’s decisions in the Employment Rights Act can operate exactly as intended when the agency becomes fully operational. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
It is an absolute honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart; you delivered the title of this legislation with a dryness that belies its purpose and impact on our economy. The instrument looks tiny—there is hardly anything in it—yet I am going to argue that the Committee should vote against it this afternoon. It may look like a technical mechanism, and the Minister described it as such, but it equips the Fair Work Agency with state-level surveillance tools previously reserved for tackling the serious and organised crime that occurs in the gangmaster sector, and applies those investigatory powers across our entire economy. The creation of the Fair Work Agency, a consolidated super-regulator with enhanced snooping powers, represents a significant overreach of the state into the private operations of British businesses.
I hope that not only my Conservative colleagues, but possibly Labour colleagues, and certainly Liberal Democrat colleagues, will vote against this instrument. Currently, the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority focuses on high-risk industries, such as agriculture and fishing, where there have been abuses. These changes will allow the Fair Work Agency to snoop everywhere across every workplace in this country. We oppose this statutory instrument as it formalises the transition towards a more litigious and more monitored labour market, which will inevitably stifle start-ups and entrepreneurs and increase the regulatory burden on small and medium-sized enterprises. It is not a proportionate or balanced approach to enforcement.
We have heard repeatedly from business groups about the cumulative pressure that they are under. The British Retail Consortium has warned that margins in retail are already at breaking point. The Confederation of British Industry speaks of a “chilling” effect on hiring as firms brace for more aggressive enforcement. This instrument will give those powers. The Federation of Small Businesses has been clear that tighter scrutiny, combined with rising employment costs, will force many small firms to reduce hours, cut staff or automate roles entirely—something that we are sadly already seeing in the monthly unemployment statistics.
The Minister claimed that the statutory instrument simply ensures continuity following the abolition of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority. Of course it does as far as that sector is concerned, but in so doing widens that to the entire economy via the Fair Work Agency. It is not a like-for-like replacement. We are seeing a super-regulator with a far wider remit and far stronger powers. Those reasons, alongside our commitment to repealing the vast majority of the job-destroying Employment Rights Act, are why we oppose this statutory instrument today. We urge all other hon. Members to do so, too.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I was not planning to make a speech, but since the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire, said she plans to vote against this statutory instrument and invited me to join her, I feel I should get some remarks on the record on behalf of my party. I thank her for her kind invitation, but I plan to vote with the Government on establishing the Fair Work Agency, in line with the policy of my party throughout the progress of the Employment Rights Bill.
We support the setting up of the Fair Work Agency. It brings together the powers of several different bodies into one unified place, and that is really important. I hear what the shadow Minister is saying about extending the GLAA powers, but I think there is a bigger win here in setting up the Fair Work Agency: it would not only provide a better route for employees to establish their rights in the workplace, but relieve the burden of tribunals from employers, if it works as intended.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I am genuinely shocked and surprised to hear the Liberal Democrat line, because I seem to remember when these investigatory powers—including the right to snoop on communications—were first brought in, the hon. Lady’s party was vehemently against them, yet here we are giving these powers to an agency that will cover every job in this land.
Sarah Olney
I hear the hon. Lady, but I repeat what I said: the setting up of the Fair Work Agency is an important step towards ensuring that employees can assert their rights in the workplace and that employers will not be burdened unduly with the costs of tribunals. That is why the Liberal Democrats have supported the setting up of the Fair Work Agency from the start.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
Businesses in my constituency have told me categorically that they are very concerned about this. Entrepreneurs who have taken all the risks to create jobs in their communities run the risk of the Fair Work Agency, which will be given these powers, coming into their businesses and riding roughshod over the work they are creating. How is that liberal and democratic?
Sarah Olney
It is very kind of the hon. Lady to ask me that. This is obviously the Government’s statutory instrument, so I am not entirely certain why I am getting all the scrutiny here. I repeat again that we have supported the setting up of the Fair Work Agency from the very start and support the measures in this statutory instrument that contribute to that.
I hear the hon. Lady’s concerns, and the concerns of businesses in Bognor Regis. The Liberal Democrats are obviously concerned to ensure that any request for information from businesses is made proportionately, and only in response to legitimate concerns about employers treating their employees fairly. That is what we would expect the Fair Work Agency to do. I will finish by reiterating that we support the setting up of the Fair Work Agency and this statutory instrument.
Kate Dearden
I thank the shadow Minister for her contributions and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for her support for this statutory instrument. It might be helpful for me to run through the purpose of the particular SI, which I hope I made clear in my introductory remarks. I will touch on a few things that the shadow Minister has raised.
To repeat: we are replacing one specified body with a successor. The Fair Work Agency’s remit, as debated across Parliament, is established in the Employment Rights Act, which brings together the existing functions of the GLAA, the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’s national minimum wage enforcement.
On what the shadow Minister alluded to, the Act does include the delegated power to add further labour market enforcement functions in future, subject to new regulations and parliamentary scrutiny. However, this SI does not use that power and does not add any new enforcement functions; it is purely consequential. No new powers have been created previously under the GLAA, as I alluded to in my opening remarks. The Fair Work Agency will only be able to request the use of these powers to investigate offences under the GLAA’s previous remit, and for other offences added to the Fair Work Agency’s remit by the Employment Rights Act—which we debated.
For the sake of detail, the only offences in the FWA’s remit that meet the serious crime threshold in the Investigatory Powers Act that I talked about in my opening remarks are as follows: offences under the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 and the Modern Slavery Act 2015 that were part of the GLAA’s remit, and offences under section 1 of the Fraud Act 2006 that was added to the Fair Work Agency’s remit by the Employment Rights Act, and was debated in the House. The Serious Fraud Office can already request the use of those powers to investigate those offences. The offence of failing to comply with a labour market enforcement order under section 139 of the Employment Rights Act supersedes an offence under the Immigration Act 2016, which is in the GLAA’s remit. The GLAA has never sought the use of these powers to investigate the offence in the Immigration Act. Offences under sections 140 and 142 of the Employment Rights Act are for Scotland only and were considered by the House in Committee.
I hope that it is clear what we are debating today. The offences to which the power relates do not change, only the remit does. We have transferred over the powers of existing enforcement bodies, but added extra safeguards—at present, a warrant is not needed to enter a dwelling, for example. It is clear what this SI will do. Continuing as normal would weaken enforcement, which would not be good for businesses or those who are on the most vulnerable side of the labour market and who need the Government on their side to make sure that their rights are enforced and that they are supported at work, and to stop modern slavery.
That is why this SI is so important. It is disappointing that the Opposition will be voting against it—I thought that we would be on the same page—because the question today is whether serious labour exploitation investigations should continue uninterrupted, and when the new agency goes live. It is quite simple and technical, as I have alluded to. I thank the Liberal Democrats for their support and urge all colleagues to support this necessary legislation so that we can crack on with enforcement and support the agency in doing so.
Question put.
Proposed New Town in Adlington, Cheshire
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
Fur: Import and Sale
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read 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
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the import and sale of fur and related products.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Ms Jardine. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing a debate on fur today. I am grateful for the opportunity to lead a debate on a topic as important as the UK’s continuing trade in animal fur, and in relation to my Fur (Import and Sale) Bill.
To explain the problem with fur, I will start with a true story about a man, a dog and a fox. The man was a prominent leader in the international fur industry and had spent 10 years of his professional career defending the fur trade against accusations of cruelty and working to try to get designers to use fur in their collections. He had increasingly found that to be an uphill struggle. One of his roles in the fur industry was to promote welfare standards on fur farms, and that saw him travel to fur farms around the world.
One day the man found himself on a fur farm in Poland. On that farm, about 1,000 foxes spent every day of their lives in wire cages only a little bigger than they were, about 1 metre square. It was the rough equivalent of a person living their whole life in a phone box. The rows of cages stretched as far as the man could see. Some animals were spinning in desperate circles—a sign of mental collapse. Others were just slumped in hopeless heaps on the wire-mesh floors. All were waiting for the day when they would be electrocuted to be turned into a coat trim or perhaps a bobble hat.
As the man toured the farm with the Polish industry bosses, he locked eyes unexpectedly with a fox. She had beautiful silvery-grey fur, a white stripe down the middle of her nose and shiny hazel eyes. Quite without meaning to, he connected with her, and her eyes told him something. Returning home to the UK the next day, the man was greeted by his adoring Labrador, Barney. After the enthusiastic tail wagging had subsided, the man looked at Barney, and Barney looked back, eyes full of love, optimism and energy. In that moment, the man saw what he had been missing for years—the connection between these two sentient beings. He realised that if anyone tried to do to his Barney what the fur industry was doing to millions of foxes, he would do everything in his power to stop it and help him. In that moment, he decided that he could no longer defend the indefensible and he resigned from working for the fur trade. But he did not just slip off into obscurity. Mike Moser, because that is who it was, approached anti-fur campaigner Claire Bass at Humane World for Animals, explained his change of heart and mind, and offered his insights and services in its campaign for a fur-free Britain.
I have much respect for Mike, who joins us here today. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that his powerful testimony against the fur trade is worth bringing to the attention of the House. Mike says:
“Over time I realised that whatever soundbites we devised to reassure consumers, retailers and politicians, neither welfare regulations nor any industry certification scheme, would ever change the reality of these animals being stuck in tiny wire cages for their entire lives.”
I am grateful for the strong support from so many hon. Members for my Fur (Import and Sale) Bill. It is simple in principle and modest in scope, but overwhelming in its justification. It would end the import of animal fur into Great Britain and prohibit the sale of new fur products in England, while allowing appropriate exemptions and of course respecting devolved competence. In doing so, it would finally bring our law into line with our values, because the truth is this. The United Kingdom banned fur farming more than 20 years ago because we recognised it as inherently inhumane, yet by allowing tens of millions of pounds-worth of fur to be imported here, we continue to be complicit in exactly the same cruelty overseas. My Bill seeks to end that double standard.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
I know that the hon. Member will agree that fur is not just a by-product, but a product that relies on animals being caged, confined and killed solely for their pelts, and that a ban on the import and sale of fur would be a proportionate measure, consistent with our ethics, and would end our complicity in the wholly unnecessary suffering of animals.
Ruth Jones
I could not have put it better myself. Let us be clear about what the fur trade involves. Each year, tens of millions of animals, including foxes, mink and raccoons, are still trapped solely for fashion. On farms, they are confined for their entire lives in barren wire cages, unable to run, dig, swim or express the most basic natural behaviours.
Investigations on fur farms by organisations including Humane World for Animals repeatedly show animals suffering extreme physical and psychological distress, self-mutilation, cannibalism and untreated injuries, before being killed at around eight months of age, commonly by gassing or anal electrocution. Importantly, that suffering is well documented on farms that operate under the industry’s “welfare assurance” scheme.
Animals trapped for their fur can be caught in maiming metal-jawed traps and left trapped for days with no food or water, exposed to the elements, before a trapper finally returns to kill them. Extremely disturbing footage from undercover investigations into trapping in the US by Born Free USA, Respect for Animals and Humane World for Animals shows trappers laughing as they bludgeon trapped animals to death and drown a terrified raccoon in a river.
There is no such thing as humanely produced or responsibly sourced fur. The European Food Safety Authority recently published scientific opinion on the welfare of animals kept for fur production, which clearly showed that the needs of animals such as mink, foxes, raccoons, dogs and chinchillas cannot be met on fur farms. The report also concludes that suffering cannot be prevented or substantially mitigated in current fur farming systems, which include so-called “high welfare” farms in Europe. Underscoring that, Mike Moser has publicly stated:
“Having spent so many years working to defend the fur industry, it is now my strongly held view that while animals continue to be caged, no improvement to nor strengthening of fur farming regulations will ever prevent the welfare problems and cruelty that are systemic to the fur industry.”
There is no meaningful dispute that the fur trade has suffering written through its DNA. Under a Labour Government, the UK recognised that when it became the first country in the world to ban fur farming on animal welfare grounds. Since then, 23 countries have followed our lead. The question before us today is not whether fur farming is cruel—Parliament has already answered that. The question is if it is too cruel to produce here, why are we allowing it to be sold here?
Despite our domestic ban, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs records show that the UK imports between £30 million and £40 million-worth of fur every year—equivalent to as many as 1 million animals killed annually to be traded here. Although fur is extremely unpopular in Britain’s shops and wardrobes, and only 3% of people say that they would wear fur, by the fur trade’s own admission, the UK is a trading hub for the global industry. Banning fur imports would remove that vital piece of the industry’s trading landscape, and so hasten its demise.
The case for a ban on fur imports and sales does not rest on animal welfare alone. Leading virologists around the world, including from Imperial College London, have warned that fur farms represent a serious threat to public health, describing them as an
“important transmission hub for viral zoonoses”
equivalent to other high-risk practices like the bush meat trade and live animal markets. They are a ticking time bomb for the next pandemic to occur.
Hundreds of outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 and highly pathogenic avian influenza have been recorded on fur farms in recent years. Viruses have mutated, spread rapidly between animals, and been passed back to humans. During the covid-19 pandemic, millions of animals were culled and fur farms shut down in several countries on public health grounds. Yet the industry continues. At a time when Parliament speaks about resilience, prevention and learning the lessons of covid, continuing to be complicit in the public health risk of the global fur trade is indefensible.
In its death throes, the fur industry has attempted to rebrand itself as environmentally friendly, but those claims do not withstand scrutiny. Fur production is resource-intensive, highly polluting and carbon heavy. For example, 1 kg of mink fur generates around seven times more greenhouse gas emissions than 1 kg of beef, and requires over half a tonne of meat feed. Fur processing also relies on toxic and carcinogenic chemicals to prevent decomposition and to dye the fur. Meanwhile, faux fur technology has advanced rapidly, with British designers using recycled and plant-based materials, many of them biodegradable. Ending the UK fur trade will support innovation, not greenwashing.
The public are far ahead of the law on this issue. More than three quarters of voters believe that when a farming practice is banned in the UK for cruelty, imports produced in the same way should also be banned. More than 1.5 million people have signed petitions calling for a ban and over 200 MPs and peers support the campaign for a fur-free Britain led by Humane World for Animals, FOUR PAWS, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Labour Animal Welfare Society, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Animal Aid and others. The vast majority of British retailers and designers have also moved on from fur. Major brands and British department stores do not sell fur. In 2023, the British Fashion Council banned real fur from London Fashion Week. It is time that our laws caught up with society on the issue of fur.
Some hon. Members may wonder about the economic impact of a ban. I can provide assurance that the fur trade is already in steep decline globally. Fur production has fallen by over 85% in the last decade. In the UK, the sector is tiny, employing only a few dozen people, many of whom already trade in alternative materials or services. There is also a clear consumer protection benefit to a ban. A few years ago, there was high-profile coverage by the BBC, Sky News and others exposing the scandal of fake faux fur—real fur being sold as fake fur. That problem has improved thanks to the efforts of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the Advertising Standards Authority, Trading Standards and Humane World for Animals, but it is still today possible to buy a bobble hat on a popular online retailer that is described as fake fur but is, in fact, made of fox. That leaves would-be ethical consumers unable to buy with confidence in accordance with their values.
A ban on all animal fur would simplify and strengthen enforcement and restore confidence. The evidence for this ban has been gathered, tested and confirmed for years. Parliamentary inquiries have been held and a Government call for evidence attracted tens of thousands of responses, with over 96% agreeing it is wrong to kill animals for fur. Public opinion, scientific evidence and the economic case are clear.
I was proud when, in opposition, Labour’s shadow Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minister stated support for a fur-free Britain. We now have an opportunity to make that a reality. I press the Minister today for any details that she may be able to provide on the timing of the publication of the results of the Government’s 2021 call for evidence on the fur trade, as well as the report on the UK fur trade by the DEFRA Animal Welfare Committee. I also place on record my hope that processed animal fur will be left squarely outside the scope of the UK’s ongoing sanitary and phytosanitary negotiations with the EU. As an important agreement to smooth trade in agrifood, it should not concern itself with trying to reach a common position on the trade in furry bobble hats any more than it should worry about trade in leather shoes.
I am grateful to the Minister for the formation of a working group to address the UK fur trade, and I hope that it can conduct its business in the coming months with haste, followed by the political will to act in accordance with public opinion and end the UK’s cruel, outdated and unnecessary fur trade.
Several hon. Members rose—
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) for securing this important debate.
I think that we will rightly repeat several of the key issues and reasons why the import of fur products should be banned in the UK and those points are absolutely crucial. As we have heard, the United Kingdom banned fur farming over two decades ago because Parliament rightly recognised the extreme and unnecessary cruelty it inflicts on defenceless animals. Yet today we continue to allow the import and sale of fur products produced using precisely the same methods that we judged unacceptable within our own borders. That contradiction is simply impossible to defend. If fur farming is rightfully recognised as too cruel to permit in this country, then it also should be considered too cruel to profit from its proceeds.
Every year, tens of millions of animals across the world are confined to small wire cages or trapped in the wild solely for their fur. An estimated 85 million to 100 million animals globally are farmed or trapped for their fur. Investigations and scientific assessment have shown repeatedly that such conditions fail to meet animals’ most basic behavioural needs and cause severe and inhumane suffering; but do we really need scientific studies to prove that the way in which fur is farmed and animals are trapped is inhumane and causes suffering? Of course not; we can see it with our own eyes.
These are wild animals who should be allowed to roam free in the wild, but are instead kept locked up in tiny cages in deplorable conditions. Once their pelts are ready, they are gassed or anally electrocuted, as we have heard. Many of the animals are killed at about the age of one year, when their pelts are in their prime. That is the real nature of the system that continues to supply the global fur trade. While the UK banned fur farming domestically, we remain inextricably connected to the system through the import of furs.
As we heard from the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn, figures from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs show that the UK continues to import about £30 million to £40 million-worth of fur products each year, which equates to an estimate of about 1 million animals annually. That raises an obvious ethical question.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
Last year, I was pleased to promote a private Member’s Bill—now the Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Act 2025—to stop puppy smuggling, specifically given the issue of ear cropping. It has been illegal to crop a dog’s ears in the UK since 2006, but it was legal to import dogs with cropped ears. We thought that it was unacceptable to do that in the UK on welfare grounds, but people were getting around the loophole by acquiring dogs from abroad. This seems to be exactly the same thing. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should not be offshoring our ethical animal welfare issues by banning something in the UK but allowing people to get those products from abroad? If we think something is unacceptable here, it should be unacceptable anywhere.
Iqbal Mohamed
I completely agree, and I was happy to support the hon. Gentleman’s private Member’s Bill and speak in the debate. Anything that we deem unacceptable or cruel in our country is unacceptable or cruel wherever it is done, and we should not help to perpetuate that cruelty elsewhere around the world.
The ethical question is, as the hon. Gentleman just said, why are we comfortable outsourcing animal cruelty to other countries simply because it then occurs beyond our shores? Increasingly, the general public recognise the incoherence of that perverse position. There has been a profound sea change in British public attitudes to the fur trade. A YouGov survey found that 93% of people in the UK do not wear real fur and, as we heard, 97% would never wear real fur. A 2023 poll found that 77% believe that when a type of farming is banned in the UK for being too cruel, we should also ban imports of products produced in the same way overseas. An easy win for the Government would be to implement a policy that is widely popular: such cruelty is unacceptable to the people of our country. In other words, that is not a controversial position among the public, but reflects a widely shared, common-sense position that the fur trade is outdated and unnecessary in the 21st century.
The economic case for maintaining the fur trade is increasingly weak. The UK fur market has been in steep decline over the past decade. Fur imports now represent just a tiny fraction of the UK’s overall clothing trade. Many major brands and global luxury houses have already turned away from fur entirely, and London Fashion Week banned its use in 2023. The direction of travel is clear: the industry is dying, consumer demand is collapsing and alternatives are widely available.
Environmental and public health concerns are also associated with fur production. Studies have shown that the carbon footprint of fur significantly exceeds that of many other materials used in fashion, given the intensive farming of carnivorous wild animals and the process it entails. Meanwhile, outbreaks of SARS—severe acute respiratory syndrome—and avian influenza on fur farms have highlighted the risks that such facilities can pose as potential transmission hubs for zoonotic disease, thereby increasing the likelihood of future pandemics.
Taken together, the case for a more comprehensive ban is compelling. I welcome the efforts of colleagues who have brought forward proposals to prohibit the import and sale of fur in the United Kingdom, including the Fur (Import and Sale) Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn. Such legislation would close the obvious loophole that currently exists in our animal welfare framework.
The UK was once a global leader in banning fur farming. Many other countries followed our example. We now have an opportunity to lead again, by ending our association with a trade that is morally repugnant, environmentally harmful, economically marginal and overwhelmingly rejected by the public. There is no such thing as humane fur farming, wherever it takes place, and it must end now.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) for all the work that she does championing animal rights in this space. Whereas she spoke about the fur in a bobble hat, I am going to talk about King’s Guard caps and the use of black bear pelts, which the Government have committed to ending. This has been a commitment for decades, and yet we are still seeing the import of black bear fur.
In the past, the Ministry of Defence believed that the black bear fur came from licensed culls; the Canadian authorities have denied that, both at federal and provincial government levels, saying that there is no such thing as licensed culls. We therefore know that trophy hunters are the source—something that this House has campaigned on time and again. We must ensure that, under this Labour Government, we see an end to trophy hunting.
Coming back to the issue of the King’s Guard caps, we know that trade through the work of trophy hunters leads to bears—killed in a random way—often dying slowly and in much distress through blood loss, infection and starvation. The future is perilous for those cubs that lose their mums. We need to ensure that those pelts do not move on to the auction houses from which the MOD purchases them.
Only part of the pelt is actually used—the bit with longer fur. The rest of the pelt is simply thrown away. It is costing us as taxpayers—this is what I find so repugnant: it has cost us £1 million over the past decade. One thousand bears have been killed to put on the heads of soldiers. What on earth is that all about? When there are faux fur alternatives available, which have been developed with great skill, we need to ensure that we use them.
Faux fur mimics, and even outperforms, real fur with regard to waterproofing; it is lighter, it dries more quickly and it springs back into shape. The chemicals and water used in the making of faux fur are recycled, ensuring that it is environmentally friendly as well as ethical. Faux fur has uniformity of colour and fur length, and it can be developed from a bio-based fabric. The MOD must stop placing these pelts on the heads of soldiers. More than 75% of the public support that, so it is an obvious move.
I call on all hon. Members present to sign early-day motion 2907 in my name to ensure that we end the use of this cruel method of both ceremonially parading these dead animals through our streets and having them standing outside Buckingham Palace. I find it shameful; it must end. What steps is the Minister taking to end the use of bearskins, and what discussions has she had with the MOD concerning that? Will the Minister halt the purchase of any further pelts from this point on, pending a review, and will she ensure that we use faux fur as an alternative to bearskin pelts? I am sure that nobody would disagree with such a move, and it would be such an improvement. Doing so would have no bearing on the safety of soldiers, but would restore safety to bears, so that we can take pride in knowing that animals are not being paraded on the heads of our soldiers.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) for highlighting this topic, which is important to many of my constituents. I get regular comments and queries about it.
I put it on the record that it is wrong to kill an animal for its fur. That is the point I start on, as did the hon. Lady; other speakers have said, and will say, the same. Fur farming was first banned in England and Wales. That was closely followed by the introduction of similar legislation in the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Parliament in 2002. I well remember voting for the legislative change for which the hon. Lady advocates, in my former role as a Member of the Legislative Assembly, and I support her quest.
As a country sports enthusiast, I firmly believe that any animal killed should be used in its entirety, and that animals should not be bred for this purpose. On the rare occasion that I get to shoot—usually twice a year, on Boxing day and new year’s day—all my neighbours look forward to seeing game hanging from their doors, where I usually leave the pheasants, ducks and pigeons as we acquire them, as the meals made from that can be enjoyed by the whole family. When we were in the Assembly, Baroness Foster, the former First Minister, and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) were probably in receipt of pheasants and ducks at least once a month, which they too enjoyed. My point is that there is a role in harvesting the birds that we rear and that nature produces, so that we can then enjoy them, but in those cases every possible effort was made to ensure that the birds were used in their entirety, as is right and proper.
I supported the ban more than 20 years ago, and I continue to support it now. It seems incongruous that we have for so long allowed the back door entrance of fur that could not be processed here, yet had been processed elsewhere and shipped in. The hon. Lady’s principle is clear: if there is a loophole, let us close it up to make sure that that cannot happen. While I am not an advocate for the wilful destruction of any antique pieces—in other words, furs that have been passed down generationally—supporting the trade simply to take place elsewhere defeats the efforts that we in this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have made.
For that reason, I believe that it is past time that we close that loophole and gap by disallowing the importation of this fur for sale. In that, I believe that I speak for the large majority of my constituents, who regularly make their views known to me on this subject. I again thank the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn, who has been a doughty campaigner—the word “doughty” is used often, but it describes the hon. Lady well. We thank her for her diligence in raising this matter.
