House of Commons
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
Under Labour, the NHS is on the road to recovery: with an extra £26 billion invested, 2,000 extra GPs and 100 community diagnostic centres now open weekdays and weekends, waiting lists are coming down and patient satisfaction is going up—lots done, but so much more to do to ensure that that improvement is felt everywhere. Where trusts underperform, we will send crack teams of top clinicians into those struggling trusts to cut waiting times faster. No more turning a blind eye to failure: this Government, unlike our predecessors, will do whatever it takes to improve the NHS in every part of the country—lots done; lots more to do.
Jen Craft
I welcome the Secretary of State’s work in improving the NHS and turning fortunes around, but as he has said, that is unfortunately not the case in every area of the country, including my own. Mid and South Essex NHS foundation trust, which looks after constituents in my area including at Basildon university hospital, has been named as one of the challenged trusts in the intensive recovery programme, which I strongly welcome. The issues with the trust are not just recent but historical—they sometimes go back decades—and quite frankly, my constituents are not getting the healthcare they deserve. Will the Secretary of State set out what the recovery programme looks like and how my constituents can be assured that they will get the level of healthcare they deserve?
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question and for the work that she has been doing on behalf of the people of Thurrock to speak up consistently for improving services and to expose failures at her local trust. As I told listeners to BBC Essex this morning, I will always report back on the things that this Government are doing well but I will also acknowledge where we are not seeing improvement fast enough. I am sorry to say that Mid and South Essex is one such trust, despite the best efforts of frontline staff. That is why we announced that Mid and South Essex is one of the first providers to be put in the new intensive recovery programme. We are sending in teams of clinical experts to identify the root causes of failure and a new chief executive will take up post shortly and get a grip on the issues at the trust so that we deliver for patients.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
At the Queen Elizabeth hospital in King’s Lynn, nearly half of patients are waiting more than 18 weeks from referral to treatment and the trust is now part of the national improvement programme. Last month’s elective sprint delivered 2,000 additional elective activities, with evening and weekend working. Will the Health Secretary ensure that additional support is provided so that increased level of activity continues in the months to come?
Wes Streeting
I think that was a rare acknowledgment from the Conservative Benches that things are finally moving in the right direction, thanks to the work of this Labour Government. I am very grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support. He is absolutely right that we need to provide digital support. That is why we have the biggest capital allocation in the history of the NHS and we continue to press on with the technological improvements and data infrastructure that is needed to provide the improvements that staff are working so hard to deliver.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
I remain deeply concerned by the state of the maternity services that we inherited. Although the majority of births go well, I know through the courage of families and concerned staff of the devastating impact that comes from failures in care. That is why I asked Baroness Amos to chair an independent investigation into maternity and neonatal care. However, that has not stopped us from acting now, with an extra 2,000 midwives, over £149 million invested to address critical safety risks on the maternity and neonatal estate, and a £25 million boost for trusts to tackle causes of maternal death, enhance bereavement services and improve triage services. We are already making progress—lots done, but I would be the first to say on this issue: so much more to do.
Mike Kane
The nation should be grateful for this Secretary of State and for what he is doing for maternal services, yet at Wythenshawe hospital in my constituency, the most recent Care Quality Commission report rated maternity services inadequate for safety. What assurances can the Secretary of State give that the improvements that he has outlined will be felt by mums locally?
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to present those issues and to be honest about the challenges that have been raised in his local trust. I assure him that following an inspection by the CQC, NHS trusts take action to address the recommendations cited in the report. Already, £40 million in funding has been allocated to Wythenshawe hospital to ensure that safety issues are addressed, with work scheduled for completion by 2028. In addition, through the new maternity and neonatal taskforce, the first meeting of which I have already chaired, we will act swiftly to translate the final recommendations of the independent investigation into a new national action plan so that services improve in my hon. Friend’s part of the country and across the whole of England.
Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)
The Secretary of State and I are equally frustrated that more progress has not been made despite numerous inquiries dating right the way back to the Morecambe Bay inquiry in 2014, which I commissioned. Does he agree that one reform that could make an enormous difference would be full continuity of care for every pregnant mum, so that from the moment someone knows they are pregnant, a team of clinicians led by a named senior clinician would be responsible for that mother and child, from pre-birth to birth to post-birth, and no one would ever be in any doubt about where the buck stopped?
Wes Streeting
There is so much evidence to underpin the importance of continuity of care. I do not want to get ahead of the recommendations of the Amos investigation, but there is much to commend what the right hon. Gentleman says. Even with the best planning, the challenge for maternity units is that they are often both elective and emergency, with women arriving when they are not necessarily expected to, so we have to bear those considerations in mind, but the idea of women and partners knowing the team that will be responsible for their care in advance is a compelling one.
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
A four-month-old baby in my constituency died after being placed in an unsafe sleeping position by someone who called themselves a maternity nurse despite having no medical qualifications. The coroner who worked on the case has called on the Secretary of State to regulate the infant sleep industry urgently. As it stands, anyone can call themselves a maternity nurse and create the illusion of expertise, all while providing life-threatening advice on sleep for babies. I know that the Secretary of State is aware of this case and is working on this issue, but can he provide an update on what he is doing to prevent a tragedy such as the one in my constituency from ever happening again?
Wes Streeting
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that absolutely horrific case; my sincere condolences go to the family for the loss of this poor baby. No patient should ever believe that someone is a trained professional, only to discover that they have no formal qualifications. This Government are protecting the professional title of nurse, so that no other families have to endure the suffering of his constituents. We will shortly be seeking widespread input to get that right, and we will be making changes in this Parliament. We will absolutely be addressing the issues that have been raised as a direct result of this tragedy.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State understand that the remarks that he made on Sky television prior to the recess about the maternity unit at the Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother hospital in Margate were ill informed, anachronistic, deeply offensive and damaging to morale? I was heavily involved, and have been since, in the events following the death of baby Harry Richford at the hospital, and also in Bill Kirkup’s report. Massive improvements have been made since then, but the thing that is missing is the funding that was promised by the previous Government for the improvement of the real estate. When is that money going to be forthcoming?
Wes Streeting
We are investing in the maternity estate, and I am always ready to acknowledge improvements, but for the avoidance of doubt, I am not here to protect the professional blushes of NHS leaders and staff where services fall short. I am here to protect patients, and in this area, over and above any other, I will continue to put that principle first.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Baroness Amos’s recent review found that England’s maternity system was not working: poor quality care covered up, systemic issues around racism and even collapsing ceilings in maternity units. Poor maternity care has not only left many families devastated at a time that should have been joyful for them, as too many of my constituents know; it also costs the NHS £1.3 billion every year in medical negligence payments. Liberal Democrats are calling for a consultant to be present on every maternity unit 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and for guaranteed one-to-one midwifery care for every woman who is in labour as part of a £600 million-a-year maternity rescue package. Does the Secretary of State agree that that would be money very well spent, preventing families from experiencing the heartbreak of an injury or even worse to their new baby or mum, and saving the taxpayer billions every year?
Wes Streeting
I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for raising this issue. I do not want to pre-empt the Amos investigation. I think there is an issue with the presence of consultants and other staff who are meant to be on-call and available, and we need to address that. The purpose of the investigation is to produce a strong evidence base and then a clear set of actions to provide much-needed clarity in an area that has been drowning in recommendations and needs clear direction. I would be surprised if the issue of appropriate staffing were not mentioned by Baroness Amos.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
Good managers are crucial to fixing our NHS, which is why the Government are backing managers and leaders with targeted investment. We will introduce professional standards for managers, establish a leadership college and implement mechanisms to prevent unsuitable individuals from holding senior NHS posts. Our workforce plan will set out how we will professionalise managers and leaders, equipping them with the skills, tools and operating frameworks to deliver lasting improvements across the NHS.
David Davis
Following on directly from the Secretary of State’s comments to my right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale), last month two national health service trusts in my constituency were found to be among the worst in England, one of them actually the worst. NHS England will now be brought in to turn those trusts around. However, the former chief executive of those trusts, who was responsible for overseeing their decline and was terminated in that job, has been promoted as the NHS turnaround manager for Yorkshire. Supposedly, he will be the man to correct the problem he created. That is by no means the first time that people have been found failing upwards in the national health service. What steps are the Secretary of State and the Minister taking to prevent NHS leaders who have failed in one role from being moved to a different post within the NHS?
Karin Smyth
I thank the right hon. Member for his question. I know he has raised it previously with the Leader of the House, and a similar issue has been raised with me by many hon. Members in his local geography. He knows that it would not be appropriate for me to comment on individual cases, but further to my comments about the importance of supporting good managers, we do not want people failing upwards as we have had in the past. I confirm that the planned disbarring system will prevent unsuitable NHS leaders who cover up poor performance or silence whistleblowers from taking up other leadership roles in the NHS and moving around the system.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
Effective NHS management lives or dies on the ability of our integrated care boards to address population health needs. As the devolution Bill moves forward and at pace in areas such as mine in Sussex, it brings with it more opportunity for working strategically across sectors such as health and local government. What steps is the Minister taking to strengthen population health management in our integrated care boards?
Karin Smyth
I welcome my hon. Friend’s question. She is absolutely right, and it is an area I worked on myself as a local NHS manager. It is crucial to have that link between health and local government. That will dictate most of the social determinants of health, as she well knows from her own expertise serving the population. That is why our 10-year plan commits to strengthening joint working, so that we will have better alignment across ICBs and strategic boundaries where possible, including in her area of Sussex, as well as that work with local governments to improve local population health as part of our neighbourhood health plans.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
Mental health funding will rise by £140 million in real terms this year, reaching a record £16.1 billion. That is on top of capital investment of £473 million over four years to deliver new models of care and digital transformation. However, improving mental health services is about more than money because, despite the money from the last Government, they presided over a dramatic increase in mental health distress and waiting lists spiralling out of control. This Government will combine investment with reform to reduce waiting times, improve the quality of care, and strengthen prevention and early intervention.
Calum Miller
In my constituency, too many families face long and distressing waits for mental health support for children and young people. When I raised this with the Secretary of State some 15 months ago, he said that the Government were determined to ensure that mental health waits receive the same focus as the elective backlog. Yet a constituent recently wrote to me to explain that her son is waiting 10 months just for an assessment for his mental health needs. She asked me:
“How can we as parents and carers be expected to watch our young people suffer for a whole year before they get any help?”
I am worried that the revised mental health investment standard will not help this problem sufficiently. Can the Minister tell my constituents when child and adolescent mental health waiting lists will start to fall?
Dr Ahmed
The case that the hon. Gentleman highlights is indicative of the fact that much work has been done and much more needs to be done. We are providing early intervention for children’s mental health and wellbeing by rolling out mental health support teams, which will happen in every school by 2029. We are investing £13 million to pilot enhanced training for staff, so that they can offer more support to young people with complex needs. We are ensuring that, as we are digitally transforming, children and adults can access talking therapies where required. A lot has been done and there is a lot more to do, and we will carry on doing it.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
Since July 2024, we have been rebuilding a broken NHS dentistry system. We have delivered 1.8 million more treatments and reduced the underspend from £392 million to just £36 million, maximising the treatment provided for taxpayers’ money. Last year, we asked integrated care boards to commission additional urgent appointments, and the data will be published in August. Following advice from the chief dental officer, we broadened the scope of those appointments so that more patients could benefit.
Anna Dixon
I recently asked Shipley residents about their access to NHS dental services over the past two years. Over 1,100 respondents said that they could not see an NHS dentist when they needed to. I have heard from constituents who have had to go private, travel for hours to access NHS dentistry or resort to DIY dentistry. What progress is the Minister making to fix the rotten dentistry that we inherited from the previous Government?
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend is a strong campaigner for her constituents. The situation that she sets out is unacceptable, but change is under way. I am encouraged by the latest data for her ICB area, which shows a 79% success rate for those who tried to get an NHS dentist appointment in the past two years, and that 10% more treatments were delivered between April and October 2025, compared with the same period before the election. Our reforms from this April will go further, focusing on those with the most urgent and complex needs, to ensure that people can access care when they need it most.
Tom Gordon
I have been contacted by dentists from across my constituency who want to expand access but are constrained by the current funding model. One NHS practice tells me that it has the physical space ready for a dentist to start working, but it cannot get them in because of the current funding model, forcing a reliance on short-term foundation dentists on rotations. Will the Minister outline what steps he is taking to reform NHS dental funding, and will he meet me to discuss the issues in my constituency?
Stephen Kinnock
I am encouraged by the fact that, in the hon. Gentleman’s Humber and North Yorkshire ICB area, 52,795 more NHS dental treatments were delivered between April and October 2025 compared with the same period before the election, so some progress is being made, but more must be achieved. Long-term contract reform will enable the resolution of some of the funding issues that he mentions—that is ongoing work—and we will come forward in the summer with a public consultation on delivering fundamental reform to the dentistry contract.
Sarah Dyke
A constituent from Ilchester contacted me recently about their 14-year-old daughter, who is suffering from a painful dental abscess. Despite trying over several months to get treatment, she has been unable to access the treatment that she so desperately needs. Given that the Government have provided only 100,000 of the 700,000 extra urgent appointments that were promised, will the Minister provide a detailed breakdown of how many of the additional 1.8 million NHS dental appointments have been urgent appointments, as opposed to routine check-ups?
Stephen Kinnock
We will publish those data and statistics in August, in the usual way, but I can tell the hon. Lady that we have created a safety net for urgent dental care. Following the reforms that kicked in on 1 April this year, there is now a requirement for all NHS dentists to deliver 8.2% of their contract in urgent care. We absolutely recognise that more needs to be done in cases such as that of her constituent, and that is what we are focused on with fundamental dentistry contract reform.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
May I congratulate the ministerial team, the University of East Anglia and the Office for Students on finally getting the new dental school at the university over the line? It will admit 25 students from September next year and will go some way to dealing with the dental deserts that we inherited in Norfolk and Suffolk. In the meantime, what progress has been made with the General Dental Council to increase exam capacity for dentists coming from overseas to help with the present crisis?
Stephen Kinnock
I am equally pleased about what is happening with the University of East Anglia. When we came into office in July 2024, I was shocked to discover that there had been no sustained increase in the number of dental places in our country since 2007, and I am very proud of the fact that this Government have turned that around.
With regard to the overseas registration examination, I had the General Dental Council in my office shortly after the general election to ask why the contract has been failing, and it is mainly due to the neglect and incompetence of the Conservative party. We have sorted that out. There is a new contractor in place, and we will be delivering thousands more out of the backlog of international dentists starting from 1 April this year.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
We promised to improve GP access, and we are delivering. There are 2,000 more GPs than in July 2024—double our manifesto commitment of 1,000. The previous Government planned to increase GP numbers. Between 2019 and 2024, the number of fully qualified full-time equivalent GPs actually fell by 900. We have delivered 8 million more appointments, and we have seen satisfaction go up from 61%, where it was languishing in July 2024, to 74% today.
Peter Swallow
I declare an interest: my brother is a GP. Many residents in Bracknell Forest find the best way to contact their GP is online or by phone, but others have told me that they want to be able to visit their local surgery and book an appointment in person. Can my hon. Friend confirm that the new GP contract guarantees that patients have the right to choose to contact their GP in the way that works best for them, whether by phone, online or in person?
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend is a doughty champion for his constituents. I can absolutely give him that assurance. The GP contract is clear that patients must have the option of telephoning or visiting their practice in person, and online tools must be an addition to, rather than a replacement for, other contact methods. However, we have found that by expanding online access, we have significantly reduced pressure on phone lines, and we are ending the 8 am scramble.
Mr Speaker
As the Question refers to a named area, I call the MP who represents the nearest constituency: Joshua Reynolds.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
The Bracknell Forest wards of Maidenhead constituency have seen massive amounts of house building in recent years, many without the GP facilities to join them. In a recent health survey of mine, 70% of respondents said they found it difficult or very difficult to get access to a GP appointment. Will the Minister back the Lib Dem plan for all new house building developments to come with new or expanded GP facilities in time for those first residents moving in?
Stephen Kinnock
I am very pleased that we have our £102 million primary care utilisation and modernisation fund, the precise purpose of which is to develop more estate capacity in general practice, and of course we have our substantial commitment to neighbourhood health centres, with 120 to be delivered by the end of this Parliament and 250 by 2035. The hon. Member should certainly be talking to his ICB about its estate strategy. Now is the right time to intervene and ensure that the issue he raised is being addressed.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
Under the Labour Government’s new GP contract, Bracknell GPs and all GPs will have to refer through a single point of access. Can the Minister confirm that every referral deemed clinically necessary by a GP will be reviewed explicitly by a specialist consultant before being rejected or redirected?
Stephen Kinnock
I am astonished that the Conservatives seem to be teaming up with the British Medical Association in opposition to our reforms. They ought to listen to their voters and their members, who are crying out for change. We are getting the NHS to do things differently because that is the only way we are going to turn it around. Advice and Guidance is seeing more investment in GPs and getting patients cared for in the right place at the right time.
Dr Evans
The House will have heard that there was not an answer—that was a no. It is plain for all to see that this means patients will be blocked from seeing a specialist. They could potentially be assessed by a non-doctor, under Government pressure, with a target of one in four referrals being bounced. The Government’s own answers show that patients never appear on a waiting list. This is not about improving healthcare; it is about massaging the waiting lists, isn’t it, Minister?
Stephen Kinnock
I have honestly never heard so much nonsense in my entire life. We invested £80 million in Advice and Guidance. Some 1.1 million Advice and Guidance requests were diverted from the waiting list, so that care is being delivered in the right place. We have embedded A&G into the core contract, recognising it as routine practice, removing annual sign-ups and providing more predictable funding. The shadow Minister seems to be saying that patients who do not need to be treated in hospital should be treated in hospital. That runs completely counter to the entire strategy, which is about moving care from hospital into the community. The Conservative party needs to get with the programme.
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
It is vital that all forms of discrimination in the NHS are tackled, including Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hatred. As a former chair of the all-party parliamentary group on British Muslims, I am delighted that the Government have adopted a definition of anti-Muslim hostility that we will use to tackle this prejudice across the NHS, including in training for the NHS’s 1.5 million staff. My hon. Friend will know that I have serious concerns about the effectiveness of regulators in tackling racism, and we will be taking further action to ensure high standards, conduct and behaviour are upheld, so that the NHS is safe for all staff and patients.
Afzal Khan
The Health Secretary has long campaigned on tackling anti-Muslim hostility, and I know that we are both proud that this Government have adopted a working definition of it. According to the Muslim Doctors Association, almost 40% of Muslim healthcare professionals have been verbally abused by colleagues about their faith, and the British Islamic Medical Association has repeatedly found that Islamophobia is a persistent and under-recognised issue in healthcare. Will he commit to a rapid review specifically to look into anti-Muslim hostility experienced by patients and staff in the NHS?
Wes Streeting
Those statistics are shocking and a stark reminder that the NHS is not immune from the prejudices at large in wider society. All Muslim staff and patients—indeed, people of all faiths—should feel safe and confident as patients and staff in the NHS. As my hon. Friend knows, I am awaiting the review being conducted by Lord Mann. As well as looking at antisemitism, it will include recommendations that I have no doubt will apply in tackling Islamophobia and racism more generally. I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend and I do meet, and would be very happy to meet again, the BIMA to discuss how we tackle this pernicious hatred in our national health service and what more may need to be done, in addition to any recommendations Lord Mann makes.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitments about hostility to those of the Muslim faith, but I want to make a point about those of the Jewish faith. The Secretary of State referred in his reply to people of all faiths, and that includes those of the Jewish faith. However, we are well aware of recent newspaper headlines, including about a person who supports Palestine Action and one person who has made slurs against those of Jewish faith and Israeli nationality. Is it not time to ensure that everyone in the NHS, irrespective of their religious beliefs, is respected? I respect everybody’s beliefs. I am sure that the Secretary of State will tell me that that is the case in the NHS—I hope that it is.
Wes Streeting
The hon. Gentleman is right. I only wish that I could tell him that it was the case that Jewish patients and staff are always being treated in the way that they deserve to be, but unfortunately I have heard first-hand accounts of Jewish people being afraid to disclose their race and faith when completing forms. That is not just a question of indignity; it is a question of safety because risk factors, particularly those related to genetics, need to be taken into account by the NHS, and it is about the provision of things that lead to people having a dignified and high-quality experience, such as the provision of food. I am afraid to say that I have also heard about shocking racism experienced by Jewish staff in the NHS from patients and from other NHS staff. That has got to stop.
Finally, all staff in the NHS have a right to speak and express opinions in a democracy, but all of them must always ask themselves, especially when writing on social media, “Will a particular comment or a particular action make my patients feel more safe or less safe in my hands? Will they question my commitment to treating all people fairly and equally or not?” That is the standard on which too many doctors have fallen short, and that is before I get to the explicit, vile racists whom we are taking on.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mrs Sharon Hodgson)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Embedding Healthy Babies services in a system that prioritises prevention is central to this Government’s ambition to raise the healthiest generation of children ever. We are starting by investing £200 million to maintain Healthy Babies services in 75 local authorities with high levels of deprivation, and we will deliver the 10-year health plan ambition to roll out Healthy Babies nationally over the next 10 years.
John Whitby
Sure Start delivered long-term health benefits, with the Institute for Fiscal Studies finding that it reduced the number of hospitalisations of young people with mental health-related causes by 50%. It is therefore appropriate for the Department of Health and Social Care to support our Best Start family hubs. Healthy Babies funding enables that and ensures that family hubs can deliver sessions on topics such as parent and infant relationships. Will the Minister confirm when Derbyshire will be able to benefit from Healthy Babies funding?
Mrs Hodgson
Despite the huge success of Sure Start, which my hon. Friend details, the Tory-Lib Dem Government disastrously cut Sure Start centres, leaving parents and babies without any support. That is why this Government are investing £200 million as part of an almost £1 billion package for Best Start family hubs and Healthy Babies. This funding will help all areas to integrate neighbourhood-based health services in hubs, and it will roll out to his area during the next decade.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
May I welcome the Minister to her new post? The Government’s support for Healthy Babies is very welcome, but the best way to keep babies who have type 1 spinal muscular atrophy healthy and help them to lead normal lives is by screening them at birth, because they can then access transformative gene therapy. My constituent little Charlie, who will soon be two, would be walking now instead of learning to use a wheelchair if he had been diagnosed at birth through screening, rather than when he was a few months old. Will the Minister consider adding SMA type 1 screening to the newborn screening schedule?
Mrs Hodgson
I thank the hon. Lady for her good wishes. She may be aware that on 19 January, the Secretary of State met Jesy Nelson and Giles Lomax, the CEO of the charity SMA UK, to discuss the very issue of newborn screening for SMA. The NHS is planning an in-service evaluation offering SMA screening to newborn babies in England. The ISE is being brought forward to October 2026—it was originally planned for January 2027—so there will be more information to follow in October.
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
We inherited from the Conservatives an NHS facing the worst crisis in its history, with waiting lists at a record 7.6 million and public satisfaction at record lows. This Labour Government are getting the NHS back on its feet and making it fit for the future. We have delivered record numbers of appointments, tests and surgeries. Since we took office, waiting lists have been down to the lowest level in nearly three and a half years, and we are driving modernisation through our 10-year plan. Lots has been done, but there is so much more to do with a Labour Government.
Tom Rutland
Waiting lists at my local acute trust are down by more than 20,000 since the general election, which I welcome, but musculoskeletal waits remain a challenge in Sussex, with the Sussex MSK service holding about 10% of NHS England’s overall MSK waiting list. What more can be done to improve the performance of the service and get my constituents off the waiting list, back to health and back to work?
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for all the work he is doing, including with our Labour team in Worthing, to improve the health of people across his constituency. I congratulate staff at University Hospitals Sussex on the progress that they have made in bringing waiting lists down. To help them to go further, I am delighted to announce that my hon. Friend’s local community diagnostic centre in Southlands hospital will benefit from a new multimillion-pound MRI scanner to drive down waiting times, including for MSK patients. We are combining investment with modernisation to send crack teams of top clinicians to MSK community services, drive down waiting times and improve outcomes. That is the difference that a Labour Government make.
Samantha Niblett
Recently, University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS foundation trust took part in the Q4 sprint, which involved out-patient appointments and surgical procedures. The work focused mainly on areas such as gynaecology, trauma and orthopaedics, general surgery, and ear, nose and throat, reflecting where that trust’s waiting lists are longest. We have seen a significant drop in the 18-week position, which apparently is a key marker of overall access to care. At the start of the sprint, around 56% of patients were being treated within 18 weeks; as of last week, that figure had increased to 60.2%. A lot of work has been done, so will the Secretary of State join me and the chief executive officer, Stephen Posey, in thanking the teams involved in helping to deliver that sprint? More importantly, what assurances can he give that this is not just a one-off? We have people in South Derbyshire and across the country who need consistently good and quick care.
Wes Streeting
I thank my hon. Friend, and join her in congratulating Stephen and the whole team at University Hospitals of Derby and Burton trust on their hard work to drive down waiting lists and waiting times. We are not complacent; we have set ambitious targets and invested in modernisation to simplify pathways, increase clinical capacity and improve patients’ experience. We have managed to cut waiting lists despite resident doctors’ strike action—I fear we may have to continue doing that. Through our investment and modernisation, waiting lists and waiting times are coming down, and we have shown that the NHS is on the road to recovery. Our foot is on the accelerator, with lots done, but lots more to do.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
Making sure that our GP surgeries are revving on all cylinders is key to ensuring that people get the access to NHS treatment that they need. The Secretary of State will know of my campaign to get a new site for Summertown health centre—in fact, we have been trying to meet to talk about it for over 14 months—but we are now at a key moment. The council and the local practices are at a point where, if we do not get a decision in the next few weeks, we risk losing the opportunity. However, there is a block, which is the district valuer. It often asks for rents far below market value, so what is the Secretary of State doing across Government to make sure that the role of district valuers in ICBs is reassessed?
Wes Streeting
The Chair of the Health Committee raises a very important point, and—not least given the timeliness of the issue—I would be very happy to meet her very soon.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
Among the things that can help reduce waiting lists and waiting times is increased use of existing community hospital facilities, such as Melton Mowbray hospital in my constituency. Will the Secretary of State join me in calling on the local ICB and University Hospitals of Leicester NHS trust to invest in moving more services out of inner-city acute settings and into Melton hospital, so that more of my constituents can get the treatments they need nearer to home?
Wes Streeting
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we need to see more services moving out of hospital and into the community. That is why I am proud that we are announcing a new wave of community diagnostic centres and expanding lots of existing provision, as well as improving same-day emergency care and urgent treatment centres in hospitals. He has raised the issue of the Melton Mowbray site; I am sure the local commissioners responsible for that will want to look at it, but I also know that I owe him a meeting, so I will follow up with him directly.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
We all recognise the devastating impact that eating disorders have on people’s lives, so this Government are committed to going further. Increases in mental health spending, which reaches a record £16.1 billion this year, include funding for eating disorder care. We have also commissioned an independent review to better understand rising prevalence, and the interim report of that review highlights the worrying rise in the prevalence of eating disorders. We look forward to the final report, which will set out recommendations on improving support.
Mrs Blundell
Too many people affected by eating disorders are not receiving the help they need—help often comes too late, with serious physical symptoms overlooked or misattributed. It is clear that those on the frontline must have the training they need to identify early warning signs. What further steps are being taken to ensure that people are supported before they reach crisis point, especially in areas such as mine, which were on the receiving end of significant cuts to public services under the Conservative party?
Dr Ahmed
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting those cuts and the devastating impact they had, particularly on mental health and eating disorder services. She is absolutely right that we have to do a lot more on the pathways, including harmonising some of the data and clinical coding to make sure that we are catching people early in the process. As I said, the prevalence review will now focus on eating disorders as well—that is a welcome intervention—and of course, children become adults, so we must end the cliff edge at the age of 18 and make sure that care continues in a holistic fashion. We are getting on with that.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
Young girls are particularly vulnerable to eating disorders, which are a parent’s worst nightmare. We are seeing social media companies push content on to young girls that encourages eating disorders. What is the Minister doing with Cabinet colleagues to take on this problem?
Dr Ahmed
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The Government are conducting a consultation to examine the most effective ways that we can go further to ensure that children have healthy online experiences. The three-month consultation, which is evidence-led and has input from independent experts, will include determining the right minimum age for children to access social media, and it will report in the summer.
Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mrs Sharon Hodgson)
We are backing cancer patients with a plan to end the postcode lottery that was baked in by the previous Tory Government due to chronic underfunding. We have already announced that more cancer specialists will be allocated to rural and coastal areas, increasing capacity where it is most needed. Over the past year, around 39,000 more people started their cancer treatment within 62 days, compared with the 12 months prior to the 2024 election.
Dan Aldridge
Weston-super-Mare is a growing, thriving town with a population comparable to the city of Bath, yet cancer patients regularly make a round trip of 90 minutes by car or more than three hours by public transport to Bristol to get their treatment. After his own difficult battle with cancer, my constituent John Kiely is leading an inspiring campaign to finally bring a radiotherapy machine to Weston general hospital. A feasibility study is under way, so can Ministers outline how we can secure the support that we need to make his campaign a reality and improve the treatment experience for my constituents?
Mrs Hodgson
Too many patients experience issues in accessing radiotherapy treatment, and I am sorry to hear about the experience of my hon. Friend’s constituent, John Kiely. We are determined to change that. After the previous Government’s chronic underfunding, this Government have invested £70 million of central funding on 28 new radiotherapy machines across the country to replace the older, less efficient machines. Providers have been allocated £15 billion in operational capital for local priorities and £5 billion to support a return to constitutional standards on waiting times. We expect local systems to use that capital to deliver further investment, and I encourage my hon. Friend to meet his local ICB to discuss this issue.
Ms Billington
I welcome my hon. Friend to her place and congratulate her on her appointment. I noticed in the cancer plan the commitment to fill NHS workforce gaps in coastal towns such as mine—Margate, Broadstairs and Ramsgate—and to end the postcode lottery that means many patients in coastal communities are missing out on the best possible cancer care. Can my hon. Friend update the House on progress in closing workforce gaps in coastal areas?
Mrs Hodgson
I commend my hon. Friend on her great work campaigning for her coastal community in East Thanet. The national cancer plan sets out how we will make sure that everyone has timely access to high-quality diagnostic and treatment services by increasing medical training places in rural and coastal areas. The national cancer plan will save 320,000 lives over the next decade and deliver the fastest improvement in cancer survival in UK history.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
Cancer patients, like so many other patients, are worried and concerned about the resident doctors strike in England, which is reportedly costing around £50 million a day, not to mention its impact on waiting lists. Meanwhile, in Scotland, we have a Health Secretary and a Government who are competent in negotiations and have none of this industrial action. The final bill for this industrial relations shambles could be as high as £3 billion. What can the Secretary of State reveal to the House about the special skills he has in dealing with the BMA?
Mrs Hodgson
Patients are 30 times more likely to wait two years for care in Scotland than in England. Labour has ended austerity and provided Scotland with the biggest funding increase since devolution. The question is: where has the money gone?
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
May I pursue the point about coastal communities and cancer care? A young dad in Withernsea, a coastal town in my east Yorkshire constituency, went to the doctor repeatedly saying that there was something wrong with him and was repeatedly told that he was fine, before being diagnosed with stage 4 cancer. He survived, but only just. What, in real terms, will happen to ensure that communities such as those in Withernsea can see decent cancer care and proper diagnosis, especially given that, as was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), Hull university teaching hospitals NHS trust is one of the worst-performing trusts in the country?
Mrs Hodgson
The national cancer plan is a key part of our work to build an NHS fit for the future, and it explains how we will make England a world leader in cancer outcomes. The right hon. Gentleman’s constituents will now be able to see a GP much sooner than they could before the 2024 election, which will ensure that they can get that earlier diagnosis, which is the only thing that will help them to survive and live longer.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I welcome the Minister to her post.
To provide cancer care of the best quality, we need the right workforce. Before the election, the Secretary of State said that he would double the number of medical school places, but he now appears to be quietly dropping that plan. He said that he would provide thousands more medical training jobs, but now he is rowing back on that promise. He said in 2024 that he would publish a comprehensive NHS workforce plan, which was promised for summer 2025 and then for autumn 2025. We are now in spring 2026. When will the workforce plan be published, and does the Secretary of State still intend to double the number of medical school places?
Mrs Hodgson
We are well aware that there are issues with the workforce across the NHS, which is why we are working on a new workforce plan that will be published in the spring—very soon.
Dr Johnson
I hope that it will be published very soon, because for people with cancer, being seen quickly is key.
Let me return to what the Minister for Care said to my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans). The Government appear to have decided that referrals will no longer be triaged by a consultant, and that a set proportion will be rejected. What evidence do the Government have that it will be safe for others to provide this triage? If a set proportion are to be rejected, does that mean that the Government will ask doctors to change their clinical thresholds, and if so, what evidence do they have that that is safe? Surely the Minister would not compromise patient safety for a short-term improvement in figures.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
No, it wasn’t—not at all.
Mrs Hodgson
Unlike the Conservative party, we trust our GPs. This will be consultant-led advice and guidance, on which GPs will then decide.
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
I am delighted to announce that we are investing in 36 new and better community diagnostic centres in shopping centres and high streets across England. This is what a Labour Government deliver: the biggest expansion in diagnostics in a generation, shorter waits for tests, checks and scans, and an NHS on the road to recovery. It is a record that the Tories could not touch, the Scottish National party cannot match, Plaid Cymru cannot sustain, and Reform would destroy. On 7 May, people can only trust Labour with the NHS.
Matt Bishop
A constituent of mine, Emma, has been left with significant injuries following poor maternity care during childbirth. For more than 20 years she has been fighting for, but has been denied, corrective treatment on the NHS because it has been deemed cosmetic, despite the clear impact on her mental health and relationships. What steps can the Secretary of State take to ensure that women in such circumstances have access to the treatment that they need?
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that case. It is shocking but sadly not surprising, because the injuries sustained by women during childbirth are often completely ignored as well as going unaddressed. We have to learn from the case raised by my hon. Friend to ensure that constituents such as his are not fighting for the care that they deserve, and we will act on those lessons.
Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)
The latest industrial action by the British Medical Association has now ended, yet many will be appalled by reports of individuals boasting online that
“the ability to have 10 days off will make turnout quite high.”
Does the Secretary of State agree that this behaviour is indefensible and represents a slap in the face to patients whose treatments have been cancelled, as well as to the NHS staff who have been left to pick up the pieces?
Wes Streeting
Yes. It reflects very poorly on the BMA and the cavalier way in which it has inflicted disruption and a £300 million bill on the country in straitened times. It was also unnecessary. Although the resident doctors committee chose to reject a generous offer, that did not mean that it needed to rush out and announce six days of strike action the very same day. With the BMA, strike action is a first resort, not a last resort. It needs to change its tune, because the country cannot afford to fund its reckless behaviour.
Stuart Andrew
This is a rare occasion, as I agree with the Secretary of State. The increasingly militant stance adopted by the BMA is plainly out of step with some resident doctors, who continue to report for duty. The Government’s handling of this dispute has been marked by inconsistency. First, they attempted to buy their way out of trouble, then they withdrew the training places that this House voted for. Instead of persisting with a failed strategy, is it not time for the Government to heed our calls and bring forward legislation to ban doctors from striking?
Wes Streeting
The Government’s approach has been consistent. We recognise that resident doctors suffered years of pay erosion and worsening conditions under the Conservatives. We came in and sought to address that substantially with a 28.9% pay rise and an offer on the table that would have gone further on pay, gone further on training places and cancelled exam fees, which is the best deal that anyone will have got in the entire public sector. Resident doctors have rejected that approach, but the shadow Secretary of State reminds the BMA that however much it might disagree with this Labour Government, the alternatives are far worse. It is far better to work with us than against us, but we will not cave.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
I thank my hon. Friend for his question; he is a strong voice for palliative care and for Pembridge hospice in his constituency. Palliative care is vital in our communities, and I completely agree that ICBs, like West London, should engage with their local communities to ensure that they can meet their palliative care needs.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Wherever I go in North Shropshire, constituents tell me that access to a GP only gets worse when new homes are built, and they are right. Across the country, there are billions of pounds in unspent community infrastructure levies for new surgeries, and the average number of families that a GP serves has gone up by 917 since 2015. Will the Minister support Liberal Democrat calls for CIL to be used to support the early running costs of new GP practices, or to expand existing ones, as soon as people move into new housing, so that GP access really does come first when housing developments happen?
Stephen Kinnock
There is absolutely an issue with developers not delivering what they say they are going to deliver either through section 106 or through CIL. We are working closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to address this issue. I would be more than happy to hear more about the hon. Lady’s specific proposal. We want to work pragmatically and constructively to resolve this issue.
Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
Ophthalmology waiting lists have fallen since we have taken office. Average waiting times have reduced, and 18-week performance has improved. ICBs have the flexibility to commission services across specialties within a fixed financial envelope, and may use contract levers to manage that activity. That is good management of public money to achieve the outcomes we want to see.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
Wes Streeting
I am delighted that, as well as announcing the £10 million needed to purchase the new site for the Royal Berkshire, we are investing in the existing estate; that is what local residents deserve. I was delighted to make that announcement last week with our brilliant Labour Reading council team. It once again underlines that Labour councils work much better with a Labour Government, and people should remember that on 7 May.
Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)
Wes Streeting
I wish a happy Vaisakhi to all who are celebrating today.
Let me reassure my hon. Friend that he is absolutely right. As I reported only this morning on BBC West Midlands, we are bringing down waiting lists in his area and across the west midlands, and we will make further and faster progress; that is what a Labour Government do. We are much more able to improve the health of our nation by working with Labour councils across the country.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Stephen Kinnock
As I said to the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), we are looking at the way that section 106 and CIL are used. I certainly look forward to working with councils across the country, but as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, when people go to the ballot box on 7 May, they should think very carefully about how much more effective it is when councils work in partnership with this Labour Government.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I say gently to those on the Front Bench—and I am talking to you, Minister—that these Members want to get in, and I am trying to help them, so you should not be dragging out answers by reminding us about the elections. If nobody is aware of the elections, I am quite shocked.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
Karin Smyth
These organisations play an important role. We are making sure that they are treated fairly, and are supported to play a bigger role. They will be supported by the forthcoming plan for voluntary, community and social enterprise spending targets to 2028, and a combined action plan for small and medium-sized enterprises and VCSEs. That will include measures to ensure clearer visibility of opportunities, earlier market engagement, proportional financial and evaluation requirements, and a strong performance on prompt payment across the health system.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
Stephen Kinnock
We are working closely with the BDA on long-term contract reform. It has to be about getting the balance right, so that dentists are incentivised to do NHS dentistry and we maximise access. A public consultation on fundamental contract reform is coming before the summer, and I am sure the hon. Member will want to take part in it.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
Increasing the uptake of bowel cancer screening improves rates of early diagnosis and saves lives, but about a third of people eligible for a FIT test—a faecal immunochemical test—do not complete one. That figure rises in the most deprived areas of Scotland, where up to half of people are not completing the test. What collaborative work are the Government undertaking to improve participation rates and reduce such health inequalities across the United Kingdom?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
My hon. Friend may know that in Scotland there is no NHS app. In England, where there is one, we can facilitate bowel cancer screening through the app, increase uptake, and save more lives. In Scotland, all the SNP has managed to provide in 20 years is, possibly, some dermatology services in Lanarkshire. When we came into power—
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Wes Streeting
I know the Minister for Secondary Care has met the right hon. Gentleman. I know that the ICB will have been disappointed. There will be further ways to do this, and it should keep trying.
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
The James Williams healthy living centre recently opened in Chatham town centre in my constituency. It means that more of my constituents can receive care closer to home, rather than travelling to the other end of Medway to visit the hospital. May I invite the Secretary of State to attend its official opening in the summer, so he can see at first hand the fantastic new facilities?
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
Wes Streeting
The Medical Training (Prioritisation) Act 2026 is making a difference. It has reduced competition from four to one to less than two to one, a fact that the British Medical Association might wish to acknowledge. We are absolutely up for looking at that issue as part of the workforce plan. I suspect that we will have to do that without the BMA, rather than with it, since it will be out on strike while we are getting on with governing.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
At 2 pm today, many Members of this House will be attending the funeral of our dear friend Phil Woolas, the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth from 1997 to 2010, who passed away from a glioblastoma brain tumour on 14 March. I am sure that everybody would wish to send their condolences to his widow Tracey, sons Josh and Jed, and his mother and brother, but does the Secretary of State agree with me that condolences are no longer enough, given that there has been no improvement in treatment for the condition in 40 years?
Wes Streeting
Absolutely. I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Phil Woolas, who was an outstanding Member of this House and is dearly missed. I know the whole House will join her in sending condolences to Tracey, Josh and Jed, and their thoughts will be with them today. I am pleased to report that the National Institute for Health and Care Research brain tumour research consortium, backed by over £25 million-worth of investment, aims to unlock new treatments and transform outcomes. Earlier this year, we announced £3 million, with Cancer Research UK, for the brain tumour centre of excellence, including the glioma centre of excellence. Only recently, I was at Edinburgh University looking at progress there. It feels like we could be close to major breakthroughs, but she is absolutely right to hold NIHR and NHS England’s feet to the fire on this issue, and I will continue to join her in that.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
Cerys was just 22 when she took her life while an in-patient at Park House in Greater Manchester. The coroner described the unit as “a shambles”. Cerys’s was just one of a number of deaths at the unit. There is a national pattern of mental health trusts failing to learn and act when tragedy occurs. Although reports on preventing future deaths are issued, there is no mechanism to ensure that their recommendations are acted on. How can accountability be strengthened?
Dr Ahmed
Anyone receiving mental health treatment, in particular acute mental health treatment, deserves dignity and high-quality care. Where care falls short, this Government’s approach is that sunlight is the best disinfectant. That is why we are absolutely committed to learning, and to taking action to protect patients and improve in-patient mental health care up and down the country. I am deeply distressed to hear about this case and about other cases, including at St Andrew’s. NHS England and the Care Quality Commission are acting to keep patients safe. I am happy to take forward any further discussions with the hon. Lady, as necessary.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
Patients in Chickerell often struggle to access GP services in their area, and instead must travel long distances. Some years ago, it was confirmed that a new surgery should be built in Chickerell. However, significant delays mean that we are still waiting for that surgery. Will the Minister work with me and the NHS locally to finally deliver a new GP surgery in Chickerell?
Stephen Kinnock
I know that the local town and county council have been working in partnership with Dorset ICB over many years to support GP partnerships in the Chickerell area in developing a business case for NHS capital or revenue funding. I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend, and to continue to make plans for applying pressure to ensure that this is delivered.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Twenty-two people a day are diagnosed with lobular breast cancer, including my colleague Councillor Fiona Corps in North East Fife, but many more are living with it, because researchers and clinicians know so little about it. In advance of vigils next week, can we ensure funding for the Moon Shot Project, to give these women hope?
Wes Streeting
We strongly support the aims of the Moon Shot Project; the challenge has been getting the proposal to a suitable standard for funding. The moment we overcome that obstacle, the money will be there.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
The infected blood inquiry recommended action to protect the safety of haemophilia care, but there is mounting concern among clinicians and patients alike that recommendation 9 is not being implemented. Will the Minister meet me and members of the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood to discuss these real concerns?
Dr Ahmed
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making these points about haemophilia care. We are committed to implementing all recommendations of the review, and good progress has been made, including on non-plasma-derived treatments and the revision of the national service provision. NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care will continue to provide updates on the Government response. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
It is welcome news that NHS England has reduced the faecal immunochemical test threshold from 120 micrograms to 80 micrograms, bringing England into line with Scotland and Wales. We now need investment in endoscopy and other related treatments to ensure that people suffering from bowel cancer are spotted early and given the ultimate chance of survival. Could Ministers look at further investment here to increase survival rates?
Wes Streeting
Yes; as part of our national cancer plan, we absolutely want to see survival rates improve in the way the hon. Gentleman describes. I welcome the new Minister working on this—the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson)—to her place, and thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) for all her leadership in this area, too.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
My constituent Harley Harris is 15. He has spondylocarpotarsal synostosis syndrome, which has caused his spine to curve 120° and damaged his lungs, leaving him with significantly reduced lung function and in continual pain. Harley needs lifesaving surgery, but his family have been unable to get a referral to have it performed in the UK. Will the Minister commit to urgently reviewing Harley’s case to ascertain what support can be provided to him and his family?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mrs Sharon Hodgson)
I am very sorry to hear about Harley’s condition, and my thoughts are with him and his family. I am sure my hon. Friend understands that neither the Department nor NHS England can comment on the clinical appropriateness of suggested treatments for an individual. I understand that Harley and his family have already been in touch with the Department, and would suggest that my hon. Friend continues to raise this case with NHS England. We are committed to improving the lives of those living with rare diseases, including Harley’s condition of SCTS.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
In 2022, Grantham saw the opening of one of the country’s first community diagnostic centres; since then, more than 100,000 tests have been completed for the local population. Now, I want the same for the town of Bourne. Will the Minister meet me, so that I can make the case for a new community diagnostic centre in Bourne?
Karin Smyth
I was happy to announce the further expansion of CDCs this morning. We will continue to work to roll out these centres across the country. I am happy to discuss with the hon. Gentleman the proposals from his local ICB, if he wants to provide a bit more detail on that, as these centres are critical to getting down our waiting lists.
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State join me in welcoming the success of sickle cell bypass units in north-west London and across the country in reducing pressure on emergency departments, while improving care for sickle cell patients, who have historically been overlooked? Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the future of these units is threatened, and will he meet me to discuss the need for ongoing central funding, so that these vital and efficient services are not lost?
Wes Streeting
I congratulate the units on their work. I appreciate concerns about sickle cell services, which we must maintain. I am aware of some of the other challenges we have had to address in London, where we have got to a good place. It is so important that we work together—that Labour’s investment and modernisation works alongside NHS leaders and those promoting public health—and work with great Labour councils, like my hon. Friend’s.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Over the weekend, it was my pleasure to attend the Beat the Odds event in my constituency, which amalgamated 36 grassroots mental health organisations that support people from all backgrounds and of all ages and help those who have sadly fallen through the cracks. The message from those organisations was overwhelmingly clear: they need more financial support. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that grassroots organisations receive funding to deliver frontline services that save lives?
Dr Ahmed
I commend the community groups in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. He will know that there are record amounts of funding going into mental health provision under this Government. We are committed to ensuring that that funding is disseminated into the community, by moving more services from hospitals into the community.
Infected Blood Compensation Scheme
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
With permission, I will update the House on the Government’s response to the recommendations of the infected blood inquiry’s additional report.
I will start by updating the House on the delivery of compensation by the Infected Blood Compensation Authority—or IBCA, as we refer to it. As of 7 April, 3,273 people have received an offer and over £2 billion has now been paid out. That includes the first payments to all eligible groups. I am sure that Members across the whole House will welcome that progress.
In July last year, the infected blood inquiry published its additional report, which made recommendations for both the Government and IBCA. Part of our response to that report was a public consultation on changes to the infected blood compensation scheme. I am here today to update the House on the outcome of that consultation. First, I should say that I am deeply grateful to everyone who responded and provided deeply personal stories. They must be at the heart of the decisions that the Government make, just as they were throughout the work of the inquiry.
The consultation was vital for engaging the community on our proposals. The Government have also sought advice from the infected blood compensation scheme technical expert group. Alongside the consultation response, today I am publishing the group’s final report, which sets out its advice to the Government and amendments to the compensation scheme. To inform that advice, the technical expert group conducted roundtable discussions with community representatives on specific aspects of the scheme, and that was separate to the consultation. For transparency, I am also publishing the minutes of the roundtable discussions, the group’s own meetings and a summary of written responses to the roundtables.
Let me turn to the changes to the scheme. Today the Government have published our full response to the consultation, and that sets out how the scheme will now change. Before I lay out each change in detail, let me explain the overall package. The community was clear that the scheme must do more to recognise people’s individual experiences and compensate them fairly in a way that minimises the administrative burden placed on those who have been harmed, minimises the demand for evidence and maintains the delivery of tariff-based compensation. Those requirements underpin the changes.
For infected people, the changes will increase the amount of core compensation available and increase the options available for supplementary compensation awards. For affected people, additional core compensation will be available to those eligible. We consulted on seven specific areas, and we are making substantive changes in all seven. In four areas, we are actually going further than our original proposal.
Let me turn first to the special category mechanism. We will introduce a new supplementary award to give additional compensation to people who have been assessed as eligible for the SCM or who can now demonstrate to IBCA that they meet the criteria. After considering the community’s views, we will ensure that every eligible person has this award backdated to 2017, because that is when the special category mechanism was first introduced.
Many of those infected suffered from terrible mental health issues as a result of their infection, as we heard in their testimonies. We will amend the scheme so that the new SCM supplementary award gives people additional compensation where the psychological harm that they experienced means that the core route compensation simply does not go far enough. We believe that this will result in more comprehensive recognition of the mental health issues caused by infected blood and the resulting years of harm.
The inquiry recommended that we change the core route’s severity bandings to recognise the harms caused to infected people by interferon treatment, and proposed a new “level 2B” severity banding for those who receive this treatment. We accept that change is necessary, and we will introduce this new severity band to increase people’s injury, financial loss and care awards. In addition, if someone has had multiple rounds of interferon treatment, they will be compensated for each round.
The inquiry recommended changes to the calculation of past financial loss and past care awards for those who choose to continue receiving support scheme payments. We will remove the 25% deduction applied to past care compensation, as was recommended by the inquiry. The consultation also set out two options for how financial loss could be calculated for those who continue to receive support scheme payments: the way the scheme currently does it, and an alternative. Because of the range of views on which was best, we will ensure that people receive past financial loss compensation based on whichever of the two calculations presented is most financially beneficial for them.
The inquiry asked the Government to look at the evidence requirements for the exceptional loss award. We were keen to hear the community’s views on that in order to develop a way forward that avoided lengthy, individualised assessments of people’s circumstances. We will ensure that all forms of evidence of actual earnings can be considered by IBCA. We will also make additional compensation available to infected people who lack evidence of earnings but who had clear potential to earn more than average. We will offer a £60,000 lump sum on top of people’s core awards to those who can show they either had a job offer or recently started a job where the salary was higher than the median salary but had their progress impeded by their infection.
Through the consultation, we also heard about the experiences of affected people and the particular harms they suffered. We will increase the core injury award for several groups of affected people, including bereaved parents whose child sadly died before they turned 18, bereaved partners, and children and siblings affected under the age of 18. Those changes will give more compensation to affected people whose particular experience of the scandal was undoubtedly profound and deeply harmful. The awards will form part of the core award, and they will not require additional evidence from applicants.
I know that the matter of unethical research is of particular concern to Members across the House. It is one of the most shocking aspects of the scandal. We heard that the existing approach may not have compensated everyone who suffered that wrongdoing. We have therefore changed the scope of the award so that anyone treated in the UK for a bleeding disorder in 1985 or earlier will receive further compensation.
It was also clear from the consultation responses that the amount offered does not reflect the harm done. I say today to the House that we will increase the unethical research awards. That includes increasing the £25,000 for those who attended Treloar’s school to £60,000 as well as introducing a new unethical research award for those treated elsewhere for a bleeding disorder during childhood at a rate of £45,000. We are also tripling the award for those treated for a bleeding disorder in adulthood to £30,000. I have touched on all seven of the areas we directly addressed in the consultation; of course, I encourage hon. Members across the House to read the full response that is being published.
The consultation also invited respondents to raise any other concerns they had about the design of the scheme. One of the most compelling things we heard was that the scheme does not sufficiently recognise the profound impact of infection during childhood. We have heard the community clearly on that, so we will make a further change to the compensation scheme to address it: we will introduce a 50% increase to the core autonomy award for people who were infected at age 18 or under.
I hope those changes go some way to showing our commitment to listening to the community and making decisions, with those impacted at the forefront of our minds. In order to make those substantial changes to the scheme, we will bring forward further legislation in due course.
While the consultation provided one way for the community to offer feedback, the inquiry recommended there be an identified way for concerns to be considered. Today, I am pleased to launch a new mechanism that builds on existing engagement and feedback channels through which people can raise concerns about the function of the infected blood compensation scheme with the Cabinet Office and with IBCA. Both organisations will then publish quarterly summaries of feedback received on the scheme’s design and delivery, and any action being taken as a result. I expect the first of those summaries to be published in early July.
The findings of the inquiry must be met with tangible, systemic change. I hope that what I have set out goes some way towards showing our commitment to enacting this change. I pay tribute to Sir Brian Langstaff, his team and everyone who gave testimony to the inquiry for ensuring that that human element of this tragedy remains a focal point of the inquiry’s work.
The compensation scheme’s most basic purpose is to provide financial recognition of the losses and harms faced by victims, both infected and affected. Beyond that, it must reflect and embody their stories if it is to truly deliver justice, not just for those we tragically lost, but for those who continue to fight. I commend this statement to the House.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his statement and for providing an advance copy. We naturally welcome the progress reported today. The fact that 3,273 people have received offers totalling more than £2 billion is a significant milestone in a decades-long struggle for justice. I thank the Infected Blood Compensation Authority for its work to speed up the payments.
As Baroness Finn said in the other place,
“what we call the scandal was, in truth, the infliction, collectively, of grievous harm upon thousands of people by the state.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 November 2025; Vol. 849, c. 1821.]
Nowhere was that more egregious or more shocking than in those cases where victims were infected as a result of deliberate experimentation in the name of science. We therefore commend the Minister for the specific increases to the unethical research awards, and in particular the uplift to £60,000 for the survivors of Treloar’s school and the expansion of the scheme to include those treated as adults. Those are necessary recognitions of a truly outrageous chapter of the scandal.
However, while the Minister spoke of tangible, systemic change, many victims and their families will be looking at the fine print with a degree of trepidation. I therefore have a number of questions regarding the delivery and scope of these announcements. The Minister noted that further legislation will be required later this year to enact these substantial changes. Given that the infected blood inquiry’s additional report was published back in July last year, will he reassure the House that the legislative timetable will not lead to further agonising delays for those in declining health? Will the first quarterly feedback summaries, which he has promised will come in July, provide a hard deadline for when those new level 2B severity awards and backdated supply chain management payments will actually reach bank accounts? If not, does he have an expectation of when those payments will be made?
I think the Minister mentioned increased core injury awards for bereaved parents whose children died before the age of 18. Can he provide greater clarity on the justification for excluding parents whose children were infected when they were young children but turned 18 before the time of their death? Regarding the 50% increase to the core autonomy award for those infected at age 18 or under, will he confirm that that will also apply to those infected through their mothers in utero?
The Government rightly aim to minimise the administrative burden and the demand for evidence. We welcome the £60,000 lump sum for those with clear potential to earn but who lack evidence of earnings, but how will the Infected Blood Compensation Authority define “clear potential” without falling back into the lengthy, individualised assessments that the Minister says he wants to avoid?
Finally on the compensation scheme, the Minister announced that for past financial loss, the Government will use whichever calculation is “most financially beneficial” for the recipient. We welcome that pragmatic step, but can he clarify whether the removal of the 25% deduction for past care will be applied automatically to all existing offers, or will those people who have already received offers need to reapply to have their awards adjusted? As the Minister said, the compensation scheme must “embody their stories”. Justice delayed is justice denied, and we must ensure that the new supplementary awards do not become a secondary bureaucratic hurdle for a community that has already given so much testimony and waited so long.
Before I close, I turn to a matter that seems to be missing from the Minister’s statement: the inquiry. When he last updated the House before Christmas, I raised the need to
“move from a period of review to one of rectification and delivery.”—[Official Report, 30 October 2025; Vol. 774, c. 516.]
I also asked him how and when the inquiry might be drawn to a close so there could be a degree of policy certainty. I did not hear him refer to that in his statement, so will he confirm that, with the implementation of the key recommendations from the additional report and Sir Brian’s letters, the public inquiry has now drawn to a close?
Once again, I thank Sir Brian Langstaff and his team for their diligent and comprehensive work over the past eight years to help deliver some justice after decades of scandal and suffering. Most of all, I again pay tribute to the tireless campaigning of the many victims and their families who were infected or affected by the infected blood scandal. They have suffered for far too long in ways that we can barely begin to imagine, and no compensation scheme can ever reverse the horrific harms needlessly done to them. I hope, however, that the universal acceptance of the conclusion of the reports and the determination of us all to do what we can to make changes that will stop others suffering in future will bring them some comfort.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I thank the shadow Minister for the tone that he took in that response and for the supportive tone that he has taken throughout. I will pick up on some of his earlier points. I agree with him entirely when he talks of the heinous nature of the medical experimentation on children that happened during this scandal. Although I have increased the specific amounts, it should be pointed out that those amounts do not stand in isolation; they are specific amounts for the particularly egregious nature of what happened, which are within much higher settlements, and that is exactly as it should be.
On the point about the inquiry, yes, there has now been the formal exchange of letters between me as the responsible Minister and Sir Brian Langstaff. Also, I entirely agree with the shadow Minister about the need for policy certainty going forward. He asked some very reasonable, detailed questions, and I will come back to him properly in writing on those, but let me just deal with a few of them.
I want to bring forward further legislation as soon as possible. When I have brought forward legislation in the past, parties across the House have always worked in a collaborative way throughout to get it through as quickly as possible. Obviously, positions are a matter for the Opposition parties, but continuing that constructive spirit is helpful in getting these things through as quickly as possible.
On the issue of exceptional loss, again, that £60,000, as referred to by the shadow Minister, is not designed to be a very detailed, individualised assessment. That is not what a tariff-based scheme is meant to do. Rather, it is meant to look at the situation of loss of a chance—the situation where somebody, but for their infection or how they were affected by the infection, would have had the opportunity to have gone on and perhaps been a higher-than-average earner but were denied that—and is designed specifically to look at that. On the other very reasonable and detailed matters that the hon. Gentleman raises, I will ensure he gets a full written response.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
Does the Minister accept that although people co-infected with HIV and hepatitis C represent only around 7% of those on infected blood support schemes, they make up roughly 14% of those receiving special category support, because of the disproportionate harm caused by early hepatitis C treatments? Does he believe that today’s announcement properly recognises their suffering?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Whether it is in relation to the co-infected, to whom my hon. Friend so movingly refers, or other people who are both infected and affected by this scandal, the compensation scheme seeks to recognise everything—all the harms that have happened to them and how they have suffered. I will just say, though, that this was always meant to be a tariff-based scheme—it is meant to produce broad justice—and part of the reason for that is to try to prevent those highly individualised searches for evidence which, frankly, with this distance of time, would simply not be possible.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. I especially welcome in his remarks the recognition of people’s individual experiences and the commitment to compensating them fairly in a way that minimises the administrative burden placed upon those who have been harmed.
The infected blood scandal is one of the greatest failures in our national health service, which was unacknowledged for far too long. Over 30,000 people were infected across the country and faced the devastating consequences of that systematic failure. Yet there are people who continue to feel that the scheme has not gone far enough, including one of my constituents, from Marple, who feels the scheme should investigate more potential conditions.
Thousands of victims and their families have waited decades for the justice they deserve. Sir Brian Langstaff was straightforward in his findings: victims have been ignored and frozen out of the process they fought for decades to secure, while payments have proceeded at an infuriatingly glacial pace. The Liberal Democrats have long stood with the victims. The Government are right to seek to answer the needs of those infected and affected by setting out a clear timeline for how compensation can be delivered to them. My colleagues and I will continue to hold this Government to account until every eligible person receives the justice they are owed.
Sir Brian Langstaff rightly highlighted how victims have not been listened to by successive Ministers, and we welcome the new feedback mechanism that the Minister has set out today. Will he expand a little on his remarks and confirm that that will be a formal advisory body of victims to IBCA, as recommended by the Langstaff inquiry?
After so many years of secrecy, deceit and delay, the Government should ensure full transparency over the progress of the scheme and open ongoing communication with all those affected. Enshrining a statutory duty of candour is a long-overdue reform championed by those infected and affected by the scandal, and the continued delays to passing the Hillsborough law are shameful. Victims and campaigners should not be made to wait any longer, so will the Minister say when the Government will get that vital piece of legislation moving again and finally get the Hillsborough law on the statute book?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
First, in respect of the feedback mechanism, I wanted it to be not simply somewhere that would receive correspondence, but a proper mechanism to sift the various queries coming in. Some might be administrative things to do with the scheme that might be dealt with relatively quickly and some might be more serious things that need to be elevated either to IBCA’s board or to the Cabinet Office.
Secondly, with regard to IBCA and the voice of victims, I have been on more than one occasion to IBCA’s offices in Newcastle. It already has what are known as the user consultants, who provide the voice of the community on the premises and who have been encouraged by Sir Robert Francis to do that. I think they make a very important contribution. Thirdly, on transparency, I could not agree more. That is why, on the technical expert group for example, I take the view of publishing everything. I think we have to continue to do that. Fourthly, on the issue of the Hillsborough law, work is ongoing. I have been very involved in that in recent months and, certainly, we are committed to delivering it.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I really welcome the statement from the Minister, along with the changes and improvements that the Government are making to the scheme, but for many people infected by HIV in the 1980s, fear, stigma and poor health meant that the role of parents, as in the case of my constituents, did not meaningfully change after their child turned 18. Will the Minister please consider adding an enhanced core injury payment for parents whose children died over the age of 18 but who had no partner or children of their own?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to speak of those people who were infected with HIV in the period that she talks about and the terrible social stigma, alongside everything else that they suffered. Indeed, I sincerely hope that the scheme reflects that. On the second, very specific question that she raises, if she could send me the details of her constituents, I will come back to her on that particular case.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Over the past 21 months, the Minister has worked tirelessly to try to build on the consensus across the House on the legislation that I put through on 21 May 2024 in order to make the scheme work, and I pay tribute to the work he has done. He has listened carefully to a whole range of inputs on an extremely complicated problem from a heterogeneous group of individuals, and he has done his level best to respond to the advice and best judgment of professionals, to attend to the range of needs and oversights, and to create pathways. I pay tribute to the work that he has done. He assured the House repeatedly that the money would get out as quickly as possible, and it did get out quickly and move swiftly after that initial process had been resolved. However, given that it cost over £150 million for the public inquiry, let alone the several billions of pounds for the compensation, will he ensure that the proper lessons are learned by the British state, so that not only can such a scandal never happen again but the conduct of public inquiries is as efficient as possible and we can reduce the delays that may have occurred in this situation?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his generous tribute. I have built on the work that he did as a Minister, and I think that the consensus between us, when I was in opposition and now as I am in government, has helped the victims and speeded up the process. I am very grateful for all the work that he did. His second point was very well made. We have to look at the public inquiries landscape. We all recognise that public inquiries provide a real public sense of justice when people have suffered either from a scandal or, frankly, from a cover-up by the state, but we want public inquiries to provide value for money for the taxpayer and to report in a timely fashion. We also need them to make relevant, timely policy recommendations. I am determined to look at that.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for the contents of his statement and for the diligence of his work with Sir Brian Langstaff and the victims to ensure that the inquiry’s recommendations have been delivered. Noting the incredible damage that has been done to many of our constituents’ lives as they try to return to normality, may I ask the Minister to outline further how we will ensure that the community’s voice will continue to be heard, bearing in mind that the challenges caused by this injustice will not suddenly stop, even if those people are awarded compensation?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend highlights a really important point. This is why the feedback mechanism is so important in ensuring that, where there are issues, they are treated sensitively and with the seriousness they deserve, and that they are elevated to the appropriate place, whether that is IBCA’s board or the Cabinet Office, to be dealt with.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
I pay tribute to the Minister and his team for the great work that they have done. I agree with the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) that this work is really cross-party, and the Minister will continue to enjoy our support in the future. I would like to raise two matters of detail. One relates to the Hepatitis C Trust, which has welcomed the funding that it has received, but it is only for one year. Owing to the nature of its work and the fact that these cases are likely to go on for several years, will the Minister confirm that organisations such as the Hepatitis C Trust can expect to enjoy funding in future years to enable them to continue to provide support?
I also welcome the Minister’s comments on the new level 2B severity banding for people who received interferon treatment, but I would like to raise a couple of points of detail on that. The Minister might not be able to answer them today, but if he could answer them in writing, that would be helpful. Do these new measures remove the 2017 reduction in rates for compensation, and will they ensure that people are fairly compensated for health harms caused by interferon treatment from the date those harms occurred?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and his party for the tone that they have taken throughout this process, and I welcome the opportunity to continue to work on a cross-party basis, because that is important. Like him, I have had that discussion with the charities—including the Hepatitis C Trust, as it happens—and I very much understand the case they make about multi-year funding as opposed to single-year funding. The funding comes from the Department of Health and Social Care, rather than from me, but I will certainly write to the relevant Minister to raise that point. The introduction of level 2B banding for interferon treatment is important, because of the specific, awful effects of multiple rounds of interferon treatment. On the two points that the hon. Gentleman has specifically raised, I will ensure that he gets a detailed answer in writing.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
I commend the bravery of the constituents I have met who have endured decades of anguish as a result of this harrowing chapter in our country’s medical history. The Minister will know that there are those across the country with legitimate claims under this scheme, but because some NHS trusts are claiming that their loved ones’ medical records have been destroyed, those affected are still having to fight for recognition and compensation. Will he address how we can overcome this seemingly insurmountable obstacle and give my constituents the closure and compassion that they deserve?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend raises a really important point. An issue with this scandal is that, due to the passage of time, evidence will simply not be available. Also, the inquiry found evidence of deliberate document destruction. That is why, while of course I entirely respect IBCA’s independence, I have always said that a sympathetic approach needs to be taken to evidence in that particular context. Indeed, from conversations I have had with Sir Robert Francis and others at IBCA, I know that that is precisely the approach they are seeking to take.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I, too, want to recognise the Minister’s commitment to this cause, which has impacted on so many of us across the House. I have a number of technical questions. First, he says that he wants to bring legislation forward this year. As he knows, delay matters, and the estimate is that one affected person is dying every four days. Can he confirm that the legislation will happen this side of the summer? Secondly, if the legislation is required to change the claim amounts, from when will they be dated? Thirdly, can he confirm that if the small number of claims that have been concluded already were eligible for the increased awards, they could be reopened so that more money may flow to those victims?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
On the right hon. Gentleman’s third question, the answer is yes. His second question related to dates. There are some specific dates that exist in the scheme. For example, assessment for the special category mechanism started in 2017, so that is the date that exists in relevant cases. Finally, I want to bring forward the regulations—this will be the fourth set of regulations—as soon as I possibly can. When I do so, I very much hope that we can collectively deal with them as quickly as possible.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I want to join Members across the House in commending the Minister for his steadfast commitment to this issue and, in particular, for the way in which he has consistently listened to members of the community and acted on what they have said. My constituent, Alex Robinson, lost her father to the scandal in 2006. I spoke to her just a few moments ago on the phone, and she remains concerned by the speed at which applications are being processed. Can the Minister outline what steps he is taking to speed up the process and deliver the justice that Alex and so many others deserve?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend’s constituent is entirely right to continue to hold the Government to account on the speed of delivery of the compensation. Particular targets were put in place, including paying the first affected person by the end of last year, and we met that target. On infected people, we have now paid out over £2 billion in compensation. To answer his specific point on how we will continue to ensure that we process the payments at speed, while IBCA is of course operationally independent, I always stand ready as the responsible Minister to assist IBCA in any way that it sees fit. I can assure my hon. Friend that my dialogue with IBCA on this point will continue.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I, too, acknowledge the work the Minister has done on this issue. Last year, I asked him about a constituent who fell under the special category mechanism, so it is welcome news that there will be an additional award for that group, but those affected are frustrated that it has taken this long to get here. The scheme so far, for the vast majority of victims, has been a failure, and only a fraction of those affected have yet received compensation. Is the Minister confident that all those eligible, including those eligible for additional awards from the special category mechanism, will have received payment by the end of 2029?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I should say that 2029 is a backstop not a target, so it is not a question of my being confident about that date; I want the payments to have been made before 2029. On the hon. Member’s more general point about speeding up payments, IBCA has used a “test and learn” approach for infected people. The reason for that was to have a small number of representative cases, so that there could be an accelerating point at which the number of cases being paid would increase sharply. That did happen and I would say, as the Minister, that we are now up to over £2 billion having been paid, but he is absolutely right to continue to hold me to account on the speed of payments.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I join my right hon. Friend in paying tribute to Sir Brian Langstaff who leads the inquiry and the people who gave evidence to it, which made his report so powerful, as my right hon. Friend said. I thank my right hon. Friend for the way he has engaged with this process in the short time he was been in office. It has moved things on immeasurably from where we were before, albeit building on the work that was done before.
My right hon. Friend knows how complex this issue is, so the devil will be in the detail of the statement, but I welcome the news that the requirements for evidence will be reduced where people have already produced evidence and gone through previous thresholds, and are then required to provide it again when it is not available. Mistrust inevitably exists for people who have had to campaign for so long for justice from the state, so I welcome the fact that he is creating a new mechanism to listen to the community continuously as the process goes on. Does he agree that taking that way forward will help to avoid the disagreements we have had in the past?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I thank my hon. Friend and pay tribute to his work with the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, which I was pleased to attend and speak to in recent weeks. He is absolutely right about the new feedback mechanism. It is so important not only that victims feel that their voice can be heard, but that they have a specific process whereby they can raise those concerns and then be elevated to the appropriate person to respond to them. That will be hugely important going forward.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
I, too, welcome the statement from the Minister. I pay tribute once again to my constituent Clive Smith, who is the president of the Haemophilia Society, on all the work he has done to press previous Governments and this Government on behalf of those affected and infected.
I am pleased to hear the Minister make specific reference to Treloar’s school in Hampshire, where at least 72 children died after being given a drug contaminated with HIV and viral hepatitis. I know that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, have a particular interest because your constituent Mike Webster’s son, Gary Webster, was infected. Can the Minister update the House on what progress is being made in pursuing criminal charges against those involved in experimenting on children?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to Clive Smith for his excellent and continuing work on memorialisation in particular, for which I am very grateful.
The hon. Gentleman rightly raises the heinous activities that happened at Treloar’s school, which was a place that parents sent their children—vulnerable children—for protection, and then had this truly chilling medical experimentation that happened. We will ensure that things move as quickly as possible, but I also say to the hon. Gentleman that we must ensure that we learn the lessons of what happened there to ensure that something like that never happens again.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
I join others in paying tribute to the Minister for his work on this matter and on the Government’s response to Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations. I also thank him for his intention to ensure that the administrative burden placed on those infected and affected is limited as much as possible. With that in mind, can I ask him for clarification on the level 2B severity category and the increase for those who were infected when they were younger than 18? Will those new mechanisms be adjusted automatically for existing claims, or will claimants need to apply or work in another way to get those mechanisms applied to their cases?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks and for his support and that of his party, which has been helpful throughout this process. On existing claims where there has been a change, the objective is to make the process as easy as possible, because I do not want to go back to the situation where people are being asked repeatedly to produce different pieces of evidence. Where there is an impact on an existing claim, the intention is absolutely to make it as easy as it can be.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I, too, welcome the Minister’s statement and his commitment to updating the House regularly on this issue. However, my constituent was infected with hepatitis C in 1993 and is still yet to receive any support because of the scheme’s original cut-off date. I know that the strict cut-off dates have been relaxed, but her cohort of the infected but never compensated—and, in some cases, never registered—still seem to be at the back of the queue. That compounds the harm and the feeling that they have been shut out for so long. Can he reassure my constituent that there will be renewed urgency on that particular cohort?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
First, IBCA has published a prioritisation list. It published the rationale for that and is obviously moving through that list on the basis of that prioritisation. Given that this scandal happened over decades, there is obviously an urgency—it is shared by IBCA, me and the Government more widely—to get those payments to people as quickly as possible, including the hon. Gentleman’s constituent.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I join Members across the House in paying tribute to the Minister for his work and the previous Government who started the compensation scheme. My constituent met me at a surgery last year and spoke to me about her late brother, who tragically died in 1988 after being infected with contaminated blood as a haemophiliac. Her family applied to the compensation scheme in June 2024, yet they feel that they are being treated as a lower priority because he is no longer alive. Can the Minister explain why bereaved families like hers are effectively being asked to wait longer? How can this two-tier form of justice be justified to those who have already waited for decades? Will he meet me to discuss this particular case and how the delays to compensation for my constituent can be alleviated?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
First, the intention is certainly not to produce any form of two-tier scheme; it is to compensate everybody for the harm they have suffered. On the hon. Gentleman’s constituent, I would greatly appreciate it if he would write to me with the particular individual circumstances and then I can look specifically at what has happened in that case.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
I join others in thanking the Minister for his update. I met a constituent in Wokingham last year who was one of the 30,000 people affected by this scandal. The Infected Blood Compensation Authority should have been life-changing for them and others affected by the scandal, but when an offer of compensation was made, my constituent felt that they had to accept it, although they felt it was not good enough, and that they were under duress. Will the Minister meet me and my constituent to discuss this case and the fact that my constituent felt pressurised to accept the offer?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
One of the reasons I signed off funding for both financial advice and legal advice was precisely to ensure that, in a situation where an offer of compensation was received, people could access it. Obviously, I do not know whether that opportunity was taken in that particular case, but if the hon. Gentleman would write to me with the circumstances, I can certainly look into it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister is indeed a bearer of good news, and I thank him for his diligence, energy and commitment to delivery. His and his team’s hard work is much valued by my constituents and by all Members present. He has made a full statement on the changes that will be implemented. I note the greater support for children under 18 years of age and for bereaved families in particular. Can he confirm that those people will be able to make claims under the mental health support section, as the loss of a parent can be devastating in the long term?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his generous comments. On that particular issue, I would be grateful if he wrote to me with the very specific details. I would be more than happy to see whether the claim is eligible.
In an earlier question, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) asked about the potential for criminal prosecutions relating to this matter. Of course, prosecutions are a matter for the independent Crown Prosecution Service, but I have made it absolutely clear that the Government stand ready to provide any evidence required by the authorities.
Knife Crime
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
Before I come to the statement, I want to echo the Home Secretary’s words yesterday following the publication of the Southport attack inquiry report. That was a truly sickening crime, and my thoughts, and those of everybody in this place, are with the families, victims and everyone who was affected.
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the Government’s plan to halve knife crime in a decade. That commitment, made in our manifesto, is rooted in recognition of a tragic truth: in too many places, a deadly cycle has taken hold, as fear and violence feed off each other, leaving people—and especially young people—feeling that they have no choice but to carry a weapon to stay safe. In the most devastating cases, that results in the loss of lives that have barely begun.
All that is wretchedly familiar to the House and to me. We know it from the long list of tragedies about which we have spoken with families across the country. We hear it in the anguished words of bereaved parents, whom many of us have met after fatal stabbings in our constituencies. We see it when we look at our children, whose safety is too often the cause of worry and sleepless nights. In these and so many other ways, knife crime is destructive and devastating, and has for too long been plaguing communities and destroying lives.
The task of putting that right falls to this Government. Since the general election we have acted decisively to deliver a response that matches up to the scale of the threat, implementing bans on zombie-style knives, zombie-style machetes and ninja swords; restoring neighbourhood policing to the heart of our communities; getting more than 63,000 knives and dangerous weapons off our streets; ramping up action against county lines gangs to record levels, with over 2,700 lines shut down last year; setting up the coalition to tackle knife crime; and legislating to deliver the toughest crackdown yet on online knife sales. The concerted effort that we have mounted, alongside our partners in the coalition, law enforcement and communities across the country, is having an impact. Since the start of this Parliament, knife crime is down by 8% and knife homicides are down by 27%, to the lowest level in a decade.
Together, we are making progress, but it is not enough. Knives are still being carried, stabbings are still occurring and lives are still being lost. Indeed, there have been several fatal cases in recent days and weeks, and I take this opportunity to express my deepest sympathies to the victims’ loved ones. For them, for all the families out there whose world has been forever changed by knife crime, and for the country as a whole, we must do more, and we are doing more.
We have published the “Protecting lives, building hope” plan, which details the action that the Government are taking and will take to further reduce knife crime and, ultimately, achieve our goal of halving it in a decade. The plan outlines activity and investment designed to drive progress across four key outcomes: supporting young people, stopping those at risk from turning to knife crime, policing our streets and ending the cycle of knife crime. I will address each in turn.
First, we will do much more to give every boy and girl the best possible start in life by addressing the root causes of knife crime; increasing investment in youth services; launching 50 Young Futures hubs to bring together wellbeing support, careers guidance and positive activities in areas badly affected by knife crime; stepping up support for children who are persistently absent from school; and investing in mental health support teams in schools. We do all that and more because we recognise that, to deliver the change that is needed, we must act early and prevent harm before it escalates into violence in later life.
Secondly, we are ramping up efforts to stop young people being drawn into knife crime, be they at risk of being an offender, a victim or both. A new Safety In & Around Schools Partnership, backed by Government funding, will see around 250 schools given targeted support to boost their capacity to tackle knife crime and reduce the risk of harm. We are also investing in the county lines programme and the highly effective network of violence reduction units, and strengthening crime prevention in the communities that need it most.
Thirdly, we will ensure that victims of knife crime get the justice that they deserve, and that dangerous criminals face the full force of the law, through a robust and effective police response. Visible local policing is central to our approach not just on knife crime but across the full breadth of this Government’s agenda on law and order. The severity of the situation that we inherited has been well documented, so I will not retrace that ground, except to say that we have made it a first-order priority to rebuild neighbourhood policing, by putting an additional 13,000 police personnel into neighbourhood roles in England and Wales by the end of this Parliament, with over 3,000 in place two months ahead of schedule, and by implementing the neighbourhood policing guarantee, under which every community has named, contactable officers devoted to tackling local issues.
Police boots on the ground are essential, but we must also ensure that forces are equipped and empowered to make interventions that are precise, timely and effective. We will therefore support the development of tools and approaches that have the potential to enhance prevention and detection, with substantial funding to enhance crime mapping, invest in research and development aimed at improving our capability to detect high-risk knife carriers, and enable targeted action in the police force areas that see the most knife crime through a new knife crime concentrations fund. We will also support forces in maximising the use of intelligence-led stop and search, and where the law needs strengthening, we will not hesitate, as shown by our commitment to introducing much tougher rules around the online sale of knives, through measures we know as Ronan’s law, after Ronan Kanda, who was fatally stabbed aged 16 and whose mother and sister have campaigned heroically for change since his death. That will all be underpinned by the most radical programme of police reform in 200 years.
Fourthly, we will seek to end the cycle of repeat harm by strengthening the youth justice system, improving the rehabilitation of adult offenders to reduce the risk of reoffending and developing a new national approach to identify, prioritise and manage habitual knife offenders who pose the greatest risk to public safety.
Each of those four strands is important on its own, and the steps that we are taking within them have been chosen because the evidence supports that. Equally, I am clear that this work transcends individual policies or initiatives. Ours is a whole-of-Government, whole-of-society mission aimed at building a safer, more hopeful future for all. The publication of this plan marks a significant moment in that mission, not because of what it says, but because of the action that it will drive.
Above all, we think today of the victims, and of the families that are smaller than they should be. Although we can never undo the pain inflicted on them, we can prevent others from suffering as they have. It will not be easy, but this Government will be unrelenting in the vital effort to protect lives and build hope. As Pooja Kanda so aptly put it,
“Every child deserves to grow up safely.”
She is right, and we must and will do everything in our power to make those words a reality in every part of our country. I commend this statement to the House.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. Halving knife crime is a measure that every Member of this House would subscribe to. It is a devastating crime with devastating consequences. Only yesterday, this House discussed the tragic events in Southport and the impact they can have on a community. Those events are, unfortunately, representative of a much broader problem, whereby too many people view it as appropriate to carry and use a knife criminally. That is horrific and must be stopped. We owe it to the country, and particularly those in communities affected by knife crime, to take knives off our streets and prosecute those who believe that using weapons is acceptable.
Unfortunately, since the election, knife-enabled crime recorded by the police has increased. In addition, we must acknowledge that, based on the data up to September 2025, 30% of all knife offences took place in London, despite London making up only 15% of the population. We need proposals that recognise the geographical nature of this crime, with so much of it occurring in particular areas. As such, it is welcome to see that the Government’s plan includes the knife crime concentrations fund, to support surges in policing where knife crime is most prevalent. However, I am afraid that the Labour Government’s proposals will not be sufficient without two critical foundations: powers for officers to stop and search individuals, and sufficient officer numbers to put this strategy into effect.
The hotspot policing outlined by the Government must be used in conjunction with effective stop and search, which the Government’s strategy acknowledges is broadly supported by the public. That is why we have set out plans to triple the use of stop and search and to use section 60 suspicionless stop and search in high-crime areas. That should be supported by changes so that a single suspicion indicator is enough to merit a stop and search.
That would be supported by 10,000 new officers. In contrast, the Government have presided over a decrease in officer numbers, with 1,300 fewer officers during their time in power, with particularly steep falls in the Metropolitan police, who cover the area where this crime is most prevalent. In the Government’s plan, they talk about the need for officers, but that is not reflected in the overall figures, as police forces across the country highlighted during discussions on police funding. If we want to see the police help achieve these reductions and the Government meet their targets, there cannot be fewer officers.
In addition, under the Sentencing Act 2026, many of those convicted of knife crime will be eligible for release earlier than under previous rules. The strategy covers many important areas, but there are few references to sentencing perpetrators of knife crime for longer. It is pitiful that those convicted of knife crime offences who would previously have gone to prison could now avoid it. That is unsurprising, as it took extensive effort from Opposition Members and those in the other place to increase knife crime sentences in the Crime and Policing Bill. The Labour party repeatedly speaks strongly, but it fails to back this up with the necessary custodial sentences.
The Government’s statement today and their strategy set out a number of important proposals and rightly recognise the importance of education and culture, building on work conducted by the previous Government on violence reduction units and the county lines programme. However, that must be supported by stronger enforcement, ensuring that those who commit these crimes are imprisoned with appropriate custodial sentences. Knife crime is truly horrific, and we owe it to everyone to give the police every power necessary to investigate and seize these weapons. I worry that without stronger enforcement, this plan will not be the significant moment the Government believe it will be.
Sarah Jones
I thank the shadow Minister for welcoming the target of halving knife crime, the content of the plan and the knife crime concentrations fund in particular. Where we can, we should try to work cross-party on tackling such heinous crimes.
The shadow Minister mentioned sentencing. It will always be the case that people found guilty of serious knife crime offences will go to prison—that is not changing. We are making a couple of changes that he would hopefully support. To give one example, currently around 1,000 children a year are found in possession of a knife, and no action whatsoever is taken to try to get them away from that activity—none whatsoever. We have changed the rules on that, so that every single child who is found in possession of a knife will be given a plan, which will ensure that they get the support and the interventions they need to move away from crime. If they do not adhere to those conditions, it will become a criminal matter if necessary. That is a big gap we are filling.
In the Crime and Policing Bill, which the House will debate this afternoon, we are introducing a new offence of knife possession with intent—currently, there are offences of possession of a knife, and possession involving a threat to life—and there will be a seven-year maximum sentence for that crime. I hope that that reassures the shadow Minister.
We could get into a debate about numbers, but I do not want to do that today, because we have done it many times before, and I am sure we will do it many more times. However, I reiterate that there are 12,000 officers in our country who are sitting behind desks. We do not think that is right. We want to get them out into our communities. There has been an 18% increase in the number of police in our neighbourhoods in the last year. We want those officers to do the job that we want them to do, not waste time on bureaucracy, so we are investing hugely in artificial intelligence and new technology. That will free up the equivalent of 3,000 full-time officers—just by giving them the tech that they should already have had to help them do their job. We are pushing as hard as we can, not on the exact number of officers, but on outcomes.
I end by repeating a statistic that I am very pleased about, and that shows that we are moving in the right direction: knife crime is down 8% overall, and knife murders are down 27%. We are focusing on outcomes, not police numbers.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
On Sunday, there was a horrific attack in my constituency; a 16-year-old boy was fatally stabbed in Orton. My thoughts—and those of the House, I am sure—are with his family.
I welcome the Government’s ambition to halve knife crime. How will that help to tackle the issue in Peterborough and across Cambridgeshire? What work is under way on understanding the root causes of why, in certain regions, knife crime is not following the national trend and decreasing, so that we can better address those root causes?
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for his question; of course, all our thoughts are with the family of his constituent who has lost his life. These things are always tragic, and I know that he will be involved in trying to help the community heal from such a difficult situation. I know that arrests have been made on suspicion of murder and other offences; I think four people have been arrested. That is good, but of course, nothing will bring back that young lad.
We have to understand where knife crime is happening and why, and we are investing a huge amount of funding in exactly that. Through our work, we are able to identify exactly where the knife-crime hotspots are across the country, and we are working with local partners and the police to ensure that we understand exactly why there are these hotspots. In some parts of the country, this is happening just after school, because, sadly, this is a crime that involves young people. Sometimes the night-time economy is driving knife crime, and sometimes it is other things. We are absolutely focused on the causes of knife crime, and on providing a lot of support to young people to try to bring them out of a life of crime, but also on understanding exactly what is going on in some areas. As my hon. Friend says, there will be some areas where knife crime is going up, and some where it is coming down. We need to understand that and address it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats welcome the publication of the strategy, and I am particularly glad to note the involvement of the Ben Kinsella Trust in formulating it. The trust does remarkable work with young students and teachers to make sure that we take a holistic approach to knife crime, which is badly needed. That is particularly true of its chief executive officer, Patrick Green, who I had the pleasure of meeting at Finsbury library last year. We Liberal Democrats have said time and again that we need a smarter approach to knife crime, not just to save lives but to improve them. Will the Minister commit to securing long-term funding for the measures outlined in the strategy? Without that guarantee, the strategy will be little more than warm words.
Secondly, will the Minister confirm whether the 13,000 new police officers in the neighbourhood teams that the Government claim to be deploying are actually a new resource, or is this an accounting trick, whereby existing officers are redeployed? The Minister may not want to talk about numbers, but they are particularly important in London; the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley has said that it is increasingly difficult to keep Londoners safe with a shrinking force, and estimates suggests that there are 2,503 fewer police officers in London today than there were in May 2024. I am happy to be corrected on that number.
Finally, will the Minister explain why the Government continue to skirt around the edges of a meaningful public health approach, without adopting one outright? We know that knife crime is not just a policing issue; it is a public health crisis. If we are serious about tackling it as the epidemic that it is, we must treat it as one, and bring together every person who sees the warning signs: teachers, GPs, youth workers, social workers, sports coaches—trusted adults who know when something is going wrong—and, tragically, as we have read in the conclusions of the Southport inquiry report, parents too. Right now, all those groups are isolated and do not talk to each other. We need to break down the silo walls and build real partnerships across civil society. Until the Government recognise that and invest in a public health approach, our progress will be blunted.
Sarah Jones
I appreciate the Liberal Democrats welcoming the plan. I join the hon. Gentleman in praising the Ben Kinsella Trust and Patrick Green. Patrick has been brilliant throughout the development of the strategy, as have the members of the coalition that brought together a group of people, many of whom have lost loved ones in very difficult circumstances, to push for action to stop other people losing their loved ones. I pay tribute to all of them.
The funding for the plan will come from across Government, not just the Home Office. Home Office funding amounts to about £130 million—a substantial sum—but the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is leading on the Young Futures hubs, the Department for Education is leading on interventions in schools, and the Ministry of Justice is making a huge investment in the youth justice system, so there is a big cross-Government approach.
I have done a lot of work over the years on the public health approach. It is quite simple; it basically says that violence is catching. If people have violence in their life, they are more likely to be violent. Someone who was in a domestic abuse situation as a child is more likely to be violent; people who join a gang are more likely to become violent—it is relatively straightforward. The interventions that we are putting in place are designed to prevent those crimes and stop that violence spreading. That is why the figures on violence are coming down, and we are seeing the first shoots of success.
On the numbers, there has been a 0.6% drop overall in the number of police officers from March 2025 to September 2025—that is a very small drop. The key question is: what are our police officers doing? Having 12,000 officers behind desks is not right; they should be out in our communities. Obviously, some of them need to do jobs that do not involve being out on our streets, but we want our officers out on our streets. We have always said—we said it in our manifesto—that the 13,000 will be a mix of new officers, police community support officers and redeployed officers.
We are introducing new technology, so that we can free up the equivalent of 3,000 officers’ time. It is much better for that 13,000 to be a mix of officers; it means that we have already been able to deliver 3,000, some of whom are already trained officers, so they know what they are doing. If we were just recruiting new people, there would be the challenge of new officers not having the experience that others have. We have always said that we would be taking a mixed approach. The point is that we are putting 13,000 police officers into our communities and neighbourhoods, which is what the public want. Those officers will help to tackle the epidemic of everyday crime, and knife crime too.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for agreeing to meet me and members of the safer knives group, which brings together experts on the type of knives most commonly used in knife crime. Does she agree that restricting sales of pointed knives, and moving to rounded-tip versions for kitchen use, could limit the number and type of injuries caused, especially in domestic and impulsive violence, potentially reducing death and serious injuries?
Sarah Jones
I applaud the work that my hon. Friend has been doing with others, including Leanne Lucas, who was sadly at the horrendous event in Southport, and who has been campaigning on the issue since then. I have had the honour of meeting her several times to talk about this. My hon. Friend is right that ordinary kitchen knives are used extensively in domestic and impulsive violence. When it comes to the streets, there are a whole range of horrific knives that we are looking to reduce in number, ban and control through legislation, but the basic impulsive act of picking up a kitchen knife is also a significant crime. There is evidence that a knife attack would have less impact if the end of the knife was rounded, and we have worked with manufacturers and others who are introducing that kind of knife.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Where psychopaths are concerned, deterrence is unlikely to work, but I was interested to hear an expert from the Internet Watch Foundation, who was interviewed on Times Radio this morning, say that people who commune on the internet with those who supply them with knives could instantly bring together red flags and warn people, if they wanted to. Is it part of the Minister’s strategy to try to arrange for that? As for others, am I right in thinking that a very high proportion of people who commit knife crimes are detected? If so, surely a campaign saying, “If you commit knife crime, you will almost certainly be caught” could act as a real deterrent to those capable of being deterred.
Sarah Jones
Yes, the right hon. Gentleman is right that a very high proportion of people who commit knife offences are detected and charged. How we influence people who may want to pick up a knife is an interesting and difficult question. We are investing a small amount of money in trialling some communication techniques. A lot of money has been spent on the violence against women and girls campaign, which many people will have seen; it tries to educate men on violence and how to behave. We are going to do some testing on which messages might work, and which might not, to try to target people who might pick up a knife.
The right hon. Gentleman’s first question was about the sale of knives online, and whether retailers can detect issues that should be raised. The National Knife Crime Centre, which was launched a couple of weeks ago and has £1.7 million in Government funding, has a team of police officers who will investigate the sale of knives online. We are introducing legislation about buying knives in bulk; sadly, people buy, for example, 300 knives, and then sell them in their communities. Retailers will have an obligation to tell the police if people buy in bulk. We will be able to see the patterns and intervene at the right time.
Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)
A family and my whole community have been left reeling, following the fatal stabbing of Jamie Collins, a 21-year-old student at the University of the West of England, last week in Filton. Jamie has been named by police today, following the arrest of another young man. I am sure that the thoughts of the whole House are with Jamie’s loved ones, as are my thoughts, at this unimaginably difficult time. I have listened to the Minister’s statement with interest. How will the new knife crime plan seek to reduce youth knife crime specifically, so that fewer families have to face the impossible, and so that we can ensure that young people have the safe and bright future that they deserve?
Sarah Jones
All our condolences go to Jamie’s family at this incredibly difficult time. I know that the community in Filton will be reeling, and that my hon. Friend will play her role in bringing people together to come to terms with what has happened. It is catastrophic when someone loses their life at such a young age.
Through the action plan, which I commend—[Interruption.] I am not supposed to hold things up, am I? My point, in holding up the document, was to show that the action plan is substantial; it has a lot in it to ensure that young people do not get involved in crime in the first place and to tackle the challenge if they do. DCMS is leading on our Young Futures hubs: 50 youth centres across areas that are impacted particularly by knife crime. The hubs will bring together lots of different services for young people in one place so that they can be supported.
We are also doing more on interventions for young people if they are found to be in possession of a knife. We are backing the violence reduction units with £66 million, and they are doing a range of evidenced interventions to try to make sure that young people step away from crime. There is a whole plan of activities to get them out of crime and to prevent crime from happening in the first place, and I hope that my hon. Friend’s community will see the effects.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I had the opportunity to go out with the local police in my constituency on an operation to combat youth crime. One thing I found most distressing was the liberal ownership and unthinking use of knives among teenagers, which I know the police in my constituency are desperate to sort out. Following the Government’s consultation on knife sales, will the Minister reassure my constituents, the police and the public that the Government will put forward a knife licensing scheme, whereby all knife retailers, including online, bricks-and-mortar and private sellers, must be registered to sell any kind of knife in order to prevent attacks from taking place?
Sarah Jones
We are already putting in place a range of interventions through the Crime and Policing Bill—which is going through Parliament and which we are debating this afternoon—to strengthen age verification for knives, and to ensure that online companies have a duty to remove violent content and knife sale content, and are doing more to do so. As the hon. Lady says, we have also consulted on whether we should have a licensing scheme. We are looking through that at the moment and deciding where we go. The campaign has been led by Pooja Kanda, the mother of Ronan Kanda, who died; she has been campaigning on this issue ever since. We are certainly very sympathetic, but we are the stage of looking at the consultation and seeing what a workable licensing scheme would look like.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
If we want to end the scourge of knife crime, we have to tackle supply, demand, enforcement, education and culture. Oldham has seen some of Greater Manchester’s highest numbers of section 60 stop-and-search areas, and there is often a clear pattern of gang activity, resulting in children carrying knives and other weapons. Petty postcode wars can escalate from online bullying to on-street attacks with serious injury and loss of life. I welcome the announcement of the Young Futures hubs, but given the overwhelming evidence of youth knife crime in Oldham and the cross-border activity in neighbouring Manchester, which has been selected for one of the new hubs, can Oldham be urgently considered as the programme rolls out?
Sarah Jones
We are working with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on where the Young Futures hubs will be, but they will be in the areas most affected by knife crime. There is a whole range of other interventions, which I hope will support my hon. Friend’s community to bring down knife crime overall. It will not just be the Young Futures hubs; many more interventions in our strategy are also designed to support. Greater Manchester has a big investment in addressing county lines, with which he will probably be very familiar. That has been incredibly successful and has got more successful every year that it has been in play. We are funding that this year. Hundreds of knives are being taken off our streets, and thousands of young children are being safeguarded as a result.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
It was around this time last year that I led the Backbench Business debate in the Chamber on preventing knife crime among children and young people, so I welcome the measures announced by the Minister and hope that they have a huge impact, reducing the use of knives by young people. I want to touch on two points in her announcement.
When it comes to banning zombie knives, we know that they and ninja swords account for less than 4% of all fatal stabbings. Screwdrivers account for more fatal stabbings, and household kitchen knives account for over half of all those stabbings. Given how easily accessible they are, do the Government have any steps in place? I appreciate that stopping access to kitchen knives is an impossible task, given that everybody in this Chamber has them at home, but are the Government considering any measures to dissuade people from using kitchen knives in this way? Furthermore, we know that social media has a huge influence on children, creating the fear that leads to them carrying a knife. Does the Minister have any steps to address that?
Sarah Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for welcoming the strategy and for the work he has done. He is absolutely right: people commit knife crime offences with all different kinds of knives. Some of the knives that have been banned have a particularly pernicious impact, given the damage they do to people’s bodies. We are putting in place a whole raft of interventions to ensure there is more control over the sale of all types of knives. These includes the age verification checks in the Crime and Policing Bill, and interventions on the sale of knives generally: making sure that young people are not buying knives, and putting in place a duty on companies to report if people buy in bulk. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) also mentioned the work that campaigners are doing on the design of knives to stop them being so impactful.
The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) is absolutely right about social media. In the Bill, we are putting more onus on social media companies to do more, with a duty to report the sale of knives that are illegal. There is a lot more to be done with regard to very serious violent content online. This Government—including the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones)—have done a lot of work on this issue and are doing a huge amount to address porn, child sexual exploitation and violence against women and girls, but there is another piece of work to be done with the companies to ensure that all violent content is removed.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
My family sadly knows the devastating consequences of knife crime. As the Government launch their welcome action plan today, I think of my cousin David Charlton, who was killed with a knife in 2012. Reducing knife crime is a moral imperative, so that there are fewer families like David’s or indeed like the family of Connor Brown, whose bereaved parents have done excellent work in tackling knife crime in Sunderland and the north-east and were recently recognised with MBEs for that work. Their approach has focused on education, so will the Minister say a little more about the plan’s commitment to update the curriculum from September so that every child receives knife violence prevention education in school? Will she support the involvement of bereaved families where they want to be part of the delivery of that curriculum?
Sarah Jones
May I say how sorry I am to hear about the death of my hon. Friend’s relative? What a tragedy that is, not just for the immediate family, but for the wider communities in which people live.
Education is key, and I have worked very hard on this raft of measures with the Department for Education. As my hon. Friend says, there is new guidance to schools on violence prevention, which will help to educate young people. Just a couple of weeks ago, I was with a bereaved parent who is going into schools and helping to teach young people about the reality of knife crime and what happens. That is a very important part of the picture. We are targeting in particular 250 schools in areas where there are very high concentrations of knife crime; we will be giving them more support so that they can access the services they need. We are very joined up with the Department for Education on this action plan.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Will the Minister speak to Sadiq Khan and ask him to get a grip on the knife crime epidemic that is plaguing London? Can we increase the stop-and-search powers of the Met police so that they can actually do their job and provide the enforcement that people across London are asking for? My husband was attacked by someone with a knife while he was caring for his mother-in-law, and one of our wonderful members of staff in the Tea Room was attacked in Brixton by someone with a knife just last week. This is a problem across London. My residents want to feel safe. Will the Minister do something to stop the knife crime epidemic that is plaguing London?
Sarah Jones
Can I start by saying that I am very sorry that somebody from the Tea Room was attacked last week? I had not been aware of that, and I will find out more about it. I am also very sorry to hear about the hon. Lady’s husband.
The growing narrative around London is just wrong. It has been debunked by lots of sensible people in lots of ways, so I will not go into all the details, but we know that the Mayor of London has invested more in policing than at any time before. Stop and search is an important tool, and the Mayor of London and the police in London use it; across the country, there are about 14,000 searches per year where a weapon is found, which is a high number. Stop and search is used effectively, and its use actually went down every year when Boris Johnson was Mayor of London. It is better to use effective stop and search, which is what we are doing—it is an important tool. Only last week, the Mayor of London announced that he is going to be opening a youth club in every single London borough, which will help to make sure that young people have somewhere to go and something to do. I hope the hon. Lady welcomes that.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
I welcome the serious action that this Government are taking to tackle knife crime. My constituent Tracy set up Changes Are Made following the fatal stabbing of her grandson Cameron. Tracy’s ambition is to get a youth hub set up in our local area, and she has already spoken to almost 1,000 young people in schools across Bournemouth and Poole. Some 62% of those young people have said that better education is the best way to prevent knife crime, so can the Minister please assure me that equipping young people with the knowledge they need is part of our strategy, and that areas such as my constituency will be part of our plan for support?
Sarah Jones
I assure my hon. Friend that every part of the country, including Bournemouth, will be part of our action plan. We are making interventions across the whole country, as well as very targeted interventions where knife crime is particularly acute. I have already outlined our interventions in schools, whether that is support for the schools where the problem is most acute, or the overall interventions to make sure schools are fulfilling new guidance on violence prevention. Lots of brilliant people—my hon. Friend spoke about Tracy—are going into our schools and sending really powerful messages to our young people. I absolutely support that work, and a lot of our violence reduction units provide funding for those kinds of interventions.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
While I of course welcome the statement and any attempt to reduce and tackle knife crime, does the Minister not agree that without saturation stop and search, and without immediate custody of anyone found in possession of a knife without a valid reason, the rest is just white noise?
Sarah Jones
I welcome the hon. Lady’s welcoming of the statement—it is appreciated.
Stop and search is a really important tool. I am not entirely sure what “saturation stop and search” is, but if we stopped and searched everybody, all our police would spend all their time stopping and searching people to no particular end. Stop and search has to be evidence-based and targeted, and that is what the police are doing. We support that. We want more intelligence-led stop and search. It is a good thing, but anyone who thinks that it is the only answer misunderstands the problem. We have to prevent crime from happening in the first place, as well as to tackle the perpetrators who are already involved and make sure we address reoffending. Doing one intervention without all the rest is not going to work, which is why our action plan involves multiple Government Departments, lots of funding, and lots of support from the Prime Minister down.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
Bedfordshire police welcomes the Government’s plan to refer all child knife possession cases to youth justice services, building on its work with the NHS, schools, charities and community groups to discourage under-16s from carrying knives. Can the Minister outline how the new national co-ordination unit will crack down on illegal online knife sales in order to strengthen such local partnerships, which are working to prevent young people from having knives in the first place?
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and pay tribute to the police in Bedfordshire, who I know are doing a really good job.
Among all the agencies he talked about, the NHS has a really important role to play. Of course, we put youth workers into most of our A&Es, so that if a young person who has been stabbed comes in, we have some chance of intervening with them to get them out of the cycle of violence they are involved in. The brilliant investigative police officers at the new National Knife Crime Centre will be investigating the sale of knives online. That will be a focused piece of policing work, and the Government are providing £1.7 million for it. Those officers will look at the sale of knives online and go after the people who are selling them illegally. Increasingly, we are seeing young people in the grey market buying knives in bulk and selling them to each other. We are going to make that very difficult for people to do, but where it does happen—where knives are coming in from countries that they should not be coming from, where age verification checks are not being done, and where companies are making money in a way that is not legal—we will come down on them like a ton of bricks.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
Sadly, we have had several stabbings in Yeovil, which has led to growing local anxiety. My constituents keep telling me that they want more visible local policing, but south Somerset is so often overlooked that locals have all but given up on change. They are worried that it is not going to happen, so can the Minister tell my constituents when they will see proper funding for more visible community policing and accessible youth services in rural south Somerset?
Sarah Jones
I want to reassure the hon. Member’s constituents in Yeovil that I understand their concern. Neighbourhood policing has been decimated over recent years, which has had a real impact. It is why we have seen shocking rises in things like shop theft and antisocial behaviour—the things that have not been tackled because the police were not physically present on our streets. We are putting that right. We have already put 3,000 more police on our streets in our neighbourhoods—an 18% rise from what we inherited when we entered government—and we will continue to do so. We believe that the right place for our police officers and PCSOs is out on our streets, making sure they are tackling the epidemic of everyday crime, and that is what we will be doing.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her statement, and welcome the Government’s plan to halve knife crime in a decade. In my constituency we have seen far too many lives taken as a result of knife crime—indeed, just last month, another young life was lost when a 25-year-old was killed. As such, it is really important that the Government are seeking to tackle the root causes, investing in youth services as well as preventive services. Already in my constituency, though, we have some fantastic organisations doing incredible work, such as Carney’s Community. The Minister’s predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), agreed to visit Carney’s to see some of the work it is doing and how it is seeking to deter young people from a life of violence and crime. Will the Minister honour that commitment and join me in a visit to that organisation in my constituency?
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for her question—how sorry I am that a 25-year-old lost their life recently. My constituency and that of my hon. Friend are not too far away from each other, and we have faced similar challenges. Of course, I am very happy to fulfil any commitment that my predecessor made, and I would very much like to see what is happening in my hon. Friend’s constituency.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I thank the Minister for her statement and welcome the Government’s plan to halve knife crime in a decade. Unfortunately, though, knife crime is not limited to London or city centres; in Dewsbury and Batley, knife crime is higher than the national average, and violent crime—which includes knife crime—makes up the largest share of reported crimes. In just the past few weeks in my constituency, we have seen a number of deeply concerning incidents, including reports of a machete being used in a street fight on 10 April, a 15-year-old boy being stabbed the same day, and a knife-related assault in the town centre earlier that week. These are not isolated incidents; they are a worrying pattern that is causing real fear. Will the Minister set out what immediate, targeted action her Department is or will be taking in areas experiencing clusters of knife crime, such as Dewsbury and Batley, and how quickly residents will be able to see a tangible, positive impact?
