House of Commons
Business before Questions
Speaker’s Statement
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mr Speaker
Before we begin today’s business, I would like to say a few words of appreciation for a long-serving member of the House service who today is working his final shift as Table Clerk in the Chamber. Liam Laurence Smyth has been a Clerk in the House of Commons for over 40 years. Over the past couple of decades he has worked in a number of senior posts, including Clerk of Legislation, and for the past two years he has been working in a part-time role in the Chamber Business Team. I thank Liam for his service and for the advice that he has given me over many years. He will no doubt continue to play a role in international parliamentary capacity building, which has been a passion of his. I am sure that the House will join me in wishing Liam and his family well. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]
I have a little bit of other news: today is the birthday of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—he will still be asking questions.
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
I join you, Mr Speaker, in your tribute to Liam Laurence Smyth, and I wish the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) a very happy birthday.
The Northern Ireland Troubles Bill will establish a reformed, human rights compliant and independent legacy commission that will carry out investigations and provide family reports on behalf of families who have waited far too long for answers.
Lincoln Jopp
I associate myself with your comments, Mr Speaker, about the Table Clerk and I wish him happiness in his next steps. I also wish the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) many happy returns.
Second Reading of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill took place on 18 November, and the remedial order, which removed the protections from the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, was passed on 21 January, leaving our Northern Ireland veterans, of whom I am one, with no protections under the law. It feels rather like the Government have left our veterans in no man’s land, with no rounds in the magazine and no rounds in the chamber. How is that not a dereliction of duty?
Hilary Benn
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his service in Northern Ireland. The dates for Committee stage and for the next stage of the remedial order will be announced in the normal way. Just to correct the record, if he is referring to the protections in the conditional immunity scheme that were set out in the previous Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, that scheme was never enacted and has never had effect, so the arrival of the newly elected Government has not changed the position in that respect at all. As he will be well aware, the Government have brought forward in the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill protections for veterans that were not contained in the 2023 legacy Act. We are consulting further with veterans and, as the Prime Minister has indicated, we will bring forward further proposals when Committee stage happens.
Harriet Cross
That answer will be of very little comfort to Northern Ireland veterans across the country, including the veteran from Turriff in my constituency who contacted me about this just last week. They are living in fear of vexatious claims, as I am sure the Secretary of State recognises, so why are the Government delaying bringing this legislation back to the House?
Hilary Benn
First, there is no such thing as a vexatious prosecution, because for that argument to be advanced, as others have done in the House, one is saying that independent prosecutors bring prosecutions for vexation or politically motivated reasons, and that is not the case. When it comes to civil claims, the previous Government, in their legislation, left 800 civil claims against the Ministry of Defence in place, and it is almost unknown for an individual veteran to be called to give evidence in such cases.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)
One of the lingering legacies of violence in Northern Ireland is our outrageous and distressing levels of violence against women and girls, in the echo of menace and threat that still exists in Northern Ireland. The murders this month of Ellie Flanagan and Amy Doherty bring to 33 the number of women and girls who have been murdered by men they knew. We grieve with their families, and we commend the family of Natalie McNally, who with decency and dignity finally got justice for her murder. Is the Secretary of State confident in all that he is doing on legacy that all possible levers are being used to tackle the disease of misogyny, including through Northern Ireland’s hate crime legislation?
Hilary Benn
I join my hon. Friend in what she says about the recent conviction for the brutal murder of Natalie McNally, and the deaths of Amy Doherty and Ellie Flanagan. It is a source of enormous sadness and—I would hope—shame that Northern Ireland is the one part of the United Kingdom where it is most dangerous to be a woman, in relation to violence against women and girls. One thing that we are doing in the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill is closing the loophole that was contained in the previous Government’s legislation. There will now be a means of investigating any sexual-related offences that occurred during the period of the troubles. If they meet the threshold for investigation by the legacy commission, the commission will investigate, but otherwise, once the Bill is passed, it will fall to the Police Service of Northern Ireland to examine the case.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
What reassurance can the Secretary of State give me and my constituents that the health and wellbeing of veterans will be taken into account if they are required to give evidence to the commission or coroners?
Hilary Benn
We have already made that clear in the protections that are contained in the Bill, including the right to give evidence remotely, application for anonymity and no cold calling. Veterans have welcomed the fact that we are now planning to put those protections in place.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
The Secretary of State says that there is no such thing as vexatious prosecutions. I think that he would do well to remember the cases of Phil Shiner.
In 1991, the SAS shot and killed three members of the IRA’s East Tyrone Brigade in Coagh. The coroner originally found that the soldier’s use of force was reasonable and proportionate, and that the IRA men in question had the intent to murder. A judicial review was brought against these findings, but in October last year it was thrown out by the High Court in Belfast, with the judge saying that the case was “ludicrous” and
“utterly divorced from the reality”.
Depressingly, this morning we hear that that case is to continue 35 years after the incident and after the soldier in question has been investigated for years. How can the Secretary of State think that is right?
Hilary Benn
Any citizen of the United Kingdom, as the hon. Member is well aware, has a right to bring a judicial review against any decision that has been made. It is for the courts to determine that. Having seen what the original judge said in throwing out the case, and given the fact that the inquest found that the use of force in that case was lawful, perhaps it is not surprising that the judge threw it out as having no merit whatsoever. If the case is continuing, we will have to leave it to the judicial process to decide what happens, but I have confidence in our courts.
Alex Burghart
Does not this case absolutely exemplify why the Government’s solution is entirely wrong? It reopens the door to vexatious litigation, which allows our veterans to be dragged through the courts, even when the courts themselves say that the case is ludicrous. It also exposes the absurdity of the fact that legal aid is paying for these challenges against our veterans—we are all literally paying for lawyers to bring vexatious litigation against our troops. The Government seem rightly to have paused their Bill. Will they please use this opportunity to think again and take a new approach that guarantees genuine protections for those who serve?
Hilary Benn
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be genuine protections. On the question of legal aid in Northern Ireland, that is a matter, as he well knows, for the Northern Ireland Executive. Given the case that he has cited, I was not aware that the previous Government at any point considered removing the right to bring judicial review against any decisions at all. If he is now advancing the argument that judicial review should not be available in certain cases, I would say good luck to him because that is a foundation of our legal system.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
On a recent visit to Northern Ireland, I met with numerous stakeholders, including veterans, victims and survivors, all of whom are seeking justice. Yet I fear that both the former legacy Act and the current troubles Bill conceive of justice too narrowly, while the constricting lens of lawyers is preoccupied with criminal sanctions and civil compensation. Stakeholders want answers, not retribution. That is why I have tabled amendments to the troubles Bill to formally provide the option of a restorative justice pathway for the many victims of the troubles who simply want to know what happened. Does the Secretary of State agree that restorative justice has an important role to play in reconciliation, and will he meet me to discuss supporting my amendments?
Hilary Benn
I am always happy to meet the hon. Gentleman, and the House will have an opportunity in due course to consider the amendments that he has put forward. Most of the victims I have met—I am sure the same is true for the victims and families he has met—are looking for answers. Most of them recognise that, with the passage of time, the prospects for prosecutions of anybody are diminishing rapidly, and part of the focus of the commission is to help those families to find answers. When it comes to how families are then reconciled to the terrible loss that they have suffered, in the end it will be for each family to find their own way of doing that.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
The Secretary of State and the Labour Government promised the people of Northern Ireland that they would repeal and replace the legacy Act. They have not. They promised through this two-year extended parliamentary Session that they would deliver legislation that attained support across the community. They have not. The Bill is delayed at the moment because of discord among those on the Government’s own Benches. What does he say to the victims in Northern Ireland who want to see progress?
Hilary Benn
I say very simply that the Government are keen to progress this. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is a very complex piece of legislation, in part because it is having to fix the mess that the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 left this Government to deal with. I make no apology for taking time to ensure that we get the legislation right, because, as he knows, this is the last best hope we have.
Gavin Robinson
The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has just heard from the chief constable of the PSNI, Jon Boutcher, who indicated that the Secretary of State has put in a claim to the Treasury for additional hundreds of millions of pounds to fund the legacy commission, yet the PSNI has nothing. It has £200 million of civil liability cases with it and no resources to progress. Even if it was asked for information, it could not provide it. Does the Secretary of State recognise that there is a legacy funding deficit within the PSNI, and will he similarly seek money for that?
Hilary Benn
The creation of the legacy commission took away from the PSNI some 1,000 cases, which it then fell to the commission to investigate. That cost has been transferred to the legacy commission. Whoever is investigating those cases, and whatever the system is, they will have to be looked into. When they are looked into, disclosure will be required.
Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
On 10 April we will celebrate the anniversary of the Good Friday agreement, which nearly 30 years ago brought an end to the troubles and enabled Northern Ireland to establish a power-sharing Government. In the years since, Northern Ireland has been transformed, and I look forward to working with everyone to make further progress.
Mr Foster
We approach the anniversary of the Good Friday agreement, which was historic in that it ultimately delivered peace for a generation. With the knowledge that it requires constant political co-operation and public support, its biggest challenge no doubt is the Tory-Reform policy of leaving the European convention on human rights. If the UK left the ECHR, that would undermine a core principle of the agreement. Does the Secretary of State agree that there are some within this Chamber who would wholly compromise the peace in Northern Ireland for short-lived, ill-judged political gain?
Hilary Benn
I do agree with my hon. Friend, and I do not understand why some are advocating removing the ECHR from the Good Friday agreement. It would be highly irresponsible, and it shows a complete lack of understanding about what the agreement involved. You cannot just walk in and pull out one of its pillars for the sake of party ideology.
Jessica Toale
The Good Friday agreement was a landmark achievement of the last Labour Government, and it is a beacon of hope for conflict-affected states around the world. Before coming to this place, I had the privilege of witnessing and experiencing the leadership of Northern Ireland’s young people in this area as they shared their experiences and the lessons from the Good Friday agreement. With that in mind, what is the Secretary of State doing to share the UK’s expertise and ensure that others affected by conflict can benefit from it?
Hilary Benn
I agree with my hon. Friend. The biggest lesson of the Good Friday agreement is that it takes immense political courage to say yes, rather than to go on saying no. To pick up her point, at the end of last year the Foreign Secretary convened the western Balkans countries under the Berlin process at Hillsborough castle, where the First and Deputy First Ministers talked through how Northern Ireland has made this extraordinary progress. That is one example of how the lessons of that agreement are being heard around the world.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
The Good Friday agreement recognised the importance of addressing the suffering of victims of the troubles. Legislating for that remains unfinished business, as does the implementation of a border poll, for which there is significant support in the north. As we approach the anniversary of the agreement, does the Secretary of State agree that it is time to take action on both of those?
Hilary Benn
The provisions relating to a border poll are clearly set out in the Good Friday agreement. There is one criterion that governs such a decision, and at the moment there is no evidence that there is a majority for a constitutional change in Northern Ireland. I commit to the House, as I have done before, that I will uphold in letter and in spirit that bit of the Good Friday agreement.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
May I add to the tributes paid to the Table Clerk? Among all the advice he has given in the last 40 years, he gave particularly good advice on the meaningful vote, which left many of us traumatised, but he developed great expertise in that.
As we celebrate the Good Friday agreement, may I urge the Secretary of State to be crystal clear to the Northern Ireland Assembly and Northern Ireland politicians that there will be less money coming from GB, so there needs to be revenue raising and a sole focus on economic growth for the next Session of the Northern Ireland Assembly?
Hilary Benn
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that economic growth is the answer to many of the questions that the Executive and the Assembly are facing. Northern Ireland, with its dual market access, along with its innovation and ingenuity, has an extraordinary opportunity. Being in government requires taking difficult decisions with the money one has got. We are giving a record settlement to the Executive; they have to decide how to spend it most effectively.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
As the Secretary of State talks up the Belfast agreement, he of course ignores the fact that its primary pledge of no constitutional change without consent has been trashed by the Windsor framework, in that article six of our Acts of Union, no less, has been suspended, and in 300 areas Northern Ireland is subject to foreign jurisdiction. That is constitutional change without consent. More than that, the guarantee of cross-community support was removed to force through the four-year extension to the protocol. Surely the Secretary of State should realise that the Belfast agreement has been hollowed out to promote the nationalist agenda that he seems so ready to embrace.
Hilary Benn
I do not accept the hon. and learned Gentleman’s argument in relation to the Good Friday agreement. When it comes to the Windsor framework, those who advocated to leave the European Union did not think about the consequences for having two entities and one open border and how we could ensure that goods crossing the border would meet the rules of the respective entity—that is what the Windsor framework seeks to do. The Government are negotiating a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the EU, which has been widely welcomed by all parties across Northern Ireland.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Does the Secretary of State agree that, in any marking of the end of violence, a key date is 1994, when the main violence perpetrators, the IRA, finally woke up to the reality that its ranks were riddled with informants and it was running out of options, so it declared a ceasefire, and that was followed by loyalist paramilitaries doing likewise? But civilised society should never applaud or celebrate murderers ceasing to do what they should never have started doing in the first place.
Hilary Benn
I say to the hon. Gentleman that there was always an alternative to violence—always. That recognition was finally achieved when the Good Friday agreement was negotiated and signed, and Northern Ireland has seen the benefits since. It shows, as I indicated earlier, that instead of saying no, which happened repeatedly on all sides, when people are finally prepared to compromise in the interests of peace, enormous benefits flow—in this case, to Northern Ireland and elsewhere in the world.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Matthew Patrick)
We are all indebted to the men and women who serve in our police force, who work day in, day out to keep our communities safe. I know that the Police Service of Northern Ireland purchased the site in the hon. Member’s constituency last year. He will know that policing and justice is devolved, so the next steps are for the PSNI and the Executive to discuss a way forward.
Alex Easton
Does the Minister agree that policing in Northern Ireland has consistently showcased excellence, with some of the most courageous public service anywhere in the UK, and that the development of a new police college on a 54-acre site at Holywood represents a unique opportunity to build expertise? Will he agree to join me for a site meeting to discuss funding opportunities to develop that policing college in Northern Ireland?
Matthew Patrick
I would be very happy to join the hon. Member on that visit. He makes his case powerfully and rightly pays tribute to the brave men and women who serve in our police. I am sure that the Executive will have heard his case for the PSNI as well.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
Northern Ireland will directly benefit from the spring forecast, with almost £390 million in additional funding to the Executive over the next three years, including £231 million in 2026-27. That is money that the Executive can use to deliver on its priorities, which include transforming public services and promoting economic growth.
Douglas McAllister
The £379 million in Barnett consequentials announced by our Chancellor earlier this month is on top of the £370 million of extra funding announced in the Budget, and that is all in addition to the £19 billion funding settlement announced at the spending review. Does the Secretary of State agree that, with that record level of investment, it is now for the Executive to produce a balanced, multi-year budget that will deliver for the people of Northern Ireland?
Hilary Benn
I agree with my hon. Friend. The Government have taken a decision to enable the Executive, if they wish to do so, to agree a multi-year budget. Discussions are taking place, we have had the open book exercise and I hope that the Northern Ireland Executive, given those considerable additional resources, will be able to find a way forward.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
As a result of the Government’s mismanagement of the economy, the spring statement forecast that economic growth and wage growth would go down and that we would have increased inflation, all of which will hit Northern Ireland more severely than other parts of the United Kingdom. Yet the Government refuse to do anything about the massive costs of the Windsor framework and have imposed, from 1 July, carbon taxes on sea transport from GB to Northern Ireland, which will hit our economy even harder. Why are the Government ignoring the real issues that face the Northern Ireland economy, through both their actions and their inactivity?
Hilary Benn
I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of what the Government are doing. We have brought economic stability to the country after the disaster of the previous Government, we have given record support to the Northern Ireland Executive and we are working through our negotiations with the EU to reduce the impact of the Windsor framework. The SPS agreement, which as I said is widely welcomed across Northern Ireland, is a really good example of that.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
Though the funding in the spring statement is welcome, the Secretary of State told us that he was looking at alternative sources of funding for the charity sector because of the disappointment in Northern Ireland over the local growth fund split of 70:30. Will he update the House on his conversations?
Hilary Benn
Yes; I am working hard, together with the voluntary sector and, I hope, the Executive to find a way forward. There is £9 million available in resource to fund those schemes from 1 April. I held a meeting to encourage the voluntary sector to apply for a bid to Peaceplus, and with the considerable additional resources that have been made available to the Northern Ireland Executive, it is open to them to make a contribution so that the economic inactivity programmes, which we all value enormously, can continue.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
The Northern Ireland Office and the Treasury are doing an open book exercise on how all the Departments of the Northern Ireland Executive are spending their block grant allocations. Will the Secretary of State commit to publishing their findings?
Hilary Benn
There will be a report from the Treasury to the Northern Ireland Executive. It is for the Executive to take the decision, but I say from this Dispatch Box that I would welcome its publication.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
Hospitality adds nearly £2 billion to Northern Ireland’s economy, supporting more than 75,000 jobs, but last year more than 2,000 hospitality workers in Northern Ireland lost their jobs. Does the Secretary of State agree with Unite the union, of which I know he is a member, that this is the result of the Government’s disastrous national insurance rises?
Hilary Benn
The national insurance rise decision that the Chancellor took in her first Budget was necessary because of the woeful economic legacy left to this Government by their predecessor. If the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to recognise that very basic fact, he has not been paying attention.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
An attack on Britain’s Jewish community is an attack on all of us. I am pleased to say that London ambulances have now replaced the Hatzola ambulances and that the NHS will pay for the permanent replacements. We are accelerating our social cohesion plan to strengthen our British values of tolerance, decency and respect.
We are also strengthening our communities by extending Pride in Place, announcing the locations of seven new towns and delivering over 300 new school-based nurseries. This is investment in our high streets, more homes and action to support working people with the cost of living.
Today, we will celebrate the installation of the new Archbishop of Canterbury. It is a key role in our national life and I wish her every success. This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Cat Smith
I would like to thank the Prime Minister for the £47 million that this Government have given to Lancashire county council to repair potholes. However, my constituents still feel like they need a moon buggy to navigate the streets of Lancashire, so would he agree that the Reform councillors of Lancashire county council are clearly wired to the moon if they think they are making effective use of this £47 million?
The Prime Minister
Can I extend my sympathy to residents in Lancashire who are being utterly failed by their Reform county council? It is the same picture across the country. In Kent, Reform is cutting social care. In Worcestershire, it is hiking council tax by 9% despite promising lower taxes. In Staffordshire, the scandals and infighting have been so bad that Reform is on its fourth leader in 11 months. It is a warning to the whole country: Reform has nothing to offer but chaos, grievance and division.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
I asked the Prime Minister six questions last week and he did not answer a single one. He has a duty to this House to answer the question. Let us see if he can do better this week. I will start with a simple one. Will the Prime Minister approve the licences for the Rosebank and Jackdaw gasfields in the North sea?