I hope that the Minister will support the Bill and its intentions, as highlighted by the hon. Lady and others in this debate, and will enable its smooth and effective passage through Parliament. We all know that time in the Chamber for the passage of private Members’ Bills is precious, but I think we can all agree that this Bill deserves time and attention to get it right, to ensure that the entire United Kingdom has the same rules—including Northern Ireland, where the intentions and requests are similar—and to answer the questions around its use in military uniforms, on which the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) put forward a clear case. I have seen her EDM and have added my name to it.
Work needs to be done to get it right, but I believe the desire is here, in this Chamber and in Parliament as a whole. I look forward to the Minister’s helping to progress the Bill to prevent the import and sale of fur and other products. Again, well done to the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn. The objectives that we are all trying to achieve are worthy; constituents want them, and this House will hopefully endorse them in their entirety.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) for securing the debate and for all her dedicated work to bring us closer to achieving a truly fur-free Britain.
The UK was the first country in the world to ban fur farming. That is a stance of which we should rightly be proud. It has set an example for others to follow: since our decision, 21 other countries have taken the same step to end fur production. However, we still permit the import and sale of fur and fur products, effectively outsourcing the cruelty. Our position should be consistent. If fur is too cruel to farm here, it is too cruel, full stop. I strongly support my hon. Friend’s fur Bill, which would prohibit the importation and sale of fur in the UK.
The case for ending the UK’s role in supporting the fur industry, whether directly or indirectly, rests on three central arguments: cruelty, environmental harm and the risks to human health. First, there is the cruelty. There is no such thing as humane fur farming. It is estimated that each year more than 100 million animals are killed worldwide, solely for their fur. Some 95% of fur on the global market comes from fur farms, where animals spend their entire lives in cages that are typically only slightly larger than the animals themselves. Such conditions subject them to enormous mental and physical suffering. Many animals exhibit signs of severe distress, including self-mutilation and cannibalism, because the environment is so unnatural and restrictive.
Secondly, fur farming is exceptionally damaging to the environment. The carbon footprint associated with producing animal fur is shockingly high. For example, producing 1 kg of mink fur creates seven times more emissions than producing 1 kg of beef. On top of that, the tanning and dyeing processes rely on a cocktail of toxic and carcinogenic chemicals to prevent the pelts from decomposing.
Finally, the industry poses risks to human health. In recent years, there have been hundreds of outbreaks of severe acute respiratory syndrome and highly pathogenic avian influenza on fur farms, clearly illustrating the threat that the industry presents to public health. Let us not forget that during the covid-19 pandemic, millions of animals were culled and fur farming was halted in several countries, yet now the practice continues.
A ban on the import and sale of fur would strengthen the UK’s reputation as a global leader on animal welfare and would let us take a firm stance on the environmental and health concerns associated with the trade. It would set an important precedent for other countries, just as our original ban on fur farming did. We have a clear opportunity to end the double standard. I urge the Government to support my hon. Friend’s Bill. Diolch yn fawr.
Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) for the excellent work that she has done and continues to do on this important campaign. I fully support her Fur (Import and Sale) Bill. I am pleased to say that my constituents have highlighted this debate and asked me to attend. I would have attended anyway, as she knows.
I shall keep this brief, as many points have already been raised. I will focus on fashion. More than 1,600 companies are registered as fur-free on Fur Free Retailer, including leading British designers such as Stella McCartney who pioneer innovative faux fur alternatives. We have already heard how easily faux fur can be produced and used. In 2023, the British Fashion Council introduced a ban on real fur at London Fashion Week, which has continued. Those moves are very welcome.
Farming for fur is inhumane. The fur trade is intense, and the animals are kept in barren wire cages with no ability to act out their natural behaviours. Most cages are only 1 square metre larger than the animals themselves. An investigation by animal welfare charities found that animals experience horrific physical and mental suffering, including self-mutilation and cannibalism.
A Labour Government introduced legislation in 2000 and implemented a fur farming ban here in 2002, making the UK the first country in the world to take that step. Some 21 other countries have now ended fur production, and I hope more will follow. Fortunately, the fur industry is declining and far fewer people are wearing real fur. Years ago, people would even wear dead foxes around their shoulders, although I have no idea why anyone wanted to.
A fur ban is a necessary step towards ending this cruel and unnecessary practice. A UK ban on fur import and sales would send a hugely important global message to those countries that are still engaged in cruel and dangerous fur farming, thereby protecting public health and animal welfare, which should surely be more important than fur for fashion, as we have many alternatives. I very much welcome this debate and look forward to the Minister’s response.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) for securing this debate and for all her work to bring her private Member’s Bill to the House. It stands in the tradition of the private Member’s Bill of my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) in 1999, which paved the way for the banning of fur farming in the UK just one year later.
I welcome the Government’s animal welfare strategy and the Government’s commitment to looking at the fur issue through the working group, but we in this place should be clear that there is no such thing as cruelty-free fur. The domestic farming of fur has been banned since the year 2000, which raises an obvious question: why should we be content for fur to be imported from overseas, when we believe that it should not be produced on our own shores? It is the inherently cruel fruit of an immoral trade.
The European Food Safety Authority published an exhaustive scientific study last year, which found serious harm to species such as fox and mink across a range of issues, including severe stress and self-harm. The EFSA was clear that most of the welfare consequences cannot be prevented or substantially mitigated in the current cage system.
It is important to address the claims made by the proponents of fur and the industry interests who defend fur farming. A ban on imports would not be without precedent. In fact, in the year 2009, the European Union put in place a ban on seal product imports, primarily from Canada. At the time, I had the privilege of working with Humane Society International, which is now called Humane World for Animals, to challenge the legal attempts to overturn that ban. I am very glad to say that it remains in place. Article XX of the World Trade Organisation’s general agreement on tariffs and trade clearly allows bans on the imports of products if they are
“necessary to protect public morals”
or
“necessary to protect…animal…health”.
As others have said, fur is not a natural product. In fact, so-called real fur is so heavily treated by carcinogenic chemicals that it produces seven times as much carbon as faux fur. The other claim made by organisations such as the International Fur Federation, which is headquartered in the UK—a short walk from Parliament—and the British Fur Trade Association is that indigenous communities depend for their economic livelihoods on these exports. This is a complete canard. The overwhelming majority of fur imports are from European factory-farmed locations. Imports from the Canadian hunt, which is not today dominated by indigenous communities, represent a minuscule fraction of UK fur imports.
It is also necessary to address the so-called certification schemes promoted by organisations such as WelFur and Furmark. The fur industry knows that the UK public is repelled by fur farming, so it tries to hide the cruel reality behind sanitising but meaningless labels. The labels do not challenge the cage system, which the EFSA found was incompatible with animal welfare standards. They create the appearance of oversight while leaving the practices unabated. It is a very 21st-century form of greenwashing of archaic butchery.
When the Minister responds, I hope that she can give the House an update on the timelines in which the working group will conduct its business. I also ask the Government not to accept the validity of these self-interested, industry-promoted certification schemes. I place on the record my appreciation for one of the organisations that has led the campaign against the fur trade in the UK over many years: Respect for Animals, originally founded as Lynx. It was founded by Mark Glover, who was joined by Nicki Brooks and Richard Bissett. They do outstanding work.
Three years after the election of the last Labour Government, the law was passed to ban the domestic farming of fur. I hope that we can work to a similar timetable to end the import of fur products under this Labour Government, consistent with their commitment to animal welfare.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I had not planned to speak; I only came to show my support for my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones), but as there is time I will make a brief contribution, with your indulgence, Ms Jardine. It is excellent to see you up there presiding over us; this is the first time that I have spoken in a debate with you in the Chair.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her consistency and tenacity on these issues, and I thank all colleagues for their contributions to the debate. It has not been political, which speaks to the importance of the issue. I note that we have not heard from the two Opposition Front Benchers, but I feel sure that they will approach this debate as all others have done.
I feel as if I am living in a parallel universe and in a previous life, sitting in a room talking about DEFRA, particularly animal welfare, with my hon. Friend, with various stakeholders and campaigners, and with the now shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), who was then a DEFRA Minister. Talk about going back to the future!
I am here to support my hon. Friend, and I support her Bill too. I am from a community in Newcastle-under-Lyme, where—judging from my inbox every week—the vast majority of my constituents could best be described as animal lovers. We have a real opportunity to make a meaningful difference to millions of animals and stop them being forced to endure mental and physical anguish that none of us would wish on our worst enemies.
The good people of our United Kingdom do not support the fur trade. We know that many designers and retailers have got the picture, too. I hope that the Minister will appreciate the significance of her sitting in this debate, because it was her twin, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle)—
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)
Right honourable.
Adam Jogee
Forgive me, I should have known—two successful twins. My right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston brought back the fur ban while I was in primary school, so it now falls to another Eagle to get the job done and deliver the fur-free Britain that we all want to see.
Dame Angela Eagle
I am not right honourable; my twin is, but I am not, just to put that on the record. I thank my hon. Friend for remembering the history, but I wonder whether he can imagine the kind of pressure that I might be under on this issue, subsequently.
Adam Jogee
I think this is the first time a Minister has intervened on me. There is a first time for everything, and it is a moment we will not forget, Ms Jardine.
I am the oldest of three children, so I understand the pressures that siblings apply, and my younger siblings both have particular views about the state of the world today and how I might approach some of those issues. However, I feel sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn will continue to hold the Minister to account and will help her to get to exactly the right place to deliver the fur-free Britain we all want to see.
I thank all those who work, day in and day out, on animal welfare issues. Many of them are in the Public Gallery. I see Danielle, Sonul and others, many of whom I spoke to more than my siblings when I worked for my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn in years gone by.
Finally, I thank my hon. Friend again for securing this debate. I am glad that the speeches I wrote all those years ago were put to good use. And I am pleased, on behalf of my constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme, to be here today to show my support for this debate, for her Bill and for the campaign to deliver the fur-free Britain we all want to see.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair this morning, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) on securing this important debate, and I pay tribute to her tireless campaigning on animal rights.
It is a pleasure to speak on behalf of the Liberal Democrats today. We have a track record of animal rights advocacy, and we are clear that the fur trade should have no place in this country, which has some of the highest animal welfare standards anywhere in the world. Yet today’s debate has outlined a glaring contradiction. We have banned the cruelty at home, but by continuing to source fur from overseas, we remain wholly complicit in this unnecessary suffering.
It is understandable that over three quarters of the British public want to see this double standard ended for good. I commend the work of the Fur Free Britain coalition in mobilising such strong public opinion on the topic of fur. The Liberal Democrats support the protection of animal rights and welfare, both domestically and internationally. The previous Conservative Government wrongly pivoted on their decision to scrap the planned ban on the import of fur, and we now call on this Government to enact a comprehensive ban on the import and sale of fur and fur-related products, once and for all, to help to maintain the UK as a global leader in the promotion of animal welfare.
The moral arguments have been well rehearsed by many hon. and right hon. Members today, and those arguments are full of merit. However, I will also evaluate some of the arguments put forward by the fur industry against a ban. The British Fur Trade Association has stated that a ban would not improve animal welfare standards, would result in illegal fur imports, would be unenforceable and would lead to job losses. In addition, it argues that a ban would raise concerns that the World Trade Organisation rules might be broken.
The BFTA has proposed a five-point plan for the Government, including improved labelling of fur products. However, let me be clear that keeping animals in cages for their whole lives inevitably leads to a variety of physical and psychological health problems, so the fur industry’s certification schemes clearly incorporate a high tolerance for poor welfare. Under the “WelFur” approach used within Furmark, farms can retain accreditation even when significant levels of illness and injury persist. The scheme allows alarm thresholds, under which no serious action is triggered.
How we treat animals is a reflection of who we are as a society. The UK is a nation of animal lovers, and we should be proud of the action we have taken to lead the world in upholding some of the highest animal welfare standards. When we take a stand, others follow, such as with the ban on fur farming that was implemented in the early 2000s. Since then, over 20 countries have followed suit. That is something to be proud of, and there is now an opportunity for us to extend that legacy even further.
It is disappointing that there have been claims that a ban would result in job losses and economic damage. A recent report by WPI Economics on behalf of Humane World for Animals has revealed that that is simply not the case. The fur trade’s contribution to the UK economy is very limited and has declined significantly over recent years. In 2023, the value of international fur exports and imports into the UK had fallen by nearly 50% and 39% respectively since 2018, while data from the Business Register Employment Survey shows that the number of people employed in the sector is also declining sharply. Indeed, in 2022-23 only 35 people were employed in the sector in the UK.
There is also growing evidence that a ban is enforceable under WTO rules. The landmark 2014 WTO ruling on the EU’s ban on the import of seal skins shows that WTO rules permit restrictions on imports based on ethical concerns. In March 2021, the UK Trade and Agriculture Commission recommended that the UK should show world leadership in embedding animal welfare into international trade policy and in helping to raise standards worldwide, which is what the public want. Polling suggests that 77% of the public back a ban on the import and sale of fur and fur-related products, while 96% of respondents to the call for evidence under the last Government strongly agreed that it is wrong for animals to be killed for their fur.
In the build-up to this debate, many of my constituents in Glastonbury and Somerton wrote to me to outline their support for a ban. All were united in their belief that it is time to end this cruel, outdated and unnecessary trade, and I agree with them.
I underscore that the global fur trade, of which the UK is still a part, is not just a problem for animals; it is a serious public health risk. The interface between humans and millions of intensively kept and traded animals is giving rise to an era of unprecedented zoonotic disease threats, and fur farming sits squarely in that danger zone. Professor Edward Holmes, an evolutionary biologist and virologist from the University of Sydney, said of the fur trade,
“I think that this trade is a roll of the dice. We’re exposing ourselves to viruses that come from wildlife,”
which is
“an obvious route for the next pandemic to occur… Fur farms present a clear epidemic or pandemic risk.”
Crucially, this is not a hypothetical risk. Reports and official responses in Europe have shown outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza affecting fur-bearing animals on farms, and public health and biosecurity measures are not consistently implemented in practice. We must heed virologists’ warnings and not sleepwalk into another global pandemic.
I take this opportunity to recognise some of the Government’s progress on the issue. I was pleased to see the Government publish the results of the previous Government’s call for evidence on the fur trade. I also welcome the recently launched animal welfare strategy for England, which promises the highest jump in welfare in a generation. It is clear, however, that trade policy must go hand in hand with domestic welfare action. If we do not do that, we risk offshoring animal cruelty. We must not import goods that are not allowed to be produced in this country, and we must extend that to food products produced abroad to standards that would be illegal for British farmers. The Liberal Democrats want to see minimum standards for all imported food, to meet UK animal welfare standards, and we must ensure that no animal product that would be illegal to produce in the UK can be sold in Britain, including foie gras.
The Liberal Democrats have also urged the Government to sign the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the EU as soon as possible, and to ensure alignment on standards and quality. Part of those discussions will likely focus on the import of fur. Given that it is not an agrifood commodity, however, incorporating it into the SPS agreement would serve only to complicate the matter unnecessarily and delay the process.
The Minister has previously indicated her support for a ban, as have many Cabinet Ministers, many Labour Members and most of Parliament. There is cross-party consensus on the issue, and it is shameful that the previous Conservative Government reversed their commitment to action. This Government must now do the right thing and take this opportunity, once again, to make Britain a global trailblazer by banning the sale and import of fur and fur-related products as soon as possible. The fur trade has no place in a country with such high standards of animal welfare.
It is hypocritical to allow the import and sale of real fur from abroad. The Liberal Democrats support the protection of animal rights and welfare, both domestically and internationally. We call on the Government to enact the comprehensive ban on the import and sale of fur and fur-related products once and for all, helping to maintain the UK as a global leader in the sale and promotion of animal welfare.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) for securing today’s debate. She has been a tireless campaigner on this issue in her role as a shadow Minister before the general election, in tabling a private Member’s Bill and securing many Westminster Hall debates on animal welfare issues. I congratulate her on securing this important debate.
As all Members indicated in their contributions, fur farming has rightly been banned in England and Wales since 2000. Legislation prohibits the keeping and breeding of animals solely or primarily for slaughter due to the value of their fur, but that was 26 years ago. The hon. Lady raised the issue of fairness in how, while we have a ban in place here, we still enable imports that do not meet our standards. We have not yet achieved a ban on imports. Personally, I feel that is wholly unfair and inadequate, and it needs to be explored.
What position do we see ourselves in today? There are several restrictions in place that seek to monitor and control how this trade can be carried out in the UK. There are restrictions on some skin and fur products that may never be legally imported into the UK, including fur from cats and dogs, but we all acknowledge that it still does not go far enough. There are also established controls on fur from endangered species protected by the convention on international trade in endangered species, and on imports of fur from wild animals caught using methods that are non-compliant with international humane trapping standards, but again that does not go far enough.
Under the Textile Products (Labelling and Fibre Composition) Regulations 2012—EU regulations that have now been assimilated into UK law—any textile product that contains real fur or other animal-derived materials must carry the mandatory label:
“Contains non-textile parts of animal origin”.
That wording must appear exactly as specified and must be clearly visible to consumers. The regulations require all textile products to display a label identifying their fibre content, including any fur, leather or bone. I would argue that is not adequate or clear enough to a consumer who is buying a product, and therefore it does not go far enough.
Many Members have rightly said that while we have banned fur farming and created a direction for other countries to follow, continuing to enable imports is still offshoring our responsibility. I therefore urge the Government to explore that route.
We know that fur imports are decreasing. Under the previous Administration, as we all know, animal welfare standards increased and the volume of fur imported fell by 50% in five years. The trend is declining and there is a decrease in consumers buying imported fur, so the economics back the position of taking a much stronger approach to banning imported fur.
A consultation was launched seeking views on the fur market. The call for evidence received over 30,000 responses from businesses, representative bodies and individuals, demonstrating strong public support and interest. It is good to see that the Government have now published the responses to that consultation, but I would like to understand from the Minister how the Government will go forward.
In addition to the interests of businesses, it is clear that this is an issue that matters to the British public. A petition to ban fur imports was launched by the Fur Free Britain campaign, receiving over 1.5 million signatures. The issue has also been debated many times in this place. We all acknowledge that this demonstrates a strong feeling from the British people that the import of fur should be banned. I would like to clearly understand the Government’s position following the Animal Welfare Committee’s report, which was published following that petition.
The Government announced their animal welfare strategy in December. Much of it was welcome, but I want to ask the Minister why it did not include a ban on fur imports, as it had previously been indicated that an incoming Labour Government would be willing to explore that. I also want to seek clarity from the Government on the potential timeframe for any additional consultation that is likely to be announced on this issue. What will they be doing, in addition to what is announced in the animal welfare strategy, to explore the issue further?
As has been said, much good work has been done by previous Administrations, and there is an indication of more of this in the animal welfare strategy, to improve animal welfare generally in this country. That was picked up by one of the contributions about ear cropping. We cannot be in a scenario where we are banning things from happening here but effectively enabling an equivalent product—whether it is food, a live animal or a product from a live animal—that is banned or that does not meet our expected level of animal welfare to come into the country. That is simply unfair, and I want to push the Minister on what the Government’s position is on the timing of that going forward.
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)
It is a great pleasure to serve, I think for the first time, under your chairmanship in Westminster Hall, Ms Jardine. We have had a consensus-driven debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) for securing it. I note that she is extremely busy today because she also has a ten-minute rule Bill; since that deals with pets, we know that she has her speeches in the right order. She demonstrates through her work—we also heard it in her speech today—how much she cares for animals in whatever context, whether they are wild, domesticated or livestock.
My hon. Friend represents a deep vein of concern that all of us have recognised that this country is well-known for: its concern for animals. We have a long and proud history of supporting animal welfare. The world’s first animal welfare law was passed here more than 200 years ago in 1822, so there is a long tradition that all of us draw on when thinking about these issues. The Government take that legacy seriously. Last December, we published our animal welfare strategy, which is the most ambitious programme in a generation. It is not just warm words; it is a real plan that is already in motion, with consultations launched on laying hens and lamb welfare.
The UK has been at the forefront of animal welfare for generations. As many hon. Members have mentioned today—notably my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) and for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner), who had both done a little work and discovered this—it was my sibling, my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle), who introduced the private Member’s Bill that led to the ban on fur farming in this country. Some of the speeches I heard this morning had a familiar ring to them from the epic battles that my sister had to try to get her private Member’s Bill on the statute book. It was talked out by Members of the then Conservative Opposition, and it was only after that failure that the then Labour Government decided that they would take forward the ban on fur farming, because it had been overwhelmingly demonstrated that that was what the public wanted.
That win was not easily gained. People who are thinking about how to change the law and the moral attitude on these things need to understand that private Member’s Bills, not least the ones brought to the House by hon. Members who care about these things, often have a very important legacy. They can persuade Governments that they ought to get on and do what is sometimes controversial, but more often than not right.
We were the first country to ban fur farming and we did that when a ban was not popular—those arguments had to be made from scratch. That meant other countries then recognised the reality of what was going on and moved to ban it too. We have to recognise, however, that the number of countries that have banned it is still quite small and it remains actively pursued in many other countries. I suspect that the way the ban was done left the loophole that many hon. Members have pointed out: while animals can no longer be farmed for their fur in the UK, the import and sale of fur and fur products from both farmed animals and those hunted or trapped in the wild remain legal.
We heard today that 95% of fur comes from farmed animals. People need to bear that in mind—this is not particularly an issue of trapping wild animals. If we read our history, we know that, particularly on the North American continent, a lot of wild animals were hunted nearly to extinction in earlier times.
Iqbal Mohamed
The Minister says that 95% of fur comes from farmed animals and 5% from trapped animals, but the estimate is 100 million animals in total, so that is still 5 million animals that are trapped. Those traps do not only capture the animals they target; there is collateral damage, with other animals being trapped and killed. Some animals are not killed immediately and are left to die a slow, agonising death. What is stopping this Labour Government taking the lead, as the Labour Government in the 2000s did, on banning the import of fur products?
Dame Angela Eagle
I was going to get on to that, but I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point about trapping wild animals, which is why that is dealt with quite extensively in the animal welfare strategy that we published just before Christmas—I hope he acknowledges that that is the case. I was not trying to set one amount of cruelty against another; we try to minimise cruelty to animals in all contexts, which is what the Government’s animal welfare strategy seeks to make progress on.
I was just about to say that although some importation of fur is legal, as we have heard today, there are some restrictions. The fur from cats and dogs can never be legally imported into the UK. Seal products can be imported and placed for sale on the UK market only in limited circumstances and subject to strict conditions linked to the rights of indigenous communities. By the way, I recognise the cynicism with which that was dealt with in contributions and acknowledge that that cynicism may well have some connection to reality.
The Government recognise the strength of feeling on the issue from supporters as well as opponents of the fur trade—I must say I do not hear that much from supporters of the fur trade, but I am sure I will now I have said that. We recognise the state of public opinion in this area. We want to bring together a working group on fur, as set out in the Government’s animal welfare strategy, to seek involvement from both the industry and those who support restrictions to see what we can do ahead of deciding to deal with this in the future.
In the animal welfare strategy, we have committed to publish a summary of responses to the call for evidence on the fur trade in Great Britain, which was conducted in 2021 under the previous Government and sought views from a range of stakeholders. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), pointed out how many responses were received to that. It is interesting being chivvied along by somebody whose party was in government for 14 years and made very little progress in this area. I do not mind being chivvied, but I look slightly askance at where the chivvying is coming from.
My sister, the right hon. Member for Liverpool Garston, took part in a process which got the Labour Government to ban fur farming within about three or four years of her beginning. We are less than two years into this Labour Government and we are doing a great deal across the animal welfare strategy for all animals, in whatever context they are found. I ask for a little patience to see how we can best take all this forwards.
In the animal welfare strategy, we have committed to publish the opinion that DEFRA commissioned from the independent, expert Animal Welfare Committee on what constitutes the responsible sourcing of fur. As set out in the committee’s work plan, that review will consider available trade data on how much fur is imported to and exported from the UK. It will consider what welfare standards and other safeguards apply to that fur and how well they provide for the welfare needs of animals involved. The evidence that we will seek is what we can then act on once we have it. I hear hon. Members’ views of what the evidence is in this debate. We also must ask those involved in the fur trade to see what they would say so that we can make appropriate policy once we have the evidence in front of us.
I recognise the strong interest in the Animal Welfare Committee’s opinion, as well as the summary of responses to the call for evidence from a wide range of interested parties. We will publish both the opinion and summary of responses as soon as we are able. Animal welfare is a global issue, and I take the points that have been made about its impact regarding trading rules. As set out in our animal welfare strategy, the Government are committed not just to raising standards in the UK, but to championing the importance of high animal welfare standards around the world. We will keep working collaboratively with our international partners as part of this work to promote robust standards nationally and internationally.