Sarah Jones
Our knife crime concentrations fund of £26 million will be targeted at areas where there is a high concentration of knife crime. It is quite extraordinary: from the state-of-the-art mapping on police-recorded knife crime that we have done, we can see that all of our knife crime happens in less than 2.5% of England and Wales, so targeting resources at those areas is obviously the right thing to do. That does not mean that we do not also have to worry about other areas outside that 2.5%, which is why we are investing in neighbourhood policing and supporting our children across the country through interventions in schools. It is why we are funding things like efforts to tackle county lines, which impact the whole of the country even if they start in cities. We are making sure that we are targeting all parts of the country while also using the bulk of our resources where the highest numbers of crimes happen.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I encourage Members to ask short questions. We have important business on crime and policing to follow, which I am sure Members will want to get through.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I welcome the publication of this strategy, and I pay tribute to the Minister for her strong commitment over many years to this area of policy and the depth of her thinking on it. In my constituency, we have seen far too many horrific tragedies. Out of those tragedies, however, has come some truly exceptional work in response from the community and from our grassroots youth-led organisations, in providing services that support young people. Those services provide positive opportunities for young people, help the community to come to terms with the trauma they have experienced and set young people back on a positive track. However, those organisations tell me that they struggle to access long-term sustainable funding. What is the Minister doing as part of this strategy to ensure that our youth organisations can keep the lights on and do their important work as part of the infrastructure of services that we need to tackle this problem?
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend and I take the same approach, and knife crime is such an important issue in our constituencies. It is front and centre of everything that we do and think about. She is right to say that from tragedies come exceptional people doing exceptional things, and those people need support. She is also right to ask the question about long-term sustainable funding. The funding on youth justice interventions is long-term, and our local authorities have now got long-term funding, too. The funding for our violence reduction units has been for just this year, but I very much hear the call that long-term funding helps those organisations to plan much better for the future.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I welcome the Minister’s statement, and I send my deepest sympathy to the families of everyone who has been affected, especially the family of Khaleed Oladipo, a 20-year-old young man who was stabbed in my constituency just a few weeks ago and sadly lost his life. I also pay tribute to grassroots organisations and individuals with street experience, such as Ditch the Knife, for the vital work that they do. I am glad that the Minister is aware of the work being done by De Montfort University on round-bladed knives, because in 2025 alone 95 lives were lost to kitchen knives. Will she commit to ensuring that grassroots organisation and those with real-life street experience are empowered to play a greater role in delivering lifesaving work?
Sarah Jones
I express my condolences over the death of the man in the hon. Member’s constituency. Grassroots organisations are incredibly important and we have done a lot of work, as have the violence reduction units, in making sure that things are evidence-based, so that we know they are having an impact and are working. The Youth Endowment Fund has done a whole raft of work looking at what does and does not work, so that we know that and fund it appropriately. I hope that he can be reassured that we will continue to support, through violence reduction units and other vehicles, those local grassroots organisations to make sure that they are having the impact we need them to have.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s comments, but she will know that youth charities have described knife crime as a public health issue linked to cuts in youth services. Will she therefore outline how this strategy addresses those structural drivers in areas that will not receive one of the 50 Young Futures hubs, including access to youth provision, mental health support and family services? Will she meet me to discuss how the brilliant Salford Youth Zone can play its part in the Government’s strategy and receive the additional resources that it needs to deliver the Government’s plans?
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The decimation of our youth services that we saw over the past 15 or so years, because they are not a statutory function for local authorities, has been catastrophic. We all know the impact of that. We are rebuilding infrastructure that has been torn away, and that is a challenge. As she says, we are introducing 50 youth hubs. The Mayor of London announced a youth centre for every borough in London, and other mayors across the country are doing what they can with their funding to make sure we are putting these services back. There is a huge push in the Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care to make sure that we have got people supporting our kids’ mental health in schools. There is a whole raft of interventions, but I am happy to talk to her about what Salford youth club is doing.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
In Luton South and South Bedfordshire, we know all too well the devastating impact of knife crime, so I welcome our Government’s ambitious plan to halve it over the next decade, and in particular the emphasis on supporting young people and youth services. The Luton Youth Partnership Service is doing excellent targeted early-intervention work locally. Will the Government collaborate with existing programmes that focus on multi-agency partnerships to ensure that best practice is built on and expanded?
Sarah Jones
I am interested in what the Luton Youth Partnership Service is doing, and perhaps my hon. Friend and I can have a chat about that at some point. We are not trying to reinvent the wheel, but rather support the organisations that already exist. There are some gaps that we are trying to fill. For example, we are running a whole range of pilots across the country where we are intervening with young people who have been arrested but not charged; a lot of those people slipped through the net. We are doing a lot of work in that space, but we do not want to reinvent what is already working. I am happy to talk to my hon. Friend more about her partnership.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I know that the Minister, like me, has had conversations with a parent who has lost a loved one. As an MP, they break your heart. I think particularly today of the mother of Josh McKay, who was murdered in my constituency a few years ago. He was a young man with his whole life ahead of him and a young family. I also thank the Minister for her open acknowledgment of the value of voluntary and community groups such as Street Fathers, Project Zero, Spark2Life and Break Tha Cycle, which do fantastic work in my community with our young people. May I press her on something? She talks powerfully about the importance of making school a safe place, but she will know of the concerns many of us have about the unilateral decision to withdraw school safety officers in my constituency. Headteachers tried to raise that concern. What confidence can she give us that those officers will return? They were such an important part of our fabric of supporting our young people to be safe.
Sarah Jones
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that she does in her constituency, and I send my condolences to Josh’s family, who will still be reeling after their loss. I agree with her that organisations such as Break Tha Cycle and Street Fathers do incredibly important work that we need to support. The target from this Government is that we should have a massive increase in our neighbourhood police officers, and we expect those officers to have a role going into schools and building relationships. We know that those relationships can be powerful. With those neighbourhood officers, we are trying to have consistency and to professionalise the neighbourhood route, so that people want to stay in it, rather than moving on up through the ranks and moving away from it. We want to have some continuity. We are also working to ensure that they are not abstracted, which is the other challenge that we have, particularly in large cities. When we have our proper cohort of neighbourhood officers, those people can be involved in their local schools, as we would expect them to be.
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her tireless work and campaigning on this issue, both in this place and in our community of Croydon. I know that this moral mission is personal to her, but given her experience, does she agree that tackling knife crime requires a whole-system approach bringing together policing, schools, health and communities? Can she outline how this plan strengthens the partnerships at a local level in communities like ours in Croydon?
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for her kind words, and I know that we tackle this issue together in Croydon. The point of this package of interventions is not just to stop kids getting involved in crime, but to make sure that we have got the right justice system and the right policing system, while stopping repeat offenders. A whole raft of interventions will directly impact on Croydon, which has a really good violence reduction unit that is working hard, and we want to support all the local organisations there. Our increase in neighbourhood policing will also significantly help. In Croydon, we also have live facial recognition, too, which is an interesting and powerful intervention in tackling crime. We are consulting at the moment on its legal basis.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
I welcome the Labour Government’s focus on knife crime. One courageous family in my constituency lost their beloved boy, Kory, who was stabbed to death by a 13-year-old boy. Kory’s family and I have asked the Scottish Government and Glasgow city council to confirm that the council has thoroughly reviewed all their dealings with the 13-year-old child convicted of killing Kory. That review is essential so that lessons are learned to prevent future tragedies. However, it is also essential to ensure that the rehabilitation of the child convicted of killing Kory is underpinned by a thorough understanding of that child’s background. The Scottish Government and Glasgow city council absolutely refuse to confirm that a thorough case review has taken place. Does the Minister agree that when children commit serious crimes, it is essential that thorough case reviews are carried out?
Sarah Jones
What a horrific thing it is that has happened in my hon. Friend’s community—the murder of a child by a 13-year-old child. Of course we need to understand what has happened. I completely agree with my hon. Friend about the need to ensure that we always learn the lessons and that proper reviews are in place, and the framework is there to do that. While responsibility sits with the Scottish Government and local partners in this case, I cannot but agree wholeheartedly with what my hon. Friend has said.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
Derby is a city that unites to tackle the toughest challenges. When more co-ordination has been needed in relation to knife crime involving young people, school leaders, the council and Derbyshire constabulary have been around the table to strengthen that joined-up response locally. Local organisations such as Safe and Sound also do crucial work with our young people. Does the Minister agree that tackling knife crime requires a partnership response that brings together communities, the police, schools and health authorities, and can she say a little about how the Government’s plan will strengthen those local partnerships?
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for the work that she is doing in bringing together local organisations to help ensure that we are tackling these issues. A raft of interventions in the plan will help local organisations to do the work that needs to be done, and we are introducing the biggest police reform in 200 years, which involves work relating to prevention and how community safety partnerships work locally. We have committed ourselves to reviewing that whole landscape to ensure that rather than people duplicating work, sitting in different meetings and doing different things, everyone is coming together with a single plan to tackle violence.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
Like many other Members on both sides of the House, I am often struck by the courage and bravery of bereaved families who have lost loved ones to knife crime. Last year I spoke to a father who had lost his son, and who is dedicated to improving life and seeing positive change in other communities to ensure that no one else suffers the grief that he has suffered. How best can he and others like him play their part in delivering this action plan?
Sarah Jones
I never cease to be amazed by how incredibly resilient people are in their ability to suffer such loss and then come forward and campaign to ensure that it does not happen again. There are a number of different ways in which people can get involved—for instance, through the work of violence reduction units and local violence reduction plans. I am sure I can give my hon. Friend a list of organisations with which her constituent could potentially get involved. We need as many people as possible to help in this regard, because what is needed is a community-led and community-driven response.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I regularly raise the need for more resources for frontline policing in Cleveland. We have a small population but high deprivation, and the police funding formula does not take account of the severity of crime in our region—including knife crime, the prevalence of which is among the highest in the country. I welcome the 48 new police personnel who have begun neighbourhood roles over the last year, but what more can we do to get more resources to the frontline and make our streets safe again?
Sarah Jones
Cleveland police is one of the forces that we talk to regularly, because, as my hon. Friend says, the current police funding formula is not fit for purpose. It is very old, and it needs reform. We are reforming the whole structure of policing, and as part of that we will review the formula to bring it up to date and make it fit for purpose. Although I have no answer for my hon. Friend now, the question of the formula bears heavily on my mind, and we are doing a great deal of work on it in the Department.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I welcome the 8% reduction in knife crime and the increase in neighbourhood policing, which has seen a named officer in every ward of Hartlepool, but the Minister is right to say—and my constituents would agree—that it is not enough. Frontline officers tell me that they are taken off the street for far too long because they have to travel to Middlesbrough owing to the closure of our custody suite by the Conservative party. Given that the funding formula is broken and unfairly punishes Cleveland, can the Minister commit herself to reviewing it so that we can receive the funding we need to reopen that custody suite for my town?
Sarah Jones
I have spoken to forces in areas across the country where the distance that has to be travelled just to get to a custody suite is a disincentive to arrests, which is absolutely not the approach that we want to see. The challenges that we face are great, but we are reviewing the funding formula and will be establishing a fairer formula. The police estate has not received the investment that it should have received for a very long time. Our priority is to get police out into our communities, but we need to look at the estate as well.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
In Derby and Derbyshire, 71% of habitual knife carriers are aged 25 or under. Does the Minister agree that, in Derby and throughout the country, we need to provide a tailored support package so that we can break the cycle of young people’s involvement in knife crime and keep our communities safe?
Sarah Jones
Knife crime is horrific in all its forms, but there is something uniquely horrific about young people picking up knives and using them against other young people. There is a raft of interventions that we need to make and we are doing that through our action plan, but while the progress that we have seen so far is to be welcomed, it is not enough. Only when we reach our target and fulfil our ambition of halving knife crime will we know that we are actually making a difference and giving a future to those young people.
Point of Order
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was told by a journalist today that the members of the shadow Cabinet had visited my constituency this morning. I understand that they may have gone there to clean some graffiti off a privately owned wall, but while I am grateful for their efforts, I believe they are mistaken if they think that this altruistic act will in any way make up for the swingeing cuts in the budgets of my local authorities that took place on their watch. I received notifications from only two Conservative Members that they were visiting my constituency, and one of them was given after the event. May I seek your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how I can find out exactly which members of the Shadow Cabinet visited my constituency this morning without following the required protocol of notifying me in advance of their visit?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the hon. Member for her point of order. Perhaps it will be instructive for all Members if I refer to the book of courtesies of the House, point 44 of which states very clearly:
“Members must inform colleagues in advance whenever: … A Member intends to visit another colleague’s constituency (except for purely private purposes).
All reasonable efforts should be taken to notify the other Member and failure to do so is rightly regarded by colleagues as very discourteous.”
I am sure that the Opposition Whips have heard the hon. Lady’s point of order, and will be drawing it to the attention of the shadow Cabinet.
Type 1 Diabetes Screening (Children)
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for a national programme of screening for type 1 diabetes in children; and for connected purposes.
We have all just returned from the Easter recess, and I am sure that, given the number of chocolate eggs that have been consumed, many people will have been told, “Not too much chocolate, or you will get diabetes.” While they are made in jest, comments of that kind reinforce the problem caused by the misunderstanding of diabetes. About 350,000 people in the UK—including me—currently live with type 1 diabetes, and 85% of type 1 diagnoses occur in people, such as me, with no known family connection with it.
Let us take a step back. What is type 1 diabetes? It is an autoimmune condition whereby one’s body, mainly one’s pancreas, no longer makes insulin. Without insulin, the body cannot use glucose for food and thus for energy. When people with type 1 eat, the glucose from their food stays in their bloodstream, but then their body seeks to burn energy and finds an alternative source, namely muscle or fat. The by-products of that are ketones, which are acidic and poison the body. Left untreated, people can enter a state of DKA—diabetic ketoacidosis—which can prove fatal, and sadly has done so in some cases. A patient has done nothing to cause type 1; likewise, there is no cure, just management and treatment of the condition. It is essential that we all recognise the signs of type 1. Although the four Ts—thirst, toilet, tiredness and thinning—are a crucial tool, ultimately these are signs that the condition has progressed and is under way.
There are three distinct stages to the development of type 1, but before I run through them, I will pivot to explain antibodies and autoantibodies, because they are essential to understanding the development of type 1. Antibodies are a protein that a person’s immune system produces when it detects a threat. The problem here is that, with type 1, an individual’s immune system makes these antibodies in response not to a threat, but to their own insulin-producing beta cells. These are called islet autoantibodies, and scientists can test for them to see if a person has early-stage type 1.
Let us go back to the three stages. Stage 1 is where there are two or more autoantibodies present, but with normal blood glucose levels. In stage 2, multiple autoantibodies are present and blood glucose levels are abnormal, but there are no symptoms. Finally, in stage 3, known as persistent islet autoimmunity, blood glucose is elevated and the person is typically symptomatic. That means high blood sugars, thirstiness, urinating more frequently, unexplained weight loss, tiredness and blurred vision. This is the stage at which most people are diagnosed as having type 1.
Although it is difficult to give a precise number, a study found that about 38% of those newly diagnosed between 2015 to 2020 were in a state of diabetic ketoacidosis, and 44% of them were under five years old. No one should underestimate how traumatic it is to be diagnosed, let alone when someone is in a state of DKA, which requires hospitalisation and emergency treatment. A US study found that being diagnosed while presenting with DKA was associated with significantly greater use of health services and potentially greater healthcare costs in the long term.
Armed with that knowledge, it is clear that we should aim to identify the condition before people become symptomatic in stage 3. That would mean that individuals are given an opportunity to get on to a trial to delay the disease, which is a point I will come back to. Furthermore, early identification gives families the time to prepare emotionally and learn how to manage the condition—hence my call today for a national screening programme for children.
Currently, there is no comprehensive NHS screening to identify individuals in the early stages of type 1, despite compelling evidence for it. International programmes, such as those in Germany, Italy, Australia and the US, demonstrate that comprehensive screening, paired with public awareness campaigns and psychological support, can successfully reduce DKA rates and improve long-term health outcomes. As I mentioned, there is also a pipeline of disease-modifying drugs emerging, which means that future generations identified as having markers for type 1 diabetes will be able to delay its development. Teplizumab—a tricky name to say—is one such drug that can, in at least half of people, delay the onset of diabetes by about two to three years. Designed for individuals aged eight years and over who have stage 2 type 1, it works by disabling the immune cells that attack the pancreas and destroy the insulin-producing beta cells, allowing the body to maintain its own insulin production for longer, so early identification is really important.
So what next? Well, adoption of any screening programme requires the Wilson and Jungner criteria, set in 1968, to be met. They look at the viability, effectiveness and appropriateness of any screening programme. Type 1 meets some of those because it is an important health problem, it has a recognised latent or early symptomatic stage, and the development of the condition is adequately understood, but further work is required to meet them all. For example, the target population for screening has not yet been clearly defined, but I hope it will be soon.
Currently, we are looking at the appropriate ages at which to carry out the testing. Although there are numerous opportunities for screening throughout a person’s lifetime, the early years are critical, given the possibility of becoming symptomatic in childhood. If we were to screen children at the age of three to four, we might catch 40% of cases. However, three periods of testing between the ages of two to four, six to eight and 10 to 15 would increase the number of childhood type 1 cases caught to around 80%, which would ultimately improve the efficacy of the screening and help meet the criteria.
While a final determination is being made on the correct ages at which to screen children, we are working on other questions. How can we embed this into clinical care and ensure that the follow-up programme is successful, as it may go on for years? Once we are aware of a child presenting—perhaps in stage 1 or stage 2—how do we keep in contact? If they test at the age of three, how do we make sure that they come back for the repeat tests? How do we make it clear that one negative test does not mean that someone is free of type 1? For those for whom it is coming, how do we make sure that they have the support and training to be ready?
We also have to firmly establish a clear balance between the benefits and the harms. I have already described some of the benefits, which include reducing DKA diagnosis and the long-term benefits that follow. On harm, we have to think about the behavioural and anxiety changes, because we need to ensure that psychological support is available for patients who know that a condition is coming. Sometimes ignorance is bliss, and living with knowledge of an impending condition could be overwhelming, but knowing the signs and preparing is vital. We need to make sure that we can offer treatments that work for all, and particularly for younger people.
There is clearly some interest in introducing a screening programme in the UK, because the ELSA study, which is funded by Diabetes UK and Breakthrough T1D, offers children aged two to 17 a simple finger-prick blood test to determine their risk of developing type 1. The study—I emphasise that it is a study—is currently open to families in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, with over 20,000 children having been screened so far, but it is really important that we move from studies to a national screening programme. At the moment, ELSA is available only for the early adopters—those who come forward to seek screening—which explains why nearly 40% of the participants are relatives of people with type 1. We need to make sure that any screening system is universal, so that we have a fair application that does not discriminate based on background, wealth or ethnicity.
For all the reasons I have set out, I am calling for a national screening programme. Although type 1 is an unpredictable and relentless condition to live with, I hope that within the next few years we can make the diagnosis of this condition far less traumatic, and give families and patients the skills and tools to live with type 1. I hope that one day we can cure this condition. Until then, if we can diagnose earlier and delay the onset to allow more care-free childhood years, we might just make people’s journey with type 1 that little bit better.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Sarah Bool, Tom Gordon, Josh Newbury, Charlie Dewhirst, Mr Andrew Snowdon, Rebecca Smith and Jim Shannon present the Bill.
Sarah Bool accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 8 May, and to be printed (Bill 417).
Crime and Policing Bill (Money)
Crime and Policing Bill (Ways and Means)
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you know, I have tabled an amendment to Lords amendment 312 seeking to disagree with their lordships. This House will not be given the opportunity today to vote on this singular matter, notwithstanding that it does—in my view and that of many thousands of people watching our proceedings—represent a dangerous erosion of civil liberties, including those under article 9 on freedom of thought and religion, article 10 on freedom of expression and article 11 on freedom of assembly and the right to protest, which this Parliament has long since immortalised in our celebrations of the cumulative and persistent protests of the suffragettes and the anti-apartheid movement, marked by the plaque in honour of Nelson Mandela in Westminster Hall.
If the Government were confident of their amendment, they would put it to a vote, but in a move that in my view is disrespectful of this House, they have decided to wrap up such a hugely significant constitutional matter among their other, excellent, amendments, which this House will doubtless wish to prevail. Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek your advice as to how I may secure a binding, singular vote on Lords amendment 312, as this key constitutional measure, if not challenged, will inevitably erode and restrict the right to peaceful protest.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order, and indeed for giving notice of it. The Government’s programme motion, which the House is about to consider, will establish the time available for today’s debate and the order in which the Lords amendments are to be considered. If Members are not content with the way the Bill has been programmed, it would be for them to express that—for example, by disagreeing to the programme motion. If the programme motion is agreed to by this House, as Chair all I can advise him is that, under the terms of Standing Order No. 83F, a vote on his motion seeking to disagree with Lords amendment 312 would be possible only if it is reached before 7 pm.
Crime and Policing Bill
Crime and Policing Bill
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:29 - The House divided: - Ayes: 307 / Noes: 176 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that Lords amendments 12, 256, 260, 264, 335, 361, 366, 367 and 369 engage the Commons’ financial privilege. If any of those Lords amendments are agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving the Commons’ financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
I beg to move amendment (a) to Lords amendment 263.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Lords amendment 263, and Government amendments (b) to (g) to Lords amendment 263.
Lords amendment 361, and Government amendments (a) to (e) to Lords amendment 361.
Lords amendment 2, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu of Lords amendment 2.
Lords amendment 6, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 10, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendment 10.
Lords amendment 11, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 12, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 15, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 15.
Lords amendments 256 and 257, Government motions to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendments 256 and 257.
Lords amendment 258, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 258.
Lords amendments 259 and 260, Government motions to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (d) in lieu of Lords amendments 259 and 260.
Lords amendment 264, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (f) in lieu of Lords amendment 264.
Lords amendment 265, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu of Lords amendment 265.
Lords amendment 311, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 333, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 333.
Lords amendment 334, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 339, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 342, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 342.
Lords amendment 357, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 359, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 360 and 368 to 372, Government motions to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendments 360 and 368 to 372.
Lords amendment 439, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 505, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 1, 3 to 5, 7 to 9, 13, 14, 16 to 255, 261, 262 and 266 to 299.
Lords amendment 300, and motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 301, and motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 302 to 310.
Lords amendment 312, and motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 313 to 332, 335 to 338, 340, 341, 343 to 356, 358, 362 to 367, 373 to 438, 440 to 504 and 506 to 532.
Sarah Jones
I am delighted to see the return of this Bill—the largest criminal justice Bill in a generation—to this House. The Bill will support the Government’s mission to halve knife crime and violence against women and girls in a decade, and give our police and law enforcement agencies the tools they need to tackle antisocial behaviour, sexual violence, terrorism and online harms. The amendments made in the House of Lords support these aims.
Given the number of Lords amendments, I will focus my remarks on the Government amendments made in response to commitments given on Report in the Commons last June by my predecessor as Policing Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson)—she was sitting on the Front Bench earlier—before outlining the Government’s response to the 19 non-Government amendments added in the other place.
First, my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) rightly raised concerns about the depiction of strangulation and suffocation in pornography, an issue which was also highlighted by Baroness Bertin’s independent pornography review. As set out in our violence against women and girls strategy last December, the Government have announced our intention to criminalise the possession and publication of pornographic images that depict strangulation and suffocation, and Lords amendments 261 and 262 give effect to that commitment.
Secondly, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) rightly pressed the Government on when we would deliver our manifesto commitment to make all existing strands of hate crime an aggravated offence. I am pleased to commend Lords amendment 301, which extends the existing racially and religiously aggravated offences to cover hostility based on sex, sexual orientation, disability and transgender identity.
Thirdly, my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) pointed to the long-term impact, including on employment opportunities, for those convicted of the offences of loitering and soliciting while under 18. Lords amendments 270 and 271 therefore introduce a new disregards and pardons scheme for anyone convicted or cautioned as a child for those offences.
I will now turn to the 19 non-Government amendments added in the other place. First, Lords amendment 2 seeks to bar the issuing of fixed penalty notices by enforcement companies and contractors for profit. The Government do understand the concern about enforcement agencies issuing fixed penalty notices where there may be a financial incentive to do so. To be clear, local agencies are expected to issue fixed penalty notices only when it is appropriate and proportionate to do so. However, Lords amendment 2 risks weakening crucial enforcement action to tackle antisocial behaviour. Our amendments in lieu instead provide that statutory guidance will address the need to ensure that the issuing of fixed penalty notices by authorised persons is proportionate.
On Lords amendments 6 and 10 to 12, I fully appreciate and understand the damage that fly-tipping can do to our communities. The Government’s waste crime action plan, published on 20 March, sets out proposals to radically improve enforcement in this area, including by granting courts the power to impose between three and nine penalty points on the driving licence of those convicted of fly-tipping where driving a vehicle was used in or for the purposes of the offence. Our amendment in lieu implements this commitment.
Turning to Lords amendment 15, on its introduction the Bill provided for a maximum four-year prison term for those convicted of a new offence of possession of a weapon with intent to cause unlawful violence. While this was drafted in line with other possession offences, the Government accept that the intent element of this new offence justifies a higher maximum penalty. Our amendment in lieu therefore provides for a seven-year maximum rather than the 10 years provided for in the Lords amendment, which we believe is disproportionate given that this remains a possession offence.
Lords amendments 255, 256, 258 to 260 and 505, introduced by the Government and by Baroness Owen and Baroness Bertin, all seek to further tackle the proliferation of demeaning and degrading intimate images online. The Government share these aims, and we are clear that intimate image abuse is completely unacceptable.
Lords amendment 255, brought forward by the Government, will criminalise the making, adapting and supplying of nudification tools. These tools use artificial intelligence to create deepfake, non-consensual intimate images, many of women. While creating, sharing and threatening to share non-consensual intimate images is already illegal, this amendment goes further, and criminalises the developers making and supplying these tools. As well as the criminal duties, once this new offence is in force the requirements of the Online Safety Act 2023 will kick in. This means that social media services will be required to take down content that supplies nudification tools, and search engines will have to reduce the visibility of search results linked to these tools.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way on that point. I am not sure whether she will come on to this, but the Government have tabled amendments on online safety, and have identified that the next frontline in this war is artificial intelligence. As she knows, we have already seen children taking their own lives after interactions with AI chatbots, and we know that tech companies will always prioritise profits over user safety, so there must be more focus on a safety-by-design approach that prevents AI products that could be harmful to users from coming to market. This approach has been suggested by Baroness Kidron in the other place. Why are the Government not supporting her amendment?
Sarah Jones
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. She is, of course, right about the growing concern around chatbots and the need for safety by design. I will come on to Baroness Kidron’s amendment and the Government’s response to it later on in my speech.
Furthermore, the Government have brought forward Lords amendment 367 to take a power to extend the scope of the Online Safety Act 2023 to cover unregulated AI chatbots. It means that general-purpose AI chatbots, such as Grok, which allow the creation and sharing of non-consensual intimate images, will have to proactively remove that illegal content from their services or face enforcement from Ofcom. Taken together, the measures will deliver an effective ban on nudification tools. Given that, we do not believe that a separate possession offence, as provided for in Lords amendment 505, would make a meaningful difference, not least as many such tools are accessed online, rather than possessed.
Where a person is convicted of an intimate image offence, we agree that it is vital that those images are deleted from the perpetrator’s devices. Amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 258 enables the courts to make an image deletion order following a conviction for an offence related to intimate image abuse. Breach of the order will be a criminal offence. The amendment also enables the courts to require the deletion of other intimate images of the same victim. This approach gives courts the required flexibility to consider the details of each case when applying their powers, while ensuring that the offenders are held accountable for compliance with the order.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
I really welcome the Government’s amendment on image deletion orders, which will ensure that after a conviction, courts are properly mandated to destroy those intimate images and film. They will be able to give prison sentences, too; that is incredibly important. Does the Minister agree that this, coupled with the Government’s new requirements for tech firms to delete this horrifying content when it is found, is a crucial step forward in ensuring that non-consensual intimate imagery victims can finally move forward with their life?
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and I agree with her. This is the culmination of a lot of good work in the Lords and the Commons, from Members of all parties. MPs have pushed as hard as we can on this emerging technology, which is so dangerous and so high risk, and we have a Government who are committed to acting and doing the right thing. Everybody has worked really hard, together, to get us to a much stronger place. The power allowing courts to require the deletion of intimate images will also be available for the offence of breastfeeding voyeurism recording, and the new offence of sharing semen-defaced images.
Online platforms need to do more to ensure that non-consensual intimate images are removed quickly, as my hon. Friend said, and not after the 24-hour timeframe envisioned by Lords amendment 256. To that end, amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendments 256 and 257 strengthens platform and senior executive accountability by making it a criminal offence for a service to breach an enforcement decision by Ofcom on duties to deal with and remove reported non-consensual intimate images. That means that senior executives of the service could be criminally liable for the breach. As well as taking this enforcement approach, the Government are also strengthening safeguards against malicious reporting. We will also bring forward regulations under existing powers in the Online Safety Act to amend schedule 8, so that Ofcom can require providers to be fully transparent about both the speed of intimate image removals, and how clearly and effectively platforms enable users to report such content.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
These provisions are so important. The main thing that witnesses who came before the Women and Equalities Committee said, when talking about the impact of non-consensual intimate image abuse, was that the harm grew and grew, the longer the images stayed online. This measure is vital, and I thank the Government for listening to the Committee’s important work.
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend, and pay tribute to the Women and Equalities Committee and its work. As I said, this has been a journey, and a lot of Members from both Houses have played a really important role. Ministers in the Ministry of Justice, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and the Home Office have been listening very carefully to what MPs have been advising. I am very pleased that we were able to respond.
In addition to bringing in the take-down duty, we will give statutory backing to a register of non-consensual intimate images. Amendments (a) and (d) in lieu of Lords amendments 259 and 260 will enable the Government to designate a trusted flagger, most likely the revenge porn helpline. That will give Government backing to a trusted source of NCII content that can be used by platforms and internet service providers to identify those images. The amendments will also enable the Government to make further provisions, by regulations, on the operation of the register, following a scoping exercise. Those provisions include provision for the Secretary of State to impose requirements on providers to share hashes, and other information deemed necessary, with the register. Hashes, for the benefit of the House, are unique codes used to mark non-consensual intimate images. The scoping exercise will allow us to evaluate the technical requirements, so that we can ensure that the register can be used by victims, platforms and internet service providers to remove or block NCII content. As Lords amendment 260 recognised, proceeding by regulations will enable us to properly evaluate the requirements necessary to ensure that the register operates as effectively as possible.
Turning to two more amendments from Baroness Bertin, Lords amendments 263 and 265, I think we in this place all share her determination to stop the spread of dangerous, demeaning and illegal pornographic content online. On Lords amendment 263, I completely agree that there is a need to curtail the depiction of step-incest pornography, in cases where what it portrays is illegal. The Government’s amendment in lieu will extend the new offence of possession and publication of incest porn to include depictions of step-incest where one of the persons is portrayed as being under 18. Additionally, amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 265 addresses the concerns raised by Lords amendment 265 by criminalising the possession or publication of pornography that depicts an adult credibly role-playing as a child. That makes it clear that content that mimics and risks normalising child sexual abuse will not be tolerated. But we will not stop there. As well as introducing those offences, the Government have committed to producing a delivery plan for how we can close the gap between the regulation of online and offline pornographic content. What is illegal offline should be illegal online.
Lords amendment 264 rightly raises concerns about how we best strengthen safeguards against the sexual exploitation of persons appearing on pornographic websites, an issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft on Report. We agree with the principle and the need to address this issue, but further work is required across Government on considering what the most effective approach would be to strengthening arrangements to ensure that persons appearing in pornographic material are aged 18 and over, and consent to the material being shared online. Government amendments (a) to (f) in lieu of Lords amendment 264 place a duty on the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the outcome of this work within 12 months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent, and introduce a power to make regulations giving effect to that outcome.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for reassuring us that these amendments have a timescale of 12 months. What are the Government doing behind the scenes to progress this work as quickly as possible? Can she outline the work that she has undertaken to ensure that the regulations are introduced within those 12 months?
Sarah Jones
There is a powerful group of Ministers working very hard on that. Not least among them is my colleague in the Home Office, the Minister for Safeguarding, who is leading the wider work on violence against women and girls. There is a whole programme of activity, whether by Ministers or officials, across DSIT, the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice to make sure that we get these things right. They are complex, and they involve Departments working together, stepping up and taking responsibility for this work, which is very much ongoing. We want to get this right; that is why we have set the 12-month timescale. The important thing is not only the outcome of that work, but the power to make regulations, as we will, that give effect to that outcome.
Lords amendment 311, introduced by Lord Walney, seeks to grant a power to the Secretary of State to proscribe organisations deemed to be extreme criminal protest groups. The Government understand the concerns expressed in both Houses about the sustained impact of criminal activity by certain protest groups, and, where such conduct meets the threshold for a proscription order under the Terrorism Act 2000, the Government will act, and have already acted. However, we are not persuaded that the introduction of a proscription-lite regime is necessary or proportionate in instances where that threshold is not met. This view is shared by Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, who recently expressed concerns about the adverse consequences of this amendment for the established proscription regime in the Terrorism Act 2000. I urge hon. Members to read the four-page note that he published online last week.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend will recognise, though, that many of us are concerned about the integrity of the concepts of terrorism and terrorist organisations, and the importance of people’s ability to protest the concept of proscription. Those are two very different things. Does she recognise that concern, and will she look at how we can better delineate those two things, so that people can express their concerns about the concept of proscription and how it is evolving under this Government without facing arrest for wanting to have that conversation?
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend will have debated these issues in this place, and I think there will always be a debate about the right to protest and where we draw a line in this country. I am very happy to have further conversations with her on that wider issue. Jonathan Hall set out in his letter—I can pass it on to my hon. Friend, if she has not seen it—why he does not think that this amendment will work, and that is why we are not persuaded on this occasion. I am, of course, happy to have further conversations with my hon. Friend on this.
Turning to Lords amendment 333, tabled by Baroness Buscombe, I fully agree that the Government, local authorities and law enforcement agencies need to do all they can to tackle money laundering and associated criminality on our streets. The high streets illegality taskforce, announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in her most recent Budget, will examine the use of enforcement powers in this light, including the closure power. It will have a £10 million budget to support its work. While we support the principle of extending the duration of closure orders, we should first consult to avoid any unintended consequences on legitimate businesses or residential premises. Accordingly, amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 333 will enable us, following targeted consultation, to extend the maximum duration of closure orders and, if necessary, to make different provision for commercial and residential properties.
I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn), and for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt), have been campaigning on high street illegality, and will no doubt speak about it later. I want to assure them and others in this place that we know that we need to go further, as we will, not just on this measure, but on the wider challenge of high street illegality. We will be very keen to work with Members in this place on that work.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Despite the current legislation, in Northern Ireland, not only individuals but Sinn Féin Government Ministers engage in acts and make speeches on an almost monthly basis that not only glorify but encourage terrorism, praise those who took place in bomb attacks on police stations and individuals, and, indeed, name play parks after those individuals. Does the Minister accept that the current legislation does not rule out the possibility of people engaging in acts of glorifying terrorism, which not only impacts the people of the past but poisons the minds of young people in the present?
Sarah Jones
I appreciate the challenge that the right hon. Gentleman is raising, and I know that DUP Members of Parliament in particular have raised these concerns before. The challenge here is that Lords amendment 357 would remove the historical safeguard for statements that glorify acts of terrorism committed by proscribed organisations. Our view is that these statements may not necessarily create terrorist risk and may result in the offence capturing legitimate political and social discourse and debate.
I will say two other things to the right hon. Gentleman. First, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Jonathan Hall KC, strongly advised against the removal of the historical safeguard in his review of terrorism legislation following the 7 October attacks in 2023. Secondly, in the light of the concerns that have been raised in the Lords and by Members in this place, the Government will ask the independent reviewer to conduct a more detailed review of the encouragement offence within six months of Royal Assent.
Let me turn to Lords amendment 359. It is a long-standing principle that has been adopted by successive Administrations that the Government do not comment on which organisations are being considered for proscription. Mandating that the Government review whether to proscribe Iranian Government-related organisations would violate this principle and tie the Government’s hands unnecessarily. The Government are already taking decisive action to deter threats from Iran, and we have committed to introducing a new state threats-based proscription tool.
I turn now to Lords amendments 360 and 368 to 372 tabled by Baroness Kidron, which concern chatbots. The Government are clear that we need to act quickly to bring all unregulated AI chatbots within the scope of the Online Safety Act’s requirements on illegal activity. As I mentioned earlier, the Government are seeking to take a regulation-making power to do this, under Lords amendment 367. By taking this power, the Government will be able to remove any ambiguity over whether services like Grok are subject to the Online Safety Act’s provisions to tackle illegal content. This approach also allows us to design regulations that are effective, targeted and informed by necessary consultation with subject matter experts. Amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 372 commits the Government to reporting to Parliament by the end of the year on our progress to develop regulations.
Dame Caroline Dinenage
I don’t mean to bang on about this, but the fact is that the Government’s approach is too narrow. It is focused on taking down illegal content when it should be the responsibility of the company to prevent harms in the first place, rather than to deal with them after the event. We do not design any other sector’s regulation in this way. When designing aircraft, we do not wait until after the plane has crashed to worry about any of the safety features. This should be the same.
During Report stage in the Lords, peers voted overwhelmingly in support of the safety-by-design approach. They also understood that when it comes to the design of something, harm includes building in aspects that are addictive and manipulative, which have been key to some of the very tragic suicides of children who have interacted with AI chatbots. What do the Government have against building safety by design into the very purpose of AI chatbots?
Sarah Jones
The hon. Lady makes her case very clearly, and we can agree that we need to design out those kinds of issues. The challenges are in what we do and how we do it—those are the challenges we had with this particular group of amendments. Obviously there is wider work being done on violence against women and girls and how the Online Safety Act is to be rolled forward, and that work is really important, but we are talking about this particular group of Lords amendments on chatbots and the challenges with them. That is why, through amendment (a) in lieu, we commit to reporting by the end of the year on our progress to develop regulations.
We are clear that regulation is a more effective and proportionate tool than the criminal law for addressing risks from AI chatbots and setting industry best practice. Incorporating currently unregulated chatbots into the scope of the Online Safety Act will ensure that such regulation applies extraterritorially, which is crucial when dealing with international companies.
The Government’s approach is also broader in scope than the content of amendments 360 and 368 to 372. Those amendments would not capture image generators creating non-consensual graphic images of women or online AI chatbot toys such as Gabbo. The Government’s amendment in lieu does capture such services and allows them to be clearly brought under online safety regulations.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee has heard extensive and at times horrific evidence of the harms that AI chatbots can do, such as encouragement to suicide. I welcome Lords amendment 367, which gives the Government the power to amend the Online Safety Act, and I accept that the Government are seeking to reject amendment 368, tabled by the noble Baroness Kidron, to ban chatbots based on their content, but does the Minister accept that the harms of AI chatbots are evident, significant and hugely concerning, and that their regulation is unclear and consistent? Where chatbots are covered by the Online Safety Act, if those chatbots incorporate, for example, search functionality, enforcement is slow and ponderous or non-existent. Will the Minister commit to working with DSIT to take action on AI chatbots before the end of the year?
Sarah Jones
I welcome the work that my hon. Friend’s Committee has done and will continue to do in this space. It is very important that we have good analysis of what the problems are that we need to solve. She is absolutely right that the problems with AI chatbots are evident, significant and concerning, and that more work needs to be done in this space. If there is work that we can do sooner rather than later, I am sure that my colleagues in DSIT will do that, and I commit to working with them to do what we can as quickly as we can.
Finally, hon. Members will recall that on Report, the House decided to disapply the criminal law relating to abortion in respect of women acting in relation to their own pregnancy. Their Lordships agreed amendment 361, which would provide for automatic pardons for women previously convicted or cautioned for an abortion offence in relation to their own pregnancies and for the deletion of certain details from court and police records.
I stress that the Government remain neutral on the substance of clause 191 and Lords amendment 361, but we have a duty to ensure that the law is operationally and legally workable. Accordingly, we have tabled amendments (a) and (e) to Lords amendment 361 to ensure that the deletion of details from relevant official records can operate as intended.
Catherine Fookes
I support Lords amendment 361 because some women, even after being found not guilty, have investigations that show up on their Disclosure and Barring Service checks, which impacts their life and future careers. That is the reality for a young woman named Becca, whose case I raised in the House a year ago. She was investigated at age 19 after giving birth to her son at 28 weeks, and she says that removing the investigation from her records would help her to be able to move on and live a proper family life. Does the Minister agree that this change will help to bring justice for women like Becca?
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the challenge that Becca has faced, and I congratulate her on the work that she has done in bringing that to the House. The Government are neutral on this part of the Bill, as is right and proper. What we seek to do with our amendments is ensure that it is legally workable. That is our role in this space.
I hope that I have demonstrated that we have sought to engage constructively with the non-Government amendments carried in the Lords.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I want to raise the systemic issue of honour-based abuse. The perpetrator is usually not just one person; they are a family, a group or a network of people who believe that an individual has or may bring dishonour or shame to the family or community. My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) has tabled a simple amendment to Lords amendment 300 to insert the word “persons”, which would address the issue. I stand here on behalf of my constituent Fawziyah Javid, who was an incredible woman and member of our community; she was also a victim of domestic homicide and honour-based abuse. My hon. Friend’s amendment shows that honour-based abuse runs deep within communities. I have worked with Karma Nirvana in my constituency on that. Does the Minister agree that honour-based abuse is an issue not just for one person, but for many people, and that that should be acknowledged?
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft, who I suspect will speak to it later. I agree that in many cases honour-based abuse is perpetrated not by a single individual but by an extended family or other group of persons. The challenge we have with the amendment is that the definition in the Bill adopts the usual legislative conventions whereby references to the singular include the plural unless otherwise indicated. Therefore, the statutory definition already applies where abuse is perpetrated by more than one person. However, we do want to develop the statutory guidance so that that is completely clear for everybody.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend will remember our discussion, and I hope that she can help me. Lord Macdonald of River Glaven KC was appointed to lead an independent review of laws on public order and hate crime. The review was also to consider the laws around protest, and we were hopeful that we would have that. I am not aware that the review has concluded, so perhaps my hon. Friend can tell us. If it has not concluded, why are we legislating before that?
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend, who I know feels strongly about this issue, as do many others—I very much respect that position. I met him a few months ago, when the review had just started. The review has yet to conclude, but it will do so in the coming months. The work that Lord Macdonald is undertaking is quite substantial, and I know, having received updates on what he is doing and who he is talking to, that it is wide and is taking a bit longer than expected, but that is in order to get it right.
My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) will know that the cumulative disruption amendment was announced by the Home Secretary after the Heaton Park attack. Perhaps we will come to this more in closing the debate, but I think there is a lack of understanding in some quarters—I do not mean my hon. Friend—about the nature of that amendment. To be clear, sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 empower senior police officers to impose conditions on processions and on public assemblies respectively. They can impose conditions only under certain criteria to prevent serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption. We are not changing sections 12 or 14. At the moment, the police can consider cumulative disruption when looking at whether a protest should have conditions imposed on it.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for her response to my letter on cumulative disruption, signed by 50 MPs, which would give the police powers to limit strikes and industrial action. Your letter states:
“I have no desire to infringe on—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I am on my feet, so please be seated. “Your letter states”? I do not think I have corresponded with the hon. Member. Continue.
Kim Johnson
Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Does the Minister accept that there is a danger that a future Government might be less benevolent towards workers’ struggles and could exploit those powers? Will she please explain to the House why we have not been given the right to debate, discuss and vote on amendment 312?
Sarah Jones
Let me just finish explaining what we are doing and then I will come on to picketing.
If there is a risk of serious public disorder, senior police officers can impose conditions. At the moment, they can consider cumulative disruption as one of the aspects they take into account when deciding whether to impose conditions. To be clear, imposing conditions means things like moving where a march is going, limiting the hours that it can work under or limiting the number of people. They can already take into account cumulative disruption, but we are changing that so that they must take that into account—they must think about it. That does not change the guardrails of sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act; it just says that at the moment they can consider cumulative disruption, but in future they will consider it. That is the amendment.
On this Government’s belief in the right to strike and to protest, of course that is sacrosanct and nothing has changed in our view on that. We do not believe that this legislation will stop the right to picket. I know that lots of Members will have views on that and will not be satisfied, but we will always defend the right to strike, and we have absolutely no desire to infringe lawful picketing at all.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Is the Minister aware of the deep alarm, both on the Back Benches and outside Parliament, at what amounts to a further draconian attack by the Government on the right to peaceful protest, which is a civil liberty, and about the fact that the Government are trying to push the measure through without a proper vote for MPs, as they did when they made the huge error of proscribing Palestine Action?
Sarah Jones
I do not agree with my hon. Friend. This was announced by the Home Secretary after the Heaton Park attack, when lots of protests took place immediately after the attack. The cumulative disruption and the impact that had was there for all to see. We have no desire to reduce people’s right to protest, and nor would we ever. There is a lot of misinformation about this change in the law, implying that we are in some way increasing the bans on protest. To be clear, the rules on banning protests are very strong, and bans can be introduced only in very significant circumstances. Indeed, we have no rules to ban assembly, so the idea that we are banning protest is just wrong.
We are responding to communities who have recently been feeling the pain of repeated protests, sometimes outside faith organisations—synagogues, in particular. In those cases, we believe that the police should look at the impact of cumulative disruption when they, and not the Government, are deciding whether to impose conditions on those marches.
Ms Creasy
Many of us recognise the picture of pain that the Minister is painting, especially following the terrorist attack, but good legislation requires debate, scrutiny and specification. One of the concerns that many of us have is the lack of definition of “cumulative”. Will she set out now, on the record, what the Government intend by the concept of “cumulative”, so that people can understand how this proposed test would be met?
Sarah Jones
I am pleased that we are debating this issue today, which is what we should be doing here, and I am sure that hon. Members will be talking about it more in the several hours that we have to debate these issues. This already exists in law, in that the police are able to look at cumulative disruption when considering whether to impose conditions. We are not redefining “cumulative” at all, or changing the parameters of sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act; we are simply saying that when the police are looking at whether to impose conditions, they must look—rather than they can look—at cumulative disruption. That is a small change that will make a big difference to people who are currently scared and intimidated by persistent protests, outside mosques and Jewish places of worship in particular.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I should conclude. I hope that I have demonstrated that we have sought to engage constructively. As I have said, I urge the House to support all the changes that we are suggesting together today with the Government amendments brought from the Lords.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
I thank colleagues in the other place for the work that they have done on strengthening this Bill. The changes made there go some way towards what we should all be aiming for: safer communities, stronger laws and real protections for the public. In Committee, we saw the Government repeatedly reject important amendments from Opposition Members, on fly-tipping, pornography and increasing sentences for knife crime. The Bill could also have provided a real opportunity to tackle the scourge of off-road bikes, to support this country’s tradesmen with real action on tool theft, and to remove yet more knives from our streets by increasing stop and search. Although the Government failed to take up some of those opportunities, I am delighted to see that they have U-turned on some of the measures that Labour MPs previously voted against. That might be a familiar pattern, but it is still right to welcome the fact that they have recognised the value of some of those proposals.
On fly-tipping, for example, giving courts the power to issue penalty points to offenders is a straightforward, common-sense step. If someone uses a vehicle to dump waste and blight our communities, it is entirely right that their ability to drive should be affected. Likewise, even though I would have liked the Government to accept the more significant penalty proposed in Lords amendment 15, it is a welcome step that they have recognised the seriousness of the crime when there is an additional element of intent to use unlawful violence, which rightly should have a greater penalty when compared with possession-only offences. It is right that these measures have progressed, even though a great deal of unfortunate wrangling and rejection occurred before they were incorporated into the Bill.
On that note, I will turn to the proposals that the Government have chosen not to accept from our colleagues across the way. I ask Members of this House to give serious consideration to measures that enhance the powers of the police forces and improve their ability to keep our communities safe. For instance, as I have mentioned, Members do not need to be reminded of the scourge of fly-tipping, as we all recognise the adverse impact it can have on our neighbourhoods. On Sunday I saw an appalling incident in my constituency. A huge volume of waste had been dumped near Sadberge, with appalling consequences for our environment, for wildlife and for anybody who wants to enjoy the countryside.
Amendment 6 would ensure that the guidance issued on the enforcement of offences under section 33 makes it clear that, when a person is convicted of a relevant offence, they will be liable for the costs incurred through loss or damage resulting from that offence. As the Government are already setting out guidance in the legislation, why would they not ensure that this guidance was unequivocal that when a person is convicted of fly-tipping, they—not the victims—are responsible for the costs incurred as a result of their offence? Furthermore, amendment 11 would further enable the police to seize vehicles.
Sammy Wilson
The hon. Member makes an important point. Given the role of criminal organisations in fly-tipping, the costs can be in the hundreds of thousands of pounds to landowners, who are the innocent victims of this crime. If the Government are serious about dealing with fly-tipping, they have to ensure that the sanctions are a deterrent.
Matt Vickers
I could not agree more. We see a selfish and mindless small minority of people who incur huge costs that fall on taxpayers across the country and do huge damage to our communities. It is right that the sanctions should match that. On an issue where there is universal acceptance of the need to do more, we should ensure that there are no unnecessary restrictions on our authorities in cracking down on these offences.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Fly-tipping is very important, but can I refer my hon. Friend to a matter of life and death? As a result of Lords amendment 361 and the amendments to it, somebody who illegally procures a late-term abortion will receive a free pardon. I refer my hon. Friend to Mr Justice Cooke, who said in the Sarah Catt case that Catt had robbed the baby of the life it was about to have and that the seriousness of the crime lay between manslaughter and murder. At sentencing, the judge told Catt that she clearly thought the man with whom she was having an affair was the father and she had shown no remorse. Is it not a terrible indictment of our society that a human life can be taken when it is about to be born, at 39 weeks, and that there should be a free pardon in such a serious case?
Matt Vickers
I share my right hon. Friend’s concerns—I think many people across the country share them—not only about the issue, however strongly people might feel about it, but about the way that it was added to this Bill after Committee stage, meaning that some of the scrutiny that might otherwise have happened did not, and no evidence on it was given at the evidence sessions. It was slipped into the Bill, and I do not think that there was adequate scrutiny of it. Lots of people across the country share that concern. Such a seismic change in the relationship between the state and individuals should have had more scrutiny in this place.
On fly-tipping, I believe that removing the instrument of this crime is an effective tool, and it could extend beyond the legislative framework set out by the Government in the waste crime action plan.
However, the measures brought forward in the other place are not limited merely to the issue of fly-tipping. There are important proposals relating to non-crime hate incidents. In Lords amendment 334, colleagues in the other place wisely took the step of ending the investigation and recording of non-crime hate incidents and ensuring that any future incident recording guidance has
“due regard to the right to freedom of expression.”
That is a sensible, necessary measure, as the Government’s proposal appears to be a rebranding of the existing scheme with a more restrictive triage system. Reports would still be logged, personal data would still be recorded and disclosure rules would remain unchanged. Officers and staff would still be tied up monitoring incidents that do not meet the criminal threshold at a cost of time and resources. As Lord Hogan-Howe told the Lords,
“we need to move on from the recording of non-crime hate incidents by removing them altogether from police systems.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 January 2026; Vol. 852, c. 173.]
I am afraid that unless we agree to the amendment, we risk returning to this issue in the future. It is estimated that 660 hours of police time have been spent on non-crime hate incidents. We can change that and see that time invested back into policing our communities.
On antisocial behaviour and illicit retailers, we hear repeatedly from businesses and local communities about rogue premises causing persistent problems on our high streets. If we are serious about supporting the police to do their job, we must ensure that they have the powers they need to tackle not just crime but the wider public nuisance and disorder that too often accompany it.
A range of organisations, including the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, have been clear that stronger powers are needed to deal with rogue retailers. While the current legal framework does provide tools, in practice they are too often insufficient. The time limits attached to closure notices and orders simply do not go far enough. Instead, we see a revolving door: offenders wait out short closure periods, reopen under a different name and continue their activities, sometimes shifting location before enforcement agencies have the chance to complete proper investigations. That is the crux of the problem: the system does not enable action that sticks.
In the meantime, the impact is clear. Our high streets suffer as legitimate businesses lose trade, confidence declines, and responsible retailers who follow the rules and invest in their communities are left competing against those who operate with impunity. There is also a wider impact on our communities, particularly on young people. Premises linked to that kind of activity can become focal points for antisocial behaviour, drawing in vulnerable individuals and exposing them to harm. If we want safer streets and stronger communities, we cannot allow that cycle to continue. Lords amendment 333 offers a practical solution: it would extend the timeframe for enforcement, giving agencies the ability to take action that is thorough, proportionate and, crucially, effective. It is about ensuring that when action is taken, it delivers real results, not just temporary disruption.
To uphold public safety, we must update the law to reflect the current nature of the crimes our society faces. Lords amendment 311 reflects the worrying growth in the number of protest groups that engage in serious criminal activity to further their aims. However, being organisations, they are often shielded from the full force of the law, as was set out in the other House. The designation in the amendment is not terrorist proscription. It aims to restrict membership, promotion, fundraising, organising and material support, with proportionate penalties that are less significant than those that proscribed terrorist groups attract. Although I understand that the Government believe the proposal to be premature given their ongoing review, they have acted for understandable reasons on cumulative disruption. Why should that not be extended to this provision to ensure that there are restrictions on organisations whose purpose is to break the law?
On extreme ideologies, the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Foreign Secretary have been clear that the Conservative party would work with the Government to proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. It is apparent to many Members across the House, and to our counterparts in the EU, that the threat posed by the IRGC is real. However, despite their comments in opposition, the Government have not introduced such measures.
Andy McDonald
The hon. Gentleman is talking about the proscription of the IRGC. Will he explain to the House why the Tory party did not do that in their 14 years in government?
Matt Vickers
The then Opposition told us that they had really strong views about it. They are now in government but are not doing anything about it. The hon. Gentleman need not worry about another day or another week; he has the opportunity today to set the process in motion by voting for Lords amendment 359. It is not enough that Iran is covered by the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme—we must go further. The IRGC is not a theoretical concern. As my colleagues have repeatedly stressed to the Government, it has threatened those in our country and supported armed groups that have killed British and allied troops.
We welcome the Government’s adoption of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) and supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) to address the depiction of strangulation in pornography. I understand that, through discussions with Baroness Bertin on related subjects, the Government have undertaken to separately progress further measures to tackle pornography featuring 18-plus step-incest—in which one party is the family member of another—and the mimicking of children aged 16-plus, as well as on age verification in pornography. I would be grateful if the Minister clarified those matters further.
I put on record my party’s opposition to Lords amendment 301, which unnecessarily expands the definition of “aggravated offences” to include certain characteristics, even though existing law already covers most of those factors at sentencing, and provides extensive hate crime protections. The change has been introduced late in the legislative process, with minimal scrutiny, raising concerns about transparency. The Law Commission has warned in expert advice that including sex as a protected characteristic in that setting could be ineffective and even counterproductive, as it may complicate prosecutions and create hierarchies of victims. Overall, the amendment appears more symbolic than practical, adding complexity without clear benefit to crime reduction.
The Government have before them amendments that would strengthen our legal system and better protect the public and the police, but we cannot ignore the reality on the ground. Officer numbers have fallen while demand continues to rise, and the Bill will add to that pressure. That is why it matters that, when the police act, they can use the full weight of the law. Without the right powers, higher expectations mean little. Where disorder takes hold, it damages communities and undermines confidence, as we have seen in places like Clapham common.
While parts of the Bill are welcome, there are still gaps. The Lords amendments to which I have spoken would strengthen enforcement and support officers. If we are serious about safer streets, removing them risks falling short of what the public expect.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I rise to speak in support of Lords amendment 361 and Government amendments to it. I was horrified to learn of the increasing number of cases in recent years of women facing criminal investigations and prosecutions on suspicion of illegal abortion offences. The abject cruelty that more than 100 desperate women have been forced to endure under a 165-year-old law is barbaric and completely unnecessary. That is why I tabled an amendment to the Bill last year to stop this, which was emphatically supported in this Chamber in June. The House of Lords recently supported that change as well. As a Parliament, we took that decision because we listened to the advice of professionals and the evidence gathered over a long period of time from a number of places and we chose to stand up for women.
Alongside the women affected, I am very pleased that once the Bill becomes law, no more women in England and Wales will be subject to the threat of criminal prosecution on suspicion of ending their own pregnancy, but I would welcome clarification from the Minister regarding current investigations. Parliament has been resoundingly clear in its support for removing women from the criminal law related to abortion. Can the Minister confirm that once the Bill becomes law, the expectation is that all current investigations and prosecutions under these offences should be dropped? I would welcome a commitment that she will write to write to police forces in England and Wales, because they clearly have not been listening to the will of Parliament—we are aware of at least three further women having been investigated for ending their own pregnancies since the Commons vote in June.
As well as firmly supporting the decriminalisation of women in cases of abortion, the House of Lords passed an amendment to protect the women already harmed by these outdated laws. I pay tribute to Baroness Thornton, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Baroness Watkins of Tavistock and Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer for tabling this cross-party amendment. Lords amendment 361 and the Government amendments to it would pardon women found guilty of ending their own pregnancy and expunge the records of investigations, arrests and charges of women under abortion law, whether or not they were found guilty.
That is important. Current law means that abortion offences are classed as serious and violent crimes, so even without a conviction, the fact that a woman has been arrested and interviewed under these offences remains on her Disclosure and Barring Service check for life. That actively harms her job prospects and ability to travel to certain jurisdictions, and it leaves her with a permanent record on police computer systems or, in the case of conviction, a permanent criminal record that she ended her own pregnancy outside the law. Colleagues will remember that the women forced to endure criminal investigations under these offences are overwhelmingly already vulnerable, and are often victims of acute abuse and exploitation. The retention of these convictions and records causes them ongoing harm under a law that Parliament has been clear has no place in modern society.
This includes women whose experiences I spoke of in my speech in this place last year—women like Nicola Packer, who, after experiencing complications in her abortion treatment, was arrested and held for 36 hours in custody, and endured nearly five years of investigation and prosecution. She was found not guilty at trial, but the investigation, arrest and charge remain on her record. It includes women like Laura, a young mother and university student who was criminalised for an abortion using illicit medication forced on her by an abusive partner. She was in a physically, sexually and emotionally abusive relationship, and her partner told her not to go to a doctor. When she was arrested, he threatened to kill her if she told anyone he was involved. She was jailed for two years, and this conviction remains on her criminal record.
Women who have faced investigation or conviction should not have to continue living with the consequences of this outdated legislation—laws that Parliament has finally and rightly decided should no longer apply to women. That is why clause 361 is so needed. While remaining neutral on the issue, the Government have made changes to clause 361 to ensure workability, and I emphatically support them. They take a similar approach to the changes introduced by the Bill for pardons for convictions and cautions for loitering or soliciting when under 18.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
As the Liberal Democrats made clear at earlier stages, there are parts of the Bill that we can support and parts that we strongly oppose. We welcome a number of the new measures brought forward today. None the less, it is a pity that the Government have overlooked opportunities to take action in some crucial areas, from cracking down on rural crime to supporting a real return to proper neighbourhood policing.
In addition, we are deeply disturbed by the use of the Bill to further erode the protest rights of British people. These are hard-won freedoms that were won by the suffragettes, trade unionists and others over many years, but the previous Government and this one are recklessly taking them away for short-term political expedience, so we strongly oppose those measures. That is happening not just because of the measures in the Bill before us today; it is happening regularly under this Government. We must all consider that at some length in this House.
However, I am pleased that the House will today consider two amendments tabled by Liberal Democrats in the other place. Amendment 2 will ensure that private companies are not incentivised to issue as many fixed penalty notices as possible, so more serious antisocial behaviour is prioritised instead. The Government’s amendment in lieu does not go far enough. It substitutes the clear ban on fining for profit with non- statutory guidance. We must remove this perverse incentive with a ban, not guidance that will inevitably be open to challenge.
Amendment 342, another Liberal Democrat amendment tabled in the other place, will change how youth diversion orders are issued, ensuring courts are given a full account of any alternative interventions that have been tried or considered, why those interventions failed and what consultation took place with the child, as well as relevant agencies. Multi-agency input will help courts better understand why other interventions have failed, leading to higher success rates and time efficiency. Crucially, this amendment will mean better outcomes for young people who would otherwise become embroiled in terrorist activity. We call on Members from across the House to support these measures.
The Liberal Democrats are also supporting several other amendments. We support Government amendments 1 and 4 regarding respect orders, which were concessions secured by our Liberal Democrat colleague Lord Clement-Jones. Respect orders will grant police extended powers to tackle antisocial behaviour, with police chiefs given the power to issue orders without oversight. Lords amendments 1 and 4 require the Secretary of State to make appropriate consultations before issuing or revising those orders.
We are backing several further measures that take action on violence against women and girls. We support Lords amendment 294, a concession thanks to the work of our Liberal Democrat colleague Baroness Brinton, which would replace the power to issue stalking guidance by the Secretary of State with a duty to do so. That follows similar provisions in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which places a duty on the Secretary of State to issue guidance.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
There was a discussion earlier about the register of non-consensual intimate images, which is set out in Lords amendment 259. I want to share with the House the experience of one of my constituents, who was subject to the creation of a non-consensual abuse image by her husband while unconscious, having been the victim of spiking. Zoe Watts has chosen very bravely to speak with the media to help to secure legal change and public education, and she points out that there is a disturbing rise in pornography that depicts sex with somebody who is sleeping. Does my hon. Friend share my view that the depiction of non-consensual intimacy in sleep can encourage spiking and sexual abuse and should be banned?
Max Wilkinson
Zoe’s case goes to show that we need to go so much further to protect women, and the depiction of that kind of activity clearly might provoke unintended consequences that none of us in this House want to see. Spiking remains a big problem on high streets and in pubs and bars up and down this country.
With a view to strengthening online protections, we will support Lords amendments 258 and 259, relating to the non-consensual generation and sharing of intimate images. It is crucial that the law catches up to the reality of abuse being faced by women like Zoe every day. We will support Lords amendment 301 to extend the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to include protections against hostility motivated by a range of characteristics, including sex and disability. The Liberal Democrats will support Conservative Lords amendment 15, which would increase the maximum penalty for possession of a weapon with intent to use unlawful violence against another person to 10 years, in line with the recommendations from Jonathan Hall KC.
To effectively tackle criminal gangs, we must ensure that the legal system can effectively cut off their revenue sources. The current closure notice periods for shops selling counterfeit goods are too short, and criminal gangs are too often able to survive the economic hit, impacting the prosperity of our high streets. That is why we support Lords amendment 333, which would extent the period in which the police and the magistrates courts may make closure notices to seven days and closure orders to 12 months.
We are supportive of the suggestion in Lords amendment 311, proposed by Cross-Bench peers, that an alternative is needed to proscription. That has been made particularly clear by what has happened with Palestine Action. However, we are cautious about voting for such a change while the outcomes of the independent review of public order and hate crime legislation are not yet known.
Finally, Liberal Democrats are vehemently opposed to the Government’s Lords amendment to give the police unprecedented powers to further restrict the right to protest. That follows a pattern started by the previous Conservative Government, who hacked away again and again at the historical right to protest enjoyed by British people. It is an absolute travesty that that has carried on under Labour. The right to protest is a vital component of our democracy, and Liberal Democrats will fight to defend it.
I urge Members on all sides of the House to put aside their personal feelings about certain ongoing protests and seriously consider what the consequences of this change would mean for our right to challenge those who exercise power over us. Members on the Government Benches might be content with that approach while they are in charge, but Labour MPs must ask what might happen under a future Government who might not adhere to liberal democratic principles.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
The right to protest is a basic democratic freedom that was won over centuries of British history. It is not a right that was granted, but one that was hard-won by suffragettes, trade unionists, anti-fascists and many others. Today we are focusing only on the Lords amendments, but I place on record that this Bill is a serious and substantial assault on our democratic freedoms. Indeed, before the Bill was introduced to this House, the Policing and Crime Act 2017, the Public Order Act 2023, and many other anti-protest Bills passed under the last Government had already expanded police powers. Those Bills were widely criticised by legal experts and civil society organisations and faced widespread opposition from Members from across the House. This makes the shambolic process by which these proposals have been brought before the House even more disturbing.
The Bill proposes giving the police even more powers, including to decide where, when, and even whether a protest takes place. At this very late stage, the other place has now proposed amendment 312, which could lead to protests being not just restricted, but banned outright. That should alarm anyone who cares about democracy, because it should not need pointing out that the whole point of protests is that they are supposed to have a cumulative impact. Should the suffragettes or the Chartists have given up after just one attempt? The UN’s special rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association has recently outlined how far out of step this extraordinary expansion of state power is with international norms.
This Bill and Lords amendment 312 exist in the context of one of the largest and most sustained protest movements in modern British political history. The Home Secretary has not obscured the fact that these proposals are a direct response to the demonstrations for Palestine. Indeed, I have been proud to protest alongside hundreds and thousands of constituents in over 30 major national demonstrations demanding an end to the genocide in Gaza—collective actions to stand up for humanity in the face of the gravest acts of inhumanity. In this context, it is absurd that under these proposals, holding repeated protests could justify far-reaching restrictions and even outright bans.
Where does this lead? Trade unions are asking whether picketing during an industrial dispute would make them vulnerable to heavy-handed interventions. I understand that the Government are supporting Lords amendment 312; I oppose it entirely, and will instead be supporting a motion in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) to disagree with amendment 312. This assault on the right to protest could lead us down an extremely worrying path, where Governments can become totalitarian and are able to silence whomever they choose.
British democracy has been defined by dissent, and social progression has been achieved by diverse groups mobilising for women’s rights, for LGBTQ+ equality, for workers’ rights, and for solidarity across those causes. I reiterate my opposition to clauses 156 and 158, which deal with wearing or using items to conceal identity at protests. There has not been a fundamental assessment or full clarity about how making
“wearing or otherwise using an item that conceals”
a person’s
“identity or another person’s identity”
an offence, as the Bill states, will work in practice. For example, how will it work for Muslim women who observe hijab or niqab? I understand that a defence has been worked in for those concealing their identity at protests for religious purposes, but it is a defence in law, to be proven only after an arrest and during onerous court proceedings. These clauses will only extend the ways in which black, Asian and minority ethnic individuals are over-represented at every stage of the criminal justice system.
If we believe in democratic values, we must defend the space for protest—loudly and with determination—against attempts to shrink it further. At a time when public trust in political institutions is already incredibly fragile, the Government’s decision to weaken one of the few tools people have to hold power to account is, in my view, irresponsible. This Bill draws another line in the sand between those who benefit from the political establishment and those who wish to challenge it. I am with the protesters, who have my solidarity, because I know which side of history I want to be on.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I rise today to speak to the Lords amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill. I have spoken previously on this piece of legislation, but today I want to focus specifically on Lords amendments 6, 10 and 11, and urge Ministers to accept them. They are on topics on which we Opposition Members have been pushing for action: fly-tipping and littering. Those issues come up in not just my inbox, but the inboxes of Members from all parts of this House, and they affect our residents day in, day out. For those of us in the west midlands, on the edge of Birmingham, where there are bin strikes, thanks to the Labour-run council, fly-tipping is an even greater scourge these days. As I say, this is not the first time I have spoken on these topics; I spoke about them on Second Reading, too.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
In rural areas, farmers are often blighted, and end up landed with the costs of significant, often industrial and criminal fly-tipping. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is deeply unfair, and that the Government should accept the amendments, which would help take the burden away from the victims of these crimes?
Wendy Morton
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. So often when I travel around the constituency, I see gateways where people have fly-tipped, and I have seen piles of fridges and mattresses. It is industrial fly-tipping, and it is disgraceful and disgusting.
Fly-tipping costs around £1 billion to deal with each year. That is £1 billion that could be going to other things, rather than being wasted on clearing up people’s mess. I see that in my constituency, but I want to acknowledge the brilliant work done by so many local volunteer groups to tackle the blight on our doorsteps. I also acknowledge the work of Conservative-run Walsall council, which has taken a zero-tolerance approach, investing in enforcement, expanding CCTV, issuing fines and working with the police to seize vehicles linked to fly-tipping.
Sammy Wilson
Does the right hon. Lady accept that in many instances, action is not taken because of the fear of violence? Much of this tipping is done by criminal gangs, who will stop at nothing because it is a very profitable industry. Organisations such as the Environment Agency, and even sometimes local councils and the police, do not take the action that is required, leading to the accumulation of huge amounts of waste.
Wendy Morton
The right hon. Gentleman is so right. People might ask why I, as a Member of Parliament, am talking about something as simple as litter and fly-tipping, but this criminal activity is costing the taxpayer, costing wildlife and costing our communities. We need strong action—on enforcement and deterrence—to stop this scourge. Walsall, as I have explained, is treating fly-tipping as the crime that it is. The council is gathering evidence and prosecuting offenders, and then the fines can be reinvested in enforcement. All of that together sends a clear message that if people treat our streets as a litter bin, there will be consequences.
That is why I recommend, push, promote and welcome the amendments that would give penalty points to those convicted of fly-tipping offences. We must be clear that if someone uses a vehicle to commit this crime, there will be real consequences. Amendments that would allow vehicles to be seized are a welcome further measure. If we remove the means by which this crime is committed, we strike at the heart of the problem. It is no longer enough to tinker around the edges; we need strong action. Enforcement is key, but so is deterrence. That is why I have long argued for stronger action on littering from vehicles, including putting penalty points on people’s driving licences. If people know that there are real consequences, behaviour will change, because ultimately this is about respect—respect for our communities, for our environment, and for the people who take pride in the place where they live. They are the people who make this country a great place to live, and for their sakes, I urge the Minister to listen, to engage, to take action, and to strengthen the Bill, so that actions once again have real consequences.
Let me end with a slogan from Keep Britain Tidy, which some Members may remember: “Don’t be a Tosser”. I say to the Government: don’t toss this matter to one side. Take some firm action, please.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Let us make sure that language is always parliamentary. I call Andy McDonald.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
Follow that, indeed!
Let me begin by making it clear that I welcome the Bill and the many measures that the Government have introduced. There is much here that will strengthen policing, protect communities, and respond to genuine public concern about crime and safety. However, Lords amendment 312 causes me real concern, because protest is not some peripheral irritation in our democracy. It is not an inconvenience to be managed. It is, in truth, part of the lifeblood of the labour movement, and of every movement that has ever expanded rights, protections or dignity in this country. From the earliest trade unionists to the Chartists to those who organised in the streets when they had no voice in this Chamber, progress in this country has never been handed down; it has been demanded, organised, and often disrupted into being—yes, disrupted. Protest exists precisely because Governments of the day, of all political colours, have too often sought to restrict the expression of public opinion when it has become uncomfortable. We should be honest about that.
Public organising—protest—is how people express their view, but expressing a view is not the same as being heard, and it is certainly not the same as achieving change. Change comes when that expression is repeated, sustained, and cumulative—when it builds pressure over time until it cannot be ignored. That was as true for the suffragettes as it was for those in the anti-apartheid movement. Neither succeeded because they protested once, politely, and then went home. They succeeded because disruption accumulated, because pressure mounted, and because their cause could not be quietly set aside. That is the democratic tradition we inherit, and it is one that we should be extremely cautious about constraining—which brings me to Lords amendment 312.
Whatever its intentions, the amendment represents a continuation of, not a departure from, a trajectory set by the last Government. We have in recent years seen a steady expansion of public order powers, through the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and the Public Order Act 2023. At each stage, concerns were raised—by Members on both sides of the House, by those in the other place and by civil liberties organisations—that the balance between public order and the right to protest was being tilted too far, and we are now being asked to accept a further step in that same direction.
It was not so many weeks ago that Gina Romero, the United Nations special rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, was in this Parliament, expressing horror about the fact that the United Kingdom Government were at the leading edge of these provisions. The rest of the world is looking. Other countries are waiting to see how this plays out in our country, because they intend to copy and paste and do the self-same thing in their jurisdictions. It is perhaps fortunate that Viktor Orbán has gone, because I am pretty convinced that he would be looking to these measures, among others.
Lords amendment 312 does something very specific: it revives, in substance, provisions that were previously rejected. Hon. Members will recall that during the passage of the Public Order Act 2023, the then Government sought, through Lords amendments 48 and 49, to require the police to take account of cumulative disruption when imposing conditions on protests under sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986. Those provisions were defeated in the House of Lords, with opposition from Labour, Liberal Democrat and Cross-Bench peers, yet even before the ink was dry on those proceedings and the 2023 Act had received Royal Assent, the then Government sought to achieve the same outcome through secondary legislation: the Public Order Act 1986 (Serious Disruption to the Life of the Community) Regulations 2023. Those regulations did three things of note: they lowered the threshold of disruption to “more than minor”, introduced the concept of “cumulative disruption”, and expanded police discretion to consider multiple events collectively.
And what happened? The regulations were quashed by the courts in the National Council for Civil Liberties v. the Secretary of State for the Home Department in 2023. They were quashed because the process by which they were brought forward was found to be unlawful. To be fair, the Government have learned from that episode, and Lords amendment 312 is more cautious. It embeds the concept of cumulative disruption in primary legislation, and avoids reopening the broader and highly contentious definition of “serious disruption”, reflecting an incremental approach shaped by judicial intervention and parliamentary resistance. I recognise that, but recognising that the drafting is more careful does not answer the central question: should we be doing this at all? We are being asked to take a concept that was rejected in this House and the other place, and which was unsuccessfully imposed through regulations that were struck down by the courts, and to reintroduce it. It is more carefully packaged but substantively similar.
There is a second concern, which is about the process, because this measure has not come to us in the ordinary way. It has not been introduced as a Government clause in this House, which would make it subject to full debate, amendment and Division; it has been inserted by the Lords. I say gently but firmly that that mirrors the approach that many of us criticised when it was adopted by the previous Government. If we believe that something is important enough to legislate on—particularly something that touches on fundamental rights—it is important enough to be properly scrutinised in this Chamber.
In considering the proposals, we should reflect on very recent events. It has been reported that in the case involving Ben Jamal and Chris Nineham, which I understand is now subject to appeal, the defence argued that at the protest in question, the police relied on powers relating to cumulative disruption that were derived from the 2023 regulations, which were later quashed by the Court of Appeal in the National Council for Civil Liberties v. the Secretary of State for the Home Department. If that account is borne out, it raises serious questions. It means that even without a clear statutory footing, such expansive interpretations are already influencing operational decisions, which underlines the risk that legislating for cumulative disruption may not clarify the law, but instead entrench uncertainty and overreach at the expense of the right to protest.
I say to Ministers that much in this Bill commands support, and there is no need to jeopardise that support by attaching to it a measure that raises serious civil liberties concerns and has not been properly tested in this House. The Government should withdraw Lords amendment 312. If they do not, Members should be clear that this is not a minor or technical issue to be nodded through. It may require the House to divide—if necessary, on a roll-up motion at the end of the proceedings—to ensure that our view is properly recorded and we defend the civil liberties that generations have so proudly fought for.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I rise to speak mainly about Lords amendment 333 on illegal trading, but I share the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) and the hon. Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) about the illiberal nature of the crackdown on protests. I never thought I would be entering into a world in which old ladies sitting down in protest would in effect be proscribed as terrorists. We are moving into some kind of Kafkaesque world, and the provisions of this Bill worry me in the same way. However, as I wish to focus on illegal trading, that is what I will do.
I and the Liberal Democrats support Lords amendment 333, which would extend the length of closure notices. We campaigned during the general election for a return to proper community policing and to safer high streets and town centres, and ending the scourge of illegal trading must be part of that. Extending the period over which closure notices may be served by police inspectors or local authority chief executives under section 77 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 to seven days, as set out in Lords amendment 333, would be a move in the right direction. I therefore oppose the Government’s motion to strike out that amendment.
Thanks to local publicans in my Taunton constituency who came forward with vital information, I raised illegal trading in Taunton with Somerset council and the local police about a year ago. I would like to pay tribute to police officers like Andy, the trading standards officers and my Lib Dem Somerset councillor colleagues, such as Mike Rigby, overseeing the work that has led to a number of really high-profile closures. Taunton Market, Mr Taunton and Top Market have rightly been closed down, following just the kind of crackdown that was needed. I have a message for anyone else considering that kind of activity in Taunton and Wellington: “Illegal trading isn’t welcome, you will be closed down and you will be prosecuted.”
We need to go further, though. The Chartered Trading Standards Institute has pointed out that we need properly resourced trading standards services, which means tackling the local government funding crisis, particularly the social care funding crisis that is the main burden under which councils are struggling.
Somerset councillors to whom I have spoken about this also want civil penalties against landlords who knowingly let their premises be used for illegal trading, and that has also raised by the Chartered Trading Standards Institute. Those fines should be given to the council both to support trading standards work and to clean up the town centre environment. I believe that repeat offenders among landlords should forfeit their retail property to the council to allow its reuse or regeneration. Behind too many illegal shops are complicit landlords cashing in on the rent from illegal activity, and right now they face no consequences at all.
As well as supporting Lords amendment 333, the main change I am pressing for, following my visit with police officers around Taunton, is to address their frustration with the reality of tackling illegal sales at one end of the counter while trading continues at the other end of the counter in the shops they are tackling. I understand why the law requires that any closure notice must be followed up, under section 80 of the 2014 Act, with an application to the courts for a closure order. Frankly, however, that requirement is a hugely onerous demand on the time of hard-pressed officers, which too often discourages closure notices being served when they are needed.
I am therefore pressing for section 80 to be amended so that closure notices could be served on the authority of a superintendent or local authority chief executive and be effective for up to 14 days, but, crucially, without the requirement to apply to the courts. To ensure a just approach to retailers, exercising such a power would have to be dependent on evidence of unlawful or illegal trading, such as the sale of stolen goods. The Association of Convenience Stores found that 25% of retailers identified stolen goods being sold locally in their areas, including the under-age sale of alcohol, tobacco, vapes or counterfeit goods, such as cigarettes. Enabling a rapid response of this kind would also help to tackle phoenixing, whereby new ventures open a new company just a few doors down from their closed premises.
I am delighted at the action taken locally in Taunton. I support Lords amendment 333 and I do not really understand why the Government oppose it. Action could be taken and they should take it. Councils and police are too often operating with one hand tied behind their backs. There should be immediate closure where that is needed. Town centre businesses in Taunton and Wellington should not be forced to compete with criminal activity, and I will continue to push the case for stronger powers to stamp that out.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
I would like to recognise the work the Government have already undertaken to improve our high streets, including measures announced in the Budget last year: the taskforce to tackle organised crime groups; additional funding made available to trading standards, customs and excise, and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs; and support for community policing, ensuring that there is a community police officer in every neighbourhood across the country. Those are all welcome and important, and it is right that we acknowledge that context in which this debate sits. I would also like to congratulate the Minister for Policing and Crime. She works incredibly hard. Today, she is working a double shift and we appreciate it.
I rise to speak to Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 333, which sought to extend closure orders to 12 months. That has been the subject of some discussion today. I appreciate that the Government understand and recognise the importance and necessity of closure orders, to the point that they have tabled this amendment in lieu. I have to say to the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) that I do not see that as the Government opposing, but rather nudging gently towards the right direction. They are acknowledging the need for closure orders, while recognising the sensitivity that comes with them: the impact they can have in residential areas—this is not just about commercial premises—and on our high streets. In particular, I think about the potential addition of boarded-up, empty homes for 12-month periods and the same for commercial properties on our high streets. That will be a concern and I therefore recognise the need for the Government to consult, but the Minister will know that this draws concern from me and other colleagues who are keen to tackle the scourge of dodgy shops in their communities—and to do so quickly.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has been a doughty champion on the issue of dodgy shops. I would go as far to call her a guru on dodgy shops, if she will accept that accolade. Carlisle, like her constituency, is blighted by minimarts, vape shops and so on. I am attracted to Lords amendment 333, but superficially so. I think it is right that we get this correct. Does she agree with me that passing Lords amendment 333 would mark a significant shift in the law? It is important we get this right and consult, and what the Government are doing is extending the power, but with a guarantee to consult.
Melanie Onn
My hon. Friend is right. It is an acknowledgement that action needs to be taken. That is reflected in other areas of action that the Government are already committed to and those we are likely to see further down the track, which I will come to later.
I think we are right to raise the length of the consultation and say that, while we may appreciate the necessity of the Government wanting to consult when the shift up to 12 months is so significant, the consultation period should not be unduly or unnecessarily lengthy.
Matt Vickers
Does the hon. Lady agree that any such consultation should include closure notices, as well as closure orders?
Melanie Onn
The extension to closure notices relates to much shorter time periods, and the periods for notices provided do not therefore necessarily need to fall into the scope of having a consultation—in fact, I would rather avoid having things in consultation unnecessarily over including things in consultation.
We want to drive the changes that communities expect to see, but this consultation has the potential to undermine the seriousness with which the Government take this issue. I wonder whether there is therefore an opportunity for the Government to say that they are aiming for the consultation and the response to coincide with the high streets strategy that we are expecting later this year, hopefully in the summer—whenever summer, in a parliamentary term, actually comes to fruition.
The campaign to stop dodgy shops is not just about not liking the appearance or the proliferation of these businesses, but covers much wider consequences, from money laundering to the sale of illegal goods; there were even suggestions in a recent BBC investigation of these shops harbouring child sexual exploitation activities. Indeed, a gentleman in my constituency called Shaun Tinmurth was sold an illegal vape that exploded in his home, causing thousands of pounds-worth of damage and putting his life and the lives of his family in significant peril. Just last month, we saw national rail infrastructure damaged as a result of a vape shop fire in Glasgow, with a beautiful grade II building seriously damaged. These businesses endanger lives, bring criminal activity to the heart of our towns and fracture community cohesion.
This is happening now. We are seeing damage, threats to life and costs to the public purse because the measures that currently exist are too slow to intervene, because of a lack of the right resources or because these matters are not considered to be a priority by some local authorities or police authorities. We have to ensure that police and local authorities have sufficient resources within their arsenal to provide a deterrent in the very strongest terms to these fake businesses and to make it absolutely clear to any OCG that is behind these commercial outfits that their model will not be tolerated, that they are not wanted and that the strongest available action will be used in such cases.
That is why the Government should not use the consultation as an opportunity not to continue to press ahead. I know that the Secretary of State is being given powers to easily implement this, should the consultation outcome take us in that direction—I really do not want the Government to miss the opportunity to give serious weight to the consequences. I want to ensure the success of the high streets strategy when it comes in the summer, and I really do not think there is any point in investing in our town centres if legitimate businesses are undercut by those operating outside the law or if residents feel unsafe in the very spaces that we are trying to regenerate.
I urge the Government to publish the consultation as soon as possible and to aim to conclude it in support of and around the timeframe of the high streets strategy, in addition to publishing the terms of reference and membership of the OCG high streets cross-departmental group for the purposes of transparency and contribution, and to ensure that every intervention—whether on policing, regeneration or business support—is aligned with the goal of allowing our high streets to breathe again.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Your Party)
I rise in support of the motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) to disagree with Lords amendment 312.
Today we are being asked to wave through one of the most draconian assaults on democratic freedoms in modern times, and let us be clear who is doing it: not the Tories—they are not even here—but the Labour party. This Labour Government are attacking the right to protest, attacking trial by jury, proscribing a non-violent direct action group, and handing NHS patient data to Palantir—a company that has helps US Immigration and Customs Enforcement tear migrant families apart and that generates kill lists for the Israeli military—and now they are doing this. This is a Government who are increasingly authoritarian day by day. When people take to the streets to fight back and expose this Government’s complicity in genocide, their answer is to ban them.
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
When people talk about feeling safe where they live, they are talking not about spreadsheets or crime statistics, but about whether they feel okay walking home at night, whether their local shops can open their doors without worrying about theft or abuse, and whether, when something does go wrong, the law actually backs them up. That is why the Crime and Policing Bill really matters.
I am pleased to welcome the Bill, because it tackles the issues that my constituents raise time and again: antisocial behaviour, abuse of retail workers, the need for visible neighbourhood policing and stronger action on serious harm, including violence against women and girls. They make up one of the most significant packages on crime and policing in decades. This Bill is about restoring public confidence and making our streets safer.
I will speak to Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 333, relating to antisocial behaviour and closure powers. In Leigh and Atherton, as in many towns, so-called dodgy shops have become an all too familiar feature of struggling high streets. Illicit premises selling illegal goods, undercutting lawful businesses and operating in plain sight undermine confidence and damage communities, as we have already heard, but what is striking is not the lack of effort from enforcement bodies—far from it—but the limits of the current system. Again and again, action is taken, evidence is gathered and closure orders are secured, only for the same premises to reopen shortly afterwards under a new name. That revolving door problem makes lasting change incredibly difficult.
As we have heard, local authorities, trading standards and police forces often spend months building cases and navigating court processes, yet the maximum closure period remains just three months. For those determined to break the law, that is simply not a sufficient deterrent. Legitimate businesses are left trying to compete fairly while criminals carry on. Communities see it happening and are rightly frustrated, while confidence in enforcement and in the fairness of the system starts to slip.
This issue cannot be solved in isolation. If we are serious about restoring our high streets, we need a joined-up approach that stops illicit operators from taking root in the first place. The Government are moving in the right direction, with Pride in Place funding, strengthened trading standards, the Tobacco and Vapes Bill and the forthcoming high streets strategy all forming important pieces of the puzzle. Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 333 is another: it gives the Secretary of State the power through regulations to amend the maximum duration of closure orders, with the flexibility to treat different types of premises differently. That pragmatic step will allow consultation and evidence-led change. However, that flexibility must not become hesitation.
I would welcome clarity from the Government on the timeline for consultation, because enforcement that does not stick is not enforcement at all. Our high streets cannot afford that delay. Will the Minister confirm that the amendment sits within a wider ongoing programme of work bringing together enforcement, regulation and stronger powers where needed so that this is not the end of the conversation but the start of a robust approach? Our high streets deserve nothing less. With that reassurance, the amendment will be a necessary step in restoring credibility to enforcement and signalling that the Government are serious about bringing confidence, fairness and pride back to our high streets.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
I will speak to Lords amendment 312 on cumulative disruption. I am deeply alarmed by the amendment, which would require senior police officers to take into account any so-called cumulative impacts of frequent protests on local areas when considering whether to impose conditions on public processions and assemblies. In short, the Government are giving the police unprecedented powers to restrict or prohibit protests that they expect to be too disruptive. That is an unacceptable attack on our democracy. These powers represent a significant expansion of state authority and risk undermining long-standing democratic freedoms. They also set a dangerous precedent for the suppression of dissent and inhibit people’s legitimate right to peaceful protest.
With the rise of the right in this country, that expansion of power leaves the potential for future Governments to misuse them to suppress and stamp out all forms of protest, strikes and demonstrations. Our fundamental right to peaceful protest, which has existed for many years, must be safeguarded against any attempt to constrict it.
Kim Johnson
Although I support many elements of this Bill, I cannot support Lords amendment 312. The Bill has come back to the Commons without the proper scrutiny it requires and, despite repeated requests, Ministers have failed to provide that. The Bill returns to this House with a troubling number of late changes made in the Lords that severely limit our ability to examine major amendments, especially those that impact the fundamental right to protest—a right that has already been significantly eroded in recent years due to a number of pieces of draconian legislation.
I rise in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) in his motion to reject amendment 312, which is supported by 30 MPs. We have pushed hard for a vote today on the proposals, which will have a far-reaching, draconian impact on our civil liberties. I am disappointed that the motion will not be reached, demonstrating a fundamental failure of the democratic process.
Lords amendment 312 would give police new powers to restrict protests on the basis of so-called cumulative disruption, but what does that actually mean? It is about giving them the discretion to limit or fully ban a demonstration based on the combined impact of multiple protests over time. The move is the latest in a series of anti-protest measures introduced by successive Governments in recent years, and I have to say that, as a Labour MP, I am very disappointed with the draconian anti-protest proposals being pushed by this Government.
Sammy Wilson
What does the hon. Lady say to the people who become the target of those continual protests? The protesters recognise that there is a vulnerable area, a vulnerable community, part of a city or a piece of the country’s infrastructure, such that, when they protest there on a regular basis, they cause maximum disruption to the lives of the people who live there. What does she say to those people? Should they not have protection?
Kim Johnson
I have to say that I disagree with the right hon. Member.
Although today’s proposals have not come in under the radar through secondary legislation, as the Tory Government tried before they were ultimately defeated in court, amendment 312 has sneakily come in through the back door from the Lords, leaving MPs with no opportunity for scrutiny, debate or vote.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Does the hon. Member agree that the vague wording could lead a police force to ban, for example, a Pride protest three months after a farmers’ protest? There is no clarity as to whether a protest is damaging; it is just that the protest is cumulative.
Kim Johnson
The hon. Member makes a valid point, and those are some of the issues that have been raised by civil liberties organisations and disputed by the Minister in the House this afternoon. The situation means that many colleagues who are here today will rely on the Government’s reassurances that the proposals strike a fair balance between permitting protests and preventing disruption, without being given the time to consider what that really means. I therefore ask them to heed my words closely.
The suffragettes protested for decades for women to win the right to vote. It took years of disruption and fighting a patriarchal system for them to win the historic gains from which we all benefit today. Who would condemn their action, or argue that their protests should have been made less impactful, and their struggle for women’s liberation harder and longer? Looking back on the suffragettes’ fight, it is inconceivable that we would support a restriction on their struggle on the basis of “cumulative disruption”. It was exactly that process of sustained pressure that won women the vote.
The same applies to the fight to bring down the evil anti-apartheid regime, during which I was proud to cut my political teeth as a young activist in Liverpool. There, we occupied council buildings and universities, raised money and organised boycotts of goods, sports and culture. We marched and held street stalls and mass demonstrations until that evil regime fell—another victory of the powerless over the powerful, made possible by sustained action and protest. Without sustained protest, we would not have the hard-won employment rights that so many of us benefit from today.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
I shall speak to Lords amendments 6 and 333, regarding fly-tipping and vape shop closures respectively. On the face of it, those are very different issues, but they share a common thread, which is that communities are being undermined by people who think that rules do not apply to them, and the victims are being left to shoulder the burden. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for rural business and the rural powerhouse, and as the MP for Horsham, which is a largely rural area, I hear constantly about rural crime, including theft, livestock worrying and machinery break-ins, but one topic keeps coming up, and that is fly-tipping.
The Country Land and Business Association reports that a single incident can routinely cost a farmer over £10,000 to clear. How bizarre is that? Let us imagine ourselves in the position of the farmer. A criminal dumps a lorryload of waste on our field. We call the authorities and we have to foot the bill. That is offensive to anyone’s sense of natural justice. In my own area, I give credit to Horsham district council for working constructively with farmers to deal with dumping incidents, but even the best councils have to operate within a law that is highly dysfunctional as it stands.
The National Farmers Union, the Countryside Alliance, the Environmental Services Association and Suez Recycling and Recovery all say the same thing: waste crime is spiralling. An astonishing one fifth of England’s waste—that is 38 million tonnes—is thought to be being disposed of illegally. This is a big issue, and successive Governments have failed to rise to the challenge. The cost to the economy is estimated to be between £1 billion and £2 billion a year. The cost to individual landowners is even higher, from their point of view.
Lords amendment 6 would go some way to mitigating this situation. It would make clearing fly-tipped waste a duty of the local authority, not the landowner. It would ensure that the criminal—the tipper—paid, rather than the victim. It would strengthen collaboration between police, councils and the Environment Agency so that offenders could not slip between jurisdictions. In turn, councils would need to be funded by Government for their increased role in enforcement and to protect them against unrecoverable costs. Clearly, this would be an extra spending pressure on the Government, but perhaps that would serve to focus their mind on a problem that has been scandalously overlooked for many years.
Rural crime more broadly needs more focus. In my farmer surveys and surgeries, I hear that farmers are struggling with crimes such as sheep worrying, which has resulted in dead lambs, injured ewes and even the loss of an alpaca. Too often operators on the 101 line simply do not understand why this matters. We need better training, better data collection and a better grasp of rural realities.
The same logic applies to Lords amendment 333 on vape shops and closure notices: enforcement must be effective and swift. Under the current rules, a closure notice can shut an illegal shop for only 48 hours. Many police and crime commissioners have said that that is simply not long enough to prepare their case. Some shops open up again almost immediately, continuing to sell illegal vapes or trading as fronts for criminal gangs.
As it stands, illegal traders are undermining the health of the entire high street. Lords amendment 333 offers a practical fix. It increases closure notices from 48 hours to seven days, giving police and councils the crucial time to build a proper case. It allows courts to impose closure orders for up to 12 months instead of the current three months, and makes them renewable. It gives local authorities more realistic powers to act against shops that they already know are selling illicit vapes or targeting children.
Public faith in the justice system is being undermined because people feel that justice is either too slow or that the authorities lack sufficient powers to deal with modern crime. Sadly, the criminals are innovating much more swiftly than the justice system. The two amendments have a common principle at their heart: victims should not pay for crimes committed against them, and the authorities must be equipped to act decisively when they know that wrongdoing is taking place. The amendments would go some way to help with that, so I urge the Government to support them.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
I know that feeling safe is very important to my constituents in North Warwickshire and Bedworth, and that is why the Bill is so important for so many people. Today I am immensely proud to welcome the Government’s amendment to equalise hate crime law—Lords amendment 301. I proposed a similar amendment in the House of Commons, and I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) and for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) for their support, along with that of over 100 colleagues across the House.
I welcome the Government’s introduction of a new offence of misogynistic hate. I got into politics to fight section 28 and the hate it created. Section 28 attacked the right for people like me to live openly. It stigmatised lesbian, gay and bisexual people. It pushed us out of public life and made us fair game for attack. I got into politics to fight that cruel law and everything it represented. Today I am proud to continue that fight for all LGBT people, for disabled people and for victims of misogyny.
Our politics is becoming increasingly hateful and divisive, and the impacts are heartbreaking. Less than half of LGBT people feel safe holding their partner’s hand in public. As many as 70% of disability hate crimes go unreported. Girlguiding UK revealed that one in 10 girls have missed school to avoid sexual harassment. Hatred towards women and girls, disabled people and LGBT people threatens our entire society. It creates fear—fear to go outside, fear to speak up, fear to be seen. It silences people. It makes all of us afraid.
Lords amendment 301 now shows that whether it is due to someone’s race, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity, or indeed their sex or disability, Britain is a country that will not tolerate hate, that all hatred is equal and that all those who commit vile acts of hatred will face the same grave consequences. Because of this amendment, victims of hate will have more time to report crimes. For victims who may not feel safe reporting hate crime instantly, that is a lifeline. Perpetrators will get tougher sentence and higher maximum penalties. Aggravated offences are often pursued in the Crown court, where better victim support is available, including the ability to keep them apart from defendants.
I know that some people thrive on the politics of hate. Today, I am proud that the Labour Government have stood firmly against hate in all its forms. We will halve violence against women and girls in a decade, we will fight homophobia and transphobia, and we will confront ableism and hate against disabled people. I welcome, in addition to the tougher action on hate crime, the measures on antisocial behaviour, fly-tipping, knife crime, illegal trading, intimate image abuse, violent pornography and the exploitation of children. This Government are clearly standing with victims, creating safer communities and safer streets. I commend the Bill to the House.
Sammy Wilson
I support the amendments on fly-tipping, although some of them do not go far enough. The extent of that crime varies, from the small scale, with people throwing waste on to others’ land, to the scale seen at Hoads wood, about which the APPG for woods and trees heard evidence. The fly-tipping there was so extensive that parts of the wood were cut down. Dumping was undertaken over a six-month period, and the clear-up bill is estimated to be about £15 million. Fly-tipping is so extensive, and, as has been pointed out, the victims are forced to pay for it. The Lords amendments will at least help to impose some penalties on those who engage in that activity.
I support Lords amendment 35 on the sale of knives in Northern Ireland. Given the discussion that we had about the Southport inquiry yesterday, we know that there needs to be greater control of the sale of knives to people who would use them for evil purposes.
Lords amendment 357 was moved in the other place by the former leader of my party, Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee, who of course has a great deal of experience of the Northern Ireland context. Those of us who live in Northern Ireland see on a monthly basis how terrorism is glorified—not by dark individuals lurking in the background, but even by Government Ministers and indeed the First Minister in Northern Ireland. The whole point of glorifying terrorism is to ensure that, even when terrorists are under pressure militarily, their evil message—the poison that they wish to inject into society—can still be perpetuated and spread, whether through physical violence or by using people and getting people to support them.
I say to the House that that is not just an issue for Northern Ireland, which experienced years of terrorism and still has the legacy of that terrorism. This issue increasingly affects Great Britain. We see it on the streets, almost on a monthly basis. We see marches glorifying terrorism and intimidating certain sections of the population. Many people in GB, especially in the Jewish community, now feel that they cannot even walk the streets.
This should worry everyone in the House: surveys have shown that one in five people in GB believe that political violence is justified in certain circumstances. How has that situation arisen? It has arisen because we allow the glorification of terrorism. “The cause is just. The people who do it are heroes. They make great sacrifices. They have no alternative”—those are the kinds of arguments I hear in Northern Ireland all the time, but I also hear them now from some of those who promote terrorism in GB.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The right hon. Member makes a very valid point. Does he agree that defeating terrorism is about not just the physical defeat of terrorism but ensuring that, through its glorification, the narrative of terrorism is not allowed to radicalise other people? Does that not point to the inadequacy of the Terrorism Act 2006? Section 1 of that Act has contained a provision against the glorification of terrorism for the last 20 years. We have not had one prosecution under it in Northern Ireland, yet we have had endless glorification of terrorism. Does that not put the focus on why Lords amendment 357 is necessary—to make it easier to secure prosecution when faced with self-evident glorification of terrorism?
Sammy Wilson
The hon. and learned Member is absolutely right. The whole point of the amendment is to ensure that there is not the ability to keep on promoting the terrorist message. We do not just need a physical defeat of terrorism but an ideological one. They make their arguments to ensure that if they have to pause their campaign or do not achieve all their objectives, the poison is injected into the next generation, who will have justification for carrying on what they want them to do, to achieve their goal.
Increasingly, the narrative of politics in GB is being infiltrated by sectarian arguments and sectarian division. All of us should be worried that the law is inadequate to deal with those who have evil intent. I know that some will argue, “But people have to be allowed to say what they want. We live in a democracy. We’ve got to have freedom of speech.” That is fine, but when that freedom of speech is abused and the law prevents us from stopping that, we should be concerned. I met with Jewish students recently. Some 49% of Jewish students have heard either directly or in their presence the glorification of Hamas terrorism and what was done on 11 October. We have to bear in mind that this is prevalent in our society. It is prevalent in Northern Ireland.
This is not just about promoting the terrorist message. It is also about the impact it has on the victims of terrorism and the anger it causes when people in public positions are allowed to stand up and praise the actions of those who killed their loved ones and maimed members of their family, arguing, “I’m proud of the people who did it. I honour the people who did it. The people who did it had no alternative.” Apart from the impact on the victims, it also sends a message to those who are listening that maybe this was not a bad thing anyway. If the situation arises in the future, will those young people be easily recruited to commit the same acts?
In the Minister’s response to me, she argued—I hope that I have got this right—that the amendment will prevent legitimate debate on historical events, but reading the amendment shows that nothing can be further from the truth. The amendment says that the offence would occur if the comments relate
“to one or more organisations which are at the time of the statement proscribed”.
Therefore it does not prevent people from saying that something happened in the past or that an event is historical and a debate can be around it. Instead, it says that the offence would occur only if a statement is made in respect of organisations that are currently deemed to be dangerous organisations and are proscribed.
Secondly, the amendment says that the offence would occur if the comment
“glorifies the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of such acts or offences”.
So the Minister’s argument against the amendment is not correct. The amendment does not open the floodgates to preventing discussion about issues that might be controversial and that people may take objection to. It is very specific.
I urge the House to support the amendment, not just because of the continual hurt experienced by people in Northern Ireland on an almost monthly basis, where commemorations of murderers are held and public figures go and give support to them, but in the interests of society right across the United Kingdom, where we can see that terrorists and terrorist-supporting organisations are using public platforms to glorify terrorism. That has an impact on the victims, but it also has an impact on young people who are vulnerable, easily manipulated and can be persuaded that somehow or other terrorism is something that is normal.
Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)
I welcome the Bill before us today. It contains a multitude of crucial measures to tackle issues from non-consensual intimate images to retail worker assault, child criminal exploitation and knife crime. I thank the Ministers for Policing and Crime, for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls and for Victims and Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls, their teams and the whole Government for their work on the Bill. I particularly express my gratitude to the Government for accepting the principle of amendments to the Bill that I first tabled last year, which have been ably taken up more recently by Baroness Bertin in the other place.
Government amendments to Lords amendments 263, 264 and 265 rightly accept that online pornography is a key driver of violence against women and girls, child sexual abuse and commercial sexual exploitation. We know that online pornography is driven by a profit-maximising algorithm that encourages addiction. Like any other addiction, it can spiral. Addicts find themselves having to move towards increasingly extreme content, including illegal content, to get the same fix, or they find that offline, in real-world actions, and we know the impact that that has.
Pornography is not just entertainment; it has become a form of education. It trains brains to link endorphin and dopamine production to violent, degrading and, in some cases, paedophilic-adjacent content. It promotes the idea that pain for women is pleasure for men. It instils the notion that to be close to a woman is to dominate or degrade her. From Wayne Couzens to Dominique Pelicot, we know how the consumption of online sexualised violence can turn into offline violence.
I therefore welcome clauses 105 and 106. They build on my proposed new clause 102, tabled on Report, and will criminalise the possession or publication of strangulation or suffocation in pornography. This is vital given that 36% of women under the age of 34 have been strangled during sex, and strangulation is now the second most common cause of stroke in young women.
I also welcome the Government amendments in lieu before us that build on mine and Baroness Bertin’s amendments to ban pornographic content that features step-incest or performers role-playing as children. Content such as that, which sexualises children, with very young-looking performers dressed in school uniforms, holding lollipops and stuffed toys, very clearly promotes a sexual interest in children. Two pieces of research from 2024 found that between 43% and 63% of those who have committed offences relating to child sexual abuse material began by habitually watching so-called “barely legal” content.
It is right that through the Government’s amendment in lieu to Lords amendment 265, this gateway to paedophilia is swung firmly shut. We know that CSAM consumption and the further child sexual abuse that it can so often encourage largely originate from exposure to online content that is happened across incidentally, rather than with purpose. Offences for online child sexual abuse increased by 26% in 2024.
Content that depicts step-incest—for example, with a stepfather and stepdaughter—likewise eroticises and encourages the sexual abuse of children and those for whom we have or should have a caring responsibility. Sadly, half of all sexual abuse cases against children are perpetrated by a step-parent or family member. Given that we are increasingly living in an age of blended families, permitting the depiction of this abuse is particularly pernicious.
Pornography also has an impact on those who appear in it, and we know that women are all too often coerced or trafficked into the industry. I therefore welcome the Government amendment in lieu of Lords amendment 264, which builds on my amendment and that of Baroness Gabby Bertin to grant the Government the power to require pornography sites to proactively verify the age and consent of those featured on it, rather than just waiting for content to be reported.
The amendment will crucially grant powers to allow performers to withdraw their consent retroactively so that they are not forever trapped into a life in the pornography industry by pictures and videos from perhaps even decades prior. It is of the utmost importance that the Government stick to their timetable to deliver that and work at pace across Departments and with experts from the sector to deliver on it. I am incredibly grateful to UK Feminista, Barnardo’s, CEASE and the APPG on commercial sexual exploitation for their tireless work on these issues and to Ministers who have worked constructively with me and many Members across this House to ensure that we get these vital changes in the Bill.
I am also grateful to the Government for engaging similarly constructively with me on my amendment to Lords amendment 300, which relates to the proposed statutory definition of so-called honour-based abuse. Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), I was honoured last year to host a screening of the powerful Channel 4 documentary “The Push”, alongside the mother of Fawziyah Javed, who was failed through a series of missed opportunities by statutory bodies to identify her as a victim of honour-based abuse. She was pushed off Arthur’s Seat by her husband, killing her and her unborn child. That is why it is very welcome that this Bill introduces a definition of honour-based abuse. It represents an important step forward and a great win for all the victims and organisations who have campaigned for this for many years.