The Prime Minister
Under statute, that is a matter for the Secretary of State, as the right hon. Lady knows. The same arrangements were in place under the last Government. Licences were granted, and they were then struck down because of the defects in the process of the last Government. But oil and gas are coming out of the North sea 24/7. They will be part of the energy mix for many years to come. We fully support all existing oil and gas fields throughout their lifespans, and in November we made changes to extend that to allow neighbouring fields to be exploited.
However, we need to take control of our energy prices. The only way to do that is through renewables. The Conservatives used to make that argument. One of their senior figures in 2022 said that it is
“investment in nuclear and renewables that will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and keep down consumer costs.”
Who was that senior figure? The Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Speaker
Order. This is not the day to be thrown out, with a two-week break coming.
Mrs Badenoch
We can have renewables and oil and gas. The Prime Minister says it is a matter for the Secretary of State—I thought that he was the Prime Minister. He loves to hide behind legal process every single time. I wonder what a Director of Public—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Yasin, you do not want to test my patience, I am sure.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister loves to hide behind legal process. I wonder what a Director of Public Prosecutions would make of the defence, “Sorry, I can’t produce my WhatsApps—my phone has been stolen.” The Jackdaw gasfield could be up and running before winter. All that gas would be used here in the UK to heat 1.6 million homes. That is enough to power Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex put together. Will the Prime Minister approve the licences, or is the Energy Secretary running the Government?
The Prime Minister
Legislation has been passed. It is absolutely clear that the quasi-judicial duty under the legislation rests with the Secretary of State. I really think that if she is going to put this challenge to me, she needs to read the legislation. It is the legislation that the Conservatives applied for 14 years. It is exactly the legislation that they used to put the licences in place which were then struck down because the process was defective.
Let us be clear: when Russia invaded Ukraine, energy prices doubled. During the 12-day war, oil prices hit £100 a barrel. In the last four weeks, because we are on the fossil fuel rollercoaster, everybody is being held to ransom. The only way forward is to go further and faster on renewables. The Leader of the Opposition’s approach is to outsource our foreign policy and let the US decide whether we go to war, and to outsource our energy policy to Russia and Iran and let them set the price of energy. I will never do that because it is not in the British national interest.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister is hiding behind so many people. He is the Prime Minister; he can make this decision today. He is so weak that he is the first person to be pushed around by the Energy Secretary.
Let me remind the Prime Minister who is on my side: the unions—yes, they are on my side—including GMB, Tony Blair, RenewableUK—the very people he talks about are saying to drill in the North sea—Centrica, Octopus Energy and even Labour MPs. Let me quote one Labour Member, the hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell):
“Offshoring our carbon emissions might give some a sense of moral superiority”
but it is simply
“impoverishing our own communities”.
We agree, so why does the Prime Minister think that he knows better than everyone else?
The Prime Minister
I am going to have one more go. The legislation, the statute—[Interruption.] The law prescribes the decision maker. The Opposition know that; they should be embarrassed. The Leader of the Opposition is attacking me without having read the legislation. The legislation sets out who the decision maker is: it is the Secretary of State, not the Prime Minister. It has to be the Secretary of State, and it is a quasi-judicial process—exactly the process that they ran for many years.
Oil and gas will be part of the mix for many years to come, but we do need to get on to renewables. We are discussing this because of the war. We need to de-escalate—[Interruption.] Yes, we are. That is why I stuck to my principles not to join the war and to act in collective self-defence. I appreciate that the Leader of the Opposition does not get that. She wanted to jump into the war without regard for the consequences, and now she has done the mother of all U-turns and is stranded without a thought-through position. When she was asked at the weekend whether she approved of the war, she said, “Oh, that’s a difficult one.” It certainly is if you have absolutely no judgment.
Mrs Badenoch
I am going to let the Prime Minister in on a secret: he is the Prime Minister, and he can change the legislation. Hiding behind the Energy Secretary is pathetic. Under the Prime Minister’s Labour Government, we buy half the gas that we use from Norway. Last year, Norway’s Labour Government drilled 49 wells in the North sea. How many did Britain drill? Zero. For the first time since 1964, under this Prime Minister’s Government, Britain drilled no wells. Why is energy security the right policy for Labour in Norway, but the wrong policy for Labour in Britain?
The Prime Minister
So now the right hon. Lady’s attack is, “If you pass a different law, you can take the decision”—the decision she is challenging me today for not taking. It is absolutely ridiculous. All that would do is to slow the process down. Oil and gas is coming out every day. There is a mix of that and renewables, but the most important thing to do to get energy security is to ensure that we de-escalate this war. I know where I stand on this: we are not joining the war. She wanted to join the war, but she did not think through the consequences, and now she does not know where she stands on the most important issue facing this country at this time.
Mrs Badenoch
The Norwegian Prime Minister is doing what is right for his country—if only our Prime Minister would do the same. Stopping all new drilling in the North sea was a reckless promise when he made it before the election; in the middle of a global energy crisis, it is catastrophic. Experts are predicting a £300 rise in bills in July. Approving new licences would show that he is serious about cutting bills. Why will he not do it?
The Prime Minister
Because of the action that we have taken, household bills are coming down by around £100 next month, then they will be capped for three months. That is what we are doing to protect households across the country. Who voted against it? The Tories and Reform, because they just do not get the impact on working people, who we will protect.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister says that bills are coming down; they are higher than they were when he came into office. He talks about what the Government are doing to help with energy bills. Families and businesses will suffer from the spike in energy costs because of his decisions. He could abolish the green taxes on their bills. He could stop the fuel duty rise. We could drill our own gas in the North sea. What is he doing? He is planning another giveaway to people on welfare. Yet again, he is taking money from those who work to give it to those who do not. First, we had the Budget for “Benefits Street”; now, we have the bail-out for “Benefits Street”. Does that not just prove that they have given up on being the Labour party and are now just the welfare party?
The Prime Minister
The Conservatives are the ones who doubled the spend on welfare. They were the ones with a broken system. When we tried to mend it, what did they do? They voted against it. [Interruption.]
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady talks about the spike in energy prices. That is because of the war, which I say we should not join and she says we should join, without following through on the consequences. Time and time again, she gets the big calls absolutely wrong. She wanted to drag us into the war—she got that wrong. She opposed taking control of energy security—she got that wrong. She opposed our decision to cut energy bills—she got that wrong. She seriously thinks that that will make her relevant—she has got that wrong.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Let me do that. The Israeli settlements, including the E1 settlement, are a flagrant breach of international law and threaten the viability of a two-state solution. That is why, alongside international partners, we have sanctioned those responsible and their supporters who incite violence. We have consistently urged the Israeli Government to act to stop these incidents. We also recommend that settlement products are labelled so that consumers are informed, and we will continue to take the necessary action to defend Palestinians and protect the two-state solution.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
May I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks about Monday’s despicable attacks on the Jewish community? Antisemitism has no place in our society. Given the potential links with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, I hope that the Government will move faster to proscribe the group as terrorists.
As a former Secretary of State for Energy who granted licences for oil and gas exploration, may I make a judgment on this argument? The Prime Minister is actually right, and the Leader of the Opposition is wrong—[Interruption.] The law is clear, and I believe in the rule of law.
Just before President Trump posted about his supposed negotiations with Iran on Monday, traders made hundreds of millions of dollars of extra bets on oil futures. This looks like Donald Trump giving his mates inside information so they can make themselves richer, while his illegal war in Iran makes everyone else poorer. It looks like corruption of the very worst kind. Does the Prime Minister share my fear that Trump is making his war decisions on the basis of what enriches him and his friends, rather than what makes peace in the middle east?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his verdict. At least he has read the law that the Leader of the Opposition obviously has not read. In relation to the traders, we have seen the activity there. What I can say is that all my decisions are based on the best interests of our country, and that is why I have decided that we will not get dragged into the war, unlike the Leader of the Opposition. I have decided that we will act in collective self-defence—in defence of ourselves and our allies. I comment on my actions, and those are the principles behind my actions.
Ed Davey
If Trump’s war pushes up energy bills by £500, the Chancellor’s very narrow plans simply will not cut it. While I do not fall for the crocodile tears of the leader of the Conservatives, who cheered on this illegal war without a thought for the impact on people’s energy bills, and while the Government are right to reject the idea of repeating Liz Truss’s blank cheque approach, the Government cannot ignore the millions of families who do not receive benefits and who already face a cost of living crisis. Can the Prime Minister at least guarantee to all those families and pensioners that he will not let their energy bills go up by £500 this year?
The Prime Minister
Well, let me now give my verdict. The right hon. Gentleman is right about the Leader of the Opposition wanting to join the war, and she is wrong about that. [Interruption.] At least the right hon. Gentleman has read the legislation on which I am being challenged; it does help. [Interruption.] At least the right hon. Gentleman is right that it was the leader of the Conservative party who said, “Let us all go to war,” without thinking through the consequences. We are now discussing the consequences.
In relation to the support, we have made clear the principles and the approach that we will take. We will keep this under careful review. Energy bills for households are capped until the end of June. It is really important that I make it clear that that will happen whatever happens in the conflict, because I know the public are concerned about that. We will then put in place appropriate support, and we will look at how we put the principles behind it.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. The Communities Secretary will make a statement later on the Rycroft review, which sets out the stark threats posed by illicit finance. I can tell the House that we will act decisively to protect our democracy. That will include a moratorium on all political donations made through cryptocurrencies, and I hope that will be welcomed across the House. There is only one party leader who has shown that he will say anything, no matter how divisive, if he is paid to do so.
Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)
“Smash the gangs”—that is what the Prime Minister promised us. “Trust me, I will stop the boats from coming.” But 70,000 people later, with 1,000 in the last week and too many young men who pose a threat to national security, is it not time to admit that “smash the gangs” has been a total, abject failure—along with, frankly, most of his other policies? Is it not time he told us, as summer approaches, what is plan B?
The Prime Minister
That is from the man and the party who voted against giving law enforcement counter-terrorism-style powers to tackle this. The hon. Gentleman wants the grievance; he does not want it sorted. He has absolutely no judgment. Again, he said, “Let’s join the war. Let’s all go to war.” I want to make it perfectly clear that he wanted the war. A week later, he did a screeching U-turn: “We don’t want to go to war”—and he says we should trust his judgment. It is hard to take anything he says seriously. He promised lower tax, and now Reform councils are hiking council tax by 9%. This is what he said about Worcestershire:
“We took…control of a virtually bankrupt council. I wish we hadn’t bothered.”
He asks for people’s votes, and then he abandons them. Reform does not want to solve problems; it only wants to exploit them. I am thankful for the opportunity to change this country for the better; he says he wishes that he had not bothered winning councils. Reform is an absolute disgrace.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Mr Speaker
Order. I want to hear the hon. Member’s question, as do those who are interested in snooker.
Dr Tidball
Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I thank the Prime Minister for the £35 million of funding to transform the Crucible theatre and keep the world snooker championship at the heart of Sheffield? I want my constituents to be able to enjoy this fantastic tournament, day and night, and to travel in by tram-train from Stocksbridge to Sheffield via Oughtibridge, Wharncliffe Side and Deepcar. I am grateful to our South Yorkshire Mayor, Oliver Coppard, for kick-starting these plans. Will the Prime Minister work with me and the South Yorkshire Mayor to ensure that we get spades in the ground for a tram-train extension to Stocksbridge as soon as possible, so that my constituents can enjoy the snooker?
The Prime Minister
I see that Reform Members have walked out. They obviously realise that they are absolutely snookered. [Hon. Members: “More!”]
The Prime Minister
Sheffield and the Crucible theatre are the beating heart of snooker, and I am delighted that they will host the world snooker championship for many years to come. This is what Labour stands for: investing in things that make us proud of the places where we live. I reassure my hon. Friend that we are working closely with South Yorkshire combined authority on better transport links and providing over £1.4 billion to spend on its priorities, which could include a new tram fleet and more modern stops, or delivering extensions.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Prime Minister
The steps we have taken have been to repair the damage done by the previous Government. We took those steps, and the spring statement showed the results of those steps: inflation coming down; interest rates coming down; and the economy stabilised. I know the Conservatives do not understand that, because they blew up the economy in the first place.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
An independent audit of the previous Government’s failed insulation schemes shows unacceptable levels of failings. We have acted to make sure poor-quality installations are fixed. It is important that those responsible are held to account for the cost of remediating the issues. I do recognise that there are some complicated cases, and I will make sure a Minister looks at my hon. Friend’s constituents’ case and that urgent action is taken.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Reform has to take responsibility for its decisions, but its Members have moved out.
Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am deeply sorry to hear about the case that my hon. Friend raises. We are the party of the NHS, and we will always fight to ensure that it remains free at the point of use. We inherited an NHS on its knees, but we are seeing progress: waiting lists are down; patient satisfaction is improving; and we have the best ambulance response times for half a decade. There is much more to do, but we are delivering the investment that is needed—and it was opposed by who? The Tories and the now departed Reform Members.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
The Prime Minister
Can I thank the hon. Member for raising Susan’s case? It is really important that she does so, and I am deeply sorry for the enduring harm that patients have suffered. Ministers have met campaigners and the Patient Safety Commissioner to discuss their recommendations, and I can assure the hon. Lady we will provide a full response to the Hughes report recommendations at the earliest opportunity. I am happy for Ministers to update her on the actions we have taken and to discuss the particular case that she has raised with me.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for her work. She is right to highlight the growing threat posed by dangerous synthetic drugs. Alongside deploying new detection methods at the border to seize drugs, we are investing in better mental health support and drug addiction treatment, with almost £26 million for Stoke-on-Trent. I will ask a Health Minister to discuss her important work with her.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
The Prime Minister
It is really important that nobody is left behind in a cashless society. The vast majority are moving online, but we need to remember that some do not want to, or cannot, and we must ensure that provision is in place for them as well. I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising that issue.
Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. It is shocking and horrifying to hear what those children have to go through. I am absolutely clear in my mind that this should not be happening. I can inform him that I have instructed Justice Ministers to look at what they can do. They will review the payments, and see what else they can do. I am really pleased that he has raised this issue, so that we can now act on it, and I will ensure that he gets the meeting he is asking for.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is responsible for the rise of antisemitism worldwide and here in the United Kingdom; for inciting extreme Islamist attacks; for attacking dissident Iranians and British citizens; and for fomenting all sorts of hate marches. I have a very simple question. We are now at war with Iran, whether we like it or not, yet the reality is that we have never dealt with this organisation. This is not party political; will the Prime Minister make the decision now to proscribe this brutal bunch of thugs and send them packing, or arrest them and put them in jail right now? Get rid of this organisation.
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising that really important and serious point. He knows that we have sanctioned the IRGC in its entirety, and have imposed over 230 sanctions since coming into office. The existing proscription powers are not designed for a state organisation, but we keep this under review—as did the last Government.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for the invitation, and join her in paying tribute to Private Leon Spicer, Private Phillip Hewett and Second Lieutenant Richard Shearer. Their bravery and sacrifice in defence of our values will never be forgotten, and I am delighted to hear that a memorial will be unveiled. I also pay tribute to all those serving in the middle east today, shooting down threats to our allies and protecting our people.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks about the attack on the Jewish community in Golders Green; there is no place for hatred, antisemitism or violence of any kind against individuals.
An independent panel of senior judges found no basis for misconduct proceedings against the British chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Karim Khan, King’s counsel, yet reports suggest that elements within the Court’s governing body are seeking to disregard those findings, while ICC officials continue to face external pressure and sanctions. Given the UK’s commitment to the rule of law, and as a human rights lawyer himself, will the Prime Minister set out the steps that he will take to defend the independence of the ICC and support British nationals carrying out international judicial roles?
The Prime Minister
I am not going to comment on the internal proceedings of the Court. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we support the Court; we are party to the treaty, and there are legal obligations that flow from that.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
In my constituency, we have a cohesive and diverse community, with a significant Jewish population, a thriving Muslim community and many others from various different backgrounds all living together and supporting each other. I was therefore appalled to learn of the arson attack against the Jewish community in Golders Green this week, and was deeply concerned by the outrageous comments of the shadow Justice Secretary, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), last week about the community iftar in Trafalgar Square, which were seemingly supported by the Leader of the Opposition. Will the Prime Minister assure me and my worried constituents that he and his Government will do all they can to stamp out hate and hate speech in our communities?
The Prime Minister
I want to say again what a shocking antisemitic attack this was in Golders Green, and to be absolutely clear that an attack on British Jews is an attack on all of us. On Monday morning, I met Jewish community leaders to talk through what we could do on ambulances, on security and on the social cohesion plan. I will also say that I was really struck by the fact that the Jewish community came out last week against the shadow Justice Secretary’s comments; they are standing in solidarity with Muslims who wanted to pray in Trafalgar Square. Equally, at the Eid events we had on Monday, Muslims stood in solidarity with our Jewish community. That is Britain, contrary to what the shadow Justice Secretary said last week, supported by the Leader of the Opposition. That is how far they have fallen.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
Thames Water is lurching from crisis to crisis. Last year, it was let off record fines for pumping sewage into rivers by Ofwat. Ofwat is allowed to do that, under rules laid out in the Water Industry Act 1991. Will the Prime Minister consider scrapping those rules, to stop Ofwat letting water companies off the hook?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this deeply concerning matter. We are looking at what more we can do, because this has been of too much concern for too long, and we need to act.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
As the covid inquiry graphically laid bare last week, the NHS was starved of the investment it needed under the Conservatives, and nowhere more so than at Northwick Park hospital; its brave and extraordinary staff worked around the clock during covid, looking after many of my constituents. Given the very welcome, substantial investment in improving the NHS that the Government have committed to, will my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister encourage the Health Secretary to support plans for a new intensive care unit at Northwick Park?
The Prime Minister
The covid report is a stark reminder of the extraordinary efforts of health workers to keep this country safe. We are delivering record investment and reform that our NHS needs, and while decisions about local infrastructure are made by integrated care boards, I will make sure that my hon. Friend gets a meeting with the Minister to discuss this particular case. Today, NHS satisfaction rates have risen for the first time since the pandemic; that is the difference a Labour Government are making.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On 21 November last year, Robert Clancy, a hugely valued and much loved member of my staff, took his own life. He was 29. While successive Governments have done a great deal to deal with the scourge of suicide in this country, there is much more that can be done. Will the Prime Minister personally commit to meeting me to discuss how we can prevent others from experiencing the unimaginable pain that Rob’s family and friends have endured?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the case of Robert Clancy. We are happy to work across the House on all that we can do in relation to suicide. I am pleased that we have been able to put in place a strategy; that is the action of this Government, but it needs to be the action of all of us, and I will make sure that the hon. Gentleman gets the meeting that he is asking for. I thank him again for raising this case; it was really important that he did.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I refer you to paragraph 22.9 of “Erskine May”, which stresses the primary importance of ministerial responsibility? We have to admit that Prime Ministers have always tried to dodge questions at Prime Minister’s Question Time, and you are not responsible for the answers that they give, but what we have seen in recent weeks is not just dodging questions; in reply to every question the Prime Minister is asked, he refers to the Leader of the Opposition’s policies. This is not Leader of the Opposition’s questions; it is Prime Minister’s questions.