Ruth Jones
It is helpful to hear the Minister outline the progress so far. Given yesterday’s SPS statement, could she clarify that fur and fur products will not form part of the negotiations and are outside of scope?
Dame Angela Eagle
I am not going to clarify or not clarify that now because we are still in the middle of negotiations. I do not want to change the way that negotiations are working by commenting on them before we have final agreements, but I am quite happy to talk to my hon. Friend when all of that becomes much clearer.
We will engage with the EU, which is a major source of fur imported into the UK, as it considers the findings of the European Food Safety Authority’s recently published scientific opinion on the welfare of animals kept for fur production, and the results of the European Commission’s 2025 call for evidence on the “Fur Free Europe” European citizens’ initiative. Those issues make this a bit of a moving feast, and we want to make sure that we get it right. We are also reviewing the findings of that report and will seek views from our working group on the evidence provided by the European call for evidence and the review, as well as the Animal Welfare Committee’s opinion.
The Government were elected on a mandate to introduce the most ambitious plans in a generation to improve animal welfare, and that is exactly what we are going to do. We look forward to publishing and considering the findings of the Animal Welfare Committee, and to bringing together interested parties to explore concerns in this important area and the different ways in which those concerns can be addressed to ensure the welfare of animals.
Ruth Jones
Thank you again for your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. It has been a pleasure to serve under you. This has been a very coherent and cohesive debate; I am not aware that there have been any dissenters. I thank all hon. Members for participating in today’s debate and bringing their different perspectives to this subject. I thank the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed), my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friends the Members for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden), for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell), for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) and for Newcastle-under- Lyme (Adam Jogee).
I thank the people in the Public Gallery for their ongoing work and persistence in ensuring that the animal welfare message goes out loud and clear across the UK, and for educating us in this House so well. I thank the Minister for outlining the progress that the Government have made so far, and I appreciate that a lot of it is happening behind the scenes. I do not envy her the persuasive familial discussions, because I am sure they are going on at all times—I would encourage her sibling to carry on with them. Public opinion is clear, the scientific evidence is clear and the economic case is clear, so let us stop the delay, get on with the action that we need to ban fur and fur products from being imported into this country, and end our complicity in this barbaric trade.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the import and sale of fur and related products.
Adult Cerebral Palsy: National Service Specification
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read 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
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the national service specification for adult cerebral palsy in the NHS.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I am grateful to secure this debate. Approximately 130,000 adults in the UK have cerebral palsy. Although the NHS now officially categorises it as a lifelong condition, there is clear evidence that specialist support stops at the age of 18. A national service specification for adult cerebral palsy in the NHS would ensure that the transition from childhood to adulthood is supported by relevant healthcare services and the necessary support. It would ensure that support continues to be provided throughout adulthood. I pay tribute to Up—the Adult Cerebral Palsy Movement, and Action Cerebral Palsy, for their dedicated advocacy for people with cerebral palsy throughout the UK, their campaigning on this issue and their support in preparing for this debate.
I will start by talking about my experience. As hon. Members will be aware, one of my daughters has cerebral palsy. Although she is still a child, I remain concerned about the level of support that will be provided to her when she reaches adulthood—a concern that I am sure many parents of children with cerebral palsy will relate to. During childhood, layers of support are provided, ranging from paediatricians to services that often are supplied at school and through the NHS such as physiotherapy, speech and language support, and occupational therapy. Parents are rightly concerned about what the transition at 18 looks like and whether wraparound healthcare remains. Sadly, the reality for many people with cerebral palsy is that after the transition, they are left with little support for their health needs and to help them function in life, including for day-to-day activities such as work.
Throughout this debate I will refer to the 2022 report of the all-party parliamentary group on cerebral palsy, “Barriers for adults with Cerebral Palsy on achieving full life participation: access to healthcare services and progressing at work”. Although the APPG is now disbanded, the key recommendations remain relevant. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) and the former Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys, Paul Maynard, for their work to commission the report.
For many adults with cerebral palsy, their experience is similar: they receive care and support through paediatric services before reaching adulthood, then find themselves facing a cliff edge. In essence, they are left without the support that they received for the first 18 years of their life. Cerebral palsy affects about one in every 400 children in the UK, but the severity of each child’s cerebral palsy varies greatly, and many have more complex issues, with one in two having a learning disability and one in four having a severe learning disability.
The first recommendation in the APPG report outlines that NHS England and social care, education and employment specialists must agree a national service specification for adult cerebral palsy, to be commissioned based on the needs of local populations within the 42 integrated care boards across England. Furthermore, in the 10-year health plan, the Government made the commitment that 95% of people with complex needs should have an agreed personal care plan by 2027. Many adults with cerebral palsy have complex needs and, with that, elevated health risks. They are 14 times more likely to die from respiratory disease and three times more likely to die from cardiovascular disease. In 2023, a review of 69 studies to assess the prevalence and incidence of chronic conditions among adults with cerebral palsy showed that 21% had depression, 21% had anxiety, 24% had asthma, 28% had epilepsy, 32%8 had incontinence and 38% had malnutrition.
I would welcome the Minister’s response outlining how the commitment in the 10-year health plan can be achieved for adults with cerebral palsy. I would also welcome the Minister considering how a national service specification for adult cerebral palsy could be implemented within the 42 ICBs, including by encouraging ICBs to implement the NHS framework for the commissioning of services for children and young people with cerebral palsy as a blueprint for adult cerebral palsy commissioning and provision.
In March 2021, the then APPG on cerebral palsy published its first report, entitled “Early identification, intervention and pathways of care of infants and young children with cerebral palsy: the case for reform and investment”. One of the report’s key recommendations was that all health authorities should be required to implement NICE—National Institute for Health and Care Excellence—guidelines. Dr Charlie Fairhurst, head of children’s neurosciences at the Evelina London children’s hospital and chair of the committee for NICE guidelines on cerebral palsy, accepted those recommendations, which have been implemented in the NICE guidelines for children. It is therefore disappointing that the recommendations for adults outlined in the 2022 report, including the full implementation of NICE guidelines, have not been implemented for adult cerebral palsy in the NHS.
In May 2025, NHS England published the commissioning framework for children and young people with cerebral palsy. The framework aims to simplify and summarise the existing guidance available. It also highlights best-practice care pathways that could be replicated by other systems and enables systems to identify population need through data. Over the past year, eight ICBs have been piloting that framework for children, which involves undertaking a baselining exercise to understand existing service provision and to identify service gaps for children with cerebral palsy. However, as we know—and as the 2022 APPG report highlighted—the needs of local populations differ across the country, and the results from just eight ICBs are not enough to provide an accurate representation of the effectiveness of the framework.
The existing postcode lottery of specialist support constrains the lives of adults with cerebral palsy and results in worse health outcomes, not to mention lower education and employment participation for individuals, with the subsequent substantial economic loss. Analysis from the Northern Ireland cerebral palsy register has shown that the prevalence of cerebral palsy in adults is comparable to that of multiple sclerosis or Parkinson’s disease.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate, and I thank him for sharing his personal story. That personal knowledge adds to the debate.
Studies by Queen’s University Belfast indicates that adults with cerebral palsy often struggle to navigate adult health and rehabilitation services after moving on from paediatric services. That can limit their access to physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech and language therapy, orthopaedics and neurology. Does he agree that the best way to navigate this issue is to establish a clear, co-ordinated transition pathway from paediatric to adult services, with dedicated case management so that nobody is left behind when it comes to their care?
Daniel Francis
I absolutely agree. Between the APPG’s 2022 recommendations and the example the hon. Member gave of the analysis in Northern Ireland, it is clear that the evidence is there, and hopefully we will hear from the Minister about how we can continue to progress some of those matters.
I would welcome a commitment from ICBs across the country to implement the framework as a blueprint for adult cerebral palsy commissioning and provision, as the hon. Member outlined.
The 2022 report’s second recommendation highlighted the need to support GPs in identifying adults with cerebral palsy by extending the UK-wide quality and outcomes framework to incorporate the creation of general practice-level cerebral palsy registers along the lines of the expansion of the QOF to learning disabilities. That would make a profound difference in the health outcomes of children with cerebral palsy when they transition into adulthood care pathways. Would the Minister look to extend the quality and outcomes framework to incorporate the creation of general practice-level cerebral palsy registers, similar to the expansion of the quality and outcomes framework to learning disabilities?
The third recommendation aims to ease the transition into adult care pathways through a national service specification for adults with cerebral palsy in the NHS, which must include training covering adults with cerebral palsy for those working in general medicine, general practice and nursing from entry level. For many adults with cerebral palsy, their primary co-ordinator of care is their GP, who, despite their best efforts, often does not have the specialist knowledge or training to support their patients.
Written evidence submitted to the APPG as part of the report highlighted that medical undergraduate students do not receive training about cerebral palsy in adults. One way to support GPs in identifying adults with cerebral palsy is to extend the UK-wide quality and outcomes framework to incorporate the creation of general practice-level cerebral palsy registers along the lines of the expansion of the quality and outcomes framework to learning disabilities. That would make a profound difference in the health outcomes of children with cerebral palsy when they transition into adulthood care pathways. Would the Minister outline how the current NHS staffing guidelines could be amended to include the incorporation of training for those in general medicine, general practice and nursing from an entry level to cover adults with cerebral palsy?
The report’s fourth recommendation outlined that each ICB should be required to undertake a gap analysis of existing cerebral palsy services for adults against NICE guidance and use the results to inform and guide their local commissioning decisions. This must include investment in services to support and address associated conditions. The results should then be used to establish regional multidisciplinary cerebral palsy clinics for adults, providing access to a range of psychological, physical and complementary therapies. The recommendation highlights that disability access co-ordinators appointed in both acute and primary centres would be able to provide referrals to the clinics and ensure that reasonable adjustments are made.
The report also highlighted that the provision of a neurologist during the transition from childhood to adulthood is an essential component of adult cerebral palsy care to ensure that, when a patient is discharged from their paediatrician, they do not face that cliff edge in support. Will the Minister agree to investigate how ICBs can undertake a gap analysis of existing cerebral palsy services for adults against current NICE guidance, and how they can include adults with cerebral palsy in their integrated needs assessments?
The report’s fifth recommendation suggests that, to ensure the provision of specialist services, the Department of Health and Social Care should provide ringfenced funding to ICBs to enable them to develop the much-needed specialist services at a local level. Will the Minister agree to look at ringfencing funding for the 42 ICBs so that they can develop specialist cerebral palsy services?
Finally, I want to demonstrate why national service specification is so needed. Emma Livingstone, the co-founder and chief executive officer of UP, The Adult Cerebral Palsy Movement, is in the Public Gallery, and her lived experience perfectly encapsulates why national service specification for adults with cerebral palsy is needed. Emma was diagnosed with cerebral palsy at two years old. At 16, she was discharged from medical services after being told that she was the best that she would ever be.
Unfortunately, without any integrated care during Emma’s adulthood, she experienced a significant decline in mobility in her late 30s. That led to Emma having multiple surgeries, and unfortunately having to give up her work as a speech and language therapist. In Emma’s own words,
“In my late thirties, my mobility declined rapidly. I needed hip surgery, then more surgeries, and eventually had to give up work. What shocked me wasn’t the physical deterioration—it was the silence. The coordinated care I’d received as a child simply vanished when I turned 18.”
Emma is sadly not alone in experiencing that. The APPG report found that
“the transition into adolescence and adulthood is often accompanied by a decline in physical function,”
with up to 50%
“of people with Cerebral Palsy experiencing deterioration in walking function between 20 and 40 years of age.”
That statistic alone is reason enough to show why national service specification for adult cerebral palsy in the NHS is so greatly needed.
I would welcome the Minister’s response to the five recommendations from the APPG report that I have highlighted today.
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) for securing this important debate. Many Members in this House speak on issues of importance to their constituents; far fewer bring the depth of personal experience, the understanding and the long-term perspective that he has of this issue. His own experiences of caring for a child with cerebral palsy reflect the realities faced every day by parents and carers across the country, and he speaks with such compassion and authority.
Adults with cerebral palsy make up a significant but often overlooked part of our population—around 130,000 people across the UK. For far too long, they have been “invisible to the NHS”, in the words of the cerebral palsy charter. Although cerebral palsy is a lifelong neurological condition, we frequently see well-structured, multidisciplinary paediatric care systems simply evaporating when people reach the age of 18. Adults are left navigating a fragmented system with no clear pathways, limited specialist input and inconsistent recognition of their needs.
We know that adults with cerebral palsy face disproportionately high risks of chronic pain, fatigue, mobility loss, falls, respiratory illness and cardiovascular disease—harms that are preventable with co-ordinated, proactive care. Young adults who have both cerebral palsy and a learning disability often receive better support, because they can access well-established learning disability pathways that provide structured reviews, specialist teams and co-ordinated care. By contrast, young adults with cerebral palsy alone often fall outside those pathways, and therefore struggle to access the same level of timely, proactive support, despite having significant and lifelong needs.
On the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford made about ringfenced funding, we expect ICBs to commission services for people with cerebral palsy based on local population need, and informed by NICE guidance and national service specifications. That approach is consistent with the wider NHS financial framework, which does not create condition-specific funding pots, but rather supports local systems to make evidence-based decisions across all long-term conditions. Similarly, on extending the qualities and outcomes framework, or QOF, to incorporate the creation of general practice-level cerebral palsy registers, we are operating in a very challenging fiscal environment. QOF indicators must be evidence based, deliverable at a national scale and balanced against the need to reduce administrative pressures on general practice.
Current policy is that ICBs should use NICE guidance and national service specifications to commission appropriate local services, rather than creating condition-specific national incentives. Although we have no plans at present to commission any formal gap analysis of adherence to, or non-compliance with, NICE guidelines, I wish to remind all ICBs of their responsibilities and the importance of adhering to those guidelines.
NHS England’s revised service specification for adult specialised neurology services, which was published in August last year and comes into effect next month, represents an important step forward in improving care for adults with cerebral palsy. For the first time, it sets clear expectations for how people with lifelong neurological conditions, including cerebral palsy, should move between general practice, community services and specialist centres.
The specification requires integrated care boards and specialist centres to organise services using a population health approach, ensuring equitable access to both general and specialist neurology services and oversight from multidisciplinary teams. That means better communication between GPs and specialist services, clearer and more consistent referral pathways and stronger recognition that cerebral palsy is a lifelong condition that requires timely review and escalation when needs change.
On cerebral palsy specifically, the service specification mandates a networked, multidisciplinary model for adult cerebral palsy care, emphasising integrated care pathways, structured transition from ages 13 to 14 and annual reviews for complex needs. It ensures equitable access to specialists, specialised treatments such as botulinum toxin and requires services to address physical and communicative barriers to care. Those changes will directly support early intervention, reduce unwarranted variation between local systems and help to embed more proactive, joined-up primary and specialist care, improving outcomes, continuity and quality of life for adults with cerebral palsy.
The updated neurology service specification ensures that cerebral palsy is embedded within a broader national framework, strengthening national expectations for adult cerebral palsy care. One of the most important ways we are strengthening support for adults with cerebral palsy is by improving awareness and understanding within primary care. The service specification now requires integrated care boards and specialist centres to work much more closely with GPs, strengthening communication and clarifying referral pathways so that primary care clinicians understand when an adult with cerebral palsy requires specialist review or escalation.
That is crucial, because too many adults report difficulty in securing informed support in general practice or face long delays in being referred to clinicians with expertise in neuro-disability. Those new expectations are designed to ensure that GPs have the confidence and the clarity they need to identify emerging concerns, initiate timely investigations and support adults whose needs may change as they age.
Importantly, the specification also strengthens national recognition of cerebral palsy as a lifelong condition, helping to embed more consistent, informed support for adults across primary care settings. That includes the requirement for services to identify barriers to access and make reasonable adjustments for disabled people. That is an important safeguard for adults with cerebral palsy, many of whom experience pain, fatigue, visual perceptual changes, challenges or communication needs that can affect their interaction with health services. These reforms ensure that GPs are supported by a clearer national framework, better referral pathways and stronger system expectations.
As we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford today, too many adults with cerebral palsy feel that their support drops away as they transition out of paediatric services. That is exactly why the reforms we are delivering through our 10-year health plan are so critical to strengthening the support available for people with cerebral palsy throughout their lives.
Our 10-year health plan sets out a vision for a health and care system that is more personalised, more integrated and more proactive for people with long-term and complex conditions, including cerebral palsy. That means moving away from reactive care based on crisis points towards lifelong support that anticipates needs, prevents deterioration and joins up specialist community and primary care services. The plan focuses on delivering more care in the community, making greater use of technology and building a more preventive health service that supports people to stay well for longer.
Our 10-year health plan will ensure that people with complex needs are supported to be active participants in their own care. As part of that, 95% of people with complex needs or long-term conditions will have an agreed personalised care plan by 2027. Care plans will be a feature of the developing neighbourhood health service, which will deliver more care in local communities and move away from a one-size-fits-all approach, giving people more power and choice over the care that they receive.
Work is under way to determine the definition of complex needs in the context of that target and how care plans will be delivered in the future, including who will be best placed to co-ordinate and support their delivery. We know that key shared decision making is central to patients’ ongoing care, and care plans will look to promote that further. In developing future models of care planning, we will continue to take into account the varied experiences and needs of people with different conditions, such as cerebral palsy.
We also recognise the importance of preventive, proactive care, including annual reviews, as recommended in NICE guidance for adults with cerebral palsy. Although not currently mandated through the quality and outcomes framework, those reviews remain an important mechanism for identifying changes in mobility, pain, fatigue and mental health, and for ensuring that people are offered appropriate interventions early. The 10-year health plan’s focus on personalised and proactive care will support integrated care boards to improve access to those reviews as part of a more consistent offer for adults with cerebral palsy.
The plan will also ensure that no young person is lost in the gaps between children’s and adult services, a point at which many families tell us that they feel most vulnerable. NHS England’s children and young people transformation programme provides a clear nought-to-25 model of care to achieve that. For young people with cerebral palsy, that means earlier preparation for transition, co-ordinated support from a multidisciplinary network and clearer expectations for how professionals should plan and hand over care.
No young adult with cerebral palsy should reach their 18th birthday and face a cliff edge. They have waited far too long for the NHS to acknowledge their existence in policy, planning and commissioning. They deserve the dignity of services that reflect the reality of their lifelong condition. They deserve the best, and we are delivering improvements through integrated, system-wide reforms designed to support lifelong person-centred care.
The steps under way provide a more effective and sustainable foundation for improving outcomes for adults with cerebral palsy. Again, I thank and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford for his tireless advocacy and work to ensure that this issue receives the attention that it deserves. I congratulate him, once again, on securing this important debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Local Government Reorganisation: South-east
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read 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
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of local government reorganisation in the South East.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Vickers. I am grateful to the hon. and right hon. Members from across the House who will be contributing to this debate.
Local government is the tier of government that is most closely woven into people’s everyday lives. It is where national decisions become local realities: the roads we drive on, the services that support vulnerable families, the planning decisions that shape our towns and the community spaces that bring people together. It is for that reason that I support the principle of devolution. Decisions should, wherever possible, be taken by those closest to the communities they directly affect. But as is so often the case in public policy, the difficulty is not the principle, it is the implementation.
In Surrey, implementation is already raising serious concerns about scale, financial sustainability and a process that has moved forward with a troubling democratic deficit. This debate concerns the south-east of England more generally, but colleagues from across the region will speak about how reorganisation is affecting their own counties and communities. My perspective naturally comes from Surrey, where those concerns are already becoming clear. Size, remoteness and financial fragility are among them, and we must add to that mix the glaring democratic deficit.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. I spoke to him beforehand, so he knows what I am going to say. I want to support him—that is the reason why I am here—and I want to give an example that happened in my constituency and which is similar to what the hon. Gentleman is referring to. Two councils, Ards and North Down, were merged together, and one issue that was put forward as a “must do” was the financial and administrative savings with two councils being able to do the job of one, but that did not work out. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that while efforts to streamline governance should be welcomed, more action must be taken to provide adequate financial support to cover one-off reorganisation costs without compromising the delivery of services such as, for example, waste services?
Dr Pinkerton
As ever, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his thoughtful, sagacious intervention. He will discover, if he is able to stay for the rest of my speech, that I will cover those fundamental topics: the funding of the transitional moment, and the certainty that joining two authorities together does produce long-term savings and the modelling that those assumptions rely on.
In late 2024, Surrey was placed on a fast-tracked path towards local government reorganisation. That process was triggered when the leadership of Surrey county council requested that the Government cancel the local elections that were scheduled for May 2025. That request was granted, and the result is that councillors elected in 2021 will now remain in office until April 2027, two years beyond their original mandate, and oversee one of the most significant and consequential restructurings of local government in our county’s history. The idea of cancelling elections has, more recently, fallen out of favour with both the Government and, as I understand it, the Conservative party. Sadly, for those of us in Surrey, that realisation came only after the Surrey Conservatives pulled the trigger on the policy that the Government had placed before them. Whatever one’s view of reorganisation, it is difficult to argue that such a profound change should proceed without giving residents the opportunity to pass judgment on those leading it. Local government reform should be carried out with democratic consent, not in its absence.
Alongside those democratic concerns sit serious financial questions. Over the past decade, several councils across Surrey pursued large-scale commercial property investments in an attempt to generate income as central Government funding declined. In some cases, those strategies have left councils carrying extremely substantial debt. The six councils that could form the proposed West Surrey council—Woking, Spelthorne, Guildford, Runnymede, Surrey Heath and Waverley—collectively carry around £4.5 billion-worth of debt. In my constituency, the then Conservative-led Surrey Heath borough council speculated wildly on commercial property between 2016 and 2019. It spent £113 million on a shopping centre with a knackered roof and a former department store riddled with asbestos. At the time, those purchases were described by the council’s then chief executive as “investments” that would help to secure the council’s long-term financial viability as Government funding declined. In practice, it amounted to a Conservative-run borough council borrowing heavily on the financial markets and through the public works loan board in the hope of defying the gravity of the cuts coming from Conservative central Government. Today, those assets are estimated to be worth around £30 million—not the original £113 million. They are operationally loss-making and together risk bankrupting my borough before we even reach unitarisation next year. Surrey Heath cannot afford to keep them but cannot afford to sell them because selling would crystallise the losses it has incurred.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
My hon. Friend is eloquently explaining the serious financial situations that many potential unitary councils will be in. They will be saddled with such financial burdens that it will be difficult for them to deliver the services that local residents need. A three-year financial forecast for East Surrey has identified a potential £35 million deficit. The Whitehall funding settlement does not currently reflect the real cost pressures that such councils will experience. Does my hon. Friend agree that Labour needs to fix a broken funding system and not leave residents paying the price?
Dr Pinkerton
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. Labour may not have broken the local government system in Surrey but there is now an obligation to ensure that people who live in Surrey are not faced with the bankruptcy of their new unitary authorities on day one of those authorities’ existence, especially given the vital services that they will be delivering.
In neighbouring Woking—where there was another Conservative-run council in those fateful years—the gravitational denialism was even wilder. During the same period, Woking borough council accumulated debts that now stand at approximately £2.1 billion. It is said that that debt is so large that it directly impacts the Government’s borrowing capacity in international markets. Versions of that story are repeated across much of west Surrey: it is a pattern of behaviour that has, frankly, never been properly investigated. Its impact has been compounded by systemic failures in the auditing of local government accounts.
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
Is the hon. Gentleman astounded, as I am, that the majority of that debt is with the public works loan board, which sits underneath the Treasury. Where was the Treasury when that debt was being allowed to accumulate?
Dr Pinkerton
I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. I will come on to talk about a systemic failure, as I see it, in the power that section 151 officers of borough councils have in effectively signing off the ability of a council to repay debts when accumulated. That is a power that I think may be far in excess of the skills that they have. After all, there is no separate mechanism to determine—from the Treasury or from the PWLB, for example—the ability of a council to fulfil its obligations.
It is therefore entirely reasonable that residents ask a simple question: why should communities that played no role in accumulating that debt now be expected to inherit its consequences through a newly-created local authority? If reorganisation is intended to create a stable future for local government, it would be deeply concerning for any new authority to begin life already burdened with billions of pounds in inherited liabilities. I ask the Minister what assurances the Government can provide that any future West Surrey authority will begin life next year on a financially sustainable footing? It cannot be right that my residents face the realistic prospect of their new unitary authority being bankrupt or effectively bankrupt on day one of its existence, given the critical services that councils are expected to provide.
The scale of borrowing in Surrey also raises wider questions about financial oversight in local government—this is where I will answer the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb). Local authorities rely on statutory finance officers—section 151 officers—to ensure financial prudence, yet the scale of borrowing undertaken by some councils suggests that existing safeguards have not always been sufficient to prevent high-risk commercial strategies. This debate is often framed in terms of protecting section 151 officers from excessive political pressure, and that may well be necessary, but it is also true that section 151 officers hold significant authority within council structures and must themselves be subject to proper scrutiny and accountability—something that is often lacking.