Nevertheless, I and organisations that work in this space, such as Karma Nirvana, are concerned that the definition as it stands falls short of fully capturing honour-based abuse. The Lords amendment references only a “person”, whereas we know that honour- based abuse is often perpetrated by multiple people as part of a family or community—a feature that distinguishes it from other forms of domestic abuse. I have therefore proposed the addition of “or persons” to Lords amendment 300 in order to reflect that. It is a tiny change, and an amendment sought by Baroness Sugg in the other place. I recognise some may argue that it is already covered by the Interpretation Act, but having spent many years in the domestic abuse sector I know that overstretched and under-resourced multi-agency professionals, particularly the police, may interpret legislation literally and act only within the explicit wording to be set out in Lords amendment 300.
Some have also argued that the use of “persons” would be contrary to the usage and interpretations in other criminal law contexts, yet there are many examples of offences that relate to things such as organised crime, gangs and riot that reference “persons”, including in the Serious Crime Act 2015 and the legislation before us.
A definition of honour-based abuse is the culmination of years of campaigning. I remember working with many people who are still in this House on getting it included in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which sadly it was not. I invite the Minister to clarify, in her speech, that the Government intend the amendment to cover multiple perpetrators as well as a sole perpetrator. I would appreciate her and her colleagues’ continued commitment to working with organisations such as Karma Nirvana to ensure that the statutory guidance accurately reflects the true nature of honour-based abuse. Also, there must be funding for training for multi-agency professionals, which will undoubtedly be required if the definition stays as it is.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I wholeheartedly support the amendment that my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) has tabled to Lords amendment 300. Those of us who have dealt with honour cases recognise the overall family involvement, and there needs to be recognition that we are talking about persons, not a person.
I have listened to a large number of speeches that have done a tremendous job of setting out the principles behind the motion to disagree with Lords amendment 312, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), which I support. I do not want to talk about the principles; I want to talk about the practicalities, because I am worried that it is when the Government rush to legislate around a particular incident, and do not provide adequate time for debate and individual votes, that Parliament makes significant mistakes. That has been demonstrated in the past.
The Minister referenced the Manchester events, which were absolutely tragic, and the demonstrations that took place then. However, she also mentioned that the powers to deal with such events—to prevent and restrict demonstrations that are causing such distress—already exist. She also mentioned that the cumulative impact is a factor that police officers need to take into account; the change made by the Bill is simply that it will say that police will be required to take the cumulative impact into account. That seems like a simple, small step forward, but I think it will cause immense problems. In particular, it will place a burden on the police, but it will also introduce an element of subjective judgment by a number of senior police officers.
I will give examples from our history. In the 1980s, I was involved in the City of London branch of the anti-apartheid movement, and for two years, we held a permanent demonstration outside South Africa House. I remember being there, singing Christmas carols, on Christmas day. It was disruptive, and people were arrested for individual offences, but that was the whole point. We were there because we said that we would not leave until Nelson Mandela was released. At that time, we were condemned in this House for supporting a terrorist, and for supporting a terrorist organisation called the African National Congress. These days, if we held up the banners that we held up then, we would probably be arrested. The other example I give is from 1985, I think. I was involved in the organisation of the people’s march for jobs. A group of unemployed workers marched from the north all the way to London, and my job was to prepare for their arrival in London, but in every town and city, they were met with a demonstration. On many occasions, those demonstrations were disruptive—that is cumulative.
For me, the other issue is that unfortunately, I think this change is largely targeted at the Palestine Solidarity Campaign demonstrations in London. I have been involved in some of the processes of negotiation with the police on each of those demonstrations—I have been on virtually every one, over two years. I have been advising the organisations involved when they are going into the negotiations, as well as during those negotiations. So that Members understand, what happens is that a date is identified months in advance. As that date gets nearer, discussions take place with the police, and severe restrictions are placed on the route and the timing of the march. The issue of synagogues has come up; I do not think there has ever been a synagogue within half a mile of one of those marches, but the demonstrators themselves have said, “We’ll adjust the times, so that it does not in any way interfere with any service.” Those are the negotiations that go on. It is a thorough process.
However—I do not say this lightly—as a result of my experience of the whole process, I have lost confidence in the judgment of the senior Metropolitan police officers. I say that because I was involved in some of the discussions on the demonstrations in which Ben Jamal and Chris Nineham were arrested. I found then that the use of the restrictions was deliberately provocative. What has been said in court since then has been disingenuous, because I was there on the spot, and I saw what happened. In fact, the next day, I was pulled into the police station and interviewed as a result of the events that day. I have lost that confidence, because we were assured that the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and his senior team would consult with the wider communities in advance of planning for these demonstrations, so that views could be taken on board, particularly the views of the Jewish community. “Consultation with the Jewish community” has largely been interpreted as consultation with the Board of Deputies. The Board of Deputies represents a certain section of the Jewish community. In fact, it has split. Last year, 37 members expressed their concern about how the Board of Deputies was expressing its position on Gaza.
During the demonstrations, I start the march with the Jewish bloc. I have marching beside me Stephen Kapos, the Holocaust survivor who became quite a famous architect. The organisations in the Jewish bloc have never been consulted about the march. The Haredi community, which is the largest Jewish community, particularly in London—the orthodox Jewish community —has never been consulted about these demonstrations. I am sorry, but I have lost confidence in the assurances that we have been given that there are wider consultations with the community.
In the past few weeks, I have lost so much confidence in the judgment of Metropolitan police senior officers. Every year for decades, we have had a march in London for the Palestinians on the anniversary of Nakba, to commemorate the Palestinians being forcibly removed from their own land. Nakba means catastrophe. There is a march in London every year around 16 March. This year, it was going to go ahead as normal. Planning and discussions were taking place, and then the police said, “No, you can’t go on your normal route.” Why is that? Because the police had allocated it to Tommy Robinson. We saw what happened last year in London on Tommy Robinson’s march. There was violence, and there were attacks on police and individuals, yet the Palestinian demonstration was displaced for this far-right group—thugs, in many instances. That demonstrated to me the bias among Metropolitan police senior officers. In many ways, it demonstrates how they could start interpreting the concept of cumulative impact in this legislation, which will go through today.
With every move towards restricting peaceful protest in any way, there is a risk. We have seen in the past, on a number of occasions, that if we deny people the right to peaceful protest, they will riot. There is a risk that, through this legislation, we undermine our historic, real commitment to democratic, peaceful protest. That right has achieved so much in our country; we have achieved so much through the reforms that have been demanded. This legislation puts in peril those rights, and in addition, through it, we could be acting provocatively, undermining the peaceful protest that we want to see. That could result in the potential for riot. That is why we needed more time to debate and discuss the issue, and why we needed a right to vote on the motion to disagree. That is not going to happen tonight, and I think we will regret it in the long term.
Andy McDonald
Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that although Lord Macdonald of River Glaven has been commissioned to carry out a review of the complex public order architecture, we are taking a measure in this arena without the benefit of that review’s findings? Is that not putting the cart before the horse?
John McDonnell
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He made the point earlier, and I think it is completely rational and understandable.
What adds to my anxiety is that in the normal run of things, a serious matter such as this would be introduced in the House of Commons, and there would be a proper Commons debate, after which the matter would go off to the Lords, and then come back to us. I feel that we are being bounced into this today, and I did not expect that of my Government on an issue of this sort, because it is so important, and because it will have major consequences for us in the future—and particularly for our movement, which was based on protest from the very beginning. We seem to be undermining our historic tradition, and our commitment to a role that we have played historically and will almost inevitably need to play in the future.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
There is much in the Bill that is serious and worthy of support. The measures to tackle shop theft, protect retail workers, strengthen the response to exploitation and abuse and deal with knife crime are all important. However, Lords amendment 312 raises a very different prospect. It is not really about violent disorder or intimidation. It is about making it easier to restrict repeated protest. It would require the police, when deciding whether to impose conditions on a protest, to take into account what the Bill calls “cumulative disruption”. That means not just the disruption caused by the protest, but disruption said to arise from other protests in the same area that were held, are being held, or are intended to be held. The organiser does not have to be the same; the cause does not even have to be the same.
That should concern every Member of this House, because effective protest is very often cumulative, and democratic campaigning is nearly always repetitive. The campaigners come back again and again. That is true of the trade union movement, true of the suffragettes, and true of the civil rights tradition more broadly. The cumulative nature of protest is not a flaw in our democracy. It is often the means by which democracy speaks, and that is why amendment 312 is so dangerous in principle. It takes something that has always been central to democratic struggle—persistence—and starts to treat it as a problem to be managed down. It turns the repeated exercise of democratic freedom into a reason for state restriction. Once the House accepts that logic, we move on to very difficult ground indeed.
Laws like this are never drafted only for the Government of the day. They remain on the statute book. They pass into other hands. We would be naive not to ask how a future hard-right Government might use a power like this. As the TUC has warned, broad “cumulative disruption” tests could all too easily be used against trade union demonstrations, against long-running industrial disputes, against repeated pickets, rallies and marches, and against the kind of organised working-class protest that has been central to the Labour movement and to the winning of rights in this country. That is not alarmism. It is exactly why Parliament should be careful about creating broad powers that can later be wielded by Ministers and authorities with far less respect for civil liberties.
Peaceful protest is not an inconvenience to be tolerated only once. It is a democratic right, and one of the clearest tests of whether we truly believe in that right is whether we still defend it when it is persistent, visible and effective. That was true of the Chartists demanding political reform, the match girls and dockers fighting for dignity at work, the anti-apartheid movement that refused to give up, and the suffragettes who were crucial in securing the vote for women.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making an important speech on the right to protest, but does she accept that many members of the Jewish community feel intimidated by regular marches by the pro-Palestinian brigade, who demonstrate loudly and not always peacefully in the same area, week after week? How does she believe that that community can be protected from such intimidation?
Mary Kelly Foy
I agree that some protests can feel intimidating. On the Palestine protests, people have never protested outside synagogues, and they do not protest outside mosques. Given the proper police protections that already exist, there is no reason for the Jewish community to feel intimidated. But the fact is that this goes far beyond the Jewish community, for all the reasons that I have outlined.
It was said in the past that we should not protest again and again for women’s right to vote, or for trade unions to win their rights against unscrupulous employers. In their name, and in the name of the whole Labour movement, Lords amendment 312 ought to be rejected.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
There are many important proposals before us today, and I congratulate the Minister on bringing them forward. I wholeheartedly support the Government’s efforts to tackle antisocial behaviour, offensive weapons, fly-tipping, the exploitation of children, and appalling sexual offences. However, Lords amendment 312, which was introduced in the other place, dangerously infringes on civil liberties.
It is incumbent on all Members to jealously guard the rights of our constituents, and any restriction of their civil liberties should only be accepted by this House on the basis of overwhelming evidence that such proposals would strengthen, rather than undermine, the health of our democracy. On this occasion, however, we have had next to no evidence whatsoever, because these significant changes were only introduced after the original passage of the Bill through this House, which is ultimately a pretty sorry way to treat representative parliamentary democracy.
Lords amendment 312 is out of step with the best traditions of this country and of the Labour party, which has always existed to redress the balance of power in favour of ordinary people. The Chartists, the suffragettes, the organisers of the Kinder Scout trespass, those who stood against fascism at Cable Street, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the Jarrow crusade—these were protest movements and campaigns of direct action that were supported and led by giants of our party, and which we should celebrate, not disown. They were advancing Labour’s historic mission to wrest power from the established status quo, so that ordinary people have a real say over their lives. Lords amendment 312 contradicts that impulse, and risks shifting the balance of power in our society towards the vested interests that we ought to take on.
The corrosive influence of the rich and powerful runs through every corner of our politics. It muddies policymaking and leaves our constituents asking whether decisions are made in their interests, or in those of the last donor who paid £2,000 a head at a lobbyist curry night. If tweaks are to be made to defend our democracy and prevent disruption to the life of our communities, that would be a far more apt target than the civil liberties of our constituents. Today, Lords amendment 312 is opposed across the Labour movement and civil society by many organisations that share the progressive instincts that should be guiding this Labour Government. That is hardly surprising, given the way this legislation is drafted. It is vague, with no definition of what is meant by
“serious disruption to the life of the community”.
It is widely drawn, with no necessary link between the events considered to be cumulatively disruptive. It does not define the area in question or the timeframe, and it has the blindingly obvious potential to be abused.
The proposals could easily be used to restrict protests simply because they are considered inconvenient due to their persistence, and not because of their content or messages. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) pointed out, this may place substantial political pressure on the decision making of senior police officers. I want to address the concerns raised by several hon. Members in this debate about the intimidation of specific minority groups. I do understand those concerns and they are legitimate, but the legislation is not drafted tightly enough to address that problem. It is far too vague and far too broad to coherently address that point, and it is not what we will achieve by passing this amendment.
Finally, since we are discussing notions of cumulative impact, whatever the stated intentions today, when these plans are considered alongside the recent restrictions on the right to protest against animal testing, a legally contested proscription and other legislation that I assume means that any of my constituents disobeying these plans would not have the right to a trial by their peers, assertions by the Government that they hold the right to protest sacrosanct are wearing so thin as to be clearly transparent. The case for Lords amendment 312 has not been made, we should not be asked to vote for it en bloc alongside other important but entirely separate changes, and I urge Ministers to drop these plans for good.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Members who have participated in the debate should be making their way back to the Chamber, because the Minister will be on her feet shortly. I expect those on the Front Benches will be communicating that message to their Back Benchers.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
I shall keep my remarks brief. I welcome the vast majority of this Bill, but given the serious implications for our fundamental rights, Lords amendment 312 on cumulative disruption should be given adequate time to be properly scrutinised and debated. This amendment could be used by future far-right Governments to in effect stamp out protests and even trade union pickets altogether. As we all know, Reform UK would repeal the Employment Rights Act 2025, but I doubt it would repeal what Lords amendment 312 will allow. I strongly support my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) in his motion to disagree with the Lords amendment. Sustained peaceful protest is central to the achievement of democratic change.
Madam Deputy Speaker
That was very brief indeed, when the hon. Member had such a huge amount of time. I call the Minister.
Sarah Jones
I welcome the broad agreement across the House with, I think, the great majority of the Lords amendments, particularly those brought forward by the Government. Those amendments further strengthen the powers of the police, prosecutors and partner agencies to tackle violence against women and girls, online harms and hate crimes. We have sought to engage constructively with the non-Government amendments carried in the Lords. As I set out in my opening speech, in many instances we support the intent behind these amendments and our concerns are about their workability, not the underlying objectives. In that spirit, let me turn directly to some of the points raised in the debate.
The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), seeks to disagree with Lords amendment 301. Let me be clear: this is not a move by the Government to police lawful speech, and these provisions do not criminalise the expression of lawful opinions. Extending the aggravated offences does not create any new offence. This amendment extends an existing aggravated offences framework, which operates in relation to race and religion, to cover additional characteristics—namely, sexual orientation, transgender identity, disability and sex.
This framework applies only where specific criminal offences—offences of violence, public order, criminal damage, harassment or stalking—have already been committed and where hostility is proven to the criminal standard. This is not about creating new “speech crimes”; it is about ensuring that where criminal conduct has taken place, and that conduct is driven by hostility towards a protected characteristic, the law can properly recognise the additional harm caused.
That is an important distinction. Freedom of expression, legitimate debate and strongly held views remain protected, but where someone commits an existing criminal offence and does so because of hostility towards a person’s identity, it is right that the criminal law should be able to reflect that seriousness through higher maximum penalties. The hon. Member for Stockton West is simply wrong if he thinks that the same end can be achieved through sentencing guidelines. It is about equality of protection, not the policing of lawful speech.
I will now come to measures debated on the epidemic of everyday crime. Lords amendment 333, on closure powers, was raised by a number of hon. Members. I want to pay tribute to the dodgy shops campaign being run by my hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) and for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt). I agree wholeheartedly with their aims. If we do not tackle dodgy shops, it is very hard to do the wider work of bringing back our high streets. I completely share the concerns raised about the rise of illegality affecting so many of our high streets. It is for exactly that reason that the Home Office has established the cross-Government high streets illegality taskforce, which will be backed by £10 million a year for the next three years—£30 million in total. The taskforce is already working at pace to develop a strategic long-term policy response to money laundering and associated illegality on our high streets, including other forms of economic crime, tax evasion and illegal working, and to tackle the systemic vulnerabilities that criminals exploit. The initiative was announced in the 2025 Budget and, as I said, is supported by significant funding.
Strengthening the closure powers available to local partners in tackling criminal behaviour on the high street is part of that mix. Our amendment in lieu accepts that and will enable us to go ahead and do it. The push from my hon. Friends is to do that at pace. We will of course work as fast as we can on the consultation on closure orders that we have agreed to do. I hear the message loud and clear that we need to go fast, but the purpose of the consultation is to ensure that we get this right—that we make the distinction between private and public property, and the complications that might come from that.
Matt Vickers
The Chartered Trading Standards Institute and many of the agencies responsible for dealing with this issue talk about the need to extend—or potentially extend, depending on how tonight goes—not only orders, but notices. That is the 48-hour window, or seven days if we go with this amendment, so that papers can be put in place and the dodgy shops, as the Minister put it, do not have the ability to reopen before the order can be put in place. This does not seem to appear in the amendment in lieu. Will she be looking at notices, as well as orders?
Sarah Jones
We are already, on the face of the Bill, extending the time to up to 72 hours. The point of the notice is to enable the time to get to court and apply for a closure. We are providing the extra time to do just that. We are also extending the powers to registered social landlords, so that they can also be part of that. We are already taking action. Of course, we will always keep these things under review. We will always consider what is said to us—even from the Opposition Front Benches—but the amendment today deals just with closure orders, and we have committed to consult on that.
Matt Vickers
The alternative Lords amendment—the pushback from the Lords—relates to notices and orders. The reason there is a problem with the 72 hours for notices is that, because of court sittings and how that all falls, we end up not getting the order in place, and these shops, which the agencies have jumped through the hoops to close down, get to reopen. I do not think the Chartered Trading Standards Institute or many of the agencies dealing with that would agree with the 72 hours. I ask the Minister to go further still and to perhaps look at the seven days being put forward by the Lords.
Sarah Jones
Through our taskforce, which is funded with £30 million, we will look at a whole range of opportunities on what we can do. I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that the reason we have a situation where people are money laundering and using illegal shops in many different ways on our high streets is because the previous Government failed to do anything about this growing problem, but we have introduced money and action to tackle it. We will also be tackling the huge challenge we have with our high streets more widely, which was left to us by the previous Government, by introducing a high streets strategy, which we will bring out in the summer.
We are also dealing with the fact that neighbourhood policing collapsed under the previous Government, which has meant that the epidemic of everyday crime is not being tackled as it should be—
Sarah Jones
I will not give way again on this point. We have already delivered 3,000 additional officers and police community support officers on to our streets and into our neighbourhoods—an 18% increase in neighbourhood policing since we came to power.
Wendy Morton
Does the Minister not accept, however, that when the Conservatives left government, we left 3,000 more police officers in post than when we came into government?
Sarah Jones
I do not know how many times we have to rehearse this: the previous Government cut police numbers by 20,000 and decimated neighbourhood policing. They then had a sudden change of heart and said that they would replace those 20,000 police officers, who were recruited with such haste that several forces, including the Met, have sadly—
Sarah Jones
I am just in the middle of a sentence. Several forces have sadly recruited people without the proper vetting processes that should have happened. By the time the previous Government left office, they had recruited the 20,000, but how many of them are sitting behind desks? Twelve-thousand of them are. If the right hon. Lady thinks that is where those officers should be, that is fine, but we believe that our officers should be in our neighbourhoods, which is what we are ensuring.
We are also getting rid of the burden of bureaucracy, built up under the previous Government, that wastes so much police time. In the next couple of years we will free up the equivalent of 3,000 full-time police officers just through use of new technology, AI and new processes will bring this ancient system, which lots of police officers are still working under, into the modern age.
Wendy Morton
The hon. Lady seems to have missed my point completely, even though it was quite simple. Does she not accept that when the Conservatives left office, there were 3,000 more police officers than when we took office? Does she not also accept that her Government and her police and crime commissioners, such as Simon Foster, are actually cutting police stations as well as officer numbers?
Sarah Jones
I accept that there were more officers—not by population, but in terms of actual numbers—when the Conservatives left office than when they took office. [Interruption.] But let me ask the House about something else that happened: by how much did shoplifting rise in the last two years of the Conservative Government? It rose by 60%—
Sarah Jones
The rise is much slower and the charge rate has gone up by 21%. Clearly, action is more important than numbers, and this Government are taking action. That is why, for example, the shoplifting charge rate has increased by 21%.
Many Members have spoken about fly-tipping. I absolutely accept the strength of feeling on fly-tipping. I think it is repulsive, and most of our communities are affected by it. Whether it is the large fly-tipping in our rural communities that is driven by serious organised crime or the everyday fly-tipping that we see in our cities, we need to do more to tackle it. The Government have published the waste crime action plan, which will make a substantial difference to how we approach waste crime, including the Government paying for the removal of the most egregious sites. In parts of the country we have seen reports in the press of huge waste sites.
We are also committed to forcing fly-tippers to clean up their mess. Under this Bill, people who use their vehicle to fly-tip will potentially get nine points on their licence. That goes further than what the Opposition had previously suggested. So we are acting, as we should. We did not agree with the Lords amendment that proposed that local authorities should have to clear all sites, including private sites, because of the very significant costs that would be required to undertake that. We do not think that can be put on to local authorities just like that. But I assure hon. Members across the House that we are taking significant action on fly-tipping and we will continue to do so.
Matt Vickers
Can the Minister tell me why the Government are opposing the Lords amendment that would allow police officers to seize the vehicles of the vile criminals who fly-tip in communities across the country?
Sarah Jones
There are already powers for the seizure of vehicles, and that is already happening, including in my area. Vehicles can be seized and crushed, and I think we should be doing more of that, not less, when it comes to antisocial behaviour.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), who spoke about Lords amendment 361 and our amendment to make it legally sound. As I said, the Government do not have a view on this, because it is an issue to do with abortion, and it would not be correct to take a view on that. She asked when it would come into effect, and I can tell her that it will apply as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent. Obviously, decisions on particular cases up until that point are for local police, but I heard what my hon. Friend said.
I want to touch on the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) about aggravated offences. Building on what I said to the Opposition spokesperson—
Sarah Jones
Yes, he is a shadow Minister—I am very happy to give him his correct title.
Britain is a country that will not tolerate hate, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth said. She spoke about aggravated offences relating to disability, trans and sex, and bringing those into line with the existing aggravated offences. That will support victims, and not just in terms of potential sentencing and justice; it will mean that victims can access more support, which I very much welcome, and I am glad that she does too.
Turning to the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and the issue of the glorification of terrorism—oh, I see he is not in his place; I will come back to that issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) has been doing so much work on a number of different areas, not least all of the Lords amendments that relate to porn. She gave a really powerful speech about how pain for women is increasingly perceived as equalling pleasure for men, and she spoke of the need to tackle that in many different ways, because sexualised violence online can become violence in real life. I am glad that she welcomed the step-incest amendments, which are absolutely right, as well as those on people trying to look like children, which she called “barely legal content”. I heard her message about proactively verifying age and consent and about bringing in the timetable to deliver that as soon as we can.
My hon. Friend also talked about honour-based abuse. We understand and agree with her, as well as other hon. Members who raised the importance of realising that often it is not a single crime but involves a whole group of people. We need to ensure that is clear in all the training done on identifying and responding to this form of abuse. Therefore, alongside the statutory guidance, we are developing additional free learning modules for professionals who work with victims and perpetrators of honour-based abuse. That includes a general module as well as dedicated modules on multi-agency responses. Together, those modules will strengthen statutory professionals’ ability to recognise the signs and to manage cases appropriately and safely in practice. I hope that is reassuring to my hon. Friend.
I turn to Lords amendment 312, which many hon. Members spoke to. There are a number of things to say on our cumulative disruption amendment. First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), who talked powerfully about his position, which I respect. I agree that protest and the right to protest is part of the lifeblood of the Labour movement, and that progress is rarely—if ever—handed down without first having been campaigned for. I understand his concern, and the concern of everyone in the House, that we balance the right to protest with the impact of protest. We have had many debates on that in this place over the past few years.
The Home Secretary asked Lord Macdonald to review public order legislation and hate crime legislation, because we have had lots of different pieces of legislation and there is a need to take a holistic look at that to see whether it is right. Lord Macdonald has not reported yet; he will do so within a few months, and we very much look forward to what he has to say. I hope that when he does report we can consider his recommendations in this place and discuss all his findings together.
Andy McDonald
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Given what she has just said, would it not have been wiser to await the outcome of the review, so that we could have seen Lord Macdonald’s view of the entire scene before taking yet further legislative measures that will move the dial even further? Would that not have been the right course of action?
Sarah Jones
I completely understand my hon. Friend’s point, which we have discussed before. As he knows, the announcement that the amendment would be made was given by the Home Secretary after the Heaton Park attack and the protest that followed. It has not come from nowhere; it has been debated and suggested by policing colleagues for some time. The Government’s view was that this Bill is a vehicle we could use to introduce this legislation, and that we should take the opportunity to do so. I know that he disagrees with that decision, but we made it because we feel this is a necessary step, given the situation in which we find ourselves.
I want to be really clear again about what the amendment does and does not do. Marches can only be banned in very, very specific circumstances, as happened with the al-Quds march recently—the first time a march had been banned since 2012. The amendment will make no difference to that whatsoever. It will make no difference to what march can and cannot be banned. An assembly cannot be banned at all, as there is no legislative basis for that, so again, the amendment will make no difference at all.
It already is the case, and it has been since 1986 when the Public Order Act was introduced, that the police can consider cumulative disruption when they look at imposing conditions on a protest. A condition could be the time that the protest is allowed to take place, the route that the protest can go down or the number of people allowed on that protest. Since 1986, the police have had the ability to consider cumulative disruption when they look at whether they should impose conditions. The amendment means that they have to look at and consider the impact of cumulative disruption when they look at imposing conditions.
Apsana Begum
I note what the Minister has just said—she said the same to our hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy)—that she derives the assessment of cumulative disruption from the Public Order Act 1986, in that the police must, rather than can, consider cumulative disruption. However, the definition of “cumulative” does not exist in the law as it stands; indeed, the bulk of the text of amendment 312 creates a definition of “cumulative disruption”. Will the Minister clarify where else in the law does that definition already exist, because it is not in the Public Order Act?
Sarah Jones
My point was that the basis of cumulative disruption has been in the law from the Public Order Act 1986. In terms of the definition, the police use their discretion on the definition—that is absolutely the case—and they have done so since 1986, when they were able to consider that.
I will say a couple of things on that basis. The police have to balance the rights of freedom of assembly and speech that are enshrined in the European convention on human rights—they have to do that. When they are considering what they do with protests, they have to balance and consider those rights, and if they are going to impose conditions, that has to be done under specific areas, which might be serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community. When and if this Bill is passed and we move forward, I will commit to working with the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council to make sure that the guidance is as clear as it can be. However, the definition of cumulative disruption is just its natural meaning, and the police have had that power since 1986.
Andy McDonald
Just on that, if she is going to consult with the College of Policing and others, where is the role for this House to have its voice in that discussion? There are many people here who would like to positively input into that discussion.
Sarah Jones
The role of this House is to debate, which is exactly what we are doing now. I listened, for example, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who talked about his experience with the Metropolitan police in recent times and his sense that he had lost confidence with the way that they were making decisions on protests. I hear all those things and am happy to have more conversations. I am sure that the police would be happy to as well.
I will just say—this does not have an impact on anything that I think about what the law should be on protests—that there has been a 600% increase in the number of protests over the last couple of years. There has been a huge increase in the number of people protesting and the physical ability of the police to just deal with that in terms of resources is not insubstantial. They spend a huge amount of time on this, as we all know, and our neighbourhood officers are often abstracted. That is right and proper—I am not suggesting otherwise—but it is a challenge for the police, particularly in the big urban parts of our country, to have to manage the impact of these protests.
To repeat, the cumulative disruption amendment does not change the guardrails of the powers to impose conditions. It does not change anything about the need to balance the right to protest in the European convention on human rights with the Public Order Act. None of those things will change. What is changing is that we are saying that the police will consider cumulative disruption, rather than that they can consider cumulative disruption.
John McDonnell
I think it would be really helpful if the Minister brought the guidance before the House at some stage, once it is completed, so that we could have some clarity about it. There will be protests in the future. A third runway at Heathrow has been threatened again, and there will be a cumulative impact of protests in my constituency. I want to know if I will have to hand myself in at some point in time as a result of that.
Sarah Jones
I cannot tell whether my right hon. Friend will have to hand himself in at some point in time. I think probably not, but I can remember debating that particular issue when the previous Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, said that he was going to lie down in front of bulldozers. We have debated these issues on protests many, many times. Guidance does not normally come to this House for approval. That would not be appropriate. I need to stress that the police take the definition as it is, in terms of its natural meaning, but I take the point. The point is that we need to ensure that we get these things right, and I will work with the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council on getting this right. I would also ask the House that, when Lord Macdonald has looked at this plethora of emerging legislation, we should consider that and look at what he recommends. Of course, if he recommends that we accept changes to the law, we will debate those things in the proper way in this House if we introduce that legislation.
Chris Hinchliff
Can I just seek clarity from the Minister? If Lord Macdonald comes forward with recommendations to go back in the opposite direction, will the Government then consider those and remove the restrictions they are currently proposing?
Sarah Jones
We do not know what Lord Macdonald is going to recommend. He has terms of reference that we have agreed, which are to look at public order legislation and hate crime legislation and to consider whether it is fit for purpose or whether it needs amending. Of course, we will consider carefully whatever he brings forward and we will act according to what we think is right. He is a man of great note who has done a lot of things in his past—he is a former Director of Public Prosecutions—and we will of course listen to whatever he says.
Max Wilkinson
The Minister seems to be arguing that there is not very much to see here, and that the difference is between “can” and “must”. Is there evidence that when police are having problems policing protests at the moment, they are not assessing the cumulative impact and the problems that that causes?
Sarah Jones
Yes, and that is why we are introducing this amendment; we want to provide clarity that it should be considered. We have a community—in particular, the Jewish community—who are suffering and afraid, and they have spoken to us and to many people many times about the impact of cumulative protests outside places of worship and other places. We are responding to that. This is one change in the grand scheme of public order legislation, but it is a very important one for that community.
Max Wilkinson
I thank the Minister for being generous with her time. Earlier, she said that the right to protest was sacrosanct in this country. My understanding of the definition of “sacrosanct” is that it describes something that is too important to be trifled with. In making this argument, the Government are suggesting that the right to protest should be trifled with, and that the police must do more to restrict the right to protest, aren’t they?
Sarah Jones
This Government believe in the fundamental right to protest. We will never change our view on that. It does have to be balanced with the responsibility to look after our communities. This Government are seeking to get that balance right. We are making a change to the cumulative disruption legislation through this Bill, which we brought forward in the Lords, and several Members asked about that. Of course, normally legislation is introduced here, but amendments are introduced in the Lords by Government and have been by this Government—it is not uncommon. We have had an opportunity to debate the issue today, and I have listened carefully to all the speeches that hon. Members have made.
Apsana Begum
I thank the Minister for giving way once again. Because it is Lords amendments, I want to get full clarity on the definition of cumulative. She mentioned the natural definition of cumulative. If I may borrow the example given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who actually was interviewed under caution for laying flowers for dead children just over a year ago, would it be seen as unnatural or natural if he were to lay down in front of Heathrow runway? What would happen? Is it the expectation that the police would determine what is cumulative, as the Minister said it would be the natural definition?
Sarah Jones
As I have said, the police have had the power to consider cumulative disruption since 1986. If right-wing protesters were protesting every day outside a mosque, that would be my definition of cumulative disruption. The police balance every day the powers they are given from the laws we pass. We are increasing the training that our public order police officers get. We are ensuring that they have access to the right training and resources because that was a problem identified under the previous Government. We are trying to clarify through this piece of legislation that cumulative disruption is an important factor and should be considered when the police consider whether to impose restrictions on protesters. To repeat, we are not banning protests; it is about the imposition of restrictions, and that is all.
The other place has properly asked this elected House to think again about a number of issues. Let us send a clear message back to their lordships: we have listened and agreed a number of further changes to the Bill, but after some 14 months of debate, it is now time for this Bill to complete its passage, so we can get on with the task of implementing the Bill and making all our communities safer.
Amendment (a) made to Lords amendment 263.
Amendments (b) to (g) made to Lords amendment 263.
Lords amendment 263, as amended, agreed to.
Amendments (a) to (e) made to Lords amendment 361.
Lords amendment 361, as amended, agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived.
Clause 4
Fixed penalty notices
Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 2.—(Sarah Jones.)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Before we continue, I advise the House that there is a technical fault with the pass reader system for voting. It is still working, but it is slow to start at the beginning of each Division. The Clerks are looking into it, but I ask Members to wait for the readers to activate before trying to vote.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I must inform Members that unfortunately the pass readers in the Lobbies are not working. Clerks will shortly take their place at the Division desks in the Lobby to record Members’ names on paper. Members who have already voted will have had their names recorded.
We are ready to resume the Division. Members who have not yet voted should pass through the Lobby to give their names to the Clerks. If a Member has already been through the Lobby in this Division, their vote has been counted and they should not pass through the Lobby again. If Members are in any doubt about whether their name has been recorded, they should email the Public Bill Office.
The House having divided: Ayes 301, Noes 157.
[Division No. 471, 7.31 pm]
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 333 disagreed to.
After Clause 144
Duration of closure notices and orders: extension
Government amendment (a) made in lieu of Lords amendment 333.
Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 334.—(Sarah Jones.)
The House divided: Ayes 356, Noes 90.
[Division No. 472, 7.53 pm]
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendments 334 and 339 disagreed to.
Clause 167
Power to make youth diversion orders
Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 342.—(Sarah Jones.)
The House divided: Ayes 281, Noes 70.
[Division No. 473, 8.13 pm]
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 342 disagreed to.
Government amendment (a) made in lieu of Lords amendment 342.
After Clause 185
Glorification of terrorism: removal of emulation requirement
Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 357.—(Sarah Jones.)
The House divided: Ayes 278, Noes 73.
[Division No. 474, 8.28 pm]
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 357 disagreed to.
After Clause 190
Proscription status of Iran-related entities: review
Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 359.—(Sarah Jones.)
The House divided: Ayes 277, Noes 158.
[Division No. 475, 8.43 pm]
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 359 disagreed to.
Lords amendments 360 and 368 to 372 disagreed to.
Government amendment (a) made in lieu of Lords amendments 360 and 368 to 372.
Lords amendments 439 and 505 disagreed to.
Clause 1
Respect orders
Motion made, and Question put, That this House agrees with Lords amendments 1, 3 to 5, 7 to 9, 13 and 14, 16 to 255, 261 and 262, 266 to 310, 312 to 332, 335 to 338, 340 and 341, 343 to 356, 358, 362 to 367, 373 to 438, 440 to 504 and 506 to 532.
The House divided: Ayes 247, Noes 21.
[Division No. 476, 9 pm]
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendments 1, 3 to 5, 7 to 9, 13 and 14, 16 to 255, 261 and 262, 266 to 310, 312 to 332, 335 to 338, 340 and 341, 343 to 356, 358, 362 to 367, 373 to 438, 440 to 504 and 506 to 532 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendments 335, 366 and 367.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H(2)), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing with their amendments 6, 11, 12, 311, 334, 339, 357, 359, 439 and 505;
That Sarah Jones, Stephen Morgan, Adam Thompson, Matt Bishop, Alex McIntyre, Matt Vickers and Clive Jones be members of the Committee;
That Sarah Jones be the Chair of the Committee;
That three be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Lilian Greenwood.)
Question agreed to.
Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.
Road Safety in Old Woking
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Many of my Woking constituents have concerns about the speed and volume of traffic on Old Woking High Street, particularly near St Peter’s church. Those concerns have been increased significantly after a car went through a property on that high street. No one was seriously hurt, but a young family with a new baby received medical treatment, and had to be moved out and placed in temporary housing.
The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take immediate action to provide effective measures in place to slow vehicles or manage the flow of traffic in Old Woking.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Woking,
Declares that there are serious concerns about the speed and volume of traffic on Old Woking High Street, particularly near St Peter's Church, with cars colliding into horses, and causing extensive damage; further declares that a woman who recently gave birth required medical attention due to the trauma of one such incident, and the family has now been moved into temporary accommodation - this incident has deeply affected the community; notes that there have been four other incidents in the past couple of years, all linked to speeding or loss of control on this same stretch of road; further notes that the combination of heavy traffic and excessive speed poses a persistent danger, yet there are currently no effective measures in place to slow vehicles or manage the flow of traffic.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take immediate action to provide effective measures in place to slow vehicles or manage the flow of traffic in Old Woking.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003184]
Dualling of the A21
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to have secured this Adjournment debate on the dualling of the A21 in my constituency. I thank the House authorities for giving me this opportunity, because the condition of the A21—the key strategic route serving the constituency of Bexhill and Battle—is incredibly important.
The A21 is not a just local road; it is the principal strategic road network connection between East Sussex’s coastal communities and London, the M25, international airports and the wider national economy. It is the backbone of access to employment, freight, tourism and business investment across the Bexhill-Hastings corridor, yet today, the A21 is failing to perform that strategic role. Its lack of capacity, safety and resilience, particularly south of Pembury, has become a structural barrier to growth, opportunity and reliable access to work for the communities along the route and for the towns of Bexhill and Hastings, which lie at its southern end.
South of Pembury, the A21 is still predominantly single-carriageway, yet it carries long-distance traffic volumes entirely unsuited to the road’s original design. Large sections are characterised by tight bends, multiple junctions and direct access from homes and farms. The contrast between the dualled and undualled sections creates an inconsistent route standard that undermines reliability, increases risk and erodes confidence in the network for both residents and businesses.
Several villages in my constituency, including Flimwell, Hurst Green and Whatlington, sit directly on the A21. Around 1,500 residents live with a strategic trunk road carrying around 20,000 vehicles a day, including a high proportion of HGVs, exposing them to constant noise, pollution and risk. Their communities are effectively divided by a busy trunk road. That has profound consequences for daily life. It affects whether children can walk safely to school, whether older residents feel confident crossing the road and whether communities function as places to live, rather than corridors to pass through.
Hurst Green is a particularly acute example at the moment. The village primary school is located directly on the A21. Getting children to and from school presents a daily safety challenge that no community should have to accept. Parents and carers have no safe drop-off or pick-up areas and are forced to stop on a national trunk road. Pavements are narrow, often obstructed and completely unprotected from fast-moving traffic. Walking or cycling—activities we rightly want to encourage—are simply not viable options for many families. I have walked this route myself at peak times. Standing inches from a continuous stream of HGVs, vans and cars makes the risk immediately obvious and is very intimidating. This is not an abstract policy issue; it is the lived experience of families every single day.
As the Roads Minister will no doubt be aware, rural single-carriageway A roads carry a disproportionately high share of fatal and serious collisions. More than half of all deaths on A roads occur on single carriageways, despite them carrying significantly less traffic overall. Last weekend, a serious incident on the A21 at Robertsbridge, which is single-carriageway, resulted in the tragic loss of life and serious injuries. While investigations are ongoing, my thoughts and heartfelt sympathies are with the families and loved ones at this incredibly difficult time. The road remained closed for over 24 hours to allow emergency services to carry out necessary investigations and repairs.
Since 2020, National Highways has been delivering a £20 million safety package on the A21, reflecting persistent structural risks on this stretch of road. Those measures are welcome and necessary, but they also demonstrate that we are repeatedly treating symptoms rather than addressing the underlying cause. Recent interventions, including the ongoing installation of traffic lights at the A21-A265 junction in Hurst Green, have highlighted the daily impact of this route on local communities. They have brought into sharp focus not only the sheer volume of traffic on the A21 but the severe consequences when that traffic is brought to a standstill.
Residents were deeply concerned about the manner in which they were consulted on that installation, which was not sufficient, given that this is a major change for residents who will experience it on a daily basis. Some of them were not even written to until the week before, and there was not a serious attempt to engage with them on the final plans. There had been earlier efforts to engage more broadly on what might be done, but we know that our constituents are busy and have other things going on in their lives, so they tend to engage most profoundly when presented with the final plans setting out, “This is what we are minded to do.” In this case, the contractors were already in place and the plans were already decided and paid for, which of course raises a lot of scepticism about National Highways’ ability to have responded to residents’ concerns.
The A21 is acutely vulnerable to disruption, as we are seeing in Hurst Green during the construction period. Collisions, flooding and landslip events regularly lead to full or partial closures. When that happens, there are no suitable alternative routes. Traffic diverts on to narrow country lanes, damaging rural roads, delaying emergency services and cutting off villages for hours at a time. I have direct experience of that. When there has been some sort of incident ahead when driving down the A21 to my constituency, I have naively listened to the advice given by Google Maps to divert off the A21, along with the many other people who are encouraged to do the same; I have been stuck for 30 minutes because that has happened at both ends of the road, and it has taken the good grace of residents living on that road to come out and manage the traffic to unblock the stoppage. As climate-related events become more frequent, this lack of resilience represents a growing risk, not just to road users but to the wider local economy. Businesses cannot plan around a route that fails unpredictably, and workers cannot rely on it for consistent access to employment.
Nowhere are the consequences of poor connectivity more evident than in Bexhill and Hastings. Bexhill contains significant pockets of deprivation, with lower than average wages and productivity—I know the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) will raise similar issues experienced in her constituency. Across the Bexhill–Hastings corridor, productivity levels remain around 20% below the south-east average. Importantly, deprivation in this area is not due to a lack of ambition or potential. Bexhill and Hastings have benefited from regeneration initiatives and local growth programmes, but without a reliable strategic road connection, their impact is fundamentally constrained. Piecemeal local schemes cannot overcome a broken strategic link.
Unreliable journey times limit labour market catchments, reduce business productivity and deter inward investment. Employers struggle to recruit when commute times are unpredictable. Investors hesitate when access to the wider south-east corridor is uncertain. The A21 sits at the centre of that challenge. This is ultimately an issue about opportunity. For many residents in Bexhill, the ability to access work, training or better-paid employment depends on the A21. When that route is unreliable, opportunities narrow and inequalities deepen.
There is clear evidence that strategic upgrades deliver lasting benefits. The dualling of the A21 between Tonbridge and Pembury resulted in major reductions in serious collisions, improved journey reliability and a strong economic return. That outcome is consistent with national evidence about the benefits of dualling high-volume single-carriageway A roads. Further dualling south of Pembury would deliver sustained safety improvements, improve reliability for commuters and businesses, reduce vulnerability to incidents and climate-related disruption, and improve the health and wellbeing of all those living in the villages directly placed along the A21.
If we are serious about tackling deprivation, expanding opportunity and restoring confidence in coastal communities, we must address the structural barriers that hold them back. We have already seen how local strategic road investment can transform opportunity. The Queensway Gateway road transformed access to the A21 from Bexhill and Hastings, reducing severances and improving reliability. Crucially, it made regeneration and employment sites viable by replacing an unreliable approach route with a modern strategic corridor. Investor confidence increased because access was no longer a risk.
The Bexhill-Hastings link road provides even clearer evidence. By delivering a second strategic connection between the two towns and a stronger link to the A21, it removed long-standing capacity constraints. That intervention directly unlocked over 1,000 homes and significant land for employment in north-east Bexhill that could not otherwise have been released. In both cases, public investment in strategic connectivity unlocked substantial private investment and long-term economic gains. The lesson is clear: strategic roads unlock growth and marginal fixes simply ration constraint.
For communities along the A21, this is not simply a transport issue; it is about productivity, opportunity, and fair access to work and services. I urge the Minister to recognise the A21’s role as the principal gateway to some of the most economically disadvantaged communities in the south-east and to move beyond short-term mitigation. Specifically, will he commit to advancing the strategic case for dualling the A21 south of Pembury, including village bypasses? Will he support further design and development work so that the scheme is genuinely ready for delivery? Finally, will he set out how this corridor can be considered within the next road investment strategy?
My residents are clear: they live with the A21 and they bear with the A21, but it is not the version of a road network that is delivering for them. I have explained all the reasons why dualling the A21 will make a profound difference to the opportunities of so many people in my constituency and in neighbouring constituencies. Anyone who has lived alongside that road, in the way that residents have to at the moment, will know that the current situation is not sustainable and cannot be the long-term fix or the solution that makes a real difference. I ask the Minister to think carefully, consider my questions and give hope to all those in my constituency who do not want this issue to be off the agenda or the radar, even if we recognise that the dualling is not something that will happen overnight.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) for securing this important debate about improving the A21. This is an issue that we work on together and with colleagues who represent constituencies along the road, which runs from London down to Hastings and through his constituency.
We all want to see improvements. Like the hon. Gentleman, I support the dualling of the A21 and further improvements to the road. We have both spent so many hours stuck on the A21 commuting between Westminster and our constituencies. As the Minister will be aware, because there is a single-lane system after Pembury, when an accident happens on the A21, people can be stuck for an extremely long time and everything comes to a standstill. That is a really serious issue for our constituents.
The hon. Gentleman talked about how improving our transport links will improve opportunities. Hastings and Rye ranks in the bottom 10 constituencies in the whole country for social mobility, and our poor transport connections are cited by the Sutton Trust as one of the reasons for that, so this is really key.
A lot of work has been happening in recent years to make the A21 safer. I pay tribute to the former Member for Bexhill and Battle for his time in the Department for Transport and for securing some of that funding, which has been continued under this Government. The A21 has definitely become safer in recent years; I know that I have seen a marked improvement, particularly at night, and many constituents have said the same. It used to be one of the most dangerous roads in the country, and I think it still holds a very serious record in the number of fatal road accidents, but it is getting better and is clearly getting safer.
Despite raising this issue, which is mentioned repeatedly by constituents, with National Highways, it is not getting any better, and my constituents and I have experienced it many times: the way in which National Highways handles overnight road closures on the A21 is unacceptable. It does not give any warning or put signs up in advance to tell people that the road is closed. In the pitch black at 10 pm, people are confronted with a road closure and one sign sending them down a series of dark country lanes, with no further signs after that. That puts them in an extremely difficult position in the dark. It is not safe, and actually makes our road safety record go the opposite way, with all the improvements that we are closing the road overnight for. We need to see National Highways get much better at overnight road closures and the notice that it gives. It is not good enough, and I would be really grateful if the Minister could raise that with National Highways.
The other thing I will raise is the Queensway Gateway Road. It has finally been finished and opened, but we have had much pain in Hastings during the works that have been run by East Sussex county council. It was a shambles from start to finish; it was meant to take a month, and it lasted over a year. We have just found out that there was a £5 million overspend on the roadworks, costing local businesses millions and leaving residents stuck in gridlock for hours when trying to get to work or school.
I am calling for an independent investigation into this issue. Conservative-run East Sussex county council and the contractors it used, such as Balfour Beatty, have serious questions to answer about how they could plan a project so badly that it ran on for a year and overspent by £5 million—taxpayers’ money. I would be grateful if the Minister could look into that as well.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) for securing this important debate and for his continued advocacy alongside the work of the A21 reference group on what I know is an important issue for the communities they represent. I welcome the opportunity this evening to set out the Government’s position on the A21, its strategic importance and how it has been considered in our longer-term approach to investment in the strategic road network.
The A21 is a key route in the strategic road network, performing a vital role in connecting coastal communities in East Sussex and larger towns in Kent to the M25 and the wider national network. The road supports a wide range of journeys, such as commuters travelling to work, businesses moving goods and services, tourists visiting the coastal towns of Bexhill and Hastings, and people making everyday local trips. When the road falls short in terms of capacity and reliability, particularly on its single-carriageway sections, this can have a real impact on economic opportunities, journey times and quality of life.
Turning specifically to the southern section of the A21, National Highways recognises performance concerns, particularly around safety. It has invested over £20 million since 2021 to improve safety between Sevenoaks and Hastings. I recognise, however, that the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle wants further investment. As the House will be aware, on 26 March, the Government published the third road investment strategy, committing a total of £27 billion to operate, maintain and improve England’s strategic road network over the next five years. That investment will ensure that the network remains safe and reliable while supporting economic growth and improving journeys for users across the country. RIS3 places a greater focus than ever before on the maintenance and renewal of our existing network, with a smaller number of enhancement schemes. Improvements to routes such as the A21 need to be considered in that wider context.
RIS3 will deliver tangible improvements through safer and smoother journeys for road users and through targeted programmes tackling key pinch points on the network. For the A21—as the hon. Member will be aware —one of the main pinch points can be found at the Kippings Cross roundabout, where the dual-carriageway section meets the single-carriageway section. That junction is being considered for improvement as part of one of the new national programmes in RIS3, and I encourage hon. Members to engage with National Highways over the months ahead as this work progresses and the schemes within the programme are prioritised for delivery.
As for dualling the remaining single-carriageway stretches of the A21, there are no plans to do so at the present time. It does not form part of the plans set out in RIS3, and it is not one of the schemes included in the pipeline of schemes for construction in the early 2030s. Dualling the A21 would carry a significant cost, and the delivery of such a scheme would be really challenging, given the local topography and the number of settlements that the route passes through. It would also have significant environmental impacts—I know that there are sites of significant environmental interest in the area, including ancient woodland—and would require, I think, at least three or four bypasses around villages.
Dr Mullan
First, will the Minister advise me on what to do if something is not even in the long pipeline? What does an MP have to do to get it put into the long pipeline? Secondly, if the Minister is not considering dualling, perhaps the next best thing in some of the villages that are particularly hard hit would be bypasses, so are there any plans separate from dualling—plans for some bypassing, even of the single lane? Land has been bought to do that in the past, and then it gets sold back and those plans are not delivered. Is there some light at the end of the tunnel in the form of some potential bypassing?
Simon Lightwood
This is not to say that dualling will never happen, and it is entirely right for the hon. Member and other hon. Members to continue to advocate and build the case for such major improvements. Where there is strong cross-party support from across the region, that sends a clear signal for potential future investment, and I encourage hon. Members to continue to engage with National Highways and other regional partners on what more can be done to improve the performance of the route for the communities it serves.
To touch on some other points, my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) talked about other forms of transport connecting communities, and I know that she has made representations in favour of improving the speed and frequency of trains between Hastings and London. While that sits outside of my remit as the Minister for roads and buses, I obviously encourage her to continue pushing for those upgrades. I cannot commit to dualling the A21 at this stage, but I can make the commitment that National Highways will continue working with the hon. Gentleman and the A21 reference group to ensure that safety is prioritised on this route.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye spoke about overnight closures, and I commit to raising that personally with National Highways to see what we can do to improve those circumstances.
Dr Mullan
Even if the Government cannot commit to the funding, developing a business case and options in an updated form would not commit anybody to doing it or to saying that there will be funding, but it would be a starting point. On that point, can the Minister be a bit more helpful by saying that he thinks that National Highways should at least have an updated plan for delivering this proposal, if and when the funding appears?
Simon Lightwood
As I said, there are no current plans considering dualling, but National Highways routinely considers the performance of the strategic road network as part of its route strategies process. The hon. Gentleman has my assurance that the current performance and potential future investment needs of the A21 will continue to be assessed in that context to inform future road investment strategies. I have no doubt that he will continue to lobby and to engage with National Highways, along with the A21 reference group. As I have said, I will take away the issue of overnight closures.
In closing, I reiterate that the Government recognise the strategic importance of the A21 and the strength of feeling of Members and the communities affected by its current performance. While difficult decisions must be taken about investment priorities, we remain committed to working constructively with National Highways to deliver benefits for road users, and I welcome the continued engagement of Members in building that case. The concerns raised in this debate will be carefully considered as we look ahead to future investment opportunities on the strategic road network.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Energy Prices Act 2022 (Extension of Time Limit) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Energy Prices Act 2022 (Extension of Time Limit) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz.
This Government are fully committed to fighting people’s corner to tackle the cost of living crisis. Across the energy system and more widely, we are acting on this as a matter of priority. A number of steps were taken in last year’s Budget, and we have since gone further. At the Budget, alongside several positive changes to help working people with the cost of living, the Chancellor announced that we would remove costs from energy bills from this month. I want to be clear what those costs are. First, we are closing the Energy Company Obligation scheme, removing its costs from bills and instead funding home upgrades for energy efficiency via the warm homes plan. Members may recall that recent regulations extended ECO4 by nine months, but only to enable an orderly closure, with no costs on bills, from this month.
Secondly, we transferred 75% of the renewables obligation scheme costs attributable to domestic energy supply to instead be funded by the Exchequer. The core renewables obligation incentive for relevant generators. These were principled decisions to fund more of the investment we need from public spending rather than bills, which is the right and progressive thing to do. It is thanks to those decisions that typical household energy bills fell by 7% or more than £100 from 1 April.
Let me briefly set out how we delivered the removal of the RO costs from bills, before I come on to how the regulations will enable that to continue. Under the RO, energy suppliers purchase certificates from relevant renewables generators, and previously recovered the full cost of those purchases from consumers. From 1 April, suppliers have been required to recover only 25% of those costs from domestic consumers. For domestic consumers on standard variable tariffs, Ofgem’s energy price cap, published on 25 February, factored in reduced policy costs reflecting the RO changes that we are considering this morning. As a result, the price cap has fallen by 7% or £117, to £1,641 per year for a typical dual-fuel customer paying by direct debit. It will remain held down at that level until the end of June.
In addition, the Government issued a legally binding direction to suppliers on 18 March requiring them to also pass on the full savings to domestic consumers on fixed tariffs. With suppliers no longer recovering 75% of the cost of the RO from household energy bills, we are instead providing equivalent monthly grant funding. We acted quickly to deliver this funding and the associated consumer savings, using an existing power in the Energy Prices Act. That power needs to be extended via regulations to avoid its expiry. It is those regulations that we are discussing today.
The regulations do not give the Secretary of State any new powers, but they ensure the spending power we are using to enable the consumer savings remains available. Legally we can extend the time limit on this power only by six months at a time, so the regulations extend them from 25 April to 25 October. While I expect to need to seek a further extension, I can assure members that the Department is working on primary legislation to provide a more permanent solution when parliamentary time allows.
I would like to note that the position is slightly different in relation to Northern Ireland, where the Executive are delivering a comparable policy. I have been working with the Minister for the Economy in Northern Ireland, and at her request we have laid separate regulations to support delivery there.
Before I close, I will say that we are in a different international environment to when the energy bill reduction was planned in the Budget in November. That was noted by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in the other place. It is now even more important that we have acted to reduce energy bills by more than £100, and that bills will stay capped down at a lower level until the end of June.
Whatever the challenges that lie ahead, 75% of RO costs will remain off domestic energy bills for the next three years. We have already gone further in supporting vulnerable heating oil consumers in response to events in the middle east, and we continue to monitor those events closely to ensure we are ready to be both responsive and responsible. The regulations are a simple time limit extension, but are essential to the ongoing removal of 75% of RO costs from domestic energy bills and I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Ms Vaz.
I note at the outset that the Opposition will not divide the Committee on this statutory instrument. We do not oppose the principle of reducing the burden of policy costs on household energy bills. However, the fundamental question this statutory instrument raises is one of transparency. Are the public being given an honest account of what the Government’s policies do? Moving some of the renewables obligation funding to be paid from the Exchequer does not eliminate a cost: it relocates it. The £70-odd saving that Ministers claim to be making is still being paid by all our constituents: they are paying it through their tax bill, rather than their energy bills. As Martin Lewis noted, that is the mechanism behind the majority of the advertised £150 saving. That is not nothing, but it is not quite the windfall it is presented as either.
The huge subsidies that entitle some windfarm owners to three times the market price of the power they generate still flows to energy developers, all funded by the taxpayer. Crucially, the savings that the Labour Government have put forward do nothing to cut bills for businesses, which are seeing their network costs double thanks to the Government’s net zero policies and are getting no support from their big energy bill package.
The regulations extend the section 13 powers of the Energy Prices Act 2022 by a further six months to October 2026. The Government have been clear that primary legislation will follow, and the Minister repeated in his speech this morning, when parliamentary time allows. Well, a King’s Speech is in the diary for next month, so all eyes will be on it to see if that appears. I am sure that the Minister will not be tempted to confirm or deny items in the King’s Speech this morning, but if this is not in it, questions will be asked. That prompts a reasonable question about whether the Minister can offer assurances about the timetable. Does he expect it to be this year, next year or at some point before the next general election? Can he confirm that the extension in the regulations will not become a pattern of repeated deferral?
It is right to support measures that ease the cost of living. What is equally important is that the public are given a clear and honest account of how those measures work and who will ultimately foot the bill. As we all know, a very great lady once said that there is no such thing as public money, only taxpayers’ money.
The Chair
To clarify, any Member can attend a Delegated Legislation Committee even if they are not a member of the Committee.
Gareth Snell
That is a nice introduction, Ms Vaz, and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
I have no issue in principle with the regulations, which extend the powers of the Secretary of State. The issue I want to raise, given this opportunity, is the other aspects of the Energy Price Act 2022 on industrial energy, which are also extended by virtue of extending the timescale for the legislation. The Minister will know that I have been persistent in trying to seek a meeting with him, which I have not been able to secure. On the last attempt we were told that his diary was too busy for a meeting. I thought, therefore, that I would come along and detain the Committee for 20 minutes this morning for a meeting that we could have had privately in the Department. I apologise to other members of the Committee.
The Minister will know that section 9 of the Energy Prices Act allows for the reduction of energy charges for non-domestic customers in Great Britain. That is industrial energy which keeps the lights on in factories, and allows us to make things, build things and do things. It is the life source of British manufacturing. The Minister will also be acutely aware that too many businesses in this country, especially those in foundational sectors, are unable currently to meet the cost of their gas and electricity because of the price of industrial energy.
For reference, two weeks ago the price of gas was 140p per therm. It is currently trading at between 113p and 115p per therm. To put that into context, in 2020, before the various shocks and energy crises, it was 47p per therm. Gas-intensive manufacturers are today paying roughly—including other costs that are part of the measures the Minister mentioned—three times what they were paying. We cannot make glass, bricks, cement, paper, steel or—crucially for me—ceramics without a credible and affordable supply of industrial gas. There are also challenges with electricity pricing.
I am sure that the Minister will respond to what I am saying by talking about the supercharger scheme, and will note the excellent extension of the scheme from a 60% reduction to a 90% reduction, but that covers only 500 of the most energy-intensive industries in the country; 5,000 others could be included, but unfortunately are not, so while we are seeing an increase in support for some of the industry, it is very narrow and does not support most of the manufacturing in this country. I am sure the Minister will also reach into his big bag of tricks to talk about the British industrial competitiveness scheme, the consultation for which has only just gone out. That scheme was promised in last year’s Budget and will almost certainly not be in place until late 2027.
The Minister wants to extend the powers under the Energy Prices Act using today’s statutory instrument, and I think that is a good thing, but I would ask him to do three things. The first is to think about what other parts of the Act he will use when he has extended those powers. When he has extended the powers of the Secretary of State until the end of this year, will he use the powers under section 9(1) by regulation to reduce charges for non-domestic energy supply? Will he use the powers that are extended under this SI to reduce the amount that would be otherwise charged for the GB non-domestic gas supply by licensed gas suppliers?
The Minister could, if he wanted to, under section 13(3)(a), give financial assistance to non-domestic users of energy, whether it be gas or electricity, using powers that are in the Act that are being extended by today’s SI. Under section 13(2),
“The Secretary of State may take such other steps as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in response to the energy crisis.”
I think it is quite clear that we are in an energy crisis. We are facing enormously high energy costs, not just in our own homes but in the factories that employ thousands of people across this country in highly skilled, proud, working-class communities.
Following today’s extension to the powers under the Energy Prices Act, the Government will have the power to meet the demands being made of them by various sectors—not just ceramics but glass, steel, bricks, cement, lime, paper; all the things that we need—to make an intervention as soon as the SI is passed. The Minister could go back to his Department and say, “We have the power, the political will and an interest in doing so; therefore we are going to make regulations.” He could say to the 4,500 businesses that are not covered by the industry supercharger scheme, “Here is a mechanism by which we can simply put you in that scheme.”
Gareth Snell
It is within the powers that are being extended by today’s SI. The Minister rightly talks about the SI’s impact on the power of the Secretary of State to vary domestic bills, but the Act is quite comprehensive. What is being extended today by the SI is a suite of powers that are available to the Secretary of State to undertake significant market intervention on a range of fronts in the next six months—it is covered by the SI that is before us—to make life easier for businesses, manufacturers and heavy industries in my constituency and, I would wager, in yours, Ms Vaz. I know you have brick manufacturers who face the same industrial energy crisis—[Interruption.] As does the shadow Minister in his constituency.
Given the powers that are being granted to the Secretary of State under this SI, companies around the country could be given help and support. I therefore ask the Minister, once he has granted the Secretary of State additional powers through the SI before us, will he go back to his Department and come up with a scheme, a plan and a package of support for those non-domestic users of gas and electricity that are not covered by the industry supercharger scheme that will come into place well before the British industrial competitiveness scheme is floated, and allow some breathing space for those manufacturers who, frankly, are the lifeblood of the economy in so many constituencies and who, in places like Stoke-on-Trent, employ thousands of people?
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. The extension of this statutory instrument is important to ensure that the Government will continue to be able to support households with energy costs. Given the volatility of fossil fuel prices and Trump’s reckless and illegal war with Iran, it is important that legislative tools are available to support people with their energy bills.
However, the Government need to act to support such households. While the announcement in March to help households using heating oil through the crisis resilience fund was welcome, the Government need to continue to support them. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have consistently called on the Government to zero-rate VAT on heating oil for three months and to create a price cap mechanism for off-gas households. They should not be left unprotected and vulnerable to soaring prices.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central made important points about large, energy-intensive industries. The Government should take the opportunity that the instrument offers by providing support for small or microbusinesses to cover the cost of their renewables obligations to energy suppliers, lowering bills and supporting businesses with soaring prices during volatile and uncertain times. Families and business owners are struggling and are worried about what the conflict with Iran will mean for their bills. We need to see real and continued support from the Government to lower energy bills and help those who need it most.
Martin McCluskey
I will turn first to the comments made by the official Opposition, and the call to scrap the renewables obligation scheme. I want to put it on the record that it is simply not realistic to scrap that scheme. We took a deliberate decision to remove 75% of the RO from bills and to move that on to general taxation. The shadow Minister may oppose that move, but it is a principled decision that we have taken in order to spread the burden of those renewables obligations more widely, to make sure that those with the broadest shoulders are paying more, rather than it falling just on bill payers, and to maintain the incentive for renewable generators in the scheme at the same time.
The shadow Minister will know that the RO supports 25,000 generation stations, which accounts for approximately 30% of UK electricity generation. Abandoning the RO would not just send a signal to industry that we are not a reliable partner for investment but potentially put at risk our electricity generation, which would be deeply irresponsible. We will take responsible action to move this on to general taxation, while at the same time reducing the burden on bill payers, as people would expect the Government to do, not just because of the situation in the middle east but because of the situation that we faced before that with the rising cost of living.
I deeply admire the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central does to advocate for his constituents. I am not aware of him having requested a meeting with me. He may have requested a meeting with either the Minister for Industry or the Minister for Energy. My brief covers only domestic consumers, not industry, but I will happily ask my hon. Friends the Minister for Energy and the Minister for Industry to meet with him to discuss the issues that he has raised in Committee this morning. He made a number of points about the increasing costs on industry, which as Members would expect are being actively discussed in the Department as we establish what support we may be able to offer, not just to domestic consumers, which is what we are dealing with this morning, but to non-domestic consumers.
The Government were taking significant action to reduce bills prior to the situation that has arisen in the middle east, but as hon. Members have mentioned, the rising cost of energy due to what is happening in Iran continues to dominate thinking in the Department. As hon. Members have mentioned, we have already come forward with proposals and help for those using heating oil, and all other contingencies are being kept under review to ensure that we support people through this situation as they face rising energy prices.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 24 February. The instrument has two objectives. First, it amends article 71 of the assimilated basic regulation to give the Civil Aviation Authority the flexibility to grant exemptions. Secondly, it removes an unused criminal sanction to allow twin-engine aircraft to operate over longer distances, in line with international best practice.
Currently, the CAA may grant an exemption from the basic regulation implementing rules only under two scenarios: urgent unforeseeable circumstances and urgent operational needs. That requirement limits the CAA’s ability to support innovation and to allow exemptions that would enhance safety at regular and foreseeable events such as festivals.
I am aware of the concern raised by the Transport Committee that this amendment to article 71 of the basic regulation represents a reduction in regulatory protection, but I can assure its members that the CAA has developed a robust framework to ensure that exemptions granted under article 71 will not degrade safety. Each request will be risk-assessed by the CAA’s aviation safety experts and granted only where no other regulatory alternative exists and safety is assured. Just because a request has been granted once, that will not set a precedent for future exemptions. The criteria for exemption are deliberately strict, maintaining existing requirements on aircraft noise, fuel venting and engine emissions, as well as ensuring that decisions do not create unreasonable or unsafe working conditions.
That approach will enhance safety. For example, to facilitate the safe arrival and departure of large numbers of helicopters at events such as Royal Ascot and Formula 1 at Silverstone, the CAA currently recommends that a temporary air traffic control service is set up. However, full compliance with the existing legislation would be disproportionate to the service provision and the period of the event, as that legislation was developed with a permanent service in mind. Currently, because such an event is foreseeable, the CAA cannot grant exemptions, even though that would clearly enhance safety by enabling safer management of helicopter operations.
The amendment will also support innovation. Currently, technological developments such as beyond visual line of sight drone flights in non-segregated airspace are hard to test, as they are considered neither urgent nor unforeseeable under existing regulations.
The second amendment in the instrument removes a criminal sanction in the Air Navigation Order 2016.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
I welcome the fact that the regulations allow for innovation, and especially things such as vertical take-off and unmanned flights. However, given that Biggin Hill airport is in my constituency, can the Minister say what provisions there are to ensure that local communities in smaller aerodrome areas are communicated with?
Keir Mather
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about community consultation, and the CAA’s design of noise policy takes it incredibly seriously. These exemptions are designed to be used only when other regulatory avenues are not available, but we expect all operators to take noise considerations into account. I know how important that is to his constituents, and it will be part of this work going forward.
As I said, the second amendment in the instrument removes a criminal sanction in the Air Navigation Order 2016. That will enable the introduction of internationally standardised extended diversion time operations later this year in the Aviation Safety (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2026. Those rules cannot be introduced while the criminal sanction remains attached, as the powers in the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 that we would need to use expire in June this year. The CAA has never used this sanction and has other regulatory tools to ensure compliance, including revoking approvals or limiting air operator certificates. On the wider powers gap in relation to criminal sanctions, the Department is aware of the issue, and we are reviewing whether existing powers on the statute book may be able to fill that gap. We are also considering introducing primary legislation when parliamentary time allows.
I hope I have adequately reassured Members that these provisions are proportionate, incentivise innovation and defend our robust record on aviation safety. I therefore commend them to the Committee.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. As the Minister invoked a couple of events in his speech, I will go for a different safety first approach by drawing the Committee’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in relation to Silverstone Circuits Ltd and Ascot racecourse, and to my chairmanship of the all-party parliamentary group on Formula 1 and motorsport. I do not believe that our debate is materially to do with those events, but as the Minister invoked them, I thought it best to draw the Committee’s attention to those points.
Aviation safety underpins the whole of our aviation sector, and the necessity of getting it right is of the utmost importance to those in the industry and the public. It is therefore welcome that we have seen continual improvements over the last few decades in the United Kingdom’s overall aviation safety. However, as noted in the CAA’s most recent annual report, the accidents we have seen must serve as a sobering reminder that safety must never be taken for granted. I reference that because the measures we are debating appear to broadly strike a sensible balance between upholding safety and allowing some loosening of existing restrictions.
Considering the regulations as one, the fundamental question is about the CAA’s capacity and ability to deal with the changes. Can we be confident that it will maintain the strong standards associated with these rule changes? The alterations proposed to article 71 of the basic regulation appear to promote proportionate deregulatory change, including by opening the possibility of extending exemptions for testing new technologies and for several one-off events. Critically, those changes received support from stakeholders when consulted on by the CAA, and that was followed up in a subsequent consultation to address any concerns.
If safety can be maintained, it is clearly welcome to have measures in place that encourage innovation and that could allow air navigation service providers to offer radio assistance for events, which appears to be an upgrade on existing rules. As the Government’s impact assessment notes, that should reduce barriers to entry for businesses in some circumstances, which should be welcomed. However, given the comment that those circumstances must be exceptional for an exemption to be granted, is the Minister able to answer the concerns set out by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee that, as these exemptions would be used for day-to-day activities, they are not in fact exceptional? I am not contesting the principle of the regulations, but is the Minister content that the terminology “exceptional” will support the day-to-day activities the CAA believes are safe? Also, has the Department for Transport engaged with the CAA about its capacity to process these applications? Is it comfortable that there is the capacity to do this work?
The second element of the regulations, regarding the removal of the criminal sanctions, also deserves consideration. Although the sanctions have never been used, can I get an assurance from the Minister that the CAA believes they would never be used in the future and that the existing rules relating to threshold distances are sufficient to stop unsafe behaviour? We recognise the need for the regulations to be altered, given other changes the CAA is considering, but is there a clear assurance that there will be no reduction in safety because of this change?
It is right to support measures that uphold safety, while also allowing the sector greater freedom to participate in activities the CAA believes to be safe. What is paramount, though, is that the regulator continues to ensure that all such activities are safe, so that we can maintain confidence in the British aviation sector, of which I am sure all Members of this House are already rightly proud.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship once again, Ms Lewell. I welcome the Minister’s comments, and it is good that he is aware of some of the concerns about the proposed changes to article 71 and some of the findings from the consultation, but can he go a little further? What he says about the CAA not using these provisions too casually is important, but what will be done—to answer the age-old question of who watches the watchers—to ensure that the CAA is using the powers in the regulations sensibly rather than disproportionately? I agree with the shadow Minister’s comments. The Liberal Democrats are broadly inclined to support the regulations, but we would like to hear a little more from the Minister about what assurances can be given that these new powers will not be abused.
Keir Mather
First, I thank the shadow Minister for his response, and I apologise for being accidentally pointed in the references I made to the equestrian and automotive activities that take place in his fantastic constituency.
To respond to points the hon. Gentleman made, may I first thank him for his continued support for proportionate deregulatory measures that do not compromise aviation safety? Although we can trade differing points of view on political ideology in this House, aviation safety is something we are united on and committed to enhancing, irrespective of party.
I can confirm that we are confident in the capacity of the CAA to manage this process effectively. I am cognisant of the points raised by the shadow Minister and the Lib Dem spokesperson about the DFT having to exercise robust oversight over these processes and to liaise closely with the CAA to ensure that it is using these powers proportionately.
The shadow Minister asked me to say a little more about what we mean by “exceptional”. These exceptions will be granted only when there is no other reasonable way for the applicant to achieve the aims that have been put forward. To give some examples, I refer him to the CAA’s draft policy framework, which sets out that exemptions will be granted only when the desired objective cannot be achieved by other means, and the CAA will not grant exemptions solely for cost. The policy contemplates granting exemptions in situations where, for example, a high standard of safety can be maintained and where there is an urgent need for the exemption to be granted. I can therefore assure hon. Members that this is a limited, specifically delineated exemption, and we believe that the CAA has the right resources to institute it effectively.
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to the debate. The safety of aviation and the travelling public is a priority for this Government and across the House. The DFT is committed to ensuring that aviation remains safe, and these regulations represent a further step in achieving that. I therefore commend the draft instrument to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Buckinghamshire Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2026
Draft Surrey County Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2026
Draft Warwickshire County Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Buckinghamshire Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2026.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Surrey County Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2026 and the draft Warwickshire County Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2026.
Andrew Western
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I am very grateful for the opportunity to debate these three statutory instruments, which were laid before the House on 25 February 2026 under the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016. If they are approved, the Department for Works and Pensions will transfer adult education functions and the associated adult skills fund to these local areas for the start of the new academic year, 1 August 2026. These local areas will then have the freedom to use their adult skills fund to help their residents meet their skills needs, fulfil their potential and contribute to the growth of their region.
Since 2018, a portion of the adult skills fund has been devolved to local bodies who have exercised control over the spending in their area. For the most part, those organisations have been combined authorities, although functions and funding were devolved to Cornwall council a year ago.
The previous Government agreed devolution deals with the three local authorities we are considering today in March 2024. Those deals, taken forward by this Government, committed to full devolution of the adult education budget, now called the adult skills fund. That was to be exercised from academic year 2026-27, subject to readiness conditions and parliamentary approval. It has been judged that all three authorities have demonstrated readiness to acquire functions, and therefore these instruments are the final step in ensuring that they are able to deliver from August this year.
The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill will confer the same functions on strategic authorities to be exercised from at least one full academic year after the authority’s establishment. The package of these instruments and that Bill will increase the percentage of the adult skills fund that is devolved from 67% to 76%.
Six further areas agreed devolution deals through this Government’s devolution priority programme. The Government are going through the legislative process to form these areas, with the intention that they will deliver adult education functions from August 2027, subject to ministerial approval. Taken together, those actions deliver on the Government’s commitment to empower local leaders and unlock growth.
The adult skills fund supports millions of adults across England to develop the skills they need to equip them for work, an apprenticeship or further learning. We know that local areas are best placed to identify what their local people, communities and businesses need. Strategic authorities decide how they spend their funding to deliver opportunity and growth in their area. They will be able to respond in a more agile way to local priorities and emerging challenges and to address any barriers more effectively.
Local areas can apply the flexibility that devolved adult skills funding functions offers, for instance to identify adults in their region who are most in need and invest more funding to support those groups. They can work directly with employers, training providers and other local partners to commission new provision to meet local needs and set funding rates that incentivise the delivery of provision that offers the most positive impacts for their region.
Within that local flexibility, strategic authorities must offer free courses for adults to deliver national statutory entitlements in English, maths, digital courses, level 2 and 3 qualifications for those who do not yet have those skills and free courses for jobs. This funding provides an essential stepping stone for adults with the lowest skills. I recognise that the nature of skills challenges, and the solutions, will be different in every region, and I am pleased that three new areas are poised to take the opportunities and develop new thinking and priorities for the adult skills fund in their areas.
If the statutory instruments are approved, Buckinghamshire, Surrey and Warwickshire will be responsible for managing their adult skills funding allocations efficiently and effectively to deliver for their local residents. Each area has consented to the transfer of these powers and to the making of these statutory instruments. They have also provided assurances that permanent skills teams are in place to manage delivery effectively. They have each developed a strategic skills plan, setting out how they will use their devolved adult skills funding to meet key priorities.
I can also confirm that, on the basis of the evidence submitted, Ministers have concluded that the statutory tests have been met. Each area has given its consent and demonstrated that devolution is likely to improve the economic, social and environmental wellbeing of the people who live and work in the region. A report has been laid before Parliament explaining how these conditions have been met. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all our partner organisations and, in particular, colleagues at Buckinghamshire council, Surrey county council and Warwickshire county council for their expertise and input in getting to this important milestone.
To conclude, these statutory instruments will give these three authorities the opportunity to shape their adult education provision, address local barriers, focus provision to meet local needs, enhance economic growth and bring greater prosperity to their areas. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. These three sets of draft regulations transfer responsibility for adult education and skills funding from the Secretary of State to three local councils. The aim is to bring decisions on education closer to the communities they serve.
The decisions we make on adult education and skills are important; a skilled workforce is essential for economic success. With technologies such as AI transforming the jobs market, it is crucial that people can retrain, upskill and re-enter the workforce as industries change. We know that, when funding is well targeted, more adults take up courses, particularly in sectors with real skills shortages.
The Minister will be aware, though, that councils are stretched and facing pressures on budgets and services. If we devolve responsibility without proper support, we risk letting adult education fall by the wayside. What measures will the Minister therefore take to ensure that the services are provided and that the funding he is devolving is well spent? What checks will he apply?
The Minister will also be aware that Surrey county council is being reorganised. He is proposing to devolve funding for adult education and skills to Surrey county council from 1 August this year, but I believe I am right in saying that, from 1 April next year, it will be replaced by two councils: East and West Surrey. What steps will he take to ensure that those new councils can deliver quality services for local residents?
The Conservatives are proud of our record on education and skills over our previous period in Government; we left rising standards in schools, improved attainment and expanded apprenticeships, but the job is not finished. Skills policy must work for adults as well as for young people, so we accept that there is more to do. We will do our job of scrutinising the Government: supporting policies that work and holding them to account on policies that do not.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Sir John. I will speak to the statutory instrument focused on Surrey, my constituency of Woking being foremost in my mind. That statutory instrument transfers certain adult education functions from the Secretary of State to Surrey county council as part of the Government’s devolution agenda. From the 2026-27 school year, Surrey county council would therefore take responsibility for delivery of those education and training functions for people aged 19 and above, including local learning priorities, managing tuition support and other such things.
The Liberal Democrats have concerns about the lack of clarity around how the devolved powers will work in practice, and I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on that. Does Surrey county council have the necessary capacity, resources and structures to deliver effectively when, as we know, they have significant financial pressures? The council was mentioned during the debate we had yesterday on special educational needs and disabilities, and, as was highlighted, the Secretary of State for Education is concerned about its children’s services and its offer for young people with SEND.
In particular, will the Minister explain why the Government are devolving the powers to Surrey county council in the financial year 2026-27, at the end of which the council will be abolished? That provides no certainty. He is the Minister for Transformation, but transformation happens year after year. Surely this decision can wait for at least one year until East Surrey council and West Surrey council are established and can take on new responsibilities.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. The regulations for Warwickshire county council are an opportunity to move real responsibility in the right direction: out of Whitehall and into Warwickshire. It is right that adult education functions sit with Warwickshire county council, giving local leaders far more say over skills, funding and provision.
However, we need to be honest about the context. Warwickshire is undergoing local government reorganisation, which will be followed by devolution and membership of a combined authority. The county council will not exist in a few years, and new unitary councils or a future strategic authority will inherit the proposed responsibilities mid-transition. That creates potential risk. Powers can be devolved quickly, but capacity takes time to build. If the change is done without proper support, new authorities will be left trying to deliver complex skills systems while establishing and reorganising themselves as new authorities. I would welcome the Minister’s reassurance on that.
Furthermore, my hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) tabled amendments to the English devolution Bill to strengthen local leadership in skills planning, including in adult education, which would have ensured that strategic authorities and employers work together, align boundaries properly and jointly shape local priorities. I hope that the Government will look at that important issue as local government reorganisation progresses. In conclusion, decision making should sit closer to the people those decisions affect, with local authorities given the tools and support to deliver, not just the responsibility.
Andrew Western
I thank colleagues for their broad support for the principle of more localised decision making and the flexibility it brings to local areas to shape the delivery of skills to meet the needs of the local labour market and community. Ordinarily, I would respond separately to each Member who has contributed, but the theme of all the questions was accountability, readiness and the practicality of the three local authorities, and in some cases the individual areas, delivering adult education provision from as early as this academic year.
It is worth acknowledging the question asked by both the Opposition spokesperson and the hon. Member for Woking about the proposed future shape of Surrey, which will be split into two local authority areas. The Government recognise that the change may present challenges, with a new system and new local authorities to work with. However, at the same time, the pressing need for local decision making means that we are minded at the moment to make arrangements for a new body in the form of a foundation strategic authority. That will ensure that we can continue to deliver this through the local prism and that residents across the whole of Surrey, including key stakeholders and partners, will have certainty that the transition will be seamless, not just in terms of the devolution we are talking about now, but in terms of the new structure of two local authorities.
On the question of accountability and readiness more broadly, and how we would satisfy ourselves that local areas were behaving wisely in the decisions they take in this space, it is perhaps important to recognise that accountability arrangements for devolved organisations are set out in the English devolution accountability framework. As part of that, local areas with devolved powers are required to submit annual assurance reports to the Department for Work and Pensions and to publish them on their own organisation’s website. Those reports set out what a devolved area has delivered against its strategic skills priorities over the previous academic year. They include an assessment of key outcomes, local partnership work, achievements, challenges and lessons learned.
Key data that local areas are expected to report against include adult skills, data on spend and the number of learners in their local areas taking up statutory entitlements. Skills England uses that information to undertake annual skills stocktakes, which each local area can use to discuss key findings, including how many issues can be addressed.
However, if significant or persistent issues are identified, the Government would take further action. That could include undertaking a further diagnostic review or, in serious cases, escalating to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, which is able to intervene under measures set out in the Local Government Act 1999. I think we would all hope to not be in that position, and my view is that it is unlikely, but we need to be mindful that this is a significant change alongside the other significant changes that Members have mentioned. For instance, I recognise that the position on Warwickshire is not yet fully settled, but we anticipate changes. We have come up with an option to enable continued delivery in the Surrey area, and we would hope to work through something similar for Warwickshire.
On balance, I respectfully disagree with colleagues who propose a delay, because I want to get these powers down to the best possible local footprint so that areas continue to have a greater say in shaping decisions in their region. On that basis, I commend to the Committee the regulations pertaining to Surrey, Warwickshire and—how could I forget—Buckinghamshire.
Question put and agreed to.
DRAFT SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL (ADULT EDUCATION FUNCTIONS) REGULATIONS 2026
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Surrey County Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2026.—(Andrew Western.)
DRAFT WARWICKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (ADULT EDUCATION FUNCTIONS) REGULATIONS 2026
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Warwickshire County Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2026. —(Andrew Western.)
Courts and Tribunals Bill (Third sitting)
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we begin, I remind Members to switch electronic devices to silent, and that tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings.
We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. It shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. A Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called to speak first. For debates on clause stand part, the Minister will be called first. Other Members are then free to indicate that they wish to speak in the debate by bobbing. Please bob on each occasion on which you wish to speak during proceedings.
At the end of a debate on a group of amendments and new clauses, I shall call the Member who moved the lead amendment or new clause again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or new clause, or to seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press to a vote any other amendment in the group, including grouped new clauses, that is at the Chair’s discretion. My fellow Chairs and I shall use our discretion to decide whether to allow a separate stand part debate on individual clauses following the debates on relevant amendments.
I remind Members that decisions take place in the order the provisions appear in the Bill. This means that some amendments may be divided on considerably later than the point at which they are debated. I hope that explanation is helpful.
Clause 1
Removal of right to elect trial on indictment
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 38, in clause 1, page 3, lines 20, at end insert—
“, but see subsection (10).
(10) Notwithstanding the preceding subsections, the accused may elect to be tried on indictment if he demonstrates to the court that the circumstances of his case are such that to be tried on summary would amount to a breach of the principles of natural justice.”
Dr Mullan
It is a pleasure to have you with us, Ms Jardine, and I look forward to this first of many Committee sittings. I am pleased to begin line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill, beginning with clause 1 and the Opposition amendment tabled in my name.
The clause is a helpful place to start our considerations because it cuts straight to the core of our concerns and criticisms, many of which are similar and run through our opposition to many of the other clauses. The clause will amend subsections (2) and (9) of section 20 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 to remove the requirement for the defendant to consent to their case remaining in the magistrates court for summary trial. In effect, that will remove the ability of a defendant charged with an either-way offence to elect trial by jury in the Crown court.
This is one of the key changes that add up to reforms that represent an unprecedented erosion of our right to trial by jury, which is, without doubt, one of our oldest and most important traditions. It has been with us for hundreds and hundreds of years, bordering on the amount of time one might typically consider to make it an ancient right, as some people refer to it.
No wonder that right has become so valuable when we compare it to what went before. For about 500 years before the beginnings of what became the jury trial system, we had trial by ordeal. Guilt was determined by God through his unseen hand in the outcome of events, unrelated to considering in any way what happened or what we might consider evidence. The two main forms this took were trial by fire and trial by water. For trial by fire, the accused had to carry a red-hot iron bar and walk 9 feet. If the wound healed within three days, they were innocent, but if it festered, they were guilty.
For trial by water, the accused was plunged into a pool of water on a rope with a knot tied in it a long hair’s length away from the defendant. If they sank to the depth of that knot, the water was deemed to have been accepting of them and their innocence, but if they floated, the water was rejecting them, rendering them guilty. There was of course also trial by combat, or wager of battle, a fight between the accused and the accuser, which was introduced by the Normans in 1066.
Although they were invested in the wisdom of God and the Church, it was actually the gradual withdrawal and ultimate banning of the participation of the Church that brought an end to such practices. But that is not to say that even within those practices there was not some sense of allowing the views of others to play a role. Dr Will Eves, a research fellow at the University of St Andrews’ school of history, said that the key to the ordeal was the interpretation of the result. The community would probably have had some idea whether someone had actually committed the crime and would interpret accordingly. He said:
“In trial by hot iron, the issue wasn’t if the iron had caused a wound but rather how it had healed. So that’s a much more nuanced issue, much more open to interpretation. Whether the wound was festering was a judgment which could be influenced by the community’s knowledge of the individual involved and their awareness of the broader circumstances of the case.”
The wider involvement of the community then took the form of testaments to character, rather than a careful examination of the facts, as a basis for determining guilt.
On 26 January 1219, King Henry III issued an edict, and trial by petty jury was born in England, but it was its precursor that introduced the idea of 12 individuals that is still with us today. In 997, King Æthelred issued the Wantage code, which determined that 12 noblemen—of course, it was just men—be tasked with the investigation of a crime. It is an extraordinary testament to the legacy and enduring nature of such proposals that a core element of that kernel of an idea, with 12 individuals at the heart of the system, remains more than 1,000 years later.
Prior to the petty jury reforms, there were other forms of jury—for example, to investigate land disputes—but guilt was still determined by trial by ordeal. The reforms made by King Henry III are rightly considered one of our most important cultural, and we might even say civilisational, inheritances. The concept and approach has, in some form, been spread around the world to more than 50 countries. In 1956, the legal philosopher Patrick Devlin said:
“For of all the institutions that have been created by English law, there is none other that has a better claim to be called…the privilege of the Common People of the United Kingdom”.
Committee members may have noted that the 1219 edict came after the often quoted Magna Carta declaration of 1215. That declaration was a precursor to the fundamental idea behind what became jury trials and the 1219 edict: the idea that the judgment of an individual should be made by their peers. The barons had in mind the importance of protecting people from the heavy hand of the King, but their instincts are reflected neatly in all those who now have concerns about the power of the state in all its forms, including the judicial system that collectively holds the power that then sat with the King. The Bill asks us to consider reforms to ideals and protections hard fought and won for us, for very good reason, many hundreds of years ago. That fact alone should give us reason to tread carefully.
Of course, as we have heard in earlier debates and the Committee’s evidence sessions, the use of jury trials is not absolute. The form a jury trial takes varies across the countries that adopted it, and our system has undergone reform. It is fair to say that the debate is not absolute or black and white. The majority of criminal cases in this country are decided by magistrates, whose role and importance were solidified in the modern era by the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1952 and the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980. Although the Government and their supporters might say it, we are not arguing that we should turn back the clock, or that all those currently seen by magistrates should be seen by jury trials instead, but let us consider the nature and manner of the reforms made in the modern era that remain in place today.
Changes were made during world war two. At a time when our nation faced one of its greatest threats, when our continued existence as a free state was uncertain and when every effort was turned toward winning the war, what did we do? Did we radically cut down on jury trials? No. The number of jury trials and what cases would or would not be considered by them remained completely unchanged. The change was made to the number of jurors, which was reduced from 12 to seven. What did the Government of the day do as soon as the Nazi threat was defeated? They put it back up to 12.
In more recent memory we had the covid pandemic, a challenge sometimes equated in seriousness to world war two. When every aspect of our society, public life and freedoms were massively curtailed in a way that was completely unprecedented, did we permanently get rid of jury trials? No. There was cross-party consensus that we should do everything we could to maintain jury trials. We invested millions of pounds in Nightingale courts, alongside other measures, to allow jury trials to continue as soon as they could, without making any permanent change to the law and individuals’ right to access jury trials.
Labour Members will no doubt point to the changes on triable either-way offences, similar to the proposals in clause 1, that were made in the 1980s, but done differently, via offence reclassification. The changes covered common assault where no one was injured, joyriding and lower-level criminal damage, and research shows that they led to a 5% drop in the number of cases that headed to the Crown court. These are questions of gradation, and the reforms in the Bill are unprecedented in their impact and completely incomparable with those changes. The Government’s own analysis says that they will result in a halving of the number of jury trials.
Who else might we turn to in support of our view that labelling the erosion of a right as a reform and realigning the dial further and further away from where we are now cannot be seen as a minor act? We can turn to many members of the Government, and the Prime Minister himself, to support our view. On limiting jury trials, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards) said:
“Instead of weakening a key constitutional right, the government should do the hard work.”
The Justice Secretary said:
“The right of an individual to be punished only as a result of the “lawful judgement of his equals” was enshrined in Magna Carta of 1215. Yes, this right only extended to a certain group of men, but it laid the foundation of a principle which is now fundamental to the justice system of England and Wales.”
He also said:
“Jury trials are fundamental to our democracy. We must protect them.”
Finally, he said:
“Jury trials are a fundamental part of our democratic settlement. Criminal trials without juries are a bad idea.”
That is what the Deputy Prime Minister, Justice Secretary and lead proponent of the reforms has said.
Finally the Prime Minister has said that the
“general and overriding presumption should be jury trial, with very, very limited exceptions”,
and that
“The right to trial by jury is an important factor in the delicate balance between the power of the state and the freedom of the individual. The further it is restricted, the greater the imbalance.”
There we have it. They all understood that these are questions of balance. The Government are simply on the wrong side of that balance with the reforms in the Bill, including clause 1. That is not just because of the scale and gravity of the changes, but because of the other ways forward and other approaches, as yet untested but available to them.
The Opposition’s approach in Committee, on this clause and others, is therefore straightforward. We will test whether the Government have correctly diagnosed the problem, whether the evidence supports the proposed solution, whether the safeguards being removed are proportionate to the gains claimed, and whether other options are available. Those are the fundamental questions. Of course, we will not forget that, despite everything else Government Members said previously, the reforms were born of necessity and that the Minister believes they are positive improvements to our justice system regardless.
The Government have estimated that clause 1 and other clauses will reduce Crown court sitting days by 27,000 a year while increasing magistrates court sitting days by 8,500. They think the provisions will reduce the open Crown court caseload by around 14,000 cases, and cost £338 million between 2024-25 and 2034-35. However, several stakeholders have criticised the assumptions and models that the Government used to produce the estimates, particularly in respect of how much time jury-only trials would save.
Cassia Rowland of the Institute for Government has said that the total impact of the Government’s proposals on court demand is
“likely to be around a 7-10% reduction in total time taken in the courtroom”.
She therefore considered that improving court efficiency,
“an alternative which enjoys broad support across the sector and which could begin much faster”,
provided “opportunities for meaningful improvements”. She said that implementing such efficiencies
“alongside more moderate proposals to handle some more cases in magistrates’ courts…would be less likely to provoke backlash.”
I could not agree with her more.
The Criminal Bar Association has criticised the “over-optimism” of the impact assessment, describing the Government statement that the Bill would only increase magistrates court demand by 8,500 days as “astonishing”. It says:
“The assumptions are that magistrates will complete each of these trials within four hours and guilty pleas/sentences within 30 minutes. Is there is an expectation that magistrates will be dispensing rough justice when they have these more complex, more serious cases allocated to them? Or are the assumptions in the Impact Assessment simply wrong?”
I think they are. Let us be clear: the Government would have us believe that 27,000 crown court sitting days can simply be converted into just 8,500 magistrates sitting days.
Clause 1 represents a fundamental shift in the balance between the citizen and the state. At present, a defendant in an either-way case has the right to elect trial by jury. The clause removes that right entirely, with the decision resting solely with the magistrates court, depending on likely sentence length. We object to the clause in its entirety, but we have also sought to put forward meaningful changes through amendment 38, which would simply allow the defendant to demonstrate that, in the particular circumstances of their case, trial without a jury would breach the principles of natural justice.
What current examples of violations of natural justice do we envision and hope this safeguard can protect against? Let us consider two theoretical cases of offenders, both facing trial for theft. This may be an opportune moment to point out that some of the examples used by Government Members to demonstrate the irrationality of Crown court time being frequently taken up by theft offences betray a lack of understanding of what happens in terms of the likely disposals in such cases. Nevertheless, as it seems such a popular example, I am happy to use it.
In the first example, we have an accused who has never been in trouble with the law before. He or she has a clean record and the offence was not aggravated in any way. In fact, he or she gives an account of a misunderstanding. No harm came to the victim, and the value of the goods they are said to have stolen was considered to be medium—between £500 and £10,000. But the impact of a guilty finding on his or her life would be enormous, because the accused is a practising solicitor. It would almost certainly lead to the loss of their employment and significant damage to their reputation.
The sentencing guidelines suggest that if the accused is found guilty, they might expect just over a year in prison. They are determined to have their case heard by a jury, because they believe their account of events would be believed by a jury, but under clause 1 as it stands, that would be denied them. Because they are clear of their innocence, they will not take a police caution, an out of court disposal, or make an early guilty plea.
Let us consider another accused. They are very far from being a person with a clean record. They have been convicted of multiple offences of theft, and other offences alongside those in the past—for example, criminal damage and common assault. They have been convicted of theft more than a dozen times. Those of us who have had an interest in criminal justice for some time will know that those sorts of offenders regularly appear before the courts.
The accusation the second person faces is of another order of seriousness. They are accused of having stolen a piece of jewellery worth more than £100,000. In fact, the loss of that item led to the collapse of a small business, as the owner was an elderly lone female, who is now living in constant fear and simply cannot face customers again. She trusted the accused on their visit to the business, and does not feel that she can trust anyone else. The accused faces up to six years in custody, so they will retain their right to a jury trial. They have no reputation to lose as a serial and convicted offender, and no employment to lose either.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
The shadow Minister is making an articulate argument about how the criminal justice system might deal differently with different types of offenders, but would he not agree that someone’s background should not determine their guilt? They have either done it or they have not. Actually, someone’s good character and previous clean record is taken into account at sentencing. Will the shadow Minister remind the Committee how sentencing is dealt with in the Crown court—is it by jury or by a judge sitting alone?
Dr Mullan
The hon. Gentleman’s question articulates the gap between what the Opposition and the Government think about these issues. Actually, for a case like the first example, the sentence passed will be almost irrelevant to the person. If they are found guilty and convicted of an offence, they will suffer all the consequences that I have talked about whatever sentence they are given. Such consequences do not exist for the individual in the second example; they do not have employment or a reputation to lose.
The Government also often portray the assumption that people are guilty—if they are accused, they are guilty. The whole point of the jury trial system is to allow what we have all agreed, at some point and in some ways, is the fairest and most balanced way to determine guilt. The Justice Secretary himself has talked in detail about how it is the fairest way to determine guilt. When someone’s decision is going to have huge consequences for the accused’s life, it is perfectly reasonable for people to want the fairest mode of determining that guilt.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
Is the hon. Gentleman saying two different things? At the start, I heard him say that we have fairness across the whole criminal justice system, but he seems now to be suggesting that magistrates court trials are inferior and less fair. Is that the position of the Opposition?
Dr Mullan
As I said, it is actually the position of the Justice Secretary, in his own report, where he said that the fairest and most balanced element of the justice system is jury trials. If the hon. Member thinks it is odd for me to hold that view, perhaps she should have a conversation with the Justice Secretary.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the question the hon. Member for Gloucester asked shows the crux of one of the issues? He used the term “offender” to describe someone where a verdict has not yet been reached, but they are the defendant. Is the assumption of innocence before guilt is proven not a key principle we should be fighting for?
Dr Mullan
Absolutely. I have been very careful in writing my speech to not say that and to be clear about that. Again, when we have had debates about people causing the backlog and holding up justice for other victims, there is an inherent assumption that everybody who has been accused is guilty. Of course, we know that is not the case.
As I said, Members should think about the two cases I cited and decide whether it would be fair and just for the individual who has so much more to lose to lose their ability to seek the mode of trial that we have articulated—the mode that Members of the Government are articulating is the fairest way of deciding things—when the person with the repeat record, who does not have a reputation or job to lose, gets to continue doing all the things that the Government have said are wrong, such as holding up trials in other, more serious cases.
Members who have read ahead may think that there is some overlap between our amendment and the way in which I have articulated it and amendment 24, tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden, and they would be right. Our thinking is the same. Our intention and the issues we are trying to elucidate are the same. Of course, we know that we are joined politically in our views on this issue, not by the Ministers in their former articulation of what is important to them, but by 37 Labour MPs who signed a letter in opposition to the erosion of our jury trial rights by clause 1 and other similar clauses. I will name just a few of them: the Mother of the House and the hon. Members for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson), for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey), for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) and for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald). They are very far away from me on the political spectrum—some of them could not be further away—but, along with their other colleagues, they are clear that the proposals are wrong, and I wholeheartedly agree with them on that.
Those Members—Labour Members—rightly say that these proposals are “madness” and will cause more problems than they solve and that the public will not stand for this erosion of a fundamental right, particularly given that there are numerous other things that the Government can do more effectively to reduce the backlog. I guess that where there are 37 Labour MPs willing to put their name to a letter, there are many more concerned in private, and I am sure that various Members were allowed to be absent from the estate for some of our earlier votes.
I ask Government Members to think about their colleagues and the difficult position that they will put them in if clause 1 and associated clauses are passed. The Government have quite simply failed to articulate why these proposals are the only way forward. The Government might have received a more sympathetic reception had they truly exhausted all the other options—if they had stretched every sinew since their election to tackle this issue.
Rebecca Paul
The removal of the cap on sitting days appears to be bringing the backlog down, which I think everyone in the Chamber can agree is a good thing. Why are the Government not looking at that, projecting it forward and taking that into account before making radical changes that remove rights of citizens?
Dr Mullan
It seems that my hon. Friend has been reading the same reports from the Criminal Bar Association as I have. They were reported in the press last weekend or the weekend before, I think, and identified a number of regions, according to their analysis, where the backlogs were coming down as a result of the changes that were already being made.
Let us be clear, we are sympathetic to every single victim who is waiting longer than they should for a jury trial. As the Minister kindly accepted in the evidence sessions, it would be totally wrong to say that those of us across all the elements of the political spectrum who oppose the changes do so with any kind of disregard or lack of sympathy or care for victims and what they are going through. Some of the ways in which those long waits have been articulated and framed as caused by jury trials is not helpful, because less than 10% of drop-outs occur post charge. That figure is coming down this year, so the number of people who are dropping out post charge is reducing.
Rebecca Paul
Would the shadow Minister also be interested to understand the impact of the three-year suspension on sentences that went live just a few weeks ago on the projections going forward and on the impact on the Crown court backlog?
Dr Mullan
Indeed. I hope that the Minister can start to address the figures from the Criminal Bar Association, in particular, and to articulate whether she agrees or disagrees with them. If she disagrees, why? As the Criminal Bar Association makes clear, if the Government had sight of that data—they would have known ahead of the Committee’s evidence sessions, and potentially some of the earlier stages of the Bill, that those figures were coming down—why did they choose not to make such potentially important information available to those of us considering the Bill? It is not helpful for Members to quote waits of four or five years for people to get to trial when, in fact, those figures can relate to the delay between the alleged offence and sentencing. Yes, waits for trial from the point of charge are too long, but that is just part of the picture.
Of course, the obvious weakness in the Government’s arguments that this is a measure to tackle what we should all consider to be a temporary problem—getting back to our historical court waiting times—is that these measures are permanent, without any plan to reverse them when the backlog is down to pre-pandemic levels. As I have said, we have precedent for that. During world war two, when we made changes to the number of people sitting on juries, we reversed those changes when the crisis was resolved.
The Government have announced an intention to recruit and train a further 2,000 magistrates in the next financial year. That is welcome, but recruiting and training magistrates takes time, and, in fact, the delays in the magistrates courts themselves loom over us. On the other hand, the Bar Council rightly points out how many barristers have left the profession. Those are trained, ready-to-go professionals, choosing not to practise criminal law, who could quite easily return to criminal practice, compared with having to train a magistrate from scratch.
What is missing from the Government’s approach is any serious attempt to make the most of the capacity that we already have. Court sitting days are still being wasted. Yesterday alone, 58 out of 515 Crown courtrooms sat empty—that is 11%. I am sure that, as we go through the day and proceedings move forward, we will get the figures for today. I imagine that those will be in line with every other day that the Idle Courts X account, which I think those of us following this debate have become great admirers of, shows day in, day out: Crown courtrooms sitting empty.
Trials also still collapse due to basic administrative failures. None of the problems are solved by curtailing the right to elect. As I have said, only a few years ago the Justice Secretary described jury trials as fundamental to our democracy—a sentiment that every Member of this House must share—yet now, in office, he appears willing to curtail them in the name of expediency.
This proposal also was not in the Labour manifesto at the election. A change of this nature—an unprecedented erosion of a fundamental right that we have all enjoyed for hundreds and hundreds of years—was not in that manifesto. I think that makes it extremely difficult for the Government to insist, particularly in the Lords, where I am sure very many Members will have serious concerns, that they have any kind of democratic mandate to push through these reforms.
Of course, we have been here before. In what will come as little surprise to many Members, just as with Labour’s current proposals to fatally weaken the punitive elements of our justice system by letting serious violent and sexual offenders out of prison earlier, Jack Straw, the then Justice Secretary, also proposed removing the right to a jury trial in either-way offences when Labour was last in office. As is the case today, Members across the House and stakeholders fought against, and successfully defeated, those proposals.
We can therefore do away with the pretence that this is entirely the workings of an independent figure in Sir Brian Leveson. Although I have no doubt that he came to his conclusions independently, I imagine that those old proposals had been sat in the Ministry of Justice, waiting for the right Minister for civil servants to press this idea on, and they found that in our Justice Secretary and our Prime Minister.
We would be right to fear that it is the thin end of the wedge. Often such arguments are hypothetical: we say, “Well, we think this is the thin end of the wedge; some future Government or future Minister will want to go further.” Thanks to the plans being leaked, we know what the current Justice Secretary wanted to do. He wanted to go much further than even the proposals we see before us by removing jury trials for offences carrying sentences of up to five years—five years! Where will the Government go next if they succeed with these proposals?
Sir Brian Leveson’s review made clear that the estimate of a 20% reduction in trial times is subject to what he described as “very high levels of uncertainty”. That uncertainty reads across to the other measures, including clause 1, which we are considering today. He said that it was very important that the Government undertook further detailed analysis before moving ahead with those proposals. When I put that to him during evidence, he simply said—I am paraphrasing but I think it is a fair and accurate description—that that is now a matter for the Government, and he was not willing to be drawn on whether they had actually done that further detailed analysis.
I brought up the main additional piece of analysis that the Ministry undertook, which was a stakeholder engagement exercise—not a typical one that seeks to measure and come up with firm outcomes. It found that the time saving was between 10% and 30%, so there is a huge variation in what the Government may or may not achieve, and, fundamentally, it is potentially very different from what even Sir Brian recommended.
Jury trials are not an obstacle to justice; they are a safeguard against its abuse. They ensure that the most serious power that the state holds—the power to convict and imprison—is exercised, where possible, with the consent and involvement of the public. If we allow that safeguard to be weakened, we should not be surprised when public trust in the justice system continues to erode. The answer to a justice system in crisis is not to strip away centuries-old protections; it is to make the system work as it should. That is why the proposals are wrong and should be opposed.
If the Government are serious about reducing backlogs, there are obvious steps they could take that do not involve weakening constitutional safeguards. I will come back to those at further stages, but I draw Members’ attention to the evidence given by the operations director in His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service—the civil servant in charge of making our courts run more smoothly, efficiently and productively. I asked him what he thought were the priorities for bringing down the Crown court backlog. He mentioned lifting the cap on sitting days. He welcomed that and said it made a big difference. The other examples he gave were improvements to prison transport and to listing. None of those priorities had anything to do with jury trials. The man charged with making our system run more efficiently, when asked to list his key priorities, did not say anything to do with jury trials in his first four points. As I have said, a second report from Sir Brian goes through a whole range of measures that will improve the efficiency and productivity of our courts. We have some further amendments for later stages to tease out some of those, and I look forward to considering them.
Let us be clear. The burden on this Government is extremely high, as it should be, to make the case for unprecedented changes to halve the number of individuals able to have a jury trial. The Government could have spent time—two or three years—hammering the uncontroversial things that have political consensus and are able to make a difference. They could have looked at Liverpool Crown court, which does not have a historical backlog. As Sir Brian said in his evidence, to some extent, every court has a backlog of cases waiting to be heard, which is helpful for managing those cases, but there are normal levels of waiting time that are accepted without people having to go back to the judge and ask for more time.
As I understand it, the Minister has not visited Liverpool Crown court in the last 12 to 18 months. She can correct me if I am wrong. I do not think the Deputy Prime Minister has visited Liverpool Crown court either.