Mr Speaker
Once again, as I said last week, I do not have responsibility for, or authority over, answers. It is incumbent on Ministers to try to ensure that there is an answer, but it is not for me to judge whether the answer is correct. That would be politicising the Chair. If that is what the House wishes to do, it can by all means do that, but I have not got that power.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I seek your guidance on the rules about how many questions a Member needs to stay in the Chamber for after speaking?
Mr Speaker
None whatsoever, because we are in Prime Minister’s Question Time.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I have given advance notice to you and the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). There is an important tradition and custom in this House that Members remain in the Chamber for at least—
Mr Speaker
Order. That is absolutely not a point of order, and is not relevant, and I have certainly not had any indication of what you are asking me.
Foreign Financial Influence and Interference: UK Politics
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
I would like to make a statement on foreign influence and interference.
The responsibility of protecting our democracy is a duty that every single Member of this House shares. As a Government, we are clear-eyed about the evolving threats we must contend with from those who wish to disrupt our democracy for their own gain and their own twisted purposes. We already have a strong toolkit to detect, disrupt and deter interference, and we are strengthening it through our Representation of the People Bill and counter political interference and espionage action plan. But as threats evolve, so too must our protections. For this reason, I announced in December an independent review led by the former permanent secretary, Philip Rycroft, into foreign financial interference in UK politics. I would like to place on the record my thanks to Mr Rycroft for his thorough, diligent and swift work in rigorously assessing our political finance framework and identifying where further safeguards are needed. The full report from his review has today been laid before the House, and the findings are stark. Mr Rycroft concludes that this country faces a persistent problem of foreign interests seeking to exert influence on, and to interfere in, our politics, and that the threat has become arguably more acute. While he welcomes the measures in our Bill, the report is clear that we need to go further, and I agree.
We welcome Mr Rycroft’s assessment and his wide-ranging recommendations, which cover the regulation of corporate and overseas donations, the need to close loopholes used by some non-party campaign groups, the approach to combating online threats, the importance of ensuring that enforcement agencies have the information and powers they need, and the organisation of Whitehall to ensure that we are best placed to tackle these threats.
In advance of the Commons Report stage of the Representation of the People Bill, we will provide a comprehensive, line-by-line response to all the report’s recommendations. I am clear that, wherever necessary, we will amend the Bill to ensure that our defences against foreign interference are robust. Given the gravity of the threats we face and their level of seriousness, I reassure the House that we will take immediate action on the most serious loopholes set out in the report that allow illicit foreign money into our democracy.
British citizens living overseas have the right to participate in UK parliamentary elections, and that gives them the right to donate to parties or candidates they support. However, the report raises two fundamental concerns about such donations from overseas. First, the report is clear:
“Inevitably, tracing the source of funds offered by individuals living abroad is more complex than for domestic donations.”
Secondly, it raises concerns about the “democratic fairness” of allowing people
“who have chosen to live abroad in order to have their wealth taxed abroad”
none the less to
“have the opportunity to make potentially game-changing donations into British politics.”
I will therefore take immediate steps to implement the report’s recommendation on donations from overseas electors. We will introduce an amendment to the Representation of the People Bill to place an annual cap on the total political donations that an overseas elector can make. The cap will be set at £100,000 a year. In the light of the gravity of the issues raised in the report, I am not prepared to allow any window of opportunity in which malign actors based overseas can funnel dark money into our politics. The cap will therefore apply retrospectively, so it will include all donations from overseas electors received from today and all regulated transactions entered into from today.
Once the provisions are in force, any donations by an overseas elector to any political party or regulated entity that exceed the cap for that overseas elector will be an unlawful donation. Subject to parliamentary approval of the amendment that I will table, the recipient of any unlawful donation will have 30 days to return that donation once the legislation comes into force, after which enforcement action can be taken and criminal penalties will apply.
The cap will apply to relevant donations from today in all elections in the UK, including for parties at the upcoming English local elections, Scottish Parliament elections and Senedd elections. In Scotland and Wales, donations to candidates rather than parties are devolved matters, but my intention is to seek a legislative consent motion for our amendments to ensure that there are no gaps in our safeguards. I will speak to my counterparts in the Scottish and Welsh Governments to emphasise my commitment to work together to protect our electoral system right across the United Kingdom.
The second recommendation on which I will take immediate action relates to donations made in cryptocurrencies. Following extensive consultation, Mr Rycroft sets out clearly the deep reservations that many people have about such donations, and his conclusions are clear that
“there is a risk that cryptoassets are used as the vehicle to channel foreign money into the political system in the UK…we should pause the use of cryptoassets for political donations for the time being.”
I accept Mr Rycroft’s assessment that the anonymity inherent in cryptocurrency transactions could make it easier to mask the origin of donations and to evade robust checks on the true source of funds. The clear route that that creates for illicit channelling of money into our politics is unacceptable and undermines public confidence in our electoral system.
In the light of that, I can confirm that the Government will take immediate steps to implement the recommendation made in the report, and we will introduce an amendment to the Representation of the People Bill to place a moratorium on all political donations made through cryptocurrency. I want to be crystal clear: as the report recommends, I mean crypto in any amount, including donations of a value that would ordinarily fall below the threshold for control on donations. There are specific risks posed by cryptocurrency donations, such as the risk of rapid multiple small donations being made just below our current thresholds.
The moratorium will remain in place until the Electoral Commission and this Parliament are satisfied that there is sufficient regulation in place to ensure full confidence and transparency in donations that are made in that way. Subject to parliamentary approval, the moratorium will be applied retrospectively to any crypto donations received from today by any political parties and regulated entities. Once the provisions are in force, if a political party or regulated entity has received a donation in the interim, they will have 30 days to return it, after which enforcement action can be taken and criminal penalties will apply. That will again apply to all elections in the United Kingdom. As I have set out, we will work with devolved Governments to secure legislative consent where that is required.
I would like again to express my thanks to Philip Rycroft for his comprehensive, thoughtful and well-reasoned report. It is, and always will be, an absolute priority for this Government to protect our democratic and electoral processes. The swift and decisive action being taken by this Government sends a clear message: we will do everything necessary to protect the UK’s democracy. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Those Members who have come into the Chamber extremely late will not be called to participate in the statement. Members have to be here for the beginning of a statement, not for the last minute of it.
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. I echo his thanks to Mr Rycroft for the work that he has done on a very important report. We began work in this area through the defending democracy taskforce, and I am glad to see the Minister for Security in his place to highlight the important link between the work of this report and the work that he does.
There should be no party political divide when it comes to protecting the integrity of our democracy, and there is a great deal in the report that my party instinctively agrees with. However, the process falls far short of what this House should expect. The 50-page Rycroft review was published just 20 minutes before Prime Ministers questions, and only five minutes before one of the Secretary of State’s Ministers was hosting a meeting to which I was invited about local government reorganisation, making it very difficult for me to read the detail of the report—[Interruption.] That made it very difficult for me to read the detail of an incredibly important report which, as I said, contains much with which we instinctively agree. This is not just poor procedure; it means that it is harder for the Opposition to scrutinise the actions of the Government properly, particularly in light of the fact that many of the proposals in the report are being initiated immediately.
Sadly, this follows a pattern of behaviour by this Government. The Representation of the People Bill has already been through Second Reading and is in Committee, yet today is the first time we are seeing important elements of a report that goes to the heart of that legislation. Foreign interference is growing and it demands a coherent response—a cross-party response—and yet this Government choose to legislate first and make announcements later. They brought forward the Representation of the People Bill before the Rycroft review had reported; they asked the House to scrutinise legislation that was full of holes, as the Secretary of State is now announcing from the Dispatch Box. This is not good process.
My comments are not about process for process’s sake, but about ensuring that unforeseen or bad outcomes are avoided, while protecting what needs to be protected. Now we are told that major changes—fundamental changes—on donations, enforcement and transparency are being rushed into a Bill late in its passage, without proper consultation, scrutiny or time. That is not the way to ensure that cross-party policy is successfully implemented.
It is right that the Secretary of State and the Government want to send a clear message that they take this issue seriously, and we echo that desire, but this is not the way to do it. Announcing Government action by press release, then filling in the details later, undermines the important work at the heart of the report. Russia’s aggression, Iran’s hostile activity on British soil, cyber-attacks on our institutions and Chinese state-based activity against us here in the UK make it incredibly important that we fight this fight together. Having these things bumped on the House, in the way that this report has been, does not help.
The Secretary of State knows that the Conservatives are very much on the same side in relation to these matters, so I have a number of questions for him, which I will rattle through now. Why did he not wait for the Rycroft report before introducing the Representation of the People Bill in the House? Which of the review’s recommendations will require primary legislation and what time will be provided for that primary legislation? Will he commit to a full consultation with political parties and regulators before making any substantive amendments to the Bill going through the House?
From an initial reading, the proposals on company donations will have a significant effect on legitimate domestic donations, so why are the Government proposing to treat domestic philanthropy as if it were something distasteful? Will the Secretary of State confirm that these changes will not be brought forward without proper consultation and consideration on the effects of legitimate domestic funding?
Foreign interference is not the only threat to the integrity of our elections. We have seen evidence of breaches of electoral law, so what steps will the Secretary of State take to ensure that current legislation is enforced?
Will the Secretary of State tighten the rules on foreign donations? He talked about devolved franchise changes in Wales and Scotland. What will he do to make sure that the forthcoming elections are protected? Finally, does he now accept that a very short pause to enable good faith interventions from my party and others would make this legislation stronger and send the signal that we are united as a democracy in this endeavour?
Steve Reed
May I thank the shadow Secretary of State for his support for the purpose and intent of this legislation, and, indeed, for his and his party’s engagement with Philip Rycroft and his review? He lists the reasons that this is important to all of us and I agree with him. Certainly, I want to see both proper engagement with the Opposition and the opportunity for proper scrutiny, because that will strengthen the legislation. It is important that the legislation has cross-party support given the nature of the issue.
We had to act quickly to bring forward the provisions, because we could not allow a window of opportunity to open that would enable evasion by malign and hostile actors. Beyond that, the proposals will proceed in the usual way through the parliamentary processes and Members from all parts of the House will have the opportunity to comment and be engaged. It was necessary to act at speed because of the gravity of the threat that Philip Rycroft’s review outlined very clearly.
None of wants to allow foreign interference to continue. All of us believe that it is the right of the British people—and the British people alone—to freely choose their own Government. We will engage with Governments across the United Kingdom and parties across this Parliament to ensure that is the outcome.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
May I start by echoing the comments of the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State, paying tribute to Sir Philip Rycroft for his tireless work? I also thank the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy for its work on cryptocurrency?
We have to be honest and say that there is a lot of mistrust in our politics and democracy. I am proud to stand here as someone who was supported by two trade unions and local members in the funding of my campaign. We cannot say in one breath that we want to defend this country from foreign threats and then allow fundamentally opaque payment methods into our democracy. That is not on. It is therefore right that the Government put in place this moratorium on cryptocurrency donations. I welcome the Secretary of State’s pledge, as well as the cap on donations by overseas electors following the extension of their enfranchisement in the Elections Act 2022.
As is stated in the Rycroft review, one problem is the fact that no less than five Departments cover the responsibility for protecting our democracy. If we want to get this right, we need to continue with leadership at the heart of Government, so will the Secretary of State accept recommendation 17 and allocate a permanent secretary with lead responsibility for sustaining our democracy and co-ordinating the response to the threats at the heart of Government?
Will the Secretary of State also commit to ensuring that any amendments to the Representation of the People Bill as a result of the recommendations are tabled before Commons Report stage, so that Parliament can have adequate time to scrutinise the proposals?
Steve Reed
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for her questions and for her support for this work. The intention is to bring the amendments forward on Report. In advance of those amendments being laid, we will provide a detailed response to each of the 17 recommendations, including the one to which she has just referred.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. I was grateful to meet Philip Rycroft as part of this important and urgent work.
The threat that we face is not new. Back in 2020, the Intelligence and Security Committee said that Russian influence in the UK is the “new normal” and that the Government then were not doing enough. Since then, we have seen Reform’s former leader in Wales being convicted for accepting pro-Russian bribes.
We have said before that the Representation of the People Bill is not nearly ambitious enough, so I very much look forward to working as part of the Bill Committee to incorporate the recommendations. Will the Secretary of State clarify whether the Government intend to accept just the two recommendations that he has focused on in his statement, or all of them?
On overseas donations, a cap is welcome, but does the Secretary of State accept that if this reform is made without wider changes, a malign actor could get around it simply by donating via a UK company? We strongly support the moratorium on all political donations made through cryptocurrency, but much more is needed to really seize this opportunity to clean up our politics. We should ban anyone who has served a foreign Administration from donating to UK political parties, think-tanks or campaign groups A significant opportunity remains for those who have been political appointees in hostile Governments to funnel donations into the UK.
We should also ban politicians from receiving payment for participating in the propaganda of foreign adversaries, on broadcasters like Russia Today and Iran’s PressTV. Will he also address why calls from the Liberal Democrats for Donald Trump’s Administration, and their explicit policy of interference in our democracy, to be included in this review were ignored? Will he order a stand-alone probe into that?
Steve Reed
Let me thank the hon. Member for her and her party’s engagement with Philip Rycroft’s review. She is right to point to the growing threat; it has been evolving over recent years. She mentions the case of Nathan Gill, which underscores the nature and the gravity of that risk. Today I am accepting the report in general. We are bringing forward two provisions now, because had I not done so, a window for evasion would have been left open. We will provide a detailed response to all 17 recommendations. The amendments that we table will be open for parliamentary scrutiny and debate in the usual way. I look forward to her and her party making their views clear as we go through the process.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
I welcome the Rycroft review and I very much enjoyed speaking to Philip Rycroft during the process. Beyond crypto and other financial donations, he says we need to tackle deepfakes, bots and disinformation; create a political ad library; and put in place greater investigatory powers for the Electoral Commission and an incident protocol should there be a major election incident. My amendments deal with all those points. Will the Secretary of State undertake to urgently meet me to see how we can take my currently named amendments and make them Government amendments at the Bill’s next stage?
Steve Reed
I thank my hon. Friend for her support and her active interest in making sure that the legislation that follows is as robust as possible. I would be more than happy to make sure that she has a meeting with me or the relevant Minister to discuss her amendments. The report and its recommendations cover some of her concerns, and it is our intention to amend the legislation to deal with those concerns.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
As a former elections policy Minister and member of the defending democracy taskforce, may I thank the Secretary of State for launching this inquiry? I also thank Philip Rycroft for his work; it was a pleasure to give evidence to him during that process.
I welcome the spirit in which the Secretary of State has brought forward with urgency the changes that are so demonstrably required. May I ask him two direct questions? If amendments to reflect the Rycroft report are not to be tabled at Committee stage but on Report, will he ensure through the usual channels that the length of time devoted to Report stage reflects the fact that the House will be debating for the first time amendments to the legislation, which were not included on Second Reading? That speaks to the process point made by the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly).
If these important new rules are to be policed effectively and properly, there will clearly be additional demands on the Electoral Commission both in terms of power and resource. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of those needs and how will they be delivered in speedy time to mirror the urgency that is required?
Steve Reed
I thank the hon. Member for his support, for his work with the defending democracy taskforce and for contributing to Sir Philip Rycroft’s review. He is quite right that we want to make sure that there is adequate time on Report for Members to make their points, and I am sure that the business managers will ensure that that happens. Regarding resources for the Electoral Commission, we will need to ensure that the resources are adequate to meet any new demands placed on them or other regulators. That will be part of the process of ensuring that the legislation goes through and can be followed through on.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I thank Sir Philip Rycroft for his important work. In his review, he notes:
“The online environment has created a cheap and relatively simple means of getting anonymised content in front of ordinary people in a way that seeks to undermine their trust in the political process.”
He notes that this activity is “strategic, long-term and patient”, and that
“dissonance is its own reward.”
Does the Secretary of State agree with those findings? What can we do to address the challenge of misinformation and disinformation on social media and in online spaces?
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. We have to maintain confidence and trust of the British electorate in the integrity of our elections and election processes. This legislation, and the amendments we will table as a result of the Rycroft review, are intended to achieve precisely that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I appreciate that colleagues want to be forensic in their questioning, but shorter questions will be very much appreciated. I call Dr Andrew Murrison.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Mr Rycroft’s wide-ranging review makes the non-inclusion of China—or, failing that, its constituent entities—in the foreign influence registration scheme look increasingly bizarre. Will the Government look at this again as a matter of urgency? If it is the case that the FIRS is inadequate to include the state entity or its constituent parts in the meaning of the scheme, will he look to review it and perhaps replace it with something that will achieve the same end?
Steve Reed
The right hon. Member raises a very important point. The Government are keeping precisely that concern under very close review so that we stand ready to make changes as and when they are required. The Security Minister is on the Front Bench with me today because he would lead much of that work.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
I declare that I am a member of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission. I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments on the Rycroft review. He says that he will be responding to the many wide-ranging recommendations that the review contains, but can I press him further on what actions the Government are taking to give the Electoral Commission not only resources but the powers needed to both deter and punish breaches of political financial rules?
Steve Reed
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question; it is a very important one. We will respond in detail to the recommendations and bring forward any new powers or resources that the Electoral Commission requires. We will ensure that it can carry out any new responsibilities that we place on them.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
Can I put on record my thanks to Sir Philip Rycroft for his public service? The Secretary of State referenced devolved Administrations. The Scottish Parliament is going into the pre-election period this afternoon, so how will this work in terms of the elections? How will this legislation impact the extraordinary number of political donors who happen to find themselves as Members of the House of Lords, should they be seen to have broken any rules here?
Steve Reed
I hope to speak with the relevant Minister in the Scottish Government today. There will, of course, be engagement between officials during the pre-election period. Any legislative change would come after the elections in Scotland and in Wales.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I very much welcome Sir Philip Rycroft’s review. It is long overdue when we think about how much money has been flooding in from Russia and elsewhere. There are questions about association, and certain individuals who have been donating significant amounts of money while living for 21 years not here but in Thailand. The Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, which I chair, made many recommendations in our political finance report, which we published last week. I have tabled 11 amendments, which I hope the Secretary of State will very much view as constructive.
I welcome the connection tests that the Secretary of State has mentioned to do with the individual and on a corporate level, and the moratorium on cryptocurrencies is extremely welcome. California banned them back in 2018, so it just goes to show how much could have been done in recent years. The capacity of the enforcement agencies is a real concern. The higher penalties will be very much welcomed by them, I am sure, but I reiterate that there needs to be greater capacity and expertise across the Electoral Commission and the enforcement agencies.