Councillors very often perceive that they are not allowed to overly scrutinise 151 officers because of members’ codes of conduct. Will the Government therefore consider whether additional safeguards or oversight mechanisms are needed to prevent similar situations arising again in the future, particularly as councils become larger, their finances become more complex and the risks become even greater.
There are also important questions about the size and structure of the authorities now being proposed. Under current proposals, the new West Surrey council would serve approximately 657,000 residents. By comparison, the average non-metropolitan unitary authority in England serves around 265,000 residents, with most serving fewer than 300,000. Authorities of the scale we are talking about today risk weakening democratic accountability, diluting local knowledge and making decision-making feel more distant from the communities they are meant to serve.
Ministers have suggested that having larger authorities will deliver financial efficiencies. In support of that argument, the Government have relied on modelling produced by the County Councils Network, which happens to be chaired by the very same leader of Surrey county council who locked Surrey into this fast-track pathway in the first place. Despite several Parliamentary questions seeking clarification, it remains unclear what independent modelling the Government have undertaken to substantiate those claimed savings. I ask the Minister again: have the Government undertaken their own economic modelling of the projected financial benefits of local government reorganisation in Surrey? If so, will that modelling now be published publicly?
Finally, we should recognise that all of this is unfolding while councils continue to deliver vital services under considerable strain. In my constituency, the concerns most frequently raised with me relate to special educational needs and disabilities provision. Hundreds of families contact me about problems with education, health and care plans—incorrect names, incorrect details, long delays and support packages—that simply do not meet the needs of the children concerned.
For the past three years, Surrey has recorded the highest number of SEND tribunal appeals nationally. At the same time, residents regularly contact me about deteriorating road surfaces, potholes causing vehicle damage and wider infrastructural pressures. These are not abstract policy debates; they are real challenges affecting families who rely on local government services every single day.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for setting out with such exemplary clarity the challenges of going ahead with local government reorganisation, particularly on the timescales that have been set. He represents a Surrey constituency, while I represent a constituency in West Sussex, where we are currently awaiting the outcome of the Government consultation on whether the new unitary will be a single unitary authority covering all of West Sussex, second in size only to Birmingham city council, or our preferred option of two future west Sussex unitary councils.
Does he not agree that constituents need local decision-making and for there to be accountability, so that when pothole or SEND provision fails, constituents have a close relationship with their councils and can get the answers that they deserve?
Dr Pinkerton
I feel every sympathy with my hon. Friend’s campaign for two unitary authorities; I was very supportive of there being three unitary authorities for Surrey, and we were sadly denied that. That would have delivered the much more local accountability to which my hon. Friend refers. I wish her good luck in her campaign for two unitary authorities, and for the local accountability which, as she recognises, is so important for her constituents.
There is also a wider concern that I hear frequently from the voluntary and charitable sector. Many charities organise themselves around existing local authority boundaries. They rely on those relationships for funding, partnerships and the delivery of services. Local government reorganisation risks sweeping away that social infrastructure —boundaries change, funding streams shift and relationships built up over years can disappear overnight—but this is happening at precisely the moment that charities may be more important than ever, helping communities to pick up the pieces during a period of institutional upheaval and ensuring that vulnerable people do not fall through the gaps that inevitably appear during major restructuring.
Against that backdrop, local government reorganisation is creating substantial additional workload for councils and their staff, many of whom are already working under tight financial constraints and significant workforce pressures. Local government reform should strengthen local institutions, not weaken them. It should produce councils that are financially stable, democratically accountable and close enough to the communities they serve to understand their needs. Those are the standards that fundamentally matter, and the ones against which people across Surrey and the south east will judge the outcome of this process.
Several hon. Members rose—
Martin Vickers (in the Chair)
Order. I remind hon. Members to bob, as indeed they are doing, if they wish to be called.
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers.
Local government is an area of great interest to me. I did my master’s dissertation on models for English devolution; I have worked at the UK’s leading think-tank on devolution; for 17 years I worked as an adviser to local authorities, and I have served in local government in a county council and a district council, including almost a decade as a council leader. From 2015 onwards, I have also been involved in various devolution proposals for Sussex in one way or another.
I say all that because, despite that background, I still cannot get my head around what the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is trying to achieve with all this. That is despite talking to the director at No. 10, special advisers and Ministers on this policy area. In fact, the more I delve into it, the more opaque it becomes.
My understanding is that this reform all kicked off with Angela Rayner and Rachel Reeves—two people without any background in local government—making a deal: more money now, in return for local government reform. The only reason they thought it would deliver any results was that the County Councils Network had, for many years, been putting forward a document that seemed to set out a case that there would be financial savings if county councils were merged at the unitary level.
Those figures relied on population sizes of roughly half a million people—that figure is critical; I re-read all the statements made by local government Ministers on this before this debate, and it is a figure that has been repeatedly stated and was consistently pushed for the better part of a year. The reason was that, when we look at the County Councils Network figures, the £2 billion savings it talked about delivering, which it presented as if it were an annual statement—it is not, it is over five years—are achievable only when dealing with population sizes of 500,000 or greater.
The problem, when we come down to it, is this: for the Labour party, that is completely unelectable. We have pockets of support within the south east, but we do not have larger footprints. With the politics unravelling around this question, we have started to talk about smaller sizes for unitary authorities, but here we run into a problem: unitary authorities do not save money. Merging existing councils saves money. We could merge districts together—that would save money. We could merge counties together—what an idea!—and that would save money. We could merge existing unitaries together—that would save money. However, when we start creating unitaries, we are merging two different tiers together; if that is a smaller footprint than existing upper-tier authorities, it will always end up costing more money than the alternative.
We now have a proposal that will not deliver politically or financially. I will return to the finances in due course, because the situation is much worse than people think it is. This proposal is somehow still on the table long beyond the original document that set this all out. If there are other figures on this then, like the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), I would be delighted to see them. I have asked for them repeatedly. However, when Governments do not release data, we come to the conclusion that they do not have data that backs up their case. The evidence base here is very hard to find.
The other argument that comes up very frequently is that two-tier areas are too complicated and people do not know who runs what. I have lived in two-tier areas essentially my entire life, apart from when I was at university, and that is not something I have come across, despite being in roles where I might expect to come across it very regularly. If we say tiers are a problem, adding mayors across the country and encouraging people to set up third-tier authorities increases the total number of tiers at the local government level. It adds to the complexity rather than decreasing it.
We hear bizarre arguments about issues such as waste collection and waste disposal authorities, as if the idea that someone collects the bins and someone gets rid of them is complicated. What particularly grates my gears about that argument is that there are many unitary authorities that are not waste disposal authorities. Take the Thames valley waste authority as an example—take Greater London—take Greater Manchester: in all those areas, waste is collected that is then disposed of on a larger footprint. There are many such areas where the powers do not perfectly align, and people manage to get through them without any great deal of controversy.
The argument for much of this change, particularly with the mayoralties, was that we were would get wider public sector reform, which would deliver astounding savings. The problem with that argument is that the footprints that the change was supposed to create would align the mayoralties, the police authorities and the integrated care boards, so that we would get all the services in one area and they could deliver efficiencies. However, we are now talking about creating police authorities on a larger footprint than the existing mayoral footprint, so the two would no longer correspond. There will be a much more complicated structure now, with deputy mayors sitting on different boards in relation to it. Similarly, the ICBs have had to expand, so they no longer go along with the devolution footprint.
The only form of public sector reform that we can now carry out around this process is reform of local government on its own, and that will not deliver the projected savings. Most of the areas that a district council deals with and most of the areas that a county council deals with do not interface in any meaningful way when it comes to savings. If they did, the County Councils Network report, which it paid PwC to produce in order to create the strongest possible case for reform, would have put that forward. Instead, the report solely states that savings can be made by reducing senior officer numbers. As anyone who has been involved in the sector knows, many of those posts no longer exist in the numbers that they did at the time that the PwC report was formed. At this point, such figures simply do not exist.
The only people I can find who have any difficulty with the idea of two-tier areas are civil servants and politicians from unitary authority areas. One might imagine what other people might feel if we went to their areas and tried to impose our culture upon them. There has also been the claim that these reformed authorities will be engines for economic growth and housing delivery, but let us think about it in this way: I was the leader of a local authority that delivered over four times our Government-assessed numbers for housing, whereas—unfortunately—Mid Sussex district council, which was previously under Conservative control, often did not even have a core strategy for that entire period, never mind delivering any actual housing numbers.
We are about to create unitaries where the areas that deliver large volumes of housing, and that need such housing at an affordable rate, will be swamped by rural communities. What do we think will be the dominant factor in these new authorities, where the politics is controlled by rural communities? Will it be a focus on economic development? Will it be a focus on housing delivery? Or will it be stamping down on those two things, as we have seen time and time again? This plan does not deliver on the Government’s missions; it kills them off, as many Members have tried to point out in recent times. The reality is that demography is destiny, and rural communities will have control over those authorities.
Returning to the issue of finance, in my area the actual cost of the merger is estimated as three times greater than the estimate put forward so far. In fact, even on the most optimistic assumptions, on these footprints no savings would be delivered until the end of the next Parliament—but it is more likely that there would not be any saving at all. In fact, the situation gets even worse than that. Who knows when most of the country’s leisure centres were built? I will give Members a clue—it was in the early ’70s. What happened in the early ’70s? We merged all the district councils, and they looked at their accounts and said, “I am not handling this over to the next council”, and they got busy spending.
We can see that in the country currently. The reality is that, until the protections come in with the new authority, people will be getting money out the door. Debt is going up, budgetary decisions are being postponed and savings are being put off in order to invest in local communities while there is one last chance to do that. Over the next 12 months, section 114 notices are far more likely than in any preceding period.
I will move on to the issue of democracy. Resident satisfaction surveys of local authorities have consistently shown a positive correlation between the perception of a local authority and the size of that authority. It is not the other way around, as though suddenly authorities delivered much more effectively when they got to a much greater footprint—why would that be the case? More remote Government is not necessarily going to make people any happier.
Currently, the average size of authorities in the UK is seven times larger than not the European average, but the authorities in the European country with the next largest—and this programme will make our authorities 14 times larger than those. Why are we such an outlier? Why are councils in Europe, which have far greater powers and far greater money than we do, apparently perfectly capable of running their local areas, while in our areas we have to bring things up to a central Government level? Again, I think that the civil service has far more to do with this programme than any actual rational thought does.
The changes will also prevent people from having any meaningful relationship with councillors. In the UK, we are far less likely than in any other part of Europe to have independent councillors. The reason is that with footprints of this size we cannot build a meaningful relationship with a councillor. The distance cuts people off from their democracy and any sense of control, and increases their scepticism. Conversations about area committees are frankly meaningless; anyone who has actually worked with those structures knows they do not replace meaningful representation.
The fundamental problem we will run into is geography. When we strive to get population sizes in rural areas, we come up with enormous geographies; for my patch, we are most likely talking about an area in excess of 50 miles wide. Greater London is just over 30 miles wide. What common interests can exist in that footprint? What common services? What common identity? We will end up with competition between the different communities in those areas, and policy will be driven by those communities whose voices are heard loudest in whatever administration is in control. That will, again, mean that the rural beats out the urban. Urban communities such as mine, which includes some of the most deprived parts of the country—certainly in the south-east, at least—will lose out as a direct result of the restructure.
There are 71 Labour constituencies that trusted us at the last election, but that will see their quality of life decline as a direct result of the policy as well. When we look at the numbers, it might well be that if the Labour party, sacrificed those 71 constituencies, it would never be in office again. I am sure that Opposition Members would be delighted; it is why I thought they would be pushing the policy, not the Members on the Labour Benches. Talk to any Labour party organiser and they will say that the policy undermines our organising model. They are up in arms.
Most Labour Governments in the last century would not have happened had there been a reform such as this. We are arguing for a policy that no longer reflects the principles on which it was first brought together. It no longer reflects the same goals: it will not save us money, it will be more remote and it will undermine the deprived communities that this Government are allegedly in place to serve. It is clear that the advice given to Ministers in MHCLG is poor; we have seen that in just one month, with fair funding miscalculations that took place, and we have seen that with the elections, with the conclusions that we now all have to deal with.
Having been through the detail of the policy over and over again, I cannot see any way that it is not another example of that poor advice.
Alison Bennett
I am very much appreciating and enjoying the hon. Member’s contribution to the debate. Can I suggest that, when it comes to getting local government in England on a sound financial footing, the real elephant in the room is putting social care on a financial basis so that councils can deliver decent social care to our communities?
Peter Lamb
There are three areas, and social care is one of them. The finances of upper-tier authorities have been totally compromised, initially by the costs of social care, where we have still not taken decisions all these years after the Dilnot review. We all know that social care is slowly bankrupting councils. Go to any single council presentation on local government finance—whether a unitary or upper-tier authority—and that is the thing that will be mentioned.
Then there is SEND, which again has absolutely crippled local authorities’ funding to the extent that we allowed them to keep it off their books because the cost would have bankrupted them. That has now been taken away from them to be covered centrally, so that is one less problem to deal with.
Lastly, there are the costs of temporary housing, which housing authorities, like the districts, are mandated to provide. They have no control over it, and are often dealing with the consequences of central Government decisions that move more people into the area and create that level of housing need. However, those costs ultimately stem from a failure of housing policy in this country.
Those are the three areas bankrupting local government. Despite the fact that local government started out as the most efficient part of the public sector and has become still more efficient since, taking sensible decisions to maintain its survival, it cannot deal with pressures that are not being dealt with centrally. If we deal with those three problems, local government finance problems will go away—but they are central Government’s problems to resolve, and we have not yet quite resolved them.
I accept that all that is in motion, but when I talk to people in local government, very few of them want this policy. The reality is the boundaries are most likely going to end up lasting for another half a century—just look at the pain we are going through now; we are not going to want to go through it all again. We should not be embarking on something that will last 50 years when we cannot publish the evidence base because it is so weak. A pause is now needed to reflect on these proposals. I will continue to argue more and more loudly for that, adding more and more things to the debate about the best outcome here. I say to Ministers, “You’ve inherited a mess from other people; it wasn’t of your making and I really wouldn’t jeopardise your careers seeing this through.”
Martin Vickers (in the Chair)
May I remind the hon. Gentleman that we do not refer to other Members by name, but by their constituency?
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) for securing this important debate.
Last October, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo), I met with representatives of 48 parish and town councils from the villages and towns that surround Oxford. These hard-working volunteers are the lifeblood of local communities and the closest level of representation to residents. They were very clear that local government reorganisation is an opportunity as well as a considerable upheaval, and they had three tests for any new arrangement in Oxfordshire: first, that it should make the delivery of public services simpler and more efficient; secondly, that it should retain accountability for key decisions closer to residents and strengthen the role of parish and town councils; and thirdly, that it should make sense in terms of geography, history and existing structures.
Happily, those tests are similar to those that the Government have themselves set out—yet Oxfordshire is shaping up to be an important test of the Government’s approach to local government reorganisation. Ministers have set out clear criteria, and it is essential that they are applied properly to every proposal. On those tests, I believe the strongest fit in Oxfordshire is the One Oxfordshire proposal. Oxfordshire county council’s proposal is for a single county-wide unitary on the existing county geography. The county council says that this would save over £63 million a year, and it stands to reason that consolidating at the higher tier would be more efficient, as the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) set out more eloquently than I could.
The county council already delivers services to over 750,000 residents and accounts for 85% of local government service expenditure in Oxfordshire. Keeping the county structure would avoid splitting critical services such as adult and children’s social care, SEND provision and homelessness. The main challenge to this approach is how it would sustain accountability at a suitably local level. To this, the county council proposes partnerships with town and parish councils, new area committees and other neighbourhood governance arrangements.
As well as local representation, what matters is that the shape of any new unitary authority makes sense to residents. A county-wide model follows the existing Oxfordshire geography, keeps the area together and is plainly easier for residents to understand than a plan built on split districts and cross-boundary complexity. By contrast, the Oxford city council-backed 3Councils proposal asks Ministers to move away from that starting point; the Government’s consultation states that it would split existing district areas and establish a Greater Oxford council, a Northern Oxfordshire council and a Ridgeway council.
That proposal is fraught with issues. It chops and changes existing district-level boundaries, even though the Government’s guidance says that districts should be the building blocks of new unitaries. It shoehorns in west Berkshire, which is in a different fire and rescue service area, even though the Government’s guidance says that proposals affecting wider public services need a strong justification. The Government say that 500,000 residents is the guiding principle, yet Oxford city council’s proposal documents put the populations at 240,000 for Greater Oxford, 265,000 for Northern Oxfordshire and 430,000 for Ridgeway.
Oxford city council argues for an exception, and that is of course open to it, but let us be honest about what it means. It means asking Ministers to depart from their own default principle not once but three times, while accepting greater boundary complexity. The question for Ministers is, what justification could there be for departing so far from Government guidance, and why import additional structural complexity and financial risk into Oxfordshire when there is a county-wide Oxfordshire option that does not require it?
Before we get to a new model for local government in Oxfordshire, we need to address transitional funding arrangements. The Minister is well aware of the challenges of funding the SEND system and the impact that underfunding has had on not only councils but families across the country. The proposal to meet 90% of the high needs block deficit in Oxfordshire with central Government funding is welcome, but Oxfordshire county council understands that this deficit will be defined as of 31 March this year, whereas new funding models will not begin until 2028-29. Will the Minister please set out how the likely additional funding for high needs will be met for the two missing years?
At the same time, Cherwell district council in my constituency was shocked that the Government advised, on 6 February, days before its budget-setting council, that they had made an error in the draft local government funding proposals and were cutting £2 million from Cherwell’s advised settlement. After interventions from local MPs, the Government provided a one-year additional grant to Cherwell, but the council and its residents have no certainty about the next two years of funding, with the threat of losing nearly 10% of income hanging over it. I hope the Minister will agree to meet me and the hon. Member for Banbury (Sean Woodcock) to discuss Cherwell’s future funding formula.
In October, the 48 parish and town councils were unanimous in opposing the 3Councils proposal. They saw it for what it is: a crude effort by Oxford city council to grab a larger area of land, which would break up existing rural communities, sever historic linkages between villages and market towns, and leave two other ill-funded residual councils as the collateral damage of a power grab that fails to meet the Government’s criteria. Reorganisation should be about better services, clearer accountability and stronger local government. It should not be about bending the rules after the event. In Oxfordshire, the Government have set the tests. They should now apply them properly.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. I commend the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) for bringing this important subject to the House today. It is great to see MPs from across the House here in Westminster Hall, although with 400-odd Labour MPs and quite a few in the south-east these days, we might have expected more than one to come to speak in favour of this flagship Government policy—it is not entirely apparent to all of us why it is a flagship Government policy, but there we have it. Let us be frank: the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) made an unconventional pitch to the Whips Office, but it was a pleasure and privilege to hear his very well reasoned and well thought-out case, obviously based on many years of experience.
There are two big things going on at the same time that quite often get conflated: the creation of mayoralties and the bringing together of different local authorities at unitary level, which we call local government reorganisation—LGR. The two things often get conflated, but today we are talking primarily about the second. I will be honest: we can make arguments in favour of unitary authorities, in favour of two-tier authorities, and in favour of three tiers—we can make all sorts of arguments—but if we are going to have this change, how we divvy up and carve up areas makes a huge difference. In my area, East Hampshire district council and Hampshire county council have been working hard on putting forward a good proposal.
One of the reasons this matters so much—previous speakers have raised this point—is the very high-cost items that will go into these new unitary authorities, principally adult social care and the high needs block, or SEND. In order to fund those costs for people at either end of the age scale, we need quite a lot of people in the middle. We need working-age adults contributing, and businesses contributing their taxes as well.
The hon. Member for Crawley talked about housing. One of the points that has not yet quite registered with everybody is the way that housing development planning will change. It will be on a different level, which will be further away—more remote—from the areas that are affected and could involve quite a lot of rebalancing of where housing goes. The hon. Member expressed the opposite view, but my fear is that in this new set-up, there will be the risk of more encroachment on to rural areas, because in the dominant urban areas, they will see less physical constraints for more sprawl out from those urban settlements.
The other point that I am not sure has quite permeated the public discourse is about identity. People often identify with the county and the town or village they are in. We have not yet given names to any of the new unitary authorities that might be created in the county of Hampshire, but they are almost certainly going to end up being, to some extent, artificial constructs—in the same way that, back in 1974, a lot of new identities were created, which was sometimes a difficult thing for people to deal with.
Whatever the pros and cons of different forms of local government, there is always a difficulty in the short term. Whenever anything is changed or reorganised, as anyone who has worked in business knows, there will be a great argument for, for example, moving the sales force to a regional level or back to a national level. Along the way, however, a lot of cost is incurred and effectiveness is eroded because people’s attention is moved from the key task in hand to what is happening in the organisation. Buildings have to be sold and redundancies made. All sorts of things affect operational effectiveness.
There is then still the question: what, ultimately, is the balance in terms of cost saving? I think that we are all grateful to the hon. Member for Crawley—I will call him my hon. Friend—who set out that it is really quite difficult to find material savings unless it is at a big scale. So many of the proposals that are coming forward are not at that scale—often for good reason, because it is difficult to create a meaningful identity in such a big area. There will, however, be some economies of scale. If bin collection is taken from the lower tier and put into the unitary, it should be possible to do that on a lower unit cost. There will also, however, be some diseconomies of scale, because some things will come from the upper tier and be moved into a smaller unit of geography, creating a diseconomy. I have no idea what the balance of those two things is, but we seem to be launching into this massive change—wholesale reorganisation—without knowing.
On the point about the upheaval along the way, whatever the end state is, I promise that in year one, there will not be a saving. There might eventually be something to look forward to, but we have enough economic troubles that I find it stunning that the Government should be considering entering into something that will make their fiscal task harder, at least in the short term and possibly in the long term.
I have tabled a number of parliamentary questions that have been answered in the name of the Minister before us today. Those answers have all been elegant, but they have not been illuminating. The charitable explanation came from her hon. Friend the Member for Crawley: maybe the Government just do not know what the data are. That might be true. It might also be true that they have a working assumption, but we are not being told.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I thank my constituency neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) for leading this debate and eloquently putting the case. I endorse his calls this afternoon.
I will use my time to talk about why local government reorganisation in the south-east is happening, as well as its opportunities and risks. LGR, as it is known for short, is happening in Surrey first because of the dire financial state of local government there. I have raised it with the Minister before, in one-to-ones, Committee meetings and the Chamber, so I know that she, too, knows that that is why LGR is happening in Surrey. It is almost inevitable because of the appalling decisions that have been made by the Conservatives who run Surrey county council, and boroughs and districts across my county.
Nowhere is it more true than in my constituency of Woking, where the former Conservative administration of Woking borough council borrowed more than £2 billion for risky commercial investments. It is a small borough council with the debts of a small country. My local authority borrowed and spent more than £700 million on a town centre regeneration scheme, which councillors originally signed off at £150 million. It borrowed money from the Government to loan to a private school, despite the fact, as I highlighted during Prime Minister’s questions last week, that a state school has a hole in its roof and a rotten floor. It then borrowed money to build, run and maintain a power plant in Milton Keynes. That raft of financial decisions will hurt my constituents and, I am afraid, those of my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath, and the whole country, for years to come.
Where is the accountability in all this? Well, since those appalling decisions were made my constituents have voted out of office every single Conservative councillor on Woking borough council, and I am pleased they did. There is political accountability there, but where is the personal accountability? I have called for the former chief executive officer of Woking borough council, Ray Morgan, to lose his OBE. Investigations are under way into him and others; does the Minister agree that the former CEO should lose his honour straight away?
I am concerned about the legacy of debt that will be passed on to the new west Surrey council. I am pleased that the Government agreed, among previous Ministers, an unprecedented and historic write-off of £500 million of Woking’s debt. My constituents and I are obviously very grateful for that, but the money could not possibly have been repaid. I am pleased that the Government recognised that, but more debt write-off and more support are going to be needed to ensure that the new council does not start off bankrupt on day one. The Minister recently wrote to me outlining further support for west Surrey, as well as what we have agreed for Woking; will she comment on what further support the Government can bring?
Let me move on to an issue that is close to my heart. Members might think that being the MP for the most bankrupt and indebted council area in the country is about as bad as it could get. I am afraid I also represent the area where Sara Sharif was tortured, abused and murdered by her family. What makes that worse is that Surrey county council could have saved her on multiple occasions. From day one, the council wanted to take custody of her, away from her family, but did not. The day before she was murdered, the council tried to visit her to see whether she was safe but went to the wrong house. Surrey has shown systemic failure in looking after vulnerable constituents, and that was a tragic result.