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
I have visited lots and lots of courts.
Dr Mullan
Indeed, but, as I said, I do not think the Minister has actually visited the court that is most successfully managing and dealing with these issues, which is somewhat odd. I would have been visiting that court and trying to understand and replicate, in detail, every single thing that it does. If, in the end, the Government had found something that made the difference we all want, there could have been a different conversation, but they chose not to do that.
As I put to the Minister during our evidence sessions, politicians and Departments have only so much capacity and political attention, and only so much they can do with their time. Instead of investing that time, energy and attention into the detailed work of doing things better and improving the system, the Government are embarking on a reform programme that I suspect will end up overwhelming the Minister’s time. It will be a huge distraction from the very hard and detailed work that she needs to lead. I accept that she will try her absolute best to continue to deliver across the spectrum, but the political reality will be very different.
We oppose clause 1. We tabled an amendment that would, to some extent, limit the damage that it does, but we are clear that it should not proceed at all. The Government have completely failed to articulate robustly, and with clear, reliable data, the impact that it will have. They have not answered the very many criticisms put forward by those practising in the system every day about what will have an impact, and they have not secured the Opposition’s support for the curtailment and erosion of a fundamental right that has been with us for hundreds of years.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
It is great to see you in the Chair today, Ms Jardine. I oppose clause 1 and its many implications for justice. It takes away the defendant’s right to elect a trial by jury for all either-way offences, which, according to the Bill’s impact assessment, will reduce jury trials by half. That is no minor thing, and I agree with the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle that clause 1 must be removed from the Bill, as well as clauses 2 to 7, which we will debate later.
Compared with the removal of half of jury trials, there would be a highly contested and—in the Government’s own estimates—much smaller impact on efficiency in the courts. There is also the potential for the workload in the magistrates court and the Crown court to increase beyond what is estimated. As Emma Torr from APPEAL highlighted during our oral evidence session, this will include new allocation processes and new multi-step processes for considering appeals, and the need for judges to spend time outlining reasons for their decisions, which juries do not have to do. The chair of the Bar Council of England and Wales also told us about the impact on confidence in the system, stating:
“Overall, the jury system is seen as the only part that still works, so why are we focusing on that? We want to focus on all those aspects that will reduce delays now, rather than hacking at a constitutional cornerstone, which also reflects community participation.”––[Official Report, Courts and Tribunals Public Bill Committee, 25 March 2026; c. 40, Q72.]
This cutback in jury trials is not the measure promised to victims of sexual and domestic violence in the Labour manifesto, and later we will consider amendments that would what was promised. This cut is not a measure that will, under the current system, help victims through more compassionate and better trained court processes, or by improving outdated buildings where they currently risk contact with their abusers. The lack of legal support for magistrates court processes could, as we heard from the head of JUSTICE, lead to more victims being cross-examined by their own abusers.
We heard clearly from the leaders of the circuits that those working in criminal justice day in, day out have not yet been able to employ the real efficiencies that could come with more investment and innovation, and that would bring down the backlog without the measures in the clause. Those include the better user of technology, more sitting days, blitz courts and improvements at the investigation stage. I believe that we must act on the backlog, but that must start with those measures and the increased investment that is needed to correct what the chair of the Bar Council told us about investment under successive Governments. She said:
“We saw a rapid cutting of MOJ funding between 2009-10 and 2022-23: it declined by 22.4%. We are about 30% below where we should be.”––[Official Report, Courts and Tribunals Public Bill Committee, 25 March 2026; c. 41, Q75.]
The main point I want to express today is my concern about the motivation behind the choices that the Government have made in these proposals by taking up, and deviating from, the recommendations of the independent review of the criminal courts in a particular way, and about how the severe erosion of the principle of jury equity can apply to certain types of defendants and certain offences in a way that I suspect this clause is aimed at. That really eats away at a constitutional cornerstone in a truly historic way. It eats away at the principle of jury equity.
We know that jury trials are more often chosen by black and other minority defendants, and that public confidence in a jury of their peers to see through institutional biases is real. We know that defendants whose crimes have been protests, motivated by the public interest and committed to expose or impede powerful corporate or corrupt organisations and practices, also feel this way.
Tim Crosland’s oral evidence on behalf the campaign group Defend Our Juries, which was set up before this Bill was proposed in anticipation of an attack on jury trials, told us about key recent protest cases where juries have chosen acquittal and applied the principle of jury equity in practice. Those included:
“In April 2021, the Shell six, who had spray painted “Shell Lies” on Shell headquarters, were acquitted by a jury. In January 2022, the Colston four, who toppled the statue of the slave trader Edward Colston into Bristol harbour, were acquitted by a jury. In November 2022, members of Palestine Action, who had defaced Elbit Systems—suppliers of drones to the Israel Defence Forces—were acquitted by a jury. In January 2023, members of Insulate Britain were acquitted by a jury for blocking roads.”––[Official Report, Courts and Tribunals Public Bill Committee, 25 March 2026; c. 89, Q192.]
Tim Crosland told us how the principle of jury equity is there to apply to cases of conscience in which people’s actions were motivated by the public interest. He told us about the High Court’s 2024 judgment in the case of 69-year-old retired social worker Trudi Warner, who had displayed information about the principle outside a court hearing a protest case. It is worth our listening to more details of what was said in that judgment. Paragraph 16 discusses how the principle of jury equity is well established in our common law and recognised across the common law world. The judge gives several examples from Canada, New Zealand and the United States of the principle being applied. The judgment also talks about how its origins lie in Bushel’s case, from 1670, which
“arose out of the prosecution of two Quaker preachers for holding an unlawful assembly. The Recorder of London, presiding at the trial, directed the jury to convict. The jury refused. They were fined and imprisoned until payment. It was this imprisonment that the jurors successfully challenged by habeas corpus, on the basis that juries have a right to find facts and apply the law to those facts according to conscience and without reprisal.”
The judgment also quotes Lord Bingham, in another landmark judgment, on the principle’s history. He states that
“the acquittals of such high-profile defendants as Ponting, Randle and Pottle have been quite as much welcomed as resented by the public, which over many centuries has adhered tenaciously to its historic choice that decisions on the guilt of defendants charged with serious crime should rest with a jury of lay people, randomly selected, and not with professional judges.”
He added:
“I know of no other real checks that exist today upon the power of the executive.”
In my speech on Second Reading, I pointed out that a number of offences created recently to react to successful direct action protests now sit in the triable either-way category. They include, in the Public Order Act 2023, new offences about interference with key national infrastructure, including blocking roads, and specific offences about causing serious disruption by tunnelling; and, in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, the offence of causing public nuisance, which replaced a common law offence and applies a higher penalty for acts that create serious annoyance or inconvenience, such as noisy protests.
Importantly, Tim Crosland pointed out to us in his oral evidence that the choices the Government have made in how to implement this measure will serve to virtually eliminate jury equity in practice. He told us that, of the more than 200 people jailed in the past few years for peaceful protest, only one has been jailed for more than three years. In that light, it is suspicious that the Government have chosen three years as the threshold in the Bill, despite the Leveson report’s recommendation of two years. Sir Brian also recommended raising the financial threshold below which criminal damage—often how direct action protests are charged—is charged as a summary offence and kept in the magistrates court, where sentences are limited, but the Government are not raising that threshold. Sir Brian also said that restricting the right to elect for jury trial was
“contingent upon magistrates’ sentencing powers remaining at the current…12 months”,
but the Government propose powers to increase them instead. He also recommended that the new bench division should sit with a judge and two magistrates, to maintain a lay element in these Crown court cases, but the Government have chosen to ignore that, too.
As far as the recent examples of cases in which jury equity has been applied are concerned, all those deviations from the recommendations point in the same way. In the light of evidence that other measures would be more effective at backlog reduction, it therefore seems to me that at least one motivation for adopting this measure is to stop the embarrassment of jury equity. I did not get the chance to ask the Minister about this during the oral evidence, but has she discussed with colleagues, companies or other interests targeted by protesters the implications and impact of the Bill and this clause, in deviating from the Leveson recommendations in the way that it does, on the important principle of jury equity?
Finally, on Second Reading, I raised the question of whether these measures are yet another part of a package of the Government’s wider attacks on civil liberties. I have described this package as a “toolkit for tyrants” that includes
“digital ID, facial recognition surveillance on our streets and the erosion of fundamental asylum rights—all things contrary to our British values and which should not be packaged up for this or any future Government to use against minorities…and dissidents.”—[Official Report, 10 March 2026; Vol. 782, c. 249-250.]
I would like the Minister to reflect on the potential future impact of this attack on jury equity under a much worse Government.
Alex McIntyre
While we are on the subject of British values, is the Green party in Westminster’s position that criminals should go to jail? A Green party candidate in Scotland has said that they should close all the prisons in Scotland. Can she clarify the Green party’s position on that for the Committee?
Siân Berry
The Scottish Green party is a separate party from the Green party of England and Wales, so I cannot vouch for its policies. However, the Green party’s justice policies look in the round at what is effective in reducing crime, rehabilitating offenders and improving society, based on evidence. I am sure that the Scottish Green party have those principles in mind with any policy it puts forward.
That is the end of what I was planning to say, and I hope we will hear more from the Minister about the erosion of jury equity and what Tim Crosland, in relation to the Bill, called its complete elimination. This will be an important effect of what is being proposed, and it has not had enough debate as yet.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
Before I turn to the substance of this clause, I want to begin by setting out the perspective from which I speak. Before entering Parliament, I worked as a prosecutor for more than 14 years. During that time, I dealt with a wide range of serious cases, including sexual abuse, rape, domestic violence, historical child abuse and cases involving families and vulnerable victims.
On a daily basis, I saw at first hand the impact of the criminal justice system on victims, witnesses and their families, as well as their emotions, their concerns and the importance of ensuring that justice is done fairly and transparently. Although I have not practised in recent years, my understanding of the system remains current. I remain in regular contact with practitioners, including solicitors, barristers, members of the judiciary and colleagues in the CPS, and I continue to follow closely what is happening in both the magistrates court and the Crown court.
In addition, during my time as a shadow Justice Minister, I worked on issues relating to prisons, probation and the courts, and I have seen how changes in the system, including the increased use of technology, remote hearings and the handling of evidence, have affected the way that justice is delivered. So I speak on this Bill from a position of experience and of ongoing engagement with the criminal justice system. Colleagues will be relieved to know that I will not be repeating this preamble in any future contributions.
Let me begin by addressing what lies at the heart of this Bill: the restriction of jury trials. Trial by jury is not a procedural detail; it is one of the most fundamental safeguards in our justice system. It reflects the simple but powerful principle that when the state seeks to take away a person’s liberty, that decision should not rest with the state alone, but with ordinary citizens—a jury of their peers.
That principle has a deep constitutional root—from Bushel’s case in 1670, which established the independence of juries, to its role across the common law world, trial by jury has long stood as a protection against arbitrary power. That is not just a feature of our legal system, but a principle reflected across the common law jurisdiction and a recognition that justice must be seen to be done and must not rely solely on the state. It is also one of the reasons that the public has confidence in our system.
The proposal in clause 1 to remove the right to elect a jury trial is not a trivial matter. It covers offences such as theft, fraud and stalking that carry real-life consequences, including custodial sentences, reputational harm and long-term impacts on people’s lives. The Government argue that the measure is necessary to deal with the delay in the system. I have great sympathy with the Government about the massive delay in the court system but, respectfully, jury trials are not causing that delay.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
If the situation the courts find themselves in is so obviously caused by the previous Government, why on earth is the hon. Member’s Government scrapping jury trials as a response?
Yasmin Qureshi
The restriction on some cases not being tried in jury trials is because the Government feel that that will help to bring down the delay in court listing. I say to the Government that the problem is not the jury system, but the fact that other provisions need to be made sufficient. I am afraid that the problem was 14 years of Conservative cuts—I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was a Member then. The Conservative Government did not take the Ministry of Justice seriously. There was a Lord Chancellor virtually every year—in 14 years, I think we had 10 Lord Chancellors, which tells us how important the criminal justice system was to the now Opposition.
To go back to my point about clause 1, and all the other clauses that follow, I urge my colleagues and the Minister to please rethink this whole thing. Juries are not the cause of the delay in our system.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I will speak about the Liberal Democrats’ opposition to clause 1. The main reason why clause 1 should not be included in the Bill is that it fundamentally transforms the relationships that defendants have with the justice system. It is really important to make it clear that we are talking about defendants who have entered a not guilty plea, rather than the language that has been used this morning.
In particular, clause 1 removes the defendant’s ability to object to summary trial in the magistrates court—a process that is streamlined for swift justice and should be reserved for less serious cases. In his independent review of the criminal courts, Sir Brian Leveson recommended removing the right to elect a Crown court trial for certain low-level either-way offences that carry a maximum sentence length of two years or less. The Bill would remove the right to elect Crown court trial for all either-way offences. Concerns have been raised publicly about that, including the quality of justice, the capacity of the magistrates court and the fairness of applying this retrospectively.
Magistrates courts also face an increasing backlog, which is currently at 379,000 cases. That is a 17% increase on the previous year, alongside a huge drop in the number of magistrates over the past 20 years—from 28,300 to now 14,600. I am very aware that the Government are embarking on a journey to try to bring more magistrates into the system, but as they increase the number of magistrates, there are also magistrates leaving the system, so it is a real struggle to increase the number.
Removing the power of defendants to elect will increase the workload of the magistrates court, and the system will struggle to absorb that. Many in the legal profession have made that point. It would also be unfair to apply this change retrospectively. Consent is the appropriate basis for the most serious cases to be tried within a summary process. Changing the provision for more serious offences—to be clear, we are talking about things like possession with intent to supply, unlawful wounding and sexual assault—risks miscarriages of justice, as more serious cases would face summary trials in higher volumes, with reduced rights of appeal.
Rebecca Paul
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. It is a pleasure once again to be locked up in a Bill Committee with the Minister. It has been a while, and I am feeling nostalgic; it is wonderful to be here with her again. Maybe one day we will be on the same side—that would be nice, wouldn’t it?
I will speak against the clause in its entirety and in support of the amendment. I start by thanking the hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden for her powerful contribution. What she is doing is incredibly brave. It is not an easy thing to be sat on the Government Benches with a different view. I really hope that everyone will listen to what she had to say, because I think she was balanced in her approach: she was critical of the previous Government, and did not pull her punches on where she thinks the issues arose, but she suggested some good measures and made good points that we could adopt to address the backlog. That is the one thing that we all agree on in this room: we all want to address the backlog. We can rake over the past all we like, or we can look forward and do the right thing for the British people.
Clause 1 is an egregious clause that seeks to remove one of our fundamental rights. It seeks to remove the right of an adult defendant charged with a triable either-way offence to elect for Crown court trial instead. Instead, the mode of trial will be determined solely by the magistrates courts. In practice, that means that defendants who currently have a right to trial by jury—the right to be judged by their peers—will no longer have it.
The Government have suggested that this unprecedented change to our justice system will impact only those accused of shoplifting and other petty crimes, but that is not the case. It impacts those accused of an either-way offence where the sentence would be for up to three years in prison—three years. It will impact people charged with causing death by careless driving, committing fraud, sexual assault or actual bodily harm, and many other serious offences. Those are not minor or petty by any stretch and can be life changing for everyone involved. Removing the right to jury trial for such crimes is not a minor tweak to our justice system; it takes a sledgehammer to it.
Trial by jury is an English institution, which has served for centuries to ensure that justice is done. No justice system works if it is not accepted and respected by its people. It is vital that we remember that before making changes. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater on an ideological whim is an irresponsible act. Dispensing justice is not just another process with checkboxes; it impacts people’s lives irrevocably. Decisions about how our system operates should be taken carefully and responsibly in recognition of that, and should allow an element of flexibility in the approach to get the right outcomes. That is what the amendment seeks to add.
I urge the Government to tread carefully before throwing away something that has worked for hundreds of years, and that the British people value and respect. The common-sense determination of 12 citizens is often exactly what is needed to ensure fair justice. They are not jaded or desensitised to crime, because they have not had to sit through it day in, day out for years on end. They have not seen over their whole career the worst of humanity. They are from all walks of life, bringing diversity, and often compassion and understanding to the process. The Government can of course force the change through with the numbers they have, if they so wish, but I urge them to reflect on whether that is truly the legacy that they want.
The planned limitation of the right to trial in the clause is justified by the Government as a necessary measure to get the Crown court backlog down. They defend this extraordinary restriction of our rights by arguing that the changes put victims first and at the heart of the justice system, but I remind the Government that before any verdict, there are no victims and offenders, only defendants and complainants. In this country, we are innocent until proven guilty. Justice is not just about victims; it is also about fairness for the accused, too.
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
The hon. Member is presenting her case, her argument, very well and eloquently. To pick up on one point, she said that there were no victims before the verdict, but I would argue that there is always a victim when a case is in court. There is a victim—just because no one has been convicted, the victim is still a victim of a crime. Does she not agree?
Rebecca Paul
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point, but I do not agree, because sometimes a crime has not been committed. It is important that we use the right terms. The Government have a tendency to talk a lot about victims; they have effectively pitted victims against anyone who happens to stand up and say, “Actually, maybe we shouldn’t get rid of our right to a jury trial.” That is the wrong approach to take. It is important that we use the right terminology, and that we do not shame people into silence for daring to suggest that the removal of jury trials may be an issue in some cases. The language that we use is really important.
Linsey Farnsworth
It is right that we should talk about language. I refer the hon. Member to guidance on the CPS website in relation to the use of the term “victim”. In its guidance, the CPS says that it often uses the word “victim” when talking about general crime. When someone is making a speech in Parliament to say that there are victims waiting for justice, it is perfectly right and proper to do so, because they are not talking about an individual case. That is set out in the CPS guidance.
Rebecca Paul
The hon. Lady makes an interesting point, but we need to always be aware of the technical definition of the words that we are using. When the Government talk constantly about victims needing justice, and it all being about victims, I am not sure it is in the right spirit.
What all of us in this Committee Room agree on, however, is that the Crown court backlog is a critical problem that needs to be addressed. But limiting trial by jury is not the way to do it. We have heard that repeatedly from knowledgeable and experienced people working in the justice system—we have even heard it from one of the Government’s own Members, the hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden. The Bar Council does not support it, the Criminal Bar Association is opposed, and the Law Society says the Government’s proposals go too far.
Linsey Farnsworth
We have heard a lot about the Bar Council and the Law Society. What we have not heard a lot about is the position of the Crown Prosecution Service on this point. If the Crown Prosecution Service was a legal firm, it would be the biggest in the country. It has thousands of lawyers working for it. Tom Guest, a member of the policy team at the Crown Prosecution Service gave evidence to the Justice Committee, in which he set out that the CPS is supportive of this legislation to look at structural reform. He said that it is not the only answer, but that it is necessary. The CPS considers us to be at a critical juncture, and that the backlog needs dealing with. Does the hon. Member agree that it is not universally the case that people working within the criminal justice system are against the legislation? Actually, the biggest law firm in the country is in favour of these structural reforms.
Rebecca Paul
I thank the hon. Lady for making that point, and I of course agree. Clearly, there is not a consensus, which is why we are here today, but we can categorically state that most knowledgeable and experienced people working in the justice system are against what this Labour Government are trying to do.
Dr Mullan
The policy adviser of the CPS does not represent the individual views of all the different people who work for the CPS. The suggestion that, because the policy lead or the senior management team have a view, everyone who works for the CPS thinks that this is the right thing is obviously complete nonsense.
Rebecca Paul
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. If I recall correctly, the hon. Member for Amber Valley has previously worked in the CPS—she might want to disclose her interest.
Linsey Farnsworth
Yes, that is correct; I was a Crown prosecutor for 21 years, and I worked all the way through the terrible, terrible years when the Conservative Government were absolutely ripping apart our criminal justice system, so I speak with experience on this matter. I speak with a lot of former colleagues who still work on the frontline, and every single one of them supports this proposal. The difficulty is that, as civil servants, they cannot speak out. That is why we do not hear from them as much as we do from barristers. I worked at the CPS until just before the general election, so my experience is very recent.
Rebecca Paul
I thank the hon. Lady for making that point, and I hope that she is comfortable having put that on the record. It is good to hear her view.
Dr Mullan
People who work for the CPS have privately expressed to me that they are against these proposals but, as I have said, the idea that a chat with a few former colleagues is representative of the views of the thousands of people involved in different ways with what the CPS does is completely unsustainable.
Rebecca Paul
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I completely agree with him, and I remind the Committee that most people in this country are against these changes. Most people who know about the justice system are against the changes—[Interruption.] I know it is really hard for Labour Members to hear that they are not on the side of the people on this one. How has it all gone wrong? They have forgotten who they are and who they represent. It is a sad day.
Joe Robertson
This is an extraordinary exchange. I accept that the hon. Member for Amber Valley is not the official voice of the CPS or of the Labour Government, but her sense of “officialdom knows best” will give ordinary men and women in this country great concerns about these changes. Of course, there are some cases in which there is no victim. There are some cases in which the victim is a person who has been falsely accused. That is why we have a legal system in which the ordinary men and women of this country are judged by their peers. That is the principle that is up for debate here—not some wider official view from a prosecuting organisation, rather than the courts.
Rebecca Paul
I thank my hon. Friend for that point; he makes it eloquently, as always.
I really enjoyed going through the groups that do not support these proposals. Obviously, the Government like to rely heavily on Sir Brian Leveson’s findings and recommendations, but when my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East questioned him in the oral evidence session, he did not blame jury trials.
Fundamentally, jury trials are not the problem. They are not creating the delays, so limiting them will not address the backlog. In fact, their curtailment will likely bring a whole host of other issues to the table that were not there before. The Bar Council believes that the changes
“will produce serious adverse consequences that have not properly been considered by the Government.”
In the light of such uncertain outcomes, I find it difficult to understand why the Government will not perform a pilot first to test the proposal or put in place a time limitation more generally. To plough ahead in this way, with no way back in the event of failure, is reckless by any measure. A more cautious approach might have been more positively received.
As we heard from Kirsty Brimelow KC, the chair of the Bar Council, it is vital that we approach the backlog problem logically, look at where the delays are occurring and target them. For rape cases, the majority of the delay is actually at the investigation and charge point, which takes an average of two years. Although the one-year delay at court stage is too long, the lion’s share of the problem is pre-court—perhaps the CPS can help with that one—so let us deal with that.
The Government should open all the courts so that they can hear cases every day. Yesterday, 11% of Crown courts were not sitting, and I am sure we will find out later what the percentage is today. Revising the contract with Prisoner Escort and Custody Services to ensure that defendants are delivered to the dock on time would also help. Giving proper consideration to specialist rape and serious sexual offences courts to deal with sexual offence cases and addressing the many inefficiencies and delays in the system through a better use of technology would no doubt greatly reduce the backlog.
It is also important that we give the steps that the Government have already taken to address the backlog an adequate chance to filter through. One example is increased sitting days: in February 2026, the Justice Secretary announced that there would be no cap on sitting days for ’26-27, which will undoubtedly help.
In addition, last month, powers were granted to suspend custodial sentences of up to three years, a change from the previous two years. Putting aside whether that is a sensible measure, it will undoubtedly increase the number of guilty pleas. That means fewer trials and a decrease in the backlog. The Government should properly model the impact of those significant changes on the backlog before imposing such a draconian limitation on jury trials. I would be grateful if the Minister could share any projections of the impact of those two changes on the backlog and clarify whether they have been factored into the “do nothing” option of the impact assessment. It looks as though they might not have been included, because they are not referenced.
If clause 1 is accepted, there are several types of serious cases where the defendant might now lose their right to elect for trial by jury. It has been suggested by the Justice Secretary that only cases involving minor offences, such as stealing a bottle of whisky, will be impacted, but that is not the case. Let us start with causing death by careless driving. That is a serious offence—rightly so, given that a life has been lost—and it carries a maximum five-year sentence and driving disqualification. Currently, the defendant has the right to elect for trial by jury. That is especially important in such cases, where the difference between careless and unfortunate is not entirely clear.
It is exactly that type of case where we see the benefit of 12 individuals, all with different experiences, using their judgment to decide whether the defendant crossed the line into “careless”. Under clause 1, that right is no longer available; the judge will decide on their own. Imagine a defendant who is innocent. Their whole life, and that of their family, is to be decided by one person—their bad day can destroy the defendant’s entire life. Their case might not even make it to a judge; it could remain in the magistrates court. Surely the intention was never for our magistrates courts to hear cases involving the loss of a life.
Sexual assault is another serious offence. It carries a maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment and inclusion on the sex offenders register. It is also completely life-changing for everyone involved. Under clause 1, the defendant’s right to choose a jury trial will be removed. Many of those cases could end up in the magistrates courts, but they are nothing like the normal cases seen in magistrates courts day to day: they are highly sensitive and complex, involving third-party disclosure, and video recorded and forensic evidence. They are not simple add-ons to what those courts already do. With the best will in the world, they do not currently have the capability or skillset to handle such specialist cases involving traumatised victims.
Linsey Farnsworth
May I refer the hon. Member to the fact that the youth courts often deal with cases of this nature? They have sentencing powers of up to two years. Would the hon. Member suggest that youths are not getting a fair trial in those circumstances?
Rebecca Paul
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but I will not comment on that specifically. I am talking about the magistrates courts, which generally deal with low-level motoring offences.
Rebecca Paul
I will look into the hon. Lady’s point, and I have no doubt that we will talk about that later on.
Can a Government who pride themselves on putting victims first truly be comfortable with what I have just laid out? Those are just two examples, but we see the same pattern for numerous other serious offences such as actual bodily harm, fraud and affray. In what world can those offences ever be considered minor enough to qualify only for summary justice? I do not believe that this is what victims want, either. For justice to be done, they need to have complete confidence that people will respect and accept the verdict given. That is a key part of the justice process.
Limiting jury trials for some of the most serious offences will mean that a verdict, whether innocent or guilty, will lose its current gospel status in the eyes of the populus. Clause 1 sows doubt into our justice system, and that doubt will eat away at it. At the opposite end of the spectrum less serious offences are impacted, but that will still have huge ramifications for the individual in the dock. We must always remember the human being at the centre of this. The offence with which someone is charged may be minor, but that does not stop it being the worst thing that has ever happened to them.
Dr Mullan
The point I made in my remarks was that I imagine that is a very conservative estimate of the number of additional days. We know that, by definition, we are sending more complex and serious cases than have been traditionally and historically heard in magistrates courts.
Rebecca Paul
I thank the shadow Minister for that point; I share his concerns. There is also a question regarding whether unpaid volunteers will even want to take on such a serious role that involves handing out two-year sentences—that is quite a responsibility.
The outstanding caseload in magistrates courts has been increasing in recent years. In September 2025, the outstanding caseload was around 373,000, which was a 74% increase compared with pre-pandemic levels in September 2019. The shift of cases from the Crown court back into the magistrates court is simply moving the issue to a less suitable court to deal with it. It is simply moving the problem around, rather than actually addressing it.
Summary trial through the magistrates court was always designed for the purpose of swift justice in low-level cases. By removing the right to elect for a jury trial, in combination with increasing magistrates’ sentencing powers to two years’ imprisonment and removing the automatic appeal against conviction, important protections are being removed, and the groups that will be impacted most detrimentally are ethnic minorities.
Magistrates are unpaid members of their local community who volunteer to act as magistrates. There is no requirement for them to be legally qualified. That may well be fine for summary-only offences, such as low-level motoring offences and minor criminal damage, but it is not appropriate for more serious offences. Many magistrates do an excellent job and give up their time selflessly for the benefit of their community. In spite of that, I do not believe that they should have the power to send someone to prison for two years. Let us all remember that magistrates can be as young as 18.
In closing, I want to make one last point. This change was not in the Labour manifesto; indeed, there is no mention of any changes to trial by jury at all. Only one such commitment was made, which Government Members appear to have forgotten. To quote from the Labour manifesto:
“Labour will fast-track rape cases, with specialist courts at every Crown Court location in England and Wales.”
That is on page 67, if anyone needs to refresh their memory. That is what the British people voted for. The Bill could have been so different if clause 1 had started with that, instead of jeopardising fair justice for many defendants. It is such a shame that a Government with such a historic majority have so quickly forgotten the change they promised, and whom they fight for and represent.
Sarah Sackman
Let me begin by saying that the Bill has been prepared with precisely the people and communities who elected us and gave us our mandate in mind. The Labour party manifesto contained one word on the front cover: “Change”. It was not an acceptance of the status quo—a brittle criminal justice system with record and rising backlogs, which we inherited from the previous Government.
Rather than sit idly by, we are a Government who govern by choosing, and the choice we make is that, when we see a problem, we set about fixing it. We do so in a way that is informed by our values of equality, fairness and social justice. We also do so in an evidence-based way, which is why we commissioned an independent review of the criminal courts, led by Sir Brian Leveson and ably supported by Professor David Ormerod and others. They produced a detailed and comprehensive analysis that spoke to the depth of the crisis in our criminal justice system and the impact that the delays are having across the piece, not just on those impacted by crime but on those defendants on remand languishing in jail, whose lives have been put on hold, perhaps for crimes they did not commit. They spoke to the long-term challenges in our criminal justice system and the changing nature of evidence in our system, involving more digital and forensic evidence, all contributing to a picture in which trials are now more complex and take twice as long as they did in 2000.
In that time, there has been no reform of our criminal justice system; instead, as we have heard from a number of Members today, there has been a chipping away of the Department’s budget, underinvestment, the stripping back of not just legal aid but sitting days, the closure of more than 40% of our courts and people leaving the Bar in droves, all of which have driven the backlogs—and there is consensus that we need to do something about them.
I was interested in the remarks made by the hon. Members for Chichester, for Brighton Pavilion, for Bexhill and Battle and for Reigate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden, all of whom called on this Government to pull every lever at our disposal. Here is the thing: I agree. We should be doing all those things, and indeed we are. We are not waiting to begin on the efficiency drive so desperately needed and called for by Sir Brian’s report and by those across the criminal justice system.
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Member started with a long digression into trial by ordeal. I hope this Committee will not become a trial by ordeal, but I find the brass neck approach to this from the Opposition surprising, given that they cut the Department’s budget in real terms, while we have invested in record levels of sitting days and have, I am proud to say, announced that we are lifting the cap on sitting days next year. I intend to get back to my point, but, interestingly, we are beginning to see the progress that our measures have made. Last quarter’s figures show that the backlog continues to rise—it is a snapshot—but we are starting to see the impact of the investment in a record number of sitting days and the lifting of the cap, which we know will be beneficial.
We have been clear from the start, following the expert recommendations of the independent review of the criminal courts, that three things will be needed: major investment in sitting days, the £92 million in criminal legal aid for solicitors that we invested in the early days of this Government and the committed uplift of £34 million to advocates fees, and a record settlement for the CPS.
Sarah Sackman
I will not take any more interventions; I want to make progress. The point is that we are already beginning to see the investment aspect of this.
The second pillar of how we address the backlog, which many have commented on, is efficiencies, and we have part 2 of Sir Brian’s report. In his speech on his vision for the justice system, the Deputy Prime Minister committed to a number of measures that are already under way. We will get blitz courts in London and the south-east under way this month, aggressively listing cases to get through them more efficiently. A pilot for AI-driven listing, working with the judiciary towards a national listing framework so that we end the postcode lottery on listing and list more efficiently, investment committed to case co-ordinators and driving case progression so that we are using the limited resources at our disposal most efficiently are all examples of taking forward greater efficiencies, which are desperately needed.
Sarah Sackman
I will just conclude this point. The central insight of the independent review of the criminal courts, in direct answer to the hon. Member for Reigate, borne out by the modelling, which has been externally verified and which we presented in the impact assessment, is that efficiency—however optimistic we are about it—and investment alone will not turn the tide on the rising backlog. That is because of the inheritance from the previous Government, coupled with the long-term challenges and changes in our justice system that the IRCC outlined. That is why we need all three things: efficiency, investment and reform.
Rebecca Paul
In my speech, I asked a specific question about the impact assessment. One of the options was to do nothing, and it would be helpful if the Minister could clearly articulate what was included in that option. Did it include the impact of uncapped sitting days, or of the three-year custodial sentence? Did it include all the other things that she was talking about, and that are being done anyway, or was the option literally to do nothing? If it was to do nothing, that is not a fair comparison.
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Lady will have seen that with the presentation of the Bill, as is right and appropriate, a suite of documents and material was made available to Members of this House and the wider public. The factsheet that accompanies the Bill includes a series of scenarios, one of which is literally to do nothing, and looks at the forecast of the projected caseload coming into the Crown court. There is another scenario, which asks what maximum investment would do to bring down the backlog—maximum investment being maximum, uncapped sitting days. The factsheet shows that that would mitigate the growth, but would not begin to bring down the backlog. We then project what maximum investment coupled with efficiencies would do. That would have a further dampening effect, but again, it would not even begin to get into the backlog, such is its scale—standing at 80,000 today. The factsheet supports the central insight of the IRCC: that it is only by pulling all three levers—investment, efficiencies and reform—that we begin to get down the backlog in this Parliament.
I have been pushed in the Chamber, by the Justice Committee and in the media by people saying, “Minister, you are saying that the backlog is only going to start to come down by the end of this Parliament,” as if to say, “Can’t you do more?” We are pulling every single lever even to get that effect, such is the growth of the backlog, which is due to the factors I have outlined.
Matt Bishop
I am proud to stand with the Minister and the Government on the Bill. Members on the Committee and in the Chamber have often used the terminology of “abolishing” jury trials. The definition of “abolishing” is formally ending, cancelling or getting rid of something completely, usually by law or official decision. Will the Minister clarify that none of the three points she has made is about abolishing jury trials?
Sarah Sackman
Of course that is right. No one is talking about the abolition of jury trials. We have said, and I will say repeatedly, that juries are a cornerstone of the British legal system and of our legal culture. We are preserving jury trials for the most serious cases. By seeking to tackle the shameful delays in our criminal justice system, we are seeking to ensure that, where jury trials are appropriate and very much necessary, they happen in a timely fashion. There is no point in having a jury trial if it comes one, two or three years after the fact, when witnesses are pulling out, the quality of evidence has worsened, people’s memories fade, and quality justice is simply not delivered. The state’s fundamental obligation is to deliver a fair trial.
Under our existing system, as a society we have already made a threshold choice about who accesses a jury trial and who does not. Currently, 90% of cases in this country are tried—fairly, robustly, rigorously and independently—without a jury. This debate is about where that threshold should be, not about a complete abolition of jury trials. It is about a pragmatic and proportionate threshold change to respond to the issue of timeliness, which is currently detrimental to the state’s delivery of a fair trial to all.
Sarah Sackman
I am not sure who to give way to, but I will give way first to the hon. Lady—I will try to be as fair as I can.
Siân Berry
We are debating clause 1, which as I understand it will completely remove defendants’ right to elect; the rest of the Bill puts in place procedures whereby other people—judges—will decide whether a jury trial is held. The right to elect a jury trial is being completely abolished. Is that not correct?
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Member is right. Where currently a defendant charged with a triable either-way offence has the ability to choose trial by jury in the Crown court, even in a scenario in which a magistrates court has accepted jurisdiction over their case, that ability to choose is removed by clause 1. Currently, defendants do not need to justify that choice; presumably they choose it because they consider that they will derive some advantage from it. The reform that we are making is to remove that ability to choose and, rather, to place the responsibility with the court to allocate the mode of trial according to the seriousness of the offence.
There was much discussion raised by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, and I believe one or two others, about the approach, and whether we should have an approach driven by the characteristics of a particular defendant—whether they are of good character, whether they have previous convictions—but that is not the approach we have chosen to take. The approach we have chosen to take is one in which it is the expert court, independently, that is triaging the case and allocating mode of trial based on the seriousness of the case. The best and most objective proxy for that is the likely sentence and the allocation guidelines, much in the same way as magistrates currently allocate trials in their mode of trial hearings.
Dr Mullan
The Minister is an extremely articulate individual. Will she just confirm that she agrees that, as the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion pointed out, the Government are abolishing the right to elect, so it is perfectly reasonable for individuals to use the term “abolish” in relation to some of these reforms—because they are abolishing the right to elect?
Sarah Sackman
For those watching on TV—which is probably my mum—I will be absolutely clear: the Government are not abolishing jury trials. The Government are preserving jury trials for the most serious cases, and we are working in this way to ensure that those trials are fair and timely.
Sarah Sackman
What clause 1 does is remove the ability of a defendant to choose where they are tried, which, at the moment, they have a right to insist on. So we have—
Sarah Sackman
Let me finish my sentence; you asked me the question. We are removing the right to elect, and removing it completely. The right to elect means, notwithstanding the fact that under our current system—by the way, the right to elect does not exist in Scotland. I do not think any of us here would suggest for one minute that Scotland does not have a fair and independent justice system. It operates in a different way. The right to elect does not exist in a whole host of jurisdictions that have far lesser uses of jury trials than ours. What we are removing is the ability of the defendant to insist on their choice of trial, notwithstanding the seriousness of the case.
The CPS data shows that last year, under the current system, that happened in some 4,000 cases where the magistrates courts had accepted jurisdiction. In other words, under the magistrates courts’ existing sentencing powers, which currently stand at 12 months, they could hear that case and hear it fairly. They could also hear it more promptly because, as we know, the backlog is less in the magistrates court, and when the same trial that could be heard in the magistrates court is heard in the Crown court it takes four times as long, so there is swifter justice in that sense. Under the right to elect, the defendants in those 4,000 cases said, “I want a jury trial.” Under the current legislation, they can insist on that choice.
Some Members may say, “Actually, we think that is really important,” and I understand that that is the position of the Green party and the Opposition. We say something different for two reasons—one pragmatic, one principled. The pragmatic point is that, under the status quo—which we all agree is failing everybody, and we are implored to do something about the backlog—it is pragmatic and proportionate that cases that can be heard more swiftly and more proportionately, and be retained in the magistrates court, should be. It should be the court that triages that, in the same way as—to use the health analogy—if I went to A&E on a Saturday night with my child, and my child had a graze that could be dealt with by a nurse, if I insisted that it had to be seen by a specialist consultant, the answer would be, “Well, no; the person who needs to be seen by a specialist consultant is the person who has a specialist condition.” The triaging is done by the experts.
Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)
The Minister is making some important points, but I must bring her back to what she said about the fairness of jury trials, and about people feeling that they are fair. At the moment, many minority groups and working people of a lower socioeconomic level feel that if a trial is moved to be heard by just a judge and magistrates, it will not be fair. The Minister needs to clarify that. I absolutely agree with what she says about the need for change, but we must bring the public along with us. If the judge is a white middle-class man, the magistrates are white middle-class men and we cannot get variety, how will we get fairness? Remember, your mum is watching.
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We often use the old adage about justice needing not just to be done, but to be seen to be done. That is vital, and again comes back to the language that people use about our courts. The suggestion that a person gets a rougher justice in the magistrates court is inaccurate, and we have to ensure that there is confidence in every tier of our justice system, including in our judges.
My hon. Friend is also right, not only about the perceptions of, but the real-world impact on minority communities and those who have historically had negative experiences with criminal justice. We know that disproportionality exists, whether in charging practices, sentencing outcomes or the amount of black and minority ethnic men on remand. Black and minority ethnic communities are disproportionately the victims of crime, and a person who is black is four times more likely to be a victim of homicide than a person who is white, which is a grave injustice.
That is why it is so important that the Deputy Prime Minister has committed that the Government will, in due course, introduce an amendment to the Bill to provide for a review to properly monitor the impacts of the reforms, and of wider justice measures, on precisely the communities and individuals that my hon. Friend spoke about. We have to enrich our understanding of the issue and ensure that the reforms command the confidence of all the communities that we represent.
Sarah Sackman
I will make a little progress. As I have said, where a magistrates court has determined that an offence is suitable for summary trial there, clause 1 removes the ability of a defendant to insist on their choice of venue. The decisions about venue and mode of trial will rest with the court. That allocations process ensures that decisions about jurisdiction are made solely by the courts, so that cases are heard in the most appropriate venue according to their severity and complexity. There are thousands of cases in the Crown court caseload where the magistrates court has indicated that it has sufficient sentencing powers to hear the case, but a defendant has elected for jury trial.
Dr Mullan
I wish to pick up on a point the Minister made earlier, as interventions from other Members hampered me from doing so at the time. She hinted in her earlier remarks that although the total backlog is rising, there have been some improvements. I wonder whether she was attempting to address my questions around the Criminal Bar Association saying that the backlogs are falling in a number of areas. Could the Minister clarify whether the MOJ accepts that the backlogs are already falling in a number of courts? If it does not, what is the gap between what the CBA says and the Government’s position?
Sarah Sackman
I was coming to that point, but as the hon. Member has raised it, I will address it now. First, I put it on record that any suggestion that the Ministry of Justice or I have sought to bury good news is totally false. I would be the first person to be screaming it from the rooftops if our measures and our investment, which we made in contrast to the previous Government, were actually working. The fact is that at the last projected figures, in December, the backlog still stood at over 80,000 and it continues to remain high—slightly up from the previous quarter.
Rebecca Paul
I thank the Minister for that point. This goes back and links to the question I raised on the impact assessment. It is really important that we get clarity from the Minister on the impact assessment. The interpretation I am taking from her answer to me on whether existing measures like the suspension of three-year sentences and the uncapped sitting days were taken into account, is that, no, those are not in the “do nothing” scenario. I am struggling with why that would be. Surely, in the impact assessment you need to be showing the reality in order to do a fair comparison? It is reassuring to hear her say that she has looked at these numbers, but why are they not included in the impact assessment so that we can all clearly see them and see why she is taking the decision she is around limiting jury trials?
Sarah Sackman
I refer the hon. Member to the summary factsheet that was produced, which shows all of what I have described very clearly. I will ensure that every Committee member has a link. There was also a helpfully produced website by the MOJ, which synthesises all of these facts, all of the modelling, which demonstrates all of these things. I understand that she is looking at the formal impact assessment, but if you go on the website and look at the factsheet—all of which has been shared with stakeholders and the media, and I will ensure that she has the model she seeks—I can assure her that on the MOJ’s forecast of the growth in the backlog, even with maximum investment and ambitious efficiency we do not begin to reduce the backlog. That is our analysis, and it is what supported the IRCC’s analysis. It is only when you do all three things—investment, efficiency and structural reform—that you bring down the backlog.
Dr Mullan
I think even though the Minister did not directly and clearly say it, there was an acceptance there that the backlog is falling in a number of areas. A question that flows from that: what analysis has been done on why? I imagine this is something that the Ministry of Justice is all over like a rash. It is having to do something that is opposed by many people. Even if the Minister thinks it is the right thing to do, the Minister will accept it is a reduction in the rights of citizens, even if she thinks it is justifiable. If the Government’s main argument—that this will not work without removing jury trials—is not being demonstrated in a number of Crown courts, why is that? What has the Minister done rapidly to understand why they are coming down and what is transferable, right now, to the other courts?
Sarah Sackman
Just to be absolutely clear, I have not accepted the CBA figures. What I have told you, and everyone here, is that on the last published figures, the backlog continued to rise between September 2025 and December 2025. I accepted that it may be that in some courts there are signs of improvement—
Sarah Sackman
Let me just finish the point on clause 1, if I may. As I was saying in answer to a colleague’s question, the approach here on clause 1 and the approach to these structural reforms is pragmatic, driven by the necessity to bring down these backlogs, following the central insight of the IRCC; but the approach in clause 1 to remove the ability of the defendant to insist on their choice is also a principled one. We heard in Committee from crime victims—I think I am using that word appropriately in that context—that the ability of the defendant to insist on their mode of trial, notwithstanding the seriousness of the offence, in their view tilted the balance excessively towards defendants’ rights to drive the criminal justice process. In a criminal court, the Crown is on one side, represented by the prosecution, and the defendant is on the other. The complainant, who may turn out to be a victim of crime, is not represented. In this scenario—in keeping with other jurisdictions such as Scotland—it seems that the right to have the defendant drive the process, irrespective of the proportionality or the suitability of that mode of trial, is in principle an odd design choice.
Joe Robertson
It seems that the Minister has perhaps momentarily forgotten that the entire legal system in this country is tilted in favour of the defendant. The defendant is innocent until the prosecution makes its case, and it cannot just make a good case, because the case has to be beyond reasonable doubt. The whole system is tilted in favour of the defendant, and rightly so. It is slightly strange to hear her use the argument that the defendant should not have freedom and liberty to elect when they are innocent people until convicted—and many of them are never convicted.
Sarah Sackman
I am well versed in how our legal system works. I am well versed in the principle of the idea of innocent until proven guilty, and the criminal standard of proof. That is all important, as are the other safeguards that this reform system would retain. However, I make no apologies for the approach that we take in reforming this system, which, as I have said, is not just driven by necessity and pragmatism but by principle, and for the case repeated by myself and the Deputy Prime Minister—that we are a Government who will centre victims of crime. I also make no apologies for the investment we make in victim support services, or for the recalibration we are making in terms of how mode of trial is determined. Determining mode of trial is driven not just by the severity of cases, by creating an objective test to be applied by the courts, but the pursuit of timeliness. Timeliness, by the way, helps not only complainants and victims of crime but those accused of crime. If I were accused of a crime, I would want to clear my name as quickly as possible, so timeliness helps everybody across the criminal justice system.
Yasmin Qureshi
I understand the point that the Minister is making about victims and I am obviously concerned for them, but we are also talking about defendants’ rights. She will be aware that 900 postmasters and postmistresses from the Horizon scandal have all said, “Please do not abolish jury trial,” and the reason is that when they were being charged with those offences, many of them were told to plead guilty by lawyers who thought that a public jury would find it difficult to believe that a Government organisation had made a mistake. However, some of them did elect Crown court trials and were acquitted. That is 900 potential defendant/victims. Lord Hain and my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) mention the importance of the jury trial. I do think that the victim and defendants have a right to elect, and I think that we should abandon restricting the jury trials.
Sarah Sackman
Of course, the Post Office Horizon scandal was one of the great miscarriages of justice of recent times. However, it is important to remember that we are discussing the whole system and that, of course, for the most serious crimes under a reformed system, we would be retaining jury trial. It is also important to remember, as I think even those representatives from the criminal Bar accepted, that there is no constitutional, absolute right to a jury trial. If that were so, the 90% of people whose cases are dealt with in the magistrates court would have a right to insist on a jury trial. This whole debate is centred around the appropriate way to treat that cohort of cases in the middle—between summary-only, which stay the same, retained by the magistrates, and all the indictable-only cases, or indeed anything likely to receive a sentence of over three years, which retain a jury trial.
Sarah Sackman
Let me just finish my sentence. This whole debate is located around a relatively narrow group—although we are still talking about thousands of cases—of triable either-way cases and those likely to receive a sentence of three years or more. It is why the question about jury equity, posed by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, interestingly relates somewhat to—
Armed Forces Bill (Fourth sitting)
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we continue line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill, I have a few reminders for Committee members. Please switch off or silence electronic devices. No food or drink, other than that provided, is permitted during our sittings. Hansard would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes or hand them to the Hansard colleague in the room.
I remind Members to bob to catch my eye if they wish to speak in any debate. The selection list for today’s sitting, which is available in the room and on Parliament’s website, shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped for debate.
Clause 4
Interference with uncrewed devices
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Al Carns)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Efford. Defence needs to protect itself from crime with security measures that will deter, detect and defeat criminal activities, including those directed by hostile states, that threaten its critical sites or operations. Currently, the only authorisation process that enables interference with drones that might be used to commit crimes that threaten defence operations and assets is in part III of the Police Act 1997. Only the civilian police can obtain such an authorisation to deal with these threats.
The increase in drone activity around defence sites means that defence cannot rely on local police forces for its security requirements. The emergence, in Ukraine and elsewhere, of drones as a new frontier of warfare has brought into sharp focus the urgent need for defence to meet this rapidly developing threat, not only in operational theatres but here in the UK, to protect defence operations and bases. We must have ways to protect ourselves from the threats posed by drones, be they in the air, on land or on or under water.
Clause 4 will create a regime whereby defence personnel can obtain authorisation to use approved equipment to prevent drones from being used to commit criminal offences in relation to defence sites and property in the UK. The regime will consist of a two-stage approval process.
The first stage will consist of a senior person in defence—a two-star military officer or civil service equivalent—giving authorisation for the use of approved equipment to detect and prevent relevant offences. Applications for authorisations can be made only by defence personnel; before giving an authorisation, they will need to be satisfied that it is appropriate, in the interests of national security, that it be given. An authorisation can cover one or more defence areas, particular defence property or a description of property. This stage will ensure that appropriate areas and property can be protected using the appropriate equipment. Defence areas include sites in the UK used for the purpose of defence, as well as sites used by visiting forces. Defence property includes vehicles and vessels in the UK. It will be possible for an authorisation to cover a description of such property—royal naval vessels, for example—so that it is not necessary for each one to be individually identified.
To ensure that the new regime is agile, we have not specified the type of equipment that can be used under an authorisation, or taken a power to prescribe this in regulations. Instead, the Secretary of State will need to approve equipment before it can be used. This will allow new equipment to be used as swiftly as possible to protect defence interests. The approval process will be governed by defence policy, which will ensure that equipment is safe to use or test in the UK. An authorisation can last for up to 12 months and may be renewed; it can also be varied or revoked.
The second stage in the authorisation process involves a responsible person. Before approved equipment can be used, the responsible person must be satisfied that it will be used only in accordance with the authorisation that covers the area or property to which it relates. Furthermore, before equipment can be used to detect and defeat a drone, the responsible person must be satisfied that it is both reasonable and proportionate to do so. I commend the clause to the Committee.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. As we all know, drones and other uncrewed systems are rapidly reshaping modern defence and are already central to surveillance, logistics and frontline operations. Their importance will only grow in the years ahead. For our armed forces, they offer speed, precision and flexibility; for our adversaries, they present new and evolving threats that we must be ready to counter. That is why the clause matters.
My own limited experience was back in the early 2010s, when I saw drones brought into military service in our operations in Afghanistan. Those pieces of kit were really expensive and large, but we could see how they were reshaping the modern battlefield. Looking at how the technology has evolved over the years, the first signs that I saw were in how prisoners were working with criminal networks on the outside to deliver drugs and other contraband into prisons. They were using cheap, commercial, off-the-shelf drones to carry out those illegal acts. The barrier to entry for such products has fallen significantly. Our military now has to contend with protecting military sites, bases and other critical assets from people who can buy cheap drones that have a big operational effect, so new powers need to be given to our armed forces people.
We will have more opportunities to strengthen these powers. We support what the Minister proposes, but we will discuss new clauses at a later sitting. The success of clause 4 will depend on whether the wider system supports it. We have heard repeatedly from colleagues across the House about regulation issues with testing autonomous systems in UK airspace or waters. Multi-departmental efforts will be required to take away some of the regulation, so that we can give defence manufacturing and our armed forces the ability to test the new technologies and implement them in their operational output.
Our armed forces must be equipped with not just the tools, but the doctrine and training to use them effectively. We have a clear opportunity for change. The United Kingdom has the expertise and the industrial base to lead in uncrewed systems, which is good for the export market. Clause 4 provides part of the foundation, but it must be matched by practical action to ensure that the capabilities can be delivered at scale. If we get it right, we will strengthen our national security, our defence industry and our critical national infrastructure; if we fall behind, others will set the pace. The choice is ours.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Efford, after the Easter recess. I believe that the Minister clarified this point, but I ask for confirmation: will the extension of anti-drone permissions extend to US bases such as RAF Croughton in my constituency?
Al Carns
The clause is exactly what we need. The explosion in drone systems across the world requires the proper legislation, and the clause will fit that purpose.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Sexual harm prevention orders and sexual risk orders
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Schedule 2.
Clause 6 stand part.
Schedule 3.
Clauses 7 to 9 stand part.
New clause 12—Protective Orders: Persons No Longer Subject to Service Law—
“(1) This section applies where a person—
(a) is charged with, or has been convicted of, an offence within the service justice system, and
(b) was subject to service law either at the time of the alleged conduct or at the time of the charging decision, whether or not they remain subject to service law at the time of trial or sentencing.
(2) A service court may make any of the following orders in respect of a person as if they were still subject to service law—
(a) a sexual harm prevention order or interim sexual harm prevention order (see sections 103A to 103K of the Sexual Offences Act 2003);
(b) a sexual risk order or interim sexual risk order (see sections 122A to 122K of that Act);
(c) a service domestic abuse protection order;
(d) a service stalking protection order;
(e) a service restraining order (see section 229 of the Armed Forces Act 2006).
(3) An order made under subsection (2)—
(a) has effect as if made by a civilian court of equivalent jurisdiction, and
(b) is enforceable accordingly.
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the recognition, enforcement and variation of orders made under this section, including provision about which court has jurisdiction to vary or discharge such an order after it is made.”
This new clause ensures service courts can impose protective orders on individuals who leave service before trial, preventing avoidance of such orders simply by leaving service.
Al Carns
Clauses 5 to 7 and schedules 2 and 3 relate to protection orders. The Government are committed to providing safety, justice and real support for all in the defence community, both now and in future, which is why a particular focus of the Bill is on protecting victims of serious sexual and violent crimes.
Currently, the service justice system cannot impose the full suite of protection orders that are available in the civilian criminal justice system. That can create inconsistencies and critical gaps in victim safeguarding, particularly where cases are based overseas and are therefore under the jurisdiction of the service justice system. It means that there are key vulnerabilities, insufficient protection powers in the SJS in comparison with the civilian system and, as existing orders do not convert into civilian equivalents, gaps in protection when a subject leaves service. Those gaps place victims, both in defence and in the wider public, at risk of continued harm. They mean that victims in the service justice system do not always receive the level of protection to which they would be entitled in the criminal justice system.
Clauses 5 to 7 will address those inconsistencies and will be central to providing enduring protection for victims by enabling service courts to make interim and full protection orders and notices that are enforceable even after someone leaves the service. Those service orders include sexual harm prevention orders, sexual risk orders, domestic abuse protection notices and orders, stalking protection orders and restraining orders. The clauses will align the justice systems to ensure that no member of the defence community is left with lesser protections than their civilian counterparts. They will empower the service police to apply for interim and full orders and will empower the service courts to impose them, ensuring that victims receive enduring protection from further harm. The powers apply to service personnel and civilians subject to service law both in the UK and overseas, ensuring their worldwide application.
The service police are members of the armed forces who perform broadly the same role for the armed forces, wherever they are in the world, that their civilian counterparts perform in police forces across the UK. Although the service police currently operate in line with the principles of the guidance issued by the Home Office on disclosure of police information, the fact that they have no statutory duty to do so is a disparity with the civilian system. Clause 8 will therefore impose a requirement on the service police to have regard to existing statutory guidance about the disclosure of police information for the purposes of preventing domestic abuse, sexual offending and stalking. It will also amend section 77 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 to include the Ministry of Defence police in the list of police forces that need to have regard to the domestic violence disclosure system. This will better protect potential victims from the risks associated with domestic violence, sexual offending and stalking.
Clause 9 will ensure that offenders who have, for example, been sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment by a court martial for controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship are automatically supervised under multi-agency public protection agreements. Once those offenders are released from prison, they will be managed in the community in the same way as if they had been sentenced by the Crown court. If offenders under the scope of clause 9 are not managed under MAPPA when released on licence into the community, it may be harder for police, prisons and probation services to work together to protect the public and manage the risk that the offenders pose.
I will speak to new clause 12 in my closing remarks.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in support of new clause 12 and offer broader support for clauses 5 to 9, which represent a significant strengthening of the protective framework in the service justice system.
It is worth setting out the basic principle that the armed forces justice system must be capable not only of dealing fairly and effectively with wrongdoing, but of ensuring that the protection of victims and management of risk do not fall between institutional cracks. The credibility of the service justice system depends on continuity, coherence and, above all, confidence that protective measures will not be undermined by procedural happenstance.
Clauses 5 to 9 make important and welcome progress. They will extend the availability and operation of sexual harm prevention orders, sexual risk orders, domestic abuse protection orders, stalking protection orders and restraining orders in the service justice system. They make provision for enforcement, variation and guidance structures, including in respect of the important role of provost marshals and service police in the exercise of those functions. The clauses will modernise the service justice landscape in a way that recognises the reality of contemporary risk management. They will ensure that service personnel and civilians subject to service discipline are not operating in a parallel system that is less capable of protecting victims or managing dangerous individuals. In particular, the extension to the service courts of protections against domestic abuse and stalking is a welcome alignment with civilian criminal justice standards, ensuring consistency of safeguarding irrespective of jurisdiction.
However, as is often the case in the refinement of complex statutory schemes, there remains a narrow but important residual gap, which is precisely what new clause 12 seeks to address. The core issue is one of jurisdictional continuity. At present, protective orders in the service justice system are clearly available while an individual is subject to service law. Clauses 5 to 9 also go further by making provision for enforcement in certain circumstances in which the individual ceases to be subject to service discipline after an order has been made. A difficulty arises, however, in the transitional space where an individual is charged or even convicted while subject to service law, but ceases to be subject to service law before the protective order is imposed or finalised. Without express provision, there is a risk that such an individual, by virtue of leaving service, will fall outside the effective reach of the service court’s protective jurisdiction at precisely the point at which such orders are most necessary.
New clause 12 performs a simple but important function. It would provide that where a person is charged with or convicted of an offence in the service justice system and was subject to service law at the relevant time, the service court may impose specified protective orders as if the person remained subject to service law. It is, in effect, a statutory deeming provision, preserving jurisdiction for protective purposes notwithstanding the cessation of service status.
The legal merits of that approach are clear. First, it prevents what might properly be described as jurisdictional arbitrage. Without such a provision, there is a theoretical, though in practice very real, risk that individuals could seek to avoid the imposition of protective orders by leaving service prior to trial or sentencing. Even if such behaviour is not deliberately engineered, the mere existence of a gap creates inconsistency and undermines confidence in the system. The protective reach of the service justice system should not be rendered contingent on administrative status at a particular moment in time.
Secondly, the new clause reflects a well-established principle in criminal justice, which is that protective orders are ancillary to the underlying offence and risk posed by the offender, not merely to their procedural status. The civilian courts retain wide powers to impose protective orders at sentencing precisely because the assessment of risk is rooted in conduct, not institutional affiliation. New clause 12 would ensure that the service courts are placed in an equivalent position, recognising that the underlying risk does not evaporate simply because service status changes.
Thirdly, the new clause would promote legal certainty and coherence. Through clauses 5 to 9, the existing framework already recognises that certain orders may continue to have effect or be enforced after a person leaves service. However, enforcement is not the same as imposition. It is logically and legally cleaner to ensure that the court retains the power to make the order at the point of disposal, rather than relying on subsequent conversion or deeming mechanisms. The new clause therefore fills a structural gap and ensures that the life cycle of protective orders is not disrupted by jurisdictional transition.
Fourthly, the new clause is carefully drafted in respect of its propriety. It would not create an unfettered or novel category of punitive power. Rather, it would explicitly confine the service court’s ability to make orders to those that it would have been able to make had the individual remained subject to service law. It is, in essence, a continuity provision, not an expansion of jurisdiction.
Importantly, subsection (3) of the new clause would provide that such orders are to have effect
“as if made by a civilian court of equivalent jurisdiction”
and are “enforceable accordingly.” That is a critical safeguard. It would ensure interoperability between the service justice system and the civilian criminal justice system, avoiding the creation of parallel regimes that might otherwise give rise to confusion about enforcement authority.
Subsection (4) of the new clause, enabling the Secretary of State to make regulations regarding recognition, enforcement and variation, is also welcome. It would provide necessary flexibility in an area where procedural interfaces between service and civilian jurisdictions must be capable of adjustment over time. In particular, it would allow for clarity as to which court is best placed to vary or discharge orders once a person has fully transitioned out of service life. That is a sensible delegation of secondary rule-making power, consistent with the established constitutional practice in this field.
David Reed
It is difficult to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley—he is a former Army officer, a doctor and a barrister—but I will attempt to add to the debate.
This issue is clear: under the present framework, a service court can only impose protective orders—such as a sexual harm prevention order, a stalking protection order, a domestic abuse protection order or a restraining order—if the individual remains subject to service law at the point of trial or sentence. Where an individual has left the forces before that stage, the court’s ability to impose those protections falls away, even where the alleged conduct took place during service and proceedings were properly brought on that basis. That creates an obvious and avoidable gap—my hon. Friend laid out the argument on this expertly. It presents a route that any competent legal adviser could identify.
Where proceedings are pending or a conviction is likely, there is a clear incentive to leave service before the point at which an order could be imposed. The individual who may present the greatest risk to a victim, who knows their workplace, shares the same base or moves within the same social network, can remove themselves from the reach of a protective order simply by leaving. That is not a remote possibility; it is a foreseeable consequence of the current structure, and it should be addressed.
New clause 12 addresses this consequence in a proportionate and coherent way. It provides that, where an individual was subject to service law at the time of the alleged conduct or at the point of charging decision, the service court retains the power to impose protective orders as though the individual remained subject to service law. It does not expand service jurisdiction into new territory, and it does not create new offences. It simply preserves an existing power at the point where it is most needed: at conviction or sentence.
New clause 12 also ensures that such orders have full effect. An order made in those circumstances is to be treated as though it was made by a civilian court of equivalent standing, which would provide clarity on enforcement, avoid any uncertainty between service and civilian systems, and allow a proper provision through the regulations for recognition, enforcement and variation. In practical terms, it gives the courts a power that is both meaningful and workable.
The Bill makes a serious effort to strengthen the experience of victims within the service justice system. We heard from many experts during the evidence sessions, and that really brought it home for many of us on the Committee. Measures such as protective orders, enhanced powers for service police and independent legal advocacy represent real progress. However, it is important that those provisions operate together effectively. At present, there is a clear weakness. Where leaving service provides a means of avoiding a protective order, that weakness will be exploited. The purpose of new clause 12 is to ensure that it cannot be.
Those most likely to benefit from this change are often the most vulnerable. Individuals affected by serious sexual offences, domestic abuse or stalking within close professional communities face particular risks, especially where working and social environments are closely intertwined. For them, a protective order is not a technical matter, but fundamental to their sense of safety and ability to continue in their role. Access to that protection should not depend on whether an individual leaves service at a particular moment.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I welcome the clauses we are considering. This Government were elected to renew the nation’s contract with those who serve, and this Bill promises to do that. We cannot do it without ensuring that armed forces personnel are protected from sexual and violent behaviour, domestic abuse, stalking and harassment. We must ensure that, if such incidents do happen, justice is swift and victims are supported.
As far as possible, the service justice system reflects the provisions of the civilian justice system, and the Bill is modernising and improving victim support. It was extremely helpful to speak to those involved in the service justice process, and I thank the Chair for organising those visits, which helped to inform us all.
Among the key measures being introduced are the sexual harm prevention orders and the sexual risk orders, which can be issued in the service court in response to provost marshal. The Bill also allows for service domestic abuse protection notices to be issued by the service police, and for service domestic abuse protection orders and service stalking protection orders to be issued by the service courts. This will ensure better protection for personnel and civilians.
The Bill also solves the discrepancy that exists between service courts and civilian courts if an offender is sentenced by the service court when they have committed a serious offence. Currently, the transfer from the service courts to the civilian justice system is undertaken on a discretionary basis. The Bill will modernise that system, and bring offenders sentenced by the service courts into line with the civilian justice system. The Bill will better support victims of a service offence by streamlining the complaints procedure.
I have some sympathy with the arguments behind new clause 12 and a great deal of respect for the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford. However, in practice, individuals cannot simply leave the armed forces to avoid proceedings. A serviceperson will not be discharged or given a final leaving date until disciplinary or criminal proceedings have been properly concluded. Even after an individual has already left service, sections 57, 58 and 61 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 allow them to be charged with an offence committed while they were subject to service law. My argument in respect of new clause 12 is that it is simply not necessary. However, I think dialogue between the Minister and the right hon. Member would be welcome.
Al Carns
I thank the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford for tabling new clause 12, which seeks to ensure that service courts can impose protective orders on individuals who leave service before trial and preventing the avoidance of such orders simply by leaving the service. I recognise the good will and the sentiment behind new clause 12. However, it is not needed.
I want to be clear that individuals should not be able to evade accountability for their conduct and that safeguarding measures must not fall away simply by reason of service or leaving the armed forces. Protecting victims of domestic abuse, stalking and sexual harm is a clear priority of this Government. The reality is that individuals cannot simply leave the armed forces to avoid proceedings—they just cannot. It is actually relatively complicated to leave the armed forces. A serviceperson will not be discharged or given a final leaving date until disciplinary or criminal proceedings have been properly concluded.
Importantly, if for some reason an individual were to slip through the net and leave the service, sections 57, 58 and 61(2) of the Armed Forces Act 2006 allow them to be charged with an offence committed while they were subject to service law. Such a charge may be brought within six months of their leaving service, or after six months with the consent of the Attorney General, ensuring that service courts can still exercise that jurisdiction when necessary.
The Government have engaged with experts, including the Home Office, the Defence Serious Crime Command and safeguarding teams in the design and creation of service protection orders to ensure that they are robust and effective. That includes ensuring that service protection orders will be recognised and enforceable within civilian courts. That means that where a protection order is made, the Bill provides for those orders to transition to the civilian justice system once an individual leaves service and provides enduring protection for victim-survivors. The reality is that people cannot just leave the military, especially if they are under investigation. Secondly, if they do, they are still subject and can be pulled back for a minimum of six months. Taken together, that approach provides continuity, confidence and protection beyond service.
David Reed
The Minister is laying out a very well-structured argument, and I see many of the points, but I wonder about certain circumstances. For instance, if a serviceperson took drugs and was kicked out—they have to abide by those rules, which we all know about in the armed forces—what would then happen?
Al Carns
If there were criminal proceedings, he would be held to account in the service justice system for up to six months after the case. It is relatively simple. As we know, it is quite hard to leave the military, and when someone does, they are still subject to service law for six months after they have left.
The Government do not believe that new clause 12 is necessary and I therefore invite the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford not to press it. I also commend clauses 5 to 9 and schedules 2 and 3 to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 6 to 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10
Victims of service offences
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Al Carns
Clause 10 places a duty on the Secretary of State for Defence to issue an updated code for victims in the service justice system. The existing armed forces code of practice, which identifies the services and support to be provided to victims in the service justice system itself, is set out in regulation and has not been substantively modified since it was introduced in 2015. Clause 10 revokes the 2015 regulations. Since 2015, we have continued to make improvements to the service justice system to provide a better service to victims and witnesses, such as with the creation of the Victim Witness Care Unit, which I think the Committee saw when they went down to Portsmouth.
This clause will introduce important legislative changes to the service justice system that were made to the civilian criminal justice system through the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024. The legislation will require those responsible for providing a service to victims of service offences in accordance with the code to do so unless there are good reasons not to; and the flexibility afforded by guidance will allow future modifications and improvements to the service justice system to be easily reflected in the contents of the new code. Clause 10 also places a duty on the Secretary of State to issue guidance about victim support roles, improving clarity and encouraging greater consistency, so that service providers will be held to similar standards as their equivalents in the civilian criminal justice system.
David Reed
Clause 10 is a necessary and proportionate step to ensure that victims of service offences are properly recognised and supported within the military justice system. Those affected by such offences often face distinct pressures linked to service life, including close living and working environments and concerns about reporting within the chain of command. Strengthening protections and support mechanisms helps to build confidence in the system, encourages reporting and reinforces the principle that service personnel are entitled to the same standards of justice and care as any civilian. This is an important measure in upholding both discipline and fairness across the armed forces.
Clause 11 strengthens the role of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration in a practical and necessary way. By allowing victims to bring complaints directly to the commissioner, it removes unnecessary barriers and ensures that their voices are heard more clearly and promptly. This change reflects a sensible and compassionate approach, particularly in cases involving service offences, where the experiences of victims must be treated with seriousness and respect. It reinforces accountability while improving access to justice.
Al Carns
Clauses 10 and 11, in reality, thicken out the service justice system and align it with the civilian justice system, providing greater freedoms and protections for anybody who is a victim within this system. I commend them to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Service policing protocol
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 6, in clause 12, page 29, line 6, at end insert—
“115C Duty to refer sexual offences and domestic abuse to civilian police
(1) This section applies where a service police force or the tri-service serious crime unit is made aware of an allegation that a person subject to service law, or a civilian subject to service discipline, has committed a relevant offence in the United Kingdom.
(2) The Provost Marshal of the relevant service police force, or the Provost Marshal for serious crime, must immediately refer the allegation and transfer the investigation to the relevant civilian police force.
(3) In this section—
“relevant civilian police force” means the civilian police force for the area in which the alleged offence took place;
“relevant offence” means—
(a) any offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003,
(b) an offence involving domestic abuse within the meaning of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, or
(c) an offence of attempting or conspiring to commit an offence within sub-paragraph (a) or (b).
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify further offences which are to be treated as a relevant offence for the purposes of this section.”
This amendment requires the Service Police and the Defence Serious Crime Command to refer all allegations of sexual offences and domestic violence to the civilian police forces for investigation and subsequent trial in the civilian justice system.
Ian Roome
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. Amendment 6 would introduce a requirement for the service police and the Defence Serious Crime Command to refer all allegations of sexual offences and domestic violence to the civilian police forces for investigation and subsequent trial in the civilian justice system.
Clause 12 currently inserts into the Armed Forces Act 2006 a new section requiring the Secretary of State to issue a “service policing protocol” to co-ordinate the work of the Defence Council, each service police force and the tri-service serious crime unit. That provision aims to better co-ordinate those organisations’ vital work and to protect against improper interference in their criminal investigations.
This amendment would insert an additional section requiring the provost marshal to refer all allegations of sexual offences and domestic violence to the relevant civilian police force. That is important because, although cases involving this kind of accusation may be heard faster under military investigation, many fear that these cases continue to be adversely influenced by the close-knit community within the armed forces and by the military chain of command. It was a recommendation of the 2021 Atherton report, in which more than 2,000 female service personnel and veterans said that they had been victims of bullying, discrimination, harassment or sexual assault during their service in our armed forces. Some reported a culture where cases are minimised, evidence is lost and perpetrators are protected. Transferring that role to independent civilian police would remove the risk of a conflict of interest that can happen when the military investigates itself.
In the shocking case of Royal Artillery Gunner Jaysley Beck, who tragically took her own life in 2021, the coroner ruled that the sexual harassment she had suffered should have been referred to the police. The Ministry of Defence aims to see the percentage of women in our armed forces increase from 12% to 30% by 2030, and independent police investigation of sexual crimes would help to rebuild trust and accountability. Under subsection (3), a “relevant offence” would be committing, attempting or conspiring to commit an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 or an offence involving domestic abuse as defined by the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. The Secretary of State would also have the power to add additional offences should it be deemed necessary.
Rachel Taylor
I thank the hon. Member for North Devon for tabling the amendment, and I have just a few things to say. Its impact would be to remove the voice of the victim from the process in deciding the jurisdiction of sexual offences and domestic abuse cases. If a victim does not want their case dealt with in the criminal justice system, it is possible, as is the case with many situations where we see violence against women, that they will withdraw from the process. We have seen lengthy delays in the civilian justice system for dealing with rape and serious sexual offence cases. We have seen many instances of victims removing themselves from the process. The amendment would have the impact of removing the victim’s choice for the matter to be dealt with in the service system, possibly leading to a case where no prosecution was ever pursued. That cannot be right and therefore I cannot support it.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
I will confine my remarks to amendment 6, tabled by the hon. Members for North Devon and for Tunbridge Wells. Although I have real sympathy with its purpose, I am hesitant about its drafting, and recognise that, in this place, we sometimes develop what could be described as an unhealthy instinct to overcomplicate what, at its heart, is a very simple objective—that serious allegations are handled properly, consistently and in a way that commands the public’s confidence.
I will start with where I hope and think we all agree: that allegations of sexual offences and domestic abuse are among the most serious that any justice system will have to confront. They demand to be treated with urgency, professionalism and, above all, trust. I do not think it is controversial to say that victims, whether serving in uniform or not, should not feel that the system is treating them differently depending on administrative geography or institutional habit. That is the spirit in which I understand that the amendment seeks to ensure that such cases are not left solely within the service channels, but are referred immediately to civilian police forces, with the implication that civilian investigation would become the default route.
I understand why Members are attracted to that clarity. There is a certain political comfort in having bright lines. I must confess that I have often found myself drawn to them, but that is usually just before discovering why lawyers or police officers prefer slightly more shaded ones. I support the principle underlying the amendment, but I have reservations about the way in which it seeks to achieve it.
My first concern is practical. The amendment requires that where service personnel, or the tri-service serious crime unit, are made aware of an allegation, they must immediately refer it and transfer the investigation to civilian police. “Immediately” is one of those words that looks quite reassuring in legislation but behaves rather less co-operatively in real life. In practice, the first hours of an investigation are often the most sensitive. Evidence is fragile, scenes need securing and victims may need safeguarding. Crucially, the question of who is best placed to take operational control may depend on facts that are not yet fully known. There will be cases where civilian forces are clearly the best placed from the outset—I suspect that they may be the majority—but there will also be cases where service police are already on the ground, embedded in the environment and uniquely placed to stabilise the situation before any handover, if necessary, can sensibly take place. What worries me slightly is that we risk turning a sensible presumption of civilian involvement into a rigid statutory trigger that may inadvertently disrupt good policing practice at exactly the wrong moment.
The second concern is more about coherence than timing. The amendment fixes jurisdiction by reference to the area where the offence took place. Again, that will work perfectly well in many cases, but the armed forces are not always known for their geographical neatness. People move, units deploy and conduct straddles locations. Investigations often involve a mixture of service personnel and civilians across different parts of the country. My concern is not that the principle is wrong but that a rigid allocation rule may create friction between agencies at precisely the moment when co-ordination matters the most.
Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, I have concerns about the role of service policing itself. The service police and the Defence Serious Crime Command are not an inferior version of civilian policing. They are specialised and professional, and they often operate in environments that civilian forces are simply not structured to manage at first contact. If we were starting from scratch, we would not design two parallel systems and hope they never meet; we would design integrated systems with clear rules on information sharing, handover and joint working. That is where the real answer to this question lies. What I do not want us to do—however well intentioned the amendment is—is accidentally create a system where the service police are required to stand down too early or where information is transferred without the structured co-ordination that makes investigations effective. That is a defence not of silos, but of joined-up working between different agencies.
This is where I come to what I think would improve the Bill more than the amendment. What we really need is not just a duty to refer but a clear statutory expectation of mandatory information sharing and structured joint working between service police and civilian forces when dealing with sexual offences and domestic abuse. That would achieve the spirit of the amendment, and I think it would do so more reliably, without removing operational discretion at the earliest and most sensitive stage of any investigation. With that in mind, I gently press the Minister on this point. I do so in the spirit of someone who, prior to coming to Parliament, has sat through enough briefings to know that when everybody says, “Of course, we already share information effectively,” the definition of “effectively” remains quite different in different organisations.
Will the Minister give a clear commitment that the Government will ensure mandatory enforceable information sharing arrangements between the service police and civilian police forces in all cases involving sexual offences and domestic abuse? If that commitment is forthcoming, a great deal of the concern behind the amendment would arguably fall away. It would ensure that civilian forces are engaged early, that victims do not fall between systems, and that service police are not left operating in isolation or ambiguity. Although I support the broad intent of amendment 6 and its aims of ensuring serious allegations are handled properly and consistently, I am afraid that I am not persuaded that the current drafting is the best way to achieve that aim. I worry that it may constrain operational judgment in ways that are not fully intended.
I am, however, keen that we do not lose sight of the objective. I would strongly welcome the opportunity to work with colleagues across the House to refine this approach, potentially on Report, in a way that better balances mandatory co-operation with operational flexibility. If we get that right, we will do two important things at once: we will strengthen confidence in the handling of the most serious allegations, and we will ensure that those responsible for investigating them are not inadvertently placed in a straitjacket that makes their job harder rather than easier. On that basis, I hope the Government will engage constructively and I look forward to continuing this conversation.
David Reed
I acknowledge the intention behind amendment 6, and I thank the hon. Member for North Devon for tabling it. It is designed to ensure that serious offences, including sexual violence and domestic abuse, are investigated by civilian police with the specialist expertise and resources that those cases demand. That is an objective that both sides of the Committee can support, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley has laid out, some of the wording and the blanket approaches that have been drawn into clause 12 need to be hammered out.
Public confidence in the handling of such grave matters is essential, particularly when they involve members of the armed forces. That said, it is important to examine whether the approach set out in the amendment is the most effective way to achieve that aim. There are practical considerations around how referrals would operate, how responsibilities would be divided and how we would ensure that victims experience a clear and consistent process from start to finish.
Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)
I find this a fascinating debate because we can all see the meaning of the amendment, but the hon. Gentleman mentioned victims. If he recalls, we all visited the Defence Serious Crime Command and the victim support unit, and it was made clear that the victim support service has made some real improvements over the past few years. In any crime investigation that is transferred from the service justice system to the criminal justice system, the victim support unit cannot support the victim. That is a concern to me, and it was raised with us. Does the hon. Member agree that is a considerable concern that we should look at?
David Reed
Yes, I completely agree. If a crime has happened and the victim engages with a support unit, having to move between civilian and military judicial systems, and switch between people that they have had trusted conversations with, is—if I were to put myself in their shoes—probably not what they want to do if they have been exposed to sexual violence or other violence. I completely understand the approach that the hon. Gentleman puts forward.
I am keen to continue constructive discussions with colleagues across the Committee, as well as with the Ministry of Defence, to ensure that our system for investigating and prosecuting offences continues to improve. I look forward to working with the Minister on those proposals.
Al Carns
I thank the hon. Member for North Devon for his views on the Bill, but before providing comment on amendment 6, I will first speak to clause 12.
Currently, under section 115 of the Armed Forces Act 2006, there is a duty on individual provost marshals to seek to ensure that all investigations carried out by the service police are free from improper interference. Clause 12 provides a power to create a protocol that will support the provost marshal in complying with that duty, but it also goes further than that. It will set out how all members of defence can support such investigations and improve the working relationship between key stakeholders in support of service policing. That power is loosely based on the equivalent power under which the civilian Policing Protocol Order 2023 was created in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. The civilian protocol sets out the operational independence and governance structure in civilian policing in England and Wales. There is currently no equivalent to that in defence and no clear articulation of investigative independence for service police to enable personnel in defence to ensure the support of investigations.
The effect of clause 12 is that, through the protocol that it provides for, it will be formally articulated to the whole of defence how people in defence should exercise, or refrain from exercising, functions in order to improve working relationships and ensure that investigations carried out by the service police are absolutely free from improper interference.
Amendment 6 seeks to amend clause 12 to override the victim’s preference. That is the key issue: to override the victim’s preference by making sure that all investigations and prosecutions take place in a relevant criminal justice system of the UK. That cannot be the right way forward. By overriding the victim’s preference, the amendment risks increasing the victim withdrawal rate. Noting the procedural differences between the two systems, 2024 administrative data on adult rape-flagged cases shows that the withdrawal rate from civilian police investigations is 59% compared with 24% from the Defence Serious Crime Command. We heard that from various witnesses in evidence sessions. The amendment potentially risks making the victim withdrawal rate even higher in the civilian criminal justice system.
David Reed
We have talked a lot about the UK, but can the Minister give some clarity on when those offences happen abroad? Say, for instance, someone was on an overseas base in Cyprus, and the Cypriot police were to be involved. What would happen at that point and how would that affect the equation?
Al Carns
The hon. Member raises a very important point. I will have to come back to him with specific details and statistics on that, and I will write to the Committee.
As mentioned before, the amendment potentially risks making the victim withdrawal rate even higher than in the criminal justice system. It also risks the loss or erosion of “golden hour” evidence and the safeguarding of victims in cases of sexual offending or domestic abuse. That is because the amendment does not place a duty on civilian police forces to accept the case. That could make delays in the civilian criminal justice system worse. In 2024, investigations of adult rape-flagged cases in the criminal justice system in England and Wales took 338 days. That is higher than the 148 days seen in the service justice system, even when taking into account the further 72 days until charge is directed.
To reassure the Committee, the Government are committed to making sure that each case, in particular those involving sexual offences or domestic abuse, is dealt with in the right jurisdiction. The prosecutors’ protocols therefore provide for decisions on jurisdiction to be made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the views of the victim. That is one of the most important points—the views of the victim and their preference. In the event that agreement cannot be reached in England and Wales, for example, the ultimate decision on jurisdiction lies with the Director of Public Prosecutions in the civilian system, so there is a fall-back mechanism. It is a priority for us that decisions on jurisdiction are made in a timely way and take into account the victim’s preference. That is why clause 25 strengthens the provision of information and support to victims when they are asked their preference on jurisdiction.
There are two points I would like to come to. The first is the horrendous case of Gunner Jaysley Beck and what has been done since that incident, but also the Sarah Atherton review that took place in 2021. Since then, there has been a huge amount of work—under both the previous Government and this Government—to ensure that the service justice system, and indeed military culture, is transforming in the right direction. I will be really clear: when I joined, in 1999, LGBT individuals were still not allowed in the military. The culture has moved. It moved slowly, but it is moving faster, I think, in the last five years and in the last two years than I have seen it move in a long time.
There have been a couple of key milestones in that movement. The first one is zero tolerance to unacceptable sexual behaviour. That zero tolerance has trickled down to every rank in the military. I remember implementing that direction for my staff when I was the chief of staff for the UK carrier strike force. That took place across the Army, the Navy and the Air Force. The Raising our Standards programme is a commitment to tackle unacceptable behaviours and to drive lasting cultural change—again, to try and move in the right direction. Importantly, the violence against women and girls taskforce change programme is now running in Catterick and Plymouth, something I launched when I was the Veterans and People Minister. There is also the tri-service complaint system.
All of those programmes are moving in the right direction to ensure that if anyone is a victim of sexual violence or harassment, they have a place to go to express their concerns. It also ensures that it is dealt with independent of the chain of command and allows the victim to raise issues and get them dealt with in the most effective and appropriate manner.
We are currently working on a formal information sharing agreement. Currently, information is shared with civilian police forces through local engagement during investigations. I am happy to continue dialogue and take that forward to make sure that that is more solidified, clear and standardised across various civilian police and military police elements.
The reality is that clause 25 strengthens the provision of information and support to victims when they are asked for their preferred jurisdiction. Therefore, this Government maintain that case-by-case decisions taking into account the view of the victim—and that is critical, the view of the victim—is the best way forward. I hope that provides necessary reassurance to the hon. Member for North Devon, and on those grounds I ask him to withdraw the amendment. I commend clause 12 to the Committee.
Ian Roome
I will withdraw the amendment, but I ask that the Minister takes on board the comments made by the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley in his powerful speech, so that this can come out on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13
Entry for purposes of obtaining evidence etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Al Carns
The purpose of clause 13 is to extend the powers of judge advocates to enable them to issue search warrants, which can include other premises that are occupied or controlled by a person subject to service law, or a civilian subject to service discipline, but are not necessarily occupied as a residence. Examples include vehicles, boats or storage containers. Clause 13 also aligns the definition of premises in the Armed Forces Act 2006 with that in section 23 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—also known as PACE.
Turning to clause 14, under existing powers in section 314 of the 2006 Act, the UK civilian police can arrest a serviceperson reasonably suspected of committing the offences of desertion or absence without leave, commonly known as AWOL. Clause 14 extends those powers to include servicepersons reasonably suspected of committing the service offence, under section 12 of the 2006 Act, of disobedience to lawful commands.
A lawful command may be given by a commanding officer or the service police to protect victims from further harm, or indeed to prevent the risk of further offending by the suspect. Those may include restrictions on places that the suspect can visit, such as specific buildings or addresses, or people with whom they can have contact. By enabling the civilian police to arrest someone suspected of breaching such orders, their enforceability will be enhanced.
Turning to clause 15, the 2006 Act allows only the commanding officer of a suspect to authorise their pre-charge custody after arrest. This can sometimes create delays in the investigation process or risk further harm to victims or witnesses. Since the establishment of the Defence Serious Crime Command, the increased volume and complexity of its caseload have rendered the issue progressively more challenging.
Clause 15 creates a power for all the provost marshals to authorise pre-charge custody for service offences. This will apply to arrests for schedule 2 offences and offences that would attract a sentence of over two years’ imprisonment in the civilian criminal justice system. It will also apply to schedule 1, part 2 offences where permission has been refused for a commanding officer to deal with the matter summarily, and to attempted versions of the offences. Clause 15 will also apply where prescribed circumstances exist, such as repeated assaults on two or more occasions, or where a senior rank has inflicted serious injury on a service person.
Clause 15 also extends the existing powers for commanding officers, and the associated safeguards, to the four provost marshals. These safeguards include the 12-hour review period and the 48-hour time limit beyond which an extension must be approved by a judge advocate. Commanding officers must still be notified if a suspect is taken into custody, and that must take place within six hours of the arrest. In exceptional cases, commanding officers have the power to authorise custody, but they must notify the provost marshal for serious crime and the provost marshal of the service police force for the service of which the suspect is a member.
Clause 16 inserts new section 58A into the 2006 Act, imposing a time limit for charging summary offences under section 42. This clause reflects recommendation 35 of Sir Richard Henriques’s 2021 review: that the service justice system should follow the principle of the civilian justice system that minor matters, triable only in a magistrates court, have a six-month time limit imposed on them from the date the offence was committed. The clause therefore imposes a six-month time limit on summary-only offences in the service justice system. However, the clause will enable the Director of Service Prosecutions to determine whether such matters may be heard outside the six-month time limit. Such a pragmatic approach reflects the realities of service life, operational demands and the nature of deployments and operations, which may make a hard six-month time limit unworkable. I commend clauses 13 to 16 to the Committee.
David Reed
These clauses deal with entry for purposes of obtaining evidence, arrest and detention by civil authorities, pre-charge custody, and time limits for charging certain offences. It is right that service police are given clear and effective powers to obtain evidence, as the Minister has laid out clearly, and that such powers are subject to proper judicial oversight. The provision to allow a judge advocate to authorise entry and search of relevant premises seems sensible to modernise the system and to help investigations proceed efficiently and lawfully. I also welcome the clarification around arrest and detention by civil authorities, and the extension of pre-charge custody arrangements in serious cases. The changes should help to ensure that serious allegations are dealt with more consistently and with the necessary urgency.
Al Carns
The clauses will enhance the ability of our military police forces and our provost marshals to enact service justice. These measures will make the forces safer, enable them to look after the victims, and support their freedom to operate within the military system.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 14 to 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17
Duty of commanding officers to report serious offences
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Al Carns
Clause 17 will strengthen the duty of commanding officers to report allegations of serious offences to the service police. It removes an existing limitation where a commanding officer is obliged to report only a suspected schedule 2 offence committed by someone under their command. Under clause 17, where a commanding officer becomes aware that a serious offence may have been committed by any
“person subject to service law”
they must promptly refer the matter to the service police. However, the duty does not apply if the commanding officer reasonably believes that the service police or Defence Serious Crime Unit is aware of the matter. This is not a new process but an improvement to the existing duty, which will ensure that all serious allegations, including of sexual offences, are reported to the service police as promptly as possible. I commend clause 17 to the Committee.
David Reed
I welcome the clause, which seems a sensible and practical strengthening of the duty of commanding officers to report serious offences. The Minister, as a former commanding officer, will have experienced this duty at first hand, so I respect his judgment and expertise on the matter.
It is right that responsibility should apply wherever a commanding officer becomes aware of allegations concerning any person subject to service law, not only those within the officer’s direct chain of command. A broader duty will help to ensure that serious matters are not missed simply because of the structure of a unit or the form of command. At the same time, the safeguards in subsection (4), which mean that no further report is needed where the service police or tri-service serious crime unit is already aware, is a sensible way to avoid duplication and unnecessary bureaucracy. Taken together, the clause is a balanced reform that strengthens accountability, improves consistency and supports the proper investigation of serious offences across the services.
Al Carns
Commanding officers should always report an issue if they see one. With this change, they will have to and will be held to account.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 18
Summary hearings: punishments available to commanding officers
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Al Carns
Clause 18 gives a commanding officer the power to award a punishment of service detention to a
“corporal, bombardier, lance sergeant or lance corporal of Horse in any of His Majesty’s military forces”.
Those are OR-4 ranks, according to the NATO military rank codes. The power may be used only by commanding officers with extended powers at summary hearing. Currently, commanding officers in the Army and the Royal Air Force Regiment cannot impose service detention on an OR-4 rank, whereas those in the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force can. This variation in powers risks delay and unnecessary cost to the service justice system through trials potentially being heard at the court martial rather than being retained for summary hearing.
Allowing service detention to be imposed at summary hearing on corporals in the Army and the Royal Air Force Regiment is also in line with the operational reality that our military capabilities are becoming more integrated and joint. It is therefore increasingly likely that OR-4s from across the armed forces will be jointly deployed or even in joint units. As a result, it is more likely that commanding officers may face situations in which OR-4s from different services are defendants at summary hearing in a single case or in linked cases.
Clause 19 will give a commanding officer the power to impose a deprivation order in combination with a punishment of service detention, forfeiture of seniority or reduction in rank or disrating. Such punishments are used in more serious cases seen at summary hearings. At present, a commanding officer can impose a deprivation order only alongside a fine or “minor punishment” such as an admonition. Where a charge has been proven at summary hearing or a conviction obtained in a service court, they can be used to deprive the offender of any rights to certain property—this is property that has been lawfully seized from an offender or was in the offender’s possession or control when apprehended or charged with an offence. That might be, for example, tools used to commit the offence, offensive weapons or controlled drugs. In the more serious cases that might be dealt with at summary hearing, clause 19 will enable commanding officers to impose punishments that are just and proportionate and that protect the public and other service persons—for example, so that the property cannot be used again to commit the same or similar offences.
David Reed
We welcome clauses 18 and 19 on summary hearings and deprivation orders with the punishments available to commanding officers. They represent a serious aim and a proportionate update to the summary hearing powers available to commanding officers. Clause 18 would promote greater consistency across the services, by enabling service detention to be imposed on corporals, as the Minister said, and equivalent ranks, bringing the Army and the Royal Air Force Regiment into closer alignment with arrangements already in place elsewhere.
Clause 19 is likewise a practical step forward, as we heard in some of the evidence sessions. Permitting a deprivation order to be imposed alongside more serious summary punishments would give commanding officers a broader and more flexible set of options, while keeping matters within the summary system. That should help to ensure that sanctions are better tailored to the offence and the circumstances of the individual case. Taken together, the provisions enhance fairness, consistency and operational effectiveness, and we are pleased to support them.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
I welcome the clause. Will the Minister set out how there will be consistency in the use of these powers by commanding officers, to ensure that there is equality of justice across the board?
Al Carns
As someone goes across the single services and joint staff colleges, there will be different sections where they are trained on administering justice and the rights of a commanding officer. Importantly, there will be joint standing procedures produced around the clause, which everyone who becomes a commanding officer will have to read and ensure that they adhere to.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 20
Qualification for membership of the Court Martial
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 20, page 34, line 27, at end insert “or
(iii) a retired holder of such a rank.”
This amendment would add retired officers to those qualified for membership of the Court Martial.
Mr Francois
I again place on record our thanks to you, Mr Efford, and to our excellent Clerks and the team who organised a very good visit down to Portsmouth, where I think we learned a lot about the operation of the service courts in practice—I certainly did. A number of issues were raised in that discussion, not least about the operation of juries in courts martial, and who serves on those jury panels, how they are selected and why. I will give two or three examples of the issues that came from that and then talk to the amendment.
The current practice, when an officer is being tried for an offence, is that only officers may serve on a jury panel in a court martial. Some people raised questions with the briefers that day about why that should be, and it is an interesting issue. The book answer from the Department was that officers should be tried by a jury of their peers, and therefore it should be other officers who serve on that panel. There is an issue that follows from that about the rank of the officer being tried and the rank of the officers that then serve on the panel. We learned about a practical constraint, which is that if a relatively senior officer is being tried, let us say a colonel or above—to take an Army example—there is only a relatively small pool of people who could be trawled to sit on that panel to pass judgment on that officer.
In the civilian world, we would not have a system where, if a professor were being tried, only graduates could sit on the panel. The civilian system is that people are chosen entirely at random from the electoral roll and are asked to do jury service, which they are mandated to do, with certain exceptions set out in statute. In the civilian world, people are not tried by people of—how can I put it?—an equivalent educational or social status. As the saying used to be, it is a jury of 12 good men and true; now it is, rightly, a jury of good men and women and true who assess someone’s guilt or innocence. In the military, we still carry out the process in this ranked, structured way.
Let us say that we had a lance corporal who was being tried for being drunk and disorderly—perhaps he had got into a bar brawl after the end of an exercise; he had gone out at the weekend, had let off a bit of steam and this had led to him allegedly committing an offence. At present, as I understand it, only senior non-commissioned officers of the rank of the equivalent of colour sergeant or above could pass judgment on that lance corporal. That raises an interesting question: why should another corporal or lance corporal, who likes a night out on a Friday as well, not be allowed to serve on that panel? Why does it have to be a colour sergeant or equivalent?
Forgive me, Mr Efford, I am using Army ranks because that is what I am most familiar with from my service, but the point holds good across all the services. Why should only a colour sergeant or above be allowed to pass verdict on a lance corporal or even a private soldier? A number of such issues cropped up from our visit. Also, as in the old saying that the Minister reminded me of, time spent in reconnaissance is seldom wasted. This was a good example of that practice.
The amendment was drafted specifically to address one of those issues—the potential shortage of officers to serve on court martial panels, especially if a relatively senior officer is being tried, when by definition the pool of available serving officers to serve on a panel is limited. We have tried to come up with a practical suggestion, which is to use retired officers of equivalent rank. I am also interested to hear what other members of the Committee think of the wider issue, which is, does this have to be as hide-bound by rank as it is at the moment? I am interested in the Minister’s view as well, not least because he has been a commanding officer.
If we are to keep the system in essence as we have it at the moment, however, would it not make sense to be able to draw on a pool of retired officers of the required rank, who might have a little more time on their hands? We would not be taking anyone away from ongoing operations, and we could take time from their lives in order for them to continue to serve in a military context in the important task of administering service justice. That, in essence, is the intention of the amendment, but we also tabled it to provoke, I hope, a wider debate—I am looking at one or two Labour Back Benchers in particular, because they were vocal about this when we were in Portsmouth, so now is their chance—about why we do things in the way that we do them, and whether there is some potential for change, but if not, why not?
I hope that I have laid out the issue fairly clearly for the Committee.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in support of the amendment, which was tabled in the name of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, and to set out my broader support for clause 20. I will begin with the clause itself, because it addresses the composition of the court martial. In such circumstances, it is right that we support the very sensible change that the clause sets out, with its underlying intent to ensure that the court martial is properly constituted and capable of commanding confidence across the armed forces and the wider public. Enlarging the pool of those who can sit on it is a welcome amendment.
Precisely because we support that principle, however, we also need to examine whether the system is fully equipped for the realities it faces. In that context, the amendment becomes not only relevant, but in my view increasingly necessary. The amendment proposes a simple change, as set out by my right hon. Friend, to include retired holders of the relevant rank among those qualified for membership of the court martial.
At first glance the amendment may appear relatively modest, but I suggest that, like many apparently modest changes in defence legislation, it subtly reflects something much more significant. It reflects a recognition of the demands placed on our armed forces justice system and how those are changing over time, and changing rapidly. We are operating in an era of increasing operational tempo—a phrase that is often used in defence debates, sometimes frequently.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
Has the hon. Gentleman made any assessment of whether the capacity savings from serving officers not having to serve on the court—because under the amendment they would be replaced by retired officers—are perhaps exceeded by the burden on the service justice system of having to track and maintain some kind of database of the retired officers that it would call on to serve?
Dr Shastri-Hurst
The hon. Gentleman makes a helpful challenge. Clearly, there is no impact assessment with the amendment. However, there is a joint service publication, the RARO—regular army reserve of officers—list, and there are those letters I receive annually asking me to update my address and contact details. There are already mechanisms by which individuals can be identified and recalled for this service. Given the operational tempo that I have described, it makes sense that we ameliorate the pressure on those who are currently in active service while not impacting the flow of justice through the service justice system.
Mr Francois
In my experience, retired officers, particularly retired senior officers, are keenly aware of their pension entitlements. If we are paying them a pension through the armed forces pension scheme, we presumably know who they are and where they live. Via that database, it would not be particularly onerous to come up with a list of retired senior officers who could at least be invited. We are not suggesting that this should be mandatory, but we are suggesting that they may want the opportunity to serve. Via their pensions, we know where they are.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who from his time as a Defence Minister knows well how to keep tabs on those who have served our country but are now retired. The pension scheme is an obvious way to do so. In addition, he makes an important point about the willingness of individuals to engage in the process. These are people who have given enormous service to their country, and often wish to continue giving service long into their years of retirement from active service.
Our armed forces are more stretched and more globally engaged than before, and they are more frequently deployed than at almost any point in recent decades. The spectrum of threats facing our country is widening, from state-based adversaries to hybrid war, cyber-operations and persistent instability in regions where British forces are called to act with precision and professionalism. As I have set out, when operational tempo increases every part of the system is affected. It is not just about equipment, logistics or personnel numbers, but about the justice system that underpins discipline, accountability and command authority.
The question, therefore, is a relatively simple one: does our current system of service justice have the flexibility, depth and resilience required to meet that demand? Amendment 9 is one attempt to ensure that it does. It recognises that we are asking a great deal of a relatively small pool of serving officers. We are asking them not only to command forces in complex environments but, where necessary, to sit in judgment in court martial proceedings, including in cases involving senior rank, complex evidence, and often significant reputational consequence for all involved. That is not to say that these individuals are incapable of doing those tasks, but that is a heavy burden on any system. It becomes more difficult still when we consider the practical realities of availability.
Senior serving officers are, by definition, in high demand. They are deployed, rotated, assigned to strategic planning roles or engaged in operational command responsibilities that cannot simply be paused or rescheduled. At the same time, the court martial system requires a bench that is credible, experienced and capable of understanding the realities of service life. It is not enough that those sitting in judgment are legally competent to interpret the evidence; they must also understand the context in which decisions are made, the pressures under which orders are given and the operational environments in which conduct is assessed.
That combination of legal competence and operational understanding is not easily found, and it is here that amendment 9 can make a tangible contribution. By extending eligibility to retired officers of appropriate rank, we end up expanding the pool of individuals who can bring that essential combination of experience and judgment to the court martial system.
I want to be clear about what the amendment seeks to do and what it does not seek to do. It is not an attempt to dilute standards. On the contrary, it is an attempt to strengthen them by widening the field of those who meet them. It is not an attempt to undermine the authority of serving officers; it is an attempt to relieve them of some of the competing pressures that now fall on them in an increasingly demanding environment. It is not an attempt to create a separate or parallel justice system where some are tried by those who are still in active service and some are held in judgment by those who have retired. It is merely an attempt to ensure that the existing system has the necessary capacity to function effectively.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
I welcome the hon. Member’s intervention. If he is suggesting that we should look at going wider than the confines of this specific amendment, I would welcome that conversation. It is about increasing the flexibility and agility of the court martial system so that it reflects the challenges for those who currently serve in uniform.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
The Minister is right to challenge me on the case that I am making. It is about competing challenges facing those in senior rank in the armed forces. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford gave the example of colonels or above. We have heard of very senior officers being brought before a court martial in cases that may involve, for instance, continuity of education allowance. These are senior individuals who then take out other senior individuals. They are often in a fairly small pool and have perhaps worked closely with one another during their service, but they also have increasing demands, given the global instability that we are currently facing.
It therefore makes logical sense to widen that pool and take the pressure off the shoulders of those who have operational responsibilities by allowing those who have served in the past, and hold those ranks by virtue of their service, to sit within the court martial system and increase capacity. I am not suggesting that there is an inefficiency in the service—everybody involved is doing the best job they can. It is about flexing resources so that they are used most appropriately to deliver the outcomes that we need not only from a national security and defence perspective, but to maintain the integrity and speed with which service justice is administered.
There is also a broader strategic point that we must not overlook, and it touches on the Minister’s point. We often speak about the importance of a whole-force concept and the idea that national defence is about not simply those currently in uniform but a wider ecosystem of reserve capability, which we will come on to later. It is also about veterans, institutional memory and those who can bring expertise from their time in service. We are, quite rightly, investing in the reserve forces. We are also increasingly recognising the value of civilian expertise in a variety of fields, such as cyber-intelligence or technology. In many respects, we are trying to build a much more flexible and adaptive defence structure, and yet, when it comes to the service justice system, we have not always applied the same logic with equal measure or consistency. We have in effect treated participation as something that must be narrowly confined to serving personnel, even when highly experienced retired officers could make a valuable contribution.
Luke Akehurst
I feel that the hon. Member is perhaps trying to fix something that is not broken. In the evidence we heard about the service justice system, was there anything that implied that there was a large-scale problem with delays and scheduling? I ask because I thought I was hearing about a system that was relatively efficient and speedy compared with the delays that we all know are afflicting the civilian justice system. There was just one instance—I think it was of a general who had done something inappropriate regarding funding for school fees. It was almost a sui generis incident where it had been difficult to put together a board. Will the hon. Gentleman accept that there is some danger that the amendment is attempting to fix something that is not broken in a system that is actually working rather well?
The Chair
Order. I gently remind hon. Members that interventions should be slightly shorter than that.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
I fear that recollections may differ. My interpretation of the evidence that we heard is not that this is a failing system—far from it. I gently suggest to the hon. Member that the civilian Crown courts and magistrates courts may not be the best benchmark against which to compare its performance.
There is a wider issue, which the hon. Gentleman has touched on: this should not be merely about fixing a problem that exists now. There should be some horizon-scanning for the emerging challenges for the armed forces, not only in the present day but in the years ahead, and safety-proofing of the system against those challenges. That is the specific intent behind the amendment.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford and I have spent time making the argument about the more senior pool of officers. That is a fair position to take, because they will be under much greater demands, with extensive challenges. Given the threat levels we face—there was a statement in the main Chamber yesterday about events in the middle east—we are living in a much more unstable world, with much greater demands on our armed forces. One can foresee increasing difficulty in constituting panels for cases, particularly those involving senior officers. It would be a dereliction of duty if, instead of planning for those threats and the challenges that they might pose to our armed forces, the Committee and the House more widely sought only to react to them in future. It is always better to do things proactively in a calm manner and think about the implications, rather than doing things retrospectively and hurriedly because an issue has arisen.
I will dwell a little more on cases involving the higher ranks. When they do arise, it is often necessary for the panel to include officers of either equivalent or higher rank, but the pool of serving officers is by definition limited. As I hope I have described, that can create genuine operational and logistical difficulties in assembling boards that are both appropriately constituted, given the demands on their make-up, and able to proceed without undue delay. Retired officers of the relevant rank represent an obvious and sensible extension of the pool that would help us to proof the system. They would bring not only rank equivalence, but often a broader perspective. Having stepped back from the pressures of immediate command, they might bring a degree of reflective judgment that is particularly valuable in the complex and sensitive cases that invariably involve more senior officers, by virtue of the nature of the offences of which they are accused.
I speak as someone who has developed a healthy respect over the years for the ability of retired officers to express opinions with a greater level of clarity than they may have done in post. That brings a refreshing breadth to the system. There is something about leaving service—I certainly found this myself—that appears to improve one’s ability to identify precisely what everyone else should have done differently. Stepping away from the pressures and challenges of day-to-day service life enables individuals to take a wider and more holistic approach.
I am mindful of the fact that I am probably trying your patience, Mr Efford, so I will wind up shortly. I do not pretend that amendment 9 is perfect in every detail. The hon. Member for South Ribble provided a helpful challenge in relation to whether its scope should be wider. There are certainly questions about eligibility criteria and the mechanism for appointment, although I think that there is an obvious mechanism for identifying potential appointees. Those questions will need careful consideration, but that is not a particularly unusual position to be in at this stage of the legislative process. The purpose of Committee is not necessarily to produce final answers, but to test the direction of travel. I think the direction of travel is sound when it comes to ensuring that the system is foolproof.
This is about the resilience of our justice system and about making better use of experience that already exists in our wider armed forces community. It is about ensuring that the demands of the increasing operational tempo are not inadvertently creating bottlenecks in the very system designed to uphold discipline and fairness. Ultimately, that is the balance that we are trying to strike: on the one hand we want armed forces that are operationally effective, globally deployable and able to meet the demands of a more dangerous and uncertain world, but on the other hand we want a service justice system that is robust, timely and capable of functioning without becoming a constraint on our operational effectiveness. Those two objectives should not be in tension. We need to think carefully about how we design institutions that can support them both.