Steve Reed
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and I recognise his concerns. I have addressed them in answer to previous questions, and I will not repeat those responses.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for coming to the House to talk about the importance of integrity in politics. However, as purdah arrives, in Sussex we are seeing a mess of dithering and delay and, frankly, blatant disregard of the original process for the changes in local government in Sussex. That is affecting my constituents, and indeed yours, Madam Deputy Speaker. Decisions are apparently taken on a case-by-case basis, but can I point out to the Secretary of State that people are saying that exactly this kind of political gerrymandering is happening in Sussex, which is exactly what he is seeking to prevent? Can he explain to the House how my constituents, and people more widely in Sussex, can have confidence in this process?
Steve Reed
Of the original proposals that we had for Sussex, none were considered financially viable, ultimately. We are reopening the consultation, and the hon. Member and her constituents will be able to comment on the new proposals.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Stepney) (Lab)
I welcome the Rycroft review and, in particular, the Secretary of State’s commitment to take action on crypto donations and to cap foreign donations from overseas donors. I want to draw his attention to the comment in the report that the debate on social media
“seeks to exacerbate division and increase polarisation with a view to simply destroying the capacity of the UK to function as a well-governed state.”
This is chilling. Alongside the proposals that he has spoken about, we need action to tackle deepfakes and disinformation, which are making it more and more dangerous for electoral candidates to operate in our democracy. Will he take action to empower our regulators, including Ofcom and the Electoral Commission, to take action rapidly, without delay?
Steve Reed
I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. Many people who care deeply about democracy have raised similar concerns. The review makes proposals on deepfakes and transparency about the origins of any content that appears online, which is needed. We will provide a detailed response to the recommendations, at which point she and other Members will have the opportunity to scrutinise and debate and scrutiny them as we work through the legislation.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and the action he is taking on cryptocurrency, but can I urge him to go further on corporate donations? A report this week by CenTax revealed that as many as one in four donations from corporate entities are essentially opaque. It put this down to the reliance on persons with significant control rules, and it made a series of recommendations. Will he commit to looking at the recommendations in that report and ensuring that we tighten up the system so that people cannot simply circumvent the rules by donating via British companies?
Steve Reed
The Bill and the Rycroft review already propose actions on that. I recognise the concerns. We need to act on shell companies, for instance, which can be used to funnel in dark money. We have no idea where that is coming from. There are legitimate concerns that the money could be coming from hostile states seeking to weaken and undermine our country by undermining our democracy. We will not tolerate that.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
In his excellent report, Sir Philip Rycroft specifically references the amplification of divisive content on social media. Yesterday my Committee heard from TikTok, Meta and X how in each case the design of their algorithm is determined by a foreign billionaire with a political agenda. Certainly when it comes to Mr Musk, that agenda does not reflect our democratic values—he has called for civil war in the UK. Unlike traditional press, social media algorithms are hidden, inaccessible and use personal data to target content, as Rycroft observes. Will the Secretary of State consider whether political bias in algorithms constitutes a donation in kind, and will he work with colleagues to address the algorithmic, advertising research and transparency failures that our Committee gave detailed proposals about in our report last July?
Steve Reed
I listened carefully, and with great interest, to part of the Select Committee’s proceedings yesterday. We are grateful for the contribution that my hon. Friend and her Committee are making to the debate. This legislation is not intended to target any one individual or state; it is about putting in place safeguards against growing threats, wherever they may arise.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I think the Government are very wise to try to close the potential loophole that somebody might make a giant donation between today and the conclusion of the legislative process, but I can think of at least one other rather glaring loophole, which hopefully the Secretary of State has also considered. If somebody is an elector living abroad, he will be limited to £100,000 per donation, but what about other members of his close family to whom he could channel indefinite numbers of packages of £100,000 apiece? What is to stop them from making similar donations? Has the Secretary of State considered how the limit will work in practice?
Steve Reed
Any attempt to bypass existing laws or the provisions that I have announced today would themselves be illegal. We would seek to identify the ultimate source and, if any behaviours of that kind had been carried out, there would be necessary enforcement action to follow.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
I welcome the measures announced today to tackle foreign interference in our elections. Will the Secretary of State go a step further and support my proposal to break the link between wealthy donors and the parties they help to elect by banning their firms from subsequently holding Government contracts?
Steve Reed
The report is focused on stopping money coming in from hostile states or other hostile individuals who seek to undermine our democracy. That is the extent of the measures that I am announcing today.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
Constituents like Andrew from Crewkerne have told me how worried they are about funding from the United States for right-wing UK think-tanks and political parties. Recommendations 4 and 16 of the review would strengthen transparency and reporting around donations to think-tanks and lobbying groups, which can advance foreign influence. Will the Secretary of State tell my constituents whether the Government will implement those recommendations, and when that will be?
Steve Reed
I thank the hon. Member and his constituents for their interest in this important matter. Philip Rycroft makes 17 detailed recommendations in his review. We will respond to all of them line by line, and at that point the hon. Member and his constituents will have our clear view.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for making this important statement. Like the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean), I am concerned about the ability of shell companies to make political donations. Clearly that is not transparent, and that is rightly recognised in the Rycroft review. What steps will the Government take to close that loophole? Crucially, what will the Government do to strengthen the monitoring of donations?
Steve Reed
That is an important point, because the ability of shell companies to exist as funnels for dark, dirty money entering and polluting UK politics is real. That is why we are taking the recommendations seriously, and we will come forward with amendments to the legislation intended to close those doors so that we can keep British elections free for British people.
Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Reform)
I am going to mention the elephant in the room. Earlier this month, the husband of a sitting Labour MP—the hon. Member for East Kilbride and Strathaven (Joani Reid)—was arrested on suspicion of spying for China. The hon. Member was subsequently suspended from the Labour party. It has been reported that she received a donation from her husband’s firm, which presumably would be covered by the Government’s plans. I do not expect any comment on that live investigation, but in the light of that and the historic case of Christine Lee, Labour MPs and the Chinese Communist party, will the Secretary of State confirm that the measures he has announced will apply equally to members of his own party who find themselves compromised by the Chinese Communist party?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Before the Secretary of State responds, the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman) will know that when we plan to mention colleagues in the Chamber, we give them notice.
Madam Deputy Speaker
She is saying that she has done so. We obviously do not mention live cases either.
Steve Reed
The right hon. and learned Member, as a former Home Secretary, will of course know that I cannot comment on ongoing investigations. The provisions of the legislation that we will bring forward—as with all legislation—will apply without fear and favour to members of all parties, as indeed does the bribery legislation that applied to Nathan Gill, a traitor who was the leader of Reform in Wales.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
At the time of the Boston tea party, the American colonists demanded, “No taxation without representation.” Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should instil the principle that there should be no ability, in a game-changing way, to influence representation without taxation? Will he elaborate a little on the principles in his statement?
Steve Reed
Philip Rycroft has recognised the concern and proposed what I think is a proportionate approach to dealing with it. I have accepted the figure of a £100,000 cap, which I think most reasonably minded people would agree is a very generous level of funding, for donations from British nationals who are living and paying their taxes overseas.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his comments. The Rycroft report has come at a really important time. As a member of the Bill Committee, I look forward to working with the Government to ensure that all the recommendations are brought through, because they are incredibly important. I return to the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) about the importance of a report relating to US interference in our democracy. What steps are the Government and the defending democracy taskforce taking to protect our democracy from foreign interference more generally before the Representation of the People Bill passes through the House?
Steve Reed
The US, of course, is our closest ally. The provisions that we are making in this legislation do not target any one country, or indeed any one individual; they are intended to be a proportionate response to a growing threat, wherever that threat may arise.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
I strongly welcome the report and the Government’s speedy and decisive response to it. Evidence from Germany and from Moldova shows how online attempts at foreign interference can combine with real-life attempts at foreign interference in the run-up to elections. First, was I right in hearing that the Government will look at a transparent protocol for dealing with information emergencies related to foreign actors in the run-up to elections? Secondly, is the Secretary of State aware that in countries where crypto interests have unfairly influenced elections, donations have often been given in domestic currency? Will he look at that broader context?
Steve Reed
There are recommendations covering precisely the points that my right hon. Friend raised. I have accepted the report, in general terms, in full. We will respond in detail to each of the 17 recommendations, which I hope will address her concerns.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I warmly welcome the Rycroft review and the Government’s swift action set out today on crypto and on overseas donations, although I would like to see them go much further. The Secretary of State said that he will amend the Representation of the People Bill wherever necessary. As a member of the Bill Committee, I would love to see those amendments tabled while we are still in Committee so that we can give them the line-by-line scrutiny that, as he referred to, is the normal practice of this House. Will he please pull out all the stops to ensure that happens?
On stopping the spread of disinformation on social media, Philip Rycroft refers on page 47 of the report to the significant benefits that could come from having a real-time online library of social media adverts so that we get that transparency and that light shone on how all sorts of actors are influencing people below the surface. Does the Secretary of State support Philip Rycroft’s view on that? Will he table an amendment to deal with that problem?
Steve Reed
I thank the hon. Lady for her and her party’s support for the review. I also thank her for her work on the Bill Committee. She is quite right; we need to make sure that when the amendments come forward, the Bill Committee has sufficient time—and, indeed, that the House has sufficient time—to go through them in detail. I and the Government will respond to each of the 17 recommendations in detail, and I think that that will be the most appropriate time to respond to the question she has raised.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
As an individual who has dedicated my life to tackling corruption in all its forms and as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for Security, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), for their commitment to addressing foreign interference in our politics, as well as thanking Philip Rycroft for his review. I am grateful for the immediate measures that the Government have announced today on crypto donations and the size of donations made by British nationals abroad. They are very welcome and very much needed.
May I press the Secretary of State on three particular questions? First, to what extent can he assure the House that the Electoral Commission is sufficiently supported to monitor and police the perimeter of the new announcements that have been made today? Secondly, will he confirm that, contrary to the remarks of the shadow Secretary of State, there was ample opportunity for political parties of all stripes to feed into the review? Thirdly, on “know your donor” checks and the risk factors that will be introduced through the Bill, there is a recommendation in the report that they should be more aligned with the anti-money laundering requirements that have been in place for quite some time for banks and other financial services firms. Will the Secretary of State commit to working with other regulators—for instance, the Financial Conduct Authority—to understand how those would best be implemented, working with parties?
Steve Reed
I thank my hon. Friend for his personal engagement on this issue and for the work of the APPG that he chairs. It has made some significant contributions and we are grateful for that. We will, of course, ensure that the Electoral Commission has the resources it requires to enforce changes as we bring them forward. On his final point, the defending democracy taskforce exists to make sure that there is proper alignment across all the necessary regulators to ensure that we are keeping our democracy in this country free and safe.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s reference to the rights of British overseas electors and the cap on donations as a proportionate response, yet their right to cast their vote is constantly stymied by late arrivals of the post. While the Secretary of State is considering amendments to the Representation of the People Bill, will he meet me to consider my amendments that would address that issue and seek to secure the voting rights of overseas citizens?
Steve Reed
I am aware of that important concern. I am happy to make sure that he gets an appropriate meeting to discuss it.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
I welcome the report; it is game changing. I agree with the Secretary of State’s logic that leaving a window open for dodgy money to flood into this country would have been totally irresponsible, so I welcome the swift action. My specific question is about recommendation 2 on company donations. We have learned from the Premier League’s attempt to enforce financial fair play that, unfortunately, revenue can be manipulated very easily—for example, sponsorship can allow clubs to buy players that they otherwise would not be able to afford. I welcome Rycroft’s recommendation that we switch to profit to ensure that only genuine companies that make a profit in this country can give donations. As the Government respond in full to the report, will the Secretary of State take a close look at that recommendation?
Steve Reed
I thank my hon. Friend for his support. He is quite right; Philip Rycroft was very clear in his reasoning on that point. The objective is to prevent shell companies from being set up to funnel dark money into British politics. It is not to prevent British companies that are just going through a difficult year or two from making donations themselves.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I welcome the review, the Minister’s response and the general thrust of it. I am glad to see the list of people who responded at the back of the review. We responded on behalf of the Unionist community, and it is a good job that we did as no others seem to have done so.
On political donations in Northern Ireland, the Minister will be aware of Sinn Féin being able to funnel money from the United States into the Republic and then into Northern Ireland. That is an issue that we raised and it is itemised on page 25. It is a concern that many people have. Sinn Féin already gets millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money in representative money for not coming here, and in addition to that, it is now getting several millions from the USA via Dublin and into Northern Ireland.
Steve Reed
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his and his party’s engagement with the review. I hear his concerns. It is important that we continue to engage so that those concerns can be heard and, where appropriate, addressed.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his prompt action in banning cryptoasset donations and capping foreign donations. The Rycroft review also recommends that foreign-funded adverts be banned and that all online adverts should have imprints to show who has paid for them. Will the Secretary of State explain when and how the Government will take those recommendations forward?
Steve Reed
Philip Rycroft makes some really important points on that, which of course other Members across the House have made previously. As I said earlier, we will respond in detail to all the recommendations, including those covering the points that my hon. Friend has just raised.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
I thank Philip Rycroft for his review and the Secretary of State for the announcement today. I am particularly happy that we have this idea about it being retrospective and applying the measures from today because we do not know when the Bill will come through. May I encourage the Secretary of State to consider, both for crypto and for foreign donations, extending the period of retrospectivity back to the previous general election?
Steve Reed
I am not so sure there is much precedent for that level of retrospectivity.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank Philip Rycroft for meeting me in my position as chair of the fair elections APPG and for including some of my points and evidence in this excellent review. I also thank the Secretary of State for including the donations cap—an issue that I raised with the Minister for Democracy, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), when we met.
My question relates to page 45 of the review, which talks about international best practice, and the point I raised with Philip Rycroft about VIGINUM in France, which monitors foreign online interference. That is the most pressing issue in UK politics today. It is about not just identifying it and publishing it, but attributing and exposing it, and in some cases even getting it removed. Are we considering the same modalities, capabilities and powers when implementing that recommendation in the UK?
Steve Reed
We will respond in detail to each of the 17 recommendations, including the one that my hon. Friend references. However, he is absolutely right: we can and should learn from best practice in other democracies to make our democracy as robust and safe as it can be.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
I, too, welcome Sir Philip Rycroft’s work and the Secretary of State’s announcement today. I strongly support the idea of applying the donations cap and the moratorium on cryptocurrency donations to the devolved elections. Will the Secretary of State just clarify, to reassure me, that for those changes to take effect for the upcoming elections, we will not have to have a legislative consent motion from the devolved legislatures before the elections because, as others have mentioned, there is very little time for that to happen?
Steve Reed
No; to reassure the hon. Gentleman, the provisions I have announced today apply to the entire United Kingdom, with immediate effect.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
I strongly welcome the review and I thank the Secretary of State for commissioning it. I have heard what he has said about considering the recommendations in detail. I draw his attention to paragraph 75, which states:
“there are no reporting requirements for campaign spending outside regulated periods for either non-party campaigners or candidates. This means that there is no transparency around what is spent, or around the donations being used to fund this spending, outside of regulated periods.”
We go out of the regulated period again in six weeks’ time. Will the Secretary of State consider the urgency of that particular recommendation for dealing with the regulated period? More broadly, does he agree that it is our democratic duty to take the report seriously, and that political parties that do not take the report, and transparency and democracy, seriously have no role in this Parliament and no decency in representing their constituents?
Steve Reed
There are clear recommendations about non-party campaigns and candidates, and we will be making our response to those recommendations in due course. The only recommendations I am bringing into force immediately are those that I referred to in my statement.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I welcome the recommendations of the Rycroft report, particularly the cap on donations from overseas voters, but we all know that our domestic politics is still prey to big money influencing all the parties in this House, which warps our politics and moves it away from public discourse in favour of the interests of the wealthy. In fact, the last election saw one of the highest ever levels of spending in a general election, at close to £70 million. That is extremely unfair for the smaller parties and independents, so can I ask the Minister how we can promote fairer representation and a move away from domestic big-money politics?
Steve Reed
The purpose of the review, and therefore of my statement, is to address growing concerns about foreign influence on our elections, particularly the attempts by hostile states to get control of our elections and influence them in ways that will favour them rather than the British people.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
I welcome the Rycroft report, especially the focus it puts on the threat of social media upturning our democracy. It was astonishing in the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee yesterday that the representative from X repeatedly stated that X was not politically biased and appeared to decouple himself from Elon Musk and the platform itself. Elon Musk has incited hatred in this country and backed very right-wing candidates and parties on his platform. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the recommendations on foreign financial influence extend to any Member of this House receiving any income from X or any other social media platform?
Steve Reed
The recommendations are very clear in their scope. I hope my hon. Friend will allow the Government to take the necessary time to respond to those recommendations in detail—there is a lot in them—and then to bring forward amendments to the legislation and take that through both Houses in the usual way.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
A former high-ranking member of Reform UK was convicted and sentenced to 10 and a half years in prison for accepting bribes to promote pro-Russian narratives, while some Members across the House have had direct foreign interference in their work in Parliament. Given that the Rycroft report highlights the fact that foreign interference in our politics is real and persistent, what additional steps can be taken to strengthen our democracy against foreign interference in political parties?
Steve Reed
The hon. Member is right to highlight the very high profile case of Nathan Gill, who was accepting bribes on behalf of Russia, a hostile foreign state, and effectively kowtowing to it rather than responding to the wishes of the British public. We cannot allow that to happen. That is why we are bringing forward the provisions in the Representation of the People Bill, and we will be bringing forward further amendments based on Philip Rycroft’s review that is before the House today.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
I thank Philip Rycroft for his review and for meeting me to discuss his report. I also thank the Government for the quick action that they are taking. On cryptocurrencies, what further action will the Government be taking to ensure that the influence does not move from politics into lobbying or, even worse, into think-tank organisations?
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend makes an important point. There are recommendations in the review about precisely that, and we will come forward with our detailed response. I have accepted the review in general terms, but we will bring forward detailed responses to the individual recommendations and then amendments to the legislation so that we can put in place the necessary protections to ensure that it is the British people who take the decisions about who governs them, not people sitting in the Kremlin or in seats of government in other countries.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for his positive statement and for the clear direction from the Government. Some four or five weeks ago, I asked him a question about Sinn Féin moneys. At that time, he said that he would come back to me, but he did not—this is not a criticism, by the way—and I now understand that the reason he did not was that this statement was coming today.
In the light of the statement, can I ask for some clarification? Accountability and transparency are tenets that have to go hand in hand with elections, and those ideals must become realities. Given that Sinn Féin has historically received millions in US-placed donations and maintains a unique cross-border structure, will the Minister ensure that the Rycroft review specifically examines the adequacy of safeguards against political funding originating from the Republic of Ireland and the United States of America, to ensure a level playing field for all parties within this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Steve Reed
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for his deep interest in this entire matter. Our intention is to ensure that the safeguards we put in place are robust enough to ensure that no dirty or dark money can enter British politics in any way or from any source. I am always more than happy to continue to engage with him about any specific concerns he may have.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I am completely disappointed with myself for not wishing the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) a happy birthday today. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] That is why his question was allowed to be a little bit longer than usual, but hopefully it will not be next time.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
I welcome this statement. The public must have confidence that political decisions are made in their interests, not those of wealthy donors. Nowhere is that more important than in relation to the housing crisis, where there are also significant concerns that vested interests are seeking to exert significant influence on policy making. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss my proposed amendment to the Representation of the People Bill to ban developers from donating to politics and restore trust in our planning system?