Thankfully, children’s services will be broken up and divided between east and west Surrey, but I am terrified that the culture of not looking after vulnerable children will be passed on to the new west Surrey council, and I know that colleagues representing the east Surrey council area feel similarly. Will the Minister please work with me and others to ensure that our new council has a good culture that includes looking after vulnerable children and responding to MPs’ emails? That would be a stark contrast to the reality I see from Surrey county council.
Finally, I want to mention another risk of local Government reorganisation. Under the Conservatives, Surrey county council recently announced that it is going to end free school meal vouchers. The council is going to allow them to continue for Easter but, coincidentally, as soon as the elections are over, it is going to stop feeding vulnerable constituents over the holidays in my Woking constituency and across Surrey. That will mean no more free school vouchers in the May half-term or summer breaks. Will the Minister investigate that and ensure that Surrey is adequately funded so that our constituents are supported? Does she agree that it is shocking and deceitful that, under the cloud of local government reorganisation, the Conservative county council is trying to deprive children in my constituency of a healthy meal?
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I am exceptionally grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) for securing the debate and outlining so eloquently his concerns and those of his residents. I thank all colleagues who have spoken; it has been helpful to weave together the different perspectives of those of us who are going through reorganisation and those who are experts in the field. I hope the Minister will take on board everything that has been said in the debate.
Like my hon. Friend, I support the principle of local Government reorganisation. I am sure we have all spoken to residents who are surprised and frustrated to learn that they have to deal with one council to fix potholes and a different one to get their bins collected. Simplification for that purpose is actually a good thing but, as we have heard from west Surrey colleagues such as my hon. Friends the Members for Woking (Mr Forster) and for Surrey Heath—it is a recurring theme in Surrey and for pretty much all councils in the south-east—reorganisation is frankly just about finance.
Colleagues have clearly and starkly illustrated that Surrey is in billions of pounds of debt racked up by Conservative-led councils, and it has been Liberal Democrat colleagues in local government who have led the way in turning councils’ finances around. That said, I am grateful to the hon. Members for Crawley (Peter Lamb) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who both rightly noted that savings are not always guaranteed. It is going to be “interesting” to see how things evolve and whether the savings presented to us will actually come to fruition.
Reshaping local government can make sense, but reorganisation succeeds only when it is done with communities, not to them. Across Surrey, residents, councillors and officers feel that the pace of the reorganisation process has left them struggling to keep up with decisions that will help to reshape local services. When we debated the draft Surrey (Structural Changes) Order 2026 two weeks ago, I raised concerns about the speed of the process and the lack of meaningful consultation. I highlighted the fact that when residents were asked, they said they wanted three authorities. The financial figures show that the difference between the cost savings for two versus three authorities across Surrey is relatively minimal.
When it comes to ensuring that a local authority reflects its residents, it is important that it gives them the sense of place that the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) referred to, which is really important to residents. The structural changes order came into force today; unfortunately, I have not yet had answers to my questions in the debate on it, but I am grateful to the Minister for confirming that I will have them shortly.
Members have articulated the serious financial pressures facing Surrey. Residents are understandably worried about historical debt, and how the cost of living crisis alongside that will affect them, whether that is through council tax harmonisation, the loss of valued community assets, or pressures on frontline services. Residents did not make the decisions that created the problems, yet they will be asked to shoulder the financial consequences.
I would welcome clarity from the Minister on what transitional funding and support the Government are going to provide for west Surrey and other authorities that are going through reorganisation. They are going to start their lives as new authorities on a potentially unstable financial footing. As colleagues have highlighted, west Surrey is looking at an unstable footing in the order of around £4 billion.
There is a wider question about the economic framework shaping the future of the authorities in question. The current proposals will give west Surrey strategic responsibilities that are similar to those of a mayoral authority, but without access to the equivalent long-term investment. Mayoral authorities benefit from 30-year investment funds, because the Government recognise that long-term certainty unlocks growth. If west Surrey and other new combined authority areas are expected to deliver the same strategic ambitions as a mayoral authority without the same tools, the Government need to explain how they expect those authorities to unlock the growth needed for them to economically succeed and serve their residents.
I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify two points regarding foundation strategic authority status. First, will the Minister give clarity on the pathway to a mayoral authority specifically for Surrey, and on the timing of any future mayoral election? Secondly, will she outline how the Government are going to ensure that areas that are undergoing reorganisation via the foundation authority route do not miss out on the growth funding available to mayoral combined authorities elsewhere?
On communication and governance, large-scale structural change depends on strong collaboration among county councils, district councils, officers, community organisations and Members of Parliament, yet many colleagues across Surrey, including me and my team, have struggled to obtain clear and timely engagement with Surrey county council. A particular example—I could give a litany of them—is my work alongside Guildford borough council, South Western Railway and Network Rail on progressing discussions about a potential new railway station in Guildford. We are struggling to get engagement from the county council, which is also the transport authority. This does not bode well for the wider essential communication needed to make the transition to new councils work. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on that.
My final Surrey-specific point relates to the parish councils and voluntary sector organisations across the county, which are also significantly impacted by local government reorganisation and deserve urgent clarity. These bodies provide vital hyper-local leadership. They support vulnerable residents, deliver local services and act as a crucial bridge between communities and the higher tiers of government. Many of them are, frankly, unsure what the new governance structures mean for their funding, commissioning arrangements and day-to-day interactions with the new authorities. Surely such crucial partners need clarity.
A specific concern that highlights the problem was expressed to me this week on behalf of parish councils. The parish council elections are due in 2027, but they will no longer align with the main-tier elections, so parishes will incur additional costs. Currently, those unexpected costs will have to be footed by parishes, so will the Minister outline what support they will be given for the unexpected electoral cost when elections do not align?
To move beyond Surrey, local government across England is under immense pressure after years of financial strain, rising demand in social care and SEND, and inadequate long-term funding. Reorganisation alone cannot resolve the structural challenges; it is part of the solution, and we desperately need it to work, but it is only part of the solution. We Liberal Democrats continue to argue that alongside reorganisation we need fair funding, proper recognition of the costs faced by rural and semi-rural areas, and sustainable, multi-year settlements that allow councils to plan ahead. That is why we focus so much on needing a cross-party solution to the social care crisis. Many county councils face having to spend enormous percentages of their budgets on social care, leaving wider budgets stretched to breaking point, despite their herculean efforts.
In conclusion, communities across Surrey, the wider south-east and England deserve local government reorganisation that strengthens them, not uncertainty that undermines them. We have heard from colleagues throughout the House about their grave concerns as experienced Members of Parliament and experienced individuals with backstories in local government, and about the concerns their residents have raised with them. I hope the Minister will reflect on the issues raised in the debate, take the steps needed to deliver, and work with colleagues across the House to deliver local government reorganisation that works for local people.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests on my roles as an unpaid parliamentary vice-president of both the Local Government Association and London Councils.
I congratulate to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) on securing the debate. He, the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) set the tone of a debate that has engaged, with a high degree of seriousness, not only with the issues that stem from the specifics of what is happening in Surrey but with what they say about the wider local government reorganisation debate.
It was interesting as a parliamentarian to be present, a short time ago, at a Delegated Legislation Committee in which Committee members agreed the abolition of the historic county of Surrey and its replacement with two unitary authorities. That was the conclusion of a long period of debate in which, as the hon. Member for Crawley outlined, the leaders of county councils in particular argued strongly that local government reorganisation on the footprint of the existing county structure would be a way to save money. Many district councils argued strongly against that idea, and it was called into question by many experienced unitary leaders.
We all recognise that there is a need to look again at our local government settlement. This country is already very under-represented in democratic terms at the local level, with the fewest elected politicians per capita of any developed democracy. It is also intensely centralised by comparison with most other countries, with decisions that would as a matter of routine be local decisions in most other democracies taken by Parliament or central Government.
I have a huge amount of sympathy for the Minister, because while she is from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, council services touch on the work of the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Education, the Department for Transport, the Treasury, the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office. The observations that other Members have made about the impact of special educational needs and disabilities demonstrate that complexity, where an issue that sits outside the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is one of the single biggest factors in the viability of local authorities.
The last time we faced each other across the Dispatch Box, I asked the Minister, with particular respect to Surrey, whether there was an update on negotiations. Surrey had set out very clearly that its deficit on SEND spending sits at around £350 million, and the Government had been clear—in fairness, it was Department for Education Ministers—that they would pay off 90% of that deficit. The offer to Surrey was £100 million, which was significantly less than the 90% that we were promised at the Dispatch Box. This is not simply a matter of what happens in a single Government Ministry; it brings together services, activities and decisions across Government.
Reflecting on the long history of local government reorganisation, it probably predates the existence of our country as a unitary state. Certainly the role of some ancient Saxon kingdoms is quite akin to the behaviour of some local government leaders today. The particular challenges that come from the difficult relationship between central and local government are manifest here today.
With regard to recent developments, I spent 12 years in local government under the previous Labour Government and a further 12 years there under the Conservative Government who left office in 2024, and many of the decisions that were made then by central Government—statutory requirements placed on local authorities such as SEND arrangements, social care, the fair access criteria that were introduced, housing—were never fully funded. Since the early 2000s, there has been steady growth in the share of local government spending that is consumed by social care and housing. We have seen an erosion of the ability of our elected local leaders to deploy locally raised resources against local priorities, to the extent that social care now consumes around 70% to 80% of the budget of a typical social care authority. That is not sustainable.
Other Members have spoken passionately and with a degree of criticism about the impact that investment decisions at the council level have had. We all recognise that councils led by all of the parties represented here have made both good and bad decisions when it comes to investment, but we should be wary of criticising local leaders for having made decisions in good faith that did not end well. At a time when the public works loan board interest rate was 0.25%, the decision—even by a council—to take a loan and put it in the bank would have generated additional finance that could have supported local government services. Those decisions were not always innately wrong, but the impact of covid on local authorities’ investments in commercial property was absolutely devastating. Spelthorne, which has been mentioned today, is one example of that: what would have looked like an extremely sound commercial investment turned into a very bad one because of the impact of covid.
We find ourselves today in a situation where Surrey is unusual. It is the only authority announced for the devolution priority programme that has got to the point of creating new successor unitary authorities. At the outset of this process, the Government were very clear that they were going to cancel the elections in all the devolution priority programme councils, which we voted against at the Delegated Legislation Committee that considered that matter. They did so on the basis that elections for the new unitaries and mayors would take place across the country. There were supposed to be elections this May for new mayors in Suffolk, Norfolk, Essex, Hampshire and many other places. Political parties and local leaders had been working on that basis, only to find after a 24-hour U-turn last December that the elections that were promised to go ahead were suddenly being cancelled.
All this delay and dithering is imposing costs. I met yesterday with a finance company that told me that the procurement of new finance systems across the local authority sector has simply ground to a halt in the absence of any clarity from Government about what is happening. The commissioning of new services in social care to address homelessness has collapsed, which I know concerns the Minister, as has the delivery of housing—both the pipeline of new applications and the completions of new properties. Two thirds of London boroughs report no new net additional homes. That is an absolute indictment of the state in which many of our councils find themselves because of the delay imposed by this process.
As the hon. Member for Crawley outlined, both the Government and the wider argument for this reorganisation rely on a now rather old report that was prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers at the instigation of the County Councils Network to support the case for county-based reorganisation. It is clear from the evidence he presented that the hon. Member, who left us in no doubt about what he thinks of this process, knows of what he speaks. The start of the process was simple. Half a million people was the minimum footprint in order to secure savings. That was the level that the Treasury expected to see delivered. However, that is significantly larger than the existing footprint of most unitary authorities. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire described, it risked losing the sense of place and identity. Ministers quite wisely backed off. They looked at the bids from the local authority areas that were instructed to submit them and settled on a smaller footprint.
That fundamentally undermines the case that this will result in significant revenue savings to the Government in the medium to long term, for the reasons outlined by the hon. Member for Crawley. A concern that the Opposition have raised a number of times on the Floor of the House is that the Government have no independent modelling or independent financial analysis to back up their direction of travel on these reorganisation decisions.
As all Members who spoke passionately about their enthusiasm for getting local Government right recognised, when we compare ourselves, sometimes unfavourably, to other European countries and ask why they seem to be able to build railways and public transport infrastructure faster than the United Kingdom, the answer is largely that those decisions are made at local and regional level; they are not made by central Government. Delivery of rail networks or citywide transport, for example, which I know is of concern to a huge number of Members where lots of good projects are on the stocks, is much faster and cheaper in many other countries. We need to look at what we can learn from their experience.
We need to reflect on the role of the Treasury. I have heard former Chancellors say that when the demand for additional day-to-day spending becomes unbearable, the temptation is to simply slow down the exit of capital from the door on major projects. One of the benefits of localisation is that it removes that temptation from Chancellors and ensures that things that are committed to, become deliverable at a local level.
There are many urgent pressures. One of the key concerns I hear from councils all the time is that the Government do not have a huge amount of time to think, not just in the sense of the parliamentary timetable but when we look across our country. Unemployment has been relentlessly rising every single month since the Government took office, homelessness has surged up 27% in London alone since the Government took office, debt is rising rapidly, planning decisions are grinding to a halt and housing delivery is grinding to a halt. We need to give local communities hope that there is a prospect of solving some of those matters. I share a concern with the hon. Member for Crawley, which affects us very directly. The decisions that the Government have made in the Home Office, speeding up decision making on asylum seekers, pushing those people out the door and up the road to the town hall which then has responsibility for housing them, is putting acute pressure on my local authority, his local authority and many others across the country who are doing their best in difficult circumstances.
It is very clear that a whole range of issues are brought to our attention by what is happening in Surrey. I am grateful to all hon. Members who have set out their particular concerns. I hope that, as a result of the observations made in the debate, we may see the Government come back with a revised set of policies that reflect a clear sense of place and the opportunity for all our constituents to know that they will have elected representatives who can make the decisions that they want to see made at a local level.
Peter Lamb
On a point of order, Mr Vickers. Regarding my earlier breach, I just want to apologise to you and to the Chamber for referring to my right hon. Friends the Members for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) and for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves) by their names rather than by their constituencies, and without forewarning. I was unaware of the process. I will make sure it does not happen again.
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) for securing today’s debate on local government reorganisation in the south-east. It is a very important issue for residents and businesses across the region and I welcome the opportunity to set out the Government’s approach, the progress that is being made and the opportunity that change presents.
Local government reorganisation is an opportunity to modernise how councils operate. For too long, many areas have been served by complex two-tier structures that divide responsibilities, duplicate cost and blur accountability. Residents often struggle to know which council is responsible for which service. I note the various contributions that have been made on that point. I think we would all agree that councils can always do better to help residents engage with them, but there is no doubt that there is evidence out there that the two-tier system does seem to add to confusion and a lack of accountability. Decisions to build and grow our towns and cities can take longer, with resources spread more thinly. We need clearer structures, stronger councils, quicker decisions, more homes and better services for local people. By moving to single unitary authorities we can create councils with the scale, leadership and authority to grow their economies, create jobs and opportunities, and deliver for communities, particularly in the services where pressure is greatest, including children’s services, adult social care and housing. Those areas were mentioned by a number of Members; I appreciate the contributions that they made.
I just want to make one point on identity, because I am sure we will debate the finances of the situation. As he often does, the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) raised the very serious situation that that council has been through, but identity is also important. I hope Members will forgive me if they have heard me say this before, but before I was born, my own area was in a two-tier system, with Birkenhead and Cheshire as a two-tier council area. In 1974, before I was born, we became the Wirral in Merseyside. Now, we are the Wirral in Liverpool city region. Those different identities are complex and interconnected. There are some people I represent who would say that they are still Cheshire all these years later.
Alison McGovern
There are! And there are some people who identify as Birkenhead and many people who, as I do, think of themselves as Wirralian. These issues of identity are complicated. We need to take account of them and listen to what residents tell us, but my experience is that there is never one right answer.
Across England, the programme is progressing quickly. Proposals have been submitted and consultations undertaken, and the first decisions are now being implemented. The south-east is at the forefront of this work. It is home to cities such as Brighton, Southampton, Oxford and Portsmouth, which have a vital role to play not only in their local economies, but in our national growth story.
I turn first to Surrey, the most advanced area. Parliament has considered the order to establish two new unitary authorities, East Surrey and West Surrey, with elections taking place this May and new councils formally assuming responsibilities in April 2027. Alongside structural reform, we have committed unprecedented debt repayment support of £500 million for Woking borough council, reflecting historic capital practices at the council and the value-for-money case for acting to protect local and national taxpayers. A couple of Members with Surrey constituencies rightly pointed out the consequences for other Surrey residents; I agree that there are consequences for all citizens in the UK when that sort of thing happens. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath asked about financial sustainability. We are keeping that closely under review as we move forward with this process. The support that we have agreed is a first tranche, and we will continue to explore what further debt support is required at a later point.
A number of Members asked about modelling. In this process, it is for councils to bring forward their analysis of costs and benefits to make the case under the criteria. I add one word of caution: we have all discussed the situation with spiking demand in particular areas of cost. I am working with other Government Departments on that; as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) said, local government is a complex mix when it comes to central Government policy. I spent three years on the Treasury Committee poring over the modelling on Brexit and other matters. It is not a precise science, as Members who have experienced Government know only too well.
Damian Hinds
As with many projections, some things are more uncertain than others. Typically, in business, revenues are really hard to project, but costs are a lot easier. Can the Minister share with us what the costs of the reorganisation are anticipated to be?
Alison McGovern
I thank the right hon. Gentleman; that is exactly the point that I am making. I am very conscious that I have spoken to many council leaders and finance officers in recent weeks who have experienced significant cost pressures in areas where we are in quite an uncertain policy environment. The right response to that is to work with the Department for Education, particularly on children’s costs, and others, to get the policy in the right place so that we can get those costs down.
Alison McGovern
I accept the right hon. Gentleman’s point about reorganisation costs; I will think about whether I can say more to him in writing about that—otherwise we will just go over this forever.
I now turn to the really important point made by the hon. Member for Woking. I probably cannot respond in this context to his specific question about honours, but I will take it away. I have immense sympathy with the points he raised, but I am conscious that investigations are ongoing. I will leave it there, but he was correct to make his case.
The removal of the Audit Commission—and what happened to local audit under the Government from 2010 to 2015—was in my view an absolute disaster. We will put it right with the reintroduction of local audit and much greater constraints on the sort of behaviours we have seen not only in Woking, but elsewhere. I will leave that there, too, but I could go on about it for hours.
I turn to Hampshire, Portsmouth, Southampton and the Isle of Wight. The Government have received a number of proposals and representations from councils. Across those areas, different authorities have put forward different visions for the future, some favouring multiple new unitary authorities while others, such as the Isle of Wight, have been clear in their preference to remain stand-alone. Those views, alongside the evidence submitted by other councils and stakeholders, will be assessed carefully against the criteria of sustainability, geography and public engagement.
I turn briefly to Sussex. Proposals for reorganisation have been received and the consultation has now closed. The Government are considering all the evidence submitted and will take decisions guided by the statutory criteria and what will best support effective and sustainable local government.
I turn to Oxfordshire. The Government have now launched a statutory consultation on proposals for unitary reform across the country, which closes this month. A range of options have been proposed, including a single county-wide authority, a two-unitary model and a three-unitary configuration, including a Greater Oxford council.
At this point, I note the remarks made by the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller). He will appreciate that I cannot comment on the specifics, but he asked for a meeting on finance with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sean Woodcock), which I am very happy to arrange. Oxford is a vital cog in helping to grow our national economy, but that is exactly why the consultation and the process are so important. Decisions must be informed not only by structural and economic arguments made by local councils but by the views of residents, businesses and communities themselves.
Across all areas undergoing reform, the Government’s priority is that change must not come at the expense of vital decisions to keep building homes and delivering frontline services. We are also providing practical support to councils delivering reorganisation to help with this capacity, including up to £63 million nationally to help manage implementation pressures alongside expert advice from across the sector and the Local Government Association. I note the comments made by the hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) about parish councils being responsible for their own services and so on. If she has particular concerns about that, I will welcome a note from her.
Reorganisation also sits alongside wider action to place local government on a stronger financial footing. Earlier this year, the Government confirmed the first multi-year local government finance settlement in a decade, which has been welcomed by Members from across the House because it provides councils with greater certainty and ensures that funding better reflects needs and deprivations.
We should remember that the benefits of strong unitary councils are not theoretical. For example, where they already exist, we are seeing results. In South Yorkshire, four unitary councils working with the mayor are helping places such as Barnsley and Doncaster not only to grow their local economies but to translate that into higher wages for local people. South Yorkshire is one of the places that has suffered worst with unemployment in our country’s history, but it is now making serious and significant progress. That is the real economic growth that improves living standards.
Newer unitary councils such as those in Buckinghamshire and North Yorkshire are delivering millions of pounds of efficiencies through streamlined structures that have reduced duplications, delivering savings that will be reinvested in frontline priorities such as supporting vulnerable children and funding local transport. The hon. Member for Woking made his point about vulnerable children very well; I will alert the Minister with responsibility for children’s care to his comments so that he can get a response.
Zöe Franklin
I want to return to the Minister’s point about how mayoral authorities are making such economic progress, and to my question. When foundation authorities are formed on the journey to reorganisation, they do not get the same funding support as a mayoral authority. They are therefore losing out on essential kick-starting resources to help them on their journeys to successful economic growth. Will she clarify what support is coming?
Alison McGovern
When my own area in Merseyside started off on the journey to get a mayor, it was really unclear how to build the right resources; the time it took to do that should not be underestimated. The Association of Greater Manchester Authorities started 20 years before the city had a mayor.
The right way is to get the foundation strong first: get the unitary authorities in place and then move forward from there. I know that the hon. Lady will have more conversations with my hon. Friend the Devolution Minister, who will talk to her about the specific process for Surrey. It is important to me, as Minister for Local Government, to get the foundations strong so that we can build devolution up in that way.
I recognise that Members have raised a number of specific concerns about the implications of reform in their own areas, and those concerns matter. They are being carefully considered. Whether the issue is financial sustainability, which we have discussed, local identity, which I went on about again, or the impact of potential boundary changes, decisions will be taken carefully, transparently and in the interests of residents.
Although they are out of scope of our reorganisation programme, town and parish councils will continue to play an important role in representing their communities. New unitary authorities will also be expected to develop strong, local, area-based working, so that decision making remains close to the communities that it affects. As we look ahead, the next steps are clear: the Government will move forward with decisions and continue working with councils across the region to ensure that change is delivered smoothly and responsibly.
In conclusion, local government reorganisation offers an opportunity for the south-east: an opportunity to give local areas the capacity to grow, build the homes their communities need and see better public services; an opportunity to replace complex and outdated structures with councils that are simpler, stronger and more accountable; and an opportunity to ensure that local government is fit for the future.
I thank the hon. Member for Surrey Heath again for securing this debate. I look forward to continuing to work with Members across the House and with local partners to make changes that will benefit communities right across the south-east.
Dr Pinkerton
I thank the Minister for the seriousness with which she has addressed many of the points raised today. I also thank everyone who has spoken; we had excellent interventions from my hon. Friends the Members for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) and for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett), and from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
The hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) gave a really excellent speech. Like me, he questioned the financial underpinnings and assumptions that sit underneath this process altogether. He also raised important points about urban-rural tension. I slightly agree with the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds): I think the reorganisation will place greater pressure on rural communities than on urban ones, but we will see. The point is that nobody has certainty and there are fears in both directions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) spoke powerfully about transitional funding arrangements, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin). My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster), my constituency neighbour, spoke knowledgeably and passionately about inherited debt—reckless borrowing from the past—but also about the important point of personal responsibility and indeed culpability. I would absolutely support him, and indeed the Minister, in taking that point still further forward.
Lastly, I thank the spokesperson for the Conservative party, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), as well as the Minister once again. Thank you all.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the impact of local government reorganisation in the South East.
English Rugby
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read 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
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
Edward Morello will move the motion and the Minister will respond. I remind other hon. Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. As is the convention in a 30-minute debate, the Member in charge will not have an opportunity to wind up.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for English rugby.
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. Although I confess it is tempting to use this 30 minutes to talk about the disastrous result at the weekend, I will instead stick to the topic. I am a rugby romantic. For me and so many others, the game is about something far deeper than the scoreline. It is of course about solo tries, rolling mauls and high-pressure drop goals that win world cups, but it is also about the burgers from the clubhouse kitchen; standing on the sidelines in the rain, snow, wind and, very occasionally, glorious sunshine; the professional players having their signed shirts on the walls of their childhood club; and tying the laces of my son’s boots on a Sunday morning when he turns out for the under-sevens. That reminds me that rugby is not just a sport, but a community, and at the heart of that community is grassroots rugby.