Clause 20 is an important part of that architecture: it will ensure that the court martial remains properly constituted and legally sound. Amendment 9 would strengthen that approach by ensuring that it remains practically workable under conditions of increasing demand. I urge the Government to accept the amendment, because I suspect that as operational pressures continue to rise and as we ask more of our armed forces across multiple domains, the need for flexibility in our service justice system will only become more rather than less pressing. If we get it right now, we will not only improve efficiency and effectiveness, but strengthen confidence in the system. That is ultimately what we should be trying to achieve in the Bill.
Ian Roome
It is important that we take on board the evidence from our visits. Otherwise, what is the point of going on them? That point was brought up when we debated a previous amendment, with reference to the use of the civilian or military justice system.
The hon. and gallant Member for Solihull West and Shirley made an excellent speech about using retired officers. We heard from those who are recruiting that there are delays. We heard during a visit that a senior officer had struggled to find a panel, and the process had been delayed because permission from the then Secretary of State was needed to use an officer of a lower rank. We also heard that it would be much easier to find officers. It is difficult to find officers of an equivalent rank, particularly among the higher ranks, who have not served or trained together or do not know each other, and to be sure that they do not have any relevant interest in protecting someone or perverting the course of justice. The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford also made a good point about who constitutes the panel. I support amendment 9, because what is the point of our going on visits if we do not act on what we have been told is an issue?
We also heard a point that has not been mentioned today, which is that those in the non-commissioned ranks, such as warrant officers who have 25 or 30 years’ experience in the job, could also sit on the panels. It is not addressed in the amendment, but we heard evidence that those with years of military service and a lot of experience could be used on the panels too.
David Reed
I will add to the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford and the hon. Member for North Devon.
The Opposition’s recollections align very closely with those of our Liberal Democrat colleague. Although we did not hear about a system that is breaking, we definitely heard about a system that is under strain. If memory serves—please correct me if I am wrong—we were shown a really good presentation by the people we visited in Portsmouth that demonstrated how the service courts have expanded. We had just a few men before; more rules and regulations have now been introduced, and thankfully women are being included, but extra bureaucracy has been added to the system. As the hon. Member for North Devon articulated, being more senior and not knowing people you have served with from other units is for the birds. We are going to end up with bottlenecks.
Sarah Bool
If there is one phrase my father always says to me, it is “Sarah, you can’t teach experience.” We have talked about bringing retired officers back into the justice system; this is a very good example of what we can do to call on their experience. With jury service and jury trials, we try to get a range of experience from all types of peers. I know that there is an argument to say, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” but we want to streamline and enhance our justice system to make it as effective as possible. I support amendment 9.
Al Carns
I thank the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford for tabling amendment 9, which seeks to add retired officers to those who are qualified for court martial membership. However, I believe that the amendment is unnecessary and most likely counterproductive.
The first argument made was about capacity and the lack of senior officers to sit on courts martial and hold people to account. As the Committee knows, we keep those things under constant review. The right hon. Member mentioned a case from several years ago that highlighted a lack of capacity to charge senior members. We pushed through secondary legislation in 2024 to amend two of the armed forces court martial rules so that if a defendant was at one star or above, the president of the board would be at one-star level; they did not need to be of higher rank. That was a significant change.
As for lack of capacity, I will throw out a question to the Committee: how many one-stars do we have in the military? We actually have 200 one-stars—let that sink in—and that does not include the reserves. There is no capacity issue here.
Secondly, the amendment could be counterproductive, because it is vital that the board members have up-to-date knowledge and real-time experience of the latest single-service policies. I say that from experience, because sentencing at court martial fulfils a number of purposes, including punishment, maintenance, discipline and deterrence.
Al Carns
As the hon. Member will know, trying to speak to people about whether they know other people is exceptionally difficult. Trying to capture that in a data record would be even more difficult. The 200 officers in service at the moment do not include the reservist pool, which is quite large—and that is just one-stars, not two-stars, three-stars or four-stars, so the pool is actually far larger.
I will go back to the purpose of sentencing at court martial, because it is an important point. As I say, it includes punishment, maintenance, discipline and deterrence. It must also take into account the best interests of the service and the maintenance of operational effectiveness. I completely agree that experience cannot be taught, but sometimes experience can wane over time. An appreciation of the relevant factors comes with experience, but also with the responsibilities of rank, as the veterans community will understand, and with the exercise of leadership and command over others. In some cases, that will not come with the most up-to-date operational context, which could cause an issue on the court martial board.
David Reed
We want to strengthen the Bill by working with the Government and taking a collaborative approach. Having a shared reality, in any aspect of life, is massively important. Among Opposition Members, there is alignment on the shared reality that we heard about, when we went down to Portsmouth, from the people we empower to run the service justice system. Does the Minister know of any of the cracks or weaknesses, as we heard about on our visit? Does he acknowledge that there may be issues to address?
Al Carns
Listening to evidence and acting on it is critical. Understanding the context in which it sits is equally important. Did that individual know that there are 200 one-stars within defence? Did they have the authority and responsibility to allocate individuals in a short, timely and effective manner to a court martial board? Probably not. The problem is not capacity. It is perhaps that the Defence Serious Crime Command needs greater authorities and programming to pool individuals in a timely and effective manner to sit on a court martial board and deliver justice.
Mr Francois
This is not a criticism of the Minister, because no doubt he had other important things to do, but he was not on that visit, as I recall. As Her late Majesty once said, recollections may vary, but this was a point raised with us by the people presenting to us on the operation of the system. We did not invent it. They made the point quite strongly that, for instance, if people had been on staff courses together—let us say that they had done the Royal College of Defence Studies course for a year together—that would sometimes rule them out. I must make the point to the Minister that we have not fabricated this; it is a problem that was raised with us by the experts who actually deal with the process day to day.
Al Carns
In no way, shape or form am I suggesting that this was fabricated, made up or a lie. What I am trying to say is that context is important. The statistics show that there are 200 one-stars in regular service, not including the reserve. That is a large pool of individuals, which reduces the right hon. Member’s argument about capacity. He talked about people knowing each other, but there are clear protocols in place to ensure that when the board is pulled together, the range of individuals on it is as broad as it is wide, and that there is at least one woman and one man on it. I think that that is adequate. The 2024 secondary legislation that amended the rules was brought in specifically in response to the case that was mentioned during the Committee’s visit—
Armed Forces Bill (Fifth sitting)
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Al Carns)
I would like to make a correction to an earlier statement about new clause 12, before I continue to address amendment 9. I would like to clarify a point that arose in the debate on new clause 12 in relation to service protection orders. The powers in the Armed Forces Act 2006 create a time limit for charging former members and ex-regular reservists with a service offence committed while subject to service law of six months from the date they ceased to be subject to service law.
After a period of six months from the date on which they ceased to be subject to service law, a person may be charged with a service offence, committed while subject to service law, with the consent of the Attorney General. They do not remain subject to service law once they have left the armed forces, and the same time period also applies to civilians subject to service discipline. If there are any questions about the detail of that, I am happy to write to the Committee on anything specific that is required.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
I will just pick up on a point I raised this morning, which I discussed with an hon. Friend who has experience in this space. Take, for example, a crime that is committed while a person is serving that is not serious enough to warrant their being remanded into custody—it goes over the six months because it is a knotty case. Because there is zero tolerance on drugs, someone might say, “Right, this is a knotty case. I am going to get into trouble for it, and I am going to get kicked out regardless, so I will just take some drugs. I will be kicked out within a very short space of time”. If they then let those six months elapse, what is the process for that?
Al Carns
I am always very reticent to get into the detail and legalities of the exacts, given there are multiple variables that we are discussing, whether it be drugs or whether it be a criminal offence. If a person is serving and a crime is committed, they will not be allowed to leave until the process for dealing with the justice of that case is well thought through, whether that be within the military system or transferred into the civilian justice system, because they cannot just leave the military while there is a case ongoing. However, if the hon. Member has a specific concern about a specific case with correct parameters, we will ensure we write to him on it and all of its different variables. It is quite difficult to provide the specifics on that now.
David Reed
I will make that intervention now, and then we can carry on that conversation. If there is zero tolerance of drugs, and if the person who has committed a crime knows they will be kicked out—as they should be—it would be good to hear from the Ministry of Defence if there is a loophole in which someone could say, “I will do this act knowing full well that I will be kicked out very quickly”. It would be good to understand what the process is. Does that person continue to be housed by the armed forces? Where do they stay? Are they still part of their unit? What happens to them?
Al Carns
The broader welfare of individuals who are dismissed for misuse of drugs is a separate issue to the original offence and the judicial system, which will be followed through whether they are serving or whether they have left or been removed from the armed forces. What I am specifically saying is that they can still be charged six months after. The Bill will ensure that any of those processes that are put in place for them while in the military can seamlessly transfer to the civilian justice system, so that justice can be carried through. However, if there is a specific issue, bracket it in parameters, give it to us and we will make sure that we respond.
Al Carns
Coming back to amendment 9, I agree that pulling together a court martial board to deal with senior officers poses more challenges than it does for junior personnel. Such cases are rare, and changes were made quite recently to address the issue. Changes were made in secondary legislation in 2024 to provide more flexibility in the formation of court martial boards for trials where the defendant is a senior officer, to address any potential difficulties in finding sufficiently senior personnel who do not know the defendant to sit on the board. Having boards that are tri-service has also helped assist with that. The changes ensure that the president of the board—the most senior person on the board—will be at least a one-star when the defendant is a one-star or above, and that practical attempts are always made to try to find a suitable two-star. When a two-star cannot be found, a one-star works. For defendants below one-star, the president of the board is always one rank higher.
We talked about capacity and the availability of ranks, and we will look into the detail of how we ensure that the Defence Serious Crime Command has the authority to leverage people to deliver the right consistency on boards. In terms of capacity in dealing with senior officer trials, there are around 200 one-stars in the armed forces and around 470 personnel at one star or above. There are sufficient personnel to meet the few occasions when senior personnel are tried. We keep those matters under review through the governance board of the service justice system, the service justice board and the service justice executive group, in which all key stakeholders are represented.
Clause 20 amends section 156 of the Armed Forces Act 2006, to correct an anomaly relating to those who are eligible to sit on a court martial board. The Armed Forces Act 2021 reduced qualification for those non-commissioned officers who were entitled to sit on a court martial board from a warrant officer to those of substantive OR-7 rank, for example a colour sergeant. However, a technical oversight meant that other subsections of section 156 were not also amended to reflect those changes. Consequently, only warrant officers and equivalent who became commissioned officers automatically qualified to sit on a court martial board, while OR-7s still had to undergo a three-year qualification period. Clause 20 simply enables those who receive their commission and were of former substantive OR-7 rank to automatically qualify to sit on the court martial board. I hope that provides the necessary reassurance to the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford on those grounds, and I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I do not think we need to have a debate on clause 20 stand part because we had a pretty thorough debate on the amendment, which covered most of the issues. I will seek the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment, but I would like to put down the marker that we have had an interesting debate and we might wish to return to this subject on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 21
Power to impose post-charge conditions on persons not in service detention
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Al Carns
Clause 21 provides judge advocates with the power to impose post-charge conditions on adult defendants in the court martial or service civilian court, where the defendant is not held in service custody.
Currently, judge advocates can only set post-charge conditions on a defendant’s behaviour or movements if the defendant appears before them in service custody. If a defendant appears before them who is not in service custody, they are unable to set any conditions. That causes problems when risks occur, such as absconding, reoffending, or interfering with witnesses. The clause provides that the defendant must be informed in writing of the grounds for the application and be given notice of the hearing. The defendant will be able to attend the hearing, be legally represented and make representations to the judge advocate. Defendants will also have the right to apply for a variation or discharge of any conditions set.
Clause 21 provides commanding officers and the service police with arrest powers for breach of a condition. It also establishes a service offence of failing to attend a hearing concerning a judge advocate-imposed condition, without reasonable excuse, carrying a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment.
Finally, clause 21 provides a judge advocate with the ability to impose urgent conditions where they consider it necessary, without the need for the defendant to have notice of the hearing or to be present. In that situation, the judge advocate must arrange for a hearing with the defendant present to take place as soon as practicable and the conditions will stop having an effect at the end of that hearing. By creating a new pathway for judicially imposed obligations with specific enforcement, the measure will contribute to ensuring attendance, preventing reoffending, protecting witnesses, and safeguarding defendants.
Clause 22 will enable a new procedure to be introduced into the court martial rules, allowing for the dismissal of a charge as well as a mechanism to enable a previously dismissed charge to be brought again under certain conditions. The clause simply enables court martial rules to replicate a procedure that currently exists in the criminal justice system, known as the voluntary bill procedure. Once updated, the court martial rules will allow the Director of Service Prosecutions, in exceptional circumstances, to seek the High Court’s consent to reinstate a charge previously dismissed where it is in the interests of justice to do so. While there is no exhaustive list of the circumstances in which the High Court can grant consent, case law provides some guidance. Cases where the voluntary procedure has been used are where there has been a substantive error of law that is clear or obvious; where new evidence has become available; or where there was a serious procedural irregularity.
Clause 23 will enable the courts martial to use mental health-related powers, equivalent to those already in the civilian system under the Mental Health Act 1983, which include the ability to make a hospital order on conviction as part of sentencing. Currently, in cases where the accused has been found not guilty by virtue of insanity or where the accused has been found unfit to stand trial and there is a finding that they did the act charged against them by the service court, a judge advocate is able to make a hospital order under the Mental Health Act 1983. A hospital order provides initial hospital treatment instead of imprisonment for a criminal offence.
However, there is no provision for cases where the accused is diagnosed as requiring mental health care while awaiting trial; before a finding of fitness to stand trial has been made; or the accused has been convicted of an offence and not yet sentenced. While the service justice system has very few cases where such a provision may be required, a recent case highlighted that these powers may be required when the accused is dealt with before a fitness to plead and/or a defence of insanity has not succeeded and the accused is found guilty.
The clause ensures that service personnel and civilians subject to service discipline receive safe, lawful and appropriate care, and that defence meets its legal and moral obligations to protect those experiencing serious mental health difficulties while in service.
I move on to clause 24. The Armed Forces Act 2021 introduced powers, known as slip rules, for commanding officers in summary hearings, the summary appeal court and the service civilian court, equivalent to the powers that already exist in the court martial. Slip rule powers simply enable punishments or activation orders made in error to be varied or rescinded quickly without the matter having to be referred to an appeal. Clause 24 addresses the error so that secondary legislation can implement the activation orders power for the service civilian court as originally intended.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
It continues to be a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. Clauses 21 to 24 cover powers to impose post-charge conditions on persons not in service detention.
We welcome these clauses as sensible, technical enforcement improvements to the service justice system. They address a number of anomalies and gaps, and will help to ensure greater consistency, clarity and fairness in how the system operates. Taken together, the measures strengthen the ability of the service justice system to deal with cases effectively, while maintaining appropriate safeguards for those involved. They also bring aspects of the system more closely into line with civilian practices where that is appropriate. Overall, these are practical reforms that improve the functioning of the system and we are happy and content to support them.
Al Carns
These are technical changes to enhance the service justice system that deal with some of those knotty issues such as mental health. I recommend that the Committee fully support them.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 21 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 22 to 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25
Guidance on exercise of criminal jurisdiction
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 18, in clause 25, page 43, line 23, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) must require that, before a victim is asked to express a preference regarding jurisdiction—
(i) the victim is provided with a standardised explanation of the service justice system and the civilian justice system,
(ii) such information is presented in a clear, accessible and neutral manner,
(iii) the information includes an explanation of the key features, processes, available support and potential outcomes of each system, sufficient to enable the victim to make an informed decision, and
(iv) the victim is informed of the availability of any independent legal advice or advocacy and how it may be accessed,
(b) must require that—
(i) a written record is made of the information provided to the victim, and
(ii) where a victim expresses a preference, a record is made of the reasons for that preference, so far as provided by the victim,
(c) must not present information in a way that is misleading or lacking appropriate context.”.
This amendment creates requirements for the information victims receive regarding both justice systems.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 19, in clause 25, page 44, line 33, at end insert—
““independent” means independent of—
(a) the chain of command, and
(b) any body responsible for the investigation or prosecution of the offence.”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 18 and defines independence for the purposes of that amendment.
Clause stand part.
Clause 26 stand part.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Efford. I will speak in support of amendments 18 and 19 and, in doing so, will address clause 25 more broadly.
At its heart, clause 25 concerns one of the most sensitive and important decisions in the entire service justice framework—the point at which a victim is asked to express a preference as to whether an allegation should proceed in the service justice system or the civilian justice system. For many victims, this is the first moment at which they are invited into a process that will shape not only the course of an investigation, but their experiences of justice itself. That is precisely why it is incumbent on us to get it right.
I think all of us would accept that asking a victim to make a jurisdictional choice without proper, balanced and comprehensible information risks placing an unfair burden upon them at a moment of deep vulnerability. It risks substituting clarity for confusion, and it risks turning what should be an informed decision into, in effect, an uninformed guess between systems they may not fully understand.
Amendment 18 seeks to address that concern directly, and it does so by placing clear statutory requirements on the nature, quality and neutrality of the information that must be provided before any preference is expressed. That principle is incredibly important because, if we are asking victims to make decisions that can affect the trajectory of an investigation, we have a duty—indeed, a moral obligation—to ensure that those decisions are properly informed.
David Reed
My hon. Friend has again laid out the argument in an extremely comprehensive way, and it will be difficult to add anything new to the argument that he has put forward, but I will give it a go.
Ensuring that a victim is properly informed before being asked to state a preference on whether their case is heard in the service justice system or the civilian courts is essential, and I think we can all agree on that. The principle of concurrent jurisdiction allowing a victim to have a voice is a positive one.
However, a preference given without adequate understanding is not a meaningful choice; it becomes a procedural step rather than a genuine expression of agency. It is important to recognise that. The two systems differ in significant ways, and we have heard that in a lot of the evidence sessions and during our Committee trip down to Portsmouth.
These systems operate under distinct procedures, timelines and support arrangements and can lead to different outcomes. Many victims will have no prior experience of either system, and some may be asked to make this decision while in considerable distress. Without a clear, neutral explanation of what each system entails, the process does not empower victims but risks forcing them to make an uninformed decision or leaving them susceptible to undue influence. To reinforce that point, although it may be easy to make the decision when you have a clear head, if you have been the victim of a crime and your head is all over the place, having to make an informed decision when the information on the two systems is not clear and you have not encountered either system before makes the situation even more troubling.
The amendment would establish a basic standard to require that victims are given a clear, accessible and impartial explanation of both systems before any preference is sought. That explanation would cover how each process works, what support is available and the potential outcomes, and inform victims of the availability of independent legal advice or advocacy and how to access it. Crucially, it would introduce a requirement for a written record detailing the information provided and, where preference is expressed, the reasons given.
Al Carns
I thank the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley for speaking to amendments 18 and 19. I acknowledge their sentiment, which is to ensure that the information provided to victims is appropriate and timely. The Government’s intention is to ensure that when a victim of an offence committed in the UK by a serviceperson is asked to indicate a preference on jurisdiction, they can do so in an informed way. The information provided must be accurate, helpful and, of course, objective, so I share the hon. Member’s objectives.
The Government have already begun work with the statutory consultees set out in clause 25 to understand what information should be provided to the victim, how and when it should be provided, and who should provide it. That complex, detailed work involves stakeholders from across the criminal justice systems of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, including the Victims’ Commissioners, and has so far highlighted the importance of seeking an informed view from the victim and that that information should be provided in a factual and impartial way. It has also highlighted that where a victim indicates a preference as to whom they wish to discuss jurisdiction with, it should be acted on, and that a record of the discussion of the victim’s preferred jurisdiction, and the reason given for it, must be kept.
Our work with stakeholders has also highlighted the importance of taking into account the needs and circumstances of the victim, and the circumstances of the offence, so the guidance must allow for a flexible, case-by-case approach. In some cases—as offences take place in different times and contexts—it may not be appropriate to confront a victim who only shortly before experienced a rape offence with many pages of written information to digest. In those cases, a more trauma-informed, verbal approach, under the statutory guidance and supported by a shorter leaflet or booklet, may work better.
In other cases, a victim may have a strong view from the outset that their case should be dealt with in the civilian criminal justice system. Asking that victim to go back through lots of information about the service justice system when it is already known that they have a strongly held preference would be unwelcome, and may prove counterproductive, as the civilian police investigator risks coming across as questioning or disbelieving the victim’s preference, undermining future co-operation with the victim and, ultimately, the successful investigation of the case. I absolutely understand the hon. Member’s intent, and I hope that I have provided some reassurance that guidance will facilitate access to support that is independent of the chain of command, policing and prosecutors.
Amendment 19 is, in some ways, linked to amendment 18, and seeks to ensure that victims have access to independent support before indicating a preference on jurisdiction. We have already begun work with the statutory consultees set out in clause 25 to understand who can support victims to reach a preference on jurisdiction, which will vary across the UK and across the service justice system. Where the victim indicates a preference on whom they wish to discuss jurisdiction with, it should be acted on. For example, when initial contact is made with service police, victims of serious sexual offences may choose to seek support from the Victim Witness Care Unit, which is independent of the chain of command and of service policing. Alternatively, they might wish to discuss the matter with the lead service police investigator. Crucially, the guidance will facilitate access to alternative support in response to the wishes of the victim.
In February 2026, the Government announced that we would launch the independent legal advocacy support programme pilot, which will provide impartial legal support to anyone aged 18 or over, irrespective of whether they are a serviceperson or a civilian. Anyone who reports a sexual offence that has been committed by a serviceperson subject to service law, or a civilian subject to service discipline, when that is being investigated by the service justice system, will qualify for support under the scheme.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
On the basis of the Minister’s clarification and reassurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 25 and 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 27
Driving disqualification orders: reduced disqualification period
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Al Carns
At present, service courts are empowered to make a driving disqualification order against an offender in proceedings for a service offence. However, there is no legal mechanism for service courts to reduce that period of disqualification from driving where the offender undertakes an approved course, unlike the civilian justice system. Clause 27 will enable the service courts—the court martial and the service civilian court—to make an order to reduce a period of disqualification from driving where the offender satisfactorily completes an approved course. This new power will be available to a service court where it convicts an offender of a certain road traffic offence, such as drink-driving, and imposes a driving prohibition of 12 months or more. These provisions address a gap in the existing legislation that has meant that the powers of service courts in relation to driving prohibitions are more limited than those of their civilian counterparts. It will ensure that the service courts have the same tools available to them as the civilian courts when dealing with these sorts of cases.
David Reed
Clause 27 aligns the service justice system with the civilian courts and introduces a constructive way for offenders to reduce their disqualification period through completion of an approved course. On our side of the Committee we see that as a practical and proportionate reform that supports rehabilitation, encourages personal responsibility and delivers greater consistency across both systems, and we are happy to support it.
Al Carns
I will begin with clause 28. The minor service sentences of reduction in rank or disrating, of forfeiture of a specified term of seniority or all seniority, and of service supervision and punishment orders all serve a useful purpose in punishing service personnel. However, these sentences are effectively made redundant by having no rehabilitation period. That undermines the purpose of the punishment, which by its nature is designed to have an impact on an individual’s career. The single services have no opportunity to consider whether administrative action should be taken against a serviceperson because the convictions are considered immediately spent. Administrative action has a range of options and may include assessing whether the nature of the conviction means that the individual is unsuitable for life in the service, or whether they are suitable for promotion during the period of rehabilitation. Considering these options following a conviction is vital to maintain operational effectiveness and the welfare and safety of others in the armed forces.
Clause 28 will establish rehabilitation periods of 12 months for these sentences. As a result, the rehabilitation periods will be harmonised with those for other minor service sentences: custody for one year or less, removal from His Majesty’s service, service detention, reprimand and severe reprimand and a fine. The clause also aligns the rehabilitation periods in Scotland with those in England and Wales. The required amendments relate to differences in terminology. Clause 28 will preserve the intended disciplinary effect within military administrative processes and maintain operational effectiveness and the welfare and safety of others in the armed forces.
I turn to clause 29. The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 prevents the single services from taking administrative action when a conviction becomes immediately spent. Increasingly, the civilian police in England and Wales issue simple cautions for a wide range of offences, and those cautions are treated as spent right away. As a result, the services are unable to take administrative action in response to conduct that may still be relevant to a role in the armed forces. A single lapse in conduct, however minor it may appear in civilian terms, can have serious consequences in a military environment, where values, standards and cohesion are not optional but fundamental to keeping our people and our nation safe. As we continue to professionalise the armed forces and rebalance the demographic representation, the current approach is increasingly inappropriate, especially where the conduct resulting in a caution is incompatible with the high values and standards expected of our armed forces.
Clause 29 will create an exemption from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act that enables the single services to place a disclosure obligation on serving members of the armed forces to report spent cautions. Once it is disclosed, the single services will be able to consider the caution and, if necessary, take an appropriate approach to conduct associated with it.
Clause 29 will enable the armed forces to maintain the highest standards, ensuring that every incident is addressed appropriately, that victims are supported, and that we can better retain and recruit our personnel. At a time when we are committed to halving violence against women and girls and to driving up the integrity and professionalisation of our armed forces, this change is not only timely but essential.
David Reed
Clauses 28 and 29 are practical and proportionate reforms. Clause 28 defines rehabilitation periods for certain service punishments under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. Sanctions such as reduction in rank, forfeiture of seniority and service supervision and punishment orders will no longer be treated as spent. Again, that is a good approach.
Clause 29 will enable the armed forces to require the disclosure of spent cautions issued to service personnel during their service period. I note the points that the Minister raised about the information that may be used by superior officers for administrative rather than disciplinary purposes or to support the maintenance of discipline, operational effectiveness and rehabilitation within the forces. The clause also provides clear definitions of “superior officer” and “administrative action” to ensure consistency in how the relevant provisions are applied. The Opposition support the clauses.
Al Carns
This is about improving our service justice system and, of course, the ability of our command chain to enact the highest standards. I commend clauses 28 and 29 to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 28 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 30
Commissioner’s functions in relation to Royal Fleet Auxiliary
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Al Carns
Clause 30, which introduces schedule 4, provides the statutory basis for extending the remit of the Armed Forces Commissioner to the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth for raising the issue in a ten-minute rule Bill and getting it the attention that it deserves.
Although the RFA is a civilian organisation, its personnel routinely operate alongside the Royal Navy. Indeed, they are essential to the Royal Navy. They face similar risks, pressures and, in many cases, operational demands. RFA personnel have distinct welfare needs shaped by long deployments, a demanding operational tempo and the challenges of supporting military operations. Bringing the RFA within the remit of the Armed Forces Commissioner will ensure that those issues are visible at the highest levels of defence oversight.
Clause 30 and schedule 4 will not alter the employment status of RFA personnel. They will remain civilian employees with full employment rights, including trade union representation. The extension to the Armed Forces Commissioner’s remit is designed to avoid interfering with existing statutory protections or established industrial relations frameworks and union representation.
Clause 30 will insert into the Armed Forces Act 2006 a new subsection that introduces schedule 14ZB to enable the commissioner to conduct thematic investigations into systemic RFA welfare concerns, such as those relating to accommodation, on-board facilities, training, welfare support, access to welfare services or the effects of extended time at sea, enabling wider patterns and areas requiring improvement to be identified. It will also strengthen accountability by giving the commissioner a clear mechanism to raise concerns directly with the Secretary of State. This will ensure that identified welfare themes, whether they are linked to operations, to support arrangements or to wider Ministry of Defence responsibilities, are formally captured and considered. While clause 30 and schedule 4 expand the commissioner’s remit, they also set clear boundaries. Individual employment disputes, civil proceedings, matters covered by collective agreements or complaints brought by unions will remain outside the scope, preserving clarity and the integrity of the existing processes.
Having served in the military for 24 years, I spent several months, if not years, on Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships, or working with it, and I hold it in the highest regard. The RFA underpins the Royal Navy’s deployable standards and capabilities. I think this is a fantastic move to ensure that it gets the representation it deserves. In practical terms, clause 30 and schedule 4 will provide an independent avenue through which RFA personnel can escalate systemic welfare issues. Over time, that will strengthen support to the RFA and ensure that its personnel’s welfare is considered alongside that of service personnel, while respecting their distinct civilian status. I commend clause 30 and schedule 4 to the Committee.
David Reed
I will expand on clause 30. I pay tribute to my near-ish neighbour in Cornwall, the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth, for her work on the issue and how she has progressed it in the House of Commons. I think that clause 30, which will extend the remit of the Armed Forces Commissioner to include the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, reflects a clearer understanding of the role of RFA personnel and the part they play in our national security. It will ensure that those who serve in this unique capacity are afforded a basic safeguard: an independent route through which serious welfare concerns can be raised and addressed.
The Royal Fleet Auxiliary occupies a distinctive and often misunderstood position within His Majesty’s naval service. Its personnel are civilian mariners who operate alongside the Royal Navy in demanding environments. They are not members of the armed forces in a strict legal sense, yet they deploy globally, support military operations and spend long periods at sea under conditions that closely mirror those faced by uniformed personnel.
I have spent nowhere near as much time in the military as the Minister, but I have spent a small amount of time on RFAs. It is difficult to distinguish between members of the RFA and those of the Royal Navy, and the professional standard across both organisations is definitely felt. That reality matters, because the pressures arising from such service are significant: long deployments, separation from family, fatigue and the strain of high-tempo operations can all take their toll. In a period of international conflict, with the multitude of issues coming down the track, I can see those ships and their crews being used even more. Getting this right in the Bill now is massively important.
There can also be issues relating to bullying, harassment and misconduct. Those are real concerns that affect morale and wellbeing. For too long, RFA personnel have lacked a clearly defined, independent mechanism for raising serious welfare concerns beyond existing civil service or employment processes. Clause 30 will address that gap in a proportionate way by providing a credible avenue for concerns to be examined where other routes may be insufficient.
Schedule 4 is key to making this reform workable. It sets out how the commissioner’s functions will apply in practice, including a duty to promote the welfare of RFA personnel and improve public understanding of the issues that they face. Greater visibility will strengthen accountability and support better outcomes. The schedule will also enable the commissioner to investigate general welfare matters affecting the RFA. That will ensure that their role is not limited to individual complaints and that they can identify wider patterns and systemic issues where they arise. That is how effective oversight should operate, and it is what we should expect of people who work with our military in such a close way.
The extension of powers has been designed with care. The RFA is a civilian-manned service, and the safeguards reflect that. The provisions on powers of entry are also essential. The commissioner must be able to visit vessels and premises, examine documents and speak to personnel. Without that, oversight would lack substance. Those powers are rightly subject to safeguards, including restrictions on grounds of national security or safety, and the protection of legal privilege.
I also welcome the amendments relating to reporting and governance. Including RFA functions in the annual reports will strengthen transparency and parliamentary scrutiny. Preventing RFA members from serving as deputy commissioners will help to preserve the independence of the office.
Taken together, these provisions form a coherent and practical framework. They extend meaningful protections to RFA personnel while respecting their unique status. Ultimately, the clause is about fairness and recognition, which is something I think we all agree on. It acknowledges the vital contribution of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary and will ensure that those who serve have confidence that their welfare matters and their concerns will be properly heard.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
I feel I should say something about this, as I started it. I did so because I consider Falmouth to be the home of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary’s Bay class ships, as it is where they are maintained and repaired, so the RFA personnel are in great part my constituents.
RFA personnel are fundamental to the Navy and to the military. In many cases, as has been pointed out, they allow them to do their job. Recently, they worked on operations relating to the shadow fleet and protecting cables. One of the Bay class ships became a hospital ship off the west coast of Africa during Ebola. The RFA has played multiple roles, often as the forgotten service; it slips between the civil service and the military. Many in the RFA feel that their work has not been appreciated, so I am pleased that the Government have picked up on that and put this clause in the Armed Forces Bill—it is much appreciated. It is the start of work on building recognition of the RFA and on retention and recruitment within the service, which has struggled of late. I appreciate this measure and am very pleased that it has been included.
Mr Francois
As the title of clause 30 is “Commissioner’s functions in relation to Royal Fleet Auxiliary”, I will ask the Minister something about the commissioner and then something about the Royal Fleet Auxiliary.
It would appear that, after some time, the Government have now announced someone to fill the position of commissioner. I wonder whether the Minister can confirm that. There are reports in the media that the appointment has been made, but I hope the Minister will put that firmly on the record and say a bit about the individual and how they came to be selected. What was the process by which they got that important job? Has the Defence Committee been involved in the appointment in any way?
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
I can help out a little with the right hon. Gentleman’s question. The post was not filled. The Government were having some difficulty in filling the post, and—
The Chair
Order. We are going down a rabbit hole. The Committee is not here to debate who will fill the commissioner’s role; we are here to debate the clause. Can we get back on subject, please?
Mr Francois
Thank you, Mr Efford. I just wanted to know who got the job.
Turning to the RFA, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth for what she has done to raise the profile of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. The issue is clearly extremely close to her heart. I believe that she was trying to advance a private Member’s Bill, having done well in the ballot, but there has been a slight problem with that, because—almost exceptionally, other than during covid—the Government’s business managers have hardly provided any time at all in this Session for private Members’ Bills. All those Members who had Bills that were important to them never really got a chance to make their case, so it is good that she has had the opportunity to put something on the record today.
The commissioner has important powers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East said, and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary has a very important role. From memory, it was created in 1905. The Minister, from his time as the chief of staff of the carrier group, knows how important it is. Technically, its personnel are not members of the armed forces, but members of the merchant navy. However, it is fair to say that the Royal Navy could not operate without them, as was well said by the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth, who understands these matters.
The RFA has a slightly unusual constitutional position, but is a vital part of Britain’s defence none the less. Indeed, a few days ago, a number of Russian shadow fleet tankers were shadowed through the English channel by the RFA Tidespring, because no escort was operationally available. That is pretty embarrassing for the Government, when the Prime Minister has talked so tough about boarding shadow fleet tankers but has boarded precisely none of them. We touched on that point in the Chamber yesterday. Perhaps the Minister can update us. Why we did not have a warship available to undertake the task, when the Russians had a warship to escort their own shadow fleet? The middle of the channel is international waters. Where are we on all this?
The Chair
Order. Can we get back to the Bill? The right hon. Member is asking a lot of questions that I am sure are very interesting, but they are not germane to the Bill. Can we get back to the subject that we are debating?
Mr Francois
Yes, Mr Efford. I will conclude there. I just wanted to know why the RFA is doing a job that the Royal Navy is supposed to do. After our debate yesterday, perhaps the Minister will enlighten the Committee.
Al Carns
First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth. She generated this, and now it has come to fruition, so well done. The reality is that there is no Royal Navy without the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. The RFA does an exceptional job across everything from high-end technical to refuelling and enabling our carrier strike group.
When we talk about embarrassment and availability of capability, the unfortunate reality is that we have the cards that we have been dealt, after successive Governments under-invested in the significant hard capability that we require to deter hostile states. As a Minister in the previous Government, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford owns an element of responsibility for that.
Mr Francois
For the record, whatever we did or did not do in Government, we did not bring in the £2.6 billion of operational spending cuts in the financial year just gone. That is why our availability is so poor, and that was a purely Labour decision, was it not?
The Chair
Order. We are getting off the subject again. Can we come back to the clause, please?
Al Carns
There is no Royal Navy without the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. Its personnel are the best of us. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 30 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Christian Wakeford.)
Representation of the People Bill (Sixth sitting)
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Good morning. Please ensure that all electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent mode. We now continue line-by-line scrutiny of the Representation of the People Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. That shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped together for debate.
I remind the Committee that a Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called to speak first; in the case of a stand part debate, the Minister will be called first. Other Members are then free to indicate by bobbing that they wish to speak in the current debate. At the end of a debate on a group of amendments, new clauses and schedules, I shall call the Member who moved the lead amendment or new clause again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate that they wish to withdraw the amendment for the new clause or seek a decision.
If any Member wishes to press any other amendment to a vote, including grouped new clauses and schedules, they need to let me know. The order of decisions follows the order in which amendments appear in the amendment paper. I hope that explanation is helpful.
Clause 48
Absent voting
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Government amendments 14 to 17.
Schedule 3.
New Clause 40—Expired postal votes—
“(1) The Representation of the People Act 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) In Schedule 4, paragraph 3 (Absent vote at elections for a period) after sub-paragraph (5) insert—
‘(5A) In the case of a person whose entitlement to vote by post at elections of the kind in question has expired, the registration officer shall make available, upon request from a registered political party, that person’s details as supplied to the registration officer in his application to vote by proxy at parliamentary elections.’”
This new clause would give registered political parties access to data on expired postal votes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
I will speak first to clause 48 and associated schedule 3, before addressing Government amendments 14 to 17 and new clause 40, tabled by the Opposition.
The current legislative framework for absent voting was designed for a very different electoral landscape. Today, far more people vote by post; supply chains and administrator resources are under greater pressure; and expectations around reliability and timely delivery have changed. Developed in consultation with the electoral sector, clause 48 modernises and strengthens the absent voting system to reflect those realities. It streamlines administration, gives electors greater flexibility and ensures that safeguards around the integrity of absent vote applications remain robust.
These measures will enable postal voters to take part in elections with confidence, by helping to ensure their ballot is issued and delivered in good time, while allowing a switch to voting in person or by emergency proxy if their ballot is delayed. They will not apply to Northern Ireland because of the different absent voting regime there and the stricter security requirements around absent voting, which are a result of the history of electoral fraud in Northern Ireland.
Setting clearer rules and deadlines will give electoral administrators the confidence and certainty needed to manage their workload effectively and keep the absent voting system running smoothly at the most demanding points in the electoral timetable. The integrity of our elections is of paramount importance. The clause also strengthens safeguards in the absent voting system by clarifying identity verification requirements, and introduces a clear statutory determination deadline for identity verification. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Government amendments 14, 15 and 16 remove a regulation-making power that the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel has advised is unnecessary. The Bill already provides that a proxy with a long-term proxy postal voting arrangement can make temporary arrangements for a particular poll without affecting that long-term arrangement. Where a proxy instead applies for a proxy postal voting arrangement for a particular election, the correct outcome is that the long-term arrangement is cancelled. That is the policy intention, and the Bill already delivers that without the need for regulation-making powers. The amendments therefore simplify the legislation, remove redundant provisions and ensure the law operates clearly and consistently for electoral administrators.
Government amendment 17 ensures consistency between the absent voting regime and the proxy voting offences in section 61(1A) of the Representation of the People Act 1983. The Bill already allows someone who has applied to be registered, and is only awaiting the end of the objections period, to be treated as a person who “will be registered” for absent voting purposes. Without the amendment, that same person could be granted a proxy vote but might not be legally capable of committing the offence of acting as a proxy for too many electors if they knowingly breached the proxy limits. The amendment closes that gap, reflects the advice of the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel and ensures that the law operates clearly, consistently and as intended. I commend the amendments to the Committee.
New clause 40 seeks to require electoral registration officers to share information with political parties about electors whose postal voting arrangements have expired. While supporting voter participation is important, the Government do not consider the new clause to be workable, proportionate or necessary. As drafted, it does not provide access to postal vote expiry data itself; instead, it links disclosure to details supplied in proxy vote applications for parliamentary elections, which is not how postal voting arrangements are recorded or renewed in practice.
Most postal voters will never have applied for a proxy vote. As a result, for many electors whose postal vote has expired, there would simply be no proxy application data to disclose, meaning that the new clause would not achieve its apparent policy aim. There is also a clear mismatch in scope. The new clause refers to postal vote expiry for
“elections of the kind in question”
but limits disclosure to proxy applications made for parliamentary elections, significantly narrowing and distorting the dataset that would be available.
A question of principle is also at stake. Electoral registration officers already have a legal duty to notify electors directly about when their postal voting arrangements are due to expire and to provide them with information about how to make a fresh application to vote by post. That ensures that voters are informed at the right time without reliance on third parties.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
When postal voters are notified by their local authority that they are about to drop off the roll, does the Minister agree that they should not always be encouraged to do that online? Some people who have postal votes do not want to make online applications. Does she also agree that they should be sent a fresh application from the council, with a freepost envelope for its return, so that they can keep their postal votes?
Samantha Dixon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. It is appropriate for electoral registration officers to use their discretion in the circumstances that he describes. They can do that already, and should continue to do so, rather than the Government prescribing the route that they should follow.
Finally, requiring electoral registration officers to respond to ad hoc requests from political parties, alongside their existing statutory write-out duties, would impose a substantial and unnecessary administrative burden. For those reasons, the Government cannot support new clause 40.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
Good morning, Dr Allin-Khan, and good morning to members of the Committee. I suspect that by the end of today I am going to have a super tan, given that sun coming through the window. Thank you to Joe for sorting out the blinds.
I rise to speak to new clause 40 in my name and to talk briefly to clause 48. As the Minister has outlined, the new clause would give registered political parties access to data on expired postal votes. As the Minister said, clause 48 would give effect to schedule 3, which makes various changes to absent voter arrangements. If a voter cannot get to the polling station on the day of the election, they can apply for an absent vote. The Minister has outlined in comprehensive detail the minor amendments to the clause that she has brought to the Committee, and we have no problem with those.
The Electoral Commission’s report, however, on the 2024 general election recommended that postal voting
“should be reformed to improve the service for voters and strengthen resilience”
within the system. The Association of Electoral Administrators has called for a longer electoral timetable, including for UK Parliament elections, and for earlier absent voting deadlines, set at 16 working days before polling day. The explanatory notes to the Bill note the intention to move the postal vote application deadline in Great Britain to three days earlier in the electoral timetable, which will be from 11 to 14 working days before the poll. The Elections Act 2022 introduced a series of measures to tighten the security around postal voting, which included providing that postal vote applications expire after three years. That was to stop the scope for postal vote fraud and error.
However, one of the unintended consequences of that change, which we now recognise with concern, is that the Government have not provided for political parties and elected representatives to have access to postal vote expiry data. Political parties already have access to lists of postal voters, and as the 2022 Act provisions start to bite we are seeing a large drop-off in the number of registered postal voters. It is our belief that all parties should be able to recruit postal voters because of that huge drop-off.
I was talking to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne earlier about how, in some areas of my constituency, postal vote drop-off levels are sitting at around 35%. We think that the Government should allow political parties to have access to data in order to play their part in postal vote recruitment if someone has dropped off. The Government have refused to amend the law to allow that, and Labour Ministers have admitted that the Government do not track the number of postal vote renewals or expiries. Amending the law in this way would be a simple step to support democratic engagement and turnout, and provide a level playing field for all parties. There would be no detriment to data protection rights, given that political parties already have access to who has a postal vote.
It is not for me to argue with parliamentary counsel—I would never do so—so I take the steer of officials at the Minister’s Department about the scope of the clause. However, I look for reassurance that the Minister will come back to the Committee about the general principle of allowing political parties access to the drop-off data; we may return to this issue at later stages. All parties, regardless of their infrastructure and machinery across the country, should be able to help the Government by playing their part in increasing the uptake of postal votes if those often vulnerable and elderly people have dropped off.
I have come back to Parliament for a rest after campaigning in the local elections for two weeks, as I suspect most Committee members have. I met many people who did not know that they had dropped off, which is unfortunately an unintended consequence of the legislation that the last Government passed. If the Minister can give a commitment to write to me about how we can amend the Bill to allow parties access, I will be content not to press new clause 40 to a Division. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say.
Samantha Dixon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments; I understand the points he makes. There is a statutory duty for EROs to notify postal voters that their postal vote is due to expire at the end of January that year, and they will be contacting them. The Government’s view is that there needs to be a proportionate approach that does not add a burden in what is already a busy time for EROs. But I will write to the hon. Gentleman to set out current Government thinking in light of his remarks.
Paul Holmes
I thank the Minister for that reassurance and I look forward to her letter. The Opposition still think that political parties have a role. Because many elected representatives have access to the electoral roll, we get monthly updates; I know that that is different from what happens in an election period, and I understand that the Minister is concerned about proportionality and the burden placed on election officials. However, we believe that political parties have a role and a right to be able to see the drop-off data. However, for the smooth running of the Committee and to make progress, I will not press new clause 40 to a Division.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 48 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3
Absent Voting
Amendments made: 14, in schedule 3, page 118, leave out lines 19 to 23.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 15.
Amendment 15, in schedule 3, page 119, line 7, leave out from “election” to end of line 8.
This amendment and Amendments 14 and 16 remove a redundant regulation-making power and associated provision. The power would have allowed for provision to be made about circumstances in which a proxy’s long-term postal voting arrangement must be preserved when the proxy is granted a postal voting arrangement for a particular poll.
Amendment 16, in schedule 3, page 119, leave out lines 11 to 13.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 15.
Amendment 17, in schedule 3, page 123, line 37, at end insert—
“20A In section 61 (voting offences other than personation), after subsection (1A) insert—
‘(1B) In subsection (1A), a reference to P being a person who will be registered includes P being a person who has applied to be registered where there is no reason not to register P other than the fact that the objections period has not ended.
(1C) In subsection (1B) “the objections period”, in relation to an application for registration, means the period prescribed under section 10ZC(2) (in relation to Great Britain) or 10A(3) (in relation to Northern Ireland) for making objections to the application before it is determined.’”—(Samantha Dixon.)
This amendment ensures that certain offences in section 61(1A) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 relating to the appointment of proxies apply to the expanded category of people who “will be registered” for the purposes of the absent voting rules.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 49
Power to obtain election-related information etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Samantha Dixon
As set out in our manifesto, the Government are committed to encouraging participation in our democracy. To achieve that, it is essential that electors are kept well informed about elections and referenda in their local area and about other pertinent information, such as the candidates running and the locations of polling stations. The clauses will enable us, in conjunction with the Electoral Commission, to improve online information services to provide that information to the public. Although the information is already available to electors, that service will help ensure that electors have access to consistent and complete information via a central service. The information that election officers may be required to provide will be limited to factual information about the poll and will not include details on the policies of candidates or political parties.
Clause 49 will create a new power for the Secretary of State to require returning officers, counting officers, petition officers and electoral registration officers to share specified information relating to elections and referenda. The Secretary of State can require the information to be shared with the Department, the Electoral Commission or both.
Clauses 50 and 51 specify which officers can be required to provide information, and for which types of elections and referenda. That power will be exercised via secondary legislation, so the exact details of the information required and processes for sharing it will be confirmed in due course. At this stage, our ambition is that the information will be collated by the Electoral Commission and shared with the public via its website. Electoral administrators will be supported to provide the required information and for electors to provide their location to quickly find the most relevant information. This is a straightforward and proportionate measure that we believe will greatly improve the electorate’s access to information and support increased engagement.
Paul Holmes
I thank the Minister for that explanation. Around the country, many enthusiasts for democracy, such as myself, will be shaking with excitement about being able to find all the information in one place. Frankly, I cannot understand why we have not moved to such a system before, and I am happy to credit the Minister for her foresight in bringing forward such a forward-thinking proposal.
Even in the last week, candidates were desperately trying to find out who had been nominated in their counties or boroughs at various stages. The information was supposed to be published at 4 o’clock on the Thursday or Friday, but Hampshire county council had not published the information in time. Such things are important for people participating.
What is particularly welcome in these clauses is the fact that people who have various disabilities will be able to access the support available. Many constituents knocking on doors in the last few weeks have raised questions about the support that they might want. Having a single place where somebody can just stick in their postcode, or where they live, and have access to information about the local or national election that they are entitled to participate in is a very good thing. We will not contest the clauses. We think they are a very good move for elections.
Samantha Dixon
I agree; we should remove all barriers to electors participating in elections. I thank the shadow Minister for describing how those barriers are in effect.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 49 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 50 and 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 52
Effect of the death of the Sovereign on certain elections and referendums
Samantha Dixon
The clause and schedule 4 ensure that in the event of the demise of the Crown, effective and consistent processes are in place for scheduled local elections and other polls, including mayoral elections, local referendums and Northern Ireland Assembly elections, as is already the case for a parliamentary general election. In the event of the demise of the Crown, if a UK parliamentary general election is taking place, legislation provides for a 14-day pause in the timetable for the general election to allow time for public mourning and the funeral arrangements, and the date of the poll is moved to after the date of the funeral. Different provisions are in place for other types of polls.
We believe that the 14-day pause in proceedings used for UK parliamentary general elections is the most appropriate arrangement, so the clause extends those provisions to a number of other types of election and referendum, including parliamentary by-elections, scheduled local elections, London Assembly elections, mayoral elections, local referendums and Northern Ireland Assembly elections. The measures also apply to certain Welsh elections in specific circumstances, when they are combined with UK parliamentary or police and crime commissioner elections.
A royal proclamation may already adjust the date of a postponed poll for a UK parliamentary general election by up to seven days. Under the Bill, when such a proclamation is made, any other polls combined with the general election will also move so that they remain combined. The Bill also creates an equivalent ministerial power to adjust postponed polls that are not UK parliamentary general elections by up to seven days. The provisions will ensure that consistent and appropriate provisions are in place for polls being held in such circumstances. I hope that Members will support the measure.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 52 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 53
Form of documents for elections and referendums
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 18.
Schedule 5.
Samantha Dixon
The clause, schedule 5 and Government amendment 18 deal with parliamentary processes used to update various forms. A range of prescribed electoral forms are set out in legislation, including poll cards, nomination forms and ballot papers. The rules for each type of poll, be it UK parliamentary, mayoral or local government, are set out in separate pieces of legislation. Each set of rules includes a full set of forms, despite the content of each prescribed form being almost entirely the same from one type of election or referendum to the next, so even a minor amendment to a form results in significant duplication across legislation, which is hugely inefficient.
That process is made even more difficult by different parliamentary procedures being required to update the forms in the different pieces of legislation. A good example of that is the recent legislation to add a veteran card to the list of accepted voter ID. That simple addition required an a affirmative instrument to be debated in both Houses to make the change for UK parliamentary elections, a negative instrument replicating the changes for local elections, and a third no-procedure statutory instrument making the same changes to Welsh language forms. That one small change therefore resulted in three instruments and more than 171 pages of legislation.
To reduce the unnecessary burden on parliamentary time, the clause makes a number of streamlining changes and amends the powers in the Representation of the People Act 1983 to allow the forms to be updated far more efficiently. The sector and stakeholders have been asking for this change, which will allow a relatively small but none the less important consolidation of electoral law.
Government amendment 18 is a purely technical change designed to ensure that the Bill operates as intended. It corrects a minor drafting error relating to the proposed changes to improve how electoral forms are updated. It is a routine correction identified during the drafting process and does not affect the Bill in substance. I commend the amendment, clause 53 and schedule 5 to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 53 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 5
Form of documents for elections and referendums
Amendment made: 18, in schedule 5, page 135, line 5, leave out “and (2)”.—(Samantha Dixon.)
This amendment corrects an error by removing a reference to regulations made under rule 8(2) of Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983 from provision about the parliamentary procedure applying to certain regulation-making powers under that Act. Rule 8(2) does not confer power to make regulations.
Schedule 5, as amended, accordingly agreed to.
Clause 54
Removal of requirement to publish election agents’ addresses
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Samantha Dixon
Harassment and intimidation of voters, electoral staff and campaigners, both online and in person, is totally unacceptable and has a profoundly detrimental impact on our democratic process. We want as many people as possible to engage in our democracy, but sadly there are some who seek to deter involvement through abuse and intimidation.
Candidates already have the option to keep their home address from being published on the statement of persons nominated and on ballot papers, but a requirement remains for candidates who act as their own election agent to have their home address published on the notice of election agents. We are removing this requirement, enabling candidates in this position to provide a correspondence address to be published instead of their home address. We are also extending that option to all election agents. These changes will ensure that those who take part in our democracy can feel safe and secure in their home. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
We welcome clause 54, which, as the Minister outlined, will allow candidates acting as their own agent to remove their home address from publication requirements. I reiterate what the Minister said: intimidation and harassment during any kind of political campaign is unacceptable. We had a very good cross-party debate on harassment in the last sitting of the Committee.
These measures seem very sensible, but I would like the Minister to address something that has just come to me, so is almost guaranteed to be nonsense. When a correspondence address has been given, if impropriety has been found to have occurred in the return of election expenses by either an agent or a candidate, might there be unintended consequences in terms of the paper trail and how that person can be found? For example—the Minister will be aware that this is slightly out there—if a dummy corporation sets up a correspondence address through a PO box, how can we ensure that the agent is held to account through an investigation? The Minister can write to me on that. It just came to me, so I am not expecting an answer now. Other than that, I think the clause is perfectly sensible, and we will not contest it.
Samantha Dixon
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Election agents could use a PO box as a correspondence address, but not as their office address. I hope that gives him the reassurance that any agent behaving inappropriately would be findable.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 54 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 55
Leave to pay late and disputed expenses claims
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Samantha Dixon
To prevent attempts to circumvent spending limits, current rules require campaigners to seek permission from the courts before they are able to pay invoices late. In practice, most late or disputed claims are delayed due to routine administrative issues. The Electoral Commission has said that the court-based process for leave to pay applications is inefficient and costly, delaying prompt payments and placing unnecessary burdens on campaigners, the courts and suppliers, especially small businesses.
Clause 55 addresses those inefficiencies by transferring responsibility for granting leave from the courts to the Electoral Commission. The commission will be able to give permission to campaigners to pay late or disputed claims. It is right that such decisions are made by the specialist regulator of political finance. By transferring that function to the commission, the clause will reduce unnecessary bureaucracy, support both suppliers and campaigners, and maintain the integrity and transparency of the broader campaign finance framework.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 55 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clause 56
Delivery and inspection of returns and declarations
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Schedule 7.
Clause 57 stand part.
New clause 47—Commencement of section 9(2) of the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009—
“(1) Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must exercise the power in section 43(1) of the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009 to bring into force section 9(2) of that Act (declaration as to source of donation).
(2) This section comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed (and section 80 is to be construed accordingly).”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to exercise the power to commence section 9(2) of the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009 which inserts section 54A into the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which requires declarations to be provided as to the source of donations.
New clause 48—Offences relating to election expense returns: reduction in threshold—
“(1) The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 83 (declaration by treasurer as to return relating to campaign expenditure), in subsection (3)(a), for ‘knowingly or recklessly makes’ substitute ‘knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making’.
(3) In section 123 (declaration of responsible person as to return relating to referendum expenditure), in subsection (4)(a), for ‘knowingly or recklessly makes’ substitute ‘knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making’.”
This new clause reduces the threshold for two offences in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 so that where false declarations are provided in relation to election expenses an offence is committed if they have reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting that they are making a false declaration.
New clause 49—Declaration as to source of donation: reduction in amount—
“In section 54A of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (declaration as to source of donation)—
(a) in subsection (1), for ‘£7,500’ substitute ‘£500’;
(b) in subsection (2)(B), for ‘£7,500’ substitute ‘£500’.”
This new clause would require any donation above £500 to be accompanied by a declaration as to its source (rather than the current minimum of £7,500).
New clause 50—Penalties for false declarations—
“(1) Schedule 20 to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (penalties) is amended as follows.
(2) In the entry for section 54A(5) (making a false declaration as to source of donation), in the second column, for ‘1 year’ substitute ‘3 years’.
(3) In the entry for section 83(3)(a) (making a false declaration to Commission when delivering return), in the second column, for ‘1 year’ substitute ‘3 years’.
(4) In the entry for section 123(4)(a) (making a false declaration to Commission when delivering return), in the second column, for ‘1 year’ substitute ‘3 years’.”
This new clause raises the maximum penalties for submitting false declarations from 1 year’s imprisonment upon conviction on indictment to 3 years’ imprisonment upon conviction on indictment.
Samantha Dixon
Under current rules, candidates or their election agents must deliver a return and declaration and any accompanying documents relating to their election expenses to the returning officer. To supplement the extension of the Electoral Commission’s enforcement role, clause 56 will require candidates or their election agents also to deliver a copy of the return and declaration and accompanying documents to the Electoral Commission. Those incurring expenditure in relation to candidates and recall petition campaigners will likewise be required to deliver copies of relevant returns and declarations to the commission.
That will ensure timely receipt of returns and declarations by the Electoral Commission, which is essential to its ability to perform its new regulatory functions quickly, scrutinise returns and deal with those not complying with the rules. The Electoral Commission will also have new responsibilities for making candidate returns and declarations available for public inspection, promoting transparency by facilitating the collection and publication of data on candidate finance in a single source. Allowing the Electoral Commission to prescribe a form of return that campaigners must use will also help campaigners comply with reporting requirements and facilitate scrutiny of returns.
Turning to clause 57, the Electoral Commission has existing duties to monitor and secure compliance with the expenditure and donations rules set out in PPERA, as well as other enactments promulgating rules concerning candidates or their election agents. To enable it to perform those duties effectively, it also has powers to make regulations relating to information that must be included in donations reports that are required under these pieces of legislation.
Paul Holmes
We think these clauses are sensible, but I have a number of questions for the Minister on their implementation. First, has she had any feedback from the Electoral Commission regarding these added responsibilities? Does she think they are within its current operational capacity? Has the commission given her Department any feedback on whether it is happy to undertake the new requirements that the Government are placing on it, and that it is resourced properly to implement and enforce them, particularly those in clause 56?
Clause 56 places a duty on candidates to send a copy of their returns to the Electoral Commission as well as the local returning officer. I am sure the Minister is aware that there are political parties and independent candidates of all shapes, sizes, abilities and internal machinery. There are associations of all political parties across the country that are run by a couple—at best—of well-intentioned volunteers, who might not necessarily be at the forefront of new electoral law changes. Has the Minister taken that into account? How will she communicate these regulations effectively so that we do not have the unintended consequence of some well-intentioned candidates and agents falling foul of them, just because of the postcode they seek to represent?
The Opposition have a wider concern about changes like this one, especially in the light of the answer given to a written question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. The Government have proceeded with these legislative changes without consulting the Parliamentary Parties Panel. Given that clauses like this one will have a direct influence on and consequences for political parties of all shapes and sizes, it is regrettable that the panel has not been consulted at all on the Bill whatsoever.
I urge the Minister and the Government to take a step back in progress with the Bill’s passage and reset their view on consulting the Parliamentary Parties Panel when they are seeking to make changes of this nature. In that way, political parties represented on the Committee can actually be consulted and give the Government their views. It is regrettable that they have not done so. The Minister has rightly brought the clause forward, but she has absolutely no information about the views on these changes of parties—not just the Conservative party but smaller parties and independent candidates—
I hope the Minister takes that as a genuine nudge. It is a complaint from the official Opposition that these changes, and the Bill in general, have changed precedent. When the last Government introduced the Bill that became Elections Act 2022, the panel was consulted because that legislation affected all political parties on an equal basis. This Government have chosen not to do that. That is regrettable. I look to the Minister to change the course of this Government when it comes to future changes to electoral legislation.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. This discussion about part 4 feels slightly odd because we are having part of the conversation but will have a further conversation on Report, for all the good and understandable reasons that we have talked about, after the publication of the review by Sir Philip Rycroft. Many people truly welcome Sir Philip’s work and some of us were fortunate enough to take part in it, but we are discussing the measures under consideration while fully aware that we expect further movement from the Government.
I will speak to the new clauses tabled in the name of the Chair of the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western). We Liberal Democrats welcome clauses 56 and 57, but the JCNSS did a huge amount of work looking at money and interference in our politics, and it has made some recommendations, which are manifested in the new clauses. The JCNSS welcomed the Government’s commitment to commence section 54A of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. That section was inserted in 2009 but never commenced. It covers requirements for donors to make a declaration about their donation, but the Committee found that the provisions need more work to adequately address concerns about donors acting as conduits for foreign money. New clause 47 would require the Government to commence section 54A of the 2000 Act within three months of the Bill being passed. The subsequent linked new clauses change the provisions of section 54A to address its shortcomings.
Regarding new clause 48, the JCNSS heard evidence that law enforcement often faces prohibitively high thresholds for taking action on suspicions of wrongdoing, and that part of the problem is linked to the wording of the legislation, which requires law enforcement to prove that actors “knowingly” broke the rules. New clause 48 would lower the threshold and use wording in line with that of anti-money laundering regulations, whereby persons are liable if they have reasonable grounds to suspect that they are facilitating impermissible donations.
Regarding new clause 49, the JCNSS questioned why it would be appropriate to have such a high threshold—£11,180—for making a declaration. It perceived a gap that could be exploited. For example, a UK donor might receive £11,179 from a Russian source in connection with a planned donation but would, apparently, not need to declare that when making a £11,179 donation. The JCNSS noted the general principle that donations below £500 are largely outside the reporting scope of PPERA and would not need to be reported or recorded. A £500 threshold might therefore prove a more robust basis to guide the level at which money received in connection with a donation needs to be declared. The new clause would require any donation above £500 to be accompanied by a declaration on its source, and whether related gifts have been received. Transparency and consistency are both good things, of which there should be more.
Paul Holmes
I wonder if I could urge the hon. Member to change her view. Does she not think that the £500 threshold is very low, if we consider the fast period when a candidate may be fundraising, during the longer term of an election period? Many of our constituents will give money during that period. At £500, the burden placed on candidates and on the person giving the money would be probably too harsh. The threshold needs to be lifted to something more realistic.
Lisa Smart
I welcome the shadow Minister’s intervention, and I think that we should talk far more than we do about domestic money in politics, as well as foreign money in politics. Power is concentrated in far too few hands. The price of elections is going up and up, and that is not good for democracy. I would welcome that discussion.
New clause 49 is in the name of the Chair of the JCNSS, so I am speaking to it on his behalf. We are talking about £500 during the course of a calendar year, so £50 a month breaches the threshold. I think there is a conversation to be had. As I say, this new clause is not in my name.
On new clause 50, the Committee heard evidence that the current 12-month prison sentence was not an adequate deterrent. Also, the low sentences reportedly limit the type of investigatory tools that law enforcement may use in an investigation. I am content to speak to the new clauses on behalf of the Member who tabled them, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I rise to speak to both the clauses and the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, which the hon. Member for Hazel Grove spoke to.
Briefly, commencing section 9 to PPERA, as proposed by new clause 47, is something that was put into legislation 17 years ago, so it feels really quite overdue. Regarding the points that were just discussed around new clause 49, which proposes the reduction to £500 of the threshold for declaring the source of a donation, making such a declaration is not necessarily a hugely onerous process. I imagine that when someone makes a donation and fills in a form, they just put, “Source: my salary”. This is not necessarily a hugely problematic part of the process of creating more transparency. We surely all agree that more transparency is needed in our political financing system, to protect from the corrosive effect of foreign donations, and of huge inequalities and the lack of transparency over domestic donations. I strongly support all the new clauses.
I will raise a couple of additional points, which I would like the Minister to respond to. First of all, regarding the provision in clause 56 and schedule 7 to submit two returns now—to both the local returning officer and the Electoral Commission—I note that the Electoral Commission, in its briefing to the Committee, argued that this provision clearly makes things more complex and problematic, and it argued that the primary responsibility for submission should be to the Electoral Commission. Does that not make more sense? Given that the Bill is introducing a requirement to submit to the Electoral Commission, why do not we just say, “Submit the return to the Electoral Commission”? Then the Electoral Commission can correspond with the returning officer if it wants to. But let us just have one submission and make the process as simple as possible for candidates and parties. Could the Minister respond on that point from the Electoral Commission about the requirement to submit two returns?
Secondly, a point raised by Philip Rycroft in his extremely useful report, under recommendation number 7, is that
“The Electoral Commission should mandate political parties to submit their annual reports and accounts and campaign spending returns in a standardised format.”
Could the Minister comment on whether she proposes to take that recommendation forward? It would be very helpful in improving transparency and clarity in the system.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
I will just make some very brief remarks on the record.
I welcome this landmark Bill, which does a great deal to bring our democratic landscape into the 21st century, but I will briefly put on the record some thoughts about new clause 47.
As we digest the Rycroft review, I think that the new clause is worth further consideration, particularly about how we can have meaningful deterrence for the most egregious flouting of political finance rules. If we want to be able to deal with that issue, we also need to have effective prosecutions for serious breaches. My concern at the moment is that there is something of an enforcement gap, and I know that that is a description that the Electoral Commission has outlined as well. I remain concerned that when it comes to the real risks posed by foreign interference, we are leaving that gap open, which would run contrary to the rightful and important aims of this Bill.
The director general of the National Crime Agency highlighted here in Parliament in February that there is a “gap in law” and that
“a foreign state or foreign individual—someone who is impermissible—can transfer money to someone who is in the UK, who is permissible, and that person can give money to a political party or a politician, and there is nothing to stop that. That is perfectly lawful.”
There is an enforcement gap there that I know that the Minister, along with other Ministers and officials, will want to address. It is worth reflecting further on the aims of new clause 47 and how it tries to strengthen this Bill further beyond the work that it already does. As we look to digest the Rycroft review, and the Bill proceeds to further stages, it is important that we give the aims in the new clause rightful consideration, and think about some of those issues around the gap in enforcement when it comes to the most egregious breaches of political finance rules.
Samantha Dixon
A number of points have been made, which I thank hon. Members for. I can reassure the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, that we have worked closely with the Electoral Commission on these proposals. All my officials talk to the Electoral Commission constantly, so its capacity to take this on board is understood.
In terms of consultation, we always work with the parliamentary parties panel. However, as I was coming into this position, I reached out to all the leaders of the opposition parties and invited them to come to talk to me about the Bill prior to its Second Reading. Not all took up the offer; however, I was pleased to meet those who did.
Turning to the point about the two sets of returns, it is still important to address the point raised by the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. It is important for returning officers to receive returns and declarations, because having those available for inspection at the local level remains an important part of our democracy. I would not want to see that taken away. That is why we are proposing both the EC and returning officers receive them.
On new clause 47, the Government fully recognise the importance of greater transparency over the source of political donations, and we are already taking that forward. Work to activate donor source declarations is underway as part of our wider political finance reforms, and the Government have been clear that those measures will be delivered in this Parliament. The new clause would not change our direction or add new policy substance. I understand that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove is eager to see this implemented quickly, and I want to reassure the Committee that this is a Government priority. However, imposing a fixed deadline risks cutting across the careful sequencing needed to implement reforms coherently.
We need to align commencement with the broader package, ensuring that guidance and systems are ready, and give campaigners proportionate lead-in time. That speaks to the point made by the shadow Minister that this is about not just the established parties but smaller parties as well. A rigid statutory date risks poorer implementation without adding any new substance to what the Government are already delivering. Our approach is to activate donor source declarations in step with the wider package in the Bill, so that parties can have clear and workable rules and the Electoral Commission is operationally prepared. On that basis, I hope the hon. Member will feel able not to push the new clause to a vote.
New clause 48 seeks to lower the criminal threshold for two political finance offences so that a party treasurer or a responsible person would commit an offence when it could be proven that they had
“reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting”
that a declaration accompanying a campaign or referendum expenditure return was false. Currently, prosecutions for such offences are possible only when it can be proven that the offender “knowingly or recklessly” makes a false declaration. That threshold was designed to reflect the seriousness of criminal liability and ensure that sanctions target deliberate and clearly irresponsible wrongdoing.
The Government welcome Philip Rycroft’s comprehensive and well-reasoned report on foreign financial interference in our democracy, which includes relevant recommendations in this space. Any proposal to amend the knowledge test for relevant offences will need to be considered with great care to ensure that party treasurers and responsible persons are not unduly exposed to potential criminal sanctions for administrative errors or inadvertent admissions. It is also important to consider the political finance regime in the round to avoid amendments creating inconsistencies between parts of the statutory framework.
The Rycroft review provides a valuable basis for broader consideration and the Government are actively working through its recommendations to ensure that political finance rules and their enforcement remain proportionate, coherent and fit for purpose. For those reasons, although we do not support new clause 48, we will continue to assess the review’s findings carefully and will set out a full Government response, including whether making further amendments to the Bill would be appropriate. Given that reassurance, I hope the new clause will not be pressed.
The integrity of political finance depends on measures that are both effective and proportionate. That is why the Bill introduces stronger due diligence expectations and tougher rules for institutional donors. Our general approach has been to address weaker points of the framework where there is greater risk. While the intention behind the new clause is acknowledged, reducing the declaration threshold to £500 does not follow that risk-based approach and could end up weakening the system.
In that respect, I share the views of the shadow Minister because I believe the new clause would create a large volume of low-value declarations and, in doing so, divert the time and energy of donors, recipients and the regulator on to lower-risk activity. We want resources to be focused on higher-risk activity, such as the enhanced due diligence that we want donors to undertake when they receive larger donations. The Government believe that the risk-based approach that we are taking in the Bill is the right one. It ensures that further scrutiny will be applied where it matters most.
New clause 50 seeks to increase the maximum criminal penalties that can be imposed for various false declaration offences under the political finance framework. In the Bill, the Government are acting on long-standing recommendations to strengthen the Electoral Commission’s power and extend its remit to ensure that enforcement provides a clear deterrent against breaking the law, while remaining proportionate. However, we recognise that we cannot be complacent, so we welcome the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy’s recent report and Philip Rycroft’s independent review on foreign financial interference in our democracy. They both include relevant recommendations regarding the enforcement of political finance offences.
Any proposal to increase sentencing for such offences will need to be considered carefully to ensure that criminal penalties remain proportionate. It will also be important to consider the political finance regime and its enforcement in the round to prevent amendments from creating inconsistencies between parts of the statutory framework. The Rycroft review provides a valuable basis for that broader consideration and the Government are actively working through its recommendations to ensure that political finance rules and their enforcement remain proportionate, coherent and fit for purpose.
Noting that new clause 50 covers ground similar to one of Mr Rycroft’s recommendations, we will assess the review’s findings carefully and set out a full Government response, including whether to make further amendments to the Bill in the light of that work.
Paul Holmes
Does the Minister see the absurdity of the Government’s strategy in this area of policy? The Government commissioned a huge review—a good review—by Philip Rycroft that they need to examine and consider properly. But we are discussing a section of the Bill where although a direct influence on future legislation is outlined by Philip Rycroft, the Minister is resisting amendments from other political parties, saying she will bring in amendments later because the Government have not considered Rycroft’s review properly. She is not going to accept this, but does she not see that the way the Bill is working is absurd? We are going to have retrospective amendments when it comes to the review, but the Minister will only accept amendments from her own side and not from other political parties.
Samantha Dixon
The shadow Minister is, of course, fully entitled to his views. However, the new clauses relate to a very narrow framework in the Bill. The Government are considering the review and its recommendations from a much broader, cross-Government perspective. That requires much broader work. We will bring our response to the review to Parliament in time for proper scrutiny.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 56 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Clause 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 58
Risk assessments for donations to registered parties etc
Samantha Dixon
I beg to move amendment 39, in clause 58, page 67, line 38, leave out “, when it” and insert “—
(a) the party has not previously undertaken a risk assessment in relation to a relevant benefit accruing to the party in the same calendar year, and
(b) when the value of the donation”.
This amendment would mean that a risk assessment is required for donations when the £11,180 threshold (for donations or regulated transactions) is breached the first time in a calendar year. (See also amendment 40, which requires a risk assessment the second or subsequent time the threshold is breached.)
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 40 and 41.
Amendment 32, in clause 58, page 68, leave out from beginning of line 15 to end of line 21 and insert—
“(2) In carrying out a risk assessment, the party must prioritise taking into account whether the person from whom the donation is received is a foreign citizen and likely to have foreign influence links.
(2A) In carrying out a risk assessment, the party must treat donations from UK citizens, who reside in the UK, as a low risk.
(2B) In carrying out a risk assessment, the party must also take account of the following risks—
(a) the type of person from whom the donation is received,
(b) that person’s previous donation history,
(c) the type of donation,
(d) the amount of the donation, and
any other risk factors the party considers to be relevant.”
Amendment 31, in clause 58, page 68, line 20, at end insert—
“(da) whether the person from whom the donation is received is required to register under the Foreign Activities and Foreign Influence Registration Scheme established by the National Security Act 2023.”
This amendment would require the risk assessment to take into account whether a donor is required to register under the Foreign Activities and Foreign Influence Registration Scheme.
Government amendments 42 and 43.
Clause stand part.
Government amendments 44 to 78.
Schedule 8.
Government new clause 60—Power of Scottish Ministers to vary sums in Schedule 7 to PPERA 2000—
“In section 155 of PPERA 2000 (power to vary specified sums or percentages), in subsection (1A)—
(a) after ‘vary’ insert ‘—
(a) ’;
(b) at the end insert
‘, or
(b) any sum for the time being specified in Schedule 7 so far as that sum applies in relation to a donation to a member of a local authority in Scotland who is not also a member of a registered party.’”
This new clause, which would be inserted after clause 62, amends section 155(1A) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 to provide a power for the Scottish Ministers to vary the sums in Schedule 7 (control of donations to individuals and member associations), so far as they relate to areas of devolved competence.
Samantha Dixon
I will first speak to clause 58, schedule 8, Government new clause 60, and Government amendments 39 to 41 and 44 to 78, before turning to the amendments tabled by the Opposition.
In line with recommendations from the Electoral Commission, the National Crime Agency and the Committee on Standards in Public Life—now known as the Ethics and Integrity Commission—clause 58 addresses a long-standing gap in electoral law. Current rules require recipients of donations to verify the permissibility of the donor but do not require them to assess whether a donor may be facilitating a donation from an impermissible source. Existing permissibility checks remain important, but they do not always provide sufficient assurance where donations are routed through third parties or where risk indicators are present.
The clause introduces a clear, proportionate due diligence duty on campaigners to look beyond current permissibility checks and determine whether there is a material risk that a political contribution originates from an impermissible source. The new framework strengthens the ability of campaigners to assure themselves that donations come from permissible sources. Its purpose is not to impose unnecessary burdens, but to ensure that campaigners take reasonable, proportionate steps to understand who is behind a donation. By embedding a culture of risk-based due diligence, the clause helps to guard against foreign interference, increases confidence in the integrity of donations, and aligns political finance rules with best practice in other sectors.
Government amendment 39 to 41 and 44 to 78 seek to clarify the point at which a political donation exceeds the £11,180 thresholds and requires a risk assessment under the new “know your donor” rules. Currently, the Bill requires a risk assessment once a recipient receives cumulative contributions from the same donor surpassing £11,180 in a calendar year. However, after that point is reached, every further donation received from the same donor in the same calendar year, regardless of value, would require another risk assessment. That was not our policy intention.
Under the updated approach, a risk assessment will be required each time a donor gives £11,180 cumulatively or as an individual donation, after which the running total in effect will reset to zero. That replaces the previous rolling aggregation threshold, removing unnecessary repetition and ensuring that parties complete a risk assessment only when receiving a further significant donation from the same donor. Risk assessments could be carried out on every donation if a campaigner feels the need to do so.
Paul Holmes
I rise to speak to clause 58 and to Opposition amendments 32 and 31, which would require the risk assessment to take into account whether a donor is required to register under the foreign activities and foreign influence registration scheme.
As the Minister outlined, clause 58 would make changes to PPERA to require registered political parties to undertake risk assessments on reportable donations—those more than £11,180. Multiple donations from the same donor within a calendar year would be aggregated for the purposes of the threshold. Similarly, schedule 8 would require third-party campaigners and others already regulated under PPERA to undertake “know your donor” risk assessments. We welcome the Minister’s approach to tightening the regulations around political donations. As the hon. Member for Hazel Grove said, we need to talk much more about this issue, including domestic donations. We think that the clause has some really strong attributes to increase transparency and equalise the donation procedure.
I take issue with the Minister’s interpretation of the consequences of amendments 31 and 32, although she recognised that they are well intentioned. I fail to see how they narrow the scope of the risk assessment, when they would actually broaden it. It seems alien that the Government are not willing to broaden the scope of those risk assessments with a system that has been in place since 1 July 2025. If we reject these two amendments, do we not risk creating two frameworks? We would be wilfully leaving out an existing framework when trying to do risk assessments. It would strengthen the risk assessment if we brought into play an existing framework that already undertakes regulation.
Our amendments would broaden the scope of the risk assessment rather than narrow it. When somebody is making a donation to influence the role of Members of Parliament, and they are voluntarily registering themselves under the foreign influence scheme, it is important that that is included in our donations regime. It does not stop the well-intentioned aims of the clause from operating, because this already exists. I fail to understand the Minister’s resistance to the two amendments.
We are discussing very important attributes of the Bill and very important subject matters: donations to political parties. We have all had our bad ones. We have all had our good ones, which enable democracy to take place. We have had a comprehensive and welcome review from Philip Rycroft. The Minister has outlined that the Government will undertake a solid consultation response to that review, but we are pushing ahead with clauses that will, let us face it, be passed in this Committee and then in the House at later stages of the Bill. The Minister will bring forward amendments that will be debated, but there has not been a consultation.
We have always contested that the measures in the Bill could be paused until there is a proper cross-party review of the Rycroft review. If we could come to some agreement on a cross-party basis, the later passages of the legislation could be fast-tracked. It is regrettable that the Minister and the Government—although I do not blame the Minister personally—are coming to this House with important and forward-looking legislation without taking into account a proper review to directly influence the proposals they have introduced. I do not think a general election is imminent—unless the Minister suddenly gives us cause for concern—so a pause would not be detrimental to the passage of the Bill. It could give scope for cross-party agreement on the proposed reforms and speed up the passage of the Bill.
The Bill is a significant piece of legislation, but it has been introduced only at the tail end of the parliamentary Session. I am aware that there is a carry-over motion, and the Conservatives fully support that through the usual channels, so why rush the clauses when we have not had the proper implementation and review of the Rycroft review? It would make far more sense to introduce a consolidated Bill in the next Session after cross-party consultation so that we can have a proper discussion, rather than fast-tracking the Government’s tabled amendments.
I am sure that the Minister will respond to that in her usual courteous way, but I would be grateful if she could outline why she seems to think that amendments 31 and 32 would somehow hinder the operational regulatory implementation of her proposals. They would actually broaden the scope, and, we would argue, back up its implementation through already existing legislation. We regret the attitude that the Government have taken to the importance of the Rycroft review and the consultations with all political parties through the Parliamentary Parties Panel. I remind her that a written question has outlined that there was no consultation on a cross-party basis before the Bill was introduced to the House. We will be push amendments 31 and 32 to a vote.
Lisa Smart
We Liberal Democrats support greater scrutiny of the sources of political money. We will not oppose any of these amendments, whether from the Government or His Majesty’s Opposition, but we want to raise some issues because we believe that they could have gone further.
The amendments were tabled, as has been mentioned, following the publication of the Rycroft review, but revisions around cryptocurrency donations are not included in them. In a welcome statement to the House, the Secretary of State talked specifically about banning crypto donations, but there is no mention of that in the Bill. The Government accepted Sir Philip’s recommendation on the day that it was published, so why is there nothing about that in this group of amendments? The Government have a ready vehicle for it in front of them, so the Committee would welcome an explanation of why that is. Can the Minister set out a planned timetable of future actions, including a firm commitment on when a cryptocurrency amendment will appear?
The shadow Minister talked fairly about how this process is running in parallel, making it quite difficult to understand what is ahead of us. The Government are working on a response to the Rycroft review in full, and there are measures in the Bill that they will be keen to ensure are implemented in time for the next general election, including votes at 16 and automatic voter registration. Those will take time to implement, so I understand that the Minister is playing a reasonably sticky wicket, trying to go at pace but in a thorough and considered manner. She has not been dealt an easy hand, but I would appreciate hearing about her planned timetable for issuing further amendments.
I am sure that the Minister agrees about the scale and immediacy of the threat that some of the amendments seek to address, including foreign interference in our elections and democracy. Urgency on those actions is needed. It is important to get these measures in place as soon as possible, but they really should be the right measures. I would welcome hearing from the Minister about when she plans to bring forward further information, and I am sure that we all look forward to scrutinising that in due course.
Dr Chowns
Broadly, I hugely welcome all measures to improve the risk assessment of donations, which is critical, so I am glad to see those here. I agree that much more needs to be done than is currently in the Bill, as outlined by Philip Rycroft, among others, so I welcome the Government’s commitment to do that. I share the frustration expressed about the fact that we have two processes going on in parallel and so, from my perspective, we will not have sufficient opportunity adequately to scrutinise the proposals that the Government are promising to bring forward in relation to Rycroft. However, I absolutely feel their urgency and look forward to whatever opportunity we do have to scrutinise them.
I agree with the hon. Member for Hazel Grove that there are critical missing elements that we could and should be addressing in this part of the Bill: crypto donations, in particular, but also the desperate need for an overall cap on political donations. We will be able to discuss those issues later, when we come to the new clauses, but it seems rather odd that the Government have put nothing in this part of the Bill in relation to those critical elements.
I want to raise two specific issues in relation to this group of amendments. First, the Electoral Commission has made two points about the articulation of risk factors. It would like the list of risk factors to include any other risk factors that a reasonable party would consider relevant, rather than any other risk factors that a political party itself considers relevant, because that would constitute marking its own homework. It seems to me that that small tweak to language would clarify the risk factors. The Electoral Commission also recommends the inclusion of a risk factor relating to a person’s connections to other countries and jurisdictions. That might be a more inclusive way of addressing some of the points about a foreign influence registration scheme. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on those two recommendations—requests, essentially—from the Electoral Commission.
Secondly, in a report produced last month, CenTax—a joint initiative of the London School of Economics and the University of Warwick—pointed out that it would be potentially much more sensible to establish a donor registration system operated by the Electoral Commission itself. That would mean transferring responsibility for the risk assessment for “know your donor” checks to the Electoral Commission rather than to political parties, which, depending on their size and longevity and so forth, might have varying capacities to do that. When a donor wished to make a donation to a party above a certain minimal threshold, they would apply to the Electoral Commission for a donor registration number and then use that when making the donation. That would make it much easier to keep track of multiple donations by a given donor, either to a single party over a period of time or to multiple parties.
That seems to me a sensible and workable proposal for improving transparency and clarity in the system, recognising and addressing the burden of compliance requirements that will be placed on parties—including local parties, which, as has been mentioned, are very much reliant on volunteers—and ensuring a consistent approach to donor risk assessment and monitoring. I would welcome the Minister’s response to that recommendation from CenTax that a donor registration system should be established.
Lloyd Hatton
Before I speak to clause 58, let me say in response to the hon. Members for Hamble Valley and for Hazel Grove that this game-changing legislation and the Rycroft review have both come in the first Session of a new Government. There is a clear understanding—the Minister has made it known here and in the Chamber—that the threats that we face, whether through foreign interference or foreign money trying to influence our democratic process, are severe, and we have made a robust response to them, through this legislation and by commissioning the Rycroft review last year.
I want to make two points on clause 58. First, a key part of the changes introduced by the Bill is the “know your donor” principle, which will require political parties to take more responsibility for exactly who is funding them. Existing rules do not specifically require recipients to consider the risk that a donor is potentially facilitating an illegal donation. I welcome the fact that that will change as a result of this clause, which will bring about a complete overhaul of the system and I believe will improve the integrity of our democracy, help strengthen national security and help restore trust in political parties across the country.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the clause is important. We do need to have a greater say. He says he supports the clause, and I agree with him, because he is very sensible. But given some of the headlines we have had across the House in recent weeks about the origins of donations and the facilitation of bad donations, why does he not agree with us that foreign influence registration should be part of the risk assessment? Does he share my concern that the Government have rejected that?
Lloyd Hatton
I do not believe that the Government are rejecting that carte blanche. As I was about to say—it is almost as if the hon. Gentleman has my notes before him—the Rycroft review commissioned by this Government notes that the “know your donor” provisions are similar to the anti-money laundering checks that are required by thousands of organisations, large and small, in the private sector, the third sector and elsewhere. Those are about ensuring that financial transactions, such as a donation, are indeed legitimate. As we digest the Rycroft review, I hope and expect that the Minister will give careful consideration to what it sets out and look at the idea that “know your donor” checks should more closely mirror the due diligence checks we see elsewhere, particularly in relation to anti-money laundering regulations.
In making my second point, which I think is worthy of further consideration, I think it will be helpful to provide a case study. As Members on both sides of the Committee will recall, earlier this year the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), a former Reform UK MP—I notified him that I would be mentioning him—launched a new political party, Restore Britain. Before that, however, he set up a “political movement”, and he may or may not—we do not know—have received substantial contributions from impermissible sources before Restore Britain was registered officially as a political party. The fact is that we simply do not have a clear understanding, and the current legal landscape means that there are no checks on the funds that a party may hold prior to formal registration.
I should make it very clear that the Bill goes far in strengthening controls on the sources of donations to political parties, and goes a great way to shoring up our democracy against foreign interference. However, I would really welcome the Minister’s thoughts and ideas on how we can ensure that a political party does not seek to sidestep controls on donations and loans by accepting substantial contributions from a potentially impermissible source simply because it has not yet set itself up officially as a political party.
I know that this is something that Rycroft seeks to understand at a top level in his review, so I do not expect it to be dealt with in Committee—I think that would be wrong, because we had the review only just before the Easter recess—but I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts, as the Bill proceeds, on how we close down the potential problem whereby political movements, political projects or whatever we want to call them seek to gain donations outside the controls and checks that would apply if they were a registered political party.
The Chair
Order. Before I call the Minister, I remind hon. Members that it is not necessarily befitting of the House to make comment on whether other hon. Members may or may not have conducted matters in a dishonourable fashion.
Samantha Dixon
I thank Members for the wide-ranging and constructive points that they have made. The Government accept the thrust of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley; however, we believe the existing clauses already allow for foreign links, the status of the foreign influence registration scheme and other relevant indicators to be considered.
It is important for us all to consider—this speaks to a point that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire made—that, as drafted, the list of statutory risk factors is capable of amendment by secondary legislation, so that the framework can remain up to date. As new risks emerge, they can be addressed through secondary legislation. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove made the point that this is a very fast-moving landscape. When the Government introduced the strategy last July, it was prior to the conviction of Nathan Gill. New risks have emerged in considerable number in the past year, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset described how new parties are emerging. It is important that legislation is not prescriptive in a way that hampers consideration of risks as they emerge.
I appreciate the sensitivity that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove expressed—I think the hon. Member for Hamble Valley understands this too—to the challenge of legislating in a fast-moving landscape. The Government are responding as promptly as we can. On the timetable, Parliament will be prorogued soon—I do not know when; my hon. Friend the Government Whip may have more intelligence on that—but this is a carry-over Bill, and that is important given the consideration and consultation that needs to happen as we respond to the Rycroft review.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I want to pick up on the implications of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley and the hon. Member for South Dorset. We are all aware that Reform was the first political organisation to come into being as a private company. It operates outside the framework of a traditional political party, and that carries with it some risks.
As the Minister has outlined, the intention is that the framework identifying those risks can be regularly updated. However, that organisation has been in existence for some six years, so this is not something that has suddenly materialised. The point that my hon. Friend outlined in his contribution, and in the amendments covering things such as FIRS, is that that these are emerging risks that we have all been aware of for some time.
I appreciate the Minister’s point about the timetable and where we are in this Session, but it would be helpful to understand from her how soon those long-standing risks that we have been aware of for some time will find their way into secondary legislation and therefore the framework, or where they might feature in amendments on Report so that they can be properly taken into account.
Samantha Dixon
The hon. Member will appreciate that implementation of the Bill will require substantial secondary legislation. As tempting as it is to set out a timetable, we have to focus on getting the primary legislation through first. There is the tension, which the hon. Member for Hazel Grove described, between going at pace to implement measures such as votes at 16 and considering as comprehensively as possible the matters that arise from the Rycroft review. It is a challenge, albeit not an insurmountable one, for the Government to do both.
Considerable parliamentary time will be devoted to the secondary legislation; that will become clearer as time progresses. We need to move forward as swiftly as we can. We will introduce the amendment regarding crypto when parliamentary time allows, and we will ensure that it has parliamentary scrutiny. I have noted the comments by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire about a donor registration scheme. None the less, it is beholden on political parties, candidates and campaigners to take seriously the risks from donors. It will be their responsibility, under this legislation, to assess those risks, and if they are found to wilfully, recklessly or knowingly circumvent them, they will be subject to prosecution.
We need to move forward with this legislation as much as we can. I sense the frustration from Members across the Committee about the time that will be required to do this, but we need to do it thoughtfully, carefully, and at pace but not too fast. I jest, but we will do it as soon as we possibly can in a way that does not jeopardise scrutiny.
Amendment 39 agreed to.
Amendment proposed: 32, in clause 58, page 68, leave out from beginning of line 15 to end of line 21 and insert—
“(2) In carrying out a risk assessment, the party must prioritise taking into account whether the person from whom the donation is received is a foreign citizen and likely to have foreign influence links.
(2A) In carrying out a risk assessment, the party must treat donations from UK citizens, who reside in the UK, as a low risk.
(2B) In carrying out a risk assessment, the party must also take account of the following risks—
(a) the type of person from whom the donation is received,
(b) that person’s previous donation history,
(c) the type of donation,
(d) the amount of the donation, and
any other risk factors the party considers to be relevant.”—(Paul Holmes.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Samantha Dixon
With the introduction of votes at 16, 14 and 15-year-olds will be able to pre-register as attainers for up to two years before they reach voting age. To safeguard the data of young people, their electoral register data will be subject to enhanced protections. These enhanced safeguards will restrict access to under-16s’ electoral registration data, meaning that political parties and other recipients of political donations will not be able to independently verify whether a 14 or 15-year-old is on the register.
Clause 59 closes a potential loophole by prohibiting donations from under-16 attainers, ensuring that the electoral regime remains secure, while still allowing 16 and 17-year-olds, whose details can be verified, to donate like all other voters. The clause reduces the risk of impermissible or potentially foreign-linked donations entering the electoral system via routes that are unverifiable. Given the wider context of foreign interference concerns, we believe it is right to take this preventive step. Sixteen and 17-year-olds will still be able to donate like any other eligible voter, enabling early registration while ensuring that the political finance system is safeguarded from impermissible donations as younger voters become active participants in our democracy. I commend clause 59 to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 59 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 60
Donations by companies and LLPs etc
Lisa Smart
I beg to move amendment 34, in clause 60, page 72, line 36, at end insert—
“(c) the person has nominated a director or partner who is to be personally responsible for ensuring the donation is made in accordance with the requirements of this Part.”
This amendment provides that for donors from corporate bodies to be permissible they must nominate a director or partner who is responsible for compliance with the legal requirements relating to donations.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 35, in clause 60, page 73, line 8, at end insert—
“( ) After section 54D (inserted by section 58 of this Act) insert—
‘54ZE Criminal liability of nominated director or partner to follow requirements
(1) A director or partner nominated by virtue of section 54(3ZA)(c) commits an offence if without reasonable excuse they cause or permit a breach of any requirement imposed under this Part.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to a fine, or to both;
(b) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to a fine not exceeding £500,000, or to both.’”
This amendment provides that the director or partner who has been nominated to be responsible for ensuring compliance with the legal requirements relating to donations commits an offence if they cause or permit a breach of those requirements without reasonable excuse.
Amendment 36, in clause 60, page 77, line 14, after “party” insert
“, any other party, regulated donee (within the meaning of Schedule 7) or candidate (see Schedule 2A to the Representation of the People Act 1983)”.
This amendment would ensure that the amount a company or limited liability partnership can donate to a party must take into account any donations it has already made to other parties, regulated donees (which includes members of parties, members associations and holders of elective offices) or electoral candidates.
Amendment 37, in clause 60, page 77, line 28, after “party” insert
“, any other party, regulated donee (within the meaning of Schedule 7) or candidate (see Schedule 2A to the Representation of the People Act 1983)”.
This amendment would ensure that the amount a company or limited liability partnership can donate to a party must take into account any donations it has already made to other parties, regulated donees (which includes members of parties, members associations and holders of elective offices) or electoral candidates.
Clause stand part.
New clause 13—Permissible donors not to include property development and construction undertakings—
“(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of PPERA 2000 and any other enactment, a person is not a permissible donor to a registered party, recognised third party, regulated donee or permitted participant if they meet the conditions in subsections (2).
(2) The conditions in this subsection are that the person is a property development or construction undertaking as defined under subsections (3) and (4).
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), a person is a ‘property development or construction undertaking’ if they are a body corporate, partnership, limited liability partnership, or unincorporated association, of such an undertaking which carries out, whether wholly or substantially, activities consisting of—
(a) the acquisition, disposal, or development of land for commercial or residential purposes,
(b) property speculation,
(c) the construction, renovation, or substantial alteration of buildings or infrastructure, or
(d) the provision of construction services as a principal contractor,
and whose principal business activities fall within such Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(4) Further to subsection (3), a ‘property development or construction undertaking’ includes—
(a) any person who is acting on behalf of a property development or construction undertaking,
(b) any person who is funded either directly or indirectly by a property development or construction undertaking, and
(c) any subsidiaries or holding companies of a property development or construction undertaking.
(5) The Electoral Commission may issue guidance for the purposes of determining whether an undertaking is a property development or construction undertaking.”
This new clause would mean that a property developer or construction undertaking would not be a permissible donor to a registered party, recognised third party, regulated donee or permitted participant.
New clause 32—Restrictions on permitted donors: public contracts—
“(1) Section 54 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (permissible donors) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (2) insert—
‘(2A) An individual who would otherwise fall within subsection (2)(a) is not a permissible donor if that individual—
(a) has significant control of a company which has been awarded a public contract within the previous ten years, or
(b) has significant control of a company which is a parent undertaking or subsidiary undertaking of a company falling within paragraph (a).
(2B) A company which would otherwise fall within subsection (2)(b) is not a permissible donor if that company—
(a) has been awarded a public contract within the previous ten years, or
(b) is a parent undertaking or subsidiary undertaking of a company falling within paragraph (a).’
(3) After subsection (8) insert—
‘(9) In this section—
“public contract” has the meaning given by section 3 (public contracts) of the Procurement Act 2023;
“significant control” has the meaning given by section 790C (key terms) of the Companies Act 2006;
“parent undertaking” and “subsidiary undertaking” have the meanings given by section 1162 (parent and subsidiary undertakings) of the Companies Act 2006.’”
New clause 52—Permissible donors not to include oil and gas companies—
“(1) Section 54 of PPERA 2000 (permissible donors) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2)(b) after ‘Kingdom’ insert ‘, subject to the exemption in subsection (2A).’
(3) After subsection (2) insert—
‘(2A) A company is not a permissible donor if it is an oil and gas company.’
(4) After subsection (8) insert—
‘(9) For the purposes of this section, “an oil and gas company” means any company which derives over 50% of its annual revenue from the extraction, acquisition, transportation, processing, supply or disposal of petroleum or natural gas, or a combination of the two.’”
This new clause provides that an oil and gas company would not be a permissible donor for the purposes of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
Lisa Smart
Before I speak to the amendments, I should say that I welcome clause 60, but I do not support new clauses 13, 32 or 52. The overall thrust of these provisions is that the UK is one of the only countries that still allows donations by companies, and I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether she and her colleagues gave any consideration to putting a stop to that altogether.
Amendments 34 to 37 are, again, in the name of the Chair of the JCNSS, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington. The Committee’s report identified a need for tighter rules on corporate donations. That includes ensuring that proportionate civil and criminal sanctions can be targeted at those who deliberately engage in wrongdoing.
Amendment 34 would ensure that corporate donors must nominate a director or partner who would be responsible for complying with the legal requirements. Otherwise, the JCNSS fears that there is a risk of inadequate deterrence if accountability can be attributed to a complex corporate structure. The amendment would help to enable the Electoral Commission and law enforcement to hold specific individuals to account for wrongdoing.
Amendment 35 is a linked amendment, and specifies that the responsible director or partner would be criminally liable for breaching political finance rules. To ensure appropriate deterrence, it would raise the penalties from 12 months to three years in prison. Those higher sentences would also enable law enforcement to make use of more extensive investigatory powers when examining potential wrongdoing. The National Crime Agency said that the use of many investigatory tools is curtailed by the fact that sentences are only 12 months.
On amendments 36 and 37, the JCNSS report highlighted a potential Bill loophole relating to corporate donation limits. The Committee supported the Government’s proposal of limiting donations in line with the amount of revenue generated in the UK, but the report highlighted assessments from the Electoral Commission that the upper limit appears to apply to the individual recipients of donations, rather than to the individual company. That suggests that a company could donate its upper limit to a political party and then donate the upper limit hundreds of times over to individual MPs and regulated entities—for example, candidates. The Committee concluded that this unlimited limit is the wrong policy choice and a major issue with the Bill’s drafting. It seeks to fix that loophole with the amendments.
Samantha Dixon
I will speak first to clause 60, before addressing the amendments tabled by hon. Members.
Clause 60 directly responds to long-standing concerns about vulnerabilities in the current political finance system and about the risk of illicit foreign money influencing UK democracy. Under the current framework, it is possible for shell companies or companies with weak UK connections to be used to channel money into our political system. The Electoral Commission and many other stakeholders have consistently called for stronger safeguards to ensure that only legitimate entities can donate.
The new tests will require companies and limited liability partnerships wishing to donate to registered political parties to meet stricter criteria to show a genuine UK connection. The company must have generated enough income in the previous three calendar years to justify its donation. That will help to prevent shell companies from being used as fronts for foreign money. Additionally, companies must meet strict criteria related to control. They will need to be headquartered in the UK, and the majority of persons with significant control must be UK electors or UK citizens. That will ensure UK electoral control and prevent foreign influence. To prevent companies from being set up solely to make political donations, donors must have at least one up-to-date set of accounts filed with Companies House.
Courts and Tribunals Bill (Fourth sitting)
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. As I was saying earlier, when I was cut off mid-flow, clause 1 supports a more efficient use of court resources by preventing cases of lower-level seriousness from escalating unnecessarily to the Crown court. I was responding to the point made by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion about jury equity. Her comments and those of others, most notably the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, concerned the question of whether one should look at the characteristics of the defendant when allocating the mode of trial, rather than the seriousness of the crime, which is the objective test we have included in clause 1.
In essence, the approach taken is an objective one, and it adheres to the principle of equality of treatment when it comes to the mode of trial, because it is driven by the seriousness of the crime. The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion made a point about freedom of expression and the right to protest, and they of course make up a cornerstone of our democracy, but some public order offences, depending on their seriousness, are currently heard in the magistrates court and some will be heard with a jury trial. That will remain the case, although of course some, depending on their seriousness and the likely sentence, might be heard by the Crown court bench division.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
Tim Crosland’s point was that the Government are, in effect, abolishing the principle of jury equity. Can the Minister tell us that we cannot ever expect a judge to triage a case based on the fact that the true interests of justice might lie with a defendant relying on the principle of jury equity? Will she admit that the principle of jury equity is being abolished by the clause?
Sarah Sackman
I heard the evidence from Tim Crosland. I put to him that some of the cases he mentioned, including the Elbit Systems trial, which the hon. Lady mentioned, contained an indictable-only charge, meaning that the case would receive a jury trial, as that one did in fact. Some cases will go to the Crown court bench division and will therefore be heard in front of a judge.
The point is that the seriousness of the offence and the likely sentence make up the applicable test under the Bill, rather than who the defendant happens to be, their past history or the particular type of offence. The objective test is the same, regardless of whether the defendant is a young person from a working-class background, a young person of colour from a particular marginalised community, a practising solicitor or an environmental campaigner. Under the processes, they will all be treated equally. We are not creating carve-outs for particular types of offences or particular kinds of defendants; the seriousness of the case is determined by the court through the application of the test, and that is what determines the mode of trial.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
This morning, we heard a passionate and important contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington about monitoring the proposals’ impact on minority communities. She has tabled an amendment so that we can discuss that question, and I look forward to debating it. Although I understand what the Minister is saying about jury equity, can she assure the Committee that the Government are committed to reviewing it in the light of my hon. Friend’s argument?
Sarah Sackman
Absolutely; the comment from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington was really important. In fairness, the hon. Member for Reigate also made the point about the equality impacts. The way that the measures in the Bill, and indeed our current justice system, impact on different communities in differential ways rightly concerns the Government. It is precisely why we committed to an independent statutory review, and it is why too I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington for tabling her amendment, so that the Committee will have an opportunity to discuss those important issues on a cross-party basis.
We need to ensure not only that we have the right safeguards, monitoring and data collection, but that the reforms in the Bill do not entrench a status quo that has sometimes fallen short of our collective aspirations for justice and equality, so that they can command the confidence of all communities as we implement, monitor and refine them in future, if needed.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The Minister is making an impassioned plea for trying to equalise the system. Does she not share my concern about the Government’s proposals? Person A could be accused of sexual assault on the tube, and have never been in any criminal justice situation, while person B could have had a string of offences that they have been charged with and ended up serving prison time for. They would get a jury trial because of their past offences, but somebody of previous good character would not, under the Minister’s proposals.
Sarah Sackman
It would depend on the facts of the case. First, I do not entirely understand the rancour behind the examples. If someone has committed a serious crime that could attract a six, seven or eight-year sentence, those are indictable-only offences. I think we all agree that we would want them to have a jury trial, which they would under the proposals in the Bill, because anything likely to get a sentence of three years or more will receive a jury trial.
In the scenario the hon. Lady described in respect of the person of good character, it is right that at the plea and trial preparation hearing—the mode of trial allocation phase—the likely sentence depending on the seriousness will be looked at. In that process, the likely sentence would no doubt take into account—albeit it is a high-level assessment, in line with the sort of assessment that magistrates courts make every day—the mitigating factors, which might include the person’s good character. In bringing forward the reforms, I believe that that person will get a fair trial wherever they get it: in a magistrates court, in the Crown court bench division or, indeed, at a full jury trial if the crime is likely to get a sentence of three years or more. It is not about the person who has done the more serious crime enjoying greater rights. It is because it is a more serious crime that it gets a jury trial. That is a proportionate use of the resources in our system.
Jess Brown-Fuller
The Minister may have misunderstood my point. If person A and person B have committed the exact same offence—they might have done it a day apart, in the same place, in the same circumstances—but person B has previous record, they are more likely to be heard in front of a jury trial. With person A, who is of good character, the offence remains the same, but the fact that person B has had previous offences means they are charged with a higher offence. The case and the evidence might be exactly the same, but they would end up with a different type of trial. Does the Minister think that is fair?
Sarah Sackman
We have an obligation to guarantee a fair trial. I believe that wherever cases are heard in this system, they will be heard fairly. It will be a different mode of trial, but it will be heard fairly. Ultimately, it comes back to a fundamental difference between us. The view has been taken by those on the Opposition Benches that, somehow, what one gets in a magistrates court—where 90% of our trials are heard—is less fair. That is in front of not just lay magistrates but district judges hearing cases. Some of the most serious civil matters such as the decisions around care proceedings—to remove children from their parents’ care—are determined by single judges. I believe that a single judge can determine cases fairly and impartially. That is the system that exists in different jurisdictions, including our own, and it works well and fairly. It is not unfair for somebody to be allocated a trial type based on the seriousness of the offence they are alleged to have committed.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The Minister is to some extent varying her argument. Earlier in the debate, she accepted that these things are a matter of gravity and of weighing up, and inherent in saying that is that the Minister must accept that there are less and more fair ways of doing things. The point the Minister is now making is that it is an equally fair system. If the Crown court backlogs are the absolute priority, why not therefore make all trials magistrates trials? If there is no difference between the two, and the Minister cannot accept the point, made by the Opposition and other Members, that there is a difference in their value, why not extend the magistrates’ sentencing powers and let everything be done by magistrates?
Sarah Sackman
We do think that jury trials are a cornerstone of British justice. It is not inconsistent to say that the most serious cases—all cases in which the likely sentence is above three years—should be heard at a jury trial. If we turn the hon. Gentleman’s argument on its head, everybody should get a jury trial, because otherwise they are not getting a fair trial. We do not think that.
As a society, we have for centuries made a threshold choice about who can access a jury trial. We are having a debate now about where that threshold should be drawn. Our proposals strike the right balance between the rights of the different participants in the system. We think they secure fairness because of the other safeguards in the system—the giving of reasons by a judge in the Crown court bench division and the transparency measures we are bringing in—but we also think they are proportionate use of court resources. The hon. Members for Reigate and for Bexhill and Battle both made the point that somebody getting a criminal conviction in the magistrates court, which may attract a six-month custodial sentence or less, is a pretty serious thing in itself. For some people, that may mean, reputationally, that they can no longer pursue their career. These things are serious.