Steve Reed
I am more than happy to make sure that my hon. Friend gets an appropriate meeting. I also belatedly wish the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) a happy birthday.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
Section 10 of the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009 amended the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 so that, in addition to already needing to be on the electoral register, a donor would need to be domiciled in the UK for tax purposes. However, section 10 required a statutory instrument to activate it, but no such statutory instrument was ever laid before this House. Will the Secretary of State look at belatedly activating this measure to ensure that only those that live and pay tax in the UK can influence our democracy with their money?
Steve Reed
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point, and of course I am more than happy to look at that.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State’s announcement of a cap on donations from overseas electors and a moratorium on cryptocurrency donations from today is extremely welcome. What criminal penalties will be incurred for breaking these rules? After all, we need an effective deterrent to dissuade those who might seek to circumvent them.
Steve Reed
We will lay the details before the House so that Members on both sides have access to the relevant information. It was important that the provisions in these two circumstances were brought forward to today, because of the risk of a window for evasion had we not done that. That retrospective change will be subject to the legislation going through Parliament successfully.
Points of Order
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I mentioned earlier, the Scottish Parliament goes into recess today ahead of the election, yet the Minister has talked about seeking a legislative consent motion. This is an important issue, and I respect the work that has been done, but can I seek your guidance on how these measures can be brought forward in a timelier manner so that we can respect the democratic process of other parliamentary institutions within these islands?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. This is not a matter for the Chair, but those on the Treasury Bench will no doubt have heard exactly what he had to say and will, I hope, ensure that his comments are addressed and taken on board—
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
indicated assent.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I can see the Secretary of State looking at me and nodding. Let’s take that as a positive.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance? We have just had a statement from the Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government on donations. Can you tell me whether the Secretary of State or the Department have given any indication that they propose to come to the House to give a statement and an opportunity for questions on local government reorganisation? I know that Mr Speaker was particularly concerned that a good deal of information has been placed in the media over the last 24 hours about decisions that have been made, and as yet no Members of this House have had the opportunity to scrutinise the Government on those matters.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Member has put his point appropriately on the record. I have not been given any notice of such statements, but the Front Bench has no doubt heard his concerns and will respond accordingly.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This House passed the Humble Address so that there is full transparency on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador to the United States. That includes the due diligence undertaken by the Cabinet Office’s propriety and ethics team. Yet, in an answer to a written question, Cabinet Office Ministers have now admitted that the people advising on what is to be redacted or deemed in scope are the very same propriety and ethics team that undertook the due diligence. Is that not a massive conflict of interest? What advice can you provide to Ministers on mitigating those conflicts of interest in responding to the House, given that the advice on such matters would normally be provided by the very same propriety and ethics team?
Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Member will know that I am not responsible for the inner workings of the Cabinet Office—that is a matter for the Government. I would, however, say that I know the House awaits with interest further disclosure of material under the Humble Address. I gently encourage Members to wait and see what is released, and should they require further advice at that time, the Clerks will be available.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 9 February, I submitted a named day written question to the Cabinet Office asking if any taxpayer-funded Government payment would be made to Morgan McSweeney or Tim Allan, both of whom had just resigned in the wake of the Mandelson scandal. It was due for answer on 12 February, but the question was ignored.
I tried again to solicit an answer as to whether Morgan McSweeney or Tim Allan would, or will, receive a payout by asking a further written parliamentary question on 17 March, asking specifically when an answer to the original question would be provided. This written parliamentary question was due for answer on Monday. Again, the deadline came and went, and that question was ignored. Ignoring scrutiny at Prime Minister’s questions is routine for this Prime Minister, but it appears that the broader Government are also showing total contempt for their responsibilities to be open and transparent with Members of this House. Can I please seek your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on what recourse is available to Members whose written parliamentary questions are stonewalled by the Government?
Madam Deputy Speaker
It is of the utmost importance that Ministers take their responsibilities to this House seriously. I would always expect timely answers to written parliamentary questions. They should be within scope and within the deadline, obviously. The Treasury Front Bench will have heard his concerns. The hon. Member may also wish to raise this issue with the Procedure Committee, which is running an inquiry into written parliamentary questions.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy. I seek your advice. You and the rest of the House will be aware of the deployment of HMS Dragon to the eastern Mediterranean to deal with the conflict in Iran. Most people might not know, though, that HMS Dragon was removed from the Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 commitment to be retasked to go to the eastern Mediterranean. I have asked several questions of the Defence team. Most recently, on 9 March, I asked the Defence Secretary whether he could guarantee that we would be able to fulfil that NATO commitment and whether a British ship would deploy on those Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 commitments. He assured me that we will “fulfil our NATO commitments”. However, today it has been reported that the German frigate Sachsen will replace HMS Dragon on that NATO Maritime Group 1 tasking. I seek your advice on whether we can establish that the Defence Secretary comes back to the House to inform us exactly when that decision was taken and whether he inadvertently misled the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. The contents of Members’ speeches, including ministerial answers, are a matter for them and not for the Chair. However, he has put his point on the record, and I am sure that the Defence Secretary will no doubt have heard this point of order and will be quick to correct the record if necessary.
Bills Presented
Victims and Courts Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Victims and Courts Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
15:01 - The House divided: - Ayes: 291 / Noes: 158 - Question accordingly agreed to.
15:15 - The House divided: - Ayes: 295 / Noes: 162 - Question accordingly agreed to.
15:26 - The House divided: - Ayes: 286 / Noes: 163 - Question accordingly agreed to.
15:38 - The House divided: - Ayes: 300 / Noes: 149 - Question accordingly agreed to.
15:48 - The House divided: - Ayes: 292 / Noes: 162 - Question accordingly agreed to.
16:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 290 / Noes: 163 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I can inform the House that Lords amendments 4 and 7 engage the Commons’ financial privilege. If either of those Lords amendments are agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving the Commons’ financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.
After Clause 7
Access to free court transcripts for victims
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 2 to 7 and the Government motions to disagree.
Alex Davies-Jones
I am grateful for the opportunity to once again be speaking on the Victims and Courts Bill as it returns to this House. This is fundamentally a Bill for victims. At its core, the measures seek to ensure that victims are treated with dignity, compassion and respect throughout the entire justice process. The Bill will ensure that offenders are held to account by giving judges the power to impose prison sanctions on offenders who refuse to attend their own sentencing hearings—something that the families of Olivia Pratt-Korbel, Jan Mustafa, Zara Aleena and Sabina Nessa have campaigned tirelessly for. It places the welfare of children firmly at the centre by restricting the parental responsibility of the most serious offenders, including child sex offenders and those who have conceived a child through rape. The Bill also strengthens the power of the Victims’ Commissioner by giving them greater authority to act in individual cases that raise systemic issues and by requiring an independent assessment of compliance with the victims code.
I am grateful for the scrutiny of the Bill in the other place. The Lords amendments we are considering reflect a shared determination across both Houses to improve outcomes for victims. However, while the Government share that objective, we must ensure that the reforms are workable, proportionate and capable of being delivered effectively.
I turn to the seven non-Government amendments made in the other place. First, Lords amendments 1 and 3 relate to court transcripts. Through the Sentencing Act 2026, the Government have already introduced a major expansion to transcript provision, which will, for the first time ever, give all victims the ability to request free transcripts of Crown Court sentencing remarks directly relevant to their case from Spring 2027. That is a significant step forward for victims, improving access to clear information about how decisions are made and strengthening their ability to navigate the justice process. This is a significant operational undertaking. We must ensure that this major expansion for victims is delivered effectively and in a way that is operationally sustainable. We are working at pace to deliver this, and it is essential that we get it right so that victims receive this important information in a timely way. It will help them understand the sentence that has been passed and will support their recovery.
However, we recognise the strength of feeling around transcripts, particularly from victims, and I want to reference that strength of feeling in this House towards the subject, too. I want to be clear that the Government are approaching this with care and ambition to go further. Access to what was said in court matters deeply for victims’ understanding, confidence and sense of justice, and the steps that we are taking to expand the free provision of sentencing remarks represent real progress.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I welcome this Bill and this Government’s laser focus on supporting victims and survivors, which has been lacking in our courts system for a very long time. I hear what the Minister says about court transcripts. It is incredibly important for the victims and survivors I know to have a physical copy of sentencing remarks so that they can process them in their own time, so I am confused about why she is not accepting Lords amendments 1 and 3 at this point.
Alex Davies-Jones
I welcome that comment, and I agree with my hon. Friend. The countless victims and survivors who I have spoken to talk about the need to have those remarks in writing and how valuable a court transcript would be in helping them to recover and process. Let me say at the Dispatch Box that the Government share the ambition to go further and to provide transcripts, but we need to do that in a workable, sustainable and effective way, so that no victim is let down by a process that is not ready or is not capable of meeting the challenge that this issue presents. We are willing to go further, and we will look to see what more we can do in the Lords.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for going further in making these transcripts available. Will she let us know what the next steps in that process will be? How quickly will we see real movement to allow people to have access to their sentencing remarks?
Alex Davies-Jones
I welcome that question from my hon. Friend, and he is right. We need incremental progress on our shared ambition to go further on court transcripts. I am clear that this is not the end point, but part of the broader effort to improve access, transparency and support for victims.
I have been working with my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), who is a tireless campaigner on this issue, as are many other campaign groups, such as Open Justice. I pay tribute to them for all the work that they have done on getting free sentencing transcripts for everyone in the Crown court. We want to go further, with the experiences of victims at the heart of what we do. It is important that we consult with others in this place and outside it on what would be the most beneficial next step, particularly for court transcripts and cases that end in acquittal.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
I was slightly concerned when I heard the Minister say that she was “working at pace”—that is the phrase that Ministers in the Ministry of Defence have used about the defence investment plan, which has been repeatedly postponed and still is not with us—so can she give a more precise timescale? Does that mean sometime in the next 12 months?
Alex Davies-Jones
I cannot speak for the Ministry of Defence, but I can speak for my own record here as the Minister and my own actions in government when it comes to delivering for victims. I am happy to put on record that we are working at pace to deliver this. The hon. Gentleman will see what measures come back in the Lords and what commitments we can make once we look at what is possible, practical, workable and effective.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The Minister gives the fact that she needs to consult as a reason for turning down the Lords amendments. Is the usual approach not to consult before bringing the legislation, not to bring the legislation then consult afterwards?
Alex Davies-Jones
Perhaps I was not very clear. This is not about consulting with victims on what is required—we know what victims want, and I have spoken to many of them regarding court transcripts—but looking at what is possible right now. We are prioritising delivering sentencing remarks for free for all victims, and working with the judiciary to ensure that we get this right and accurate. That is the priority for the Government. As I have said, we are willing to go further on court transcripts; this is not the end. For example, we are looking at what would be the best next step for victims. Is acquittal the best thing to focus on right now? We need to get that right before we go further, and I will happily come back to this House with the Courts Minister on the next steps.
Lords amendment 1 would create a new entitlement for all victims of crime to receive transcripts of routes to verdict and of bail conditions and decisions relevant to their case, free of charge and within 14 days of a request—let us not forget that that is what is in the amendment. I will explain in more detail why that proposal would not provide significant benefits over the systems already in place. First, under the victims code, victims already have the right to be informed of bail outcomes and release conditions within five working days—a shorter timeframe than that proposed in the Lords amendment. We recognise the importance of this right and the benefits for victims in being able to access information in a timely or consistent way. We are exploring how responsibilities under the victims code are being met by the relevant service providers and how to better support them in the delivery of the code.
We are seeking views through the ongoing victims code consultation, which ends at the end of April, on whether the processes for providing bail information are working as intended. To strengthen them further, the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 will, once commenced, introduce a compliance framework requiring all criminal justice bodies to keep their delivery of the code under review. Taken together, these operational and legislative measures address the core concern around timely and sufficient provision of bail information far more effectively than introducing a statutory duty to provide transcripts of bail hearings.
Secondly, providing victims with routes to verdict would be unlikely to add significant value, which is why we need to discuss with victims what would be of most value to them. A route to verdict is typically a very short document—sometimes it is not even a document at all. Its purpose is not to explain the outcome of a case, but to guide members of the jury through a series of legal questions that they must consider privately when applying the law to the facts. Crucially, juries do not provide their answers to those questions or even give reasons for their verdict. Victims would therefore see only the questions that the jury was asked, not how they were answered, and they would gain no additional insight into the decision.
Lords amendment 3 would require the Crown court to publish sentencing remarks transcripts online and in public within 14 days of a request being made and to inform relevant victims of their right to request anonymity before publication. While the Government are fully committed to strengthening transparency—I make that commitment—the Lords amendment would create significant operational and financial pressures for victims at a very difficult time. Public release demands a higher standard of anonymisation to remove both direct and indirect identifiers of victims and witnesses. That is detailed, skilled work. Current AI-based tools cannot reliably carry out anonymisation for the complex and sensitive material heard in the criminal courts, and trained staff are still required to manually review each and every transcript. That means that even modest increases in publication would create disproportionate pressures on operational capacity.
Furthermore, requiring the court to make victims aware of their right to request anonymity, make appropriate redactions and publish the transcript online—all within 14 days of a sentencing remarks transcript request being made—would not be operationally viable at this time. As I have said, our immediate priority must be delivering the sentencing remarks expansion for victims properly and at pace. Adding substantial new duties at this stage would divert the very resources needed to deliver these important commitments for victims, which victims have asked us directly to provide.
Lords amendment 2 proposes the creation of an appendix to the victims code, setting out how the code applies to close relatives of British national victims of murder, manslaughter and infanticide outside the UK, where the victim was resident in England and Wales. The Government cannot support this Lords amendment, as it risks placing obligations on agencies to provide services to bereaved families that are impossible to deliver in practice and that in some places would go beyond what is in the victims code. It also risks confusing the existing legislative framework and therefore the workability of the code, and it could raise the expectations of victims.
The victims code already applies to some families bereaved by homicide abroad, namely where the offence is murder or manslaughter and the perpetrator is a British national or British resident. That is because, in those circumstances, the case can be prosecuted in England and Wales. Where offences cannot be prosecuted in the UK—for example, where the crime is committed overseas by a foreign national—most entitlements under the victims code do not apply. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds), who is in his place, for all his work with the brilliant organisation Murdered Abroad and for representing the views of all the families here.
While I appreciate that the code does not capture the whole of the cohort covered by the Lords amendment, I give the hon. Member for Maidenhead and the House my absolute assurance that the Government recognise the particular challenges faced by all families bereaved by homicide abroad, including those navigating very complicated overseas criminal justice processes, often in different languages. We are committed to working with agencies to improve the support available to them in England and Wales.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I join the Minister in thanking the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) for his work on this issue. I also take this opportunity to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) for her work on the part of this Bill that ensures there are no parental rights for child sex offenders or those who conceived a child by committing rape, which is absolutely abhorrent. I thank the Minister for taking those things forward and for her work in ensuring that victims are at the centre of this Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones
My hon. Friend is right. This is called the Victims and Courts Bill because it is a Bill for victims, built by victims and, sadly, by their experiences of how the criminal justice system has not supported them and has failed them. It is important for us to build on the Bill and ensure that we get it right and that it is workable, effective and delivers for victims in their everyday lives, as well as for future victims who will sadly be created by crime committed here or overseas.
Let me return to the victims of homicide abroad. In January this year, the Government published guidance that brings together clear and accessible information for families about the services that can support them. We have clarified the roles and responsibilities in further documentation online, which sets out exactly how the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the Ministry of Justice and the chief coroner and the coroner service will work together when a British national is a victim of murder or manslaughter abroad. While every case is considered on its individual circumstances, this document seeks to ensure a consistent level of service for bereaved families.
Throughout the debates on this topic, we have listened carefully to the concerns raised and we are committed to addressing them. To improve the consistency of support offered by consular services, the FCDO has committed itself to reviewing and refreshing its training provision for all consular staff. We need to improve access to translated documents, and the Ministry of Justice will review how translation is provided in the course of delivering the new homicide service contract in 2027. To ensure there is an independent view of the approach taken by agencies that support this cohort, the FCDO’s senior official for global consular services will meet either the Victims’ Commissioner or a representative when particular issues arise that merit further discussion. I thank the Victims’ Commissioner, and her predecessor, for continuing to engage with the FCDO and other agencies to advocate for families.
While we remain committed to strengthening support for families bereaved by homicide abroad, Lords amendment 2 confuses the purpose of the code in terms of its intended application to crimes capable of prosecution in England and Wales. It also risks creating obligations on agencies that are impossible to deliver, given that many of these cases will be handled overseas and therefore be entirely outside their control. Instead, we are determined to address directly the concerns faced by bereaved families.
Lords amendments 4 and 7 would remove clause 12 from the Bill, which means that the Lord Chancellor would not have the power to set the rates of private prosecution costs recoverable from central funds. The Government therefore cannot support those amendments. Retaining the current arrangements for private prosecutions would preserve a system that is inconsistent and places an unnecessary burden on the courts. Currently, when private prosecutors apply for their costs to be paid from central funds, there is no prescribed rate. The court, or the Legal Aid Agency acting on its behalf, must work out in each individual case what level of reimbursement is “reasonably sufficient”. That lack of clarity leads to unnecessary disputes, appeals and delays in an already delayed court process. By introducing transparent, consistent rates, we will give prosecutors clarity and certainty about what they will be paid, thereby reducing the need for cost appeals. Valuable court time is taken up by the determination of costs because of the lack of prescribed rates, which imposes an unnecessary burden on the courts.
It is important to stress again that the majority of private prosecutions never result in a claim from central funds, and will be entirely unaffected by this measure. Most private prosecutors act responsibly, apply the code tests properly and pursue cases in the public interest. However, we cannot ignore the evidence that, in a small number of cases, the near certainty of recovering large costs from central funds may cause the pursuit of private prosecutions that are disproportionate or an unsuitable remedy to the presenting legal issues. We have seen examples in which the costs claimed bear little resemblance to the scale or seriousness of the case, such as a £90,000 claim in a fraud prosecution when the loss was only £5,000. That is not what the system was intended for.
Let me make it clear that clause 12 does not set any rates, and does not alter the long-established right to bring a private prosecution. That right remains protected under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, and will not be affected. Before any rates are set, there will be extensive engagement with stakeholders and a full public consultation. The Government remain open-minded about where the rates should ultimately be set, but the rates will reflect the complexity and seriousness of cases and will be shaped by the evidence that we gather.