Local clubs are far more than places where games are played. They are community assets. They are where children, parents, supporters, coaches and volunteers come together. Yes, we go there to play and watch rugby, but they are also where fitness classes, community events and social gatherings are held. They are places where friendships are made and where people feel part of something bigger than themselves.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on this important debate. I am of course the Member of Parliament who represents the home of English rugby; I also have the premiership team Harlequins in my constituency. But we also have grassroots clubs such as Thamesians, which is struggling for pitch space, particularly for its women’s team, who are doing a brilliant job. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that we should be doing everything we can, given what he has just said, to improve access to playing-field space, and therefore will he join me in imploring the Minister to talk to his colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about its plans to remove Sport England as a statutory consultee on planning applications, which could reduce the number of pitches?
Edward Morello
I agree wholeheartedly and am sure that the Minister will take the opportunity to speak to that pledge.
Most importantly, grassroots clubs are where the future of the sport begins. They are where the next England star first learnt to pass, make a tackle and score a try. Yet many grassroots clubs are struggling. Across the country are clubhouses that are outdated, that have unsuitable changing rooms and where facilities are not always appropriate for the women’s game. Often there are no women’s changing rooms at all.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I founded North Dorset women’s rugby club back in 1995 and I am very pleased to say that it is still going. There is now also a fantastic girls’ team, linked with Castle Cary rugby club in my constituency, for girls aged between 12 and 18. There has been some great work on facilities and there has been some funding available through Impact ’25 to help with changing facilities for women and girls. It ends at the end of this month, but it needs to continue. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need that funding in order to ensure that there is that ability to include women and girls in our rugby clubs, particularly in rural areas?
Edward Morello
I wholeheartedly agree and will come on to the issues about funding, but also about how we measure the impact to ensure that, whether it be Rugby Football Union funding or Government—taxpayer —money through Sport England, we are measuring the outputs and making sure that we are delivering results.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this issue forward for debate. It is not just about the clubs; it is also about those who inspire. One of those who perhaps inspires is the pop culture sensation Fury, a former English rugby player who is now a Gladiator. We watch her—on a Saturday night, normally—encouraging young women to be strong, and perhaps fierce.
Now is the time to encourage young boys and girls to get a love for the sport of rugby, which can only be achieved, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, through adequate funding. Indeed, does he agree that the physical benefits of rugby are equalled by the mental health benefits, and the sense of camaraderie that exists in being part of a team at any level, and that all of that is well worth funding across this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Edward Morello
I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member about the wider benefits of rugby, and I will go on to speak about some of the important things that physical activity and sport bring to communities and young people. However, as he mentioned “Gladiators”, it would be remiss of me not to mention my son’s favourite Gladiator, Nitro. I am sure that my son will be delighted to have that on the record. [Laughter.]
Financial pressures are constant. Many clubs survive only because of the extraordinary dedication of volunteers who give their time to keep the lights on and the pitches playable. Matches are regularly cancelled because clubs are unable to field teams in certain age groups. In the last 24 years, 174 amateur clubs have disappeared, which should be a concern to all of us, because if we want rugby to thrive in the future, grassroots clubs must be protected and supported.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
The hon. Member is making a very powerful speech about the power of rugby in our communities. As a proud northerner, I am here to speak about league. The Rugby League Foundation and the Leeds Rhinos Foundation both do excellent work with local community clubs. Every £1 that they invest in community clubs generates a £7 return. However, the facilities in such clubs are decaying and in some cases they limit opportunities. Does he agree that the Government should consider targeted facilities support to ensure that community clubs are successful on and off the pitch?
Edward Morello
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and my Lancastrian wife will be delighted that rugby league was brought into this debate, as she always tries to convince me when I am watching league that it is better than rugby union. I absolutely take his point about targeted support and I am sure the Minister will, too.
Government support has made a difference where it has been targeted effectively. Through arm’s length bodies such as Sport England, almost £14 million has been awarded to grassroots rugby from the legacy funding for the 2025 women’s rugby world cup. Since 2009, nearly £50 million of national lottery funding has been invested in the women’s and girls’ game, with £11.8 million of funding confirmed between 2022 and 2027.
That investment has had positive results. We have seen that clearly in the growth of the women’s game. The Red Roses have become one of the most dominant teams in world sport. They have won three rugby world cups, including the most recent one in 2025. At that tournament, they defeated Canada in front of a record crowd of over 81,000 spectators at Twickenham. They have won 20 women’s six nations tournaments, achieved 18 grand slams and hold the record for the longest winning streak in international rugby union, with 33 consecutive victories. Since 2022, the funding has also supported a 35% increase in the number of age-grade girls playing rugby, and over 43,500 women and girls are now registered with the Rugby Football Union.
Despite that success, however, the women’s professional game still faces major structural challenges. Many players in Premiership women’s rugby remain semi-professional. They train and compete at the highest level, while also holding down second jobs. If we want the women’s game to continue growing, we must ensure that facilities are appropriate, that funding is sustainable and that players are able to become fully professional.
The Government can play a role, not in controlling the sport but in supporting its development, and the same is true at grassroots level. Across my constituency of West Dorset, we have extraordinary rugby clubs: Bridport; Dorchester; Puddletown; and Sherborne. They represent everything that is good about community sport. However, even as we celebrate their achievements, we must expand the game. Grassroots rugby needs more targeted Government investment, particularly in the most deprived communities.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
Nottingham Rugby is based in my constituency. It plays in what was formerly known as the Championship and is now known as the Champ. The reality is that funding for the Championship, which is the second tier of rugby in England, has fallen sharply in recent years and my local club is genuinely struggling to stay afloat.
The hon. Gentleman has talked about women’s rugby being largely semi-professional rather than professional. The truth is that the same is true in the second tier of men’s rugby as well. Does he agree that that raises genuine questions about the viability of rugby? And if he does, would he also agree that it would be wise for Ministers to genuinely look at how long the game can survive?
Edward Morello
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman; in fact, I would quite happily have a whole other Westminster Hall debate on how we raise the level of the Championship, or the Champ, because the difference between the Prem and the Champ now is enormous. There are better models elsewhere. For example, we can look at France and the success of its second division—the “D2”, although I am not sure how that is pronounced in English. It is markedly different to second-tier rugby in this country.
Rugby must be a sport open to everyone, and not just those who happen to attend traditional rugby-playing schools. Where state schools have had the right funding and support, they have thrived in school competitions, fuelled rugby academies, inspired a new generation of rugby fans and shown what is possible with the right conditions. The sport needs far greater diversity, and participation from people of all backgrounds and socioeconomic circumstances. It is not just good for society but good for the sport, because a larger, more diverse player pool ensures that we have the best players and the strongest competition.
That means that rugby must exist in more state schools across the country, but there has been a worrying decline in school sports provision. Data from the Youth Sport Trust shows that the number of hours of PE and sport delivered in schools has fallen by more than 45,000 hours since 2012. That cannot be the direction of travel if we are serious about the health and wellbeing of our young people.
The Government have announced reforms, such as the new school sports partnerships and the national enrichment framework, and they are very welcome steps, but when will those programmes be implemented? Will they be in place for the next school year? Can the Government guarantee that there will be no cuts to school sports funding? School sports need stable, multi-year funding. Active children are more likely to remain active adults, so it brings enormous public health benefits.
The RFU has also begun important work to expand the sport in schools. In 2024, it commissioned a review of rugby union in education, focusing on sustainability and participation. One of the most exciting initiatives is the roll-out of T1 rugby, which is a non-contact version of the game developed by World Rugby. In the 2024-25 season, T1 rugby reached 1,800 schools and around 80,000 students, with a near equal mix of boys and girls. Within four years, the programme aims to reach more than 5,000 schools. It shows what can be achieved when organisations work together with a clear strategy.
Government Departments must do the same. Education policy and sports policy cannot exist in isolation. If the Department for Education and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport collaborate effectively, rugby can reach schools and communities that have never had access to the sport. That means providing equipment, time to have PE on the curriculum, proper time and training for teachers so that they have the confidence to coach, proper facilities to get changed in, pitches to play on, and access for all children to boots and sports clothing so that they are able to play.
We must also recognise the role that rugby can play beyond the pitch. Sport is an important form of soft power. Football, music and the creative industries project British culture across the world, and rugby can do the same. Players such as Maro Itoje, Ellie Kildunne, Henry Pollock, Sadia Kabeya, Ellis Genge and Meg Jones are more than just elite athletes, they should be ambassadors for this country.
We should also recognise the serious financial challenges facing the professional game. Prem rugby has grown in popularity, attendance figures are rising, stadiums are filling and broadcast audiences continue to increase, but financial sustainability at the top of the pyramid remains a real concern, despite those successes. Several Premiership clubs continue to carry significant losses. Collectively, clubs owe large sums in pandemic loans issued through the Government support scheme. During covid-19, the Government provided £123.8 million in loans to premiership rugby clubs, which was 57% of the total amount to sports organisations. Champ clubs received a combined £4.8 million in loan support.
That was vital support that helped clubs survive the pandemic, but the financial model of professional rugby is fragile. Clubs such as Wasps, London Irish and Worcester Warriors have entered insolvency in recent years, unable to pay back the huge amounts of debt owed to the taxpayer. Even among the surviving clubs in the Prem, there are significant financial losses. Figures for 2025 showed that the biggest annual losses were £7.5 million at Saracens and £7 million at Sale Sharks, but every Premiership club recorded a loss, highlighting the financial pressures facing the professional game, even as it works to stabilise after the disruption of recent years.
The Government have been very supportive through the loans system, and I hope that we will hear a firm commitment from the Minister that that will continue, but it is not acceptable for top-flight rugby.
James Naish
I want to put on the record that Nottingham Rugby took out a £900,000 covid-19 loan. Before the pandemic, it was receiving somewhere between £500,000 and £750,000 a year in a grant from the RFU, but that is now down to around £150,000, so that £900,000 covid-19 loan is simply not payable. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that covid-19 loans are now a real problem for those smaller clubs, and are becoming a burden that probably will not be payable?
Edward Morello
Yes. Even with the renegotiation and the favourable terms that the Government have provided, they are creating a long-lasting problem for both Prem and Championship clubs. I suspect that, if 21% of premiership football clubs had collapsed inside 18 months, there would be widespread calls for a national inquiry. Collectively, Prem rugby clubs carry £300 million of debt, and often rely on the generosity of wealthy owners to remain afloat.
We must acknowledge that reality, but we should not respond with pessimism; instead, we should focus on building a sustainable future. I welcome the Prem’s road map to becoming financially stable and ultimately self-sustaining. When that happens, the professional game will be able to support the wider rugby ecosystem, funding development pathways, supporting lower leagues and strengthening grassroots rugby. As we have discussed, at the moment the gap between the Prem and the Champ is just too wide.
Promotion and relegation have long been a romantic part of British sport: they represent the idea that any club with enough determination and talent can climb to the top; they add jeopardy and excitement, and I wholeheartedly support them. But that system can only work if the financial foundations of the sport are strong enough to support it. The last team to be relegated was Saracens in 2020. The last team to be successful after promotion was Exeter Chiefs. Investors must have confidence that clubs can remain viable whether they are in the Prem or in the Champ. Countries such as France have demonstrated that that is possible. The current choice for professional rugby in England is between ringfencing the Prem, attracting investment and building for the future, or persisting as we are, which risks losing the professional game and clubs forever, because at the moment we do not have the investment, the viewership or the money to keep it afloat.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making an important speech about the input that Government can have and the Prem, but the role that the RFU has in the future of rugby has only been mentioned a couple of times. We hear so much from the RFU about shaping support for the community game, but it was the RFU that savagely cut regional development officers and club relationships managers in 2020. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the RFU should be putting funding back to support the grassroots game?
Edward Morello
You leave me in something of a quandary because I deliberately chose Government support for English rugby, rather than using the debate as an opportunity to beat up the RFU—although I certainly have my criticisms of it, and I will come on to some of those points. The Government repeatedly say that the RFU is an arm’s length body, but the reality is that the RFU is in receipt of millions of taxpayers’ money. Therefore, it is absolutely justifiable for parliamentarians to hold it to account, and my personal view is that right now, not enough money is getting to the lower parts of the rugby pyramid.
Edward Morello
Apologies, Ms Vaz. We will come back to that topic in another debate.
There are signs of growth and optimism in Prem rugby. The quality of rugby is among the best in the world. We are producing world-class talent that—the Six Nations aside—usually excels on the world stage. Attendance is growing, with several rounds of Prem rugby seeing sold-out fixtures and stadium occupancy reaching record levels.
Broadcast audiences are also increasing, with round nine in January attracting more than 1.2 million viewers. The Premiership final last year, which as a Bath supporter I am legally obliged to mention—come on Bath!—drew in nearly 1 million viewers in addition to a live crowd of 82,000 at Twickenham. Following the final, social engagement interactions across Premiership rugby channels rose by 24%. TV figures are up 35% since 2022. Those figures show that when the game is accessible, exciting and well promoted, fans are eager to watch, attend and engage. The professional game also provides a platform not only to showcase elite rugby, but to inspire the next generation and increase participation. But we must translate that success into players that are playing at a grassroots level, something that I worry we are failing to do.
Government have a role in English rugby, not by running the sport, but by ensuring transparency, oversight and responsible use of public money. When taxpayers are funding sports facilities, development programmes or covid loans, Parliament has a duty to ensure that that money is used effectively. Through Sport England, the Government have invested £72 million into rugby union since 2016—most recently £16.9 million in the RFU across the 2022 to 2027 funding cycle. We have a right and a duty to make sure that public money is well spent in the right places and on the right things.
Government can also actively take an interest in promoting and growing all parts of our game, from using our athletes as ambassadors for our country to directly supporting community rugby groups who reach out to those schools that we cannot reach. That brings me back to local communities and grassroots, because without grassroots rugby, none of the rest exists. The volunteers who mark the pitches, cook the food, coach the children and wash the kit are the true foundation of the sport. They deserve our recognition, our support and, most of all, our thanks. If we support grassroots rugby properly, if we bring the sport into more schools, if we invest in deprived communities, if we strengthen the women’s game and if we stabilise the professional leagues, then we will have a game that we love and that we can see flourish.
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I apologise that the Sports Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), is at the winter Paralympics in Milan, and there is nobody more appropriate than a Scot to take this particular debate. Ms Vaz, if you will indulge me, the reason I am wearing this tie is purely because I left my other blue one in the car this morning and this is the only one hanging up in my office that I had to put on—of course, I have to be appropriately dressed for replying to debates.
I am pleased to respond to the debate and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman for West Dorset (Edward Morello) on securing it. I need to declare an interest early on, as holders of the Calcutta cup and favourites for the Six Nations; I wish England the best of luck against France this weekend, as it will allow us to lift that trophy. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that rugby union, and indeed all sports, play a vital role in our national and local identity. The things he said about the people who wash the kits, cook the food and coach the children, and all the people involved in our clubs as volunteers, describe many sports across the country. They are the beating heart of our communities.
From the roar of Twickenham—or sometimes the silence of Twickenham—to the muddy pitches of our local leagues, rugby is a sport that instils the core values of teamwork, discipline and respect. Those values are on show from the grassroots rugby games across the country all the way to the Six Nations. I would like to celebrate the performances by Scotland and Wales this weekend and I hope that England finish strongly, as they probably should.
Beyond the game itself, rugby clubs serve as the beating heart of our communities, demonstrating how much rugby is so much more than just a sport. They are vital social hubs, as the hon. Gentleman said, providing a sense of belonging, fostering local pride and delivering accessible opportunities for people of all ages to get active. That is exactly why the Government have been unwavering in their support for the game, from the grassroots up to the elite level.
On support for grassroots rugby union, as mentioned by the hon. Gentleman and many others in their interventions, the Government are committed to ensuring that everyone has access to and can benefit from quality sport and physical activity opportunities. That includes rugby union and indeed rugby league—Mr Speaker would be upset if I did not mention rugby league too. Sport England is providing more than £60 million of funding to the Rugby Football Union between 2022 and 2029, supporting men’s and women’s grassroots rugby participation.
As well as that, we are providing significant financial support to deliver grassroots sport facilities, including for rugby. The Government recently announced £85 million to build and upgrade grassroots sport facilities across the UK in this year alone, including more than £68 million that will be invested in England via the multi-sport grassroots facilities programme. I hope that will resolve many of the issues about facilities that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) talked about. That builds on more than £80 million being invested in England in 2025-26. Some 40% of funded projects through the multi-sport grassroots facilities programme will have a multi-sport offer to allow more people to participate in a wider variety of sports such as rugby.
In particular, women’s rugby, which has been mentioned, has seen exceptional growth in recent years. Women’s sport has seen exceptional growth, in fact, but particularly rugby. Since 2021, participation in the women’s game has surged by 38%. It is great to see the growth of women’s rugby and it was fantastic to see the success of the Red Roses last summer to inspire the next generation. A record 82,000 crowd, as well as a record television audience—a larger television audience than for the Six Nations—watched that final. That is part of the Government’s work to drive a decade of change in women’s sport, and my Department is using the women’s sport taskforce to drive progress across the sector and is working with the authorities to do so.
Sarah Dyke
Holly Davidson made history in February when she took charge of the Ireland versus Italy Six Nations game in Dublin, becoming the first woman to referee a men’s game. Being a proud Scot, will he join me in congratulating her on that terrific move for women’s participation in rugby generally?
Ian Murray
It is a terrific success and I congratulate Holly on that. If there were more female referees in the men’s game across all sports, there would probably be a much better-behaved environment for people to participate in. That does offer inspiration; I have a five-year old girl and a one-year old girl and when they see the finals, when they see the Lionesses or the Red Roses lifting those trophies and when they see female referees participating in the game, it inspires them to do so such more. We should celebrate all those successes, but they are still the exception, rather than the rule—we need to make sure they are the rule, rather than that exception.
The Government are building on the huge success of the women’s Rugby World Cup to deliver a successful legacy programme with the RFU. We ensured there is a lasting legacy from the tournament by providing nearly £7 million to the World Cup legacy programme, called Impact ’25.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello)) for securing this debate. In Keighley we have an urgent challenge: the last Conservative Government allocated more than £2 million to Keighley Cougars to build a new stand, but the money is still being withheld by Bradford council. It needs to be unlocked so we can get that stand built urgently. Would the Minister, or his counterpart in MHCLG, meet me so we can discuss that and try to get that money unlocked for Keighley Cougars?
Ian Murray
I am happy to commit my colleagues to a meeting with the appropriate Minister. Let us do that, and let us at least write to the hon. Gentleman and get that issue resolved.
The legacy programme has benefited 850 clubs, supporting women and girls of all ages to get involved in rugby. That includes clubs based in the constituency of the hon. Member for West Dorset, such as Dorchester RFC, which has received £5,000 towards upgrading its facilities.
I will use a couple of minutes, in the time we have left, to run through some of the issues raised. Let us look at the financial stability of the game, which has been a significant concern since covid in particular. My hon. Friend the Sports Minister has previously met with the RFU and Prem Rugby to discuss the long-term financial sustainability of professional rugby union, and my officials regularly engage with both organisations on that issue.
The hon. Member for West Dorset is right to talk about the £158 million to rugby union to support the clubs during covid-19. The loan agent for that is Sport England, which is always analysing the repayments and the borrowers’ financial situations. We cannot comment on individual clubs, but he did mention the favourable terms, including long interest rates, long repayment periods and up-front payment holidays. If any club is struggling, it should get in touch with Sport England as the loan agent to have discussions on covid loans.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned schools, and there is good news for schools. The Government are committed to protecting time for PE in schools, as set out in the Government’s response to the independent expert-led review of the curriculum. The new PE and school sport partnerships, announced by the Prime Minister last June, will ensure that all children have equal access to high-quality PE. These new partnerships will bring together schools, local clubs and national Government bodies to target funding and support where it is most needed—particularly, as hon. Members have mentioned, in state schools in our most deprived areas.
Munira Wilson
On PE in schools, will the Minister or his counterparts in the Department for Education commit to publishing a national schools sport strategy and a multi-year funding settlement, with the sport premium having been scrapped and other funds such as the opening school facilities fund that have benefited schools, particularly those in disadvantaged areas,?
Ian Murray
I have committed some of my colleagues to meetings already, but let me ask the appropriate Minister from DFE to write to the hon. Lady to answer those questions. I am coming on to her questions about planning and MHCLG in terms of Sport England. MHCLG is considering all responses to its recent consultation and are continuing to discuss the matter with Sport England. No decision will be made until all those responses are analysed as part of the consultation, and MHCLG are taking that forward.
Finally, I want to run through the RFU governance structures quickly—and let us acknowledge that substantial change is taking place within that governance. I think the RFU has heard the message and the PREM has moved towards a criteria-based expansion and demotion model. The Government are consistently working with the RFU and representatives of the Prem and Champ clubs, including Premiership Women’s Rugby, while also monitoring the situation, and are supporting them with the long-term sustainability of elite rugby union.
Rugby union is a great national success story—for some more than others—but it is currently writing its next critical chapter with the women’s game, the grassroots game and the elite game, and the Government are here to support that. We have stood shoulder to shoulder with the sport through its most difficult moments, such as covid, and will continue to champion its growth, particularly in the women’s game. We look forward to seeing English rugby continue to thrive for generations to come—[Interruption.] I have my fingers crossed as I stand at this particular Dispatch Box—apart, of course, from when they play Scotland.
Question put and agreed to.
Technology Sovereignty
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read 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
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered technology sovereignty.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. We are four years into the Ukraine war and 10 days into the latest Iran-Israel-US conflict. At the start of this year, the US seized the President of Venezuela. A few weeks later, President Trump was demanding Greenland from Denmark. The world has never felt more insecure and unsecure.
For the first time since I was elected as an MP, global insecurity is an issue on the doorstep in Newcastle. As if that were not enough, we are also undergoing two technology revolutions: one in data and the other in AI automation. Add to that the geopolitical restructuring across different dimensions—Europe and the US, the global south and Russia/China, Europe and Russia, and Iran and the Gulf states—and a green industrial revolution that is driving competition for knowledge, resources, land and people. Is it any wonder that people are feeling insecure?
In the face of those challenges, we must be honest with our constituents about what we can and cannot control, and about the implications for our industrial, civil and defence policy. Technology sovereignty is a key part of that and a placeholder for larger fears. Too often, people feel that big tech is controlling, not empowering, their lives. Techno-feudalism and techno-serfdom may not be commonly discussed in the pubs and playgrounds of Newcastle, but they are a fear that many have.
The previous Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hove and Portslade (Peter Kyle), said that big tech needs to be treated as a state, not as companies. If so, who are their citizens? Us? We certainly did not elect them, so are we just their serfs? What should the relationship be between those companies and states?
Technology sovereignty matters, but what is it? The current Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology told the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee:
“Sovereign capability is about ensuring the UK has what it needs to become a global leader in AI.”
The Digital Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), told the Committee:
“Sovereignty is a huge issue that we always discuss. Security, safety and resilience are all parts of that, and the digital spending controls that DSIT puts in on behalf of Government, which examines individual contracts on that basis, very much examines these issues as well.”
He also said:
“It is about building those capabilities and supply chains here.”
Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has advanced a very powerful vision of the global events affecting the country right now. When I talk to defence tech companies, I see that they reach the point of scaling up, but they are unable to access finance. Does my hon. Friend agree that this Government should support defence tech companies to scale up, so that we can have true sovereign capability, as opposed to letting them fly off to America?
Dame Chi Onwurah
I very much agree with my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right, and that support should take the form of access to investment, but also procurement and procurement decisions, which I will discuss in more detail.
The Digital Minister also told the Committee:
“There is no single internationally recognised definition of digital sovereignty”
and:
“DSIT is working to develop a comprehensive definition that can be used across the UK”.
We have not received an update, but yesterday, the Government launched the AI sovereignty unit with £500 million, so it is to be hoped that we know what we are spending our money on.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Lady is terribly kind and it is always a pleasure to come to a debate that she has secured. Recent studies indicate that AI-powered tools have already been used in phishing, ransomware, and social engineering attacks, making breaches faster, more targeted and harder to detect. The National Cyber Security Centre has repeatedly warned that the sophistication and scale of cyber-threats are increasing, and that AI could amplify those risks exponentially. Does the hon. Lady therefore agree that we have a critical gap in investment, expertise and the co-ordinated strategy in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to defend against AI-enabled attacks? The Government must focus on being able to combat those in future—does she agree?
Dame Chi Onwurah
I certainly agree that we need to be able to defend ourselves against AI attacks.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
I thank the hon. Lady and Chair of my Select Committee for giving way. Does she agree that a definition of sovereign tech is something that a foreign power could not switch off, so that the systems on which we rely could not be pulled out from under our feet, much as the Microsoft ones were for the International Criminal Court?
Dame Chi Onwurah
My fellow member of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee makes a very important point about the definition of sovereignty. I do not want to get too bogged down in the actual definition, but I agree that control matters, and I will say a little more about that.