I do not think any of us is saying that the status quo, whereby magistrates and district judges hear those cases, is not inherently fair. It is fair. What is not fair is the status quo whereby the scale of the delays is detrimental to the quality of justice we are able to provide to the public, whether in jury trials, judge-only trials or magistrates trials. The delays are such that they are undermining law enforcement, the quality and recency of the evidence, and people’s memories. It is undermining the calibre of the justice that the system is able to mete out. Dealing with the delays is not just an efficiency question; it is inherent to the question of fairness itself.
We keep repeating the old adage that justice delayed is justice denied. It is a powerful one because there is truth in it: the older the vintage of the cases, the less fair they become. That is not fair on anybody. It is not fair on the defendant on remand or fair on the complainant. It is not fair on the witness, who may have just had the misfortune of passing by a criminal incident, and is being asked to recall what happened a year or two years ago, when they would like to move on with their lives. When it comes to fairness, timeliness is critical.
Sarah Sackman
I have to make a little progress.
Let me turn to the detail of clause 1. Part of its function is to ensure consistency across the statute book. To ensure consistency in that way, the clause makes a series of consequential amendments to remove references to a defendant electing for a Crown court trial. That includes amendments to the uncommenced written plea and allocations provision inserted by the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022. Those uncommenced written procedures would allow defendants to indicate a plea without attending court. Their inclusion does not signify that the Government are intending to commence them. The clause ensures that if those provisions were brought into force in future, they would operate consistently with the removal of the defendant’s ability to choose the mode of trial. Defendants will still be able to indicate a plea in writing, and both parties may still make representations on venue. That decision on mode of trial would rest with the court.
The clause also updates the remittal power in section 46ZA of the Senior Courts Act 1981. Currently, where a case is already in the court, a judge may remit to the magistrates court only with a defendant’s consent. Clause 1 removes the requirement to obtain that consent, ensuring that remittal decisions, like allocation decisions, are made on the basis of the court’s assessment of suitability.
Dr Mullan
The Minister is somewhat chopping and changing her arguments. I can stand up and say that if budgets and resources were no issue, I would prefer every case to go to a jury trial. I can say that; I can be consistent that that is my preference, because I think they are, in some respects, a superior form of justice to magistrates courts. That is not to say that magistrates courts are totally inadequate or unable to do the job, but they are less preferable than a jury trial, and we have covered many of the reasons why.
On the one hand, the Minister says that she agrees with that to some extent, that these are weighing exercises and that there is a preference. But when she is pointed to a specific element of unfairness that that creates, she reverts to saying, “Well, all these things are equal and there is no difference between the two.” That is an inconsistency in her position that we do not have on the Opposition Benches. We are very clear: our preference would be for the superior jury trial in every circumstance, but we accept that that is not always practical; we are fighting the curtailment of that and the further shifting of the dial in the other direction.
What is the Minister’s view? Are these things absolutely equal? Is a magistrates trial just the same as a jury trial? Does she have no issues with that? If so, why not go further, as the Secretary of State wanted to, in respect of five years, for example? Or does the Minister accept that a magistrates court is, in some respects, inferior and less fair, and that there is therefore a rational argument for people to say that they would rather be in the Crown court?
Sarah Sackman
We know that people would rather be in the Crown court because, when they have a right to elect, some opt for that. I have acknowledged that fact, but this is not a debating contest. There is an air of unreality about the way the hon. Member put his arguments. He says that if he could choose, everyone would get a jury trial. I do not know of any jurisdiction in the world that has that. We know what the Conservative party would have done. It had the chance, over 14 years, to run the justice system, and we are now living with the consequences: prisons running hot, courts with record backlogs, legal aid gutted and 40% of our magistrates courts closed.
Since the Crown court was created in 1971, there has been no substantial criminal justice reform, despite broad societal changes, technological changes and the fact that, as the independent review of the criminal courts pointed out, the profile of crime and criminal evidence in this country has changed, which means that Crown court trials now take twice as long as they did in 2000, just because forensic and CCTV evidence makes them more complex. We would expect a public service to evolve with that societal change. We have always made that threshold decision; it is a decision that is taken in other common-law jurisdictions as well. The idea that we will talk in hypotheticals about being absolutist, and about having all jury trials or not—
Sarah Sackman
No, it has a total air of unreality. If we look at the current system, I think we all agree that it is not working for any participant in the system. It cannot be when there is a backlog of 80,000 and above and we hear the stories we are all familiar with, which hon. Members have put to me, whether they are supportive or not, about the delays in the system, the creaking courts and the more than 1,000 trials that did not go ahead on the scheduled day because of an absence of either a prosecuting or a defence barrister. We are trying to rectify that with our investment in the workforce.
We have to make decisions about the system as we find it, not as we might dream it to be in some academic seminar. The fact is that we have all made a choice, because 90% of trials in this country are already undertaken by magistrates. As I said, I do not think anyone is seriously suggesting that those are not fair. The state’s obligation is to guarantee a fair trial. Whether those trials are heard by lay magistrates or by a district judge, they uphold principles of natural justice. I do not understand why anyone would say that the trials that take place day in, day out in our magistrates courts do not uphold principles of natural justice and article 6 of the European convention on human rights—which, by the way, includes the obligation to conduct criminal trials within a reasonable time. The importance of timeliness, and the inherent importance of timeliness to a fair hearing, is enshrined explicitly in article 6.
The state’s obligation is to ensure that fair trial—it is not a jury trial in every case—and we have always made that threshold decision. The removal of a defendant’s ability to insist on their choice of trial venue does not change that. The right to elect does not exist under the Scottish legal system, for example, and no one would seriously suggest that the Scottish legal system offends the principles of natural justice. Our justice system is rightly respected around the world, irrespective of where a case is heard.
Siân Berry
The Minister has made many points about magistrates court hearings being as fair, but she seems to have forgotten the amount of evidence we heard during the oral evidence sessions. Witnesses acknowledged that magistrate court hearings were “rough and ready” and “rough around the edges”, that mistakes may be made, and that the Bill later removes the automatic right to appeal, which is an important safeguard against what she must admit is the slightly inferior justice that can be found in the magistrates courts. Will she not admit that and talk more about the appeals situation?
Sarah Sackman
No, I will not accept that it is inferior. I maintain the position that it is proportionate to the severity of the cases currently dealt with in the magistrates court. When asked why they want to retain jury trials, and timely jury trials for the most serious crimes, the Opposition seem to be arguing that one of the virtues of the jury system is citizen participation. But our lay magistrates are also citizens. An amendment that we will come to later argues that magistrates should be in the Crown court bench division. The rationale that lay participation would be better lies behind that, but—
Several hon. Members rose—
Sarah Sackman
Let me finish my point. I find it incongruous and arguably inconsistent when I hear Members say that the ideal form of the system is citizen participation in the form of a jury, only to then, all of a sudden, describe lay magistrates hearing summary-only trials—which they do fairly, day in, day out—as somehow inferior, because that is also citizen participation. [Interruption.] I do not know if the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion is asking me to give way again, but I shall do so.
Siân Berry
Apologies to the Minister for heckling. The point about the right of appeal is absolutely key. If mistakes are made in the magistrates court, it is currently the case that they are corrected at quite a rate. We heard evidence on that. Those two things give Opposition Members genuine and legitimate cause for concern.
Sarah Sackman
On that specific point about appeals, a tiny fraction of cases—I do not have the figure in front of me, but I am happy to share it later—are appeals to the Crown court. The hon. Lady is right that we heard evidence that a significant proportion of those— I think it is around 40%—are successful. I expect them to continue to be successful under the reformed system, which introduces a permission filter. All the permission filter does is root out unarguable cases in a way that is consistent with the appeals process in the Crown court and in civil jurisdiction.
Sarah Sackman
I am going to make a little progress.
The point is that our magistrates court, trials before district judges and the Crown court bench division will continue to uphold those principles of natural justice. Both the prosecution and defence will continue to be able to make representations on whether a case should be heard in the Crown court, and the court must take into account those representations in reaching its decision. As with all cases heard in the magistrates court, defendants retain the right of appeal to the High Court and the Crown court against conviction or sentence. Even with a permission stage for certain appeals, those safeguards remain in place.
On amendment 38, tabled by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, principles of natural justice are preserved in our reforms. We heard evidence from victims of crime and former judges alike about the detrimental effect that delays are having not just on people’s lives but on the quality of justice that can be administered. It is difficult to argue that the current system is consistently meeting our obligation to ensure a fair trial where, as I have said, justice delayed is justice denied. That reflects a structural failing and one that points to a system in urgent need of investment and modernisation. That is why clause 1 as drafted is focused on delivering swifter justice for all participants in the system.
The right to a fair trial is, as I have said, protected under article 6 of the European convention on human rights and reflected in long established common-law principles. Removing the defendant’s choice of venue does not change the procedural fairness of proceedings, nor the defendant’s ability to participate effectively in their case. Defendants will continue to receive fair and impartial justice, regardless of where their case is heard.
Rebecca Paul
I thank the Minister for her generosity in taking interventions. I think it may well be a timely point at which to deal with a quick question I raised earlier, about legal aid. Clearly, a defendant is potentially less likely to secure legal aid in the magistrates court than they are in the Crown court. I am sure the Minister will not be comfortable with that situation, so will she be looking to address that inequality that comes from the changes?
Sarah Sackman
I am glad to hear the Conservatives’ concern about legal aid and, yes, of course I am, as the Minister responsible for legal aid. We do under the current regime have a means test for criminal legal aid. The vast majority of those who apply for legal aid in the criminal context can access it. One of the things we want to do as a Government is wait to see precisely what forms the eventual product here take before analysing how we ensure that legal aid provision is as broad as it needs to be. Access to justice is fundamental not just to the individual concerned but to the efficient administration of justice; that is so important. We know from the civil jurisdiction, where so much legal aid was stripped out, that civil or criminal courts being confronted with vast numbers of litigants in person who are struggling to navigate the system is not just a detriment to them, but to the whole administration of justice. So of course we are looking at that, but it is important to make sure that the plans match precisely what form the Bill takes when it has come through Parliament.
As I said, decisions on mode of trial will be taken by judges and magistrates, who are independent office holders who take a formal judicial oath to act impartially and fairly. That oath is binding and accords with natural justice. Mode of trial decisions continue to be guided by the independent Sentencing Council’s allocation guidelines, which provide a clear and structured framework for allocation decisions. Further to that, magistrates courts are already required to give brief reasons for their allocation decisions, reflecting a long established common-law duty. That requirement will extend to the Crown court in relation to the mode of trial allocation decisions, so someone will know why they were allocated to a venue. That understanding is important for litigants and the transparency they require.
Amendment 38 does not add further protections beyond the safeguards that already exist. A defendant’s trial in the magistrates court does not breach those principles of natural justice and the existing legal protections already ensure procedural fairness in summary proceedings. The Committee will remember well the powerful testaments we heard from many, but in particular the victims who gave their evidence at a public session and their view that the system is weighted heavily towards the defendant. Not only do our reforms restore some of that balance, placing decisions over allocations in the hands of the court rather than those of defendants, but they make a material difference in addressing the backlogs. I am afraid that amendment 38, by contrast, is a defence of a failing status quo. For these reasons, I urge the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle to withdraw the amendment.
Dr Mullan
I will take this opportunity to address some of the points raised in this morning’s debate, and to expand on areas that were points of contention. There was healthy debate about the record of the issues that were inherited by this Government. One reason why this Government have got so quickly into so much difficulty is the way they seek to frame the challenges they inherited, and how the Labour party framed those challenges during the election. That applies across several issues, including inflation and global economic shocks. [Interruption.] This is relevant because the Bill is part of a consistent practice and approach—to reassure hon. Members, I will not spend long on this point. In opposition, the Labour party clearly sought to blame the Conservative Government entirely for those issues, but now that the same issues are affecting the Labour Government, they do not get credibility in saying the issues are broader and outside their control. Labour said the doctors’ strikes were entirely our fault—
The Chair
Order. I remind the Opposition spokesperson that his comments must be relevant to the amendment under consideration.
Dr Mullan
I will move on to a more directly relevant point.
When we talk about the challenges in the courts and what was inherited, the Government would do themselves a much greater service and reflect accurately the debate and the challenges if they more regularly sought to speak fairly and freely about what actually happened in relation to Crown court backlogs, and the reason why the amendment was tabled. Prior to the pandemic, Crown court backlogs were lower under the Conservative Government than they were under the previous Labour Government.
Every time the Government highlight the real challenges with the Crown court backlogs and omit to recognise that the historically unprecedented level of the backlogs was almost entirely driven by the covid pandemic, they do a disservice to the complexity and reality of what went on in our court service. Every time they talk in isolation about a lack of investment in the period of 14 years, they fail to understand that Members on Labour’s side, who have been highly critical of the Conservative party, actually recognise that over many decades, prior to the Conservative Government, as other Labour Members said on Second Reading, there has been a lack of investment—an investment lower than I would want—in our court service.
I have been clear since taking up the position of shadow Justice Minister that I would have wanted a higher degree of protection for the justice system than that in the decisions taken at the time. The Opposition have not been afraid to say that or to own the responsibility for it, as we have in a number of other areas where we wish things had been done differently. I have explained that, for me, courts and the criminal justice system is one of the reasons—if not the main reason—why I sought election to Parliament, so I am always going to say that we should invest more strongly in the justice system.
Just last week, I did an interview on Times Radio about our work on whole-life orders, after I successfully appealed a case in which someone had not got a whole-life order; the Court of Appeal gave them a whole-life order. The presenter asked me why we do not have more whole-life orders, and why more is not done about it. I explained that, in reality, as a politician I might have my priorities, and other individual MPs might have their own priorities, but inevitably the decisions of the Treasury, what goes into the manifesto and what the Government commit to are a matter of the public’s priorities. As someone who campaigns strongly on behalf of victims of crime, I understand the enormous impact that crime has. I also must accept that most people, most of the time, are not victims of any crime, let alone serious crimes, so convincing the public at large to vote for parties that will invest seriously in and improve our criminal justice system is difficult. In polling, the criminal justice system is not at the top of the list of the public’s priorities, as much as I might wish it were.
The Government and Labour Members would do better to more accurately reflect the history of what has happened in the criminal justice system, and particularly in relation to Crown court backlogs. I do not recall that when Labour were last in government—I have looked through Hansard for this—Labour MPs got up and complained about Crown court backlogs that were higher than those we delivered in Government, prior to the pandemic. That is the reality of what happened: the pandemic had an unprecedented impact on our criminal justice system. The vast majority of the historically unprecedented situation that we are dealing with is directly related to the pandemic. If, every time they talked about this, hon. Members made that point, the Opposition would be able to take their criticisms of our record more seriously.
To pick up on some remarks, I welcome those of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, who drew attention to the issue that we considered in the evidence hearings about the not guilty pleas that some of us are uncomfortable with. As I said, I strongly objected to some of those. On the Colston statue, behind the scenes I was one of the MPs lobbying for the Attorney General to do as she did—to seek clarification from the Court of Appeal to stop that from happening again.
I very much resent some of those things—but is that not the point? We have a system that allows for that, that allows for MPs to have a view, to be unhappy or to criticise something that a judge sitting on their own would say, “Look, this is obvious. This is absolutely a guilty—no question”, but a jury might find a different outcome for reasons of their own. I have to admit that, before this debate and the Bill coming before the House, I had only ever viewed this issue through the prism of frustration, wanting to understand how it works and how we might even curtail this, supporting the Court of Appeal declaratory ruling on that judgment. This whole process, however, has made me reflect on the broader role of juries in civil liberties and in curtailing the power of the state.
Even if Parliament wants something done in a particular way, a jury of ordinary people retains the right—as frustrating as that might be, but it has been clarified repeatedly in case law—to say, “Look, we understand all the facts, and we might even agree privately that the law has been broken, but for this reason or that we are going to offer that as not guilty.” Our system has been asked explicitly whether that is something that should happen, and we have been told explicitly that that is something that our system deliberately holds on to. On the balancing, every time we shift more cases into the magistrates court, again we are minimising that, reducing it as an important part of what we might call an informal constitutional settlement.
I welcome the remarks by the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester, who helpfully drew our attention to the gaps between what Sir Brian recommended and what the Government are doing. That is another major hole in the Government’s argument. The example that the hon. Member articulated was about his suggestion of two years going back to magistrates ending up as the Government’s three years. We will also discuss the issue of a Crown court bench without any magistrates, so in two major ways, the Government are not doing what Sir Brian recommended.
In evidence, the Minister even put to some of the witnesses from the Bar Council:
“What do you know that Sir Brian…does not?”––[Official Report, Courts and Tribunals Public Bill Committee, 25 March 2026; c. 43, Q81.]
That question, I am afraid, can be turned right back around to the Minister, who is also not doing what Sir Brian recommended. What does she know that Sir Brian does not? If it is so important that we listen carefully to Sir Brian, because he has done such an exhaustive piece of work and put so much time into developing detailed, specific and concrete proposals, why are the Government happy just to disregard the elements of that that they do not agree with?
We cannot do the same. We cannot say, “Actually, we don’t think the evidence is there. We don’t think the case has been made”, but the Government can. They want to say that about a fundamental element—this is not a minor element—which is whether a judge sits on their own or with two magistrates. That is a major difference. In fact, the most radical element of the proposals is the judge sitting on their own in those types of cases, but the Government do not agree with what Sir Brian said about it.
Sarah Sackman
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that Sir Brian, in his report, gave scope for the Government to go further than his recommendation, should we need to? Can he comment on why no Conservative MP went to Sir Brian when he offered to engage with them today?
Dr Mullan
The Minister is factually incorrect. The engagement session was not today, but yesterday. I met Sir Brian, my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) met Sir Brian, and Conservative shadow Ministers met Sir Brian during his review. It is completely incorrect for the Minister to suggest that we did not engage with him. We were happy to agree, as he was, that we would continue talking to him, so I am afraid that the Minister has failed slightly with her intervention. She might want to send a note to ask whoever gave her that information to try harder next time.
Sarah Sackman
What about what Sir Brian said in his report? Is it not right that the report specifically gives the Government scope to go further than his recommendations?
Dr Mullan
It absolutely does—but the Minister is not doing what Sir Brian recommended. She is rejecting his approach, but when we want to reject his approach, she asks how we can possibly question what Sir Brian has to say on such matters. That is the reality of what is happening. It is a consistent flaw that the Government cannot undo.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate did a good job of illustrating the nature and seriousness of so many of the offences we are considering. She also sought a firm answer on, for example, the modelling of the increases in guilty pleas that we might expect owing to the increase in the length of suspended sentences.
We had a debate about, “Well, it’s in the explanatory notes, not in the impact assessment,” as if that was just immaterial. The Minister and her officials will know very well that there is a big difference between what goes into an impact assessment, given the statutory nature of that document and everything that the Government have to do before they put things into it, and what a Government can put out in what is effectively a non-statutory document. They could really put anything in there that they wanted to.
Of course we would expect the Government to be fair, frank and honest, but the reason why we have impact assessments—and the reason why, when Labour Members were in opposition, they hammered the Conservatives repeatedly about what did or did not go into an impact assessment in particular, as opposed to broader documents—is that it has a statutory footing and is important in its own way. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate did a good job of illustrating what was absent from that impact assessment.
We talked about the Crown Prosecution Service, and there was an attempt to say that what a senior member of the management said, one would assume—
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
On that point, will the hon. Member give way?
Dr Mullan
I will finish the sentence, and then I will.
Of course, we would assume that they had done that in consultation with other leadership figures, so we might reasonably say that they speak on behalf of the senior leadership team of the CPS, but there was an attempt to say that their views can somehow be taken to represent the views of the many people who work across the CPS—
Linsey Farnsworth
Mr Guest was giving evidence to the Justice Committee in his capacity on behalf of the CPS. He was talking with authority from the CPS, on the organisation’s behalf, on its official policy position. It is fair to say that the CPS, as Tom Guest said, is in favour of the structural reform we are making, is it not?
Dr Mullan
Nothing that I have said is in disagreement with that. The point we are making is about whether that reflects the wider, individual views of all the people who work for the CPS. I am not aware that the CPS, for example, undertook an internal staff survey. Does the hon. Lady want to intervene and tell me whether the CPS asked people about that? I am not aware that the CPS undertook an internal consultation exercise. Did the CPS consult all the many people who work for it and say, “This is our position. This is what we think”? How did it come to its view about these decisions?
The hon. Lady is very welcome to intervene and talk about how the CPS formulated its position in the way that she sought to talk about it, covering all the different people who work for the CPS. As I explained to her, I know there are people who work for the CPS who do not agree. She may well know people who do agree, but some do not agree. I took the liberty of re-contacting one of the people who works for the CPS over the Committee’s lunch break. Their—quite rightly—anonymous and private view, which they are entitled to hold and express to me is that, as a prosecutor, we should all be very worried when a state prosecutor wants to do something that further curtails the rights of defendants. I might not express it in those terms, but that is how someone from the CPS expressed it.
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that the formal policy position of the organisation of the CPS is as she described, but she was not right to refer to it as being meaningful because it covers lots and lots of people who have had no formal engagement whatsoever in helping the CPS to come to that conclusion. It is a bit like the Minister getting up and saying, “The Ministry of Justice is a big organisation and we all think this is what should happen.” The Minister knows that her civil servants are asked to produce policy; what they actually think about it and whether they agree with it is totally irrelevant, and she would never use the size of the organisation to add weight to the strength of her argument, because it is nonsense. As I pointed out when His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service gave evidence, people are not allowed to give their individual views; it is a policy position that the organisation has to hold.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
One could make that point about any organisation, including those that support the hon. Member’s argument: they are, broadly speaking, representative bodies and they cannot speak for everyone within the organisation. In that case, do we accept any representation from anyone, on the basis that one person in any organisation might not agree with their management team? We have to have a basis of evidence and an organisational view that comes through that organisation is its relevant viewpoint. Would he agree with that?
Dr Mullan
There is a fundamental difference between the CPS and, for example, the Criminal Bar Association, which is a representative organisation—its job is to represent its members. The CPS is not a representative organisation of its employees. The hon. Gentleman is comparing totally different things. I will absolutely listen to organisations whose job it is to advocate for the people they are representing. That is not the job of the CPS. The job of the CPS is to prosecute. The CPS has a view and a policy position that does not represent its staff.
Jess Brown-Fuller
Does the shadow Minister agree that to try to compare the CPS with, for example, the Criminal Bar Association is nonsense because the CPS is a non-ministerial Department? As the hon. Member has pointed out, the policy position is to agree with structural reform because they know that the system is broken. None of us is disagreeing with that today or disagreeing that there is a problem in the system that needs fixing. Of course, the CPS would say that we absolutely need to do something. However, it is not its role as a non-ministerial Department to say that it thinks that the Minister has got it wrong. What it is saying in broadbrush terms is that it agrees that something needs to be done. In contrast, the Criminal Bar Association actually surveyed all its members, because it is an independent organisation, and 88% of them came back and said that they were opposed to the reforms. They are two totally different things.
Dr Mullan
I did raise an eyebrow at the level of evidence that the individual from the CPS chose to give in relation to commenting on Government policy in that way. I have spoken to previous Justice Ministers, and that was unprecedented. Again, if we want to give validity to its views, can Government Members point to a single time that the CPS has got up and directly opposed the policy of the Government of the day? It does not do that. It is all very well and good to champion it when it agrees with this particular point, but it is nonsense if it has never disagreed with Government policy because it is a non-departmental Government body. Again, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford is perfectly entitled to raise it, but to try to give it the weight and character of the other organisations that are lobbying, campaigning and representing does not hold up to much scrutiny—as we have seen.
Rebecca Paul
To build on the excellent points made by my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Chichester, does this not fundamentally come down to the fact that the CPS is made up of civil servants? They are not meant to tell the Minister that they are wrong or right. That is not their job. I feel those on the Government Benches are misunderstanding the role of civil servants.
Dr Mullan
Yes, and I will be writing to the CPS about that, because commenting in the way that it has was extremely unusual. I would hope that it has a very clear explanation as to how it has been able to formulate that position, because, of course, the CPS is just articulating a particular viewpoint. As has happened, when a Government-funded agency does that, it gives it a certain weight that is not necessarily appropriate. That is why ordinarily non-departmental Government bodies are not expected to do that sort of thing. It is something we should think about more carefully.
We also talked this morning about public confidence among members of minority communities, as was raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington. The group JUSTICE has put forward its views and concerns about this. It notes that the equality statement for the Bill also notes that black, older and female defendants historically elect for a Crown court trial at higher rates. In 2022, 26% of black defendants elected for a Crown court trial, compared with 15% of white defendants—a very significant gap. In 2017, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) also concluded that many individuals from ethnic minorities opted for trial in the Crown court whenever possible, as they had more confidence in the fairness of jury trials compared with magistrates.
As the Bill is written by the person advocating for those changes, we should consider what the right hon. Member said very carefully. He said:
“Juries are a success story of our justice system. Rigorous analysis shows that, on average, juries— including all white juries—do not deliver different results for BAME and White defendants. The lesson is that juries are representative of local populations—and must deliberate as a group, leaving no hiding place for bias or discrimination.”
Would Government Members put it to the right hon. Member for Tottenham that he was in any way denigrating magistrates in making that point, or that he was saying magistrate trials were not fair? I do not recall any Labour MP making that point at the time that his report was published. The review found that BAME defendants often had lower confidence in the fairness of magistrates courts and, as I have said, therefore opted for a trial in the Crown courts. Because of that lack of trust, BAME defendants were also thought to be more likely to plead not guilty in magistrates court and push for a Crown court trial, which resulted in them missing out on the one-third sentencing reduction offered by early guilty pleas. These things have real-world consequences for the individuals concerned.
While the report found that BAME defendants were not disadvantaged compared with white counterparts at the jury trial stage, they faced harsher outcomes elsewhere in the system. I want to quote again from the Lammy review:
“The way that juries make decisions is key to this. Juries comprise 12 people, representative of the local population. When a jury retires to make a decision, its members must consider the evidence, discuss the case and seek to persuade one another if necessary. This debate and deliberation acts as a filter for prejudice—to persuade other jurors, people must justify their position. In the final decision, power is also never concentrated in the hands of one individual.”
What did the right hon. Member have to say about magistrates courts? He said:
“This positive story about the jury system is not matched by such a clear-cut story for magistrates’ verdicts. The relative rate analysis…commissioned for this review found that decisions were broadly proportionate for BAME boys and girls. However, there were some disparities for adult verdicts that require further analysis and investigation. In particular, there were some worrying disparities for BAME women.”
As a table in the report showed,
“of those women tried at Magistrates’ Court, Black women, Asian women, Mixed ethnic women and Chinese/Other women were all more likely to be convicted than White women.”
Again, would Government Members say that the right hon. Member was therefore advocating for the abolition of magistrates hearings? Of course not, and neither are we. We are simply making clear the trade-offs for such an unprecedented shift in their use—for such a significant curtailment of the use of the system of juries that is so well regarded and trusted by our constituents—and are arguing that the case has not been made.
JUSTICE also raised concerns about unrepresented defendants. My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate made that point in relation to legal aid. The equality statement for the Bill acknowledges that if more cases are dealt with in the magistrates court, a greater proportion of defendants may be ineligible for legal aid compared than if their case were heard in the Crown court. That is because the income eligibility threshold in the magistrates court of £22,325 is significantly lower than that in the Crown court, where it is £37,500.
An increase in unrepresented defendants risks undermining fairness. For example, defendants may receive harsher sentences if they do not know how to effectively offer mitigation. This is especially concerning where expanded magistrates’ sentencing powers will leave defendants facing trials for offences carrying a sentence of up to two years unrepresented.
Additionally, the Institute for Government has highlighted that unrepresented defendants in magistrates courts are also likely to prolong hearings and therefore erode any of the anticipated efficiency gains. It estimates that, for every additional hour in the average length of a trial, estimated savings will fall by more than one percentage point.
I also want to address the issue of youth courts, which was debated this morning. Government Members posited the fact that these courts hear more serious cases such as rape as some form of proof that curtailing jury trials in a similar adult case could be acceptable. That ignores the fact that each court and each setting has its own balances and goals and its own weighing exercise, with different considerations, where different conclusions will be reached.
Youth court trials generally do not have a jury because they are designed to be less formal and more focused on rehabilitation than punishment, with cases heard by specially trained youth magistrates rather than ordinary magistrates alongside district judges. These courts prioritise specialist knowledge and child-friendly proceedings over public proceedings, and aim to ensure that a child understands what is happening, with less intimidating atmospheres than adult Crown courts. Youth courts are closed to the public, which is not possible with a jury trial.
This is the trade-off we make, but these are trade-offs that, for decades and decades, we have not considered suitable in adult courts. We have considered the extra, additional vulnerabilities and the need to focus on rehabilitation in youth courts, so we carry out a different balancing exercise and make a different trade-off. That does not mean that we can read that across to an adult court without considering the benefits, the conclusions and the additional factors that we seek to mitigate—that we can just say, “Well you can just do the same for adults as you do in a youth court.” Different scenarios have different tests.
We also know that the choice of trial by jury is not the only reason some defendants elect for trial by jury. In fact, there are important procedural differences in the two courts. An application to dismiss is a legal request made by the defence to have some or all of the charges thrown out before the trial begins. This application is available only in Crown court cases and applies to indictable offences or cases that have been sent from the magistrates court to the Crown court.
An application to dismiss in the Crown court is a pre-trial request to throw out charges, according to rule 3.2 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2025, and earlier versions. It must be made in writing after the prosecution serves evidence but before arraignment, arguing that a reasonable jury could not convict.
It is true that formal applications to dismiss are relatively rare compared with other ways in which a case might end, mainly because the legal bar for success is very high. While specific numbers for rule 3.2 applications are not always separated in basic reports, wider court data gives a clear picture of how often cases are dropped or stopped before a full trial. In recent quarters, up to late 2025, the figures available to me show that approximately 17% to 18% of defendants in for-trial cases had their cases dropped by the prosecution or stopped by the court before a verdict.
Why are formal dismissals that are available in the Crown court less common? The Crown Prosecution Service knows it is legally required to keep cases under constant review. If the evidence is truly weak enough to be dismissed by a judge, the CPS will usually discontinue the case or offer no evidence to avoid a wasted hearing. We know that is a very common occurrence. Are we confident that we know how much of that happens because of the availability of that legal test? The CPS knows that if it does not do that and if it does proceed in an inappropriate manner, it will face the legal test that it does not face in the magistrates court. If the Government have access to evidence that can reassure us, they should present it, but I could not find anything that leads me to be confident that cases dropped in the Crown court might proceed in the magistrates court, and perhaps they should not.
The provision of disclosure in the Crown court is much more robust. We have all seen cases where trials collapse because of exchanges related to disclosure. Crown court disclosure is strictly governed by the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, which requires formal staged disclosure. In magistrates courts, disclosure is often more streamlined, focusing on the initial details of the prosecution case. In the Crown court, a defence statement is mandatory. In the magistrates court, a defence statement is generally voluntary, although recommended. Once the prosecution discloses unused material, the defence has 28 days in the Crown court to serve a defence statement. In the magistrates court, the time limit is 14 days.
Crown court prosecutors must provide schedules of all unused material. Magistrates courts typically use, as I have said, streamlined disclosure certificates, which are not as extensive. We know there are problems with disclosure at times. The independent review of disclosure and fraud offences was officially announced by the UK Government on 23 October. Led by Jonathan Fisher KC, the review was commissioned as part of the fraud strategy launched in May 2023 to address the digital age challenges in criminal cases. It is the first of its kind since the 1986 Roskill report. Jonathan is a leading King’s counsel in financial crime, proceeds of crime, fraud and tax cases. He has been a visiting professor in practice at the London School of Economics and he holds a PhD, which was awarded by the LSE following his research into money laundering cases and the relationship between the obligation to report suspicious activity and corporate rights. Clearly, this is someone who speaks with a great deal of authority and experience in relation to the operation of criminal law.
Part one of the review, on disclosure, was published on 21 March 2025. It is helpful for us to reflect on it, given some of the exchanges we have had during debates. As I have said, Government Members sought to dismiss any suggestion that the magistrates courts were less fair or a less appropriate place to hold a hearing and suggested that everything is rosy in the magistrates court, so there is no possible reason why someone might not want to go to a magistrates court. They wanted to frame this as a purely binary choice between fair and unfair.
As I pointed out to the Minister, every time we point out some of the unfairnesses, the Minister says that everything is fair and it is all fine. But then when we ask the Minister to articulate why, if everything in the magistrates courts is just fine and dandy, we therefore keep jury trials for more serious cases, there is literally no rational or logical conclusion. The Minister says this is not a debating chamber, but the Minister is presenting a Bill with underlying political and legal principles, and if she cannot come up with a consistent set of those principles as a basis on which to articulate the arguments she is making, that is not a great advert for the Bill.
I can happily say that I think Scotland’s legal system is less fair, and I think the magistrates courts are less fair. I am perfectly happy to say that, but that does not mean that I want to get rid of them or curtail them. It is just part of the reality, and I am consistent in that regard. So let us talk about what Jonathan Fisher can do to assist us.
Sarah Sackman
I have never sought to sugar-coat the situation in our courts. Does the hon. Member think that one of the reasons why magistrates courts are struggling in parts of the country is because the number of magistrates halved under the last Government?
Dr Mullan
Yes, absolutely, which is why I said earlier that I regret some of the changes undertaken while we were in government. I have made it very clear that justice and all the issues we are debating are a real political priority for me. That is why, in large part, I wanted to become an MP. Members will rarely hear me disagreeing with arguments that need to be made in government about which Department gets priority. I absolutely welcome the success that the Minister and her colleagues have had in making arguments for resources.
But again, that is no answer to the public about what the Government are doing now. They are in charge. There is a constant harking back to decisions we took, but the Government have to stand on their own merits. The point we have made again and again is not that we should not do something. It is not that there is not a problem. Our argument is purely that we do not think this is the way to do it, and we do not think the trade-offs that the Government are setting out and what they are asking us to lose will translate into those benefits.
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
I am listening intently to what the hon. Gentleman is saying. How do the disclosure aspects he is talking about link to the amendment we are discussing?
Dr Mullan
Those aspects link directly, because I am discussing particular disclosure issues occurring in the magistrates court. As I will go on to explain, these are specific problems that Jonathan Fisher has identified as being a particular problem in the magistrates court rather than the Crown court—yet we are going to send more cases to the magistrates court.
We have to be clear eyed about exactly what we are doing. The issue is relevant because every time Opposition Members say, “Things are not the same in the magistrates court. You do not get quite as fair a trial; it is not comparable to a jury trial”, Government Members say, “That’s nonsense—they are all the same. If you believe that, get rid of magistrates courts.” It is important to understand this clear example of where the magistrates courts are delivering a less fair service than the Crown courts. I will carry on.
HMCTS data suggests that in 2023, a total of 311 magistrates court cases were ineffective because the prosecution explicitly failed to disclose unused material. In the same year, 746 magistrates court cases were deemed ineffective due to defence disclosure problems. Between October 2014 and September 2023, disclosure accounted for almost 7% of all ineffective trials in magistrates courts.
The issue is also extremely important from a victims’ perspective. The debate today has been about the defendants, but if we take the argument that in some of these cases the defendant would have been found guilty, who loses out the most if we send a case to the magistrates court and it collapses because of particular challenges with disclosure? The victim loses out, because it is over and done with and they do not have the opportunity to recorrect.
Alex McIntyre
I want to correct the record. This morning, I understood the Conservative party position to be that we are not allowed to call them victims at that point.
Dr Mullan
Sometimes I wish that Government Members would pay more attention to what is being said. I mentioned “some” cases and “some” of these people. That is the difference in how we tackle these issues. We do not get up and talk about “every victim” and I specifically did not say that. I went out of my way to say that among hundreds and hundreds of accusations, some people would inevitably be guilty. That is completely different from what, some of the time, some Government Members have been doing: assuming that everyone who claims to be a victim is one. That is very particularly what I did not do.
I finish this particular point with something else Jonathan Fisher said:
“Notwithstanding the vital need for further quantitative analysis, I am not convinced that, regarding the Crown’s duties, the disclosure regime is working as intended in the magistrates’ courts.”
That is an extremely serious consideration. He is not convinced that the disclosure regime is working as intended in the magistrates courts; he did not make that point about the Crown courts. I ask Government Members to reflect on that and then say there is no rational reason why some people might be concerned about more cases—and more complex, serious cases—being heard in the magistrates court. What that report alone says about our magistrates courts gives plenty of people a rational and reasonable basis to say that what happens in magistrates courts is less fair and potentially less effective than what happens in the Crown court. Government Members would do well to concede that important point.
I finish with a pretty extraordinary exchange with the Minister about the figures on the backlogs themselves. Let us remind ourselves of the central premise and argument: we all agree that the backlogs are too high. The Government say that they cannot be brought down to historic levels without the erosion of our jury trial rights. Opponents of the Bill are varied in their views, but perhaps most common is the view that other things can, and should, be done instead. What is happening right now with the backlogs is extremely important to this debate. If the backlogs are coming down in some places without these changes being introduced, it is vital to know and understand that.
Sarah Sackman
I checked this during the adjournment of the sitting: the CBA’s point relates to new receipts in certain courts, rather than the state of the backlogs, which, as I said, continue to rise. I absolutely welcome the progress in some parts of the country in lowering receipts, which is obviously good news for the courts, but that does not yet reflect any lowering of the backlogs. As we would expect, the investment will take time to kick in.
Dr Mullan
Clearly, if new receipts into the Crown court are coming down, we will not immediately see a reduction in the backlogs—we need time for the trials to come down. I am glad that the Minister has admitted that new receipts are coming down, because that is an extremely important insight into whether the backlogs themselves may then come down at a later stage. We also have to note that this potential improvement in the backlogs is happening without the introduction of changes to jury trials.
Sarah Sackman
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the central insight of the independent review—independent of Government—was that, absent reform, these backlogs will not come down? To confirm the point, the so-called do-nothing option includes the maximum investment of uncapped sitting days, so it already reflects the impact we can have on the backlogs with maximum investment. If that is the case, does he accept that nothing short of reform, efficiency and investment will bring the backlogs down?
Dr Mullan
As we heard from the Criminal Bar Association and others during the evidence sessions, we do not accept that the Government have sufficiently justified that modelling. Modelling is not perfect, and the IFG could not be clearer that the modelling used to justify the Government’s case, as the Minister has just done, is based on highly uncertain assumptions. If the Minister could actually produce some rock-solid modelling, so there was absolutely no way to dispute it, we would be in a different place. However, the Minister cannot produce modelling that even the IFG does not think is full of uncertainties.
Sarah Sackman
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the very same sentence that he is quoting, which admits the fact that there is a degree of uncertainty—we are, of course, looking at a forecast—also accepts that our modelling assumptions, which the IFG itself pursued, are sound? In the same sentence, it recognises that the approach we have taken is sound, and as sound as it can be. What is not sound is doing nothing.
Dr Mullan
Let me think of a directly relevant example that shows just how important and meaningful that distinction is, in a way that the Minister is seeking to blur. We all follow political polls that are based on models. Those models are probably all sound, but they are all different and produce completely different results based on the assumptions—on voter turnout, for example.
I might speak to some Government Members and say, “Look, we have this poll that shows you’re going to smash it at the next election. You’re under no threat from Reform or the Lib Dems.” However, I might also say, “As part of that poll, we have assumed that 99.9% of the people who intend to vote Labour are going to come out and vote Labour.” Would Government Members then say, “Oh, great news! Absolutely, I’m going to smash the next election.” No. They would say, “Well, that assumption is fundamentally flawed.” The model may be correct, including the factors being considered, but inserting the assumptions into a model is what actually counts. That is what actually determines the outcomes, and the IFG is very clear about that.
Again, the Government are asking us to erode the important right to a jury trial, based on assumptions that the IFG says are highly uncertain. The Opposition’s position is quite clear. What is not uncertain is the fact that improving prisoner transport will help deliver improvements; that improving case management will deliver outcomes, which nobody disputes; or that improving access to early legal advice by reforming legal aid will help reduce the backlogs.
There is a whole slew of things that are not uncertain. Surely, the sensible and balanced thing to do is to get those things done first. Then, if the Government show that they really have done everything they possibly can, there could be a different discussion with MPs and the public about why they had chosen to erode and curtail an historic right that we have had for hundreds of years.
The reason why the data from the CBA is so important—the Minister accepts this—is that it is showing an improvement into the input. If the input is improving, then in theory the output will improve; I have not heard the Minister say that we will not get an improvement in the outlook at some point. If fewer cases are coming in, then surely there will be less of a backlog down the line. That is happening already—prior to the changes on jury trials and, more importantly, prior to all the other things having embedded in, as the Minister has herself admitted.
We have not even touched prison transport and we are getting an improvement; we have not even touched legal aid and we are getting an improvement—I could go on and on. The point was powerfully illustrated, in terms of priorities, by the representative from the HMCTS. I asked him about his priorities for reducing the backlogs and improving the situation. Jury trials did not even come close to the list of things that he thought were important. Surely we need to deliver on those elements successfully and consistently, but we all know that that is going to be extremely hard work.
I made the point to the Minister this morning. I do not doubt her sincerity on this, but being a Minister is about driving through major reform and change while having to manage day-to-day improvement in the system. She might think this an unfair comment, but I asked her this morning about what was happening with the inputs into the Crown courts. She is the Minister in charge of our backlogs, but when I asked for a clear answer about some of the statistics in regional variation, the Minister did not have them, did not know or was not able to answer. She had to go away at lunch time to answer a question about those key statistics. That is a bit like me asking the Health Secretary what is happening with regional variation in waiting times and the Health Secretary saying, “Well, I know overall waiting times are going down, but I don’t know the answer to that. I will have to go away and look and see what is happening in different parts of the country.” It is a giveaway.
Sarah Sackman
Given that the hon. Gentleman is besmirching my reputation, I should say that the equivalent is saying, “Health Secretary, what are the waiting list times in the UK—and what is the snapshot in Romford infirmary right now? I won’t afford you the opportunity to go away and get that figure over the break.” I think the hon. Gentleman is being a little unfair.
Dr Mullan
I do not think I am being the least bit unfair. I did not even ask the Minister to give a list or specifics; I just asked whether the statistics were going down in some parts of the country. That is a very broad and open question. I am flabbergasted that the Minister did not know whether things were improving, given that the main priority of the Bill is to get Crown court backlogs down. The Minister did not even know a topline figure.
One of the thrusts of the argument of the very many people who oppose the Bill is that if the good things happening in some areas were replicated everywhere, we would not have this issue. At the heart of some of the criticisms of the Government’s approach is the idea that we must understand that some places are getting this right. For the Minister not to know whether things are already getting better reflects poorly on the credibility of the case that this is the only way to do things. If it were me, I would want to know on a daily basis whether we were delivering this downward trend in some places. I would want to visit every single one of those places and drive forward that change.
The modelling is also important. The Government will already have modelled the period that we are in right now. I have to assume that the Government modelling gave some view as to whether there would be ups and downs in particular places. If we now know there are downward trends in particular places and the Government modelling did not account for that, that adds further reinforcement to the idea that we cannot rely on the Government modelling to make these decisions. It may well have got wrong the period that we are in right now, which makes things very uncertain when we want to look further in the future.
We are going to revisit these issues. As I said this morning, it is extremely important for the Government to be absolutely transparent at later stages about what is going on in the places getting lower receipts, as the Minister now accepts is happening. Why is that happening only in some places? What can be done to make sure it happens in other places? What does the Government expect would happen to the backlog if that was replicated across the country? As I have said, and as I will keep repeating, we are clear that the status quo is absolutely unacceptable for victims. We are clear about the role we played in that, and some Labour Members in the wider debate have accepted the role that Labour Governments, over the decades, have played in getting us to this place.
We want something to be done about the situation, but we also care about jury trial rights. I remind Government Members that there are victims’ representative groups that also do not want jury trial rights to be eroded. The idea that the issue is all about victims on the one side and opponents on the other is completely untrue—a point that the Minister accepted. To go down this particular road and erode our jury trial rights, the Government need a watertight case for why it is absolutely necessary, but they have completely failed to articulate, in any credible way, why this is the only thing they could possibly do and that there is nothing else they could do.
Sarah Sackman
The clause sits alongside clause 1 and ensures that the new allocation framework will operate coherently following the removal of the right to elect. It deals specifically with the written guilty plea route, which has not yet been commenced, created by the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022. Clause 1 removes a defendant’s choice to select the mode of trial in the Crown court in either-way offences. Once that choice is removed, it is necessary to make consequential amendments to the written allocation procedure so that it does not preserve a right that no longer exists in open court.
Clause 2 amends section 17ZB of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, which governs the procedure following a written indication of a guilty plea. Although those provisions have not been commenced, it is important that they are amended now, so that when they are brought into force, they operate consistently with the new allocation framework. Section 17ZB allows the defendant or the prosecution to object to the case being sent to the Crown court for conviction and sentencing where the magistrates court considers that its sentencing powers would be insufficient. Such an objection would prevent the court from sending the case unless the objection is withdrawn or a guilty plea is entered at an in-person hearing in the usual way.
Clause 2 will remove that ability to object. Instead, the magistrates court will have to invite written representations from both parties on whether its sentencing powers would be adequate and, having considered those representations, decide whether to send the case to the Crown court under section 51 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. That means that when a defendant engages with allocation in writing, the magistrates court will determine venue in the same way as it would at an in-person hearing.
As with clause 1, clause 2 does not remove existing safeguards. Both the prosecution and the defence will continue to be able to make representations, ensuring that the court has all the relevant information before making its decision. That will preserve fairness and ensure that all relevant factors, including seriousness, complexity and sentencing powers, are properly considered by the court before determining venue.
Taken together, clauses 1 and 2 will ensure that cases that are suitable for summary trial or sentence can be retained in the magistrates court, while cases that require Crown court sentencing are sent there efficiently, without unnecessary hearings. I commend clause 2 to the Committee.
Dr Mullan
I thank the Minister for explaining the measures as she understands them. I do not mind admitting that some of the explanations in the explanatory notes and the information from the Library have left us with questions about how the measure will operate. The clause refers to written indication of guilty plea, and the explanatory notes refer to this as being available to those who are pleading guilty. I do not mind admitting that the Minister is much more directly experienced with the legal system than I am, as are other members of the Committee, but I do not quite understand the idea of someone choosing the mode of trial after they have pleaded guilty. If they have indicated at the outset that they are going to plead guilty, will the hearing not be about sentencing, rather than trial? My remarks will be focused on that.
The obvious thing to ask is this. If this measure is purely about sentencing, why would anyone who has pleaded guilty ever elect to have a sentencing hearing in the Crown court, where they know there could be a higher sentence, rather than in the magistrates court, where they know there will be a cap on what sentence can be passed? Our arguments have been about the process of the trial itself, and I have touched on some of the elements other than sentencing. That is not to say that there may not be perfectly reasonable grounds for someone to object if they think the decision made was wrong. Again, these are people who have admitted guilt, so we can clearly say they are criminals. Some of them may have spurious reasons for wanting to approach the system in that way, by seeking not to go to the Crown court, but they may also legitimately think that the decision was wrong or not fair. They may well have legal advice that the decision was not consistent with the sentencing guidelines, and that they would have been expected to have stayed in the magistrates court. As we discussed this morning, a significant number of the appeals in the magistrates court are successful, although I accept that those who seek an appeal are in the minority. We all accept that the magistrates courts make mistakes.
It is important that we understand how this measure will work in practice. Can the Minister tell us how many people are objecting and using the mechanism at the moment? That is also confusing, because the explanatory note says that these provisions are not yet in place, but what is her projection of the difference this will make? What will be its material impact? The provisions have not been commenced, but the Government and civil servants must have a view about how objections would have operated and what they would have achieved, versus the right to make representations. What is the difference between those two mechanisms? A guilty person cannot insist on being sentenced in a magistrates court. If the magistrates think that someone is going to hit a higher tariff and should go to Crown court, the person can, in theory, object, as I understand it, but they cannot stop it. Before we vote on the clause, I want the Minister to explain in detail exactly how this will be different from what the Government envisioned was going to happen.
Is there a risk in theory that more things will go to the Crown court? If the Government are saying, “You can’t object,” they must think that at the minute, in theory—if the provisions were to be commenced—some people would be kept in the magistrates court inappropriately. The Government must want more of those people to go the Crown court. If they thought everyone was just going to stick in the magistrates court anyway, why would they be doing it?
Jess Brown-Fuller
The shadow Minister is clearly articulating his confusion, which I share. I believe that clause 2 is at odds with the rest of clauses 1 to 8, because it does the opposite of what those other clauses are trying to achieve. Let us say that, on the advice of legal counsel, Person A has been told that, if they plead guilty, they will most likely receive a suspended sentence. They are keen to move on with their life and therefore they are willing to enter a guilty plea, but they are then told by the magistrates that they would like their case to be heard in the Crown court, which could carry a higher tariff. At the moment, they have the right to object to their case being taken over to the Crown court, because the conditions in which they pleaded guilty have changed. By removing that right, we are making sure that people do not get to say whether they want their case heard in the Crown court, which could push more cases into the Crown court. That makes clause 2 feel at odds with the rest of the clauses, which are trying to remove things from the Crown court. Does the shadow Minister agree?
Dr Mullan
I do. In the other direction, the Institute for Government highlights that
“only around 30% of sentences of 6-12 months were handed out by magistrates”
since their sentencing powers increased from six months to 12 months. That indicates a hesitation in the magistrates courts to award higher sentences. If the Government have the objective of sending these cases to the Crown court, but there is evidence to suggest that magistrates hesitate when it comes to higher sentences, ultimately this measure will not change that.
I want to be clear, because I think that there is some confusion about what is written in the Bill and the explanatory notes. The explanatory notes say:
“The amendments remove the ability of the defendant or the prosecutor to object to the case being sent to the Crown Court for sentence”.
We are talking about sentencing, but that is not exactly what the Minister said or what the Bill seems to say. Before we are asked to vote in support of the clause, the Government need to clear this up, so that we can all understand what exactly this change will achieve that is different in theory from what was going to happen.
I appreciate that this is challenging because we are discussing changes that have never been put into operation, but that is not really an excuse. The Government should have a view of how things were going to operate, and therefore must have formed a view about how they want them to operate differently as a result of this change.
Sarah Sackman
I appreciate the complexity. We are slightly in the realm of the hypothetical. To be absolutely clear, the purpose of clause 2 is to align the uncommenced written plea and allocation provisions with the wider reforms in clause 1, which removes the right to elect. There is no intention at the current time to revisit the online plea and allocation system, so these written procedures have not been commenced, and they are not going to be commenced. The envisaged impact of those measures, which were part of the previous Government’s Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022, albeit that they have not been commenced, will have been assessed at that time. We have no intention to commence them.
Rebecca Paul
I thank the Minister for that explanation. I hope she will bear with me as I try to take it on board.
Clauses 1 and 2 amend the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 so that a defendant charged with an either-way offence is no longer able to elect trial by jury. As was clearly established earlier today, that right to elect is entirely abolished by clause 1. Instead, it will be for the magistrates court alone to decide where the case should be tried; it can either remain in the magistrates court or go up to the Crown court. Clause 2 deals specifically with situations where there is a written indication of a guilty plea.
Section 17ZB of the Magistrates’ Courts Act, as inserted by section 6 of the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022, sets out that the court can, on the material before it, without any hearing or representations, be satisfied that it is highly likely that, were the accused to plead guilty at summary trial of the offence in question and be convicted, the court would commit the accused to the Crown court for sentencing. Section 17ZB(5) then provides the accused with the opportunity to object to being sent to the Crown court for trial for the offence. Clause 2 amends that so that the accused and the prosecutor do not have the option to object and can instead only make representations as to whether the sentencing powers of the court would be adequate.
I note that “Crown Court” in the original section 17ZB is replaced with “court”. I assume that that refers to either the magistrates court or the Crown court, but I would be grateful for the Minister’s confirmation and explanation of that quite technical point, and of how it works with the Crown court bench division in the mix. The Bill’s explanatory notes suggest that it just means the magistrates court, but I went through the law— I should say that I am not a lawyer, but I dug it all out and read it—and, like a lot of Committee members, I am thoroughly confused. Normally, if something is logical and makes sense, I can follow it, so I am worried that it does not quite tie together. I am worried, even though I cannot quite articulate why, that the fact that the section will now just say “court” introduces some ambiguity. How is that defined? Quite often, these little bits of detail can be the speck of sand in the eye that can cause more problems than we realise.
This is a very technical issue, and I appreciate that it is difficult to go into it here and that the Minister is very good on the technical side of things—we have worked together on other things with very technical points, so I know that she is very thorough—but I think it is worth going through it again and making sure that the whole thing hangs together, so that we do not end up in a situation where the wrong place is doing sentencing or the wrong estimate of a sentence is made, and there is no way to unwind it. I am just a bit worried that there is potential for some problems to come out of this.
I appreciate the Minister’s helpful clarification that section 17ZB has not yet been commenced. However, if it had been, or if it were to be in future, it would, in a similar way to clause 1, remove powers and rights from defendants and give them less choice in how justice is dispensed in their case—essentially, a roll-back of rights. As I mentioned, I think we need to look at what will happen if the sentence estimate is wrong and how that will work its way through.
I thank the Minister for explaining that the provision is procedural, but it still strips people of the right to object and replaces it with the much weaker right merely to make representations. The explanatory notes are really clear on that point, even if they are not clear on a lot of others. They say that the changes made in clause 2
“remove the ability of the defendant or the prosecutor to object to the case being sent to the Crown Court for sentence”,
and instead create
“a process for each to make representations about whether the magistrates’ court’s sentencing powers would be adequate.”
That might have no impact if the section is never commenced, but if it ever is commenced, and we do not make sure that we have got clause 2 right, it may cause a problem and prioritise convenience over procedural protection.
When someone’s liberty, livelihood and reputation are at stake, it is a serious thing indeed to say that they may no longer object and may only make representations. Once again, the defendant is being moved further from the centre of the process, and the state closer to it. That is not right. Earlier in today’s proceedings, the Minister was reminded from the Opposition Benches that the legal system is balanced in favour of the defendant. That is not the spirit in which this change is being made. Indeed, that is the common thread running through clauses 1 and 2: at every stage, the defendant’s agency is reduced and the system’s convenience is elevated. The Government call that reform and improvement, but it is not; it is a distortion of our centuries-old legal protections.
There is a broader point here about confidence in the justice system. If the Government’s answer, again and again, is that defendants should simply trust the state’s estimate of seriousness, trust the allocation decision, trust the sentencing forum and trust that everything will work out in the end, that is not a strengthening of justice. It is a narrowing of the safeguards that make justice legitimate in the first place and will do nothing to address the backlog, which I recall was supposed to be the rationale for making these changes in the first place. Clauses 1 and 2 in combination are not what is required to address the Crown court backlog.
It appears that the backlog may be starting to come down already, as a consequence of uncapped sitting days and other changes that have been implemented, so why are the Government not taking a more cautious approach and exhausting all the good ideas that we have heard from expert witnesses before taking a sledgehammer to jury trials? Obviously, the first problem to address is the fact that up to 24% of Crown courts are not sitting on any given day, and getting the many defendants who arrive late to court there on time would be transformational. Why are we not solving those much more straightforward issues before pressing ahead with exceptional structural reform? We need to get the basics right, address inefficiencies and, most importantly, listen to those who know how to do it, such as the Bar Council and circuit leaders, and learn from the courts that are already making progress, such as Liverpool.
The Government are absolutely right to take the backlog issue seriously, but it is wrong to think that limiting jury trials will improve the situation. It could make the whole situation worse by creating years of transition and uncertainty and by moving one backlog from the Crown courts over to the magistrates. Furthermore, the cases moving over will be more complex, more technical and more sensitive. The Government are about to create a massive backlog in the magistrates court, which will then start to impact on low-level cases such as speeding offences.
I say that the Government should be more cautious because they have already accepted that there are other levers available. Ministers have announced that there will be no cap on Crown court sitting days next year, and that both the Crown court and magistrates courts will be funded at their highest ever operational level. That is much welcomed, but if the Government say that investment and capacity matter, why on earth would they not wait to see the full effect of those changes before pushing ahead with exceptional constitutional reform?
The Opposition position on that has been perfectly clear. On Second Reading, the Opposition’s reasoned amendment did not deny that the backlog is serious, but argued that the right answer is to improve case management, encourage earlier pleas, increase sitting days, increase the hours per day that courts are able to sit through better use of technology and improve the efficiency of prisoner transport. Those are practical, common-sense reforms; they go with the grain of the system, rather than taking a sledgehammer to jury trials and then hoping for the best.
The Government’s own impact assessment rather proves the point that this issue is as much about shifting pressure as solving it. It estimates that removing the defendant’s right to elect for jury trial would reduce crown Court demand by around 16,000 sitting days, but at the same time increase magistrates court demand by around 8,500 sitting days. The same document expressly recognises that reallocating cases to the magistrates courts is expected to increase the open caseload there and is likely to extend waiting times for hearing and sentencing in that jurisdiction. Even on the Government’s own figures, it is not some clean efficiency saving. It is a transfer of burden into a part of the system that is already under strain.
That is why clause 2 is more important than it first appears. Clause 1 removes the right to elect. Clause 2 then narrows the ability to resist where a written guilty plea is involved. Piece by piece, the Bill is building a system in which more serious, either-way cases are kept down, defendants have less say and the magistrates courts are expected to absorb ever more complexity. Ministers may present each provision as a small adjustment in isolation, but taken together, they amount to a very significant constitutional and practical change.
That change also carries transition risk. The Government are assuming that work currently taking place in the Crown court can be absorbed more quickly elsewhere. I know I am not telling the Minister anything that she does not already know, but the magistrates courts are not just a spare room in the system waiting to be filled. They will have to take more serious, more technical and more sensitive cases while continuing to deal with the huge volume of everyday criminal business that only they can process.
If the Government get this wrong, they will not have solved the backlog. They will simply have displaced it and degraded the quality of justice in the process. My plea is a simple one: “Proceed with caution. Let the effect of unlimited sitting days bed in. Fix the operational failings that everybody in the system can already see. Get defendants to court on time. Keep courtrooms sitting. Use technology better. Learn from the parts of the estate that are already improving, but do not dress up the removal of long-standing protections as if it were the only grown-up response to backlog. It is not. It is simply the most drastic one.”
That is why I cannot support clause 2. On its own, it may look technical, but in context it is part of a broader attempt to reduce rights, safeguards and the defendant’s role in how justice is administered. That is the wrong direction of travel.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
I rise to ask about two things. First, for clarification on what clause 2 is actually trying to do, because, like the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, and like the hon. Member for Reigate, I was very confused by it. I read it many times and read the explanatory note as well. In desperation, I even went on to ChatGPT to see whether it could explain to me what clause 2 is trying to do.
I hope the Minister will bear with me: as I understand it, the procedures in the magistrates court are as follows: If it is a summary case, then the case stays in the magistrates court—the sentencing, trials and so on—and nobody has any right to go anywhere else. If it is an indictable offence, it has to be heard in the Crown court. There is no discretion and it is nothing to do with the magistrates court. If a defendant is charged with an either-way offence—this is the whole point of a jury trial—it has always been the case that he or she can turn up in court and say, “I plead guilty.”
Joe Robertson
I am not sure to what extent it is relevant, but I should probably declare that I used to be a practising solicitor, regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered with the Law Society.
The Committee dealt with similar issues on the implications for the right of election at some length during the debate on clause 1. Of course, proper time should be devoted to relevant issues in clause 2, but there is a significant overlap. If clause 1 is the constitutional sword that strikes down the right to choose a jury, clause 2 is the mechanism, or at least part of the mechanism, that replaces it. It is the mechanism, its operation in practice and its real-world consequences that I want to examine in some detail.
Clause 2 establishes an allocation framework where there is a written indication of a guilty plea. Under it, courts—acting alone and without the defendant’s consent—decide on a venue. That is made obvious by the substitution of wording, with “objecting” replaced by “make representations”. I have some distinct arguments against clause 2. I will take them in order, and I make no apology for the time that may require. The Committee is being asked to make a decision of constitutional significance without, I will argue, adequate evidence, safeguards, honesty or straightforwardness about its consequences and the extent to which it has been properly examined. That deserves serious scrutiny.
The gateway itself is poorly designed. Let me begin with the mechanism itself; before one can assess the consequences, it is necessary to understand the structure. Under the current law, albeit not yet implemented, the allocation works in two stages: there is a role for the court, a role for the prosecution and a role for the defendants. However, under clause 2, the role for defendants disappears, or perhaps it is more properly described as being watered down until it is no longer a right. The magistrate or the court decide, and that decision is final.
The criteria applied may, and will, take into consideration any representations made by the defendant, but that is not the same as the defendant’s being able to object. The assessment is made on the papers available at the outset; while it is probably not fair to call it an educated guess about how a case will unfold or, in the case of clause 2, how a guilty plea may be pleaded, every experienced practitioner knows that the true seriousness of a case or sentencing becomes apparent as it develops. How a matter looks on the papers can become very different when oral representations are made.
Indeed, the Criminal Bar Association has noted—particularly in reference to clause 1, but it applies to the combined effect of clauses 1 and 2—that the Government’s own impact assessment assumes that cases heard in the magistrates courts under extended sentencing powers will average just four hours, for cases where the likely sentences are approaching 18 months. That is not a serious assumption. Critically, there is also no right of appeal against the allocation decision. Of course, the Government have chosen not to provide one—unfairly, but in my view understandably—because an appeal route would undermine what they are trying to achieve.
We are treating a symptom as though it were the disease itself. Before I turn to the specific failings of the approach in clause 2, I want to spend a moment on context. I think the Government have framed this debate—maybe not deliberately—in a way that obscures the actual problem. The Lord Chancellor has repeatedly said that the Crown court is in a state of emergency, and he is certainly right that it is under very significant pressure; the backlog stood at just under 80,000 cases at the end of September 2025. He has also repeatedly said that a jury trial is a major driver of that emergency. However, at the same time, he has said that, if the backlog is brought under control and reduced, he will not restore the right to elect a jury trial that is being abolished, and the same goes for the complementary provisions in clause 2. Plainly, whether he is right or wrong, he is inconsistent, and it makes no sense.
Alex McIntyre
As a former solicitor, I appreciate the hon. Member’s commitment to being paid at an hourly rate, given the speed of his contribution his afternoon.
One of the points the Secretary of State made in support of this measure at the Dispatch Box was that the changing nature of our criminal justice system and the added demand that will flow through the system in the future, added to the increasing complexity of cases, mean that jury trials are taking longer through the very nature of the additional evidence that is being gathered. That means that even if the immediate backlog is brought under control, there will still be a need for system reform in the long term, because otherwise we will not be able to keep it under control in perpetuity. Why does the hon. Member disagree with that?
Joe Robertson
I should clarify that I no longer get paid on an hourly rate—I am paid by the taxpayer, as the hon. Gentleman is, on the same terms.
I do not reject the argument about reform. I accept that. Sir Brian Leveson was very clear that the complexity of cases, including cases heard in the Crown court by a jury, has increased over the years, but he also said that he does not blame jury trials for the backlog. That is the difference between us. I do not see that the only option available to the Government is to end the election opportunity or the powers and rights of a defendant to select trial by jury or by magistrate.
Dr Mullan
The point was made very powerfully in the evidence sessions that we have this idea that we have to take a lot of time to explain all this complex stuff to a jury, and that we can just skip through it in a rapid way with a judge.
I visited courts and spoke to judges when I was on the Justice Committee. They themselves admit that they are not exactly whizz-kids when it comes to things like artificial intelligence or IT and the sort of things that might be over-complicating cases now. They are not going to be able to just whizz through stuff. They are going to need the same level of detail, explanation and time that a jury would need. Do we think defendants will be satisfied with a prosecution case that does not go through the same level of detail with a judge that it would have to go through with a jury?
We will end up with a whole new world of criminal appeals based on the idea that the judge did not adequately hear the evidence and that his summing up did not adequately address the reasons for his decisions. That could end up taking more time for judges. I am open to the idea that, potentially, we may possibly get some savings, but the case is so flimsy and weak that we cannot be expected to move forward on that basis when there are other things we could do.
Joe Robertson
I agree with my hon. Friend. There is a slightly strange implication that while jury trials have become more complex over time, due to technology and techniques for examining evidence—obviously a good thing—that somehow does not apply if the trial is in the magistrates court. That is the alarm bell, is it not? Magistrates courts are more capable of dealing with things in summary and they will not examine a case in as much detail and may miss things. That is not a criticism of magistrates and of the magistrates court—that is the system we have designed. When the consequences are less serious and the crime is less serious, the examination and process may be naturally less thorough.
That is not a reason to bring cases that today would be heard in the Crown court into the magistrates court without the defendant’s having the right to choose. My hon. Friend articulates that point exactly and represents the concerns that most people have.
In the evidence session, we heard that the current court backlog is the result of many things, including lack of investment—the Minister talked today about the lack of investment, and the issues with recruitment and retention, and criticised the previous Government for caps on sitting days—and the effect of the covid pandemic. The Minister and I might disagree on the extent to which that is true, but none of those things should be cured by abolishing jury trials.
Sarah Sackman
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the 1% to 2% refers to the time savings achieved by the Crown court bench division? The IFG recognised that the totality of the package achieved a 10% saving. The Ministry of Justice’s modelling—externally verified—shows a 20% saving, which is highly material.
Joe Robertson
I accept the Minister’s statement to the extent that it is a statement of fact of people’s evidence. To address the issue of taking cases out of one court to give to another, however: that is a small minority of cases. Indeed, that is the argument that the Government make, certainly to their own Back Benchers when they are worried about the Back-Bench view of their proposals: “Don’t worry. Most cases are heard in the magistrates court anyway, and only a tiny percentage are being taken out of the Crown court.” The Government cannot have the argument both ways: when speaking to their own Back Benchers, “Don’t worry, this is not going to be meaningful,” and when speaking to the rest of the world about tackling backlogs, saying that that in itself is a meaningful change.
Dr Mullan
What does not bear up to much scrutiny is for the Minister to say, “Actually, the package as a whole will deliver these major reforms,” because we do not object to the whole package. We can say, “Go ahead and do the things that we do not object to, and we will have violent agreement at later stages in the Bill.” The Government cannot hold over us the fact that we agree with some of the package, because that is not a reason for us to go along with the things that we do not like. That is part of the whole process of parliamentary scrutiny of a Bill—the bits that we do or do not like. We are not removed from commenting positively about the good stuff because we disagree with other things.
Joe Robertson
Once again, I agree with the shadow Minister. If the Government genuinely want to address the backlog, the answer lies in the other 179 recommendations that Sir Brian Leveson made: increasing sitting days, which the Government have now done in a modest way; improving case management; removing unnecessary adjournments; rebuilding or restructuring the legal profession; sustainable legal aid; and a whole list of recommendations. None of that requires the—in my view—brutal axe taken against the right of election to jury trial. In fact, it is more than a brutal axe; jury trial is just being denied for an either-way offence That is being restricted to the magistrates court.
I now turn to what I consider the most serious argument against the clause, which is an uncomfortable one. It has been referred to already in debate on clause 1, but it is relevant to clause 2 as well. The venue to which all relevant cases we are discussing will be diverted is the magistrates court, which produces—measurably, consistently and substantially—worse outcomes for defendants from ethnic minority backgrounds than the Crown court does. That is not a theoretical proposition or a position of advocacy; it is the statistical evidence and the documented finding of researchers, legal practitioners and analysis drawing on Government data. Magistrates courts convict people from ethnic minority backgrounds at rates up to 40% higher than non-ethnic minority defendants. That is not a small or debatable margin; it is a significant consideration.
Albeit to make a slightly different point, the hon. Member for Chichester mentioned that if someone has a clean record they would be tried in the magistrates court, but if they had a list of previous offences they may be tried on the same facts in the Crown court, where conviction rates are lower. Having previous convictions therefore puts someone into a venue with lower conviction rates. I am not suggesting that the Government have designed the measure in that way, but it is plainly nonsense and unacceptable for that to come about. The Government need to look at that and amend it.
Charities have responded to Sir Brian’s proposals and have provided further granular data. In Crown court jury trials, people of colour are convicted at broadly similar rates to their white counterparts. It is not hard to see why: the principle—the whole idea—behind a decision being made by someone’s peers is that juries reflect the country in which we live. Magistrates and professional judges are predominantly whiter, more educated and more male than the population at large. It is interesting to note, but is not a criticism, that this Committee itself is evidently less diverse not only than juries, but than the population at large. A defendant from an ethnic minority background charged with an either-way offence this week has a right to elect. They can look at the data—thank goodness we have that data—take advice from their legal representatives and make a considered choice about the venue in which they believe they are most likely to receive fair treatment. I would suggest, without quoting evidence, that a number of them elect the Crown court because they believe they will get a fairer trial—because they are more likely to have their fate at least partly decided by someone who shares something of their own background and lived experience.
Let me address the Government’s response to this evidence, which has been inadequate. The Lord Chancellor—who, as he has reminded this House, knows the experience of racial disparity personally and profoundly, and has long spoken about it throughout and before his time in this place—has argued that progress is being made. He has cited the figure that 21% of judges now come from an ethnic minority background. I welcome the progress that has been made, particularly in the judicial system, but that still does not compare to the fairness and legal principle of trial by jury.
I want to put the constitutional point more plainly. Parliament is being asked to pass a provision that it knows, on the basis of evidence submitted to its own Committee, will produce racially differentiated outcomes. The Government have seen that evidence. Ministers have been questioned on it at length, and the Bill has not been amended to address it, but it must be. If a different Government Department proposed a policy that its own evidence showed would increase adverse outcomes for ethnic minority applicants by, in this case, up to 40%, what would we say? We would say it is discriminatory and grossly unacceptable. We would demand it be withdrawn pending a full equality impact assessment. We would not pass it on a Government Whip. This is the standard I invite the Committee to apply here. The fact that the discrimination operates through an allocation mechanism in the criminal courts, or in some cases through an administrative form, does not change its nature or its effect. The test is the outcome, not the intention. No one is suggesting the Government intend this, but it is the outcome and the outcome is documented.
The racial disparity in outcomes does not exist in a vacuum. It is connected causally, not merely coincidentally, to a documented and persistent deficit in judicial diversity. In 2019, 12% of magistrates were from a BME background, which compares to an 18% share of the general population. The magistrates do not reflect the country that they are being asked to judge in the same way as a jury do.
I turn to the argument that the legal aid threshold will leave defendants unrepresented when making their plea in sentencing. That is a further systemic consequence of clause 2. The means test for legal aid differs, of course, between the two tiers of court, as we have heard. In the Crown court the threshold is more generous. Defendants in a wider income range qualify for representation at public expense. In the magistrates court the threshold is lower and less generous. Many defendants who would qualify for legal aid in the Crown court may not qualify for it in the magistrates court. Under clause 2, a significant cohort of defendants who previously had a right to elect, and with it the more generous legal aid provision, will find themselves in the magistrates court facing charges and sentencing that could result in a sentence of 18 months, or ultimately 24 months, without adequate legal representation. The Institute for Government has flagged this explicitly. Because of the low-income threshold to qualify for legal aid in the magistrates court, many more defendants are likely to go unrepresented or under-represented, and an unrepresented defendant in serious criminal proceedings is not a defendant receiving fair justice.
There is a cruel irony in the Government’s framing of the issue. Ministers argue that one problem with the current system is that defendants elect a Crown court to delay proceedings and therefore game the system. But why would a defendant in a serious case choose the Crown court? Often precisely because they know that in the Crown court they are more likely to have or to be able to afford a lawyer, and in the magistrates court they may not. The election is not a game. It is part of a system that has stood for a very long time. It is a rational response, in this case, to a legal aid system that is itself under severe pressure.
Alex McIntyre
The hon. Member is giving a rather elongated speech this afternoon, which we are all enjoying. On the subject of the Criminal Bar Association, I seem to recall it rallying against the removal of the ancient right of double jeopardy, which it said would deny people a fair trial and ruin our criminal justice system. I am pretty sure his party was in favour of that removal back in the noughties. Those predictions have not transpired; it actually led to justice, for example, for Stephen Lawrence. Does he agree that the CBA may be wrong in some of its views?
Joe Robertson
I thank the hon. Member for paying attention to my speech and staying with me on this. Fairly obviously, I do not think that the Criminal Bar Association is always right, but I do in this case.
The Institute for Government published “Beyond reasonable doubt?” on the day of Second Reading. Its conclusions were stark: the reforms risk prioritising speed over fair justice; the projected savings remain highly uncertain; a 10% to 15% increase in demand on the magistrates court will be difficult to manage in practice; and the structural reforms are likely to impede attempts to improve productivity and could make the situation worse in the short to medium term. That is not the view of lawyers protecting their professional interests; it is the view of independent public governance researchers.
The Law Society has raised concerns about the retrospective application of the provisions, the fundamental unfairness of removing trial rights from defendants who have already elected under existing rules, and the prospects for those with cases already listed. It has also raised concerns about the legal aid means test misalignment, proportionality and cases involving children, as well as the potential unworkability of fraud provisions.
I submit that the burden of proof in this debate does not lie with those opposing the Bill, when the entire criminal law profession, leading independent think-tanks, retired judges and KCs have come out so united in their strength of opposition. Indeed, when the Government are looking to tear up centuries-old principles, whether in whole or in part—depending on how we analyse the crimes that will no longer be allowed to proceed to the Crown court—the burden of proof must surely be on the Government to explain why they are all wrong. That explanation, in my view, has not been provided.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that previous Governments of all political colours have changed the threshold for jury trials, including those of Jim Callaghan and Margaret Thatcher? It is not entirely accurate to say, in the way that he did, that it is the tearing up of centuries-old rights; Governments periodically look at the threshold for access to jury trial.
Joe Robertson
Of course, the Minister made that point—in her view, this is about thresholds. Whether we want to call it an argument about thresholds, and whichever part of history we want to look at, the Opposition’s fundamental point remains. There is a distinct lack of evidence for this Government’s plans today, set against the range of other provisions that could be, and in some cases have been, introduced. In our view, they have not been given the time to bed in and potentially deliver the savings that the Government want. I accept the hon. Member for Rugby does not accept that, but I think that is the point of contention here.
Dr Mullan
I covered all the statistics on the reforms that the hon. Member for Rugby mentioned this morning. The scale of these changes, compared with the scale of those changes, is absolutely unprecedented. There has never been a reduction in jury trials of the scale before us today. In support of the point being made by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East, the burden of proof must become higher and higher as the change being made gets bigger and bigger. This change is unprecedented, so let us have an unprecedented level of evidence to support it before asking us to consider it.
Joe Robertson
I agree with the shadow Minister, and I really have nothing to add—his words stand for themselves.
John Slinger
The shadow Minister states that the reforms proposed by this Government are unprecedented. Actually, the reforms of the Callaghan Government removed jury trials for theft, burglary, actual bodily harm and certain drug offences in 1977, and the Thatcher Government did the same in 1988 for criminal damage. Those are quite substantial changes, so I object to what I believe is hyperbolic language that some Opposition Members have used not only in Committee today but more widely. It undermines public confidence in the judicial system.
Joe Robertson
In an attempt to resolve a debate that is not immediately mine, I will give way to the shadow Minister.
Dr Mullan
It would assist the Committee to know why we are making these comparisons. I have figures on the effect of the reclassification of criminal offences in the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which is one of the examples that the hon. Member for Rugby used in order to say that we are unfairly comparing the categorisations.
Let us bear in mind that the changes before us today will result in a 50% reduction in jury trials. According to the Home Office statistics bulletin, which provides a summary of the effect of those changes for comparison, that legislation resulted in a 5% decline. The Government are asking us to support something that will lead to a 50% decline, yet the hon. Gentleman says that we are being hyperbolic in comparing the two and saying that one is insignificant and the other is significant. I think the difference between 5% and 50% is pretty significant.
Joe Robertson
I thank the shadow Minister. I am probably not in a position to arbitrate between the two arguments; the hon. Member for Rugby will have to forgive me, as I come from the starting position that I back the shadow Minister, not least because he was wielding a particularly substantial file when he just spoke.
I want to address a provision that is not the immediate subject of this grouping, but which fundamentally determines the significance of clause 2—the reform of appeal rights from the magistrates court contained in clause 7. Currently, a defendant convicted in the magistrates court has an automatic right of appeal to the Crown court. That right is exercised in approximately—
Linsey Farnsworth
On a point of order, Ms Butler. I seek guidance on how we get back to clause 2, because we have veered off significantly from it. Clause 2 relates to provisions that have not yet come into force but could well come into force in the future, specifically in relation to how cases could proceed from the magistrates court to the Crown court by way of written submissions. The idea behind that provision was to avoid the need for a court hearing if everybody agreed. How can we get back on to clause 2, because I fear we are veering significantly away from what it is trying to do?
The Chair
I will give a little leeway, but I ask the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East to please go back to clause 2.
Dr Mullan
On a point of order, Ms Butler. This speaks to the heart of the confusion at the start of the debate. On the one hand, the Minister wants to say that it is arbitrary and inconsequential, but the explanatory notes say that this is fundamental to enacting clause 1. That is what the Minister said—that these two things sit together, so everything that clause 1 is doing is surely in scope if the Minister’s argument is that clause 2 is needed to fully enact clause 1.
Joe Robertson
Thank you, Ms Butler, and I will of course stick to clause 2. I welcome any challenge that a specific point that I have made does not relate to clause 2. There is possibly a slight lack of clarity across the whole Committee, and I do not profess to be the only expert in the room; indeed, I am not an expert. However, I echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate that there seems to be a distinct lack of clarity about what clause 2 does. I am not suggesting that the Minister does not know, and I welcome an intervention if she feels that I need to be brought back into scope in this part of the debate.
Clause 2 specifically replaces automatic rights with a permission stage. When clauses 2 and 7 are combined, a defendant who believes they have been wrongly convicted must first persuade a Crown court judge that their appeal has sufficient merit before it is even heard. The Government argue that the 41% success rate shows that meritorious appeals will get through, but in my view, that misses the point.
The Law Society has identified precisely why the current simple route matters. A significant proportion of defendants in the magistrates court do not have a lawyer. As I have argued, under clause 2 more of them are likely to be unrepresented. Owing to the misalignment of legal aid means testing, an unrepresented defendant who has been wrongly convicted will surely be less likely to know how to draft grounds of appeal. They will not be able to identify legal errors that may appear in magistrates’ reasoning or decisions in the same way. As I understand it, they will also not be able to commission a transcript of proceedings in the same way and construct a submission that meets the permissions test. The permission stage is, in practice, a barrier that falls disproportionately on those least equipped to overcome it.
The opposition to the clause is broad and has not been answered. In some cases, the opposition is expert; in others, it comes through lived experience. I will briefly look at the range and weight of expert opposition to the provisions, some of which I have referred to already, because the Committee should understand— I am sure it does—what it is seeking to perhaps have regard to but set aside if it passes clause 2.
As we have heard, the Criminal Bar Association represents more than 4,000 practising criminal barristers. In answer to an earlier intervention, I do not say that the Criminal Bar Association’s word must be final, but it is clearly heavily persuasive, especially on this issue, which has already faced much scrutiny and disagreement from people with particular expertise in the field of criminal justice. As we have heard, its snap survey—so that is individual members, rather than the association—found that around 90% of members are against the proposals.
Sarah Sackman
I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman because he is making important points, but the point was well made a moment ago that in line-by-line scrutiny the intent is to go line by line. Clause 2 deals with making what were uncommenced online procedures consistent with the changes made in clause 1 to the current ability of a defendant to choose venue. The hon. Gentleman is making a wide-ranging speech on whether one can appeal the mode of trial decision, and the permission to appeal. That will come later when we get to clause 7. I venture that these are all valid points that we will want to debate, but that might be the appropriate place to discuss those matters, because right now we are looking at clause 2. I am happy to reclarify the points I made in relation to clause 2, but if we range on to clause 7 in the scope of clause 2, we are not going to get the line-by-line scrutiny that we all want to achieve.
Joe Robertson
I thank the Minister for rather politely encouraging me to come towards the end of my speech. I will finish by addressing the idea that somehow, because something does not happen in Scotland, it must be okay not to happen in England. That plainly has nothing to do with politics or even football—not that I am suggesting the Minister thought it did. I am happy to say, as a proud citizen of the United Kingdom, that I think the English and Welsh legal system is the best in the world. The common-law system is the foundation, it has been adopted all around the world, and is by far the most widely-used legal system. It is possibly our greatest export, along with the English language.
Sarah Sackman
While I am very proud of our legal system, I do not necessarily take the view that ours is best and we cannot learn from other systems. Indeed, some of the places that we have exported to, such as Canada, are the places that we are looking to learn from when seeking to ameliorate our own system. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, with its strong foundations, one of the strengths of our system is our fiercely independent judiciary? Much has been said about the judiciary, but does he agree that it is a fundamental pillar of our outstanding legal system and we should seek to defend it—and when judges are called enemies of the people, we should call it out?
Joe Robertson
I am very happy to say that I agree with all the things the Minister said. I also agree with learning from other systems. Plainly, the English legal system, like the English language, has been successful in its ability to adapt and evolve. Without going back to the beginning of my speech, started just a few minutes ago, for the reasons I have set out, I believe that this is an evolution—or arguably a revolution. [Interruption.] Was that another intervention? I think these measures are a stage too far.
Jess Brown-Fuller
I would like to briefly refer the Committee to some remarks that Sir Brian Leveson made during the evidence session we had before the recess. He said:
“We need people to confront what they have done. I do not want anybody to plead guilty who is not guilty and has seen the evidence. I am not asking to change the guilty plea rate, but in the early days, you pleaded guilty on the first or the second occasion you appeared at the Crown court—now there are many examples of that happening on the fifth or the sixth occasion you are in the Crown court. Each one of those takes a considerable amount of time. That is what is sucking up part of the time.”––[Official Report, Courts and Tribunals Public Bill Committee, 25 March 2026; c. 8, Q9.]
Sir Brian tried to explain that a lot of people look at the evidence and say, “Yes, I will plead guilty, but I will do so after Christmas”—that was his example. He said that now, because of the Crown court backlogs, people know that their case will not be heard until 2028.
The point that Sir Brian was trying to make is that we need to incentivise those who look at the evidence of their case, and recognise that a guilty verdict is probably going to be arrived at, to put in a guilty plea. Does clause 2 not risk having the reverse effect? People will see that if they put in a guilty plea, the one opportunity they have to argue whether the case should be heard in a magistrates court or a Crown court—although I imagine the majority of them would argue that it should be heard in the magistrates court in this specific example—is taken away from them. Are we not then disincentivising people to put in a guilty plea at an early stage, when we want to see the Crown court backlog come down?
Dr Mullan
Reflecting on what has been said, I think that confusion remains. I welcome the further remarks from the Minister, but I am still not clear on whether there will be any impact in the real world for people as a result of the change. Earlier, I read out a sentence from the explanatory notes that talks about how the clause relates to sentencing, but the sentence before that says it relates to a
“written indication of a guilty plea”.
The legislation says that a written plea is not actually a guilty plea, so there could still be a trial—someone might change their mind. The difference that the legislation talks about is that if someone gives an in-person plea, that is their plea. This reform introduces the idea of a written plea, and, probably quite sensibly, it was decided that that should not be seen as the final example. Decisions are being made at that point, but then the plea could be changed and there could be a trial. It could have a real-world impact; it is not a technical change.
If the Government are clear that they are not enacting this measure, why not? There must have been a reason why they thought that written guilty pleas were of use. I suspect it probably was an efficiency measure at the time and they thought, “If we allow people to more easily give an early indication, that might encourage them to do so, and we can get all the benefits that flow from that.” If the Government are on an efficiency drive, why are they not enacting the measure? I would have asked the same of my Government if they had the ability to enact it. I do not know what the timeline was—was there a natural lag or a deliberate decision not to enact it?
We need it laid out in black and white: will this change have any real-world impact—yes or no? What exactly will that impact be? Because of the quite open possibility that it will have a real-world impact in terms of reducing someone’s ability to go to the Crown court—that is what we are talking about—all the concerns that Members have about clause 1 apply to clause 2.
I want to pick up on some of the changes. The Minister mentioned how we have listened to Canada. The point I made quite clearly in our evidence session with the Attorney General of Ontario was that they brought their backlog down without making any changes to jury trials whatsoever, so I am not sure how helpful that is as an example of why we need to change the system.
Members mentioned a sunset clause. If the Bill were just about bringing the backlog down, there would be a sunset clause in it. That again demonstrates that the Government actually think this is a better way of doing things. If that is the case, they should make that argument. They should just say, “We are making these reforms because they are the better way to do things. There will be an additional benefit in terms of bringing down the backlog,” but they have not said that.
I certainly would not use the language that the Minister used, but I am absolutely clear that we need to improve judicial accountability. We had a whole panel in the evidence sessions in relation to the family courts, for example, and whether they are making the right sorts of judgments about the interests of the child. We heard quite clearly that judges should not place too much weight on the idea that there is a good relationship with both parents when making decisions. The reason the Government are proposing changes on this issue is that they clearly do not think that judicial decisions are consistently doing the right thing.
My first encounter with this lack of accountability in judicial decision making—this is very important if people will be subject to individual judicial decisions—was the case of a constituent who had fostered a young girl in difficult circumstances. The young girl was physically fit and healthy, but struggling. The family—the original parents—had applied to get custody back. The foster mother did not want the girl to go back to the family, and nor did the local authority or the wider family, but the judge decided—again, we are giving more power to judges by removing the power to elect—that the girl should go back.
That girl is now in an almost vegetative state—it is not quite like that, but she is extremely disabled. The wonderful lady who fostered that young girl, even though the girl was then in a very difficult physical state and was going to be extremely dependent for the rest of her life, adopted her, which was an extraordinary thing to do. She approached me to say, “Social services have to account for what has happened. The police, if they had been involved, would have had to account for what happened. Can you tell me what happens to the judge who made that decision, which led to these consequences?” I wrote the Lady Chief Justice asking whether she could explain to my constituent what the consequences were. If there is a legal matter, it goes to the Court of Appeal; other than that, there is no issue for the judge. That has really driven my view about a need for more judicial accountability. I recognise the Minister’s right to say that we have to be careful about the language we use when talking about these things, but there is nothing wrong with saying that we need a more accountable judiciary.
On the need to increase sitting days, the Government like to claim that there are record levels of sitting days. I do not know whether the Minister knows that that is not a fair reflection of what is going on, but we changed the way in which we measure sitting days. There used to be two separate counts of sitting days—trial days and judge days—and we then combined them. If we look at the figures fairly, the counts are at some points pretty similar, if not higher previously. The figure is higher now because there is just one figure. I am not seeking to take away from the Government’s efforts in that regard, but we should be fair and accurate in how we describe the historical record.
We discussed whether it was fair to use the term “abolition”, which has come up repeatedly. I am very careful about the language I use, and I do not say that, but I will not take any lectures on the issue from a party that, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) was Prime Minister, put out a Facebook campaign saying that he did not think that paedophiles should go to prison—a disgusting misrepresentation of the reality. The Labour party was happy to do that, so I will not take any lectures from Labour Members.
The Chair
Order. I allowed the hon. Member to rise to make a quick contribution on clause 2. Would he sum up?
Dr Mullan
My final point in opposition to clauses 1 and 2 is that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), who is not here today, would have had a lot to say during our proceedings. He is a Labour MP who has quite literally never rebelled against the Labour Whip. Ms Butler, you have probably been here longer than all the rest of us, so you know that in our parties we have the usual suspects, who rebel when they get the opportunity and take any chance to disagree with the governing party—we all have a sense of what that means. The hon. Gentleman is not one of the usual suspects. He is a passionate practitioner. He will have dealt with clause 2 cases. He will have sat in court and dealt with the sorts of things that clause 2 covers.
Linsey Farnsworth
Clause 2 relates to measures that have not come into force yet, so my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East cannot possibly have any experience of that.
Dr Mullan
Sorry—I am not clear that there will not be real-world consequences in the kind of ways that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East will understand. The Minister nodded her head when I suggested that fewer people will get a Crown court trial as a result of clause 2. The Minister indicated from a sedentary position that it is correct to say that fewer people will get a Crown court hearing specifically as a result of clause 2. If the Minister can clarify that, I am very open to hearing her. I ask Labour Members to think very carefully about the fact that one of their own, who is not one of the usual suspects, is so vehemently opposed to the change.
Sarah Sackman
I will address clause 2 and respond to some of the remarks the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East made about the equalities impact, as well as the point about efficiencies and the time scale over which they can be realised to address the problem that we all say that we want to address: the backlogs.
Clause 2 changes uncommenced provisions in section 17ZB of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 so that appropriate guilty pleas are sent to the Crown court for sentencing. To answer the question that the hon. Member for Reigate asked about the meaning of the word “court”, in this context, it refers to the magistrates court, which is where the first hearing takes place. I hope I have clarified that. It was before my time but, as I understand it, the measures aimed to provide the defendant with the chance to indicate a plea at the earliest possible opportunity and to enable allocation decisions to be made without the need for an initial in-person hearing. They will not change anything around the allocations procedures moving forward.
On the shadow Minister’s question about why we do not just do that, it is not a priority for the now, as we have a lot of other priorities. System readiness is essential for the commencement of an online plea and allocation procedure and we do not have a date for that commencement, so there is an air of the hypothetical here. However, clause 2 aligns with what we spoke about in the debate on clause 1 so that, should this or a future Parliament choose to implement the online plea and allocation procedures, the measure is clear.
To answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Chichester, no, the Government do not think that the measure would alter behaviour around early guilty pleas, although she is absolutely right that one thing we are striving to do—through not just these legislative reforms, but our approach to the reform of legal aid fees—is to change behaviour in the criminal justice system to achieve the early guilty plea rates that we saw before the backlog raced out of control, at the very least. The sooner we get those early guilty pleas, the more efficient the process is, for the system and for people’s ability to move on.
Currently, when a defendant has indicated a guilty plea and the magistrates court considers its sentencing powers to be inadequate, the court cannot commit the case to the Crown court for sentencing without the consent of both the defence and prosecution. Clause 2 removes both parties’ ability to object. Instead, the magistrates court must invite written representations from both parties on whether its sentencing powers would be adequate, and then, having considered those representations, decide whether to send the case to the Crown court under section 51 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
Under the process as amended by the clause, should the provisions be commenced, defendants would continue to indicate their plea in writing, but decisions about the appropriate venue for trial would, as a consequence of the changes under clause 1, be made by the court alone. The Committee debated the merits of those changes in our significant and lengthy discussion on clause 1, but the policy decision in the clause is that the court rather than the defendant should make the decision on the venue of trial.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight East commented on the impact of the current system, and of any reformed system, on minorities, which, as I indicated earlier, is really important. That topic is an important aspect of the Committee’s work and, as we reflected on earlier, it will be an important part of our future discussions. I genuinely look forward to the debate we will have on the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington, which will no doubt lead to important discussions across both sides.
I want to pick up on a figure that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East cited. I heard him say—I wrote it down—that someone is 40% more likely to be convicted if they are an ethnic minority defendant in the magistrates court than in the Crown court. That is not a figure that I recognise and it is not one reflected in the equality impact assessment that accompanies the Bill, which cites the Ministry of Justice’s data. What our data shows is that someone is not more likely to be convicted if they are an ethnic minority defendant in the magistrates court. In general, conviction rates are 15% higher in the magistrates court compared with the Crown court for triable either-way offences or equivalent offences, but that is consistent across ethnicities.
I do not take issue with the hon. Member’s point that many who currently elect for a jury trial, including those from black and minority ethnic backgrounds, may well do so because they think they will get a fairer hearing or some other advantage by going before a jury. There is also no doubt that juries command a higher degree of confidence in those communities. I am sure that that will be teased out in the debate that we will have, but it is important that we are as careful as we can be. I am not suggesting that he was not being careful, but I do not recognise that 40% figure.
A statutory review mechanism for the ongoing monitoring of and response to racial disparities, whether in relation to sentencing outcomes, conviction rates or disproportionality in the CPS, is important. It is also important that where we see improvement and get things right, we talk about that, too. How will we command the confidence of our diverse communities unless we also talk about the improvements that are being made? I think sunlight is the best disinfectant. We need to be candid about the issues that exist in our current system and the status quo, and how that in many regards fails some of our communities. But if we seek to improve it, we have to be really clear on the data. I just wanted to clarify the statistic on conviction rates, which, as I said, is higher across all ethnicities, but of course that will include black, minority ethnic and mixed race defendants as well.
I want to say something about the efficiencies. Everyone agrees, not least as the backlogs have raced out of control, that the system has become more and more inefficient. It becomes a vicious cycle. Common themes have been raised and I agree that there are areas that need focus, such as prisoner transfers. Members will have heard about initiatives that the Government have already set in train in terms of opening up bus lanes. The Prisons Minister in the other place and I have established a prisoner escort and custody services prisoner transfer oversight board. I was at Wandsworth prison the other day. I got in a Serco van and talked to some of the prison officers and Serco people about how it operates and where there is grit, as it were, in the system. We are looking at it from end to end, as we must, including by engaging—this might come as a surprise—with the likes of the Bar Council. I have regular constructive engagement with it because it has lots of first-hand evidence of prisoners failing to turn up on time in court, sometimes because they have not left the prison and sometimes because they are in the cells in the court and there is no one available to bring them up. Getting to grips with those problems is really important.
I must bring Members back to the very clear evidence of Sir Brian Leveson’s review team. Although we must deal with the recommendations—indeed, we are doing so in real time, even before this Bill makes it on to the statute book—they will not be sufficient to reduce the backlog. One of the challenges consistently put to me stings pretty hard: “Even with everything you’re doing, Minister—even with the 20% savings that you say this will realise, even with the efficiency drive, and even with uncapping sitting days—you only begin to get the backlog down at the end of this Parliament. In the meantime, all the defendants on remand, all those complainants and all those actual victims of crime have their lives on hold. It is not happening nearly fast enough.” That is why we are choosing to pull every lever, including the levers in this Bill, which, by the way, includes clause 2. I commend clause 2 to the Committee.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Yasmin Qureshi
I beg to move amendment 23, in clause 3, page 5, line 25, leave out “the condition” and insert
“one or more of the conditions”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 39, in clause 3, page 5, line 26, at end insert—
“or,
(c) the defendant demonstrates to the court that the circumstances of his case are such that to be tried without a jury would amount to a breach of the principles of natural justice.”
This amendment would ensure that trials by jury continue for indictable offences carrying a sentence of less than three years in prison if the defendant can demonstrate that it would be in the interests of natural justice.
Amendment 24, in clause 3, page 5, line 28, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
“(5) The conditions in this subsection are met in relation to a defendant if—
(a) the defendant, if convicted of the offence or offences for which the defendant is to be tried, would be likely to receive a sentence of imprisonment or detention of more than three years for the offence or offences (taken together);
(b) the defendant is of good character;
(c) the defendant has not previously been convicted of an imprisonable offence;
(d) the defendant would be treated as a rehabilitated person under section 1 of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974;
(e) if convicted of the offence or offences for which the defendant is to be tried, would likely suffer significant reputational damage or have their employment or professional qualifications adversely affected;
(f) there are reasonable grounds to believe that the gravity or complexity of the case may increase; or
(g) other exceptional circumstances pertain to the case.”
Yasmin Qureshi
I will not press these amendments to a vote, but I want them to be debated; they are probing amendments. Amendment 23 was tabled by me and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). At the moment, the proposed legislation only has one condition; I would like to put in more than one condition to be met when the courts are considering whether a case should go to the Crown court.
Amendment 24 sets out the conditions that I wish the Committee and the Minister to consider: when there is discussion or consideration about whether a case should be sent to the Crown court, they should look at whether
“the defendant, if convicted of the offence…for which the defendant is to be tried, would be likely to receive a sentence of imprisonment…of more than three years”,
which is what the Government have initially proposed. I also say that whether the defendant is of good character is a completely relevant consideration, along with the considerations in paragraphs (a) to (g) of the amendment.
I will explain the rationale behind that proposal. We have spoken about the fact that there are people of previous good character, who may be in a different position from people who have convictions, who could go to the Crown court. That is one good argument to make but, for me, when we are trying to restrict an either-way right of trial, the fact that someone is of good character is a relevant consideration. All the conditions I have set out should also be included in the Bill so that they are considered by the court when determining where the case should be heard.
Dr Mullan
I rise to speak in support of amendment 39 tabled in my name. As I touched on earlier this morning, along with amendments 23 and 24—which are driving at the same point, but in slightly different ways—we are revisiting the discussion that we in the Opposition framed as a broad categorisation of principles of natural justice. We do so with the hope that it allows flexibility and expandability for the courts to interpret and give weight to that clause in a common-law system. However, it is also perfectly legitimate to approach the issue in a more defined way, as amendments 23 and 24 do. Every one of those examples is something we would agree with.
Amendment 24 states that the relevant conditions would be met in relation to a defendant if:
“the defendant, if convicted of the offence or offences for which the defendant is to be tried, would be likely to receive a sentence of imprisonment or detention of more than three years”
or if
“the defendant is of good character”.
It was helpful for the hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden to use her expertise to explain that that is not just an idea of someone’s character; good character has a very specific meaning in law and exists for a reason. It exists because the judicial system, in various ways, thinks that that is important and it has a material impact on how someone should be treated within the legal system. Amendment 24 also specifies that the conditions would be met if
“the defendant has not previously been convicted of an imprisonable offence”,
or if
“the defendant would be treated as a rehabilitated person under section 1 of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974”.
Again, we go out of our way to put those provisions in place to say that rehabilitated offenders, as defined by the 1974 Act, should be treated differently from other types of offenders. We are building on the already established idea that we do not all experience the judicial system in the same way in relation to our previous convictions and offences—in both directions, because if someone has convictions, but they have moved past those convictions, we would seek to treat them differently again.
Amendment 24 would also apply to a defendant who,
“if convicted of the offence or offences for which the defendant is to be tried, would likely suffer significant reputational damage or have their employment or professional qualifications adversely affected”.
I talked about that issue this morning, and I welcome the hon. Lady’s references to Members of Parliament. Surely we can relate to that in a very profound way when we face a conviction. MPs are one such example, but there are many others. I gave the example of a solicitor this morning, and there are also doctors—my professional background—and police officers; there are a whole range of people who would suffer a very particular and specific set of consequences because of their job.
That would perhaps not be universal, and we would have to tease out whether someone might want the magistrates’ sentencing restrictions or the Crown court’s route to guilty—we will probably have to separate those two things. Some people might prefer a magistrates court, not because of the plea but, as they are likely to be found guilty, because of the sentencing restrictions. However, I agree with the hon. Lady that—if not universally, certainly overwhelmingly—people would want their guilt to be determined by a jury, even if they might prefer a magistrate’s restricted sentencing powers.
Finally, amendment 24 would apply to defendants where
“there are reasonable grounds to believe that the gravity or complexity of the case may increase; or…other exceptional circumstances pertain to the case.”
Those examples fit neatly with the aims of Opposition amendment 39.
As I said earlier, of all the provisions in the Bill, clause 3, which these amendments would alter, probably represents the profoundest and most unprecedented change to our legal system. We had a debate this morning about other changes that have been made, such as changes to which offences are summary, triable either way or indictable. Although it is true to say that there have been variations, and there has been that narrowing, I was very clear that the scale and unprecedented nature of these changes stand apart.
What we are talking about here is a completely different approach to determining guilt for adults in criminal cases, entirely removing the lay element. Again, we debated this morning about the fact that we cannot fairly describe magistrates as being entirely distinct from the local population; we very clearly heard all the reasons why they are not the same as having 12 ordinary members of the public on a jury, but they are not professionals. What we are talking about here, with the introduction of this new bench division, is removing every possible element of lay involvement.
On Second Reading, when we had a broader debate about the Bill, Government Members criticised the fact that the debate was dominated by white, older male barristers—maybe they did not say older, but certainly white and male. The criticism was, “This debate is being dominated by white, male barristers. This isn’t fair. This isn’t reflective of all the voices and different views we need to hear.”
But what will these changes do? They will give more power and influence to people who are white and male and who, historically, have almost certainly been barristers. We are doing the exact opposite of addressing those Government Members’ concerns, including their concerns about who has a say in all these issues compared with ordinary members of the public. Clause 3 removes those ordinary members of the public.
Under proposed new section 74A to the Senior Courts Act 1981, any case sent to the Crown court must be tried without a jury unless one of two things applies: either an indictable-only offence is involved, or the court considers that, if convicted, the defendant would be likely to receive a sentence of more than three years’ imprisonment or detention. In all other cases, the default becomes a judge-alone trial.
We are introducing a whole new idea that an individual person—a magistrate, not a jury—can sentence someone to six to 12 months. We are introducing the idea that a single person, on their own, can sentence someone to three years’ imprisonment, without any involvement of the wider public. The question for the Committee is not whether the jury trial remains available in some cases, as we have discussed—we absolutely accept that it should. Instead, the question is whether Parliament is content to create a new statutory presumption that, for a wide range of classes of Crown court cases, the citizen will no longer be tried by a jury of their peers, but by a judge sitting on their own.
Again, as we talked about this morning, this is not what Sir Brian recommended—he was specific in his recommendation. This morning, the Minister talked about going further, which I would interpret as referring to what offences and timelines are used. I am not sure that we can extend that suggestion of going further to creating an entirely new set-up that Sir Brian did not recommend. He did not recommend that a judge sit on their own and sentence someone to up to three years in prison.
Sarah Sackman
Of course, judges sitting alone do sentence. I understand the point the hon. Member is making in relation to the Crown court bench division, but it is important that my mum, watching at home, understands that judges hand down sentences.
Dr Mullan
I thank the Minister for picking me up on that; I meant that they are determining the guilt of individuals who can then face up to three years in prison. It undermines the veracity and importance of Sir Brian’s recommendations that the Government do not have the support of his report on this, the profoundest and most unprecedented change that they are making. That cannot be understated.
The Bill makes clear that in all cases falling below the threshold sentence of more than three years, a trial must take place without a jury. That is not at individual discretion, but a hard and fast rule. The Committee should note that the threshold is assessed prospectively, on a likely sentence basis. That means that at an early stage, the court is being asked to make an evaluative judgment about the likely sentence before a trial, and to use that judgment to determine whether the oldest safeguards in our system are available at all.
The Minister may, quite rightly, say that making estimates or anticipating likely sentencing outcomes is part of our system—but never in this way, and never with the consequences that will flow in terms of who determines an individual’s guilt as a result of that estimation. The consequences are profound.
Yet for all the Government’s reliance on the three-year threshold, proposed new section 74D makes clear that a judge sitting alone retains the full sentencing powers of the Crown court and may impose a sentence of more than three years where appropriate. That will allow a judge to determine guilt on their own, and potentially to sentence someone for many years—more than three—for an offence. Those two issues interact. The Minister was right to call me out for blending the two measures, but they are linked in the real world, and they certainly will be linked in the minds of defendants and the wider public. That relates back to the confidence issue. If a defendant sees that the person whom they think was inappropriately asked to determine their guilt is also then allowed to give them a sentence beyond what they were expecting to get, and beyond the thresholds that were designed for the imposition of a sentence, that creates real challenges for public confidence.
There is a tension in the Government’s remarks around this issue, because they have emphasised throughout that all these reforms will not be used for the most serious cases. That is how they have described it. That is largely determined by taking into account the sentencing length that is available—it is not a direct read-across, but more serious offences inevitably have longer sentence lengths, so someone will potentially be directly affected by these reforms around the same sentence lengths that the Government say are not appropriate for different types of offences. The Government might say that they are not choosing certain types of offences with very long sentences, but someone could end up with exactly the sort of sentence that someone else might receive for something like a rape offence. The Government think that that is acceptable but, again, it is inherently contradictory.
The Committee should also be concerned by the structure of the reallocation under proposed new section 74B. Cases can move from jury to judge alone and then from judge alone to jury following changes of circumstance or the emergence of new evidence. Such decisions may profoundly affect how justice is perceived, yet the Bill provides no right of appeal against them. What the Government are doing here is not simply adjusting or tinkering; they are creating a new mode of criminal trial in the Crown court by allowing a single judge to determine guilt in a substantial class of cases, allowing that decision to be revisited during proceedings, permitting it in some circumstances without a hearing and then insulating those decisions from appeal.