A number of respected charities bring private prosecutions to protect the public and pursue wrongdoing, but it is important to note that charities represent only about 10% to 15% of private prosecutions that result in claims on central funds, and that they will continue to be able to bring private prosecutions. Nothing in the clause alters the fundamental right to bring a private prosecution: that right is long-standing and preserved in statute, and the Government have no intention of changing it.
Clause 12 is a measured and necessary first step towards reform. It will bring clarity to an unclear system, improve efficiency, reduce unnecessary burdens on the courts, and help to ensure that taxpayers’ money is used responsibly. It will do all that while safeguarding access to justice and maintaining, fully and unequivocally, the fundamental right to bring a private prosecution.
Sir Ashley Fox
The Minister will forgive me if I describe what she has announced as a whole load of waffle. The problem is that the 28-day period is too short, and she should consider some mechanism to allow it to be extended. Providing for training, notices and stuff on websites will not help many victims, who just need more time to consider their legal position. At this late stage, will she consider extending the 28-day period?
Alex Davies-Jones
I am afraid that the hon. Member must not have heard what I said before I came to non-legislative changes. The Government are committed to bringing forward legislative changes on that time limit and to consider out-of-time applications by families. We have listened directly to the families about what they want. We could have brought forward an amendment that simply extended the time limit, but the families told us directly that that was not what they wanted. I listened to victims, the Government listened to victims, and in this victims Bill we will do as the victims have asked.
We will continue to test on getting this right, because it is important that we get it right first time. We are confident that we will soon be able to update the House on a workable legislative solution. For those reasons, the Government cannot accept Lords amendments 5 and 6.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Justice Secretary.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
In a week when the Government have been reprimanded for letting foreign criminals out of prison without proper checks or safeguards, have been found to have done absolutely nothing as a firm that was due to build thousands of prison places went bust 18 months ago, and ended short-term sentences, allowing prolific shoplifters and other criminals to escape prison, it is beyond disappointing that they seek today to overturn perfectly sensible Lords amendments. The amendments would make the criminal justice system more transparent and give victims stronger rights to challenge unduly lenient sentences.
We must ask: why are this Government so afraid of the public? Why do Ministers not trust the people? Why do they want to keep injustice—from rape gangs, to serious criminals getting away with a few brief years in prison—out of the spotlight? [Interruption.] Labour Members sigh and moan when I raise the rape gangs. That is exactly the mentality that the country is sick of, and it lies behind the failure to prosecute those cases.
We support Lords amendment 2 on expanding the victims code for murder, manslaughter and infanticide abroad. We support Lords amendment 4 to remove clause 12 from the Bill, because that clause will deliver few savings while undermining access to justice. We support Lords amendments 5 and 6, which strengthen the unduly lenient sentence scheme. Amendment 5 introduces an exceptional circumstances clause that allows the deadline to be extended beyond 28 days, and amendment 6 requires the Justice Secretary to ensure that victims and their families are aware of their rights under the scheme. Those are welcome suggestions. I pay tribute to Katie Brett and the rest of Justice for Victims, and to Tracey Hanson, for their campaigning on this front. They have been consistent in making clear that they want meaningful change, not half measures.
Just last week, I wrote to the Attorney General about the case of Mohammed Abdulraziq, who dragged a five-year-old girl off the street so that he could sexually assault her. He was sentenced to only 11 years in prison, and in all probability, he will be out in just seven. Monsters like him need to be kept away from children. The Government’s opposition to these amendments weakens justice and reduces public protection. I heard what the Minister said about looking at legislation in future, and we will hold her to those words.
The failure to trust the people goes not just for the unduly lenient sentence scheme, but for wider transparency in the criminal justice system, and it is on that point that I will focus the rest of my remarks. We Conservatives do trust the people, so we support Lords amendment 1, which entitles victims to free transcripts of route-to-verdict and bail decisions, and Lords amendment 3, which requires the publication of Crown court transcripts of judges’ sentencing remarks, online and for free, within 14 days of a request made by any member of the public.
The Minister explained the Government’s position on those amendments, and amid the verbiage I could discern only excuses. She sounded like the driver of a broken-down train, who, with passengers stranded miles from the nearest station, was doing her best to assure everyone that the train was indeed moving. Of course everyone knows that there is no movement; the train that we are on is entirely stationary. This is an important lesson for the Minister and other members of the Government: the repetition of fiction does not make something fact. We can all see exactly what is and is not happening.
I want to explain why this is so important. Of course, we want to see how the provisions of the Sentencing Act are implemented, but it is simply not acceptable for victims to be charged as much as £7,000 for a transcript. It is vital that we allow transparency, to make it easier for victims, journalists and the wider public to see what is going on in our courts and detect patterns. We know from too many tragedies, and too many cover-ups, that sunlight is always the best disinfectant.
Let us consider the Courtsdesk scandal. When the Justice Secretary tried to shut down that vital, searchable archive of court hearings, he caused an outcry. Before Courtsdesk, official court listings matched reality just 4.2% of the time. Two thirds of courts routinely heard cases that the media never knew about. From crimes committed by illegal immigrants in asylum hotels and weak sentences for paedophiles, to people dragged through the courts for breaking lockdown rules years after the pandemic and offending by convicted criminals who should have been tagged but were not, Courtsdesk helped journalists to join the dots, securing justice for victims and exposing failures in policy. I still want to know why the Justice Secretary wanted to delete that archive, and why Ministers blamed Courtsdesk for a serious data breach, when documents released since show that the Ministry of Justice considered the breach low risk and not worthy of a referral to the Information Commissioner. I will give way if the Minister wishes to explain. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. The normal protocol is that a Member wishes to intervene, but I appreciate the encouragement—and the Minister has risen to it, so well done, Mr Timothy.
Alex Davies-Jones
The shadow Secretary of State will know that Courtsdesk is a private company that provides a subscription-based specialist data platform aggregating magistrates court data and offering specialist services to journalists. The proposal did not stop data sharing with Courtsdesk at all, and it was not about reducing transparency. It was merely a commercial sensitivity proposal to take the archive offline temporarily while we determined new contracts. It was not about transparency.
Nick Timothy
I think the Minister has been taking lessons from the Prime Minister. She may as well have been reading the phonebook in answering the question. [Interruption.] Well, the answer that she just gave was completely unsatisfactory. There was an attempt to delete the archive.
Sir Ashley Fox
If there was no intention to delete the data, why did the Chair of the Justice Committee write to the Lord Chancellor asking him to stop the deletion of that data?
Nick Timothy
That is a good point. The Minister has her side of the argument, but on the other side is the Justice Committee, pretty much every journalist involved in crime and court reporting, the company involved and Opposition parties of all colours. I think we know what is going on. I was relieved that, after the Conservative campaign to save Courtsdesk, the Justice Secretary bottled it and backed down. He should do the same today by backing Lords amendments 1 and 3.
The lack of transparency in our criminal justice system explains some of the darkest moments in our history. The crimes of the rape gangs were despicable. They were racially and religiously aggravated, and victims were targeted because of their vulnerability. The criminals were not just the rapists but all those who colluded and were complicit in those depraved, sustained attacks: police officers, social workers, local officials and councillors. Some were guilty because they abused those poor girls themselves, some because they helped others to abuse them, and some because they had the chance to stop it but refused to do so. Some were motivated by malice, and some chose to tolerate evil because they did not want to challenge the official narrative about diversity and multiculturalism.
With the rape gangs, and with other acts of corruption and criminality, we know that the politics of communalism is so often lurking. In parts of our country, clan culture is corrupting our public institutions and the rule of law itself. As we saw in the west midlands recently, the authorities chose not only to turn a blind eye, but to make themselves the willing tools of those they should confront. If we want to confront all these things, and if we want to save our country from corruption and ruin, we need victims of crime, journalists, campaigners and the general public to be given the information that they need to expose the truth. We need the Government not to hinder this noble cause, but to use their power to ensure that justice is done. That is why we need far more transparency in the justice system, and why today we will vote in favour of Lords amendments 1 and 3.
Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in today’s debate. I first spoke on this Bill on Second Reading, when I said that victims in Bolton had waited far too long for a system that truly works for them. This Bill delivers critical reforms to protect victims and rebuild confidence in our justice system, from powers to tackle non-attendance at hearings to measures strengthening the rights of victims. It will help victims to get the justice they deserve, and I am pleased that this Labour Government are getting on with the changes that victims and campaigners have needed for far too long.
I am particularly pleased to support the measures in this Bill that strengthen victims’ rights to receive information. The dedicated victim helpline and the updated victim contact scheme will help end uncertainty and stop victims having to keep chasing for basic updates. I understand the intention behind Lords amendments 1 and 3, on court transcripts, which try to address the same basic problem: victims not getting clear enough information about decisions that affect them. Victims deserve clarity, and the process must be more transparent, but the Government have been consistent in saying that these amendments go further than is currently operationally feasible. If we create duties that the courts do not have the capacity to fill safely, victims will be let down once again. If we promise a process that cannot be delivered in practice, we are not building trust; we are undermining it.
This Bill marks an important step forward in strengthening the rights of victims, ensuring that offenders are held to account and rebuilding confidence in our justice system. For victims in Bolton who have waited far too long to be properly informed, supported and heard, this Bill will make a real difference, and I am proud to support it.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
This Bill returns to us from the other place, where my Liberal Democrat colleagues tabled a number of crucial amendments that come before us today, which concern changes to the unduly lenient sentence scheme, the victims code, access to free court transcripts and more. I am really pleased to hear the Minister support those amendments in principle, and to hear her commitment that she will take them away with her team to make sure that they are workable before bringing them back to this place. Of course, the Liberal Democrats will hold the Government to account on all those amendments and make sure that they are implemented as quickly as possible for the sake of victims.
On Lords amendment 1, I am proud that my colleagues in the other place have been building on the successes of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), who has fought a long-running campaign for free court transcripts for victims. The amendment would give victims a right to receive court transcripts of the route to verdict, and of bail decisions relating to their particular case, free of charge. At present, such transcripts are available to victims only where a defendant has been convicted of an offence. We Liberal Democrats will vote for the amendment in order to build on this Bill and to make further much-needed progress by extending the current scheme. I urge all colleagues from across the House to join us in doing so.
On Lords amendments 5 and 7, we Liberal Democrats, led by Baroness Brinton in the other place, have sought to clarify and amend the unduly lenient sentence scheme. The scheme ensures that victims who feel that an offender’s sentence is unduly lenient can appeal to the court. However, in practice, many victims are completely unaware that this mechanism exists, and are often told about it after their short 28-day appeal window has closed. Some of these cases involve families of victims who have faced some of the most horrific crimes, including brutal murder cases, with harrowing details about what has happened to them or to members of their family laid out before them in court, in full, for the first time. Understandably, this can put them through severe emotional strain and trauma, and have other distressing effects.
For many families of victims, the last thing on their mind are procedures such as appeals. Once they reach a stage where they have processed their grief, the short 28-day window has sometimes already passed—and they may not have even been aware that they could appeal. To address this issue, the new clauses tabled by the Liberal Democrats seek to make allowances for the 28-day timeframe to be extended in exceptional circumstances, and to place much greater responsibility on criminal justice agencies to ensure that victims are fully aware of their rights to appeal and of how quickly they must do so. For example, greater awareness of victims’ rights in relation to the unduly lenient sentence scheme could form part of a judge’s sentencing remarks following a trial, rather than being left as an afterthought that might not be covered at all.
Lords amendment 2 relates to changes to the victims code. It would require the Secretary of State to outline how the rights in the victims code apply to the families of those killed as a result of murder, manslaughter or infanticide outside the UK. The amendment follows the outstanding work of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds), who pushed for these changes at an earlier stage of the Bill’s passage. Although I understand that it would be unreasonable for us to mandate other countries to enforce the UK’s victims code, we are seeking to afford the families of such victims the same rights and to treat them as victims under the code. I am therefore very pleased that our colleagues in the other place have given this sensible and much-needed amendment a chance in this place once again.
I urge all colleagues to vote for all these excellent Lords amendments, which are incredibly important to victims and their families. I hope the Minister will come back to the House to confirm precisely when they can be brought forward by the Government in workable legislation. For the record, I commend the work of our colleagues, both in this House and in the other place, on these issues, which are so vital to victims’ rights and to our justice system as a whole.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
The Victims and Courts Bill is part of the Government’s wider reforms of our justice system that will, in the round, better protect victims and improve their access to justice, as well as that of defendants. I really welcome its measures to improve communications with victims, to reform non-disclosure agreements, to ensure that defendants appear at sentencing hearings and to restrict the parental rights of child sex offenders. Today, I will focus my remarks on Lords amendments 4 and 7, which are on the financing of private prosecutions.
The Bill amends the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 to provide a new power for the Lord Chancellor to prescribe the rates at which prosecutors acting in private prosecutions can recover expenses properly incurred by them from central funds. This proposal draws on a related recommendation of the Justice Committee, on which I serve. The rates would not be set by the Lord Chancellor, but would instead be consulted on and implemented through secondary legislation, so it is very important that the Government, through the Lord Chancellor, have the power to control the rates that can be claimed and paid. Lords amendment 4 seeks to leave out clause 12, thereby preventing that power from being accorded to the Lord Chancellor. In my view, the Lord Chancellor needs that power. After all, ours is a public justice system, albeit one that has long accommodated private prosecutions.
The current arrangements contribute to inequity in our justice system, which this Bill seeks to address more broadly. In recent decades, we have seen some landmark private prosecutions, such as the case brought by the parents of Stephen Lawrence, the cases brought by the RSPCA and other charities, and the cases brought by the Cyclists’ Defence Fund and others. Although we might argue that, in a properly functioning justice system, we would no longer need private prosecutions, we clearly do need them, and if we do still need them, we need to be able to exert proper control over the resources expended on them.
Steve Barclay
It would be easy for anyone watching the proceedings, with not many Members in the Chamber to discuss these Lords amendments, to think this is about some technical issue or minor point of debate, but the votes today really do matter. They matter to victims, who are currently charged often thousands of pounds for the transcripts of the court hearings in which they were involved. They matter for the transparency and openness of our legal system. They also matter to the public, because on this very issue over 200,000 people signed a public petition, which was debated in Westminster Hall on Monday this week. Although people may think these are just Lords amendments, this is an important set of votes.
I gently say to the Minister that her speech did sound a bit like an episode of “Yes Minister” in that her remarks were, “I fully support giving victims more rights, and that is why today I’m going to vote against every one of the amendments to do so.” As she was speaking, I wrote down some of her phrases. She said that this is “a Bill for victims”, as if the amendments made in the Lords are not meant to empower victims, when they clearly are. She said that she wants to “go further”. It is no wonder her own colleague, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), said she was “confused”, and she was not the only one confused by a Minister saying that she wants to go further by voting against amendments that would enable us to go further.
The Minister justifies that inconsistency by saying she needs to consult more, including with the judiciary, as if the Government have been ambushed by their own legislation. They control the timing of this Bill and they brought it to the House, but then they say, “Oh, actually, the timing’s not right, and we need more time to consult.” They themselves are legislating and they control the time, so if they needed to consult, they could have done that in a timely fashion.
The Minister said she accepts the challenge of the pressure that the 14-day period puts people under, especially given the interplay with the 28-day window for the unduly lenient sentence scheme. Just to explain that in lay terms, if people want to appeal a sentence that they feel is unduly lenient, they have to do so within 28 days. However, if they cannot get access to the transcript in a timely fashion, their ability to do that is severely constrained. The Government control the legislation and its timing of its introduction, yet they are going to ask Labour Members to vote against these amendments. Is it any wonder they keep U-turning, because they are saying one thing and then they are going to vote to do the opposite today on the basis that at some point in the future they may come round to doing what they say they want to do at the moment?
The Minister says that more cannot be done now, pointing to reasons of technical issues and constraints, while also saying that the Government are overcoming those constraints in relation to sentencing remarks. Again, there is no “can do”. There are lots of things in a court bundle ahead of a court hearing—witness statements, and a huge amount of other documentation—and vastly more information could be shared with victims in a timely way, yet such discussions do not seem to have taken place. It is no wonder that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) called what we are getting instead “waffle”. We have been told we are going to have guidance, work on awareness and—that Government catch-all—a code, as if that is a replacement for actually giving victims access to the transcripts they want.
The crux of the issue is that the Government are introducing this legislation, but those in the Lords have quite rightly scrutinised it and seen that there are constraints on the timescales. The Government do not dispute that; they accept that there is a good case for victims to have more access to transcripts. Indeed, on Monday in Westminster Hall, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards), said:
“There is an issue of transparency regarding court transcripts”.—[Official Report, 23 March 2026; Vol. 783, c. 39WH.]
Is it not therefore bizarre that the Government will ask their own Back Benchers to vote against doing something about what they accept is a real issue for victims of crime?
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
I welcome the progress that has been made on this Bill. It is right that we are taking steps to rebuild trust in a system that for too long has left victims feeling invisible and unheard. The measures to compel offenders to attend their sentencing hearings are welcome. No family should be denied the chance to see justice simply because an offender refuses to face what they have done. The protections for children, especially in cases of sexual violence, are long overdue.
I will speak specifically about Lords amendments 5 and 6, and about my constituent Katie Brett. Katie’s little sister, Sasha Marsden, was just 16 years old when she was brutally murdered, raped and set on fire. The sheer horror of that crime is beyond words. The pain her family lives with every single day is unimaginable to most of us, yet after enduring the traumatic trial and the devastation of their loss, Katie and her family were faced with another injustice: they had 28 days to challenge the sentence that they believed did not reflect the severity of the crime. What is worse, they were not even told that they had this right.
For the family of a victim, the trial of the perpetrator is always traumatising, but in such a case—Sasha’s family heard the brutal details of her murder for the first time at the trial—most of us would not be emotionally ready to fight another fight and to understand the complex legal processes within 28 days of hearing the sentence. That is 28 days to grieve, 28 days to understand the complex legal system and 28 days to find the strength to fight once more. This is not a meaningful right; this is a barrier.
Katie has shown extraordinary courage in turning her grief into action. Through her campaign for Sasha’s law, she is asking for something perfectly reasonable: more time for victims’ families to seek a review of sentences that they believe are unduly lenient. The Government are absolutely right to be looking at ways to improve communications with victims’ families to ensure that they know their right to appeal under the unduly lenient sentence scheme, but I must make this point to the Minister: 28 days is not enough, even if people are informed of their right to appeal. The period of 28 days is how long someone has to return a T-shirt.
The families deserve longer to consider whether they wish to appeal. I understand the Government’s concern that an end date must still be placed on this longer deadline, which is why Lords amendments 5 and 6 cannot be supported, but I urge them to listen to Katie and the many other families who have suffered at the hands of the status quo, and to ensure that the issue is revisited as the Bill continues its progress.
Offenders are afforded multiple opportunities to appeal, and they are given time, process and support. However, victims’ families are given just one chance, with very limited time for it. This cannot be right. It does not reflect the values that we say our justice system is built on and the values that the Labour Government were elected to put into action. If we are serious about putting victims at the heart of the justice system, we must ensure that their rights are real.