I will raise the definition of digital sovereignty cited in the House of Commons Library briefing, which accompanies this debate, which is
“the agency and capacity of any organisation to make intelligent, informed choices to shape its digital future by design.”
On that basis, choosing between Amazon Web Services and Microsoft for our data centre is technology sovereignty. I also think that if British sovereignty depends on our leaders’ ability to make intelligent choices, they spent a lot of our history not having sovereignty.
The Library definition came from a global consultancy called Public Digital. Emily Middleton, the interim director for digital transformation in DSIT, was previously a partner at Public Digital. It rules out digital independence and says that our goal should be intelligent dependence. Can the Minister say whether he is aiming for intelligent dependence?
The definition I like best, however, is that sovereignty is whatever a sovereign power says it is—that is what sovereignty means. The UK has extraordinary technological human capital resources, particularly in AI, where we are probably third in the world, but also in clean energy, quantum synthetic biology and much more. Our human capital means that we are not just any mid-sized country; we can aim higher than intelligent dependence. Elon Musk chose to turn off Ukraine’s Starlink capacity at a critical time in Ukraine’s defence of its sovereignty against Putin’s illegal aggression. None of us wants the UK to be in such a position of dependence.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
The hon. Lady mentions Britain’s extraordinary human capital. In my role as my party’s Europe spokesperson, of late I have been speaking to very large international defence firms, which thrive in the UK intellectual environment. They have great links with universities, but they say to me that they are increasingly looking to move some of the start-ups that have been created in the UK into Europe, so that they can assemble rapidly the kinds of teams that they need to take those initial ideas and scale them up. Does she agree that having a closer working relationship with our European partners and colleagues, allowing that freedom of movement to return, could be an enormous benefit—counterintuitively perhaps—to our sovereign capacity?
Dame Chi Onwurah
The level of interest shows just what an important issue this is. I will come on to discuss some aspects of collaboration as it relates to sovereignty, but I observe that the last time our sovereignty as a mid-sized power was seriously debated was during Brexit, and the slogan “Take back control” reflected the sense that too much sovereignty had been ceded to the European Union without an honest debate with the British people. As a member of the Labour party, I know that we are stronger together and that that can require some loss of autonomy to deliver results, which actually make people more secure, but that must not be done without an honest debate.
Let us look at the four specific sovereignty challenges, the first of which is critical infrastructure and cloud data dependency. The Competition and Markets Authority found that cloud services in Britain are dominated by AWS at 40% to 50%, and Microsoft at 30%. Crown Hosting is meant to be our sovereign hosting capability, but it only hosts 4% of Government legacy services. Both Amazon Web Services and Oracle claim to offer a sovereign cloud—they do say to deal with the difficult part in the title!
The second issue I want to look at is the hot topic of AI. There is no Brit large language model but there is the ambition to transform our public services and industry through AI. The AI opportunities action plan repeatedly references sovereign AI and sovereign compute without defining them. The major AI companies Google, Anthropic, OpenEye, Microsoft and DeepSeek are all headquartered abroad. DeepMind formed Google’s AI capability and was founded right here in the UK before being bought. What capability does the UK now have in AI? What minimum capability does the Minister think we need? How do we respond to the EU Cloud and AI Development Act, which may exclude UK companies?
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making an important point. When it comes to AI, an enormous amount of investment is needed. There are many discussions at the moment about the impact of that huge investment in AI. It is very difficult for a smaller country such as the UK to compete in that regard. Does she agree that we need to work with like-minded countries on these issues, including those in the EU? Does she agree that we need to make sure that this is one of the key topics when President Macron visits the UK later this year?
Dame Chi Onwurah
I agree with my right hon. Friend that we certainly need to work with like-minded countries.
The third area is cyber-security and data governance. Some argue that we are already at war in the cyber-sphere. Last year’s strategic defence review emphasised cyber and electromagnetic domains, and established a new UK cyber and electromagnetic command to enhance that, with £1 billion in new funding for homeland air missile defence and cyber-security initiatives. Should these be British suppliers? Should they be European? Should they be exclusively NATO suppliers?
On data governance, the foreign direct product rule allows the United States to restrict access to advanced computing chips and AI-related software. By adding UK companies to the entity list, the US can immediately cut them off from cloud services, software and AI tools, while the Cloud and Patriot Acts expand data access powers to compel US companies to hand over data even if held overseas—that is, in the UK. Has the Minister discussed those powers with Microsoft, AWS and Palantir?
Fourthly and finally, we have the UK’s reliance on global supply chains. Critical minerals are an obvious example, but because I am a bit of a geek I want to mention the common information models that enable the things in the internet of things to talk to each other. By 2030, there will be 6 billion CIM connections globally. China controls 70% of the market, creating a huge possibility for the disruption of everything from traffic systems to energy grid operations.
That is a really quick canter through just a few of the technology sovereignty issues. I want to look at two specific examples in more detail. First, the NHS has the largest and most comprehensive longitudinal and structured patient level datasets in the world. I support the push for digital integration as we transition the NHS from analogue to digital, with interoperability and standardisation bringing faster access and better analytics, yet a growing share of NHS data flows through US companies.
The federated data platform contract places core NHS data operations on Palantir’s proprietary systems. Why? There have been numerous reports of irregularities in the way the contract was awarded. In addition—this, for me, is a key point of sovereignty—Palantir’s founder and controlling stakeholder, Peter Thiel, has a political worldview which is at odds with British values. The same is true of Elon Musk. It does our constituents’ sense of agency no good to see their Government so dependent on these companies. Nearly half of adults say that they would opt out of NHS data sharing if the platform was operated by a private foreign provider.
The second example is also to do with Palantir. Its recent defence contract also raised many questions. The strategic defence review emphasised AI as a core enabler of military capability. Reports suggest that Palantir serves primarily as a vehicle for integrating Anthropic’s AI models. The US has just declared Anthropic a supply chain risk for US companies, so will Palantir break UK workflows that are using Anthropic? I am certain that President Trump would not allow British companies to control US defence datasets, so why are we allowing American ones to control ours?
I could go on about civil nuclear, telecoms infrastructure, subsea cables, quantum, space and drones, but I will stop there, and finish by looking at possible solutions. Technology sovereignty was a big theme at the Munich security conference, and the US-Europe trust gap was a yawning chasm following the shock realisation that we could not always count on the US as an ally. Technology sovereignty solutions that focus on technological leadership, such as in the Secretary of State’s definition, reflect the basic idea that if the UK leads on, say, protein folding then Google may be less inclined to switch off ChatGPT if we side with Denmark when the US tries to seize Greenland.
Whether I agree with that approach or not, it certainly resonates with the evidence that the Committee heard from witnesses in so many domains regarding how important it is for the science and business community to understand where the Government are seeking to lead, so that resources can be focused and skills built there. Can the Minister say whether the Government plan to decide which aspects of AI, quantum, space or bioengineering we will seek to lead in? AI is often thought of as having three layers: infrastructure, data and applications. Can the Minister tell us where in the AI stack we are aiming for control, leadership, sovereignty or whatever we want to call it? Also, does he agree that weak competition in the AI and digital sectors, caused by giant incumbents, reduces our ability to lead?
Open source is often cited as at least part of the solution to sovereignty. I am a huge advocate for open source, open interfaces, transparent code and standard protocols, which can reduce or minimise dependence. Despite the policy ambitions, three quarters of NHS trusts’ development teams do not use open source approaches. None of the AI models currently being deployed within the public sector is an open ecosystem; all are proprietary in nature. The Minister’s Department has sign-off on all significant IT procurement. Is open source a requirement of it?
Finally, can science diplomacy help us to negotiate technology sovereignty? A number of Members have raised the issue of collaboration. Can we build on our human capital strengths by collaborating and working with partners who have respect for our values, take collaborative approaches, and can share with us the financial capital needed to make our sovereign objectives a reality? Are we happy to share leadership, and perhaps sovereignty, with our allies?
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an important speech on an important topic. She is right to talk about how the US and China dominate on technological sovereignty, and part of the reason it is very difficult for the UK to compete with them is, of course, the scale of those countries. Does she agree that the way we can compete is by co-operating with reform in Europe, and that we should view our strategy not in terms of how the UK can outcompete Europe but in terms of how Europe, with the UK at its heart, can outcompete the US and China?
Dame Chi Onwurah
It is an important question. I am not in a position to choose our allies, but I agree in principle that we should be working with the European Union. I do not think it should be a choice between the European Union and the US, though they may make that the choice. I certainly think that we should be working with our European allies in order to form a large market for secure and ethical technology, which is in the interests of everyone.
Finally, we need to monitor the future sovereignty implications of current research, so that that can influence our investment and mergers and acquisitions policy, and so that key technologies and companies are not easily allowed to go abroad.
This debate has attracted a large amount of interest, so I have tried to be as brief as possible. I have asked the Minister many questions; if he cannot answer them all, he can write to me. In summary, we need to understand what we can own, control or lead on ourselves, what we can access that is in the hands of allies we trust, and how we can manage the things we must get from those we do not trust. We must always remember that how we develop and deploy our human capital will be critical to our ability to achieve any kind of technological sovereignty. I urge the Minister to be honest about where we are. We do not want to sleepwalk into technological serfdom and/or some kind of techxit—a technology Brexit.
Several hon. Members rose—
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
Order. Please stay standing if you want to speak. We are very tight on time, because I hope to take the wind-ups at eight minutes past 5. If we have a rough time limit of two minutes, everyone will get in. I call Daniel Zeichner.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah).
I have three quick anecdotal points and then a question for the Minister. Data sovereignty has been part of my life. I started my career as a trainee computer programmer at Shire Hall in Cambridge. My prime job was to carry the punch cards to the punch room to make sure that payroll ran properly. Anyone who dropped them was the least popular person in the entire institution, and at that time, the idea that that could be triggered by someone from elsewhere in the world would have seemed fanciful.
A decade later, I was working for a major insurance company. We were struggling to deal with multiple records for the same clients, and we brought in the Americans. They were big people from Texas—really big people. When they went to the coffee machine, they came back with two coffees and two bags of crisps. But they could not solve the essential problem, and the question still remained: who was in control of the data?
Fast-forward two further decades, and I am MP for Cambridge. A major American software provider came to talk to me about the cloud, and the same question arose again. I asked, “Where is the data?” They said they would build more data centres in the UK. I know that it is more complicated than that, but the question of sovereignty and independence is also partly about people. We have to maintain our own workforce.
Let me quickly raise with the Minister an issue that has been coming up very strongly to the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee: funding changes at UK Research and Innovation. I think that this is an unfortunate unintended consequence of a laudable attempt by the new regime to implement the goal, set up a decade ago, to use resources more rationally. UKRI has fallen foul of the existing research council structures, meaning that even though the Government are putting more money in overall, people in the particle physics, astronomy and nuclear physics sector are facing 30% cuts. That cannot be UKRI’s intention. I hope that the Minister can confirm that it is not the Government’s intention, and that he will use his influence to get a rethink. Our technological sovereignty will not be secured if we are closing doors to future researchers and putting a key part of our research sector at risk.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah) on securing the debate.
Ensuring that we have a strong and secure technological landscape in the UK is vital not only to our growth and development but to our national security. As we move at pace, we must also move with precision. That brings me to the £500 million sovereign AI fund. It is a very welcome commitment, but the impact will depend entirely on how it is used. I therefore ask the Minister for assurance and clarity on how the new funding will genuinely break from past initiatives and deliver real, measurable impact. That means being transparent about who will receive support, what priorities will shape those choices, how we will ensure true diversity—not only in the people and organisations involved, but in the problems we choose to tackle—and what value judgments we employ in the decision-making process.
If we want innovation to flourish rather than stall, we must ensure that smaller British and diverse organisations are actively supported to grow and scale. I warn against being dazzled by big promises with big tech, particularly from those who are not British. I am pleased to see the Government’s commitment to building AI infrastructure, data security and compute power, which we see in data centres, AI growth zones and supercomputers, as well as the AI sovereign fund mentioned earlier. However, how can we be assured that such investment happens and has impact? What oversight will the Government have to ensure that funds are used as intended, outcomes are audited, and impact is recognised? Governance of funding beyond product timeframe is vital.
I want to mention again the issue of definitions. We must be clear about what we are supporting. Often the terms “technology”, “digital” and “AI” are used interchangeably as though they describe the same thing, but digital is not the same as technology, and neither is synonymous with artificial intelligence. If we are to build a coherent national strategy, we must be absolutely clear about what we are talking about, what we are funding and what we are trying to secure.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah) for securing this timely and vital debate.
In a world that is increasingly reliant on secure and stable access to digital technology, whether that is artificial intelligence or semiconductors, the ability to control those technologies must be a Government priority. Securing technology sovereignty in the United Kingdom should not be a difficult undertaking. We have world-class universities, industry-leading research institutions and the manufacturing capabilities to turn ideas into marketable products. However, world-class research is only half of the solution to achieving control over the innovative technologies created in the UK.
When the UK university spin-out or research group is forced to trade its intellectual property for Silicon Valley venture capital, we lose more than just the business; we lose our grip on national security. I welcome the Government’s plans to streamline the Intellectual Property Office, but there are lessons we can learn from our intellectual counterparts, where strong links between universities, research groups and industry have given rise to countless pioneering companies. There is no reason the UK could not support universities to own their own intellectual property, and nurture their growth by encouraging partnerships with private enterprise.
Closer collaboration between Government, businesses and research bodies will not only protect our national interests but bolster the financial situation of universities and higher education institutions, where funding shortfalls are already leading to lay-offs and even partial closures. Take the decision of the University of Essex to close its Southend campus, where dozens of my constituents face imminent redundancy and hundreds of students are searching for certainty regarding the future of their courses. The university’s senior leadership has pointed to an unsustainable funding model as a reason behind that devastating decision.
I am grateful that the issue of technological sovereignty is getting the attention it deserves, and I hope the debate prompts further consideration of the benefits of IP capitalisation for our world-class universities.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I am grateful to be able to contribute to this important debate on tech sovereignty in the UK. There is something rather poignant about having this debate on the very day the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister has announced a consultation on plans to give people access to their Government data through a bespoke digital wallet built in-house. In many ways, that is the ultimate expression of tech sovereignty, but there is much more to do and we must do it now.
For me, growing instability, geopolitically and globally, has shone a light on just how reliant we are on digital infrastructure—the systems that enable our communication, support our health service and help to keep our country safe. The Financial Times recently reported concerns about Iran targeting United States AI data centres, which is a way to undermine neighbouring economies and damage US interests. As AI becomes embedded across both the public and private sectors, we must recognise the risks posed by concentrated powers in the hands of a small number of overseas tech companies.
At its most basic, sovereignty means the ability to make deliberate choices in our own interests, according to our shared values, so it is concerning that so many public sector contracts continue to go to overseas tech giants. In November ’22, Palantir was awarded a three-year Ministry of Defence contract worth £75.2 million, followed by, in December ’25, a further three-year contract worth £240.6 million, both without a formal competitive tender. I would love to see more of those major contracts going to home-grown innovators—companies based in the UK paying taxes here and helping to grow our economy. That is why I am really pleased to hear about the commitment to have a sovereign AI venture fund of £500 million to foster AI development. I would welcome seeing how much of that goes to female founders.
The UK is by no means the little guy in this fight. Our start-up ecosystem is the third largest in the world. We have a real opportunity to grow. If we get this right, tech sovereignty can mean high-quality jobs across our regions, and it can ensure that we become the most trusted and safest country in the world for technology.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I want to speak about technological sovereignty from an east midlands perspective. Too often, Westminster debates are focused on venture capital or high-level digital strategy and so forth while the real foundations of our tech capability lie in specific industrial regions.
The east midlands already has the capabilities to anchor British technological sovereignty. Derbyshire, and particularly Derby, is one of Europe’s most important aerospace hubs. Nottingham is home to two world-class universities, driving innovation in materials science, data science and advanced manufacturing. For Nottinghamshire and my constituency, this is about linking university research directly to local production; strategic public investment in sectors such as advanced manufacturing, with a focus on export focused technologies in particular; encouraging pension funds and public investment programmes to support domestic capital, rather than sending wealth abroad; and restoring political and economic confidence in post-industrial communities in the midlands like my constituency.
Technological sovereignty is not just a slogan; it is a matter of real practical capacity and of the technologies that will shape the future being designed and built in this country rather than elsewhere. The east midlands already contains many of the pieces needed to secure that sovereignty. The task is to recognise them, back them and build a new national political economy that puts production, skills and regional industrial strength at the centre of Britain’s future.
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
We have two more speakers, and as I said, I will start calling the Front-Bench spokespeople at 5.08 pm. Your kind colleagues have given you a little extra time, Emily Darlington.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
I thank my kind colleagues. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. This is such a big debate. It is because we are all passionate about UK AI and the growth of the sector in the UK that it is so important, because the growing monopolies that are coming into our country are not actually helping our growth. I know that is quite a controversial statement, but it is not controversial if one thinks about how these industries are developing: they are buying up and squishing out UK inventions, growth and companies.
What is sovereignty? That was the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah). For me, it is UK ideas, it is UK inventors and it is UK based, but it is also about UK values. It is about using our own data protection laws and our own BSI standards, and it is about making sure that UK ideas can be sold to the world without foreign interference.
I do not say that lightly. Recently, Peter Girnus, the AI security expert for Palantir, said:
“The lesson was the speed: the market for military AI does not pause for ethics. It pauses for nothing.”
That is a problem: Ministry of Defence contracts are going to such companies, which think that international law should be ignored in warfare. For that very reason, we have to be very sceptical about going into business with Palantir and with the many other companies that feel that they are too big to follow national law.
On the Floor of the House, I raised the fallacy of Starlink being a safe emergency protocol. Why is it a fallacy? Because it can be turned off, and Elon Musk has said he hates our Prime Minister. What if there is an emergency and Musk wants to create chaos, as he has already done through his contributions to various marches in this country and through his support for that one-man band? I cannot remember what it is called now— Restore or something like that; it starts with an R.
Growth comes from the development of our UK ideas, from tech that supports the UK economy, and from making sure that we see the monopoly that I referred to as a threat to our growth and not as something that we need to bow down or curtsy to. I ask the Minister: what is next? We have a great fund, but what are we investing in? Are we making sure that quantum technologies will be developed here, and will serve the UK people and the UK economy? Are we making sure that we are providing opportunities for UK firms to get the amazing contracts to work with us to make this Government the first digital Government that the UK has ever seen?
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to take part in a debate with you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah) for securing this debate. In my best Geordie, I will say that she’s done a geet canny job again. [Laughter.] That is the end of my Geordie—don’t worry.
Much like my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), I am here to talk about quantum technologies. For most people, the word “quantum” sounds like the title of a James Bond film—and if I am honest, “Casino Royale” is better—but it is so important for the future of our economy, and not just because crusty old physics teachers like me get really excited about it. The quantum industry is projected to generate $100 billion globally by 2035, which is now not that far away. That economic impact is one thing, but the fact that it will also revolutionise defence and huge amounts of our civil infrastructure means that it is a great example of why technological sovereignty is not just an economic issue but a security issue.
The UK is home to some really exciting quantum research and quantum businesses, and it is vital that we keep this industry here, strong and growing. The Government aim to make the UK a leading quantum-enabled economy by 2033, which I absolutely welcome, but too often these businesses are tempted abroad as they scale.
How do we stop that? One way, which hon. Members have not touched on today, probably because of the time limit on speeches, is to improve the skills supply. That is not just at the PhD level that we often associate with physicists, but at the level of the lab technicians who will physically build the machines and maintain the infrastructure—it is vital that we have the skills supply to provide those guys too. People do not need to aspire to a doctorate to work in this sector; we need more pathways for apprentices to do these roles, which are more skills-based than some other roles.
We also need better access to capital for quantum companies. We have brilliant start-ups, but every time they go through a round of funding, they find it harder and harder to secure the funds they need to be able to remain in the UK. We need specialised infrastructure, such as cryogenic systems, advanced fabrication facilities and secure quantum networks.
We also need to ensure that many more of our colleagues understand that this next industrial revolution—the quantum revolution—is coming and we need to get ahead of it. That is why I have brought together a number of Members to form the all-party parliamentary group on quantum technologies, and I thank many colleagues here in Westminster Hall for being part of that.
I will finish with a plea to the Minister. We are here to talk about technological sovereignty, but we live in a globalised world and I hear real concerns from the sector about procuring helium. The international situation in the strait of Hormuz means that Qatar, which is home to one of only two plants that produce semiconductor-grade helium, has been forced to pause production because it has been targeted by Iranian airstrikes. I do not expect the Minister to have an answer to that issue immediately, but I do ask him to have a look at it and consider how we can support the sector during this time of huge uncertainty.
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
Beautifully done. I thank all colleagues for sticking to the time limit.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I massively thank the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah), the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, not only for securing this debate on one of the biggest issues of our time, but for opening it so eloquently and constructively.
We do indeed live in a digital world: our jobs, our banks, our transport and our national security all run on technology. The question of who owns that technology and who controls the data that it generates is not an abstract one; instead, it is the defining question of our time. It is about choice for our Government and for consumers, it is about growth for British tech in a global world, and it is about creating resilience by diversifying risk. A bold strategy on technological sovereignty is how we meet the challenge that we face.
Such a strategy means backing British tech, supporting innovation by British businesses that pay British taxes, strengthening our economy and—crucially—protecting our national economy. As Members from across the House, including the hon. Member, have discussed, such a strategy is also about security. The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) talked about the risks of foreign interference, and the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) highlighted that Palantir felt it was too big to follow national law. This issue is about our security, so it is vital.
Across the pond, President Donald Trump has demonstrated his willingness to weaponise American power, and especially American technology, to exercise his own political will. Even at home in the US, we see what has happened with Anthropic: he called the people who run it “left wing nut jobs” and directed all Government agencies to stop using it just because the company refused to allow the military unfettered use of its AI tools.
We have also seen that approach with the International Criminal Court. The chief prosecutor of the ICC was personally sanctioned by the Trump Administration, including through the disconnection of his Microsoft email last May. Such episodes expose the reality of the world’s increasing vulnerability. The digital infrastructure underpinning international institutions—and by extension our own public services—increasingly can be disrupted at the discretion of a foreign Government.
Such concerns are shared. In June last year, a study by Civo, a UK provider of sovereign cloud, found that of 1,000 UK-based IT decision makers, 83% were worried about the impact of international developments on their data sovereignty, with the majority considering data sovereignty a strategic priority. Yet even though the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West highlighted the statistics on the technology used, it seems that that is not a concern of Government.
We directly asked the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology how dependent our public services are on US-based cloud technology but the answer was that the Government do not know: it is not being measured at a Government level. That is a serious concern. One of the most basic requirements for resilience is knowing what we depend on. I ask the Minister: do we intend to start collecting that data? At this moment, our essential public services may be running at the mercy of Donald Trump and these big tech firms, yet the Government cannot even tell us by how much.
Sovereign technology is not just a matter of national security. As many hon. Members have highlighted in this debate, it is about our economic advantage, growth in this country, improving national standards for technological development, boosting public trust in modern technology, and increasing tax revenues for the UK. Luca Leone, the chief executive officer of Kahootz, wrote for techUK,
“The crucial question is no longer only who builds our platforms, but who owns and operates the systems that underpin our most critical capabilities. This is where digital sovereignty meets supply chain resilience.”
The hon. Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) spoke eloquently about the skills, the businesses, the spin-outs, and the university research that is so strong in the UK. We need to help those things stay here and scale up—scale-up finance was talked about a lot in this debate. We can be that global leader and we should be.
This debate has also highlighted that much of the money set aside for technological investment is not going to UK companies. The National Audit Office concluded that the Government’s procurement strategy actively favours large, predominantly foreign suppliers. The Government have a budget of £14 billion for such investments; where does that money go?
Dan Jones, the defence account manager of 4Secure, wrote for techUK that
“Digital sovereignty…is not just a single procurement decision. It is an ongoing commitment to control, assurance, and resilience”.
Public service contracts go worryingly against that trend. We talked about the contract for Palantir in the NHS, and we talked about Palantir in defence. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West eloquently questioned how much the leaders of such tech firms are aligned with British values, and talked about ensuring that the tech we have is aligned with such values. I ask the Minister to explain why Palantir was prioritised over UK tech in the NHS contract, and what work is being done to review our Government processes. This is about not just software but our telecoms infrastructure—the reliance on Starlink is increasingly worrying—and of course our cloud.
I will wrap up by saying that, ultimately, sovereign tech is about power over our everyday lives. Does the Minister agree that now is the time to secure our technology sovereignty? Will he support our new clauses to the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill about digital sovereignty—
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah) on securing such an important debate. It is so well attended, and it is a shame that it is not longer; I commend everyone for their two-minute raps. In the context, I will plug tomorrow’s Conservative-led debate on Government support for UK tech, which will be an opportunity to speak about some of the concerns that have been expressed on a cross-party basis about the direction of tech policy.