The Government’s case for doing all that relies heavily on efficiency, but this is precisely where the clause remains weak. The wider criticism of the Bill has always been that the backlog is being treated as if it were caused by jury trials rather than case management failures, workforce pressures, poor productivity and court capacity. We talked a lot about the IFG’s criticisms of the modelling and the data that the Government put forward to justify their clauses, but the IFG is not alone in thinking that the Government’s claims around the benefits are unsubstantiated. The London School of Economics submitted in written evidence what it thought about the Government’s approach to modelling. It said:
“Sir Brian Leveson stated that the modelling on which his recommendations were based is ‘uncertain and should be viewed as indicative’ and that the MoJ should ‘carry out more detailed modelling on the operational and financial impact of the recommendations’.”
I brought that up in the evidence session with Sir Brian and put it to him that he had said that further work should be done; he did not feel that it was for him to comment any further than that. The LSE says:
“Given the range of reforms suggested by the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, their complex interrelation, and the lack of rigorous modelling by independent research groups, we are not confident that the evidential basis for curtailing jury trial has been established.”
Both the IFG and the LSE think that the modelling case has not been successfully made, so there are a number of different questions on that. This is important because Parliament is being asked to accept the removal of a fundamental safeguard, not because the Government have shown that jury trials are causing the delay, but because it has chosen to pursue structural reform before exhausting operational solutions.
The real constitutional innovation here is not only that some cases may be tried without a jury, but that Parliament is being asked to enact a statutory presumption in favour of a judge-only trial for a broad range of Crown court cases, with very limited, if any, safeguards once that allocation has been made.
The Committee should also consider the wider context in which these proposals are brought forward. Sir Brian Leveson’s review did not present the removal of jury trials as a stand-alone solution; it sets out a broader programme of reforms aimed at improving efficiency, capacity and case management across the system, and yet the Government have chosen to bring forward the most constitutionally significant elements of that review, those that limit access to jury trials, while leaving much of the operational reform agenda unimplemented.
We have visited this point a number of times today: the Government have not done the things they say they will do that will make a difference. They cannot realistically claim that those things will not have the necessary impact if they have not tried to implement them.
Sarah Sackman
Does the shadow Minister recognise that, in the IFG’s report, one of the central insights was that the key drag on court productivity was workforce shortages? We are making that investment, but does he accept that it will take years to build back the criminal Bar, the number of prosecutors and people practising criminal legal aid to the level we would need to deal with these cases?
Dr Mullan
The Minister put that question very succinctly, in exactly the same way, to members of the criminal Bar, who know much more about this than me; they were very clear that they did not accept her point. She is contrasting a magistrate or a police officer, who must be trained from scratch, to barristers, who practise in all different parts of the law, and they have clearly pointed out that the welcome changes that the Government have made around sitting days are seeing people coming back. They have not stopped being barristers because they have not practised over the last few years; they are practising other types of law.
I was on the Justice Committee in the previous Parliament, and we discussed in detail the challenges around the criminal Bar strike action and so on, and they were very clear that these people had not gone anywhere—they were the same people, but they were choosing not to practise criminal law. I would lean heavily on their view that these people want to come back.
If the Government want to put forward an analysis and tell us the figures for all the people who are out there who could be practising criminal law and are choosing not to, and if they produced a gap analysis showing how many they think they need on top of that, then we would have a different discussion. However, I do not know that the Government have produced any analysis or figures for how many practitioners are due to come back, or likely to come back, or what we need to get them to come back and so on. The Minister may well be right to just say, “They’re not there, we can’t do it,” but we keep coming back to the same point: where is the basis for making such strong decisions?
Sarah Sackman
But does the shadow Minister accept that these things take time? His party is a great believer in the force of the market, and the market here has decided that it wants to go and work in other markets. The point is that, on whatever the analysis, these things take time. That is why the Government have not just put forward major investment in terms of legal aid fees but matched funding for pupillages to create the pipeline. But the training of criminal barristers capable of taking on these trials will take years, and all the while the projections show the backlog rising. Does the shadow Minister accept that any realistic view or analysis shows that it will take years to build back the Bar to what it needs to be, both from the bottom up and at the higher levels that those criminal barristers were talking about?
Dr Mullan
The point I am making is that we actually do not know that, because we do not know how many people used to practise who could now practise again. I absolutely agree with the Minister that there might need to be a further wave of people that will potentially exhaust the people who could be succinctly brought back into practice, but we have time in that regard. We might find that we bring sufficient professionals back into the profession for the next few years, at the same time as the Minister is investing in the future.
Again, I would welcome the Government publishing an analysis seeking to interrogate in detail how many people are out there who could and would come back, and what it would take. The Minister could then get up and say confidently, “We have looked at this and we know that there are this many people who previously practised criminal law, or could come back to criminal law, and this is what we expect them to do over the next few years. We think we need this many people. We think we will train x number, and that still leaves us with a gap.”
As with so many of these issues, the Minster has a case with her argument and interpretation of things, but if we are going to do something as profound as introducing a whole new way of determining guilt by way of a single judge on their own—something that has never been done in this country—then the evidence threshold on which the Government need to deliver their arguments is so much higher than what we are getting. That is the case on this and so many other issues.
Alex McIntyre
I have some experience in this, having changed my practice when I was a solicitor from being a banking lawyer to being an employment lawyer. It takes time to build up a level of expertise, and if I were to return from this place to being a solicitor, it would take me some time to re-educate myself and get up to speed with developments in the law to be able to practise again. I accept the shadow Minister’s point that there are some barristers who change their specialty as often as MPs change their parliamentary constituencies—
Alex McIntyre
And parties, which seems to be happening at an increasing rate on the Opposition Benches. Does the shadow Minister not agree that, at the very least, it will take time for those barristers to reskill, retrain and update their knowledge to be able to take on those cases, and that therefore the premise that the Minister is putting forward is the right one?
Dr Mullan
I am afraid that we are again at violent agreement and disagreement at the same time. The principle that hon. Member is talking about is absolutely fair. There will be a period of time in which we have to retrain people; but as I said, the Committee has had barristers before it who were very clear that they thought there would not be insurmountable obstacles. The hon. Member may question their credibility on that front, but it is perfectly legitimate for them to say that they question the Government’s credibility and the arguments they are making.
The hon. Member for Gloucester, the Minister and I are all missing a proper attempt to study, define and measure these things. Without that, the Government cannot expect us to move forward with a massive erosion of jury trial rights, in a way that has never been done before. We are not talking about triable either-way offences going from magistrates to Crown, which has been done, but not on this scale; rather, we are introducing a whole new way of determining guilt in this country, which will have profound implications, and we are supposed to decide it on the basis that the hon. Member and the Minister think it will take too long to do otherwise—nor, conversely, should we just take the barristers’ word for it. What we really need is a proper, exhaustive study of the issue, as we do with many other issues that we will come to where the same things apply.
The hon. Member for Gloucester did a good job—from his perspective—of pointing out that the Criminal Bar Association of course has its own interests and angle. As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East pointed out, the Opposition are not saying that the Criminal Bar Association is sacrosanct and cannot be questioned or grilled. However, it is also in the camp of those who want to see more information and more details. When the Minister put it to the Criminal Bar Association in Committee that it had not put forward its modelling or proposals, it was made very clear that it had sought the same data and analyses that would allow it to demonstrate these things, and the Government had not allowed it to do so. We cannot on the one hand say that it is a loaded jury, in the American sense, and we cannot take its word for it, but at the same time criticise it for not having alternative opinions, when we will not help it to further elucidate those measures that might make a difference.
Sarah Sackman
We do not necessarily accept that that is why. There may be all sorts of reasons, which need to be unpacked, and that is the kind of thing I hope will be enriched by a statutory review. There may be all sorts of reasons why conviction rates for all ethnicities are higher in the magistrates court, not least because people may want to enter a guilty plea in a jurisdiction where the sentencing powers are lower. That may be a perfectly rational reason why there are higher conviction rates in the magistrates court across the board. We accept that premise, although I also accept that BAME defendants and communities have less confidence in the magistrates than in the jury system.
Dr Mullan
Yes, and I have made that point in other debates on this issue: we cannot say that with absolute certainly. The Deputy Prime Minister is clear—I think his phrase was that we have to explain why these things exist. The point is that we certainly cannot rule out that explanation, and it is certainly not an unreasonable conclusion to draw, which is why so many campaign groups that represent BME defendants are clear about why they think the disparity exists. The Minister is right that it is not proved definitely; the issue is that we have not done the work that the Deputy Prime Minister asked us to do in bottoming that out. We still cannot confidently say, and the Minister cannot say, that that disparity does not exist because of prejudice. It may well exist because of prejudice. We are not in a position to say that that is not the case, yet if that is the cause, we are heading in a direction that might encourage and make the disparities even more frequent.
In relation to sentencing in the youth estate, where we have over-representation of BME individuals, I have made the point that we have to look at offending patterns and so on, which vary among different ethnic minority groups, but we cannot rule the explanation out. However, having failed to rule it out, as the Deputy Prime Minister said we should, he is going to shift more of the weight towards those risks. Again, if we accept as a possibility the premise that this is about a narrowing of individuals’ backgrounds and life experiences versus the experiences of those they are judging, then that becomes a very reasonable hypothesis for what is happening.
If that is a reasonable hypothesis and we have not been able to exclude it, and if it is then correct, then we are doing something that supercharges that effect. If that hypothesis is correct, and this is to do with background and diversity of opinion, then we are narrowing that down even further, to the view of one individual—to the life history and life experience of just one person. What the Government are proposing could not be further from what the jury trial system delivers, and this at a point when we cannot say with confidence that it will not have an adverse impact on BAME individuals.
Sarah Sackman
Does the shadow Minister accept, though, that the legislation as drafted contains a number of guardrails? They include the provision of reasons that will need to be given by a judge, the fact that judges will have gone through judicial training and also the equal treatment handbook. Obviously, juries do not go through such training. Indeed, the statutory review that is being proposed is another guardrail. Does he accept that those are all safeguards with merit and that, as I said earlier, sunshine is the best disinfectant?
Dr Mullan
Yes, I accept that, to a degree, the Government have attempted to put in place safeguards. The question is: what weight can be given to those safeguards? We had a discussion earlier today about judicial accountability and whether we think the decisions made are good decisions. Family courts are a helpful comparator because they make decisions on their own, in an area that they should be expert and practised in. They do that all the time, yet the Government are choosing to legislate to restrict—or to modify—the way in which judges are asked to make decisions. That is despite the Government’s own impact assessment saying that it really should not make much of a difference and despite the fact that, in the other direction, the campaign groups do not agree with them.
The Government accept that individual judges sitting in a particular way do not always make the right decisions for the welfare of a child. Those judges are trained and have all the things that the Minister mentioned, but that does not mean that the Government do not think that they sometimes make the wrong decisions. Those safeguards will be helpful and will hopefully hedge things back in the other direction if this is related to prejudice; the point we keep making is that we do not think that the proposition that the Government are putting forward is sufficiently weighted to get the outcome they want.
Dr Mullan
I will just finish my point.
If we were confident that this would deliver the outcome that the Government claim it will, then things would be different, but we question whether it will achieve the result they want, whether the safeguards are in place and whether the alternative options have been sufficiently secured. We are also highlighting the gravity of the consequences for individuals and the gravity of the change to our judicial system. Again, we need a little more than just, “We’re going to try these safeguards,” when we cannot be confident that they will guard against this issue, especially when we know—if it is prejudice—how difficult and recalcitrant it has been.
This is not a new discussion or a new debate. The Minister will probably want to make the criticism that it was not sorted during our period in office, but equally I would not expect her get up and say that she is confident that she will get to the bottom of it in the next few years, sort it all out, and make sure there is no prejudice in our judicial system, in the magistrates court or among the judges who she is asking to sit and determine these cases on their own. I am pretty confident that the Government will not give us that guarantee, so again, the thresholds for these decisions are not being met.
Did the Minister want to intervene? I do not know if the moment has passed.
Dr Mullan
We have talked about the issue of safeguards against prejudice, and it is not a view just shared by people such as the Secretary of State for Justice. The CBA commissioned an independent survey of criminal barristers. Of the 2,029 respondents, 94% raised concerns about the lack of diversity in the proposed criminal courts bench division and 88.5% were against the introduction of the criminal court bench division. We know that the public have great confidence in the verdicts of juries. The British public have been surveyed about that, and a YouGov poll following the Government’s announcement in December 2025 found positive support for trial by jury, especially among those who had served on juries.
I do not know whether this is something that I have to declare as an interest, but I have served on a jury. Serving on a jury gives those who do it an amazing insight, which those who have not done it might not have, and helps them to understand the importance of the discussion, deliberation and exchange of views that simply cannot happen with an individual judge sitting on their own.
Sarah Sackman
I accept that it cannot happen, but equally we do not know what happens in jury deliberation rooms. We do not know how the jury arrived at a verdict. All that a defendant ever finds out is whether they have been acquitted or convicted. One advantage of the Crown court bench division is that the defendant will have the judge’s reasoning and an explanation of what findings of fact have been made and on what basis a decision has been reached. Can the hon. Gentleman not see some benefit in that?
Dr Mullan
That potential benefit has to be weighed against what we discussed earlier. For a very good reason, our system explicitly prevents the jury’s inner working from being subject to scrutiny. The system was deliberately designed in that way, and we will be taking that away in some cases. Of course, at a cursory glance, we would probably all welcome being able to better understand why decisions are being taken, but if we start doing that, we would lose the ability for the jury to decide something that we are not comfortable with, and which a prosecution barrister might have a field day with.
As I said, I get frustrated with those sorts of decisions. I was very frustrated when a jury did not convict the Colston four. I did not get to know why they did not do that, but the system is deliberately designed that way. The Minister has to accept that. That is almost proving the point that others have made—in particular, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East has said this both publicly and privately. Judges are forced to be much more constricted in their decision making. If the facts are a, b and c, they just have to go along with those facts.
Sarah Sackman
Is the shadow Minister seriously saying that the giving of reasons, constrained by the legal tests that judges have to apply—meeting the criminal standard of proof and applying a logical route to verdict, free from bias and procedural unfairness—is not desirable? I find that an extraordinary proposition.
Dr Mullan
As I said, it is about weighing the benefits that the Minister has rightly articulated against the loss of the benefit of safeguarding individual people who are perhaps erring from a strict interpretation of the law. Again, this is not happenstance. The idea that a jury might do that has been tested repeatedly in appeals and judgments. It has been repeatedly affirmed that it is for a jury to go away and make up their own minds, having heard all the evidence.
Sarah Sackman
I think the shadow Minister misunderstands me. I am not critiquing our jury trials which, as I have said, are a cornerstone of British justice. I am trying to understand why he has so little faith in the judges of this country.
Dr Mullan
I have explained why I have concerns about whether the judiciary is sufficiently accountable for the decisions and positions that it takes under the current system. I am not shying away from that. The reality is that I do not think it is sufficiently accountable. I think judges sometimes make poor decisions; we have to get away from the idea that politicians cannot say that.
The Justice Committee visited the Supreme Court and got to sit with Supreme Court judges. The portrayal is sometimes that they would be absolutely appalled by MPs criticising their judgments and not thinking they had made the right decision, but they were perfectly relaxed about that. They said it is absolutely the role of politicians and MPs to have criticisms and be concerned about the decisions that they make.
Sarah Sackman
I do not think we are disagreeing about the importance of judicial accountability or the need for a more diverse judiciary. The Deputy Prime Minister is making huge progress on that and has been a real proponent of that, both when he was in opposition and now in government. What I am talking about is the process for which these structural reforms provide, whereby a judge will give a reasoned judgment for their verdict. If that verdict proves to be unsound, arbitrary, unfair or biased in some way, the person knows what the reasons are and can appeal it. Is there not merit in that process?
Dr Mullan
We have to run with the idea that some judges might have some prejudices. We do not know for sure that they do, but there is certainly every reason to believe that might be an issue, particularly when we look at the disparity in their backgrounds and so on. The Minister is asking us to consider that when a judge has a prejudice, particularly unconscious bias, he is going to sit down and write in his reasons: “I thought this person was more likely to be guilty.”
Dr Mullan
They are working very hard, as the Minister says, but the work is not complete. We have not done what the Under-Secretary of State for Justice said we should, which is do the stretching and have it all dealt with before we consider curtailing jury rights. We are proceeding when that has not happened, and the Deputy Prime Minister made similar remarks.
There are other individuals to whom one might think the Prime Minister gives a lot of credibility and weight. Geoffrey Robertson, the founder of the Prime Minister’s barristers’ chambers, condemned the plans to restrict jury trials in England and Wales as
“a betrayal of the values for which Labour purports to stand.”
It was not just the Prime Minister who practised with that individual. Maybe they were working with him under the cosh or they had the view that the chambers they chose to work in were founded by someone they did not give weight and credibility to.
The Deputy Prime Minister also worked in the chambers of this individual. Who else, Ms Butler? Richard Hermer, the current Attorney General, also practised in the chambers founded by this individual, who said that
“attacking juries must be regarded as a betrayal of the values for which Labour purports to stand…How have they come to betray a principle that has been so important over the centuries for those who have dissented or stood for progress?”
He adds that, given the Labour party’s
“record of support for progressive causes, for free speech and peaceful political protests, the Bill does seem a betrayal of Labour traditions…MPs who vote in favour will be on the wrong side of their party’s own history.”
That is from the person with whom the Prime Minister, the Attorney General and the Deputy Prime Minister all enjoyed practising the law for many years in the chambers on which they sought to rely.
This morning we covered the right to appeal. As we discussed, the rate of successful appeal in the magistrates court is higher than might be expected. We do not know how that figure and the difference in respect of jury trials will translate if cases are taken down to a single judge. The Minister stated that reasonings will be laid out and that that will make the system more transparent; of course it will to some degree, but the drawbacks do not make that trade-off worth while.
We are also going to see, with the new Crown court bench division, a whole new series of ways in which defendants seek to appeal sentences. The Minister talked about the fact that there are not enough barristers; how do we know that some of those trials and appeals are not going to draw from barristers’ time? We do not.
I return to the central argument about the value and weight of jury trials in the public perception. The issue is not just about how the public perceive jury trials. Jury trials are the most important way in which the public are part of our judicial system: the public are part of the process; it is not a process separate from us. We have talked about magistrates as a halfway house for representation and diversity of opinion, but the same arguments apply in relation to the participation of the citizenry from their point of view. That is not the point of view of the defendant and the decisions that they might take, but that of the individual citizen participating in the judiciary, versus that of the magistrates.
All the same arguments that I made in relation to the perception of potential prejudices apply to the question of introducing the new division, which will even more greatly extract the citizen from our judicial system. That extraction is important because it goes back to the original question of whether we feel that the judicial system is ours and we have a role to play in it, or that it is what would have been, in the old days, the King’s judicial system. It was the King’s system: justice was in his name, for him, or—as I talked about this morning—in God’s name, for God, with individual citizens excluded from the process.
Although the Opposition oppose clause 3, our amendment 39 at least attempts to curtail some of the issues with it. I note that when we discussed it this morning, the Minister would not engage on the direct, specific question of whether, looking at the examples in isolation, she thinks it is fair that somebody of good character who stands to lose an enormous amount—their job and their reputation—is going to lose access to a jury trial whereas a repeat, recalcitrant, more serious offender will not. We are clear that that is not fair, so we have attempted, with a similar aim but in a manner different from the hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden, to introduce some safeguards, but we are opposed to the proposal in clause 3 in its entirety.
The Chair
Given that Dr Mullan has spoken about clause 3 more generally in this debate, I have two options as Chair. Would the Committee like to talk about clause 3 more generally with this group of amendments? The Committee will also have an opportunity to debate clause 3 on Thursday, when the Minister could respond more fully. That is a matter for the Committee to decide.
Sarah Sackman
As I think I am hearing from the Opposition, given that clause 3 is really meaty and has lots of aspects and that, I suspect, all hon. Members, including myself, have prepared on the basis of the groupings in the selection list, a lot of the detailed points on which hon. Members want answers may get lost if we try to debate them all in one go. If we keep to the groupings, that might be efficient.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Stephen Morgan.)
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Hidden Credit Liabilities: Role of the FCA
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered hidden credit liabilities and the role of the Financial Conduct Authority.
I will explain the genesis of this debate, Sir Roger. I chair the all-party parliamentary group on investment fraud and fairer financial services. The group was established some years ago as a result of hon. Members being approached by constituents who had experienced scandals in the delivery of financial services and the failure of regulatory bodies to address their concerns. It was chaired effectively by the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who has now gone on to greater things as the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee. I thank him for enabling this debate to take place.
The scandal that has come before our APPG is the use of hidden credit lines, which has caused such serious harm to so many small and medium-sized enterprises, and caused personal disasters for many individuals and their families. We have drawn on the evidence presented to us by constituents, specialist advisers and the reports of BankConfidential, a specialist whistleblowing service for banking staff. Put simply, the story commences with a large number of SMEs approaching their banks for a loan and some of the banks then attaching to the loan a derivative such as an interest swap, supposedly to protect the loan against the risk of interest rate changes, and establishing a hidden credit line.
Lorraine Morris, an expert and specialist derivative lawyer, gave evidence to us on what she found:
“My research confirms that, far from mitigating risk, these instruments were deliberately engineered to transfer significant, undisclosed, and uncapped risk directly onto the customer. The mechanism was the concealed creation of a credit-line liability, booked against the customer’s assets from day one. This contingent obligation was not a notional figure; it was a hard liability that directly impacted the customer’s credit grade”.
Generally, when such a loan is taken, there is an agreed loan-to-value covenant. According to Ms Morris, the application of the derivative and credit line mechanisms impacted on those covenants and
“pushed viable businesses into a state of artificial distress. The sale of products as ‘protection’ when their fundamental structure achieves the opposite is a profound and fraudulent misrepresentation.
It is a profound tragedy that these banking frauds have pushed individuals to the brink, resulting in devastating loss of life, ill-health and destruction of families. As a legal advocate for justice, I believe this affront to human dignity demands not only our deepest sorrow, but a relentless and unwavering pursuit of accountability.”
That is what we are about today.
To understand the behaviours of the banks more fully, we drew on the evidence provided by Ian Tyler, a former senior banking executive who has used derivatives since the 1980s to manage interest rate risk for some of the UK’s largest banks. I will quote Ian at some length. He explained:
“The fundamental truth that has been buried by the banks and the FCA is that when a bank executes an interest rate derivative, such as an interest rate swap, it is required by prudential regulation to mark a counterparty credit risk limit to cover the Potential Future Exposure. This credit limit is a hard credit limit as the exposure generates a risk weighted asset that requires the bank to hold capital in support.
All hard credit limits are typically included in a bank’s Loan to Value security covenant calculation and so the moment a customer executes a derivative their LTV % increases and this weakens their credit standing. This situation was made materially worse in…2008 when in response to the failure of Lehman Brothers, policy makers reduced Bank Rate to 0.5%. This…led to a material increase in the credit line marked for the derivative as both the Current Exposure and the Potential Future Exposure increased, pushing many SMEs into the position where their LTV % was in breach of their security covenant.
However, as the bank had invariably not told the customer about the derivative credit line, in clear breach of conduct regulation, the bank often forced a technical breach of loan covenant through some other mechanism and then transferred the business to their so-called Business Recovery Unit where most businesses were subsequently put into administration.”
Many in the Public Gallery would testify to that.
What was the motivation of the banks? Hidden credit liabilities generated huge up-front revenues, bonuses and commissions. Worse, when the financial crisis hit, they became a mechanism for destroying viable businesses, some already in breach of lending covenants on day one, because of the undisclosed liability that had been taken on. The potential financial upside was so significant that whistleblowers revealed that staff at the state-controlled NatWest Group were encouraged to send victory emails when they successfully brought down a business that could then be feasted upon, with the bank sometimes buying distressed assets directly from the victims of such frauds.
There are too many examples of that, and some of those affected are with us in the Public Gallery. Alongside the banks’ predatory behaviour, there has also been a catastrophic regulatory failure, associated with a deliberate policy by the Financial Conduct Authority and, before that the Financial Services Authority, of siding with the banks and often with Treasury policy under successive Governments, rather than the innocent business owners who were being fleeced at the time.
The FCA has repeatedly and deliberately failed to act. I will give one example of participants’ experience from our all-party group. In November 2022, Lord Prem Sikka, Steve Middleton of BankConfidential and banking derivatives expert Ian Tyler, whom I have quoted, met the FCA to explain the hidden credit liability scandal in detail. They related what The Times assistant business editor James Hurley described across four articles as financial and accounting fraud, including theft from Ulster Bank fixed-rate loan customers, and all the hard evidence was shared. In our view, the FCA should have immediately launched an inquiry at that stage. Instead, it let the NatWest Group mark its own homework. When the bank concluded it had done nothing wrong, the FCA took no meaningful action, even deploying the astonishing argument that the fraud that had occurred was not criminal fraud.
The FCA’s unfitness for purpose is not a new observation for many of us here. On 1 February 2016, Conservative MP Guto Bebb led a Commons debate on the motion,
“That this House believes that the Financial Conduct Authority in its current form is not fit for purpose”.
Nothing meaningful came out of that debate or has happened since. In many people’s eyes, that has left the FCA still not fit for purpose, with Parliament having failed in its duty to fix it.
Where was the Treasury in all of that? The Treasury turned a blind eye and its motivation was simple. It needed the banks to do whatever was necessary to shore up their balance sheets after the global financial crisis, having already made the taxpayer bail them out. As I mentioned, where that has occurred the financial and emotional consequences for victims have been devastating in the extreme. The scale of the carnage has been horrific, with widespread forced insolvencies; suicides and early deaths; thousands of repossessions; and broken families. Many business people were made to believe that they had failed through their own fault, when in reality tens of thousands of businesses were deliberately targeted for insolvency.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the right hon. Member on securing this debate. As he referred to earlier, the conditions that pertained in 2008 and the financial crash have resulted in banks making massive changes, but the banks should not be allowed—or encouraged by the FCA in some instances, as he has outlined—to punish viable businesses rather than promoting those viable businesses and trying to pursue faulty loans, which is what they should be doing.
John McDonnell
That theme runs through many of the reports that we have had from constituents about the failure of the FCA to protect them—to ensure that regulation was implemented to protect them. There were also elements of almost turning a blind eye and collusion, and that is the reason for the anger that people feel.
Let me press on because the figures that we have heard in the past need to be challenged. As I said, many people thought that they had failed themselves, but in reality tens of thousands of businesses were deliberately targeted. Internal reports confirm that not 16,000, as claimed by the FCA, but 3 million customers were placed in NatWest’s non-core division, effectively a waiting room before being pushed into the notorious global restructuring group, or Lloyds’ equivalent business support unit.
There are so many examples, but I will give just one. Steve and Joan Finch spoke movingly at our summit last November. They took out what was meant to be a simple fixed-rate loan from Lloyds bank to buy Bredbury Hall hotel. Alongside that loan, the bank added the credit liabilities of a derivative, a swap, with a starting hidden credit liability of £1 million, rising to £3 million. Those undisclosed arrangements generated £179,000 in secret up-front commissions. A further £1 million was taken in fees when the bank processed the case through its so-called business support unit, widely criticised as an asset-stripping mechanism.
The business ended up there because undisclosed credit liabilities created a loan-to-value risk of 136%, against a permitted maximum of 70%. Despite being a thriving business, Bredbury Hall was manoeuvred into administration. Stephen Finch was bankrupted and the family had to raise £600,000 to pay off vulture fund Cerberus, to which the loan had been sold, to save their home.
Suspicious of what had happened, the Finches contacted Greater Manchester police with evidence of all three offences that had been committed under the Fraud Act 2006. The police took the matter seriously and investigated, but when they asked the FCA for technical assistance, the FCA refused, so last June the police closed the case, citing three reasons: lack of FCA assistance, insufficient resources for a complex investigation, and concern that examining the case would oblige them to investigate numerous similar ones.
There are so many other cases. One of the cases I have dealt with involved reading the last letter of a man who committed suicide in the hope that his insurance would pay out to save his family home. Many whistleblowers have courageously come forward. In fact, that is what led to the creation of BankConfidential. I will cite just one example: Mark Wright, a former Royal Bank of Scotland manager. One of our former colleagues, Norman Lamb, supported him. Mark provided internal evidence of the bank deliberately defaulting customers to improve capital ratios and targeting customers for debanking and insolvency. He even named the person who taught trainees how to forge customer signatures on bank documents. Mark experienced incredible levels of personal stress, and I congratulate him on his courage in coming forward, but the FCA failed to act.
The failure of the system to reform or to deliver justice and compensation to victims has been the outstanding theme of our discussions and debates as an all-party group. Numerous schemes, inquiries and reports were meant to deliver meaningful reform and provide victims of banking misconduct with access to justice and redress. We have had the Foskett panel, the Swift review of interest rate hedging products, the Cranston review, the Tomlinson report, the Project Lord Turnbull report by Sally Masterton, the parliamentary commission on banking standards and various Treasury Committee inquiries. The truth is that they have had little effect: victims remain out of pocket and meaningful reform still has not happened.
The result is that trust in the system has now been shattered. The FCA’s Financial Lives survey shows that less than half the public trust the financial sector and its regulatory framework. That is a damning indictment, and it is problematic particularly among SMEs, where we need business confidence to stimulate growth in our wider economy.
Let me conclude. The all-party group, having consulted so many experts, victims and constituents, has come to the conclusion that the only way forward is some form of royal commission or equivalent inquiry to address the deep structural flaws in the system and the widespread injustices that remain unresolved. We need to establish what happened and who was responsible; otherwise, there is a real risk of history repeating itself, and we cannot stand by and allow that to happen.
In the short term, we are demanding at least a specific inquiry into hidden credit and the role of the FCA. That inquiry must be fully independent, well resourced and—if it is to have confidence in it—judge led, and it must be granted statutory provision under the Inquiries Act 2005.
This all arose because many of us, as individual MPs, were approached by constituents who have suffered. We must remember that it is ordinary people who have been the victims of this tragedy, and some of them are with us in the Public Gallery. They have kept the flame of hope for justice alive, and I urge them to maintain their efforts and to continue to inspire us with their righteous indignation and justified anger. However, I do not want to be here in years to come—as we were in 2016—dealing with the same problems and with a system that is not fit for purpose, with more victims making representations to us. I hope today that the Government will accept there is a need for an independent inquiry, that we can present the evidence to it and that we can successfully reform the system to protect our financial services and, more importantly, the people—our constituents—who rely on them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. I think six Members are standing. I will call the Front Benchers at 10.30 am. I will not impose a time limit at this stage, but around six minutes a head should ensure that everybody who wishes to be called is called.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
As always, it is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I give special thanks to the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who is a doughty champion for his constituents, and they are fortunate to have him as their MP—well done to him for all that he does in this House.
It gives me great pleasure to be a voice for the households and businesses in Northern Ireland that have, for too long, been navigating a financial landscape filled with hidden pitfalls and undisclosed liabilities. It is also a pleasure to see the Minister in her place. I have three asks of her, and I hope she will be able to accommodate me, and indeed others in the asks they have.
Although this is a UK-wide issue, the weight of hidden credit falls heavier across the Irish sea, in Northern Ireland. We are a region where 20% of all adults are struggling with over-indebtedness—the highest proportion in this kingdom. When we talk about hidden liabilities, we are talking not just about accounting entries or numbers, but about families in Belfast, Londonderry and Fermanagh who are discovering that the car finance they took out years ago was padded with secret commissions they never agreed to and had no knowledge of.
For our SMEs—the small and medium-sized businesses that are the absolute backbone of the Northern Ireland economy—the scars of the past run deep. Hon. Members may remember the Ulster Bank scandal. I remember it well, as will my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell). Derivative swaps were sold as protection, but instead acted as a noose around the necks of those who had taken them out. Those people found themselves constrained by what took place, and indeed they still are. Today, many of our small firms still find themselves trapped by complex credit lines and by break costs that were never clearly explained. With that mist, darkness or cloud hanging over those agreements, people find themselves—even today—trying to sort them out and find a way forward. The Financial Conduct Authority has a clear mandate to protect consumers and ensure market integrity, but protection that comes a decade too late is not protection; it is a post mortem. Those people found themselves in agreements where they had no idea about the small print or what it would do to them. Even today, the payments are mind-boggling.
In Northern Ireland, more than 50 bank branches have closed in just three years—11 of them were in my constituency—so the impact has been very real. As physical, face-to-face banks disappear, the digital shadow of credit grows. We see a banking void, where vulnerable people are pushed towards unregulated, hidden lending because the high street banks have abandoned them. That cannot be right. I therefore look forward to the Minister’s response. I am sure she grasps the issues, because there will be little or no difference between her constituency and mine.
We welcome the FCA’s current redress schemes, but on behalf of our constituents, we demand more than just retrospective apologies. Apologies are words; actions are what really matter. I therefore have three asks of the Minister. First, we want transparency by default and no more discretionary commissions hidden in the small print of motor finance. Secondly, we want SME equality. Our businesses deserve the same protections as retail consumers when dealing with complex credit products. In my constituency, and indeed across Northern Ireland, small and medium-sized businesses are the backbone of our economy; they are incredibly important. Thirdly—this is the big ask—we want regional sensitivity. The FCA must recognise that a one-size-fits-all approach does not work when Northern Ireland has the highest vulnerability rates in the United Kingdom. To add to that third point, I would ask the Minister to please engage with the relevant Minister and the banks in Northern Ireland—we need special consideration.
In conclusion, I say this to the Minister and the regulator: the people of Northern Ireland are not asking for handouts; they are asking for a fair game plan. It is time to pull back the curtain on these hidden liabilities and to ensure that the consumer duty is a reality in every town across Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England. It cannot be just a slogan in London; it has to be for everyone.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for securing this debate on an issue that has long been overlooked. I want to take this opportunity to tell Members about James and Becky Glanville, who are in the Public Gallery today. They built a successful nursing home business, and their story shows how hidden credit liabilities attached to interest rate swaps destroyed a family enterprise.
The Glanvilles’ experience is a stark and deeply troubling example of how hidden credit liabilities attached to interest rate hedging products have devastated viable businesses. What began as a successful, family-run nursing home enterprise, built with life savings and years of hard work, was ultimately destroyed by undisclosed risks embedded within complex financial products sold by NatWest, which was part of Royal Bank of Scotland Group at the time.
The family were never informed that these swaps carried significant liabilities, which would be treated as secured debt against their businesses, eroding borrowing capacity and triggering breaches of loan-to-value covenants as interest rates fell, as my right hon. Friend mentioned. The hidden exposures escalated dramatically, putting the companies under severe financial strain and ultimately pushing them into restructuring and insolvency processes. Despite clear regulatory requirements for transparency and informed consent, the risks were not disclosed. Subsequent treatment within restructuring units, including asset devaluation and agreements that allowed the bank to profit further from the family’s losses, compounded the damage.
I will provide some background to the Glanvilles’ case by way of context. The family started their nursing home business in 2002 with their lifetime savings and a mortgage of £744,000. By 2007, the business had grown and needed further borrowing. That is when NatWest insisted that they take out interest rate hedging products as a condition of the loans. The family entered two base rate swaps, but what the bank never told them was that the swaps carried large undisclosed contingent credit line obligations, which were treated as hard secured liabilities on the company’s credit file and counted against the 70% loan-to-value covenant. The hidden credit lines ballooned as rates fell, triggering covenant breaches and damaging the business’ credit standing.
Such products were classed by the Financial Services Authority, as it was then, as a complex financial instrument that should normally be purchased only by investment professionals, yet they were sold to inexperienced clients such as the Glanvilles as free, no premium protection against interest rate risk. The additional costs and credit risks had to be disclosed to comply with the FSA’s conduct of business rules. Those rules stated that a firm can grant credit for such products if the customer has given prior consent in full knowledge of any resulting interest and fees. James and his family did not know of the risks or provide any written consent for them.
That raises the issue of the FCA’s role, which has already been mentioned. The FCA’s redress scheme failed to account for the impact of those hidden credit lines. By excluding that critical feature from the regulatory review, the system denied victims fair compensation and meaningful justice. The interest rate hedging products review was allegedly set up to compensate victims such as Mr Glanville and to put them back in the position they would have been in had the swaps not been sold in breach of the rules. All the banks signed an undertaking that the FSA rules would be complied with in the review, but instead the FSA and FCA agreed separate sales standards with the banks, which specifically excluded any mention of hidden credit liability and its effect. The regulator therefore effectively colluded with the banks to keep this undoubted fraud covered up and reduce compensation costs.
In 2019, Mr Glanville’s legal team calculated that, with the losses on the properties that were sold under value, the consequential losses and the interest, the family were owed £6.3 million. What they have received to date from the bank is absolutely nothing. As people know, the Glanville family case is not isolated; it reflects a wider systemic failure that affects thousands of SMEs. That underscores the urgent need for a full independent investigation into hidden credit liabilities and the associated regulatory failures, which must lead to the establishment of a fair and comprehensive redress scheme. Businesses and families that have suffered such a profound harm deserve accountability, transparency and ultimately justice. I hope the Minister will reflect on that in her response.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for securing this vital debate.
I have tried to support the Evans family, my constituents, since I first became an MP, carrying on the work of my predecessor Roger Williams, who was here until 2015. I have got to know Don, Rachel and Paul and their circumstances quite well, and Paul is here with us today. The Evans family have suffered as a result of shocking banking malpractice, and I hope and believe that we have a Minister here today with the professional expertise and intellect to understand what the banks did and put things right.
Don Evans led a family firm in every sense: his wife, two daughters, son, son-in-law and granddaughter all played a part. Springdew Ltd, a pharmaceuticals company, was the kind of firm that made its employees and the wider upper Swansea valley community part of an extended family. Customers included Procter & Gamble, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson and GSK. In 2007, the business became GSK’s supplier of the year.
Unknown to the Evans family, Springdew was originally put into a 10-year structured collar by Barclays Capital in early 2006 for a notional amount of £800,000, allegedly rolled into an interest rate swap with a notional value of £1.3 million, with Springdew paying the fixed rate of 5.6% for an excessively long period—15 years. The bank was highly motivated to make the term so long because it had secretly added a hidden margin of circa 60 basis points to the swap rate, bookable as a day one profit of circa £85,000. That interest rate swap was included in the 2012 interest rate hedging products remediation process. Barclays stated that the product had been mis-sold and a full tear-up was agreed, with the Evans family refunded moneys paid plus statutory interest.
However, the bank refused to engage with Springdew’s claim for consequential losses, and the hidden credit line had damaged its credit standing, leading to transfer to Barclays’ business support unit, where additional fees were charged. Its experience in the business support unit included manipulated interest rates, false reporting, a refusal to suspend payments, personal and pension funds being injected and forced equipment sales. The hidden credit line also meant that the bank was unwilling to provide additional lending to support growth. The bank has since refused to disclose key internal documents promised in the guide to the review in November 2012. As a company rather than an individual, Springdew has no legal right to a data subject access request, so reform there is desperately needed. If businesses cannot access disclosure from the other side, they are fighting blindfolded. We also need to regulate business lending properly. The world of SME finance should not be the wild west.
The business had been flourishing, but the bank’s behaviour brought all of that to an unnecessary end. The family invested a further £600,000 of their own money to keep the business afloat—money that is now with creditors. Springdew was the last major employer in the upper Swansea valley, providing much-needed jobs. I must stress that when businesses are destroyed through banking misconduct it is not just founders and shareholders who suffer, but employees and the wider community too.
The stress has had direct medical consequences. In 2011, Don suffered a perforated ulcer and was hospitalised for a week. In January 2024, a month after Springdew began liquidation, Don suffered a major stroke. He was discharged early on a Friday due to his wife’s deteriorating condition; that same night she was hospitalised with pneumonia, an illness that can be brought on by sustained stress. The situation worsened when the family learned that she had cancer, which she had kept secret, not wanting to add to the family’s burden. Although the financial consequences have been devastating, the greatest losses have been of health, of time and of life; one of Don’s daughters also sadly passed away.
The Fraud Act 2006 defines three types of fraud: false representation, failure to disclose information and abuse of position. The Evans family believe that they have been the victims of all three. There was a brief glimmer of hope for justice when the Business Banking Resolution Service was established, but the guilty banks engineered ways to deem Springdew ineligible, as they did with the vast majority of claimants, with a staggering 76% of claimants being turned away. The family were then diverted to the Financial Ombudsman Service, which was an equally unsatisfying experience.
There are clear systemic failures in how financial injustices are handled. The Financial Conduct Authority’s purpose is to regulate financial services, set standards and hold those that fail to meet those standards to account. Clearly, it has failed to help the Evans family and so many others. The FCA deliberately excluded key features of derivatives and consequential losses from its remediation exercise, and direct correspondence with chief executive officer Andrew Bailey and chair John Griffiths-Jones produced nothing meaningful. Springdew relied on a system it was told to trust. It was misdirected by official process, suffered catastrophic personal and financial harm, and followed the rules throughout.
My constituents have been victims of serious banking misconduct and have been terribly let down. As far back as 2014, Parliament made a commitment to the Evanses and others like them that their cases would be reviewed and that fair and reasonable redress would follow. That commitment has not been honoured. Justice is long overdue, and I urge the Minister to relook at the Evans case and the others raised today and commit to ensuring that those businesses will finally benefit from a redress scheme that will provide true compensation and fairness.
Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on securing this very important debate and on his excellent speech to start it off.
I will illustrate the failings of the Financial Conduct Authority in dealing with complaints from businesses who were mis-sold products with high credit liabilities, by using the experience of one of my constituents, Chris, who is in the Public Gallery. In the late 1990s Chris decided to venture into the property market. He secured loans from Nationwide, Birmingham Midshires and other lenders and made a success of his business—so much so that by 2005, he had a property portfolio of 51 properties across north London.
In 2005, Chris decided to refinance the borrowing for his properties with the Royal Bank of Scotland. Chris was sold £3 million in interest rate swaps and £13.4 million in hedging products as part of the refinancing arrangement. Chris states he was not told about any credit risk or commission on the products sold to him, or about the large penalties to exit those credit facilities. In the interest rate hedging products review carried out by the NatWest Group, Chris was assessed as a non-sophisticated customer and has accepted that he had no previous experience of derivatives and relied entirely on RBS’s information and advice.
Chris was told that the bank was fixing the interest rate to protect him from inevitable rate increases. No assessment was carried out to see whether the products were appropriate for his business; no risks were explained and he was never warned about the hidden credit liabilities and break costs that could run into hundreds of thousands—or, as he would later find out in his case, millions—of pounds.
In 2009, as interest rates collapsed on the interest rate swaps, the hidden credit liabilities ballooned, and Chris was now liable for between 20% and 25% of the loan value secured under the bank’s standard commercial charges. That caused Chris huge financial difficulty in repaying the loans. He was also tied in because of the costs on the break clauses, which were also eye-wateringly high. The prohibitive break fees and high credit liabilities locked him in and prevented substantial refinancing, as no other bank would take him on without incurring additional liabilities.
As a result of Chris’s financial situation, his property portfolios were transferred to RBS’s global restructuring group, where exorbitant penalty charges and demands for revaluations made trading impossible for Chris. The GRG then took over the management of the properties, charging 10% plus monthly management fees. All 51 properties were eventually repossessed and sold at auction below their value, leaving substantial shortfalls. Chris was then pursued by RBS, which brought bankruptcy proceedings against him. As a result of the hidden credit liabilities that came with the interest rate swaps and fixed-rate loans sold to Chris, the business he spent 20 years building was destroyed in just three.
Chris is not alone in having had his business ruined as a result of hidden credit liabilities: hundreds of other small businesses suffered. As the House of Commons Library briefing for this debate states, the 2012 Financial Services Authority review concluded that lenders,
“did not adequately disclose to borrowers the cost of exiting an IRHP…failed to ascertain borrowers’ understanding of risk…sold products which unsuitably ‘over-hedged’ borrowers (overexposed borrowers to risk)”.
The 2012 FSA-operated redress scheme that followed, which differentiated between “sophisticated” and “non-sophisticated” customers, was criticised not only by the Treasury Committee but by John Swift, who was appointed by the Financial Conduct Authority in response to the Treasury Committee’s report. Despite that, the Financial Conduct Authority chose to ignore the findings of the review that it had commissioned. It refused to budge, saying that
“the decision to treat sophisticated and non-sophisticated customers differently in the case of IRHPs was justified”
while acknowledging that “there were shortfalls” in its decision-making processes, governance and recordkeeping. In its very thorough report on hidden credit lines, BankConfidential noted that
“the FCA announced publicly:
‘The FCA also found no evidence that RBS artificially distressed and transferred otherwise viable SME businesses to GRG to profit from their restructuring or insolvency.’…‘The independent review did not find that RBS had deliberately made businesses worse off so that it could profit from GRG selling them off’”.
My constituent would beg to differ.
The FCA should inspire confidence and act with integrity and robustness. The FCA’s decision making and perceived closeness to the banks undermines that. Its role in dealing with the aftermath of the hidden credit liabilities debacle has fallen well short of the standards we expect, so I urge the Minister to ask the FCA to look again at the redress scheme and allow excluded businesses to get the justice they deserve. I also ask the Minister to ensure that the FCA is a truly independent and transparent regulator, and that it restores the trust and confidence that we all expect from it.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on securing such an important and timely debate.
Catherine and Nigel Jarvis are of the type of local business owners who become the lifeblood of their communities and local economies. Creative, hard-working and passionate about the Northumberland countryside, in 2007 they looked to buy a property deep in the heart of Hadrian’s Wall country. Their dream was to raise their young family there, while renting out some of the rooms as a bed and breakfast. They approached HSBC for a loan of £175,000 to put towards the family home and business proposition.
It should have been straightforward. As more than 40% of the house was always intended to be used as Catherine and Nigel’s main dwelling, under FCA rules their loan request to HSBC represented a standard home on which a normal residential mortgage should have been offered. An offer should have come from the regulated mortgage side of the bank, where all consumer protections under the mortgage conduct of business rules would apply. What happened instead trapped them in a relationship with HSBC for almost 20 years that has ruined their finances, their credit ratings, their health and their relationships. It has ruined their plans for the future and their dreams as small business owners and has had an irreversible impact on the lives of their two children, who have grown up in the shadow of this trauma.
Instead of a residential mortgage, the couple were explicitly told that they had to agree to a commercial loan with a derivative product—in this case, an interest rate swap—as a condition, without which the Jarvises could not have bought their home. As every member of the public should be able to, they trusted the institution implicitly and proceeded. Even when the suggestion of a derivative product came as a surprise, they believed the bank had their best interests at heart. They were sold the swap on the understanding that it was insurance, protecting them from the risks of increasing interest rates with no up-front cost. The reality was that, on the very first day of the agreement, the product they were sold created hidden profit for the bank and an undisclosed credit line for the couple, acting effectively as a second, secret mortgage on their home. They began their SME journey with extra secured debt and a risk they knew nothing about.
When rates crashed in early 2009, the undisclosed “out of the money” position covered by the hidden credit line exploded that risk, damaging Catherine and Nigel’s internal credit grade and making the loan look far riskier to the bank. Eventually, they were threatened with foreclosure unless they agreed to move into the bank’s restructuring unit, even though Catherine and Nigel never missed a payment and had no knowledge of the additional risk now being used against them. Since 2007, they have poured everything they could into trying to untangle themselves from an agreement they never would have signed had its true scope been disclosed to them. That has cost them hundreds of thousands of pounds, with an untold cost to their mental and emotional wellbeing and physical health.
The then FSA’s conduct of business rules, which applied in 2007, stated that, before granting any credit or loan in connection with an investment business, such as the interest rate swap, the bank was required to make and record an assessment of the couple’s financial standing based on the information disclosed; take reasonable steps to ensure that arrangements for the loan or credit, and the amount concerned, were suitable for them; and obtain Catherine and Nigel’s prior written consent to the maximum amount of the loan or credit and to the amount or basis of any interest fees to be levied in connection with it. The bank did none of those things. In making the interest rate swap a condition of the loan it offered, it hid the credit risk from the couple and made applications for those credit facilities in their personal names without their knowledge or agreement.
The hidden credit line made the agreement toxic from the start. A key factor in the lack of justice for Catherine and Nigel has been the FCA’s handling of hidden credit lines as a specific factor. At the initial IRHP review scheme, the FCA told reviewers to treat the hidden credit line as an internal bank risk and ignore it in considering almost everything that Catherine and Nigel suffered—directly derailing their claim to redress.
The decision was made that the Jarvises’ losses were not foreseeable to the bank. In reality, their losses were not only foreseeable but expected, due to that hidden credit line. Hidden credit line practices and the profit motivations of banks have destroyed the lives and livelihoods of not only Catherine and Nigel but thousands of families and businesses across the country. I strongly support the calls for an investigation into the specific issue of hidden credit liabilities. Without that, and without a proper inquiry into the FCA’s own conduct on the matter, Catherine and Nigel, along with thousands of others, will continue to live without remedy for the financial destruction they have endured.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for securing the debate, for his expert exposition and for the work he has done on this issue over many years.
I will raise case of my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley), as she is unable to do because of her Front-Bench position. The case concerns the retired couple Stephen and Gloria Lilley. Their family home, their son’s home and Stephen’s investment portfolio were all tied up as collateral for a commercial loan, without their knowledge or agreement, to provide security for the hidden credit liability on a swap the bank insisted they take out.
Mr and Mrs Lilley had paid off their mortgage and were looking forward to a peaceful retirement but, instead, HSBC persuaded them to raise £455,000 of commercial borrowing, secured first on their business premises. When there was not enough equity in the business premises to cover the undisclosed initial commission—internally classed as “added value”—and the hidden credit liabilities on the swap, the bank required their family home, their son’s home and Stephen’s share portfolio to be used as additional collateral: a total of £960,000.
The first charge on Stephen and Gloria’s home created a regulated mortgage contract under the FSA’s mortgage conduct of business rules. The bank was required to give clear explanations of all risks, including all-moneys charges and contingent liabilities, but despite repeated requests from their adviser for full disclosure of the credit line and the size of the liability, which was needed for consequential loss calculations, HSBC refused to provide the information. Its response was particularly blunt:
“With regard to the rest of the other queries raised…they are not pertinent to the review methodology nor the redress outcome.”
As personal guarantors, Mr and Mrs Lilley had an absolute right to know the full extent of the bank liabilities and risks they were personally guaranteeing. Had the credit line risk and the undisclosed up-front commission been properly disclosed, the resulting losses and damage to the business would have been entirely foreseeable. Yet the FCA, working in agreement with the banks, deliberately designed the sales standards used in the interest rate hedging products review to exclude any consideration of that damage or harm when assessing consequential losses, as the BankConfidential report confirms.
The stress was devastating. Both Stephen and Gloria have suffered heart attacks in recent years, which were directly linked to the financial worry caused by the mis-sale. Speaking in the House in December 2016, my right hon. Friend the Member for Redcar described how the couple had endured sleepless nights and felt powerless as the bank held their retirement security in its hands. When HSBC later admitted that the product had been mis-sold, it offered only a limited swap-for-swap redress, providing an alternative cap product that still left the Lilleys substantially under-compensated. In fact, they received no consequential losses at all—just interest on what was classed as overpayments on the product. How can a product that destroyed a family’s business and lives for over a decade lead to no recognised loss?
Across the entire IRHP review, the banks paid out £2.2 billion in total redress for around 20,000 acknowledged mis-sales. Yet only £46 million—just 2%—was paid for consequential losses, even though most victims ended up facing insolvency and personal bankruptcy. That was no accident: the non-disclosure of the hidden credit line risk was deliberately kept out of the review methodology so that the devastating downstream harm could be totally ignored. This is another textbook example of why there must now be a fully independent investigation, completely outside the control or oversight of the FCA, into all forms of hidden credit liabilities across every bank, and why a fair redress scheme must be established for every business and family ruined by this practice. No couple should have their family home put at risk or endure years of severe stress and ill health simply because a bank failed to disclose the true risks and costs of the products it sold them.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Redcar can make all the correspondence—including letters demanding explanations on the regulated status of the home loan and the hidden credit line—available to the Minister and her team, in the hope that they may be of assistance to her in considering what remedial actions may be considered. Hopefully, the catalogue of gangster-like behaviours perpetrated by these banks can finally persuade the Minister and her colleagues to launch an independent, judge-led inquiry into an utter scandal that has bedevilled far too many businesses for far too long.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for securing this debate and for his fight for truth and justice over many years.
Many believe that this issue goes to the very heart of the Hillsborough law, or Public Office (Accountability) Bill, for which I am proud to be the parliamentary lead. My focus is on ensuring that the law delivers a true legacy for the 97 who died at Hillsborough and for all those who have suffered at the hands of a state that failed them. It may also form part of the solution to the issues we are discussing today, because this is about power without accountability, when institutions close ranks and ordinary people are left to fight alone. The Hillsborough law is about driving a cultural change in institutions that resist transparency, and that is precisely where the Financial Conduct Authority is falling short. Time and again, the FCA has failed to give straight answers to straight questions. This is not regulation; it is evasion. We have seen this culture before in Hillsborough, the Post Office Horizon scandal, the contaminated blood scandal and many others. This scandal may well join that damning list of state failure and cover-up.
The 2024 report by the all-party parliamentary group on investment fraud and fairer financial services should have raised alarm bells for the then Government. A former FCA employee described it as having “the worst staff culture” of their 40-year career. We have heard that whistleblowers were sidelined, dissent suppressed and an official line enforced. This is not a regulator acting in the public interest—it is an organisation protecting itself. When regulators fail, people pay the price: water, energy, finance—the list goes on.
Let me turn to hidden credit liabilities. The APPG report highlights serious concerns about the FCA’s handling of the mis-selling of interest rate hedging products to small businesses, including the failure to address hidden credit line risks and a pattern of evasion when challenged. Take the case of Andrew Candy. In 2008, he sought a simple fixed-rate loan. Instead, he was sold a complex product without being told by the seller at HSBC about hidden credit lines, margin calls or the risks involved. He was later hit with a £70,000 break cost that had never been disclosed. His business collapsed, and he sold his family home. What followed was 17 years of stress and injustice, with no proper accountability or resolution. That story is familiar to many sitting behind me in the Public Gallery.
Even attempts at compromise were met with further loss and distress. This is not just a banking failure; it is a regulatory failure due to a fear of standing up to the big banks. Shamefully, the FCA stood by and did nothing. Worse, there are concerns that it obscured the truth, including the existence of hidden credit lines, and colluded in the practices, as we have heard from hon. Members today.
Here lies the deeper issue: the FCA is a private company limited by guarantee. It has immunity from civil liability and can resist scrutiny in the courts. That cannot stand. If there is a gap through which the FCA can escape accountability, it is our duty to close it, because no regulator should be above the law, no institution beyond scrutiny and no citizen left to fight alone. Andrew Candy’s case is not isolated, as we have heard. It is a warning of what happens when power operates in the shadows. As parliamentarians, we must shine a light, demand truth and stand with those who have been wronged.
I understand that amendments to the Hillsborough law are being considered to extend the duty of candour to regulators, including the FCA. The case for that will be compelling, certainly given what we have heard today, and is likely to command strong support in both this place and the Lords. If the Government take forward the call for an inquiry, as I hope they will and I fully support, the Hillsborough law could be a huge element in getting truth, accountability and justice. For people like Andrew Candy, it cannot come soon enough.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
I would like to start with a story about greed from a previous life. When I was a young, stony-broke filmmaker, unable to afford the hotel costs of the Cannes film festival, I was staying many miles away in cheap digs and was therefore stone-cold sober for the entire undertaking. I watched as, under the gaze of Harvey Weinstein’s hotel suite, Martin Scorsese and Leonardo DiCaprio spent $1 million extending a jetty into the sea, on which they hosted the most lavish launch party ever for a film company. It was a manifestation of greed and profligacy.
The movie they were launching was “The Wolf of Wall Street”, and I do not think it is superlative to suggest that the scale of the scandal we are discussing today is of that same epic Hollywood standard. If this place will not take the action to secure the transparency and accountability that is needed, then hopefully the world of moviemaking will.
I am pleased to be representing the Liberal Democrats here today and picking up the mantle of a campaign that my predecessor, Sir Norman Lamb, started more than a decade ago. He was one of the first people in Parliament to speak up about this scandal and how it continued to affect constituents in North Norfolk. It is greatly frustrating that we are still having to push for action so many years on, but I know he will be pleased to see that Members are still keeping the Government’s feet to the fire on this issue.
Hon. Members from all parties often come to this place to champion small businesses. We know that the economies of our constituencies are built on them, and they provide us with vital services on a daily basis. I know that both as a consumer and from my professional background in the business environment. People who run businesses carry on regardless. They are not greedy people; they simply want to make a living, and yet they have been exploited by others who want to make a killing. People’s entire livelihoods and careers were put at risk because wealthy banks and bankers saw them as an easy cash cow to mis-sell products to.
BankConfidential believes that tens of thousands of small businesses have been affected, and tens of billions of pounds extracted from SMEs into the pockets of giant multinational banks that were using the profits to prop themselves up after the disastrous 2008 financial crisis, which, as we know, was made so catastrophic by profit-chasing in an under-regulated sector. Not content with being bailed out by the taxpayer, the banks chose to rinse SMEs in our communities, too. It is worth mentioning that BankConfidential has seen cases of NHS-linked organisations being subject to these practices as well, with capital used to finance and purchase GP surgeries or medical centres being lent with hidden credit lines, which also suffered when interest rates plummeted. It is unconscionable that banks may have gone as far as to rip off GPs and our NHS in their pursuit of profit.
It is deeply concerning that this appeared to be a well-rehearsed routine in which SMEs were taken down, in effect to fund the recapitalisation of banks after the financial crash. It is not just the businesses that suffered, but those in the sector who tried to speak up and speak out. My constituent Mark Wright’s story is detailed in the APPG report, and his experience shows that the sector simply is not fit to handle whistleblowing effectively and fairly. He raised serious concerns about market abuse by his employer, affecting not just him but thousands of employees with savings and investments tied to the profitability and capitalisation of RBS. He tried to challenge senior management and speak out. He has seen his banking career tarnished and his health suffer, and he has spent more than a decade trying to secure justice. His complaint and case were severely mishandled by the FCA, and he has faced barrier after barrier in trying to get answers about his treatment and about the action that it will take on what he revealed.
The ordeals of Mark and others who have worked to expose scandals show that we need to greatly strengthen protection for whistleblowers in this country. So far, in my view, the Government have missed two opportunities to take action: as they stand, the Employment Rights Act 2025 and the Public Office (Accountability) Bill have left whistleblowers behind. Whistleblowing is not about someone having the unreserved right to denigrate their employer; it is not a defamation charter or the power to complain in public. It is about calling out things that are wrong and should not happen, but will continue to happen unless someone decides to be an upstander and not a bystander.
The Liberal Democrats would introduce an office of the whistleblower with stronger legal protections to enable people to challenge corporate behaviour without risk to themselves or their careers. We also need to replace the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 with a stronger and far more effective piece of legislation. It is simply not fit for purpose and does not give those seeking whistleblower protection enough confidence. In recent years we have seen too many scandals that could have been avoided or reduced if people had had more ability and protection to call out bad practices and illegal behaviours. I am sure the Minister will not treat us to a sneak peek at the King’s Speech and tell us that it will contain more whistleblower protections, but will she make the case to the Government for such protections to be enacted in the new Session?
The complexity of the financial machinations at play in this scandal should not make any less clear to people the wrongdoing that has happened and the damage that it has caused. People have lost livelihoods, those who have tried to speak out have lost careers and, as the report sadly identifies, lives have been lost.
I will end where I started. A wealthy man who I have known for some time for his integrity and generosity—the opposite attributes to greed—built a billion-pound business from nothing that was taken down entirely by the bank. I asked him what the key ingredient to success in business was, and he said luck—he is possibly the only entrepreneur ever to answer that question honestly. He was lucky enough to build his business back up, but we owe it to those who have not been so lucky to ensure that the hidden credit line scandal is shown the light of justice that it deserves.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
Thank you, Sir Roger, for chairing the debate. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on bringing this incredibly important subject up for discussion. At the heart of the debate are individual people—people who have lost their businesses, their livelihoods and, in some cases, their health and, indeed, their lives. Let me be crystal clear: where there has been malpractice, those affected should and must be supported and compensated. Every stakeholder in this issue, from the banks to the business owners—certainly the business owners—should agree with that.
I have a certain amount of experience of this. I was a member of the Treasury Committee from 2010 to 2016 and a member of the parliamentary commission on banking standards. We looked at the Financial Services Act 2012, which created the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority to replace the previous regulator, the Financial Services Authority, which had been an abject failure. The FSA was created under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, which started the tripartite regime that singularly failed our economy and resulted in the financial crisis in 2008.
There is absolutely no question but that what we saw prior to the financial crisis, when we had that credit bubble, were some very bad practices. We looked into this again on the parliamentary commission on banking standards. The legislation that came out of that, the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013, was originally started due to the LIBOR scandal. None the less, we looked into the fundamental malpractices going on in banks, and what we saw, absolutely beyond a shadow of a doubt, was a mismatch in the balance of interests between shareholders, customers and staff that was massively in the favour of staff. That is what we found, and that fundamental malpractice by the financial services system is what those two Acts of Parliament were designed to resolve.
What we are looking at today is three important areas: those who were sold interest rate hedging products, which most of this debate has been about; those who were placed into RBS’s global restructuring group; and those who were on fixed-rate loans in Northern Ireland. I want briefly to go through each. On the hedging products, it was common practice back in the 2000s for businesses to be sold variable rate loans, as well as interest rate hedging products, which were known as collars and caps. In principle, they are not inherently bad products in themselves, as they offered the borrower greater flexibility. If people are borrowing money at 6% and are capped at 8%, but the quid pro quo is that they are collared at 4%, that actually works for them, because it protects them from a spike in interest rates.
Of course, the problem was that we did not see a spike in interest rates; rather, we saw a massive collapse of interest rates during the financial crisis. Interest rates dropped from 575 basis points in 2007 to just 50 basis points in 2009, and that is where borrowers were left out. Of course, we have also seen mismanagement of Government—I am the first to admit that, under Liz Truss’s Government, we saw interest rates spike at 15%. Collar and cap arrangements would have protected borrowers from that, so there is a benefit to them. However, I completely understand that we are looking here at where there has been malpractice behind these contracts.
It is incredibly important, though, to look at the problem with the Financial Services Authority, the precursor of the Financial Conduct Authority, which identified that lenders failed to ascertain borrowers’ understanding of risk. That is why it was right that the nine banks involved compensated customers to the tune of £2.2 billion. I appreciate that we are talking about those who were not compensated, but there was a recognition that there was a problem.
On the global restructuring group, the Financial Conduct Authority identified a number of clear failings in customer service and poor interactions. I understand that NatWest bank has accepted that the conduct fell far below the standards expected and has paid out something in the region of £100 million in compensation. In the grand scheme of things, that is not a huge amount of money; none the less, it has accepted that. However, it seems from the results of the regulatory reviews by the FCA, as well as the judicial proceedings, that it has not properly compensated people.
I should also point out that banks did a great deal to support businesses around the time of the financial crisis. That might sound counterintuitive to hon. Members, but one of the great discussions we had on the Treasury Committee was about the surprisingly small number of businesses that had gone bust. There was an argument at the time that banks were artificially supporting businesses while they had bad cash flow and damaged balance sheets, and that forcing companies into liquidation would crystallise the deficit of the loan on to the banks’ balance sheets. There was an argument that they were doing the wrong thing by keeping alive what were then referred to as zombie businesses. This whole issue was incredibly complicated after the financial crisis, and there was an awful lot going on in various different parts of all this.
I want finally to turn to the fixed-rate loans, which are mostly the ones used by Ulster Bank in Northern Ireland, which again is a subsidiary of NatWest. The allegation is that the banks took out their own interest rate swaps, booking them in customers’ names and adding a related credit bump. That is a serious allegation, suggesting that the bank staff recorded up-front profits for those swaps and earned personal commissions. The FCA was absolutely right to investigate it, but following its investigation, it said:
“We have seen no evidence that would lead us to conclude that further supervisory work and/or intervention with Ulster Bank/NatWest was required.”
I recognise that many will disagree with that conclusion, but even so, it cannot be argued that the FCA did not look into it. This comes down to what we want the FCA to achieve. The hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) said that the FCA is not accountable, but actually, it is accountable to Parliament through the Treasury Committee, and it is the job of Members on the Committee to ensure that the FCA does the job that we want it to.
When we created the FCA in 2012, the idea was that there would be greater focus on consumer protection. The Financial Services Authority was set up to do the prudential regulation and the conduct regulation. The FCA was set up purely to do the financial conduct regulation, which is looking at how people are looked after. The Prudential Regulation Authority was then set up to do the nuts and bolts of the financial system—to make sure that we did not see a failing in the banking system rather like we had during the great financial crisis. I recognise that many colleagues will feel that process has not happened, particularly in the case we are talking about, but we have to accept that the FCA is an independent body. As I say, it is accountable to Parliament through the Treasury Committee, but it is an independent body.
In a similar debate in 2018, my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), when he was Economic Secretary to the Treasury, said:
“We can set the law, but we then must be bound by it and respect the judgment and independence of the FCA.”—[Official Report, 18 January 2018; Vol. 634, c. 1127.]
To the extent of the law we created, he is absolutely right. In the same way that we respect the judgment of the Supreme Court, even if we disagree with it, we should respect the judgments of the Financial Conduct Authority. It is up to the Minister to come up with a solution, but does she agree with that, or has the FCA got this fundamentally wrong? If so, what line will the Government take? Will they deliver the judge-led judicial review that people are looking for? I hope she will be able to answer that.
In closing, I want to return to those who have been affected. SMEs make up 99% of all businesses in the UK, so it is not an exaggeration that they are the lifeblood of our economy. When they succeed, we all benefit. They need confidence that institutions and financial services are backing them and are there to serve them and to make their businesses work. This issue has damaged that trust, and many have experienced painful losses. We need to rebuild that trust. I am not sure whether a judge-led inquiry is the right step, but I am open to it. The decision on whether to undertake one, however, is ultimately for the Government. I look forward to the Minister’s remarks.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for securing this debate and for further airing these issues. As he mentioned, there has been a long history of parliamentary interest in these issues, over at least 14 years. That is for good reason, for not only are we deeply committed to justice and do we abhor injustice in this country, but SMEs are the lifeblood of our economy. The events of the IHRP scandal were completely wrong and abhorrent.
From a personal point of view, I cannot deny how hard it is to hear and read about horrific personal circumstances, not least those of the Glanville family, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan); the Evans family, referred to by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone); and the Lilley family, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald). As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington referred to, in some instances there are hideous personal tragedies, as no doubt may have been experienced by some of the people who are sat behind him in the Public Gallery today.
To that end, I thank and acknowledge my hon. Friends the Members for Poole, for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous), for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), and for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East, and the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick)—the latter knows I struggle sometimes to pronounce the name of his constituency; I hope he thinks I had a decent go—and the spokespeople from other parties for their contributions to the debate. They have shared experiences of those they represent and broader views, and in doing so, they have been clear about the deep sense of injustice and harm felt by many businesses that were affected by these issues—I know of the same in my own postbag.
Not least because of the correspondence I have had and what we have heard today, I recognise that some businesses remain deeply dissatisfied with the operation of the original redress scheme and that its conclusions continue to be strongly contested. Although there have been a number of reviews and pieces of litigation, as I will come to later, the main redress scheme for IRHP resulted in over £2 billion paid in total to thousands of affected businesses.
It was undeniably unsatisfactory that the overall response to these issues has been piecemeal and complex, and the process was very often slow and frustrating to deal with. However, I am told that the IRHP redress scheme was conceived as a means of providing redress within the legal and regulatory constraints of the time. That time was more than 10 years ago, and some instances of the subject matter that we are discussing today go back around 25 years.
Clearly, I was not part of the Treasury in 2012, nor were Labour in government—the party of the shadow Economic Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), were in government for the last 14 years—so I want to set out the current Government’s understanding of the framework within which decisions about the redress scheme were taken at the time. The constraints, in so far as they concern regulatory oversight, reflect the constitutional settlement that underpins the UK’s regulatory system, with which I know hon. Members are familiar.
I would imagine that we would all wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green that regulators should at all times act with integrity and independence. Indeed, partly with that point in mind, I say that the Treasury does not have the power to direct the FCA to intervene in individual cases or to investigate matters that fell outside the regulatory perimeter that applied at the time—I am not sure that is what my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington is asking the Treasury to do at this point in any event.
The Treasury also does not have investigative or prosecuting powers of its own. I am sure hon. Members are aware that the independence of the FCA and the Financial Ombudsman Service is fundamental to our constitutional settlement. The separation between the Treasury and the wider regulatory authorities is not a technicality; it is, in theory, a safeguard for businesses and for consumers.
I acknowledge the argument that the Government should act independently of the regulator and the regulatory system and look again at this issue with fresh eyes using their own statutory powers. Given the many reviews of these issues, the independent and broad-based redress schemes over more than a decade, the successful prosecutions, convictions, judicial reviews, and other investigations, the question that the current Government must ask is whether steps to reopen these issues now will lead to better or different outcomes, and, importantly, more redress for those affected.
There are questions as to whether this Government would have made the same decisions if confronted with the same problems as the previous one—and if our decisions would have been different or indeed more or less effective. Without prejudice to the gaze of the shadow Economic Secretary to the Treasury, I am sure that most of us would like to think not only that might we have dealt with the situation rather better, but that in a best-case scenario regulation and supervision would have been designed such that none of these issues would have arisen in the first place. That goes right to the root of why we are all here today, and indeed critical regulatory changes were made following this scandal. However, this Government inherited a set of decisions, conclusions, judicial findings, judgments and levels of compensation that were delivered some time ago.
Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Strangford, a consistent champion of his constituents whose specific points I will come to shortly, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris), who articulated Catherine and Nigel’s heartbreaking story very well, have spoken about hidden credit lines or contingent obligations. Those are clearly very serious allegations, and it is right that they are treated seriously. For the reasons I have set out, where issues relate to the conduct of regulatory firms, they are for the FCA to consider using its statutory powers, evidence base and judgment—with that judgment being independent, again for the reasons that I have set out.
In the light of the independence that we have been discussing, I should say that the FCA firmly refutes the claims made in the BankConfidential report—which I have here—about the nature and impact of the credit lines that we have been discussing. It also refutes the allegations of collusion and regulatory failure which have been referred to today.
With reference to the independence of the courts, in a series of cases, the courts have made findings in relation to disclosure, and Jonathan Swift KC referenced those findings as settled legal context, concluding that the FCA acted lawfully in defining the scope of the IRHP redress scheme. It is true that past regulatory reviews were conducted within the scope of the powers available to the regulator at that time and within the regulatory perimeter that Parliament had set. It is of critical importance that the wider regulatory framework has now changed.
However, before I come to that, I want to address the previous redress scheme in more detail. I recognise that many of those represented here remain deeply dissatisfied with how that scheme operated and that its conclusions continue to be strongly contested. I do not intend to in any sense minimise or underplay any of that frustration, which is clearly very strongly felt. While I understand that the process at the time regarding that redress scheme was slow and sometimes no doubt deeply frustrating, it was established with the intention of delivering redress within the legal and regulatory constraints that applied at that time. One such constraint related to tailored business loans. Most business lending fell outside the scope of the FCA and therefore beyond its powers to compel redress. We cannot extend regulation retrospectively. Indeed, even outwith these current issues, reopening past decisions would create significant legal uncertainty and risk that could affect the availability and cost of finance for SMEs today.
Although I appreciate it is known by those here, I should note that subsequent reviews, and ultimately the courts, considered whether the regulator had acted lawfully in setting the scope and perimeter of that scheme, and concluded that it did. I mention that because it is an important consideration in any assertion that it is for the current Government to seek to reopen these issues.
I referred to a different regulatory environment from that existing now. I will briefly explain why our regulatory landscape is now better. Since 2019, the vast majority of SMEs, around 99%, have been able to bring complaints to the Financial Ombudsman Service. That was a direct response to the gaps exposed by earlier scandals, including those we have talked about today. The ombudsman now provides a far wider safety net for small and medium-sized businesses than existed during the period under discussion.
In addition, the senior managers and certification regime has transformed accountability in financial services. Senior individuals can now be held personally responsible for the way that firms treat SME customers, whether activity is regulated or unregulated. That cultural shift, which stems from both of those, is profound. It did not exist during the years that Members have understandably focused on today.
Today’s debate, like other parliamentary activity on the same topic over a long period, some of which I have reviewed for this debate, has highlighted the serious and clear injustices that some businesses suffered and the impact that had. The current Government obviously cannot undo the harm that has already occurred, more is the pity, but nor can we, or should we, override independent decisions taken by the courts within the legal framework that applied at the time.
I want to address this directly, hard as it may be to hear. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington wishes me to commit today to opening a full judge-led public inquiry into these issues. I do not wish to downplay the seriousness of the matters we have discussed today, but the Government do not believe that a full public inquiry would be the right course to take. I say that with reference both to the long history of reviews, prosecutions, redress schemes and judicial reviews, which would all require unpicking to some degree, and importantly, to the changes to the regulatory landscape that were made subsequently, as a result of the gaps that this scandal exposed.
I want to be clear that the Government are instead focused on ensuring that the regulatory landscape is fit for purpose and on supporting SMEs to grow with confidence, improving their access to finance and ensuring that the financial services sector operates to high standards that command trust. We are backing that commitment with real action, with record support for the British Business Bank and reforms that strengthen accountability without undermining growth.
We are committed to robust regulation to international high standards, so that we have a strong financial services sector. Those ought not to be intentions but the bedrock of the financial services system. That is why access to redress for SMEs has been widened so significantly and why accountability at the top of financial firms is now personal and enforceable. It is also why the regulatory perimeter continues to be kept under careful review, deliberately and responsibly.
The hon. Member for Strangford referred to discretionary commission arrangements.
John McDonnell
There are only a few seconds left. I have heard the Minister’s arguments. I fully agree on the independence of the FCA from Treasury, but that does not mean that we must accept the FCA as infallible. In other instances where separate organisations have made mistakes, the Government have intervened. I understand that the Minister is not convinced this morning, but will she meet the all-party parliamentary group on investment fraud and fairer financial services, so that we can take her through the report with our experts to convince her that there might be a different way forward from the one she is setting out this morning?
Lucy Rigby
My right hon. Friend has pre-empted my offer. To be direct, yes, I will come and meet his APPG to listen further. I hope I have successfully communicated this morning that the Government do believe—
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Carer’s Allowance Overpayments
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
I will call Anna Dixon to move the motion and then I will call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate, the Minister and the Chair, although no such requests have been made. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up the debate.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of Carer’s Allowance overpayments.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank Members for joining me here in Westminster Hall. I have committed my career to securing better care and support for older people and their family carers, and I continue that work here in Parliament as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on carers.
This year marks a significant milestone for carers: it has been 50 years since carer’s allowance was first introduced. It was known originally as the invalid care allowance, and it was the first benefit to recognise the financial sacrifices of unpaid carers. It has made a huge difference, providing vital financial support to those who give 35 hours or more per week in unpaid care. I am proud that it was a Labour Government that introduced carer’s allowance back in 1976, and I am just as proud that this Labour Government and Chancellor increased the earnings threshold from £151 to £196 per week—the largest increase since the benefit was introduced—and again this month to £204 per week, as promised. The world has changed a lot since Harold Wilson was Prime Minister, but some things remain the same, and Labour is still putting its money where its mouth is and standing up for carers.
Supporting carers should be a moral mission of any Government. There are 5.8 million unpaid carers in the UK, and the economic value of their contribution is some £184 billion per year, which is more than the entire NHS budget in England. However, despite the value that carers bring to our society, we often fail to value them. According to Carers UK, 1.2 million unpaid carers in the UK live in poverty, and around half of carers cut back on essentials in 2025.
There is a multitude of reasons for carer poverty. Many carers give up paid work, but many juggle paid work and unpaid care, often reducing their hours, harming their careers and impoverishing themselves. It is for all those reasons that the carer’s allowance overpayment scandal is hard to stomach.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this subject forward. Does she not agree that the amount of money the Government have saved from the unpaid labour of carers is astronomical, and that unless the Department can prove that there was a deliberate overclaim, discretion must be available? These people, whose lives are dedicated to the care of others, do not need the stress of paying a penalty for a mistake and thereby being treated as a criminal.
Anna Dixon
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the impact of the overpayments on carers is terrible, and I am going to share the story of someone who was affected. I am sure others have heard similar shocking stories. As many as one in five unpaid carers who claim carer’s allowance and work part time were hit with overpayments. Thousands of carers have been left with huge debts and the fear of financial ruin.
Helen cares for her son Robin. He was born with a heart condition, respiratory vulnerabilities, developmental delay, mobility issues and Down’s syndrome. Helen gave up work as a teacher to support Robin and she relied on carer’s allowance. She also received some royalties for online resources that she had created as an education provider. She was paid those every six months, but the Department for Work and Pensions considered them as monthly earnings. It stopped her carer’s allowance and informed her that she had incurred overpayments going back over four years. She was charged more than £2,000 and told to pay back £50 a week. In her words,
“there was no care of how we would live or survive. It took me three very long years to repay the debt. It hung over like a great shadow, the letters, the fear of what could come. We were devastated by the department’s actions. Carers just don’t have bank balances that can stretch and withstand such pressures…you are so vulnerable…it shouldn’t be this difficult”.
As I have said, Helen’s is not an isolated case; thousands of carers are in this position, not as a result of failure on their part to report to and notify the DWP, but owing to a failure of Government. This scandal is a stain on the record of the British state.
I therefore commend this Labour Government for asking Liz Sayce to conduct an independent review of carer’s allowance overpayments. She made it clear that overpayments were caused
“not by widespread individual error by carers in reporting their earnings but by systemic issues preventing them from fulfilling their responsibility to report.”
I welcome the fact that the Government have accepted the vast majority of her recommendations and set aside £75 million to implement them.
Among other things, the review called on the Government to reform the earnings averaging processes and guidance, as well as that for allowable expenses, so that there is clarity, transparency and predictability, and it called for a thorough reassessment of cases to right the wrongs and deliver redress. It called for creative short-term solutions to address the cliff-edge crisis, while the DWP works on a longer-term plan. That is vital. If someone earns one penny over the earnings limit, they have to pay back the whole weekly carer’s allowance. The Sayce review found that although the earnings limit cliff edge does not itself cause overpayments, it dramatically increases their scale and impact, negatively affecting people’s health, finances, wellbeing and opportunities to work. Will the Minister update us on progress on the introduction of a taper system?
Liz Sayce recommended a whole range of other reforms, from upgrading computer systems to using more empathetic language, improving the join-up between types of benefits and simplifying the system. I thank her and her team for completing this crucial task. I urge the Minister to implement the recommendations with urgency and to set out the timeline for doing so.
Turning to those affected, I welcome yesterday’s announcement that the Government have launched an audit of more than 200,000 carer’s allowance cases affected by unclear Government guidance that was in place between 2015 and 2025. The cases will be reviewed, and debts potentially reduced, cancelled or refunded for some 25,000 unpaid carers. That is excellent news and I am sure the Minister will say more. However, I believe that there are several categories of people who have been adversely affected whose cases remain outstanding. The DWP appears to be accepting responsibility only for those affected by the unlawful guidance on average earnings and not for the lack of clear guidance on expenses deductions.
Will the Minister ensure, as the audit begins, that the DWP fully addresses all aspects of maladministration? First, there should be consideration of cases in which the DWP held information regarding expenses but did not act on it or make corrections for many years. Secondly, I urge him to ensure that cases in which data has been “lost” by the DWP are dealt with as Liz Sayce recommended, and treated as cases of official error unless the DWP can prove otherwise. Thirdly, in the cases of those affected by the failure to adjust universal credit correctly, Sayce recommended that the DWP should pay UC arrears. I would be grateful if the Minister addressed whether the audit will include reviews for those missing groups.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Stepney) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. She rightly highlights the important contribution that carers make to our country and the savings of £184 billion a year. The carer’s allowance scandal that this Government have had to deal with, which has taken place over a number of years, has parallels with the Post Office scandal in the way that individuals have been treated. Does she agree that the Department for Work and Pensions, which rejected a recommendation by the Work and Pensions Committee to undertake a regular audit of its progress on carers, should do that, so that we can see the progress the Department is making?
Anna Dixon
I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee, and we have requested that the DWP reports every six months on its progress on implementing the Sayce review. As a member of that Committee, I will certainly be keeping a close eye on progress.
My final point is about the culture in the DWP. I have had the opportunity to challenge its senior officials in the Public Accounts Committee, and I was shocked by the culture on display, which clearly regarded the victims of Government incompetence as benefit fraudsters. It disturbs me that that culture has been prevalent for so long and that, despite knowing about carer’s allowance overpayments for many years, the Department did little or nothing. As a Committee, we are clear that the lack of integrated and concerted leadership from the Department exacerbated the crisis. I ask the Minister for reassurance that he is confident that the senior team at DWP understand the nature of the harm done to carers, are fully committed to putting this right and do not adopt a defensive culture.
On the 50th anniversary of carer’s allowance, I call on this Labour Government to right the wrongs caused by the state, which have parallels with the Post Office Horizon scandal, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali) said, and to put right the scandal of carer’s allowance overpayments so that our carers are paid what they deserve and not punished for the dedication and care they provide.
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) on securing this extremely timely debate, which is a welcome opportunity to set out some of the work that the Government have been doing in response to the concerns that she has raised. She is a very strong advocate for unpaid carers; she was before entering Parliament, as she said, and she is now as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on carers. I echo her remarks about the significance of this year, which is the 50th anniversary of the introduction of carer’s allowance by Harold Wilson’s Government. It is right to mark and celebrate that.
My hon. Friend has spoken previously of how her mother cared for her grandmother for nearly 30 years. I think all of us can grasp how important and valuable the heroic scale of the contribution made by unpaid carers is, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali) is right to draw our attention to the economic value of that contribution. The contributions of unpaid carers are vital to the family members, friends and neighbours they look after, but also to our communities, our country and our economy.
We inherited a dreadful situation in which some very busy, hard-pressed carers, already struggling under a huge weight of caring responsibilities, found themselves with large, unexpected debts due to alleged overpayments of carer’s allowance. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley gave a particularly clear example of the problem that arose, and I will comment on it a moment.
The Work and Pensions Committee, among others, including the Public Accounts Committee, looked at this problem when I was the Chair, and I am pleased to now be a part of a Government who are able and willing to do something about it. We made a very early move after we were elected—I think that it was in the first Budget after the general election—to increase the weekly carer’s allowance earnings limit, as my hon. Friend said, to match 16 hours of work at national living wage levels.
As my hon. Friend said, that change from April 2025 resulted in the largest ever increase in the limit. It means that more than 60,000 additional people will be able to receive carer’s allowance between 2025-26 and 2029-30, but it is also important to note, particularly in the context we are discussing, that the chance of inadvertently slipping above the earnings limit is greatly reduced, because the limit will keep track with increases in the national living wage in the future. As my hon. Friend said, the earnings limit rose again to £204 per week from the beginning of this month.
People had a real problem in the past when the national living wage was increased, because their earnings that had been below the earnings limit went above it, and there was nothing to alert them to that; they had to monitor it themselves. Quite a lot of people were tipped inadvertently above the earnings limit, leading to an overpayment of carer’s allowance. I am very confident that the change we have made to keep the earnings limit in line with the national living wage will be a big step forward in reducing the incidence of overpayments in the future.
Anna Dixon
I had understood that we were also looking into opportunities to alert carers of potentially having breached the earnings limit. Is there anything in place to help communicate information from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs or the DWP to carers?
Sir Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I will come on to that, because there is some progress in that area.
As my hon. Friend said, having made the change to the earnings limit, we commissioned the independent review led by Liz Sayce, the former chief executive of Disability Rights UK and a well-respected and widely recognised expert in disability benefits. Her review was published in November and, in my view, she did a brilliant job. She really got to grips with what had gone wrong, and I echo my hon. Friend’s thanks to her. The report found that many carers had faced unexpected debts because of errors in the way that the DWP had applied averaging rules on fluctuating earnings. The guidance used by DWP staff since 2015 had not properly reflected the law, which permits averaging over a period when assessing whether earnings are above or below the earnings limit.
The case that my hon. Friend mentioned of somebody who was receiving income once every six months is a clear example of the problem. I do not know what the figures were in that case, but it may well be that if Helen’s earnings had been averaged over six months instead of being taken into account in one month, they would have been below the limit. That is exactly the sort of instance that we will examine in the reassessment exercise, which I will say more about in a moment.
We accepted 38 of Liz Sayce’s 40 recommendations in full or in part, and we have already made progress on more than half of them. I will set out those recommendations and what we have done in response, and I will pick up on a couple of my hon. Friend’s questions. The review recommended putting right historical overpayments caused by flawed guidance on the averaging of earnings. I am pleased to say that new and correct guidance has now been in place since the start of September 2025, but it was wrong from 2015 for 10 years.
We are now delivering the reassessment exercise that Liz Sayce recommended: reclassifying affected overpayments as “not recoverable”, refunding carers where appropriate, and applying a fair approach where records are no longer held by the Department. The reassessment exercise began yesterday, so this debate is particularly well timed, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having secured it.
As my hon. Friend said, the Government have set aside £75 million of funding for refunds under the exercise in the financial years 2026-27 to 2028-29. That is a three-year period; we are hoping we can complete the exercise in two, but just to be sure, we have allowed three years to ensure we can complete it properly. We are expecting to review more than 200,000 cases, so it is a major undertaking. As she said, we estimate that we will be reducing, cancelling or refunding debts for perhaps some 25,000 carers in the course of the exercise.
Rushanara Ali
I draw the Minister’s attention to a point about reassessment made in yesterday’s Guardian:
“the government has admitted its existing ‘business as usual’ overpayment recovery policies will be maintained while a full overhaul of the benefit is completed, in effect ensuring that carer’s allowance penalties will continue to be imposed.”
Can the Minister assure us that that is not the case and that these penalties will not continue to be imposed?
Sir Stephen Timms
Let me come to that point in a moment. I saw the article that my hon. Friend refers to. It is an important point, and I will address it in a couple of minutes.
My hon. Friends have quite rightly raised questions about accountability for the review’s delivery. We have appointed a senior responsible officer, and we have committed to update both the Public Accounts Committee and the Work and Pensions Committee on progress every six months. The review highlighted the need for clearer guidance and better communication with carers, particularly on earnings averaging, overpayments and reporting responsibilities, so we have revised the decision letters so that carers are clearer on how their earnings have been averaged and on exactly what changes they need to report and when.
We have also redesigned the overpayment communications to be clearer and to show more empathy, I hope, than was shown in communications previously. We have strengthened the signposting to independent advice and debt support, including to charities and free money guidance, and we have made it clearer how carers can ask questions, challenge decisions or agree affordable repayment plans. We are continuing to test and develop the letters and the guidance, and there has been recent user research to assess clarity, understanding and impact.
We are planning further improvements. I want to express my appreciation for the carers organisations, particularly Carers UK and the Carers Trust, that we have been working with. They have put a good deal of work into this, together with the Department, to try to ensure we get these communications right. I hope that is going to be a significant improvement.
The Sayce review pointed to the lack of awareness and take-up of carers’ national insurance credits. We want to make sure that carers understand what they are entitled to, so we have been reviewing our letters and guidance to increase awareness. The review recommended reducing the impact of the earnings cliff edge while longer-term reform is developed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley quite rightly pointed out, if someone is a penny over the earnings limit, they are not entitled to any carer’s allowance; that has been the case ever since 1976.
We have commissioned research on the impact of the higher earnings limit, which is now being regularly updated, unlike in the past, and commissioned behavioural research to inform future policy decisions, including changes to regulations, short-term mitigations and longer-term reform, including a taper. In the end, I think that will be the answer: instead of an earnings cliff edge or cut-off limit, there should be an arrangement so that the carer’s allowance reduces in a tapered way. It will take some time to develop that and put the IT in place and so on, so we are looking at what we can do in the meantime.
As my hon. Friend touched on, the review recommended better join-up between carer’s allowance, universal credit and other benefits. We are aware that a considerable burden is placed on carers, requiring them to resolve offsetting issues themselves. We have accepted Liz Sayce’s recommendation, and we will put in place an automated solution. While we develop that—again, that will take a while—we will put in place a manual workaround.
The review recommended tackling backlogs and identifying overpayments earlier. We have reduced the backlog of automated earnings notifications from HMRC. We now process those alerts much faster, allowing issues to be identified more quickly—another point raised by my hon. Friend. In future, we want to follow up on all those alerts, not just about half of them as we did in the past, so that we can draw people’s attention to problems as they arise. Taken together, those actions are about listening to carers, fixing what went wrong, supporting people better and modernising carer’s allowance in the future.
In response to the review’s recommendations on faulty averaging guidance, we will reassess carer’s allowance cases that might have been affected. A number of people, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney, have raised the question of why we did not pause all carer’s allowance earnings overpayments action pending the review’s outcome. My answer is that we have been clear about our approach all along: we have to balance fairness for carers with our duty to taxpayers. If money has been paid out incorrectly, it needs to be recovered. We have retained that position as the review was under way.
In most cases, the Department already holds enough information to carry out the reassessment, and affected carers will not need to take action unless the DWP asks for additional details. For older overpayment cases, dating back to 2015 or perhaps a few years after that, the DWP may no longer hold the relevant data and information: we are required to retain data only as long as it is needed for the purpose for which it was collected. The Department will open a simple online form to allow people to submit the relevant information. We are aiming to do that in November this year.
The Department will work closely with organisations supporting carers who think they may have been affected to register for reassessment on gov.uk. Everybody whose case is reviewed will be notified of the outcome, including whether their overpayment has been confirmed or changed. Advice and support for anyone whose carer’s allowance case is, or might be, involved in the reassessment exercise will be available, at no cost, from the Department or trusted partner organisations such as Carers UK and the Carers Trust—I thank them again.
Hon. Members have asked how progress will be tracked. The reassessment exercise is part of our broader response to the independent review and, as I have said, we have committed to updating the Public Accounts Committee and the Work and Pensions Committee on our progress every six months. Those updates will include statistics on progress, and they will enable the Committees to scrutinise progress and hold the Department to account. We will also put some information in our annual report and accounts.
Rebuilding trust requires honesty, accountability and action, and that is the approach we have aimed to take throughout this process. We have to fix the problems and correct the mistakes; the work of unpaid carers is too important and too valuable not to do so. More broadly, we want to improve and modernise carer’s allowance to make it easier for unpaid carers to combine their caring responsibilities with paid work where they are able to, and better reward them for doing so. We will also ensure that those receiving carer’s allowance and universal credit receive a more joined-up service than they have in the past. We owe that to those who provide such a vital service to our fellow citizens.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, the all-party parliamentary group and the Committees represented in the debate will scrutinise how we deliver on those aims very closely. They are absolutely right to do so.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
“For Women Scotland” Court Ruling: First Anniversary
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the first anniversary of the For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers ruling.
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank all hon. Members, as well as those in the Public Gallery, for their attendance. On Thursday, we will celebrate one year since the For Women Scotland judgment. That was a landmark ruling by the UK Supreme Court. It clarified something that frankly should never have needed testing in the courts: that the term “woman” in the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex. The ruling was a victory for the rights of women and girls; it affirmed that being a woman is a matter of biology not paperwork, and it should have ended years of uncertainty around sex-based protections.
The judgment confirmed what most people already know instinctively: biological sex matters. It matters in sport, prisons, healthcare and education. It matters for women’s safety, dignity and privacy. No amount of paperwork, policy or self-identification can change that reality. I commend the brave women who led the legal challenge. They persevered in the face of intense opposition, and finally common sense prevailed.
The Minister for Women and Equalities claimed:
“This ruling brings welcome clarity and confidence for women and service providers.”—[Official Report, 22 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 945.]
On paper, it has done so, but if we step outside the courtroom and into workplaces across the country, that clarity often evaporates. Instead of confidence, we see utter confusion. There is still an invisible hierarchy of rights in many workplaces. The rights of biological men who identify as women are still being prioritised over the rights of actual women. Hospitals and sports centres are still allowing biological men into female-only spaces.
Even parts of the civil service, which is supposed to be the bastion of political neutrality, are still allowing trans-identifying males to use female toilets. Government Departments should be leading by example, not presiding over unlawful and out-of-date policies. The law is clear, the facts are clear, and the refusal to act is a choice. Meanwhile, women who uphold biological reality are still being challenged, disciplined and subjected to exhausting legal proceedings. One year after the For Women Scotland ruling, Government Ministers are still dodging this topic because it is politically uncomfortable.
As the charity Sex Matters has said so well,
“Complying with the law is not a culture war”.
One year later, we are still waiting for the Minister for Women and Equalities to lay the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s updated code of practice before Parliament. That will require businesses and public bodies to protect women-only spaces. I welcome the Minister’s written statement earlier today confirming that the Government intend to lay the code in May. That is a long-overdue development, following many months of excuses. One could be forgiven for thinking that this debate and the events planned for this week have sparked that development.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. On the point about the anniversary and the statement from the Minister for Women and Equalities that she intends to lay the guidance in a matter of weeks, will my hon. Friend join me in expressing the hope that that will be the long-overdue point at which we see a step change in Government attitudes to reflect the biological facts that society understands and knows?
Carla Lockhart
I sincerely hope my hon. Friend is right and that the Government will do the right thing as per the law.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
The hon. Lady is being extremely generous with her time. Does she feel, as I do, that a lack of political courage is what has delayed the new guidance? That lack of political courage has fallen on the heads of people having to make these decisions, such as nurses on wards, people working in sports centres and the like. They do not have the Government guidance to stand behind and say, “This is what the law says. This is what I’ve got to do”, so they are having to make decisions and then take the flak and sometimes abuse from people who are disappointed by their choice.
Carla Lockhart
I will certainly move on to some examples where there has been a great personal cost to folks who have had to lead the way on this issue.
One year later, we still need clarity on workplace regulations. Workplaces are in limbo because the revised code of practice will not even apply to them. One year later, we are still waiting for the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to introduce new guidance specifically for the NHS. Last April, he promised that it would be published within weeks. The silence is deafening. These delays speak for themselves. This is not a grey area; it is not complicated. It is a failure to act on a simple legal and biological truth. Women’s safety is not a political plaything, and it should never be treated as one. The lack of progress comes at a real human cost to women across the UK.
I recently hosted Jennifer Melle and the Darlington nurses here in Parliament, and I am delighted that they are in the Public Gallery watching proceedings. They found themselves in the eye of the storm simply for upholding women’s rights. They are dedicated NHS professionals, not campaigners, yet they were hounded at work and dragged through the courts, not for wrongdoing, but for stating a basic biological fact. Their testimonies are deeply moving. Some of them are mothers of young children, carrying the strain not just at work, but at home.
After Jennifer Melle referred to a biological male and convicted paedophile as “Mr”, she was suspended for two years, unable to work, and she was threatened with revocation of her licence to practice. Where was her nursing union, which should have stood with her in her hour of need? It was missing in action, afraid to counter the wokeness within. Jennifer believes that what happened to her was a punishment for whistleblowing. She said:
“I did not always show it, but I was deeply traumatised by what had happened to me…I lived under fear, anxiety, and the possibility of losing the job I loved.”
When we compare Jennifer Melle’s case with the Darlington nurses’ case, we can see a pattern emerging. After a biological male was allowed to use their changing room, the Darlington nurses raised legitimate concerns about privacy and safety. Instead of being listened to, they were told they needed to be “re-educated” and to “broaden their mindset”. They were left with no other option but to take legal action. These nurses were already working flat out, caring for others, holding the system together and doing their job with skill and dedication every single day. That should be enough. They should not have been forced to fight for their legal rights.
Jennifer Melle and the Darlington nurses have shown tremendous courage and conviction, but let us be honest, that has come at a price: a personal toll, a professional toll, time, stress and reputation. Despite their legal victories, the punishment has been in the process. Women across the country are watching these legal cases unfolding and drawing the obvious conclusion: “Keep your head down or risk your livelihood.” The result is a chilling effect that should trouble every Member of this House.
Women are self-censoring. They are being forced to choose between telling the truth and keeping their jobs. They see colleagues hauled before tribunals, threatened with professional sanctions and subjected to reputational harm. Understandably, they often decide that it is simply not worth the risk. Bethany Hutchison, one of the Darlington nurses, put it this way:
“A culture of fear took over, not among those breaking safeguarding norms, but among the women raising concerns. Many vulnerable colleagues, often the breadwinners in their households, felt intimidated into dropping their complaints, until only eight of us remained.”
That is what happens when an institution closes rank and sidelines women’s voices.
It should not be down to individual women to contest gender ideology in the workplace. The Government should be backing women all the way, ensuring that they are treated with the safety and dignity that they deserve. Instead, a whole year has passed and still those on the frontline are being left to navigate these complex and sensitive issues alone. Silence is not neutral; it sends a clear message that women’s rights come second to political sensitivities and noisy activists. A ruling that exists only on paper is not enough. The Government must act, not with warm words, but with real, practical guidance that ensures that women are protected, not punished, for asserting their rights.
To briefly address the position in Northern Ireland, it is quite frankly extraordinary that we are even having to contemplate a different application of the ruling within the United Kingdom. The suggestion that the Windsor framework could create divergence on something as fundamental as the definition of a woman raises serious questions about sovereignty and equal rights across this country. Women in Northern Ireland should not have less clarity or protection than women in England, Scotland or Wales. I call on the Minister to give absolute clarity that this UK Government will stand up for women in Northern Ireland.
I am glad that, despite some of the noise and legal challenges around this issue, our Education Minister has moved to release guidance to schools. He made it clear that single-sex spaces in schools should be based on biological sex and that the safety, dignity and privacy of girls must be protected. That was a proportionate and practical response to the law as it stands and I welcome it. That stands in stark contrast to the delays that we are seeing elsewhere.
I end with three requests of the Government. First, I urge the Minister for Women and Equalities to lay the EHRC’s updated code of practice before this House as a matter of urgency—no more prevaricating; no more delay. While the Minister has today finally indicated that that will happen in May, we must ask why clarity has not been provided far sooner. Secondly, I urge the Minister to provide guidance for workplaces. Employers must be left in no doubt that single-sex spaces are reserved for people of the same biological sex. No employee should be compelled to use a person’s preferred pronouns.
Thirdly, I urge the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to fulfil his promise and issue guidance on single-sex spaces in the NHS specifically. In the absence of leadership from the Government, others have already stepped in. The Darlington Nursing Union and the Christian Legal Centre have already produced draft guidance for NHS trusts. It is ready, workable and would help ensure that no more women are forced to endure what Jennifer Melle and the Darlington nurses faced. I thank Christian Concern for its support for Jennifer and the Darlington nurses.
Let us be clear: the For Women Scotland ruling was a victory on paper, but in many cases it still needs implementing in practice. Biology should not be disputed in any sector. A woman is not a feeling. A woman is not an identity. A woman is a biological reality. We must act now to ensure that women are heard, protected and respected.
Several hon. Members rose—
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to speak, as it is very helpful in determining whether to put a time limit on. Given the number of Members standing, however, I will not be putting a time limit on now.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) for securing this debate. We are so used to having small time limits for these debates that I am afraid I have not prepared anything like as much as I would want to say.
On 16 April 2025, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, sex means biological sex, not gender. A woman is an adult human female, and a male is an adult human male. That is, of course, what the vast majority of the public know simply to be true. The Supreme Court judgment was won by three courageous and formidable women: Susan, Marion and Trina, known as For Women Scotland. It was a victory for women’s rights and for gay rights as well.
Lesbians have been at the sharp end of this campaign to erode women’s rights. If the Scottish Government, Amnesty International and activist groups such as the so-called Good Law Project had their way, anyone at all could call themselves a lesbian. A lesbian would no longer simply be a woman who is attracted to other women, but could be any man calling himself a lesbian. Biological men—mostly those without any reassignment surgery—label themselves as lesbian, but they are simply men attracted to women, so straight men. Yet the lesbians are the “bigots” and “transphobes” if they dare to point that out.
This also plays out daily in the political sphere. Many activists in political parties and politicians, and some political leaders themselves, are wedded firmly to this nonsensical ideology.
Dr Caroline Johnson
The hon. Lady is making a very good speech. Does she share my concern that it plays out in the scientific arena as well? The UK Health Security Agency has been collecting data in relation to sexual health infections on the basis of gender rather than sex.
Rosie Duffield
Absolutely. Of course, that is the hon. Member’s area of expertise. I know many health professionals who are incredibly frustrated at this simple twisting of facts, which should not be done at all in the NHS. I thank her for pointing that out.
With a few admirable exceptions, many Members of Parliament are unable to identify or define a woman. They reject that women’s spaces must be exclusively for biological women and have decided that those of us intent on the Equality Act being upheld are evil incarnate.
For centuries, women have had to fight for our rights. We have had to fight male threats of violence and male acts of violence. We are used to having to protect ourselves and our spaces. The very least we should expect from our own Government is the leadership and conviction to back those rights with basic and fundamental legislation. The Labour Government did that in 2010, yet here we are, 16 years later, having to force the current Government to uphold and enforce the law, and make it crystal clear to the NHS, sporting bodies, membership organisations and Government Departments that the law must be followed and adhered to—that is their job.
While the Secretary of State says that her Government have
“always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex”,
men who choose to identify as women are still permitted to receive care on women’s hospital wards, access women’s toilets—including in this building—compete in the women’s category in parkrun and take women’s places in grassroots sports, and there are still men in women’s prisons. Actions speak louder than words. The law is the law, so what exactly are the Government waiting for, and why are they incapable of showing even the most basic leadership?
The Supreme Court has been clear, and trans-identifying people remain protected in law under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. None of their protections or rights have been taken away.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
The hon. Lady is making an interesting speech, and I thank her for it. I think we are probably on different sides of the debate, but it is still interesting. She says that none of trans people’s rights has been taken away. I wonder whether she can explain the legal limbo that trans people feel they are in when trying to obtain a gender recognition certificate. They are required to live in their acquired gender for several months in order to obtain a certificate, but if they cannot access the spaces for the gender that they are seeking to acquire, they cannot fulfil that criterion. Does she agree that that creates a legal limbo and does actually take away some of their rights?
Rosie Duffield
The hon. Member has a really good point. That lack of clarity is why we need the Government to explain fully what the EHRC is saying and how it pertains to the Equality Act. With or without a gender recognition certificate, biological men are not able to access women’s spaces—women’s toilets, women’s sports. The Supreme Court made that incredibly clear. The area of gender recognition certificates is a bit grey, and I can understand why some trans-identifying people are confused by that. That is why the Government have to step in. This is a matter of legislation.
None of the activists on my side—feminists—is saying that we want to exclude those people, make them feel terrible or give them a hard time. Bodies can introduce single-sex spaces, unisex toilets and all kinds of other activities for those people that they are allowed to take part in. We just do not want our rights to make way for biological men, who are bigger, stronger and faster, and physically potentially more dangerous to us. That is a fundamental right that many of us have fought for generations to get. Yes, there are some confusing parts, but not in the Supreme Court judgment. The Court made it very clear; the Government just have to get on with it, instead of hiding behind the judgment.
Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)
I just want to put on the record how welcome it is to see the comments of the Scottish Labour leader, Anas Sarwar. It is fair to say that Scottish Labour has been on a bit of a journey on this issue, but he has got to the right place, and I welcome that. I join the hon. Lady in stating that the Supreme Court judgment clarifies existing law. It did not change the law. It is about enforcing the existing law. Women have had their lives ruined by this issue over many years, and they are still having their lives ruined by it, as we see in the Sex Matters “One year later” report. Is the hon. Lady as baffled as I am that we still seem to have violent men—murderers, no less—in women’s prisons?
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. I remind hon. Members that interventions should be short and to the point. We have had two quite lengthy interventions. The business is not oversubscribed, so if hon. Members wish to bob, they may well catch my eye.
Rosie Duffield
Thank you for clearing that up, Mr Stringer. The hon. Gentleman makes some really good points. Sex Matters has been pointing out, especially in its new leaflet, that so many people, whom we do not get to talk about every day, are still being subjected to these ridiculous tribunals. Jennifer Melle, whom the hon. Member for Upper Bann mentioned, was simply a nurse referring to a biological man as a biological man in her notes. Without wanting to get into too much horrible detail, I believe she was catheterising a man, which is very different from catheterising a woman, yet she was the one subjected to hideous racial abuse and suspended from work.