The Bill takes important steps forward, but it must not be the end of the conversation. It must be the beginning of doing better for Katie and Sasha, and for every family forced to navigate grief and injustice at the same time. Let us make sure that our justice system delivers not just outcomes, but humanity, fairness and the time that victims need to truly seek justice.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
I will speak to Lord’s amendment 2, which requires the Secretary of State to issue an appendix to the victims code setting out how the code applies to the families of British nationals who are the victims of murder, manslaughter or infanticide abroad. This is not a new argument in this Chamber. I tabled amendments on Report to make precisely this case, I secured an Adjournment debate last year, and I have raised questions with the Minister several times. I thank her for the work she has done with me and others on this topic.
It is also important to thank the charity Murdered Abroad, and specifically Eve Henderson who has been working on this issue for a long time, as well as the late Baroness Newlove who, in her time as Victims’ Commissioner, worked with Murdered Abroad and me to ensure that the amendments tabled to the Bill were workable in the view of the Victims’ Commissioner.
Murdered Abroad is a campaign made up of bereaved families who have turned their grief into a distinct call for change. Families who are part of Murdered Abroad all have one thing in common: a family member of theirs, a British citizen, was murdered while they were outside the UK. Their calls ask for one simple thing: equal treatment. They are asking for the structured statutory support that any family would receive if tragedy struck on British soil, because a British life lost is a British life, no matter where in the world that loss occurs.
Each year around 80 families receive the news that one of their loved ones has been murdered abroad. Sometimes that is via a police officer, but all too often it is from a journalist who has found out the news first and is asking for comment. When tragedy strikes, it sends any family into an unimaginable position, but when it happens outside the UK, families are left with so many other complications they must contend with. They must navigate foreign legal procedures, untranslated documents and distant court proceedings with patchy and often inconsistent support from their own Government, all at a time of trauma, vulnerability and mourning.
Matthew was sitting in a bar when two door staff rushed over and grabbed him. They were joined by two more, who threw him down a metal staircase. At the bottom, witnesses saw them kicking and hitting him. A UK post-mortem identified over 20 injuries on Matthew’s body. When his mother called the FCDO, she was told that he died of alcohol consumption. That same morning, newspapers in Greece ran the headline, “Teen Drinks Himself to Death”. Matthew’s mum had to fight tooth and nail to get a family liaison officer. She also had to fight tooth and nail for translation support to get documents in English. They ended up being paid for by Derbyshire police, because the FCDO would not pay for them.
Alison and Paul’s son Danny was killed in Amsterdam in 2022, aged just 22 years old. They explained how navigating lengthy and complex Dutch judicial procedures in foreign languages, while also having to arrange matters such as repatriation without any support, was an immense challenge. All the while, they were dealing with the trauma of their son having been killed. That loaded on to them and their daughter an untold amount of stress at a time when they needed support from our Government. In such circumstances, the Government should be supporting families in any way they can.
Let me be clear about what Lords amendment 2 does and does not do. It does not seek to interfere with foreign judicial systems and it does not place unworkable demands on the FCDO. What it does do, however, is establish a statutory baseline, ensuring that bereaved families have access to the support and guidance that any other family of a homicide victim would receive.
Lords amendment 2 inserts an appendix into the victims code which states that families must be provided with specific guidance explaining what support they can access. It explains that they must be given information by the British Government about how the foreign criminal justice process works—not getting involved in that process or interfering with it, but explaining what families can expect. It outlines that they should be given a dedicated family liaison officer to support the family at the worst time. Some police forces do that already, but many do not. We have heard that many police forces will tell families they are not entitled to a family liaison officer. Only immense pressure from families makes those police forces back down and give them the family liaison officer they need. When everything else in the world has gone wrong, it should not be up to these British families to have to push the police to give them the family liaison officer they should be entitled to.
The amendment outlines that the Government must provide translation services for such families. Far too many families tell me that they were told by the Government to use Google Translate to get death certificates translated into English. That is not acceptable—that is not something we can accept ever again. One family told me recently how they found out through Google Translate that their son’s organs had been removed from his body. It is not acceptable that Google Translate told them that. We cannot accept that and the Government need to go further to provide translation services for families.
The Government’s position, set out in a letter to Members on 23 March, is that the amendment would “raise expectations” that cannot be met and that it risks “confusing the legislative framework”. Those arguments are remarkable. We are talking about an appendix to the victims code, laying out what support families can expect from the British Government. The suggestion that setting out in statute what support a bereaved family can expect will somehow undermine the coherence of the entire victims code does not stand up to scrutiny. And it is not just me and the Liberal Democrats saying that. The Victims’ Commissioner must believe that too, because she was pleased that the Lords successfully voted for the amendment. I cannot understand how the amendment would raise expectations that cannot be met and confuse the legislative framework, and neither can the Victims’ Commissioner. I do not understand how the Government can think that.
The Minister points to guidance published in January 2026 as evidence of the Government’s commitment. I welcome that guidance, but guidance is guidance. Guidance is not the law. Guidance can be ignored. It has no real enforcement mechanism. If the Government genuinely believe that families deserve support, we must ask the question: why do they not say so in statute?
Last month, I met families from across the country whose loved ones were murdered abroad. Among that group were families who lost loved ones this year, after the new guidance had come into force. The guidance has not protected them. They have fallen through exactly the same gaps that were in the system before the guidance. The reason is clear: guidance is not statutory; it is a guide. It can be ignored and it too often is. What we need is a statutory appendix to the victims code setting out what support victims will receive, and how the Victims’ Commissioner and her team can support it. There is a lack of consistency. Some families are given a family liaison officer and some are told they cannot receive one. That is the problem we are looking at and we must do better.
I will ask one question of the Minister about transparency in the needs assessment carried out by the Victim Support homicide service. What criteria are used to decide on a family’s needs following homicide abroad? Neither the Victims’ Commissioner nor Murdered Abroad charity members are able to find out what results are coming through and what criteria are being used. That is why families so often feel that there is a lack of consistency and accountability.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the debate today. I will answer the questions of the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) first, as he spoke last, and they are fresh in my mind. I will endeavour to get him the information that he asks for. He may not have seen or be aware of the new draft victims code that is out for consultation at the moment, but on page 8, in black and white, are the provisions that will now apply to those who are bereaved due to homicide or manslaughter abroad. We are building on the victims code through the consultation, which is open until 30 April, and I look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman’s views. As I said, we are determined to do more on translation as well, once the contract ends on the homicide service in 2027, so that we can support victims and bereaved family members so that they never have to go through something like the horrific examples cited by the hon. Gentleman.
I place on the record my sincere gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) for her unwavering campaigning on behalf of her constituent Katie Brett. I was very grateful to Katie for coming to the recent meeting on the unduly lenient sentence scheme that the Ministry of Justice convened with victims so that we could hear directly from her, as well as Tracey Hanson and others, on what would be most beneficial in terms of legislative changes—not just the statutory duty to be notified and specifying who would notify them, but on the time limit and how best it can be applied in circumstances like Katie’s, so that Sasha’s law can be properly looked at.
I turn to the points made by the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay). I understand that it might be difficult for him, given that when he was in government, the legislation that was passed was clearly not workable, sound or efficient on the ground. This Government take a different approach. Although we agree with the sentiment of a number of these amendments, we have to ensure that they are legally workable, sound, responsible and effective. That is what a responsible Government do, and that is what I am determined to do as the Minister responsible.
Steve Barclay
The point I was highlighting was the inherent contradictions in the Minister’s remarks. Even now, in her summing up, she has said that the Government are going to go further in 2027, but in her opening remarks she said that they cannot go further because there are technical impediments. The point is that there are inherent contradictions in the Government’s narrative.
Alex Davies-Jones
I will try to break it down more simply for the right hon. Gentleman, as he is clearly not listening—
Alex Davies-Jones
Patronising, but truthful, given that what I am saying is that the Government are determined to go further in the right way. We agree with the sentiment of the Lords amendments, but they are not workable and will not work in this legislation. Where practically possible, we will be bringing forward legislative changes and we will work with right hon. and hon. Members across the House to ensure that this happens, but that will not be in a way that would be a dereliction of duty and disrespectful to the victims whom this Government represent. The victims are at the forefront of this legislation, and we need to ensure that the Bill works in practice. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman was part of a Government who clearly did not do that.
I am also incredibly grateful to those who have supported the measures in the Bill, particularly the victims, who have waited far too long for change. They want a justice system that treats with them dignity, keeps them informed and ensures that offenders are properly held to account. The Bill delivers tangible improvements that can be implemented while sitting alongside wider reforms that will modernise our court process and put victims at the heart of the system.
Today, the House has the opportunity to support and protect victims and restore confidence in our justice system. I urge the House to support this Bill and to reject the Lords amendments.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Petitions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
Having tabled an early-day motion, presented a Bill and hosted a Westminster Hall debate on equine road safety, I am now pleased to be able to submit this petition on horse and rider road safety.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that horses and riders face significant risks on UK roads due to inadequate enforcement of passing distances and limited driver education.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to introduce legislation to make the minimum passing speeds and distances for horses in the Highway Code a legal requirement, to require equestrian safety to feature in all driving theory tests, and to introduce standards for the teaching of equestrian safety in driver education.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P003174]
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
From October 2024 onwards, I did my best to engage fully and properly with the assisted dying debate that took place across England and Wales. I met campaigners on both sides of the debate in my constituency, and did my best to explain my conclusions to constituents at all times. Today I am presenting a petition signed by residents who tracked me down in the pouring rain while I was door-knocking in Keyworth a few weeks ago, such was their commitment to this cause. They wanted me to know that while they respect the need for scrutiny of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, they are concerned about the possibility that the Bill will not become law because the parliamentary Session is likely to end in the coming weeks, before the Bill has returned to this Chamber. They do not want to return to Second and Third Reading debates in future but, like many ordinary people, they would like to see laws change in this place, and they are finding the processes opaque and slow. Their trust in the system is waning. To that end, Hilary, Joe, Robert, Patricia, Eve, Karen and many other constituents who signed this petition asked whether I would formally put their concerns on the parliamentary record, which I am doing.
The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take such actions as are within its power to facilitate the progress of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.
And the petitioners remain, etc.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Rushcliffe,
Declares that an assisted dying law should be enacted without further delay, following the House of Commons voting in favour of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill in June 2025; and further declares that there is overwhelming public support for law change.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take such actions as are within its power to facilitate the progress of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
I rise very deliberately today, on 25 March, as it is the UN’s International Day of Remembrance of the Victims of Slavery and the Transatlantic Slave Trade, and the very day on which a UN resolution formally declaring that slave trade is a crime against humanity is being debated. It is yet to be confirmed whether the UK will support that resolution.
Further to the online petition of the all-party parliamentary group for Afrikan reparations, which has received almost 2,000 signatures, I present a petition on behalf of British residents who are outraged that the Government have never issued an unequivocal apology for Britain’s central role in African chattel enslavement and colonialism. Expressions of sorrow and regret are not an apology; nor are they befitting the crimes committed or Britain’s role in one of the gravest crimes in human history. We cannot begin to address the legacy of this injustice without first having the courage to acknowledge it. Atonement must start with truth.
The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to issue a full and meaningful apology, on behalf of the UK government, for Britain’s role in African chattel enslavement and colonialism, and establish an All-Party Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry for Truth & Reparatory Justice.
And the petitioners remain, etc.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom
Declares that the Houses of Parliament and the UK government have not yet apologised for Britain’s role in African chattel enslavement and colonialism; further declares that the “deep sorrow and regret for our nation’s role in the slave trade” as has been previously expressed by former Prime Minister Tony Blair, does not constitute a meaningful apology for the enslavement, trafficking, genocide and extensive colonial crimes that our country engaged in; further declares that an official apology in our country’s name and the establishment of an All-Party Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry for Truth & Reparatory Justice can be the beginning of action to address its legacy; and further declares that once an apology has been offered, the UK can begin to engage with those nations and communities affected on discussions of reparatory justice, which can extend beyond monetary payment.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to issue a full and meaningful apology, on behalf of the UK government, for Britain’s role in African chattel enslavement and colonialism, and establish an All-Party Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry for Truth & Reparatory Justice.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003179]
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
I wish to present a petition, signed by 65 residents of Derwent Avenue, Thurne View and Eden Court in Didcot, relating to years of flooding on their street, and the perennial risk of flooding to their properties. I hope that Thames Water and the Government will take note.
The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Common urges the Government to ensure that Thames Water confirms that all possible measures will be put in place to mitigate against further sewage flood events from manhole 2201.
And the petitioners remain, etc.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of Derwent Avenue, Thurne View and Eden Court in Ladygrove in the constituency of Didcot and Wantage,
Declares that Thames Water must take all possible measures to mitigate against repeat sewage flood occurrences from manhole 2201.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ensure that Thames Water confirms that all possible measures will be put in place to mitigate against further sewage flood events from manhole 2201.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003180]
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members from across the House agree that one of the best things about this job is working with people in our constituencies who see something that they want to change and do something about it. I hold in my hands a wonderful example of 256 residents who want to do exactly that for Walsall Road in Lichfield.
The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to encourage Staffordshire County Council to place a 7.5 tonne weight limit upon the section of Walsall Road between its southerly junction with Limburg Avenue and its northerly junction with Friary Road and that ongoing section of Friary Road to its junction with Bowling Green Roundabout.
And the petitioners remain, etc.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Lichfield,
Declares that Walsall Road, a residential C road, is being used as a shortcut by medium and heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) throughout the day and night, causing significant disturbance to residents; further declares that there is a purpose-built road for such vehicles, the A461, running parallel to Walsall Road and that despite clear signage indicating that HGVs should use the A461, drivers of these vehicles consistently choose to drive along Walsall Road; further declares that whereas the A461 has relatively few dwellings along the carriageway, well set back from the road, with wide verges, footpaths and a cycleway, Walsall Road is narrower, has dwellings almost continuously along the carriageway, close to the road, often with only a narrow footpath with useable width 90cm in places, and that as a result of all this, residents of Walsall Road suffer unnecessary noise day and night, the traffic is causing vibration damage to properties on the road, and pedestrians, including children walking on and crossing Walsall Road to reach Christ Church Primary School, are often little more than one metre from HGVs, many of which exceed the 30mph speed limit; and further declares that despite the nuisance and danger caused by this state of affairs, Staffordshire County Council Highways Department has not taken action to improve the situation for residents on the road in question.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to encourage Staffordshire County Council to place a 7.5 tonne weight limit upon the section of Walsall Road between its southerly junction with Limburg Avenue and its northerly junction with Friary Road and that ongoing section of Friary Road to its junction with Bowling Green Roundabout.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003181]
Nuclear Test Veterans
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)
I almost unable to be here today, because my mum, Una, has been critically ill in hospital. If you will indulge me for a few seconds, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to thank from the bottom of my heart the paramedics and respiratory nurses who saved my mum’s life on Friday night, and the team at the Countess of Chester hospital, who have been working around the clock to make her stable and give us the gift of a bit more time with her. She is now doing really well and is stable. She is watching this debate on her laptop, which my husband has managed to set up for her, and she told me last night that I had better get down here and do this debate—or else. Like most of the public, she is deeply angry about this issue, and she is right to be angry. It is one of the biggest scandals of our generation, involving decades of suffering, unimaginable loss and, ultimately, injustice inflicted on our own servicemen, their families and the communities affected by Britain’s nuclear testing programme.
I expressly thank the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes)—he has done far more than most—for his years of work and support on this issue, Lord Watson of Wyre Forest for his relentless work in the other place, my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell), and so many other supportive Members who are here today. I also thank the nuclear test veterans campaign team: Alan Owen and LABRATS, John Morris and his lovely family, Steve Purse and his mum, and, most of all, journalist Susie Boniface, who has been relentless in her search for truth and justice. She has never wavered and never given up, and it is because of her groundbreaking search for the truth that I am standing here today to tell the House about the pivotal information that she has recently uncovered. I thank the Minister and the Defence Secretary for their work and support on this issue so far, and I hope that Susie’s recent work will now act as the catalyst for urgent Government action.
I also thank Mr Speaker for granting this important debate; I know that he has long supported the nuclear test veterans. Given the gravity of the recent developments that I am about to outline, I hope that he will look favourably on the request of my friend, the right hon. Member for South Holland and the Deepings, for a longer debate on this issue. So many Members have contacted us both in the past few days to say that they want to represent their constituents on this very important issue.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
I pay tribute to all those who served in our armed forces as part of the nuclear tests overseas, to those who suffered illness or died prematurely as a result of the tests, and to the bereaved families and family members who were born with rare disabilities as a result of the radiation that our nuclear test veterans faced. I am fortunate enough to have worked closely with some of the nuclear test veterans and families due to the Hillsborough law campaign, and I thank them for their incredible solidarity with the Hillsborough families and survivors. I thank my hon. Friend for her outstanding work in trying to gain truth and justice for the test veterans, who have been victims of a state cover-up. Will she join me, the nuclear test veterans and the LABRATS campaign in calling on the Government to deliver the Hillsborough law in full, without carve-outs for any state institutions, as a matter of urgency, so that we can get justice for our nuclear test veterans and their families?
Rebecca Long Bailey
I thank my hon. Friend for his hard work and for his support of the Hillsborough law campaign over the years. He has done an inordinate amount of work to try to make justice for the victims a reality, and I know he continues that work on a daily basis. He is right: injustice is injustice. For that injustice to be rectified, we need full transparency. There cannot be any carve-outs of sensitive information or otherwise as part of the Hillsborough law, because that denies justice to those who need it most.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for the warm words that she offered. She gave me too much praise—this is a team effort. She is absolutely right to say that the veterans deserve the most praise. Our friendship in this place was formed through our joint commitment to those veterans and our shared outrage that, over successive Governments and for decades, information was withheld, withdrawn or even distorted. I know she will speak more about that in the short time we have today, but I hope that we get a longer debate. This matter deserves that sort of scrutiny from people from across this Chamber.
Rebecca Long Bailey
The right hon. Member is spot-on. I often refer to him as my partner in crime on this issue and a number of other issues in this House. It definitely demonstrates Parliament working at its very best when we come together on these injustices and fight for those who have been affected by them. He is spot-on that we need a longer debate in this House on this important issue.
The information I will talk about is a turning point—it is pivotal—and it should spur the Government into taking the necessary action to compensate the victims of this scandal and give them the inquiry they so much deserve. At best, there has been a systemic failure over the years, and at worst, there has been a cover-up, but now is the time to implement a full inquiry and uncover the real truth.
For 70 years, Governments of all colours and successive Administrations, through the Ministry of Defence and the Atomic Weapons Establishment, have maintained the single consistent line that radiation exposure at Christmas Island was negligible; any contamination was minimal, contained and harmless; and those who served there were not placed at any meaningful risk.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
Would my hon. Friend join me in commemorating the life and legacy of Alan Dowson? Until very recently, he was a councillor in my constituency. He was first elected in 1971, and served as a Labour councillor for most of the intervening years. He was 19 years old when he was on Christmas Island, and he was one of the veterans who observed—he spoke about this several times— how he could see the bones in his hands due to the level of light coming through them. He has campaigned on this issue for so many years, and I just wanted to get his name into the parliamentary record.