We all come to this place with experiences that shape our thinking on these critical tech issues. Members have probably never heard this before, but the hon. Lady is a former telecoms engineer—[Laughter.] She brought her expertise to Ofcom and is now a distinguished Select Committee Chairman. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) brings his experience as a computer engineer, and the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) his experience as a “crusty old” physics teacher. He talked about quantum, and one question that I have in relation to today’s launch of the policy on digital identities is whether a quantum-proof system is being built.
I come to this debate as a former Cabinet Office and telecoms and digital infrastructure Minister. During my tenure, the Government in which I served faced three supply chain crises that permanently changed how I think about resilience: Brexit, covid and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Each forced us to confront uncomfortable truths about where we source from, whom we can trust and what risks we carry when we fail to think strategically about our dependencies.
I also think of my experiences on a trip to China in 2018 as a new Back Bencher visiting Huawei’s Shenzhen lab. I later found myself as the Minister overseeing the removal of high-risk vendors from the 5G core, and I saw how an earlier decision not to scrutinise those providing critical infrastructure came at real economic cost as well as security cost. Security risk and economic risk are deeply intertwined and will become ever more so as more of our economy moves online. In the space of a week, those Gulf economies that have been expanding voraciously into the digital sphere have found three AWS data centres under attack—a deliberate strategy by Iran to cripple critical digital infrastructure and, in so doing, mete out economic pain and chaos.
Those experiences shape how I think about technological sovereignty. We have to be clear about what we mean by that. It does not mean autarky, complete self-reliance, or pretending that Britain can or should build every piece of technology ourselves. That is not realistic or, actually, risk free. It is not about stopping important tech companies investing here and bringing expertise. I see it instead as being about resilience and influence. It means understanding the risks that we are carrying in the tech stack that we increasingly rely on; mitigating those risks; and ensuring that we do not steadily reduce our leverage by ceding power to companies or countries whose influence over those systems may ultimately exceed our own.
We are seeing this play out in the cloud, where I think we need to be pursuing a dual strategy whereby, alongside the hyperscalers, we start to expand our edge capacity, with smaller data centres and a more pluralistic market, using competition policy and thinking strategically about procurement. We need to think about it in terms of the components that power modern computing. How do we make ourselves an indispensable part of any critical supply chain in the way Taiwan and the Netherlands have done in relation to chips?
We need to think about the concerns in relation to Chinese tech in energy policy. I think that as we move further into the renewables space, we are building in quite a lot of risk there. We have heard today about critical minerals, and I have talked about high-risk vendors in telecoms. Dependency on China and dependency on America are not equivalent risks. None the less, I worry that, having learned the lesson about Chinese technology, the Government now appear content to place an extraordinarily high level of dependence on American hyperscalers instead. Of course the US is our closest ally and has enormous expertise that in many respects we cannot match—we cannot do so in every field—but sensible allies hedge their risks. That is especially relevant when we think about some of its cloud rules, which have been mentioned today.
The Government are pursuing an odd strategy here. We are upping our dependency on the US while reducing our reliability and credibility as a partner. Similarly, while inviting circular investments in mega data centres, entering into data partnerships with AI firms and blowing ever larger balloons of fantasy out of the US-UK tech partnership—something that has been picked up today, but also in The Guardian this week—the Government are actually making it harder for UK tech firms to grow, because of Government procurement rules, high taxes, crippling energy costs, wealth taxes and all the rest of it.
I appreciate that we are very short of time—I am getting a little nod to shuffle along—but my worry is that the Government thus far have not had a strategy for tech sovereignty and are heightening our dependence on US hyperscalers. I would be very grateful if the Minister could address those concerns, which I think are shared across the House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)
It is such a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah), the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, for securing this debate and bringing to it her deep expertise across engineering, policymaking and leadership in the House on the question of tech sovereignty. I also thank all hon. Members for making very thoughtful points and bringing to the debate a range of experiences—as well as swiftness of speech, given the constraints imposed by time today.
I have long felt that the central question in our politics and for our country is the future of technology in this country. It will be the major driver of prosperity and dignity for people, and the central question is whether Britain gets to shape it or is shaped by it. In Westminster, we sometimes talk about technology sovereignty as an abstract geopolitical goal, but we have to keep in mind that, ultimately, it is the basis for our NHS radiologists to have access to the best tools for detecting cancer, with data here in the UK; for British founders and builders to be able to train and deploy models, rather than depending on foreign APIs and pricing; and for people in their homes and workplaces across the country to know that their everyday AI systems are governed transparently and democratically here in the UK.
My view is that technology sovereignty is a state’s ability to have strategic leverage when it comes to a technology, such that it can ensure ongoing access to critical inputs and ongoing assurance that its wider economic and national security objectives can be met more broadly. It is to take the best tools the world has to offer today, but also to shape the rest, and ultimately to make that which is critical here in Britain.
As I think of it, that strategic leverage is obtained by three steps on a ladder. The first is just to have enough of the critical inputs. Taking AI as an example, we have to have enough chips today to be able to do anything with AI in the first instance. With that in mind, the Government have always been very keen to secure the level of capital investment that means that Britain is at least at the table with critical inputs.
Once we are at the table, the second part of sovereignty is to make sure that we have some diversification in who we procure critical inputs from so that we can bargain effectively. We are the party of labour; we understand that who has power matters as much as what the powers are. In that context, one of the first things I did in my role was to engage with a series of companies in every part of the stack so that we were able to build more diversity into the landscape.
The third rung of the ladder is, ultimately, to build British in order to make sure that we have the full-fat version of sovereign capability here in critical parts of the stack.
Dame Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for setting out his sovereignty stack. Just as an example, is an LLM a critical input or another level in the stack—and does it need to be British?
Kanishka Narayan
I valued my hon. Friend’s earlier point that sovereignty has to be seen in the round. We cannot make everything here; we have to look at the entire bundle that we have to offer. In the context of LLMs, there is some uncertainty as to whether all the capability will ultimately accrue in closed proprietary models, or whether open-source, open-weight models might be part of it. To me, as things stand today, it is a pretty important part of the stack. The question then is whether we have enough of it to be able to make the most of it by adopting it for economic and national security usage here, or whether there are aspects in which, at least from a distillation or small-model point of view, we need to develop some capabilities here as well. I do not think there is a binary answer to the overarching question; the answer is much more nuanced. I am happy to discuss that further if it is of interest.
As I said, the third rung of the ladder is, ultimately, to build British and focus on areas in which we can develop our strengths. I have to point out that we made sure that Nscale, one of our neocloud hyperscale providers, was an important part of the supply chain for AI growth zones. I noticed that yesterday Nscale raised the largest ever series-C funding in Europe, in part as a result of the Government’s support and convening in that context. Arm, the leading chip design company globally, is still headquartered in Cambridge, and we have fantastic companies in the AI inference chip part of the stack, Fractile and Olix being two of them. It is an area that I spend a lot of my time on.
When it comes to models, we have huge strengths, not just because a number of the Gemini teams and researchers continue to sit in King’s Cross at DeepMind, but because companies developing foundation models in AI for science and autonomous vehicles, embodied AI, and aspects of world models and computer vision reside here in the UK. Wayve raised £1.5 billion just this year, the largest funding round in Europe to date for that stage. It is a fantastic company that looks in particular at embodied AI and vision. I am proud of those companies. It is right that the Government are supporting them through the lens of tech sovereignty, as that is what both Britain’s and the companies’ best interests dictate.
The sovereign AI unit will be crucial to that. I am glad to see the level of interest in that across the House. It will concentrate efforts on priority areas. There was interest in my specifying those areas. The four areas that are of interest at the outset are novel compute, in particular focusing on the inference chip part of the stack; novel model architecture; AI for science—I point hon. Members to the AI for science strategy published by the Department three or four months ago, which set out particular areas of focus and priority—and embodied AI.
To give a concrete example of early action that the sovereign AI unit has taken, we have already invested £8 million in the OpenBind consortium to accelerate AI-driven drug discovery, and £5 million in the Encode: AI for Science fellowship to support the next generation of world-class talent. The focus of the unit will be on both capital and compute, to incrementally anchor more and more British companies here, but I know that the unit will only be part of the solution. We have a role to look at innovation and market support much more broadly across the tech landscape.
In November, we also announced a significant advance market commitment—a deeply innovative procurement shift—which meant that up to £100 million in Government funding was available to buy products from promising UK chip companies once they reach a high-performance benchmark. That presents UK start-ups with an exciting opportunity to grow and compete right here, building for the world.
AI is of course just one area of Britain’s flourishing tech ecosystem. I point out to my hon. Friends the Members for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) and for Lichfield (Dave Robertson), who made important points about quantum, that the Government have doubled the rate of investment in quantum, with about £1 billion committed over the next four years. The points on helium made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield have very much been taken into account. The Government are looking at the developing situation on helium supply in the middle east, which is of concern.
Through our national programme, we broadly want to anchor development and access to technological capabilities that are most important to economic growth and national security. That means, in the context of quantum, more companies starting, growing and staying here and, in the context of AI, not just developing capabilities in particular parts of the stack, but in part looking upstream for skills as well.
In that context, I agree totally with my hon. Friends the Members for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) and for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) that the quality and scale of our talent and skills in our universities and schools is the single biggest determinant of where we end up. I am happy to write to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge about the UKRI changes that we are making. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford, IP capitalisation is a deeply important part of what I focus on with the Intellectual Property Office, and I am happy to engage him on the question of Essex University in particular.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
The Minister knows that the Computer Misuse Act 1990 criminalises a lot of legitimate cyber-resilience and vulnerability research. I think that the Government are minded to introduce a statutory defence for such research, but can he share whether that defence will be introduced as part of the cyber Bill?
Kanishka Narayan
The hon. Member is absolutely right to raise that point about a defence for cyber-security purposes. The Computer Misuse Act is being reviewed at the moment—the Home Office is looking at it—but, as I mentioned in Committee on the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill, that is not the appropriate vehicle, given its much narrower scope than the broad scope that we would like in the context of a defence. For those reasons, I am keen that we pursue the matter, but elsewhere.
I am conscious of time, so I will proceed at pace. Alongside quantum and AI, semiconductors are another technology that underpins the global economy and is fundamental to our way of life. As part of our industrial strategy, digital and technology sector plan, we are taking measures to foster the growth of that particular sector.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) spoke very thoughtfully about the fact that we should not just rely on venture-focused companies in particular parts of the country, but look at our industrial heritage. That is exactly why I have focused on ensuring that the AI growth zones programme puts data centres in the north-east, alongside the headquarters of our largest listed tech company. A deep heritage of financial services technology innovation in Newcastle and the surrounding area is now able to benefit from good jobs anchored by that data centre.
In south Wales, the data centre planned for the site of the old Ford car manufacturing plant gives hope for jobs in the semiconductor cluster, anchored by that data centre. That is critical. In north Wales, data centres are pulling our nuclear small modular reactor into the future, which is critical to thousands of jobs in that community. In Lanarkshire, the old steelworking community, which lost thousands of jobs and never fully recovered, now has hope from half a billion pounds of community investment as a result of data centres. That is precisely what I believe in.
Anneliese Dodds
In one sentence, will the Minister say something about another geographical issue: collaboration with like-minded countries, especially in the EU?
Kanishka Narayan
I will simply give a note of total affirmation on the importance of that. Having met a series of Ministers from Europe, I know that we have a huge amount in common and a huge amount to do in the future.
I am being tested pretty intensively on time, so I will focus on one final point. Some Members rightly raised the question of mergers, acquisitions and investment controls. As my hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee will know from the time that I worked for her on the Bill as it was proceeding through the House, the National Security and Investment Act 2021 is an excellent example of where we are ensuring that investment and sensitive areas maintain the national security interests of Britain now and in the longer term.
In summary, the Government will continue to support our tech sectors as best they can. Only yesterday, Nscale raised the largest series-C funding round in all of Europe. Isambard-AI has raised a £50 million round for embodied AI—manufacturing AI—as well. Those are testaments to the approach that I have set out, which will ensure that British firms and people can seize every opportunity they can in tech-enabled Britain.
Written Statements
Post-16 Level 3 and Below: Pathways
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
The Government’s reforms to technical and vocational qualifications for 16 to 19 year olds in England represent once-in-a-generation reforms to vocational education, transforming the vocational landscape for millions of 16 to 19 year olds and supporting the Prime Minister’s ambition for two-thirds of young people to study higher level learning whether academic, vocational, or technical, by age 25.
Driving economic growth is a top priority for this Government. In October 2025, we published the post-16 education and skills White Paper, which set out our reforms to the skills system in England which will develop the skilled workforce our economy needs. The challenge is huge—nearly 900,000 more skilled workers needed in our priority sectors to 2030, nearly 1 million young people not in education, employment or training, and the ever changing impact of technology and artificial intelligence.
Today, the Government publish their response to the post-16 level 3 and below pathways consultation, which received over 750 contributions. Our response, building on the recommendations made in the curriculum and assessment review, sets out our vision for a reformed 16 to 19 qualifications system that ensures every young person has a clear choice of education pathways that support them to succeed in work and in life.
The Government will create a high-quality, coherent and future-proof system of technical and vocational qualifications that gives every young person clear choices and strong routes into further study, apprenticeships and employment. The reformed landscape will allow students to specialise if they choose to do so, or to study a broader programme if they wish to explore options. Students will be able to study a mix of academic and vocational learning, reflecting the increasingly diverse and portfolio-based nature of modern careers, and to adapt quickly to changing economic and technological needs. By linking qualifications to occupational standards, improving clarity and comparability across pathways, and ensuring all qualifications support meaningful progression, the system will ensure learners are engaged, retained in learning, and equipped to thrive in a modern labour market.
In response to wide support for clearer pathways, there will be three key changes to post-16 pathways for students. This will end the assumption that the only way to get on is academic progression and acknowledge the value and prestige that a strong vocational pathway can have.
V-levels—our new flagship vocational qualification that will sit alongside A-levels and T-levels. V Levels will be the same size as an A-level and can be taken alongside them to create a broad study programme appropriate for a young person who wishes to progress to higher level study without specialising in one particular area. V-levels will feature engaging applied teaching, learning and assessment designed to develop real world skills. V-levels will be linked to occupational standards, strengthening employer confidence in vocational qualifications and helping to meet the country’s long-term skills needs. In specific and limited cases, we will allow a partnered set of V-levels, in a similar way to the model of maths-further maths A-level, which will enable overall depth of study in a linked area with the ability to study another subject. We will not allow V-levels to be combined in ways that recreate a large technical study programme within a single route where a T-level exists, in order to avoid overlap.
T-levels—we are bringing forward improvements to T-levels, the technical offer for students who want a sector-focused post-16 choice. The T-level will be the only large qualification for 16 to 19 year olds at level 3. We will make changes to placements and assessment to support the accessibility and scalability of T-levels whilst maintaining quality. We will also introduce new T-levels in new subject areas that are designed with the understanding of sector needs and based on occupational standards to support progression into skilled, technical occupations. Together, these changes will support more students to benefit from these qualifications and the strong progression opportunities they provide.
Level 2 pathways—we are introducing two new pathways for young people who need to continue learning at a level equivalent to GCSE—level 2—at age 16. They will have a choice of two pathways—further study, which will help them to progress into a study programme of A-levels and, or V-levels, or a T-level—or occupational, which is a two-year programme that supports progression to a good skilled job.
A-levels will continue to be the level 3 option for students who want to study academic subjects and progress to higher education.
To maintain stability during this transition, and to give providers more time and scope to engage with the reforms, we will not remove funding from qualifications in the academic year 2026-27—including in health and science and digital routes—as previously set out.
From the academic year 2027-28, funding approval will be removed for large qualifications—those with 1,080 guided learning hours or more—in existing T-level subject areas, except for large health and social care qualifications, which will be removed from 2028 to coincide with the introduction of a T-level in social care. As more T-levels are introduced, funding approval for unreformed qualifications with 1,080 guided learning hours or more in those subject areas will be removed in the same year.
The Government have published their timeline for changes to funding approval for qualifications, and the provisional timeline for introduction of new qualifications in routes from the academic year 2027-28, which can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/post-16-level-3-and-below-pathways
The Government have today published a transition document for providers to support them with the transition arrangements to the new qualifications system.
The Government have also today launched a consultation on new 16 to 19 level 1 English and maths qualifications for students with prior GCSE attainment of a grade 2 or below. We know that good English and maths skills are hugely important for further study, work and life. The new qualifications will enable these students to secure the key knowledge and skills needed to achieve a grade 4-C or higher at GCSE to help ensure that students only retake exams when they are ready to make progress.
Next steps
By June 2026, the Government will publish an implementation plan. This will set out the subject lists for the phased roll-out, the updated approach to T-level development and delivery, assessment and grading arrangements, non-qualification activities, and further details on transition.
The Government response to the post-16 level 3 and below pathways consultation and a supporting document to support providers to transition to the new landscape will be available on gov.uk. Copies of the Government response will also be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS1390]
Dental Workforce Expansion and Contract Reforms
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
Restoring NHS dentistry is one of the Government’s top priorities. The Government are taking urgent action to improve NHS dentistry in the short term and laying the foundations to make it fit for the future.
Expanding the dental workforce is crucial to our ambitions. The Minister of State for Skills and I have written to the Chair of the Office for Students to increase the maximum fundable limit for dental school places in England from 809 to 859 places. This is the first sustained expansion of dental training since 2007 and will take effect from the 2027-28 academic year.
As announced in our 10-year health plan, we will make it a requirement for newly qualified dentists to practice in the NHS for a minimum period. Our intention is that this requirement will apply to individuals entering a dental course of study from the 2027-28 academic year. We will consult on the details of this requirement in due course.
The OfS has statutory responsibility for allocating funding for dental school places. The Minister of State for Skills and I have asked that the OfS focuses the expansion on new dental schools approved by the General Dental Council, but which do not currently receive Government funding for places.
I have also announced the award of £421,850 in one-off grant funding to the Royal College of Surgeons of England to support a rapid expansion of its “licence in dental surgery” exam. The LDS is one of the exams that dentists who have qualified overseas can pass to be eligible for registration with the GDC, a legal requirement to practise dentistry in the UK. In addition, the GDC has appointed UCL Consultants Ltd as the new provider for the overseas registration exam from 1 April 2026, with new contractual arrangements set to result in a significant increase to the number of dentists joining the register annually from 2028-29 via this route.
There is currently a significant backlog of overseas-qualified dentists waiting to take either the LDS exam or the ORE. Many candidates are already based in the United Kingdom and possess the skills to make a significant positive impact on NHS dental care.
These announcements will mean more NHS dentists, more NHS appointments and better oral health.
The Government are also committed to fundamental reform of the dental contract by the end of this Parliament, with a focus on matching resources to need, improving access, promoting prevention and rewarding dentists fairly, while enabling the whole dental team to work to the top of their capability. This is our ambition, and it will take time to get right.
In summer 2025, we took an important first step, with a public consultation on proposals to address some of the pressing issues that dental teams face and support them to spend more time on patients with the greatest need. We published our response in December.
We have laid the first amendments to the National Health Service (General Dental Services Contracts) Regulations 2005, the National Health Service (Personal Dental Services Agreements) Regulations 2005, and the National Health Service (Dental Charges) Regulations 2005, in support of these reforms in Parliament. These amendments will come into force from the 1 April 2026 and will:
Embed the provision of urgent care into the dental contract, supported by increased payments for dentists delivering this care, making it easier for patients to get rapid support through the NHS.
Support increased use of cost-effective, evidence-based prevention interventions for children through introducing a new stand-alone fluoride varnish treatment for delivery by dental nurses, and by increasing the remuneration associated with fissure sealant treatments, therefore reducing the opportunities for disease progression.
Alongside these amendments, we will also lay the National Health Service (Dental Charges) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 before Parliament to increase dental patient charges in England from 1 April 2026.
NHS dental patient charges provide an important revenue source for NHS dentistry and are typically uplifted on 1 April each financial year. We uplift the rate at the same point each year and for the 2026-27 financial year, the charges will be uplifted by approximately 1.66%, which is now a below-inflation increase. Dental patients will benefit from the continued provision that this important revenue supports.
From 1 April 2026 the dental charge payable for a band 1 course of treatment and urgent treatments will rise by 50p, from £27.40 to £27.90. For a band 2 course of treatment, there will be an increase of £1.30 from £75.30 to £76.60. A band 3 course of treatment will increase by £5.40 from £326.70 to £332.10
We will continue to provide financial support to those who need it most through a range of dental charge exemptions. Patients remain exempt if they are:
under 18, or under 19 and in full-time education;
pregnant or had a baby in the previous 12 months;
being treated in an NHS hospital and your treatment is carried out by the hospital dentist—patients may have to pay for any dentures or bridges;
receiving low-income benefits, or you are under 20 and a dependant of someone receiving low-income benefits.
Support also remains available through the NHS low income scheme for those not eligible for exemptions or full remission.
These reforms are an important step, but not the end point, and we will continue to go further before the end of this Parliament.
[HCWS1392]
Masculinising and Feminising Hormones: NHS England Policy
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
Today I am updating the House about NHS England’s decision to consult on a new clinical commissioning policy on the prescribing of masculinising or feminising hormones for children and adolescents with gender incongruence or dysphoria.
The safety and wellbeing of children and young people is paramount, and children’s healthcare must always be led by evidence and expert scientific and clinical advice. We are committed to ensuring that NHS children and young people’s gender services provide high-quality care for those with gender incongruence or dysphoria.
Currently, MAF hormones are only available to children and young people aged 16 and 17, and only in very limited circumstances. In line with the Cass review, which this Government and NHS England are committed to implementing, MAF hormones can only be prescribed with “extreme caution” and where there is a strong clinical rationale for not waiting until age 18.
Following an independent review of evidence, this consultation proposes that MAF hormones should no longer be available as a routine commissioning option through the NHS CYP gender service. The consultation, which will last for 90 days, sets out this proposal, and asks consultees whether all relevant evidence has been considered. NHS England will carefully consider the responses to inform next steps.
Throughout the consultation period and until NHS England has responded to the consultation, NHS England is pausing its existing clinical policy with immediate effect to safeguard children and young people. This means that no new prescriptions for MAF hormones will be initiated through the NHS CYP gender service, at least until the point when a final policy is determined, following full consideration of consultation feedback.
The full range of clinical support interventions, described by the national service specification, remain available for patients who are in the CYP gender service, including psychological and psychosocial support. Individuals who are on the national waiting list for CYP gender services will either have had previous arrangements made for them to access local CYP mental health services, or they would have had contact with CYP mental health services or NHS paediatric services at the point of referral, with care plans in place.
Young people aged 16 and 17 years who are receiving existing NHS prescriptions of MAF hormones may continue their prescriptions under the care of the NHS CYP gender service. Each individual’s lead clinician will need to undertake a review of the circumstances of the patient’s care plan and make a shared decision with the young person—and family, as appropriate—about the future treatment approach within an enhanced informed consent process.
Evidence base
NHS England can only commission treatments based on evidence of clinical effectiveness, and with appropriate assurances around safety. This important principle applies to all treatments, not just for gender incongruence and dysphoria.
In 2021, an independent evidence review by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence found that there is very limited evidence about the safety, risks, benefits and outcomes regarding the prescribing of MAF hormones to young people under 18 years of age.
In line with the Cass review, NHS England made changes to its existing clinical policy to place restrictions on the use of MAF hormones. This meant that MAF hormones could only be prescribed to 16 and 17-year-olds if a recommendation for their use was supported by the NHS CYP gender service and a national multi-disciplinary team.
Dr Cass also recommended that NHS England review its policy on MAF hormones. NHS England began that review in 2025, and commissioned an independent third party to undertake a further evidence review of published evidence. This included research that had been published since NICE’s review of the evidence in 2021.
The evidence reviews found very limited and weak evidence to support the continued access to MAF hormones by children and young people under the age of 18 years. After careful consideration, NHS England has concluded that there is not enough evidence to support the safety and clinical effectiveness of MAF hormones to make the treatment routinely available.
In addition to NHS England’s consultation, the Government have been examining the private prescribing of MAF hormones by the independent sector, including overseas practitioners. The Department will continue to closely monitor this position with regards to any implications and next steps. NHS England will reissue guidance from May 2025 that advises GPs not to agree shared care arrangements with unregulated providers who offer access to masculinising and feminising hormones to under 18s.
The Department is also awaiting the results of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency’s engagement on the Pathways trial, following concerns that it raised regarding the protocol. Any potential implications of this revised prescribing policy for the Pathways trial will be considered and discussed with the regulators during the period of consultation, and any further announcements will be made in due course.
[HCWS1391]