Rebecca Long Bailey
I express my full respect for my hon. Friend’s constituent, and I can only imagine what he suffered. Even the tales of people serving on Christmas Island seeing the bones in their hands would have a considerable psychological effect on them for the rest of their life, but it is what these men and their families suffered when they came home that was so brutal and so disturbing.
The men knew that they were exposed to radiation. Studies have shown that they were subjected to the same level of radiation as the clean-up workers at Chernobyl. They suffered cancer after cancer, and many of them died young. Those who were lucky enough to live longer faced miscarriages and a raft of medical problems. Worse, many of their children were born with defects or health issues due to the altered DNA.
Today we know that the claim that these men suffered no risk is wrong. That has been fundamentally undermined, thanks, as I have said, to Susie Boniface’s groundbreaking work. A previously undisclosed 2014 Atomic Weapons Establishment report, which was released only in February this year after months of resistance, reveals that radiation was in fact present across inhabited areas of Christmas Island. It was not just in isolated, uninhabited zones and not just in trace amounts, but in the sea, the fish, the lagoons, near water sources and, crucially, in the main camp where British personnel lived and worked.
Let me be clear about what this means: for decades, the veterans were told that no fallout had been recorded. Families grieving the loss of loved ones—young men such as Sapper Billy Morris, who died from leukaemia at just 18—were told that there was no link. The courts were told the same, Parliament was told the same and the public were told the same, but this data reveals a very different story. It shows elevated radiation levels in fish of up to seven times the background levels by some measures. It shows contamination in the very food that servicemen were eating regularly. It shows that drinking water sources were potentially exposed. It shows that monitoring systems were incomplete, inconsistent and, in some cases, entirely absent. Most damning of all, it shows that many of those living and working in these areas were not even issued with film badges to measure their exposure.
When Ministers stood at the Dispatch Box over the years and reassured the House that doses were indistinguishable from background radiation, what exactly were those reassurances based on, because the data was there? The authors of the 2014 report are unequivocal: the earlier reports from 1990 and 1993—the very documents relied on in court cases and for pension claims—were incomplete and inaccurate. They were incomplete and inaccurate, yet they were used as the very foundation for denying these men and their families justice. This is not just a technical discrepancy or a minor administrative oversight; at best, it is a systemic failure, but at worst, it is a cover-up.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I, too, pay tribute to the incredible amount of work done by Susie Boniface, and to Members across the House for this really important work. I was utterly astounded when I read the report and understood that, even though the reports were not available until much later, the evidence has been there since 1957. We have known for that length of time that there were elevated readings; I read that they were double the backgrounds levels, and the hon. Lady said they were seven times those levels. We knew that people had been exposed yet for one reason or another, whether through cover-up or the lack of a good filing system, that information has not come to light. I appreciate that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence have offered warm words of support, but frankly what we need right now is for our heroes—our British veterans—to get the support they need. Some are not going to live for much longer. We need a one-year rapid review right now, so they can get the justice they deserve. It has been far too long. Does the hon. Lady agree that this is a matter of immediate urgency?
Rebecca Long Bailey
The hon. Lady has been a doughty campaigner on behalf of her own party on this issue and I thank her for her work in this House. She is right. The veterans are not asking for special treatment; they are just asking for the truth and for justice. Many of these men, if they are lucky enough to still be alive, are in their 80s. Time is running out for them and they need justice now. That is why it is so important to have the urgent one-year inquiry. I will return to that point later.
I want us to look at the lived reality for those servicemen at Christmas Island. The men fished daily—that is known. They ate that fish, sometimes every day. They drank desalinated water drawn from a marine environment now known to have been contaminated. They worked in extreme heat, increasing their intake of water and food—as we do, when we get hot—and therefore increasing the pathways through which radioactive material could enter their bodies.
This is the critical point: ingested radiation is not the same as background exposure. It does not simply pass by. It lodges deep within the body. It decays slowly. It damages tissue. It alters DNA. Governments over the years have long relied on averages and on comparisons to natural background radiation, sunlight or medical imaging, but those comparisons are fundamentally flawed. You can step out of sunlight if it is too hot. You can leave a room that has radon gas in it. You can decline a medical scan if you are worried about it. But you cannot remove radioactive particles that have been ingested and embedded deep within your body. That distinction matters, but it has been completely ignored over the years.
What is equally troubling is not just the existence of this data, which has been around for decades, but the pattern of its concealment. This information could have been disclosed at multiple points: in the 1950s, during the inquests into early deaths; in the 1980s, when public concern first intensified; in the 1990 and 1993 reports; in proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights; in High Court cases; in pension appeals; and as recently as 2024, when veterans sought access to their medical records. At every stage, the same narrative was maintained. At every stage, the data was absent. The 2014 report itself warned that the information could
“challenge the validity of statements”
made by the Government and could potentially overturn previous judicial decisions. And yet instead of coming clean and that information being published, it was buried.
We have got to ask ourselves, why? Why was a report that raised “reasonable doubt” not disclosed to the very people whose lives depended on its findings? Why were veterans denied access to information that could have supported their claims for justice and compensation? Why were the courts allowed to rely on evidence that we now know to be fundamentally flawed? These are not abstract questions—they go right to the heart of trust between the state and those who serve it. The men and women in uniform sent to carry out dangerous duties do so on the understanding that their Government will act with honesty, transparency and integrity. That trust has been broken, and we now have a duty—not just a moral duty, but a political and legal duty—to put this right.
Let me be clear about what the Government must do next. First, there must be a full, independent public inquiry into the handling of radiation data from the nuclear testing programme—not a limited review or an internal investigation, but a full inquiry with the power to compel evidence and testimony. Secondly, all relevant documents must be declassified and placed in the public domain—no more partial disclosures and work in progress justifications; the public interest in transparency far outweighs any institutional discomfort. Thirdly, there must be a comprehensive review of all past legal cases and pension decisions that relied on the 1990 and 1993 reports. Where decisions were made on the basis of incomplete or inaccurate evidence, they must be revisited. Fourthly, and most importantly, there must be a fair and just compensation scheme for nuclear testing veterans and their families.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I am intervening, first, to send my love to my hon. Friend’s mum.
Secondly, in our debates over the years, we have always emphasised urgency because of the age of the victims. However, we also need to recognise and ensure that any inquiry recognises that this has gone down two generations now. We have met the families—the sons and daughters, the grandchildren—who have suffered extreme conditions as a result. It is just as my hon. Friend said; this has penetrated into the DNA of whole families. There is a sense of urgency, of course, but there must also be a recognition of the significance of this having affected three generations, as we have witnessed.
Rebecca Long Bailey
My mum will be very excited that my right hon. Friend has sent her his love—there will be pandemonium on ward 47 at the moment, I can tell you.
My right hon. Friend is right: there are certainly urgent issues that the Government must consider today, but beyond today, and beyond issuing an urgent and fast compensation scheme, a one-year inquiry and the other points I have referenced, there must also be a wider research project into the impact of the radiation on the descendants and the support they have needed from Governments over the years, because they have been completely neglected so far. We know from our constituency surgeries about the effects that have been felt right within families; it is quite upsetting and harrowing sometimes to hear those stories and to hear that they have received very little Government recognition for what they have suffered.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
There is obviously a terrible history going back a number of years of cancers and other illnesses caused by exposure in this case. I wonder whether my hon. Friend would forgive me for raising a similar but more contemporary situation: that of aircrew on military helicopters who are developing blood cancer. I have been struggling to get data from the MOD on numbers of cases and testing of helicopter emissions. We want to raise awareness for others now flying those helicopters, in particular the Sea King, because blood cancers, particularly myeloma, seem to be arising in young people when that is normally not the case at all. We want to encourage those people to seek testing for unusual symptoms such as blood clots and to request that the MOD dig deeper for that data.
Rebecca Long Bailey
My hon. Friend raises another very important issue that goes to the heart of today’s debate. The point is that the Government need to be in a good place on this; they need to acknowledge that mistakes were made historically, and to restore faith to all servicemen and women who put their lives at risk on a daily basis to keep us safe that, where it is found that their lives have been put at risk by the actions of the Government themselves, that will be made right, and they will get the support and care that they deserve. Hopefully that will be at the heart of the Minister’s response.
Finally, I have a number of brief questions for the Minister in relation to the 2014 report. First, on what date did the Atomic Weapons Establishment tell the Ministry of Defence of the report’s existence? Was the document ever produced to any judge? What steps are the Government now taking to inform the judges and courts concerned, and to inform war pensions in the future?
In the past six months, what impact assessments have been produced by the AWE or Ministry of Defence about costs, compensation and the number of people affected? What efforts have the AWE or the Ministry of Defence made to bring in the authors of the report, both of whom have since left the AWE, to discuss their findings? Who at the Ministry of Defence knew of the report at the time it was drafted, and did any Ministers know of the report?
What steps are the Government taking to look at the Athena database at Porton Down, which has confirmed it holds information relevant to nuclear veterans’ service and which has provided heavily redacted disclosures to freedom of information requests? What steps are under way in locating the research on radiation effects on UK service personnel, which the Ministry of Defence has confirmed is held by Technical Co-operation Programme, in an “allied country”?
When will the Defence Secretary and Prime Minister sit down with nuclear veterans and discuss their offer of a one-year special inquiry with capped costs to limit both the time and expense of ending this cover-up once and for all? Finally, on the Hillsborough law, can the Minister confirm that no information relating to nuclear testing veterans will be hidden behind national security concerns?
For too long, nuclear testing veterans have been forced to fight for recognition. For too long, they have been told there is no evidence to support their claims. For too long, they have had to carry the burden of proof themselves, when it is the state that held the evidence all along. That injustice cannot continue. We are the only nuclear power in the world not to compensate our nuclear testing veterans for their suffering.
This is not about rewriting history; it is about acknowledging it. It is about recognising that mistakes were made—serious mistakes—and those mistakes were compounded by decades of denial; it is about ensuring that those who serve this country are treated with the dignity and respect that they deserve; and it is about restoring faith in our institutions by demonstrating that, when confronted with the truth, we are willing to act on it.
The veterans and their families are not asking for special treatment. All they are asking for is fairness, honesty and justice. After 70 years, that is the very least we owe them.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Before I call the Minister, I am sure I speak for the whole House in sending our very best wishes to the hon. Member’s mum.
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) for securing this debate and for all her tireless work on behalf of our nuclear test veterans, and I want to extend my best wishes to her mum as well.
When we come to this House and when we speak, we have our intent, but it is very important that we acknowledge the impact of what we say, and I would just like to say very firmly on the record how deeply I feel about this issue and how committed I am to the nuclear test veterans and their fight for transparency—excuse me. They have had a very long fight, and I really recognise how difficult it has been for them, and I want them to understand that I am committed to them. I would also like to extend my thanks to the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for his work.
Sir John Hayes
I rise principally so that the Minister can compose herself—her emotion and her commitment are evident. I have stood at the Dispatch Box over 19 years on both sides of this Chamber, and I know what it is like to be a Minister. I simply say to her, echoing the call of the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey), that this is a real opportunity. It is an opportunity to right a wrong. The Minister would stand proud, and she would do the Government proud, but, most importantly, she will do the veterans and the country proud, if she can right that wrong.
Louise Sandher-Jones
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his hugely important and tireless work on this issue.
The whole country owes a profound and enduring debt of gratitude to this generation, who helped to pioneer this technology at the very dawn of the nuclear age, and their immense contribution remains as important to UK defence today as it was seven decades ago.
As a veteran who served in Afghanistan, nothing is more important to me than the welfare of those who make up our armed forces. I know that it would be important to me to feel that the MOD had done its duty by me to protect me and those I served with in the things we were asked to do. I was happy to do them in defence of this country, but it was important to feel that the MOD would none the less be there for me too. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and the rest of the Members in the House that I take these issues exceptionally seriously.
The Defence Secretary and the Prime Minister have been clear to the Department, and I continue to reinforce the message, that we should be operating on a principle of maximum transparency on this issue. I want to repeat and emphasise “maximum transparency”, because it is abundantly clear that, over many decades, some nuclear test veterans have felt mistreated, misunderstood and undervalued by successive Governments. That is something that we are addressing. Again, I repeat that I am a veteran and I am deeply passionate about this issue.
We published our veterans strategy last year, which outlines our ambitions for veterans in society: that they feel pride in their service, and that their lives and the challenges they face are better understood and valued. That is why, since we came to office, we have sought to build the relationship between the Government and the nuclear test veterans, because we want open dialogue and meaningful collaboration.
Helen Maguire
I totally feel the Minister’s empathy in this important speech. On collaboration, veterans have asked for a meeting with the Prime Minister, which has not yet been forthcoming. I wonder whether the Minister might be able to push a little further to try to get that meeting, because I know how important it is for the nuclear test veterans.
Louise Sandher-Jones
Absolutely. We are in constant dialogue with them about the right time to have that meeting. I am aware of its importance to the veterans.
The Secretary of State, as well as my predecessor as Minister for Veterans and People—the Minister for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns)—and I have met nuclear test veterans during this Parliament. Just today, I met representatives to discuss the Environmental Information Regulations report, and to hear their concerns and keep them updated on the work that we are doing. My officials also meet with nuclear test veteran representatives on a weekly basis. For example, in the last week alone, they have met with LABRATS and the Nuclear Community Charity Fund.
In addition, we have reviewed, and now twice extended, the criteria for the nuclear test medal to include the UK personnel who took part in atmospheric tests by the United States and those who observed tests by other nations. More than 5,000 veterans or their next of kin have received medals in recognition of their service. “An Oral History of British Nuclear Test Veterans” has also been recently completed. It is a vital document of veterans history, permanently preserving their testimony and legacy for future generations. It includes 41 interviews with test veterans to capture their experiences and how the nuclear programme has affected the rest of their lives. These measures are to improve our understanding and appreciation of the test veterans’ contributions to national security.
As I have made clear, the Government have committed to maximum transparency, and we recognise that swiftness of action is so important to this community after so many decades. That is why, in September 2025, we started the transfer of records from the Merlin database to the National Archives. These are historical, technical and scientific records relating to the UK’s nuclear testing programme. Over 16,300 of them are already listed and accessible on the National Archives website, and that work is ongoing.
In a bid to address wider concerns about records, my predecessor, the current Minister for the Armed Forces, launched an examination of the Department’s records in three key areas: the policy of blood and urine testing between 1952 and 1967; the information that was captured from those tests; and if records did exist, to find out what happened to them. My predecessor updated the House last year on progress, noting that tens of thousands of files have already been reviewed. I can tell the House today that this significant undertaking is now nearing completion, and I hope to share the findings in the very near future.
I will now turn to some of the specific issues raised about the recent release by the Atomic Weapons Establishment of a draft document in response to an information request concerning historical nuclear testing at Christmas Island. The release of that document aligns with the Government’s commitment to that transparency, which is very important to me and why I decided that the document had to be released. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, along with others, including LABRATS, have raised some very important questions about the document. They are incredibly important questions that must have answers. I can give a commitment to her and to them that I am determined to fully understand the implications of what is in the document and the handling of the document, and to take action if necessary.
I will be frank with the House that I do not have all the answers to those questions right now, and I do not wish to suggest anything that may then subsequently need updating should new information emerge—excuse me.
Sir John Hayes
I feel I am doing a service to the Government this afternoon. It is absolutely right that specific answers are given to the questions that were posed by the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey), who I congratulate on securing the debate. The key thing is that we have met successive Ministers—I first met the now Lord Beamish when he was a Member of this House—and they were, generally speaking, sympathetic, but they were not always given the information. In truth, had it not been for David Cameron, who gave the money to the charity when I was at the Cabinet Office, and Boris Johnson, who met my friend the hon. Member for Salford—she is not technically my hon. Friend but she is my friend—in Downing Street, we would not have got the medal, so it sometimes does take those personal interventions. From what the Minister has said already, I am sure that she is more than capable of cutting through the bureaucracy, the red tape and the obfuscation, in order to get to the heart of the matter.
Louise Sandher-Jones
I am very conscious of how long the nuclear test veterans have been fighting for this, and of how many Ministers they have met. I recognise that the onus is on us to deliver, not just to say words.
I repeat that I do not wish to suggest anything that may need updating should new information emerge. However, I give the House my assurances that work is being undertaken, and that I will stress the system as far as it needs to be stressed to get to the answers.
Let me explain what I can say today. Initial investigations show that parts of the Ministry of Defence were made aware of the report in 2014, as were Government legal representatives. It is not yet established whether Ministers were made aware at the time. These are incredibly important questions and they must be answered—I say that specifically about those points.
On the scientific implications of the document, I note that it suggests the recordings showed an increase in levels of radiation, but that the cause of them could not be fully determined at the time. I also note the findings of the Clare report, the 1993 AWE report, which summarised environmental monitoring of nuclear tests on Christmas Island in 1957-58. The Clare report identified
“very localised and just measurable, but radiologically insignificant, fall-out activity”.
None the less, there are questions raised on those specific points by this AWE document that must be answered.
On the implications for the 2016 war pension scheme tribunal, I note that the approach taken in the 2016 case was to make a baseline assumption that the veterans had been exposed to radiation but that the levels of exposure were not significant enough to cause the health effects complained of. Again, the document raises very important questions about this and we will find the answers to them.
As I have noted, hon. Members and others have raised a number of important questions both today and in correspondence. I would quickly like to address the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, who quite rightly said that this is not necessarily the only issue of this nature. We have significant work in progress, and I hope to be able to update her soon on that and to reassure her that I am paying very close attention to those issues as well.
The Secretary of State and I have directed officials to investigate at pace, again always working with the principle of maximum transparency. I will update the House in full when I have further information on those points. I reiterate that hugely important questions have been asked in this House, including about the Hillsborough law—many people have worked so long for that law. Members know of my military background and will know that I understand how important it is that every part of our Government are rightly held to account.
To conclude, it is no exaggeration to say that the veterans who took part in these tests nearly 70 years ago played a hugely key role in preserving peace throughout the cold war, but it is important to recognise that their legacy has not ended. We know of the global security situation that we face today and, even in my time, what we have asked members of the armed forces to go and do. We are deeply thankful for everything those veterans have achieved and for everything that they have sacrificed. This Government are committed to working more closely with them and to listening to their concerns. That is also my personal commitment.
Our commitment to maximum transparency means that any new information will be released in a timely manner and that questions will be asked about that information. We will be as open as possible with the veterans and we will report back to Parliament as soon as we can. I will continue to welcome scrutiny from right hon. and hon. Members across this House, from veterans themselves, from their representatives, from the media and from all those who know how important our commitment is to serving our veterans.
Question put and agreed to.