These things happen every day. We know about them because we are involved with the organisations that help those people, but the general public do not necessarily hear about them and the Government seem very far removed from the reality that not stepping in is causing. Many of those cases would not have taken place if the Government had introduced guidance, spoken on the issue, or had the front to say what I know many of them secretly believe, but do not articulate because they are afraid of their own activists—I am living proof of that. That is a real shame.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I know this is a really important subject to the hon. Lady. Of course, the Government received the revised draft guidance only yesterday and they issued a statement today. It is important to remember that.
The hon. Lady mentioned parkrun a minute or two ago, before the flurry of interventions. What does her vision mean for me, as a keen parkrunner? Would I have to submit evidence that I am a man to parkrun in order to run as a man? Likewise, would women have to do the same? How does she see that working?
Rosie Duffield
I think it is fairly obvious that the hon. Gentleman is a man, to be honest. I think the majority of the human race could tell that. If there is a much smaller person running in that category, they simply do not belong there. The Government have had the guidance since September, but this is the law of this country. No Minister or Government MP needs guidance from the EHRC to suggest ways in which organisations could uphold the law. We made this law, and we are there to advise people how to enact it and adhere to it. We do not need the EHRC. That is just another way of pushing this down the road. It is great to have that guidance. It has done a really good job—that is what it does—but the Government do not need it. It is just another red herring—a delay tactic.
Marie Goldman
On the point about it being fairly obvious which gender someone is, I wonder whether the hon. Lady has heard about the case of the woman who had a double mastectomy and frequently gets misgendered as a man? What would she say to that woman?
Rosie Duffield
That is extraordinary, but we are talking about a country of 70 million-odd people, 51% of whom are women. The majority of people know what a man or a woman is. If one has a problem with that, that is a specific personal problem. That is a man; these are women. We all know. It is an absolute load of rubbish that we do not, so I reject that. I say to the Government: women are watching, women will be voting, and most people in the country are women.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Alice Sullivan has spoken a lot about identifying sex and gender. Does the hon. Member agree that sex and gender are not the same thing, and that if we are registering for a parkrun, another sporting event or anything else, we all know what is on our birth certificate?
Rosie Duffield
That is exactly right. We are not talking about gender identity. We are talking about the law as it adheres to biological men and women.
Dr Caroline Johnson
The hon. Lady has talked about the courage of the people who stood up on this issue, but will she reflect on the people who felt censored? For example, I spoke to a young lady in my constituency who participated in a hockey club, but she stopped going. The parents of another girl stopped her going to the same club, because there was a man on the young ladies’ hockey team who insisted on using the changing room and the girls felt uncomfortable changing in front of him. The issue is reducing the participation of particularly young women in sport, which is regrettable. Guidance from the Government to make things clear will help to ensure that women can participate in sport fairly and safely.
Rosie Duffield
The hon. Member makes a good point. MPs on my side of the argument will certainly hear that time and time again from parents. There is a group called the Bayswater group whose members have gone through the problems and difficulties of their children wanting to transition from a very early age, with all the categories of sport that they should or should not go into. Guidance would really help those parents, but certainly girls should not feel that they should not participate.
All women on this side of the argument have felt intimidated at some point, not just by the death threats—those are passé by now—but by the signs and the balaclavas outside, and by the rubbish about it coming from both sides. I have lived this for nearly a decade; it is not both sides. It would be lovely to end all the intimidation. I have been in the Labour party for a long time, and, sadly, there are women now in government who have always been on my side in secret gender-critical groups but do not have the courage to speak up when in government. That is a drastic lack of leadership and lack of courage. I feel very sorry for them.
I say to the Government that women are watching and men are watching. Women will be voting at the local elections, and most people in this country are women. The Government have a problem. Their problem is not that the Supreme Court ruling is too complicated to understand or implement, but that it is too clear for people to continue to misrepresent our activists.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank and praise my party colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart), for pressing this issue and for making safe spaces for women in society a matter of fact. She has worked hard to secure a strong and immovable defence for women, and her work is to be appreciated by constituents throughout this United Kingdom; I know that my constituents in Strangford thank her, and many elsewhere would do likewise.
This debate is so important. Today, on the first anniversary of the ruling, I very much welcome the opportunity to speak clearly and categorically to support my hon. Friend. I welcome the ruling and where it leaves us. For too long, a cloud of confusion has hung over our public life—a confusion that has undermined the safety of women, the fairness of our sports and the protection of our children. The Supreme Court judgment restored common sense, yes—but, more importantly, it restored safety for women. That is critical.
Sex is a matter of biological fact. Protections must be in place, and we must ensure that they are recognised and utilised. The Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling in the For Women Scotland case was not just a legal victory, but a victory for reality. It was a victory for common sense. However, too many of our Government Departments are refusing to accept that reality and, worryingly, refusing to accept the legal ruling. That must end.
Marie Goldman
The hon. Gentleman always makes such interesting speeches. I just wanted to ask about intersex. We have talked a lot about biological fact. Would he explain a little bit more about intersex and the potential decisions that need to be made in relation to intersex babies when they are born?
Jim Shannon
Whenever the hon. Lady refers to me as being “interesting”, I think that says that she and I have a different opinion on an issue. The Scottish courts have taken that legal decision. I am sure that the hon. Lady would always want to support the legal decisions in the land, whatever they may be and whether she likes them or not.
Dr Caroline Johnson
I wonder if the hon. Gentleman would reflect that there is a biological difference between an individual with a disorder of sexual differentiation, whom the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) referred to as an intersex individual, and a biological male who feels that he prefers and is more comfortable living his life as though he were a woman.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Lady for her clear message. She reiterates the position that I and many others in the Chamber hold.
Back home in Northern Ireland, Democratic Unionist party Ministers have appropriately taken decisive action, because the safety of our daughters—in my case, my granddaughters—in school changing rooms and the integrity of women’s sports cannot be put on hold. In the Department of Education in Northern Ireland, Minister Paul Givan—my colleague—has moved to scrap flawed, ideologically-driven guidance that ignores the legal opinion and pushes something completely out of order and wrong. The majority of people are convinced of that. We are ensuring that schools remain places of common sense, where toilets and sports are defined by biological sex. We will not allow a culture where teachers or pupils are forced to speak untruths or where biological males are permitted into female-only spaces.
It is deeply disappointing to see some, including the Equality Commission, trying to use the Windsor framework or complex legal roadblocks to delay the inevitable. Let us be clear: there is no Northern Ireland exception to biological reality. To suggest that a woman in Belfast is defined differently from a woman in Glasgow or London is not only absurd; it is legally incoherent. I remind everyone of the Glasgow legal opinion, which was very clear. If we are all adhering to the law of the land—I do not think that anybody in the Chamber would not want to support the law of the land—then we can all agree on that.
We are not interested in expensive court cases that seek to overcomplicate the obvious, as some would perhaps try to do. We are interested in protecting the hard-won rights of women and girls. We are interested in ensuring that, when a service is advertised as single sex, it means exactly that and nothing else, as the legal decision in Scotland indicated. We have the legislation in place. We need adherence now, and we look to the Minister to demand this of every publicly funded body. This is about dignity, privacy and, above all, the truth. The DUP, my party, will continue to lead from the front, ensuring that our laws and services reflect the common-sense values of the people we represent. The Government must follow suit as a matter of urgency.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) for securing this debate on the first anniversary of the For Women Scotland Ltd v. the Scottish Ministers ruling. I also thank her and other colleagues in this Chamber for their work on these sensitive issues surrounding sex and gender. They have helped ensure that Parliament continues to grapple with these issues in a careful and thoughtful manner.
This issue has faced our society since before I became a Member; and even before I entered this place, it was clear that it was being weaponised, one human being against another, by people who do not always have the best interests of those groups or human beings at heart. I am struggling to put into words my complete confusion that, in the 21st century in the UK Parliament, we are debating what a woman is. It is Adam and Eve, if you are people of faith or believe in the origin of human beings, and even if you are not people of faith, people have known what a woman and a man are since the beginning of time.
I stand here with full respect for those who feel or want to be or, for whatever reason that I do not understand, believe that they are a different gender from the biological sex that they are in. However, women’s rights have been less, and diminished, for centuries, and every single year they are fighting on many fronts for equality. I have stood in this place and in the main Chamber talking about women’s rights on healthcare, maternity rights and gender pay equality—things that men have taken for granted but where they have imposed a substandard level of right on women. It is completely unacceptable. But here we are now, questioning the fundamental biology of women—not just in this place, in this country, but everywhere in the world. I cannot reconcile the situation that we have faced.
When the Supreme Court finally gave a ruling that clearly defined what a man and a woman are under the law, we expected this gaslighting, this aggressive lobbying and this fighting between fellow human beings to, hopefully, recede with clear guidance, rules and processes at parliamentary level, at a legal level and at an employment rights level. But here we are a year later, and the Government have been dilly-dallying and sitting on the ruling, which does not change the law, as the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) said.
The anniversary provides an opportunity not only to reflect on the nature of this specific ruling, but to reaffirm the fundamental principle that in a democratic society governed by the rule of law, the judgments of our highest courts must be respected and properly implemented. The Supreme Court’s ruling of 16 April 2025 brought much-needed legal clarity. It confirmed that, within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010, references to “sex”, “man” and “woman” are to be understood as referring to biological sex. How somebody felt that they referred to something else, I cannot understand. That was not the creation of a new law, but the authoritative interpretation of legislation passed by Parliament.
I stand here with women constituents, men constituents, trans women constituents, trans male constituents and people who are still trying to find their way through their biology and feelings, and I stand for each and every one of those without fear or favour. I have met trans people in my constituency, both those who have transitioned fully, so they are either a man or a woman because biologically they have transitioned, and those who have not transitioned and have a gender recognition certificate or live their life as the opposite gender.
Marie Goldman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Everyone is being generous with their time today, and I am grateful. He said that people have transitioned “biologically”. I thought biology was either one thing or the other and was immutable. Could he explain that point?
Iqbal Mohamed
I am not a medical doctor—there are experts in this room—but if somebody has gone through operations under the NHS and that is medically assessed and professionally delivered, I respect their current biological status. If I have used the wrong language, I apologise, but these are special cases. The case that the hon. Member mentioned earlier in an intervention, where somebody had had breast cancer and had a double mastectomy, and may be misidentified as male, is a special case; that person has gone through a physical change that may make others see something different from who they are. Those are separate arguments to biological males identifying as women.
As I was saying, none of these transgender constituents of mine has come to me and said, “I want to be entering single-sex spaces of the other gender to make me feel that I am who I believe that I am.” I think that needs to be understood—that this view is not universal across the transgender community.
Clarity in the law is profoundly important. Without it, public bodies, service providers and indeed individuals are left navigating uncertainty. Inconsistent interpretations risk undermining both compliance with and confidence in our legal system, to distressing effect. Rights that already exist in law for any gender, biological sex, man or woman, cannot be usurped by new demands from people in our community, whether it is trans, or Muslims, or Christians, or people of no faith. Rights, once they are acquired and in law, should be protected and implemented, and any new demands or changes required to support in full other members of the community who may differ must be grappled with and dealt with by the Government without undermining existing rights.
The Court’s judgment provides a clear, coherent framework within which decisions can be made, particularly in relation to single-sex services, which the Equality Act explicitly permits. Yet this judgment did not remove rights from trans people. Protections preventing discrimination remain firmly in place, as they should. Trans rights are human rights where they are not impinging on somebody else’s human rights. That is a really clear distinction that we need to make.
This is not a zero-sum question of one group’s rights being set against another’s, with gains for one group coming only at the expense, or at the loss, of the rights of another. Rather, it is about ensuring that the law is applied as intended, recognising distinct protected characteristics and giving effect to each in a way that is workable and, crucially, fair. Of course, implementation must be done sensitively and responsibly, taking pains to ensure that the human rights and dignity of all are respected. The law already allows for flexibility to accommodate this.
It is therefore really difficult to understand why the public sector, especially the NHS, is spending hundreds of thousands—if not millions—of pounds on going to tribunals, knowing that it will lose, for an ideological, entrenched reason. That should not be happening. That money should be spent treating women, trans women, trans men and other patients within the NHS. I pay tribute to the Darlington nurses and Jennifer Melle for being here, and for being the light, or the source of information, around this topic, having gone through so much suffering and persecution to stand up for their basic human rights as biological females.
Dr Caroline Johnson
The hon. Member is talking about the way care is managed within the NHS. Has he thought about the importance of ensuring that the biological sex of trans women and trans men is known by the clinician who is treating them? If they are on a ward, there will be a presumption that they are the same sex as the other people on the ward, which could leave them in a difficult position medically. If they receive a blood test result, perhaps for haemoglobin, the results will be interpreted based on the sex that the clinician understands the person to be, which could lead to an error if that is not the patient’s actual sex. When a patient is invited for screening, they need to be invited for the right type of screening and not the wrong type of screening, for their own safety. When statistics are produced that help with epidemiology and further healthcare, they also need to be done in an accurate way.
Iqbal Mohamed
I thank the hon. Member for her expertise in this area. Recognising biological sex is in the interests of trans people as well. We are not just different on the outside; we are different on the inside. Hospitals need to be able to treat people for who they are, not who they believe they are or who they want to be. We could end up with mistreatment, misdiagnoses and further litigation against the NHS for causing harm to somebody because we did not explicitly take into account their biological sex.
The law already allows flexibility to accommodate the implementation of human rights for all. It permits the provision of single-sex services where justified, while also enabling appropriate alternative arrangements, such as unisex facilities, where these are needed to ensure that everyone is treated with respect. However, the clarity in principle that the ruling provides must now be matched by clarity in practice.
We are now seeing movement from organisations. The International Olympic Committee recently announced that it will not allow non-biological women to compete in women’s sport. Girlguiding has now updated its guidance to go back to admitting guides based on biological sex. That is not discrimination against trans people; it is just common sense, and the protection and implementation of existing rights for girls and women.
In that spirit, I ask the Minister three specific questions. First, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that public bodies and service providers are not delaying implementation of the judgment under the mistaken belief that they must wait for further guidance before acting? The Supreme Court ruling was black and white, and gave all employers, the public sector and sporting bodies enough information to proceed with implementing it.
Secondly, how do the Government intend to support service providers in striking the balance between single-sex and unisex services in practice, particularly in frontline settings such as healthcare, education and local authority services, where the consequences of uncertainty are often felt most acutely? Finally, can the Minister set out how the Government intend to communicate clearly with the public about what the judgment means in practice, so that both women and trans people understand their rights and protections under the law?
As legislators, we have a special responsibility to ensure that the law remains coherent and relevant to the world we live in. One year on, I hope that the message is clear. The law has been clarified. The rights of women to access single-sex services are justified and recognised. The protections afforded to trans people remain in place, and the responsibility now lies with all of us—whether that be the Government, public bodies, parliamentarians, employers, sporting bodies or any other group—to ensure that this clarity is translated into consistent, lawful practice.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I commend the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) on raising this debate in a timely manner, as we approach the anniversary of the Supreme Court judgment that biological sex is the determinant in matters of the Equality Act. That very judgment is a commentary in itself on how our society had been hijacked to the point that common sense had been suborned by the suggestion that a person could be a woman without biologically being a woman. We had got to such a ridiculous position that it took our Supreme Court to tell us the most fundamental and obvious thing that we all should have known. I very much welcome that judgment.
I join in the regret expressed for the sluggishness of the Government’s response to the judgment. Here we are, a year on, and we still await guidance. It seems to me that we are therefore still infected by an ideology that does not want to face up to that very simple and compelling finding of our Supreme Court. I say to the Government: it is time to get on with it. It is now abundantly, demonstrably, incontrovertibly the law, and it is time it is respected and adhered to across all elements of our society.
Marie Goldman
A lot has been said about common sense in this debate. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman will join me in reflecting that common sense used to hold that the Earth was the centre of the universe and that everything else revolved around it, and that common sense does not hold true forever?
Jim Allister
I do not think that was ever common sense, and if that is the depths to which the hon. Member has to stoop to try and find an argument, it is a very ineloquent commentary upon herself.
I have concerns that we could arrive at a situation where the Supreme Court ruling, which is emphatic and clear, might in fact be disapplied in a part of this United Kingdom, because of the iniquitous Windsor framework. One would have thought that in a United Kingdom, a woman is a woman wherever they are. But in the United Kingdom, under the Windsor framework, we are told that Northern Ireland is subject to a different ambit of laws. We are told that under article 2 of the Windsor framework, we are subject to European law on matters that, some argue, extend to this very subject.
We await—it is due shortly—the Dillon judgment from the Supreme Court as to the extent of article 2. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has been so ideologically captured by the trans agenda that it is limbering up to bring a legal challenge to the Supreme Court ruling to say that it should not apply in Northern Ireland because of article 2 of the Windsor framework. If that is upheld, we face a dire situation because we already know what the European courts think on this subject. We know it definitively because last month the European Court of Justice ruled, in a case called Shipova, that biological sex can be trumped by gender self-selection. If, as a consequence, a part of this United Kingdom is subject to that jurisprudence, and not the jurisprudence of our own Supreme Court, we are staring into a situation where Northern Ireland would have a different definition of a woman and a different approach to equality laws, and a situation where that which applies everywhere else would be disapplied in Northern Ireland. That would be of immense constitutional significance.
If that worst case scenario were to happen, and if we had a ruling to the effect that, because of article 2 of the Windsor framework, the Supreme Court common-sense ruling does not apply to the whole United Kingdom, will the Government pledge, in the name of being the Government of a United Kingdom, to ensure a united definition and application of the law across the UK? I trust that necessity for that will not arise, but if it does it will be down to the Government to demonstrate whether or not we are a United Kingdom or whether, in addition to every other inequity, we could now have an Irish sea border on gender identity. That would be intolerable, and it would have repercussions far and wide—not least constitutional. I do hope that common sense will prevail, that we will not be found, because of article 2 of the Windsor framework, to be in a different jurisprudence and that we will have the same benefits—benefits that I trust the Government will soon elaborate on. They have dragged their feet far too long already.
Internationally, there has been some progress. The International Olympic Committee has rightly made a decision that someone has to be a biological female to compete in women’s games. That is right, sensible and necessary. It is really quite the commentary on our society that we have got to a point where nurses like the Darlington nurses have had to be dragged through the courts to establish the most fundamental principle—one that we have all known from when we could first speak, walk and toddle about—that there is a difference between a man and a woman.
The Government must grasp this nettle. The Supreme Court has pointed the way. There is no escape route. Now is the time to embrace that and to ensure that we have the correct guidance right across this land. It is a matter of regret to me that, in Northern Ireland, the Stormont Assembly still has not grasped the nettle and still allows biological men to use women’s toilets. Thankfully, in this place, the right steps were taken last June, but a year on, it still has not been addressed in Stormont. It too needs to catch up with the world and face biological reality.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) for securing this important debate, even though I know we are on slightly different sides of it.
For far too long, trans, non-binary and intersex people have understandably been left anxious and fearful about the practical implications of the Supreme Court ruling. In its judgment, the Supreme Court stated:
“It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word ‘woman’ other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010.”
Would the Minister therefore confirm that the judgment does not and will not affect the interpretation of any other Acts of Parliament?
The ruling also reaffirmed that trans people continue to be protected from discrimination under the Equality Act. Unfortunately, a year on, the Government have still not provided adequate detail on how that will be achieved. Instead, they have created a legal minefield that has left trans, intersex and non-binary people in limbo while exposing businesses and organisations to costly legal action.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission’s draft code of practice, which was leaked in November, only worsened the environment. Trans people who hold gender recognition certificates have explained to me the legal limbo that they now find themselves in. During the lengthy process to obtain such a certificate, they are required to provide formal evidence that they live, and will continue to live, in their acquired gender, yet the draft EHRC guidance indicated that they may be required to use facilities based on their birth sex. That simply is not a coherent legal position, and we urgently need clarity on the practical implications of the Supreme Court ruling for someone trying to obtain a gender recognition certificate.
The draft EHRC guidance also proposed that staff working across the economy, from hotels and hospitals to cinemas and care homes, could be required to question people about their sex based on how they look, their behaviour or concerns raised by others, and refuse access to them if there is doubt they are telling the truth about their sex. That is unacceptable and unworkable. It would put trans and non-binary people in unsafe situations, and it is inevitable that it would acutely impact women and girls.
Jonathan Hinder
The hon. Lady is outlining cases where the application of that guidance might be difficult. Does she think that it would be difficult for someone to determine whether I, given the way I look, should be in a women’s single-sex space?
Marie Goldman
I am going to answer the hon. Gentleman’s intervention in a slightly different way. There is something called the 80:20 rule, which states that, in pretty much anything in life, we should put 80% of our effort into 20% of situations. The vast majority of the time, it is really easy to deal with situations, including the one the hon. Gentleman just outlined. The hard work—the 80%—comes in 20% of the cases. It might not be that exact ratio, but a lot of the time we have to work a lot harder to deal with the cases that are in the margins and harder to determine. I know that from my past work in IT, but it applies to lots of other things.
The hon. Gentleman suggests that he would be instantly recognisable as a man, and would be able to use facilities for men, and I would not disagree, but there are many situations—certainly a minority, but they should still be handled with care—where it is not as easy to determine. As a country that is caring, we should not ignore those situations. How a country or society looks after its most vulnerable people, who are usually part of minority groups, is how it should be judged, so I suggest that we need to take care on this issue.
Carla Lockhart
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way; we are utterly opposed. Does she agree that the cases involving Jennifer Melle and the Darlington nurses are examples of this very issue? Someone looked like a male standing in the changing room when they were referred to as “Mr”, but these people had to go through the courts to prove it. That is wrong.
Marie Goldman
That is exactly why we need the Government to come forward with proper guidance—so that organisations can work through this properly and understand when they are working within the rules, and so that they do not have to reinvent everything for themselves. We do not have that guidance, and it is desperately needed.
Dr Caroline Johnson
Could the hon. Lady say what her ideal situation would be? Would it be that if a gentleman walked into the ladies’ changing rooms, perhaps at a swimming pool, it would be illegal to stop them or even ask them? Would the solution be that any man could go into any women’s changing room if he wished?
Marie Goldman
I struggle with the idea that a trans person would go into the opposite sex’s changing rooms, which they are supposedly not allowed into, for the purpose of causing harm. That is surely what we are worrying about: harm being caused, particularly to women. I struggle with the idea that, at the moment, it is the sign on the door that is preventing someone from causing harm to women. Do they go, “Oh, I wanted to harm a woman, but I’m not going to do it because the sign on the door says I shouldn’t”? I struggle with that argument in general.
It should not need to be spelled out in Britain in 2026, but requiring women and girls to prove that we are female enough—because we have to do the same thing—is not only a deeply regressive step and an impractical requirement to put on businesses and other organisations, but deeply discriminatory, judgmental and, speaking as a woman, outrageous and unworkable.
Tracy Gilbert
As a lesbian woman, I have often been misgendered. As a young person—a tomboy—that sort of thing did not bother me; I wore it as a badge of honour. I am very worried that we are talking about fitting women into stereotypes. Surely, in this day and age, we are trying to move away from gender stereotypes as women, lesbians and gay people. Does the hon. Member agree that a trans woman can be a trans woman and a trans man can be a trans man—they are not a woman and they are not a man; they are a trans woman or a trans man—and services should be provided on that basis?
Marie Goldman
One of the most important things is how we behave towards each other as a society. I do not want women, men or anybody to have fit into stereotypes. The hon. Lady is absolutely right—we want to live in a society where we accept people for who they are.
Marie Goldman
I will make some more progress.
That requirement is unworkable. There is not one of us here who does not know how stressed our local small businesses are. How could it ever be proportionate to require overstretched staff in these businesses to police gender norms for their own customers to access a facility as basic as a toilet? The business community has already loudly voiced its concerns. In September last year, hundreds of businesses signed a letter opposing the EHRC draft proposals, given the impact they would have on their employees and their costs, as well as the legal risk they would create.
Iqbal Mohamed
The hon. Member is talking about employers and their preferences, but they oppose gender equal pay—they would rather pay women less than men to make more profits. Just because some company says they disagree with something or they are against it does not make it wrong. Does the hon. Member agree?
Marie Goldman
The hon. Gentleman might be confusing two very different issues. There are deeply upsetting impacts on cisgender women, too, including heartbreaking stories, as I mentioned earlier, of women who have undergone cancer treatment being questioned over which toilet they use because they do not conform with what a woman “ought” to look like.
I am pretty sure that nobody in this Chamber today wants to live in a country where those who have suffered from cancer are worried that they will be challenged on their appearance when trying to use public toilets. Requiring women to use separate facilities, such as disabled toilets, instead of spaces that match their gender is also not a workable solution. I have heard from trans and non-binary individuals who say that it would effectively out them, exposing them to a greater risk of harassment or even violence and depriving them of their right to privacy.
Organisations that want to be inclusive have also been affected. Last year in a statement to the House, in which she welcomed the clarity provided by the Supreme Court, the Minister for Women and Equalities said:
“of course providers can offer inclusive services, should they choose to do so, so long as they are clear about who they are offering their services to.”—[Official Report, 22 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 959WH.]
However, that has not been the case. I ask the Minister to clarify whether the Government’s position on that point has changed.
Along with Liberal Democrat colleagues, I have regularly called on the Minister for Women and Equalities to take action to solve these serious issues. I therefore cautiously welcome the news that the Government intend to lay the code in May. That will hopefully bring an end to the uncertainty and worry that the trans community, businesses and organisations have been exposed to for too long.
The Minister must ensure, however, that the new guidance is workable and inclusive. The Liberal Democrats will accept nothing less. It must lay out how it will protect the dignity, safety and rights of all, and ensure that trans people are not prevented from participating in public life because there are no facilities that they can safely use. As I think many of us would agree, it is also essential that the guidance is subject to full parliamentary scrutiny. It must have a full debate and a free vote.
Rosie Duffield
Will the hon. Member clarify, as the Liberal Democrats are opposed to what they see as the interpretation of the law—specifically the Equality Act 2010 —whether they propose a change to that Act? The EHRC is simplify clarifying the Supreme Court’s clarification of that existing law.
Marie Goldman
That was a timely intervention because my next paragraph deals exactly with that.
Separately, to deal with the unacceptable legal limbo that many trans people are in, I encourage the Minister to appoint a Joint Committee of MPs and peers, on a cross-party basis, to conduct post-legislative scrutiny of both the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010. The Committee should take evidence from affected communities, including trans people, and propose any amendments or new legislation that it sees as necessary to ensure that existing rights are protected.
Trans people are worried for good reason. Two thirds of them have experienced harassment and violence simply because they were identified as trans. It is sadly an all-too-common theme throughout history that vulnerable minorities—in this case a minority that makes up less than 1% of the UK’s population—are scapegoated for society’s ills.
Tracy Gilbert
Does the hon. Member recognise that women are a vulnerable group and that we make up half the population, yet we are still subject to more violence than any other group of people in society?
Marie Goldman
I do agree with that. The vast majority of women who are attacked are attacked by men, and those are men who they already know. If we are going to focus on protecting women, I would suggest that that would be a very good place to start.
Jonathan Hinder
Does the hon. Member accept that, as she says, men are generally the ones who attack women and that, if we do not have single-sex spaces, predatory men will use circumstances that are to their benefit to attack women? That is exactly why we need single-sex spaces.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. Can the hon. Lady bring her comments to a close, having answered the hon. Gentleman’s question?
Marie Goldman
I will briefly answer the hon. Gentleman by saying that, although I do not have the stats in front of me, a huge proportion of women are, sadly, attacked in their own home and single-sex spaces will not prevent that from happening.
Protecting the rights of women and ensuring dignity and inclusion for trans people are not competing objectives. Both are essential to a fair society. It is basic British decency to afford that. The Liberal Democrats believe as such and that is what we will continue to call for. The Government must now provide leadership and certainty to achieve that balance.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) for securing this important debate, and for her work to support single-sex spaces and nurses such as Jennifer Melle and the Darlington nurses who have been hounded and harassed for asserting that biological sex is real.
On a personal point, in my interactions with the Nursing and Midwifery Council and the NHS trusts, I have had complete disinterest from people in positions of power, and an arrogance that they were right when, actually, the Supreme Court ruling showed that they were in the wrong and that those nurses—those employees who were not in positions of power—were correct. I also pay tribute to the incredible women of For Women Scotland. Without their strength and determination we would not be in the position that we are in today. I thank Trina, Marion and Susan, as well as the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield), for their tireless work because, Lord knows, they have all suffered for it.
The Supreme Court ruling is crystal clear. In the Equality Act 2010, “man” means man, “woman” means woman, and “sex” means sex—no more legal fiction, just simple biological fact. Women and girls breathed a sigh of relief when we saw that ruling, but what have we seen from the Government since? A first-rate lesson in dither and delay and a determined effort to avoid doing their job. This is one of the most important issues on the Secretary of State’s desk. It is utterly disgraceful that she had to be shamed into finally agreeing to meet with For Women Scotland a year after the ruling.
We are suffering from a hierarchy of diversity where unaccountable diversity policy officers get to pick which ethnic, religious or minority groups are more worthy and deserving of special privileges. We just heard a speech that was completely devoid of any trade-offs to understand how the women on the other side of those policies would be impacted. That is not equality; it is deeply destructive and divisive. No matter which way it is cut, it always manages to leave women and girls at the bottom of the pile.
Iqbal Mohamed
Does the right hon. Lady agree that the one-year delay in issuing the guidance has discriminated against 51% of the population, causing stress and potential harm?
Claire Coutinho
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The fact that a meeting with the people who brought the court case was not prioritised shows how far down the list of priorities this has been. Just this week, the teacher of the Southport killer admitted that she was silenced for raising concerns about his behaviour, after she was accused of stereotyping him as
“a black boy with a knife”.
The result was that he went on to kill three young girls. MI6 ran an internship that would hand a place to a private school black boy but turn away a white working-class girl who had grown up in poverty.
To this day, health professionals in this country are excusing harmful cultural practices that affect women and girls, such as female genital mutilation or cousin marriage, in the name of diversity. If anyone complains or argues that women’s rights are important and that women have the right to safety, dignity and privacy in a compassionate society, they are labelled as bigoted. It is not bigoted to have these debates and speak up for the rights of women and girls, or to point out that this religion of diversity is now putting them in harm’s way. That culture has real, harmful consequences: women have lost their jobs; they have been hounded out of public life.
Tragically, we are missing chances to stop men from killing women and girls. It is the same ideological approach that allowed biological men to force their way into female spaces, sports events and even places on public boards. The women who spoke up for their rights were treated brutally, including within the Labour party. Enough is enough. The law is clear: biological sex is real and this madness has to stop now. When it comes to the Supreme Court ruling, Ministers’ adherence to this hierarchy of diversity has left them paralysed, pulled one way by their public statements and another by their own beliefs.
A whole year on from the Supreme Court ruling, the Government are still unwilling and unable to do their job and take the action needed to enforce the Equality Act. Despite the empty words of a written statement conveniently timed to pre-empt this debate, the Secretary of State has still not laid the code of practice before Parliament. Having already waited seven months, we are now sat in publication purgatory: action promised but still not delivered. All the while, out there in the real world, women and girls are paying the price.
Before the Minister tries to fob us off with a can of red herrings about purdah and prorogation, let me say this: the Government made an announcement on potholes yesterday, but they cannot make an announcement on the importance of women’s rights. Women have waited long enough. There is no legitimate reason to delay publishing the code because of the devolved elections. They could have done the work ahead of the elections if that is what they wanted. The Equality Act is a reserved matter and the code is not specific to Scotland or Wales. The Government have made plenty of announcements; this is just another excuse for inaction.
We know why they have been stalling: Labour Ministers are too scared of upsetting the gender activists on their own Back Benches to ensure that women’s rights are protected. While they stall for time, who suffers? It is women such as Sandie Peggie, Jennifer Melle, and the hard-working Darlington nurses who have been put through the wringer by the NHS simply for stating that biological sex is real. It is the women who have been raped and find themselves face to face with a man at a rape crisis centre, and the female prisoners who are forced to share their spaces with biologically male inmates.
Countless organisations are failing to comply with the law, with absolutely no consequences. Women and girls are being denied their legal rights on a daily basis. The former chair of the EHRC, Baroness Falkner, was absolutely right; this is cowardice from a set of Ministers who are entirely captured. To quote her directly:
“You have a Government led by a lawyer…yet he’s unable to uphold it in its most visible form”.
Frankly, women deserve better than seven months of misdirection about over-egged requirements for consultations, impact assessments and purdah for devolved elections—God help us! They deserve better than a Secretary of State refusing to withdraw the outdated and unlawful 2011 code. They deserve better than a year of Government Departments and quangos telling us that they are reviewing policies, with no end in sight. They deserve better than a Government crippled by fear, inaction, obfuscation and delay. All the while, women and girls across this country are put at risk and denied their legal rights.
Hopefully, the Minister will take this opportunity to answer a few questions that might put our minds at rest. Why did it take months for the Government to submit a “narrow set of comments” on the draft code of practice to the EHRC, and what exactly were those comments? Did the Secretary of State, as reported in The Times, instruct the EHRC to tone down the draft guidance?
Will the Minister take personal responsibility for ensuring that all Government Departments are finally compliant with the Supreme Court ruling? What additional resources are the Government providing to the EHRC to help it to enforce the Supreme Court ruling and the new code of practice? Will the Minister finally name the specific day when the Secretary of State will actually lay the draft code—no more excuses, no more misdirection, no more passing the buck?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)
It is a real honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. First, I thank the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) for securing this important debate. As Members have outlined, in the case of For Women Scotland Ltd v. the Scottish Ministers, the Supreme Court ruled that the terms man, woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological sex. That means that a person will be considered as their biological sex for the purposes of that specific Act, regardless of whether they have a gender recognition certificate. The judgment also reaffirmed that trans people are protected from discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment.
This Government have always proudly supported the Equality Act 2010, and we continue to uphold its protections for separate and single-sex spaces and services based on biological sex. As Members from across the House have outlined today, the provision of single-sex spaces is vital for our constituents, and this Government will always protect it.
There has also been reference to the anxiety currently felt by the trans community, many of whom are deeply concerned about how this judgment will impact their daily lives. This Government will always protect trans people’s rights under the law and ensure that they are treated with dignity and respect. My remarks today are underpinned by the Supreme Court’s vital reminder that the judgment should not be considered a triumph of one group at the expense of another, because pitting different groups against each other and stoking division hinders our shared endeavour of ensuring dignity and respect for women and trans people.
It has been important to hear contributions from Members in this debate, and I thank them all sincerely. The hon. Member for Upper Bann asked me three direct questions at the end of her speech, and the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) also asked me about laying the code. We will lay the code as soon as possible after the local elections, and we have stated our intention to do so in May.
On the question of workplaces, we expect all duty bearers to follow the law and seek legal advice where necessary. That has been a consistent theme in the debate, and the Government have been crystal clear that we expect people to follow the law as per the Supreme Court judgment.
Olivia Bailey
I wonder whether the right hon. Lady would let me make some progress. I am sorry; I have quite a lot of important points to get through.
Claire Coutinho
I am very grateful to Minister for giving up a moment of time. If she expects people to follow the law, can she confirm that all Government Departments are doing so?
Olivia Bailey
I can confirm that all Government Departments are currently ensuring they comply with the law.
The third question that the hon. Member for Upper Bann asked me was on the NHS. Issuing guidance before the EHRC code of practice is published presents a very real risk that guidance may be inconsistent; I am happy to keep her up to date with progress on that matter.
The right hon. Member for East Surrey and others welcomed visitors in the Public Gallery today. I welcome them too, and want to say clearly that everybody should be safe and respected at work. That includes women’s voices, rights and spaces being respected. I think the right hon. Lady was wrong to say that that has not been a priority for the Government—we have been working tirelessly on giving it the due care and attention it needs—and I think she is wrong to say that we are not determined to uphold the law, as I have hopefully just clarified.
I will also clarify that this Government are committed to the rights of women. The last Conservative Government had a terrible record from on women’s rights: victims of rape and sexual assault waiting for years for justice, women waiting years for diagnosis and care in the NHS, women at work suffering stubbornly high gender pay gaps and the Leader of the Opposition even saying that maternity pay had gone too far. This Government are delivering for women and girls. We are halving violence against women and girls in a decade, strengthening women’s rights at work and delivering a new women’s health strategy and cutting waiting lists. We are committed to protecting single-sex spaces and implementing the Supreme Court ruling, which I will come on to discuss.
Debates such as this are important because, in a conversation that is so often deeply polarised we must find ways to work together to move forward. We need more cool heads and constructive contributions, so that we can ensure the vulnerable groups at the heart of this debate—for example, women who have experienced violence and the trans community—are always treated with the dignity and respect they deserve.
Today my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equalities has tabled a written ministerial statement on progress with assessing the EHRC’s code of practice for services, public functions and associations. That follows the statement issued by the EHRC in which it explained that it has updated the code of practice and shared that with the Government this week. While we are unable to make further comment at this time due to strict pre-election rules, hon. Members should please be assured that we will take urgent action, with the intention of laying the code in May, as soon as practicable after the election period.
I also want to emphasise the importance of getting this code of practice right. It would be catastrophic for single-sex services to follow guidance that was not robust and then be placed in legal jeopardy again. That is why it is vital that we have taken the time needed to consider the code in full. When we lay the code, we will follow the process as set out in the Equality Act: namely, if the code is approved by the Minister, it will be laid before Parliament. If neither House disapproves the draft within a 40-day period, the Minister will then bring the code into force via a commencement order.
Beyond the process of the code itself, I have heard in today’s debate that some Members are concerned about what the Government have been doing to implement the Supreme Court ruling while the code is being considered. I reassure Members that since the judgment was received, the Government have been crystal clear that we expect duty bearers to follow the clarity provided by the judgment and to seek specialist legal advice where necessary.
Olivia Bailey
I will try to come back to the hon. Member at the end if I can. I do apologise.
I can also assure Members that all Government Departments and their arm’s length bodies have been carefully reviewing the ruling’s potential implications in full to ensure that their policies and guidance are legally compliant.
I have also heard concerns about the implications of the Supreme Court ruling for trans people. The Government firmly believe that trans people deserve to live their lives with dignity and respect, and without shame. That is why we will continue to uphold the Gender Recognition Act 2004, and why we are making progress on delivering our manifesto commitments, which will strengthen rights and protections for trans people. We will deliver a full, trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices. We will also improve healthcare for trans people, using the findings of the recent Dr Levy review on adult gender identity services and the forthcoming Dr Brady review on LGBT+ health inequalities.
We are adding sex and gender reassignment to the list of protected characteristics under the aggravated offences in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to ensure that offences motivated by hostility against someone’s sex, presumed sex or trans identity can be charged as an aggravated offence where the evidence supports that. We are determined to make sure that women, girls and trans people feel safe and secure everywhere—in public spaces, at home, in the workplace and online. I thank all hon. Members for their important contributions, and I thank you, Mr Stringer, for your expert chairship.
Carla Lockhart
I thank all hon. Members for their participation. I want to thank the Minister, but she completely avoided the question about Northern Ireland, so I want her to write to me on that to ensure Northern Ireland women are protected in the same way as women in England, Scotland and Wales.
I especially thank the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) for her efforts. She has often faced significant backlash, and yet she continues with courage. The Government need to realise that we are not going away until we see the change that every biological woman deserves. In Upper Bann and right across this United Kingdom, they deserve protection. We simply want the Government to reflect what the Supreme Court clarified: that “women” in the Equality Act refers to biological sex. It should not need law or clarity. It is time that this wokeness and ideology was kicked into touch. A woman is an adult human female, and women across the UK deserve to be protected. I thank everyone for their time today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the first anniversary of the For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers ruling.
National Suicide Prevention Standard
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that they may make a speech only with the prior permission of the Member in charge and the Minister. I have received no information that such permission has been given. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for businesses implementing National Suicide Prevention Standard BS 30480.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. This debate is about a risk we often overlook in our workplaces, but which can have a great impact on families, work colleagues and a much wider group of people. We have rigorous standards for fire safety and electrical wiring, and for hard hats on construction sites. We accept those as the cost of doing business safely yet, until now, we have had no such road map for the most complex safety risk of all: the mental health and lives of our employees.
Research shows that one in four adults has contemplated suicide, and one in 13 has attempted it. For every suicide death, at least 135 people, including colleagues, clients and communities alike, are directly or indirectly affected. Suicide is the leading cause of death for men under the age of 50. According to the Office for National Statistics, it was the leading cause of death for males and females aged 20 to 34 in the UK for all years observed, accounting for 27.1% of male deaths.
Suicide touches nearly every workplace, yet most organisations lack the tools to address the emotional aftermath.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First of all, I commend the hon. Lady for introducing the debate; this is a massive issue, absolutely. Does she not agree that, as 90% of businesses are small businesses with no human resources department, it is difficult for employers to be aware of the help for staff, and to be trained? Further, does the hon. Lady not agree that the Government, and particularly the Minister, need to ensure that accessible training is of no or minimal cost to small businesses? The very thing that the hon. Lady wants to happen can happen, but it needs that wee bit of help.
Liz Twist
Of course small and medium-sized enterprises are in a difficult position without large resources, but there are lots of things we can do. As the hon. Member suggests, I will ask the Minister what we can do to ensure that SMEs also have the ability to take part in this training.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
Does the hon. Member agree that BS 30480 will make a real difference only if businesses are actively supported in implementing it, rather than simply being left with a “do your best” approach? In that context, would she support formal a Government endorsement of the standard, including through health and safety guidance on work-related stress and psychological risk?
Liz Twist
Indeed, I will be pushing the Government to do all they can to support the implementation of the standard, and to recognise those psychological risks.
As we know, male-dominated industries such as construction face severe historical challenges with work and mental health. Agriculture and farming workers face extreme social isolation and financial pressures, and have access to lethal means. Healthcare workers and emergency responders experience severe trauma alongside having ready access to pharmaceuticals.
The economic impact of suicide is clear. In the UK, it is estimated at nearly £1.46 million per death. Nationally, this costs the UK economy nearly £10 billion per year, factoring in the cost of lost productivity, healthcare and emergency services. Suicide has a profound effect on every workplace it touches, whether through the loss of a colleague, supporting someone in crisis or managing the complex emotional and operational aftermath. Yet organisations are not necessarily equipped to address this issue openly and effectively. For employees without proper support, the trauma and grief of exposure to suicide significantly damages workplace attendance, retention, performance and productivity. Colleagues often experience profound feelings of guilt, inadequacy and confusion.
Because people fear saying the wrong thing, they often do or say nothing, which leads to further distress and emotional toll. This standard, informed by research, data and lived experience, aims to provide organisations with practical, evidence-based recommendations to help plan for, respond to and support people affected by suicide, or those with thoughts of suicide, in the workplace and beyond. The standard is designed to help workplaces support people who might be on the frontline of dealing with the stresses and strains of life.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
I commend the hon. Member for her work in chairing the all-party parliamentary group on suicide and self-harm prevention. I also thank her for jointly organising an event in Parliament to which constituents of mine, Anna Scott and Roger Cunliffe, who lost their daughter to suicide, brought the Yorkshire Speak Their Name quilts; we had 19 quilts on display here in the Houses of Parliament.
Will the hon. Member recognise, however, that those in our farming community, working in isolated environments, are of particular concern, with men in farming being twice as likely to lose their lives to suicide as the average man working in any other environment? Will she join me in celebrating the work of the Farming Community Network and others, which do so much to support those working in isolated environments, particularly in the farming community?
Liz Twist
I thank the hon. Member for that question. I had great pleasure in working with his constituents on the quilt exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall; it was a tremendous experience, and they do tremendous work. Farming is indeed one of the industries most affected by these circumstances. I certainly commend the work being done on the agricultural side, by organisations such as Yellow Wellies, to ensure that those issues are addressed.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I really appreciate all the work that my hon. Friend does in this area. I was very moved when a constituent, a police officer, came to me to share the experiences from his force when somebody took their life. The force did not have the tools available to support him, leading to his own mental health challenges, and to those of his colleagues. Therefore, it is really important, as part of this standard, that employers are equipped to identify those pressures—often overwork and stress, or bullying at work and the culture set in the workplace—and to then address the challenges that people face with trauma. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need that holistic approach to people’s wellbeing at work?
Liz Twist
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Certainly I agree that we must do all that we can. I hope that, in this debate today, we will be able to take steps forward to implement the standard.
I want briefly to touch on the work that the British Standards Institution does. It plays a vital role in workplace standards of all kinds in this country. The BSI is 125 years old this year. I am sure the Minister will join me in congratulating the BSI on that achievement, and the enormous contribution it has made to businesses and the everyday life of people throughout the United Kingdom since 1901.
British standards have helped with everything from saving lives with medical devices to air raid shelters during the war, crash helmets and now addressing suicide. I thank colleagues from the BSI for being here in the Public Gallery today to raise awareness of their organisation’s hard work, particularly on the new standard BS 30480: “Suicide and the Workplace”. I know that the BSI has a positive impact on society through its work. As chair of the APPG on suicide and self-harm prevention, I am pleased to have supported work on that standard. I am also delighted that the House has endorsed the standard and is seeking to adopt it following internal consultation.
The publication of the world’s first standard on suicide and the workplace represents a significant milestone in supporting mental health and wellbeing at work across the UK and beyond. The BSI, acting as convenor, brought together many leading individuals and organisations to develop it. The standard itself calls for assigning a named senior leader to take responsibility for the organisation’s suicide prevention strategy and provide targeted training so that line managers are confident in spotting warning signs.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is a true champion for mental health and has been quite an inspiration to me since I have been in Parliament. The standard is an amazing step forward for mental health in the workplace and is hugely welcome. It will save lives and help people in their everyday lives who experience suicide happening around them. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to be proactive and open up channels of communication really early to prevent suicide? We should encourage things such as mental first aid training in the workplace, which is really important.
Liz Twist
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, the whole purpose of this debate is to encourage us to be proactive and work with other organisations and employers to ensure that the standard is implemented and lives are saved.
Additionally, the standard encourages businesses to collaborate with workers to help design individual safety plans that outline coping strategies and emergency contacts at times when they need help or support. I was glad to work with the BSI on the standard. It represents the outcome of a huge amount of work involving employers, and mental health and suicide prevention organisations such as Samaritans, trade unions and BSI staff, some of whom are in the Public Gallery today. I was especially pleased that Mr Speaker granted permission to help launch BS 30480 in Speaker’s House last November.
I pay tribute to Professor Ann John, director of the National Centre for Suicide Prevention, who chaired the BSI committee, and within that, Marcus Long, who led the communications group, and Peter Kelly, who led the drafting panel. I also thank the BSI staff I have worked with over the past few months—Jane Packer, Lachean Humphreys and Robert Jervis-Gibbons—for their leadership on the standard. It has been a great pleasure working with all of them, but now we have to make sure that the standard is rolled out by employers. There has been a great deal of enthusiasm from employers to date, with 11,500 downloads of the standard so far.
How can the Government promote the standard? I believe the standard will help many workplaces across the UK, and I am sure the Government will work with me and the BSI to promote it to businesses. For example, Heathrow airport has publicly spoken about its adoption of the standard, and so has the Inclusion Education, in a recent BSI webinar in which I took part. Can we please encourage more to follow their lead? I believe we need the Government’s help to do this.
As we have heard, the standard offers clear guidance for organisations of all sizes and sectors, including public bodies, charities, social enterprises, businesses and commercial enterprises. I hope the Government can actively promote it, especially within high-risk, male-dominated industries, by leveraging their new and existing partnerships, such as the upcoming three-year collaboration with the Premier League, aimed at improving men’s health, literacy and suicide prevention. Furthermore, the Department of Health and Social Care could work with the Health and Safety Executive to ensure that workplace first aid and safety guidance emphasises the importance of managing risks to mental health using the standard. I am pleased the Government mentioned the standard in the men’s health strategy earlier this year, and that was significant. That is a good starting point for ensuring that employers start to implement the standard. The focus of today’s debate is how the Government can help with that task and help BS 30480 contribute to the national suicide prevention strategy.
April is Stress Awareness Month in workplaces, and I hope the Minister will agree to some actions today, maybe on behalf of his colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade. First, will his Department help to promote this important standard with business, public sector bodies and throughout Government? Secondly, will he commit to jointly organising and attending a roundtable with me, the BSI, the Department for Business and Trade, key UK businesses, SMEs and the unions to discuss the roll-out of the standard across UK workplaces. Thirdly, will he say how the Government will ensure that small and medium-sized enterprises can access the trauma-informed training required to implement the standard effectively?
We want to ensure that the standard not only raises awareness, but gives organisations the tools they need to reduce risk, intervene effectively and encourage conversations, breaking down the myths and the stigma that talking about suicide causes people to feel. With help from the Government and colleagues in this place, we can all work together to achieve our ambition of seeing fewer people die by suicide.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) for securing this debate on a topic that is especially close to her heart and for her work more generally to promote action on suicide prevention. I am also grateful to hon. Members across the Chamber for their interventions.
Every suicide is nothing short of a tragedy. It has lasting and devastating impacts on families, friends and communities. Ensuring that the right care and support are available to someone who may be struggling when and where they need it can make all the difference in saving a life. That is why reducing the numbers of lives lost to suicide is a key priority for this Government, and we are committed to taking forward the suicide prevention strategy for England. The strategy focuses on harnessing efforts across civil society to help identify and support people at risk.
Standards such as the one produced by the British Standards Institution play an important role in raising the profile of suicide prevention in England and in supporting employers to play their part. I take this opportunity to congratulate the BSI on 125 years of tireless work, ensuring quality not only in British society, but across the world. The British Standards Institution is the UK’s national standards body—an independent organisation that develops standards that shape and encourage best practice across myriad professional sectors. The Government’s relationship with the BSI is through a memorandum of understanding, primarily to support the UK standards system, rather than to direct or enforce implementation of standards by businesses.
Decisions on adoption and implementation remain with individual organisations, although the Government may play a role in encouraging awareness of those standards to support best practice. In November last year, as we heard, the BSI launched a new voluntary standard entitled “Suicide and the Workplace”. That standard was particularly notable, given that it was not just the UK’s but the world’s first national standard supporting suicide prevention efforts in the workplace—a truly commendable achievement. My ministerial counterpart, the Minister with responsibility for mental health and women’s health, Baroness Gillian Merron, was particularly pleased to speak at the launch of that standard.
As with other BSI standards, this voluntary British standard is published as guidance; it is designed to support organisations of any size and across all sectors in strengthening their approach to suicide prevention, intervention and bereavement support in the workplace.
On uptake, I was pleased to hear that the standard has been well received so far, with more than 11,000 downloads since its publication in November. It is overwhelming to hear that businesses across the country are putting the standard into practice, including Heathrow airport and Inclusion Education, which have publicly adopted it.
The standard is advisory and is intended to be integrated into existing organisational policies and health, safety and wellbeing arrangements, and therefore to be flexible. In terms of supporting its implementation, decisions on how to use it rest with individual organisations, but the Government recognise that some employers may choose to use it as a reference point or benchmark alongside their existing workplace mental health and wellbeing policies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett knows I am not a Department for Business and Trade Minister, but I am committed to making sure that she is linked in with the appropriate Minister in that Department, particularly around her asks on how smaller and medium-sized enterprises can access and implement the standard and overcome the regulatory and financial hurdles to doing so, and I would be delighted to try to organise that meeting for her.
Rachael Maskell
In 2003, the last Labour Government introduced a programme called Dignity at Work. It looked at bullying in the workplace, which we know is significant, and there are a lot of parallels we can draw on. A partnership was formed between trade unions, Government, businesses and public sector bodies to implement a programme of work to address bullying in the workplace, and it was incredibly successful. Will the Minister look at the Government being more interventionist on this standard and perhaps adopting a similar programme of work?
Dr Ahmed
My hon. Friend is always knowledgeable about these matters and she tempts me to egress across the confines of my departmental portfolio. I am happy to cite her recommendations in my correspondence with colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade when I try and set up a meeting for my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett.
The role of employers generally cannot be understated. As the suicide prevention strategy clearly sets out, by improving support practices and conversations employers can and do save lives from suicide. Almost three quarters of people who take their own lives are not in contact with NHS mental health services. That points to the importance of public and private sector organisations—well beyond the confines of what we see as the traditional NHS—that are well placed to reach those vulnerable people most at risk. Workplaces provide the perfect opportunity to signpost people to the support they need. Employers should support practices and conversations that help to prevent suicides—for example, by having employment assistance programmes, line manager training and support networks in place for employees. Every employee should feel supported, and every employer should ensure that support is known of and available to their staff.
As has been highlighted, we know that some sectors are disproportionately affected by suicide. For example, suicide rates in construction are four times higher than in other business sectors. The Construction Leadership Council’s mental health project has focused, through the lens of prevention, on identifying the primary root mental health causes impacting construction workers. The project, in partnership with Mates in Mind and the University of Warwick, held a series of regional focus groups with on-the-ground workers and identified those causes as including late payments, a lack of stable work, and workers having to travel and stay far away from family and loved ones. The Department for Business and Trade consulted on those issues and received around 3,000 responses. An action plan, together with a joint code of practice setting out how employers across the sector can provide a more supportive environment to address and prevent those issues specifically, will be published this summer.
With suicide prevention, we often talk about the importance of meeting people where they are. Ensuring that people are supported by their workplaces is one valuable way of doing that, and the Government are committed to finding more opportunities to ensure that every person requiring support can access it readily. For example, my counterpart Baroness Merron, alongside co-chairs Money and Mental Health, convened senior stakeholders from financial services to discuss the role they could play in supporting people at risk—both their customers and their employees. I understand there was a great appetite in the room to take further action on this matter, and Baroness Merron is working closely with officials to progress this work at pace.
I encourage all workplaces and employers to familiarise themselves, and align their work practices, with the Government’s suicide prevention strategy and to consider how they can best support their staff. I would also encourage them to consider drawing on the BSI standards as an exemplar tool to help embed suicide prevention in working practices.
Finally, as the BSI standard highlights, the importance of community, both inside and outside the workplace, cannot be overstated. That is why so many of the Government’s ambitions surrounding suicide prevention, and indeed wider prevention, hold community at their core. With our 10-year health plan, we are shifting care and support from traditional institutions into the community, and our focus is more firmly on prevention. Through the new community-based mental health centres that are being piloted, people and families can receive care and treatment when they need it, in their community, 24 hours a day, and in a much calmer environment than one finds in traditional A&E departments.
Dr Ahmed
My hon. Friend is trying to steal the conclusion of my speech, so I will bring it forward. I am always delighted to meet her, and she knows I am happy to contribute to any roundtable that she feels needs my attendance. I can charge my officials with the task of getting that organised.
Those community-based mental health centres are co-delivered with primary care specialist services that can be drawn on as required. People can receive psychological therapies, medication and other interventions, while also having access to expertise that can help with wider issues that may be impacting on their wellbeing and recovery, such as issues with housing, employment and peer support.
Our suicide prevention support pathfinder programme for middle-aged men will invest up to £3.6 million over three years in areas of England where middle-aged men face the greatest risk of suicide. It will support new ways of embedding effective, tailored support for middle-aged men within their communities and will create clearer, more joined-up pathways into existing local suicide prevention systems.
Today’s discussion has without doubt highlighted that suicide prevention truly is everybody’s business. Every person, organisation and service has a role to play. We can all do more to ensure that we are equipped with the skills that can and will save lives. Our suicide prevention strategy sets out a comprehensive, evidence-driven plan to reduce the number of lives lost to suicide across our country. It highlights the important role that employers and organisations can and should play in supporting their staff to get the support they need. Guidance such as the BSI’s “Suicide and the Workplace” standard brings welcome visibility to just how important that role is. I extend my thanks to everyone who contributed to and was involved in the development of the standard.
In conclusion, I know how personally painful debates such as this can be, but all hon. Members will know that the impact of these discussions goes well beyond the four walls of our Parliament and into the streets. That awareness is so important, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett for securing this debate. I would be delighted to meet her and to organise the meetings I outlined.
Question put and agreed to.
Ground-mounted Solar Panels: Alternatives
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of alternatives to ground mounted solar panels.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I sensed the people coming into the Chamber in the last couple of minutes and I felt a quickening. It was like energy coming together, which is completely appropriate given what we are here to debate: alternatives to land-based solar panels.
The context in which I wish to couch this debate is twofold. One aspect is local and one slightly more geostrategic. People say that in politics, where you sit defines where you stand. Hon. Members may or may not know that I am the proud Member of Parliament for Spelthorne. I sometimes feel the need to remind hon. Members that Spelthorne is not in Lincolnshire or Lancashire; it is, in fact, everything south of Heathrow airport until hon. Members get to the River Thames.
When I was elected, at the last election, to be the Member for Spelthorne, I looked at a very big map of the constituency—hon. Members will be very surprised to learn that I used to be in the Army, and there used to be a very good saying in the Army: “If you don’t know what’s going on, get a bigger map”—and I identified four enormous blocks of blue. That was half of London’s drinking water in four raised reservoirs. Being a practical man, I thought to myself, “Well, there aren’t many votes in there.” I also thought to myself that we cannot really build many homes there.
I did further research and it turns out that in 2016, on the Queen Elizabeth reservoir in a neighbouring constituency, a large technology demonstrator for floating solar was laid down, and ever since it has produced 6.3 MW of power—enough to power about 2,000 homes. That was at the time the largest one in Europe; back in 2016, we were leading. I looked into the situation further in order to see whether we were world-leading, but it turns out that we were not particularly, and that floating solar has been deployed to a greater extent in China, India, Vietnam and Israel. We will come in due course to the benefits of floating solar as an alternative to land-based systems.
I want now to return to the more national context. Frequently, we are led to believe that alternative sources of energy can be something of a zero-sum game—when someone takes one step forward, someone else has to take one step backwards. As I am sure we will hear, in large parts of the United Kingdom there are proposed large, land-based solar farms, frequently on very good agricultural land, so the zero-sum game between food security and energy security needs unpicking.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member on bringing forward a debate on this massive issue. Is he aware that there are roughly 600,000 acres of unused, south-facing industrial rooftops in the United Kingdom that could be utilised before we industrialise the countryside? The Government must look at those in order to utilise already built heritage and leave our countryside as it is to produce the food that we need.
Lincoln Jopp
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I hope other Members will come forward with their own preferred alternatives to land-based systems, because there are others.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a characteristically brilliant speech—the jokes get better each time we hear them. Does he agree that there are other types of provision? My area of interest is space-based solar power provision, which could provide the same sorts of solutions without taking up precious agricultural land.
Lincoln Jopp
As the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the shadow Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, my hon. Friend is only too well placed to talk about that. As his Whip, I can only say that his jokes get better too.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
On the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) made, I can say that when I was the Minister for Space, I strongly supported space solar, which is a genuinely exciting British breakthrough.
My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) is making a really important point about food security. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on science and technology in agriculture, I know that we are hugely vulnerable to the geopolitics of the strait of Hormuz and global supply chains more broadly, so we need to do more to support UK agricultural production. In my patch, we have an 8,000-acre solar farm on farmland, which will see good, productive land taken out. This Friday, I am chairing the Central Norfolk Solar Factory Farm Alliance. We are very keen to see solar on reservoirs, motorways, council buildings—on any surfaces we can—but not on good farmland.
Lincoln Jopp
And there we see the battle. Without wishing to get into other controversial areas, it is a little like proposals to build on green belt. If everything else were built on first and we protected the green belt, we would be a richer country.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
South Derbyshire has two grid connections and gets a plethora of applications for solar and battery energy storage systems—it is the bane of my life. I am passionate about moving to renewables. I have just got an electric car, and it is helping me keep my energy costs down for the journeys that I need to make, particularly in the light of what is happening with Iran.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for securing this debate on alternatives, but does he agree that it is not quite as straightforward as we think? We need to do this quite speedily. People assume that putting solar panels on industrial sites is easy, but we still need to be able to connect them to the grid, which is being upgraded in my neck of the woods. Does he agree that, much as we desperately want alternatives, there is not a sliver bullet to get us there?
Lincoln Jopp
The hon. Lady makes a really important point. One of the massive delays in deploying solar power is the requirement to achieve planning permission, and I am so pleased that she has brought that up. One of the beauties of floating solar is that if the owner of the reservoir or former quarry will use the electricity themselves, there is no requirement for planning permission. In terms of speed to deployment, return on investment and speed to profit, this is to a certain extent an answer to a maiden’s prayer.
We have not yet added in the third element of this battle between food security and energy security: water security. I believe in climate change. I am more sceptical about carbon neutrality within a certain arbitrary timeline, but the fact is that evaporation is a massive issue as the world warms up. One of the stunning and much less vaunted benefits of floating solar is that it reduces evaporation by 70%. Australia is very expensively covering reservoirs in anti-evaporation covers, but those could be floating solar panels.
I can sense the mood of the Chamber—hon. Members are very keen for me to list the other benefits, so I will do just that. The first, which we have talked about, is that floating solar comes with none of the opportunity costs of putting solar panels on grade A agricultural land, so we can move the debate on from whether we have to choose between energy security and food security.
Secondly, because of the effect on evaporation, floating solar also moves the debate on from the need for water security and energy security. Another stunning benefit is that it is twice as efficient as land-based systems. We would need only half the amount of floating solar as we would need solar covering Lincolnshire or Suffolk agricultural land. Hon. Members who remember their O-level physics will know that the evaporative effect on the underside of the floating solar panel makes it self-cooling, whereas land-based and roof-based systems and those in railway sidings simply get hotter through the working day and become less efficient.
“What about the water in these reservoirs? Surely, Lincoln, this can’t be as good as it sounds?” Well, it gets better, especially if the reservoir is to be used for drinking water further downstream. Denuded of heat and light, those things that grow in reservoirs that subsequently have to be filtered out, very expensively, by the water companies cannot grow. It is win-win-win all round.
Let us leave 2016, when we were Europe’s leaders, and fast-forward to last year. If ever there was a way to motivate Members of the House of Commons, it is to suggest that the French are beating us at something. Bear in mind the 6.3 MW—enough to power 2,000 homes—on the Queen Elizabeth reservoir. Last year, a plant on a disused quarry in Perthes, France became fully operational. It generates 75 MW.
I visited a former dock in Barrow-in-Furness where a 45 MW site is planned. It has to go through planning because BAE Systems will take the electricity. I would relax the permitted development right to include third-party use of the electricity, so that we can realise the benefits and improve the business case of floating solar to entertain the sort of investment it would need. I think there are 570 reservoirs in this country, and there is floating solar on one—the Queen Elizabeth. Ten further projects are planned. We also have innumerable former quarries and unused ports such as at Barrow. The opportunity is huge; we are talking terawatts. If it is realised, floating solar could generate 1% of UK baseload.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) mentioned space. Clearly, that would be phenomenal. Dare I say that it behoves the Government to look at this in a more strategic way than hitherto? They published their long-awaited solar road map. It has about 94 pages, and about half a page and a photo are dedicated to floating solar, which they describe as a “nascent” technology. I hope that I have shown that it is not nascent at all; it has been with us for quite some time.
Last August I stood on top of the Golan heights, looking down towards Syria, and saw two enormous reservoirs that were almost completely covered with floating solar panels. We should look to hotter and more arid countries for our sense of where we should take our innovation and technology. My plea to the House and the Government is this: look again at the potential for floating solar. When it comes to energy security, food security and water security, it provides a non-ideological, highly practical solution—a NIHPS—without papering over the beautiful parts of England.
By the way, all the reservoirs in my constituency are raised, so this solution comes with none of the visual vandalism of our country being carpeted in solar panels, to which people object so much. The tops of those reservoirs can be seen only by people taking off from or landing at Heathrow. The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) is quite right: nothing is as simple or as perfect as it might first sound. I do not envy her having two grid plug-in points—she will be one of the most popular Members of Parliament going. But if we can, we must examine floating solar in greater detail, because it could, to a certain extent, produce a valuable alternative diversification of our energy supply in a world that is becoming ever more dangerous and insecure.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. and gallant Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) for securing this important debate. I have heard the statistic that for all the land allocations that have been set aside for housing, for growing food and for renewable energy projects, and for all the other demands on the scarce land mass that we have at our disposal on this small and increasingly crowded island, we would need another two Waleses. Clearly, they are not making land any more, so how can we get better use out of the square mileage that we have at our disposal?
Ground-mounted solar gives a single purpose to land. Yes, it possibly gives some biodiversity gain; yes, it is maybe possible to graze sheep around solar panels, although I have yet to see it in reality; but generally it is a single purpose for that piece of land. How can we make better use of our land? As the hon. and gallant Member for Spelthorne suggested, we can put solar panels on reservoirs and on rooftops. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) will point out that that is a much more expensive way of installing solar panels—we have had that conversation before—but I would like to ask where the profits go. A 2,000-acre solar farm, Lime Down, is planned for my constituency. It is 100% owned by Macquarie. Hon. Members might be aware that Macquarie was the owner of Thames Water during the time that that company was loaded up with debt. It is a financial institution, not a utility-owning institution, so the profits from the solar farm will not go to local people; they will go to Australia.
What does good look like, if we are to meet our large and increasing energy needs while also bringing the public along on our journey towards net zero? It is important to the project that there be public support, not public alienation. Smaller-scale schemes can and do work. In my constituency there are successful schemes in Long Newnton and Corston. The principles are clear: projects that are community-led are more likely to have community buy-in, as are those that are modest in scale, that are sensitively sited and that deliver direct local benefits.
I welcome the Government’s support for community solar, including the funding that has reached groups such as Zero North Wiltshire, but we need to go further. Many communities are willing and able to participate. The local power plan and investment through Great British Energy are welcome steps, but they fall short. The Government are proposing about £1 billion for local and community energy; the Liberal Democrats have set out a plan for £3.3 billion. That difference matters. Our approach would scale up community energy into a core part of the energy system, not just a niche add-on. More than 100 MPs have backed reform through early-day motion 2151, so there is clear cross-party support for the right to local supply.
I would like to see the missing piece put in place: community supply licences, peer-to-peer trading and reformed licence exemptions. Of course, ground-mounted solar has a role in the transition to net zero, but it needs to be done right. The tests are simple: is there genuine consultation, real local benefit and protection of our landscape? If we get this right, solar can power our future. If we get it wrong, it will divide the very communities we need to bring with us.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. We are focusing on the concept of floating solar, which I am entirely behind. One of the drivers for that is the proposal in my constituency for the Green Hill solar farm, which will be enormous. It will be 1,200 hectares of agricultural land: the size—my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) will like this reference—of Heathrow airport. It will be dispersed over nine sites, require 31 km of different cabling, and use up 65% of best and most versatile land. The Government say that food security is national security, but such a scheme flies in the face of that message. Even the national policy framework EN-1 says that we must minimise the impact on BMV, yet such a scheme is going before the Secretary of State in the next few months. I really hope that he considers that, because this is not the best way to be utilising our land.
Green Hill solar farm will also have a battery energy storage system, which will be installed right outside a village called Grendon. Grendon already has a 50 MW battery storage site, and another 50 have been approved by the Reform council—I am surprised about that, given its view on battery energy storage, but there we are. However, this solar farm will require a further 500 MW on top. That will be 600 MW of storage outside a beautiful country village. It is completely inappropriate for the size. The developers have probably cited the existing source as their reason. However, this addition will completely change the nature of the villages, and we still have not been able to get an answer to the question, if there is a fire and there is a risk of thermal runaway, what that will mean for the nearby villages? I have been told that they can simply evacuate a village; that is not practical, it is not pragmatic and it does not give our residents any confidence in the scheme that is going forward.
The beauty of floating solar, as my hon. Friend said, is that there will be no land use change, which is one of the most important parts of this. It is also important that there will be no evaporation of the water, which is excellent. One of the objections is the visual impact of solar. The national policy framework EN-1 says that we have to take account of the heritage of an area. This particular solar farm will be around a series of beautiful English countryside villages with rolling hills. The village of Easton Maudit will be surrounded by solar on three sides. That will completely change the nature and experience of the village. Indeed, Sir Christopher Yelverton, a former Speaker of the House—albeit from the 16th century —is buried in one of the fine churches there; I imagine that he would not be delighted by the prospect of this coming on board. There is an important relationship between maintaining the heritage of our areas and the environment that we are in.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend is exactly right, and I share her frustration. In my constituency, there is a large area of protected national landscape, the North Wessex downs national park, which is constantly under threat from these kinds of proposals. Does she share my frustration at the lack of imagination shown in the UK? The A303 and the A34 run through my constituency, and there are tens of miles of embankment that could be used for solar panels. That is the approach they take in Germany, the Netherlands and elsewhere, but we never seem to get over the imagination gap about where we could put these things—floating or whatever—that may not be quite so damaging and intrusive. She probably has parts of the M1 in her constituency, which has endless miles of embankment that could be used for solar panels that could power her constituency and mine without harming any visual amenity whatsoever.
Sarah Bool
I entirely agree, and we have been trying to promote that argument. It has unfortunately been claimed that Northamptonshire could become the warehousing capital of the UK, but we should be using the roadsides. We sometimes see airports using the side banks for solar panels. Solar panels should be installed on the covers of petrol stations and on the roofs of warehouses. I know that the last Government were consulting on whether more warehouse space could be used. I know that some people make technical arguments that the roofs are not strong enough and cannot be reinforced, but that is absolute nonsense. We can definitely work to ensure that the roofs are sturdy enough for solar panels.
There is debate about whether it should be the landlord or the tenant who bears the cost of the initial outlay, and about who gets the benefit. All those things are completely surmountable, and we should be able to work on a programme for that going forward. It all goes back to planning, because meaningful requirements could enable solar power generation. I am often concerned that these initiatives end up just being greenwashing and that we are only putting them in place to be able to tick a box. What we want to see is these schemes being meaningfully integrated.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a great speech about the importance of thinking about things strategically. Does she agree that if one was thinking about the strategic placement of ground-mounted solar, one would not put it on the best and most versatile farmland that we have for food security?
Sarah Bool
Absolutely. It certainly should not be put there, and the national planning policy framework states we should not be doing that. I therefore find it quite extraordinary that we are still having debates on this issue. There are certainly other alternatives, and they must be explored, so I really do hope that the Government take this issue seriously as it progresses over the years.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I feel that we are slightly misrepresenting the argument. There is no debate about choosing between food security and energy security. The National Farmers Union states that if solar capacity were to increase fivefold by 2035, we would still only see 0.5% of UK agricultural land covered by ground-mounted solar farms. Is it not the case that we are creating a false debate, or does she think that the National Farmers Union is wrong?
Sarah Bool
I am not debating the National Farmers Union; I am saying that we should not be putting farmers in this position. I would not blame any farmer trying to make a bit of extra money from solar, particularly since the current environment is very difficult for them. The problem is that ground-mounted solar is not the best use of that land in any event. Agricultural land should be used for exactly that—agriculture.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and I am afraid to say that I think the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) has completely missed the point, because the reality is that this country is about 60% to 63% self-sufficient in terms of food security. This is not just about land being taken out of production; it is also about the long-term degradation of the health of the soil on which the solar is being mounted, because of issues such as shading, reduced rainfall, construction-related compaction issues, reduced organic matter and contamination risks. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just about taking the land out of production but about the long-term degradation of soil health once the land comes back into agricultural production—if it ever does—after the solar agreement of 40 years or so has elapsed?
Sarah Bool
Absolutely, and that is one of the arguments that we were trying to make in the hearing against the Green Hill proposal, which is for 60 years. We cannot see the justification for that. There will be a renewal right, no doubt, and even within those 60 years, the solar panels will be degraded from rain and we will not know what the run-off will cause. There are so many factors that we do not know about, and I want to ensure that we have good-quality agricultural land for the future.
Tom Hayes
I do not want us to keep talking around each other, but the hon. Lady is missing the point again about the quantity of agricultural land that can be taken out of agricultural use. Reference has been made to the idea that the UK would be carpeted with ground-mounted solar panels. That is not going to happen. We can support the goal of food security and we can support the goal of energy security, but we do not need to misrepresent the extent to which agricultural land will be taken out of use for that purpose.
Sarah Bool
I think it is about the quality of the land that is being used. It might be a small amount, but if it is very good-quality agricultural land—as 65% of it is, according to what I have here—the hon. Member’s point does not stand up on that front. We just have to be very realistic about it, because there are many different factors. The hon. Member could say that a huge proportion of the country is taken up with golf courses, and say, “Well, we don’t take that away,” but what we are saying is that this is a fix that is very popular.
Solar does not necessarily work all the time. The actual amount of energy generated is a very small proportion. Sometimes it can work only 10% of the time. It does not work during the night, and there are other issues about the transmission of the energy itself, because of the times of the day that can be used. That raises questions about the grid capacity and the grid connections.
George Freeman
On the important point that the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) made about connections, what we are discovering in Norfolk is that the grid connection investment is an open door to much bigger solar applications. We have an 8,000-acre one that I am dealing with today. Land agents tell me that 20,000 acres in Norfolk are now being released because we have the grid connection. Much of that will be good land. The danger is that the connectivity driving the investment means, unfortunately, that the land use argument gets distorted.
Sarah Bool
I thank my hon. Friend for that point. I think it also speaks to a wider issue about efficiency in the use of land. The EN-1 national policy statement says that we must be efficient in the use of natural resources, including land use itself. I think it is apt that we talk about floating solar, because we are not taking out agricultural land; we are using land that is serving one purpose but can legitimately serve another without disruption.
Samantha Niblett
One of the biggest concerns, particularly for my tenant farmers, is that when there is a change of land use for a solar farm, not only is the farmer unable to farm that land, but they do not have a farm—they are losing the farm. Does the hon. Lady agree?
Sarah Bool
Absolutely. It completely changes the nature of the relationship. We know that our farmers are already having a challenging time because of Government policies that are coming in; the inheritance tax changes have been devastating for our farming community. This is a point at which we should be supporting them. Part of that support is about saying that actually we need to be building reservoirs. On-farm reservoirs are going to be very important; again, that is a part of the planning system that we need to change and push through.
I do not want farmers to feel that they should or must go for solar applications in this instance, where actually the entirety of their farmland is taken out of use. The devastating thing about this policy is that a farmer whose family has been farming for generations—generations of them are buried at the Easton Maudit church—has had his tenancy ended and is already out, in anticipation of the policy coming in. Hundreds of years of a farming dynasty have been taken away.
This is not what the Government want to be doing, and it is not where we should be going. We should be encouraging farming, keeping our beautiful countryside, and using the alternatives. As I say, there are plenty, whether that is on top of warehousing spaces or on the sides of roofs.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Glastonbury and Somerton is home to more than 800 farms, many of which have appropriate buildings for housing rooftop solar panels, for example. That would meet some of our net zero targets and allow some of the fertile land, which she has already spoken about, to be prioritised, properly and rightly, for food production. Does she agree that we must expand the incentives for our farmers to install rooftop solar panels, including guaranteeing a fair price for electricity that is sold back into the grid?
Sarah Bool
I thank my fellow member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee for making those points. Yes, all the different incentives matter. In the farming environment, our farmers have struggled with a lack of certainty. With the removal of the sustainable farming incentive and with the capping and closure of all the different funds, there has been no certainty. In an industry that requires certainty, they cannot just suddenly change a crop halfway through. They have to rely on security, and it has not been delivered so far. We need to do whatever we can to put in place long-term guarantees of funding and make sure that they realise that they are secure for the future.
Dr Caroline Johnson
My hon. Friend is being exceptionally generous with her time. Does she have any comment on the scale of some of these proposals? My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) talked about an 8,000-acre proposal, and 9,340 acres are currently open to planning in my area. It can be quite difficult to appreciate quite how big that is, so for the Minister’s benefit let me say that the constituency of Rutherglen stands at a total of 10,230 acres. That means that the solar farms planned in my constituency would cover 91% of his area.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. Two hon. Members have intervened after coming late to the debate. As a courtesy to the Chair and Members, they really should send a note. I have had a note from another hon. Member who wishes to intervene, who has done things properly and has not yet intervened. I say that to hon. Members for this debate and for future reference.
Sarah Bool
Thank you, Mr Stringer.
These sizes are huge. As I say, the solar farm in my constituency will be the size of Heathrow airport. If this application goes through, more than 1% of my constituency will be covered in solar farms. That is not what we anticipated, and it is not the vision that I have for the future. We have far better alternatives. It is important that we move the debate on, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Spelthorne has done, to thinking about floating solar.
This is not about our party saying no to renewables or to any other alternatives, because that is not realistic. We need an incredibly good, diverse energy mix. What we are saying is that we should not do that to the detriment of our farms and our farming community and good-quality agricultural land. Solar has many great advantages. I wish I could trade my scheme for the one suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend. That would be far better and I am sure it would be much more appreciated by residents, constituents and the British public.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) on securing this important debate.
I confess that I had prepared to do far more debunking of climate-denying nonsense, given some of the statements by the hon. and gallant Member’s party leader, so I was relieved to hear his very impressive and science-based speech. I support a lot of what he said. The only note that I wrote myself was to say that we do not need to worry that solar panels start to lose efficiency above an ambient air temperature of 25°C, which is a fairly infrequent event in the UK. I totally accept his point about the efficiency of putting solar on water.
If the constituents of the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) have concerns about battery energy storage systems fires, she should point out to them that there have only been about 30 BESS-linked fires globally in the last 15 years. It is actually incredibly safe.
The point about rooftops is about prefab buildings—the large warehouses. The roofs have an insurable lifespan of about 15 years, whereas solar panels have a 30-year lifespan, so we need to change the building regulations, as has been said.
That is all a long-winded way of saying, that prior to getting elected, I spent 10 years working in the renewable energy sector, so I have a particular passion for this subject. I am also the chair of the ClimateTech all-party parliamentary group and co-chair of the net zero all-party parliamentary group. I hope that the hon. and gallant Member for Spelthorne will forgive me if I expand a little on the technological options available outside floating solar.
We face a worsening climate crisis, with more frequent extreme weather events affecting communities in West Dorset and across the UK, as well as being in the middle of a cost of living crisis, with families facing high food, fuel and energy bills, compounded by the illegal conflict started by the President of the United States. About 15% of households in West Dorset rely on heating oil, and many do not qualify for the support that has been announced. Petrol and diesel prices are rising. Red diesel for farmers has doubled in price. Fertiliser prices are rising, too, which will feed through to food prices.
As a result, it has never been more important to make renewables work for working families. That is not because they are cleaner and more secure than fossil fuels, although we know that they are, but because they are the cheapest form of energy available. New solar now costs 11% less than the cheapest fossil fuel to generate electricity. Onshore wind is 39% cheaper. Over a decade ago, only 6% of the UK’s electricity came from renewables. Today, it is 42%. On Sunday, renewables generated 62% of the UK’s electricity, of which solar produced 8.8%. We should be enormously proud of that, but while renewables are getting cheaper, people are not seeing the benefit in their bills. Under the current marginal pricing system, the price of electricity is set by the cost of gas. That means that when global gas prices go up, electricity bills go up too, regardless of how much renewable power, or power of any kind, we are generating domestically. That system has left the UK with the fourth highest electricity prices in the world. It is not working for households or for businesses.
Let us be clear that the answer to energy insecurity is not more dependence on oil and gas; it is more cheap British renewable energy. Under the clean power 2030 action plan, the Government want 95% of Britain’s electricity to come from clean sources by 2030—a noble endeavour. To get there, the Government plan to increase solar capacity to between 45 GW and 47 GW by 2030. That will require doubling our capacity.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
When alternatives are not available, building solar farms, as Leonardo is doing in Yeovil, can be important to strengthening grid capacity for businesses and residents. When the site in Yeovil is working fully, there is not enough power in the grid for other businesses to expand. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to make sure that we have alternatives and get more solar out there to power our businesses?
Edward Morello
My hon. Friend is 100% right. Wherever possible, we should generate and use on site. The problem so often—I will come to this point in my speech—is that the value of anything that is exported to the grid fundamentally underlines any kind of investment model when we are looking at on-site generation.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I sent a note, which you were kind enough to mention, Mr Stringer, to apologise for entering the debate late, but I am delighted to be able to contribute.
The hon. Gentleman must surely know that renewables need to face the same tests of cost-effectiveness as all other kinds of generation. For example, the concentration of offshore wind, with very large turbines, a single point of connection to the grid and large amounts of energy, contrasts with the peppering of the country with onshore turbines in small numbers and with multiple connections to the grid. Similarly, putting solar on grade 1 land is just not sensible. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
Edward Morello
I can certainly agree with the argument that putting solar on grade 1 land should be avoided wherever possible. The right hon. Gentleman may be interested in the recent report of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy on our adversaries’ attempts to cut subsea cables, and on the implicit danger of having so few connection points with such concentrated areas of offshore generation, as we have seen with recent Russian activity. I will happily pick up that point with him afterwards.
About two thirds of UK solar capacity is ground-mounted, but there are concerns about where developments are located, particularly those built on high-quality agricultural land. I echo the comments of the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool): I have never met a farmer, especially in West Dorset, who got into farming because they wanted to grow solar panels. Farmers want to produce food, but we must acknowledge that after years of pressure on farm incomes and pressure on them by this Government, some see solar as one of the few reliable ways to keep their farm operating.
We are asking more and more of our countryside. We want it to produce food, support biodiversity, generate renewable energy, capture carbon, provide housing, and support tourism and recreation. We need guidance to identify where solar is most appropriate, steer it away from the best agricultural land wherever possible, and encourage dual-use schemes that allow land to generate energy while still supporting farmers and nature—
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) for securing this important debate and for setting out, with his inimitable style and élan, a persuasive argument about how we balance energy generation with the protection of the countryside and the benefits of floating solar, which is a subject close to his heart and about which he is incredibly passionate.
I congratulate the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage), my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool), my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) on speaking or intervening in the debate. I was, however, going to accuse my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) of inadvertently misleading the House when he suggested that the jokes of our hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne were getting better every time he heard them.
This debate is not about whether solar should be built in the UK. His Majesty’s official Opposition are absolutely clear that solar does have a role to play. The question is where solar belongs and whether the Government are making sensible choices about how much to rely on that method of electricity generation. Under this Government, we are seeing a rapid expansion of large-scale ground-mounted solar developments on productive agricultural land. Tens of thousands of acres are being removed from food production, often with limited local benefit and little regard for the impact on land use and food security, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire set out so eloquently.
Good agricultural land is a finite national asset, and the foundation of our food security and rural economy. Once it is taken out of use and industrialised, it is rarely, if ever, returned to productive farming. At a time of global uncertainty and rising food costs, it is profoundly short-sighted to undermine domestic food production and the livelihoods it supports in pursuit of energy targets that could be achieved in less damaging, more efficient ways, as my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), who is more knowledgeable about issues pertaining to agriculture than I could ever be, set out.
The push to install solar panels on farmland is yet another blow to farmers and rural communities. Labour’s promises to protect rural life have proven empty, with new measures making it harder for family farms to survive and plan for the future. The result is a weakening of our rural economy, and a threat to the future of British farming and our food security.
Rural businesses and communities are raising serious objections, not because they oppose clean energy but because they are being asked to carry a disproportionate burden on their shoulders. In one of her last actions in government, the now shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), changed planning guidance to make sure that the cumulative effects of lots of applications in one rural area were considered together, not just waved through the planning system, and that food security held as much importance as energy security when it came to those decisions. Since coming into government, however, Labour has been approving every single application wherever it can, no matter the impact on local communities, and it has watered down the community benefit scheme that we put in place to make sure that communities are rewarded for hosting this energy infrastructure.
There are also serious questions about efficiency and value for money. Just this week, the National Energy System Operator—NESO—has warned that solar panels could produce more electricity in the summer months than the public could consume. To combat that, one of NESO’s suggestions is for consumers to increase their electricity use, with NESO even rewarding them for doing so through a demand flexibility service. Our electricity system should suit the needs of the people, not require consumers to change their behaviour to suit the energy system.
This situation exposes the limitations of relying too heavily on intermittent sources of energy such as solar and wind. Those technologies can play a limited supporting role, but true energy security requires a balanced portfolio that includes sources that deliver reliable, year-round baseload power. NESO has rightly advised that we need a flexible system that matches supply to demand and protects against volatility.
Sarah Bool
I want to make a point about volatility. With the unpredictable way in which solar is adopted, there is a danger that we will end up making compensation payments. When the sun is not shining, we may have to turn off panels and give huge amounts in compensation. That is another dynamic that we have to think about: it is an unreliable and unpredictable source of energy.
Andrew Bowie
As ever, I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, who makes a very important point.
Britain is an island nation with more than 40,000 lakes, lochs and reservoirs. We have led the world in offshore energy for decades, be that oil and gas or offshore wind. Floating solar, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Spelthorne suggests, should be explored to see how it might contribute to a future system without displacing food production or industrialising the great British countryside.
Despite the potential of such exciting technologies, the Government are going hell for leather towards onshore wind at the expense of all else, and greenfield solar is being waved through planning systems with alarming speed against the wishes of local communities across the country. The Conservative party continues to support solar on people’s rooftops and on top of warehouses, car parks, brownfield sites and other common-sense locations that do not harm our countryside, food production or rural livelihoods. What we oppose is the Government’s apparent willingness to sacrifice productive farmland.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. Before the Minister starts his speech, I remind him to leave a couple of minutes at the end for the Member in charge to wind up.
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) on securing it, particularly because I unfortunately missed his Adjournment debate, which I heard was one of the most enthusiastic Adjournment debates we have ever had on this topic. I was delighted to hear him repeat much of that same speech, because I did of course read it in Hansard. The map joke was there in the Adjournment debate, and it was there again today. We appreciated it all the same, and it was great to hear it in person. I thank him for securing the debate, and I genuinely thank him for the enthusiasm he has shown for floating solar. I will come back to that in a moment.
I was also pleased to hear the hon. and gallant Member say that he believes in climate change. That should not be breaking news to anyone, but when we hear Conservative Members stand up and confirm that science is in fact science, it is none the less a relief to me. I was delighted to hear that. However, the challenge—and I will come back to this point—is that, as much as there is a recognition that climate change is a threat, there is also a distancing from any of the actions that would help us to tackle it, and that is simply not a sustainable position for anyone to hold.
If we think about food security, water security and national security, all of them would be put at huge risk by not tackling the climate crisis. This is a very real challenge for us to deal with at the moment. That more dangerous and insecure world is exactly why we are embarking on the clean power mission.
Sir John Hayes
While the Minister is on the subject of science, would he turn his attention to agronomy? He will know that only around 15% of the land in the United Kingdom is grade 1 and 2. Much of that is in the east of England and, indeed, in my constituency in Lincolnshire. Lincolnshire has been targeted by solar developers, with countless large solar plans in the offing. Will the Minister recognise that those two things cannot be squared? We cannot have the most productive and versatile land being used up for solar at the cost of our food security.
Michael Shanks
I was going to come to the trading of statistics later in my speech, but let me do it now, because there is a fundamental point around the disingenuous trading of statistics on land use. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) made a valiant effort at trying to correct that, but let me give Members some sense of this. At the end of 2024, ground-mounted solar panels covered an estimated 0.1% of the total land area of the UK. Even if we achieve the ambitious targets that we have set out in the clean power action plan, they will be expected to cover 0.4% of the total land area and 0.6% of agricultural land. That is if we achieve our hugely ambitious targets.
The arguments that I will make in this speech are exactly those that the previous Government made when they spoke from the Dispatch Box. There was a bright-eyed and bushy-tailed Energy Minister who spoke about the dramatic rise in global energy prices following the invasion of Ukraine, the urgency of building a renewables-based system, and how critical it is for us to meet our 70 GW target for solar in the UK by 2025— the previous Government’s target was a fivefold increase.
The now shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), pretends that that was not the Conservatives policy for 14 years, and we now hear a litany of ideas—roadside solar, rail solar, floating solar—but none of them was driven forward in the 14 years that they were in government. Forgive me if I think that it is a little bit rich for them to be oppositionist, not having driven any of it forward when they were in government.
Dr Caroline Johnson
The Minister is talking about using a very small proportion of the United Kingdom. I understand his point, but when all of that small proportion falls on the best bits of agricultural land, that is not sensible. If one were looking at a strategic framework and desiring to use 0.1% or 0.2% of the country for solar, one would look at the least useful land for food security for doing that, not the best.
Edward Morello
The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) suggests that we should utilise the least useful land going. My understanding, according to the numbers I have looked at, is that at least 2% of the UK is covered in golf courses, which are ecological wastelands. At the risk of alienating all the golfing voters out there, I wonder whether the Minister would like to use that land.
Michael Shanks
I will not be drawn on golf course membership, because I do not know how many of my constituents are members of golf courses; I can imagine how many Conservative Members are.
I come back to the point about land use, because we absolutely recognise the importance of having a framework for how we use land across the country. That is why the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs published the first-ever land use framework in March— I recommend a read of it. It is a vision for all of England’s land use, using the latest data on how much we need for housing, energy and all sorts of things to ensure that we are making the best use of land. Both that and the strategic spatial approach to planning the energy system could have been done in those 14 years, but they were not. That is why we have ended up with a haphazard approach to strategic planning, and why we are now building the grid to connect the renewables that were built all over the country without that spatial plan. It is important that we strategically plan that, and it was not done previously, so we are moving forward to do it.
Robbie Moore
I have read the land use framework. The Minister has hit the nail on the head, because its sole beneficiary is his Department—the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero—and not our farmers or our food security. Can he specifically address the issue of land quality? If we are putting ground-mounted solar on agricultural land, will he at least recognise that that will degrade the quality of the soil health, given the amount of time that those solar panels will be in situ?
Michael Shanks
I will not be able to go into the detail of everyone’s points, but the hon. Member is wrong about the land use framework. Perhaps he should read it again, because it details quite clearly the different land uses across the country. There is always tension about land use—of course there is. That has been true throughout history, and that is why we are strategically planning it.
We are clear that the planning system recognises best use. Every application is considered on its merits; I am not going to be drawn on individual applications, but we have clearly said that ground-mounted solar should be used, wherever possible, not on the best-used land.
Michael Shanks
I am not going to give way to the hon. Lady again because I want to come to floating solar, which the hon. and gallant Member for Spelthorne eloquently made the case for. I completely agree that it is a hugely exciting technology that we should be expanding, and I also agree that there are none of the trade-offs that there often are in other deployments and that there are huge benefits. He and I have both visited the project at the Queen Elizabeth II reservoir near his constituency. It is a fantastic example of floating solar, which has the benefits of generating clean electricity and retaining water in the reservoir. We want to see how we can also utilise that power to reduce the local demand so that there are some real benefits for local communities.
We are taking forward a number of actions. I am sorry if the hon. and gallant Member thinks that floating solar was not given a prominent enough position in the solar road map, but I assure him it has a prominent enough position on my to-do list. We are driving those key actions forward because there is no reason why we should not be doing that more quickly. There are projects in the pipeline that we will try to support wherever we can.
On the argument that there is a trade-off between that and covering rooftops, reservoirs, motorways or any other space that people can come up with, I am open to all of those ideas. I agree that we should be doing much more on rooftops. The hon. Member for South Northamptonshire made the point about some of the complexities with landlords and tenants. It is complex, but it is not impossible and we need to work our way through dealing with that.
It is important that we recognise the scale of the challenge. The scale of our electricity demand means that we need to see more ground-mounted solar as well; it is not either/or. Rooftop solar is important in our mission, and floating solar will be important, but the deployment of ground-mounted solar will also be important in communities across the country. We want those communities to get a genuine a benefit from it, so the points around locally owned power are critical.
In closing, I recognise that at this moment in particular, the lessons we have to take from the crisis in the middle east is that we need to move further and faster away from reliance on fossil fuels, but we have to take communities with us on that journey as well. That is why I want to see communities owning more of this infrastructure and benefiting from it. We also need to make the argument to everyone in our constituencies that the reason they have been exposed time and again to sky-high energy bills is because of our exposure to a fossil fuel market that we cannot control. There is no shortcut to building a system that protects us from that and there is no option to simply build another system somewhere else. At some point, infrastructure has to be built somewhere, and it is simply not a reasonable argument to say, “I’m in favour of this, but please don’t build it anywhere near me.” We will not embark on that.
The hon. Member for South Northamptonshire kindly referenced the size of my constituency—I do not think I have ever heard the exact number of hectares. The previous Government built one of the biggest onshore wind farms right next to my constituency. I support that; it is the right thing to do for our energy security. If it was right under that Government, it is also right that we build the infrastructure that we need now, bringing communities with us but also being clear that it is the right path for the country and our energy security.
Lincoln Jopp
I am grateful to all hon. Members who have made such powerful contributions. I love the image of the Minister under his bed clothes with a torch reading the Hansard report of my Adjournment debate.
I can see the turning point where floating solar went from a nascent technology to one that the Minister wants to drive further and faster. He made a crucial point about how it is all very well to will the ends, but we need to will the ways and means, and not say, “Not in my back yard”. Floating solar is exactly my way of saying to the farmers in Lincolnshire and hon. Members from great agricultural land, “Yes, in my back yard. In fact, on half of London’s drinking water in the four raised reservoirs in Spelthorne, and in across other raised reservoirs across the country.” We can unpick this constant battle between food, water and energy security, and I am grateful to the House for giving me the opportunity to highlight that.
Written Correction
Ministerial Correction
Treasury
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Torsten Bell
The hon. Member for Wyre Forest also asked questions about savings gaps, and he was right to do so. Unfortunately, however, he talked nonsense about that. He talked about the self-employed, low earners, women and those working for SMEs, all of whom do have lower pension savings rates, but all those groups who are under-saving are those least likely to use salary sacrifice. He talked about those on lower incomes, but as I said, 95% of those earning under £30,000 and contributing to a pension via salary sacrifice are completely unaffected. He claimed that the impact was largest on those on low earnings. That is nonsense, because 86% of contributions over £2,000 are from additional rate taxpayers. Those are the facts.
[Official Report, 23 March 2026; Vol. 783, c. 95.]
Written correction submitted by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell):
Torsten Bell
… He claimed that the impact was largest on those on low earnings. That is nonsense; 87% of contributions over £2,000 are forecast to be from higher and additional rate taxpayers. Those are the facts.
Written Statements
Groceries Code Adjudicator: Statutory Review
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
In line with the Government’s regulatory action plan, which seeks to ensure the UK’s regulatory system is targeted, proportionate and supports growth, I am today publishing and laying before Parliament the report on the fourth statutory review of the Groceries Code Adjudicator.
The GCA was established by the Groceries Code Adjudicator Act 2013. Its role is to monitor and enforce the groceries supply code of practice, which the UK’s designated large grocery retailers must comply with when dealing with their direct suppliers.
The Government must review the performance of the GCA every three years, and this is the fourth statutory review since the GCA was established. The statutory review is not a review of the code or the remit of the GCA. The code is a competition measure owned by the Competition and Markets Authority as the UK’s independent competition authority. It was put in place to ensure that large supermarkets do not impose unfair risks on their suppliers which would adversely affect competition and, ultimately, consumers.
The fourth review considered the effectiveness of the GCA in enforcing the code over the period 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2025. A public consultation was held from 13 May to 5 August 2025 to meet the requirements of the Act for the Secretary of State to consult those with an interest in the code. Responses to the consultation, evidence from the GCA annual supplier survey and annual reports and other publicly available evidence enabled the Secretary of State to make an assessment of the performance of the GCA against the measures set out in the Act. These measures were explained in the terms of reference which are included in the report on the review, and in the consultation document, which was placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament on 13 May 2025.
The review has found the GCA to be a broadly effective regulator that made good use of its powers, adopting a proportionate and collaborative approach which usually resolved issues before the need for an arbitration or investigation. However, some respondents called for greater transparency around enforcement and more frequent use of investigatory powers. Despite high awareness of the GCA’s confidentiality obligations, concerns about reprisals persist, especially among smaller or harder-to-reach suppliers, leaving some still reluctant to report issues.
The Government conclude that the GCA has exercised its powers appropriately and continues to provide an important and effective regulatory function that continues to support competition and consumers, but may wish to consider the following:
Stakeholder confidence in the GCA’s collaborative approach: consider the concerns expressed from some stakeholders about the GCA’s limited use of its investigatory powers; and take any necessary action to ensure the basis and effectiveness of the GCA’s regulatory approach in enforcing the code is well understood.
Fear of reprisals deterring suppliers from reporting matters to the GCA: continue considering the concerns of some suppliers about the consequences of raising issues for their businesses; and take any necessary action to ensure suppliers’ concerns are not preventing the GCA receiving sufficient information to effectively enforce the code, with particular attention paid to harder-to-reach suppliers.
Transparency of GCA activity in practice: consider the concerns of stakeholders requesting practical examples; and ensure that suitable information is available to support the GCA’s purpose of enforcing and encouraging compliance with the code. The review also found no evidence to support the need to change the permitted maximum financial penalty the adjudicator can impose following an investigation into non-compliance. It also concluded that the information which the GCA may consider when deciding whether to launch a formal investigation into non-compliance should not be restricted.
The review also examined wider developments in the food supply chain, including the establishment of the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator and the sector-by-sector roll-out of fair dealings regulations. While the GCA model remains effective and its independence is valued, respondents raised concerns about confusion between the GCA and ASCA’s remits, and the need for improved co-ordination, as well as emerging supply chain practices not covered by either regime.
The Government have therefore decided that sponsorship responsibility for the Groceries Code Adjudicator will move from the Department for Business and Trade to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. This will streamline oversight, strengthen coherence between the two adjudicators, and support clearer communication with stakeholders.
The report on the fourth statutory review of the GCA has today been placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.
[HCWS1504]
Infected Blood Compensation Scheme
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
Today, I have laid the Government response to the public consultation on proposed changes to the infected blood compensation scheme. I have also published the accompanying report by the technical expert group.
We consulted on seven specific areas of the compensation scheme and gave respondents an opportunity to tell us what else they thought should be changed. I am pleased that we are now making substantial changes in all seven areas, and making an additional change based on feedback we heard. These changes will increase the levels of compensation available for infected and affected people.
I am grateful to the infected blood inquiry, and would like to pay tribute to Sir Brian Langstaff and his team for the sensitivity and care with which they carried out their work. The Government have now fully responded to all of the inquiry’s additional report recommendations on the design of the compensation scheme.
[HCWS1510]
Proposed Sale of The Telegraph: Axel Springer
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
On Friday 6 March 2026, I was informed by representatives of RB Investco Ltd that RB Investco Ltd intends to sell its call option to purchase the Telegraph Media Group Holdings Ltd, owner of The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Telegraph, to the German media company Axel Springer SE. They have asked for my written consent to allow RB Investco Ltd to derogate from the Public Interest Merger Reference (Telegraph Media Group Limited) (Preemptive Action) Order 2024 (the “2024 order”) to sell its option.
Today, I gave my written consent under the 2024 order to RB Investco Ltd to sell its call option to purchase the Telegraph Media Group Holdings Ltd to Axel Springer.
In my quasi-judicial role I have also assessed the proposed merger between Axel Springer and the Telegraph Media Group Holdings Ltd under the public interest media mergers regime and the foreign state influence regime as set out in the Enterprise Act 2002. I am currently not minded to intervene in this merger under either regime on the basis of the evidence available to me at this time. This is without prejudice to my ability to intervene in this merger within the applicable statutory time limits, if new or additional information comes to my attention.
I am pleased to be able to take these positive steps, which give greater certainty to The Telegraph and its staff.
[HCWS1508]
Technical Excellence Colleges
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
Further education colleges are the bedrock of technical education and training in England. They are critical to delivering growth across the industrial strategy sectors and can transform lives by offering young people and career-changers routes into fulfilling careers. This is why we are transforming further education colleges that demonstrate specialist excellence into technical excellence colleges. Building on the appointment of 10 construction technical excellence colleges in August of last year, today we are announcing 19 new technical excellence colleges in England. These TECs are specialists in the advanced manufacturing, clean energy, defence, and digital and technologies sectors. TECs will work with employers to ensure that the education and training on offer addresses skills gaps in key growth-driving sectors. They will also work with other skills providers aligned with their specialism to improve the quality of the provision on offer across England, ensuring that more learners are able to benefit from technical excellence at their local college.
Backed by £175 million of investment, TECs will help support the Prime Minister’s ambition of delivering two-thirds of young people engaged in higher-level learning by age 25 and access to well-paid jobs for British workers and support delivery of our ambitions for the skills system as set out in the “Post-16 Education and Skills” White Paper. Around 65,000 learners will benefit from studying at a TEC over the next four years, as TECs increase the volume and quality of specialist education and training and boost skills provision that meets local and national needs, supporting specialisms in priority city regions and clusters as set out in the industrial strategy. They will also break down barriers to opportunity, by supporting people to enter key growth-driving sectors whether at the start of their careers as apprentices, or as established workers getting new skills for better paid jobs.
TEC appointments
Today we are announcing the following TECs:
Advanced manufacturing
City of Wolverhampton College
New College Durham
Newcastle and Stafford College Group
Weston College of Further and Higher Education
Clean energy
Colchester Institute
South Bank Colleges
The City of Liverpool College
The Education Training Collective
University Centre Somerset College Group
Defence
Blackpool and the Fylde College
City College Plymouth
Lincoln College
RNN Group
Yeovil College
Digital and technologies
Birmingham Metropolitan College
Capital City College Group
Gloucestershire College
LTE Group
Milton Keynes College
[HCWS1505]
Independent Reviewer for National Security Arrangements: Report 2025
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
The role of the independent reviewer of national security arrangements in Northern Ireland is to monitor compliance with annex E of the St Andrews Agreement 2006, reviewing the relationship between MI5 and the Police Service of Northern Ireland in handling national security matters.
Dr Jonny Byrne, the independent reviewer of national security arrangements in Northern Ireland, has sent me his report for 2025. Due to the classification of the report, I am unable to lay a copy in the Libraries of both Houses, but I am able to provide the House with a summary of its content. What follows is a summary of the main findings of the report covering the period from 1 January 2025 to 31 December 2025. I am very grateful to Dr Byrne for his report.
Dr Byrne states:
“My role is to monitor compliance with Annex E of the St Andrews Agreement (2007) reviewing the relationship between MI5 and the PSNI in handling national security matters. The role seeks to provide assurance that MI5 and PSNI operate together within the letter and the spirit of the St Andrews agreement.
In order to meet the terms of reference I have reviewed documents, and had a series of meetings with senior members of the PSNI and MI5 along with political and policy-maker stakeholders.
There were no national security attacks in Northern Ireland in 2025. This is compared to none in 2024, and one in both 2023 and 2022. There were none in 2021 and 2020, five in 2019, one in 2018 and five in 2017. Although it is important to recognise that armed groups retain the intent and capability to conduct national security attacks.
Throughout 2025 there were no security related deaths, compared to one in 2024. There were 12 bombing incidents and nine shooting incidents in 2025, compared with six bombing and 17 shooting incidents in 2024. There were 21 casualties of paramilitary style assaults, compared with 23 in 2024. There were three casualties of paramilitary shootings, compared to five in 2024. There were 21 security related arrests under section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000, with eight persons subsequently charged. This is compared to 67 arrested with nine charged in 2024.
On 6 March 2024 the Northern Ireland-related Terrorism (NIRT) threat level in Northern Ireland was lowered from SEVERE—an attack is highly likely—to SUBSTANTIAL—an attack is likely. Prior to this the threat level was SEVERE from September 2010 to March 2022, lowered to SUBSTANTIAL between March 2022 and March 2023, and then rose to SEVERE until March 2024.
Through my discussions and review of documents I would like to make the following observations.
For the reporting period I requested PSNI data relating to the use of schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000, specifically relating to its use by PSNI Ports Examining Officers. The power allows an examining officer to stop, question, search and detain a person at a port or the border area in Northern Ireland for the purpose of determining whether the person appears to be someone who is, or has been, involved in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. It also allows for the examination of goods for the purpose of determining whether they have been used in the commission, preparation or instigation of the acts of terrorism. The data revealed that there had been 40 examinations and 51 detentions over the reporting period. These 91 examinations and detentions related variously to domestic extremism, NIRT, International Counter Terrorism, Crime and other (no clear ideology attributed to the usage of the schedule).
The data suggests that the PSNI are dealing with, and responding to, a range of threats, with only 34% of the power being used on those specific to Northern Ireland. However, I believe there remains a public view that National Security and terrorism more generally is a localised and narrow issue, similar to what people experienced throughout the Troubles.
Alongside this, on 16 October 2025 the Director General of MI5, Ken McCallum, in his annual threat update noted the following: ‘Finally on terrorism, Northern Ireland. Communities there are now living through the longest period without a national security attack since the start of the Troubles. We will continue, with the police, to bear down on residual threats and degrade terrorist capabilities.’
Furthermore, in December 2025, the PSNI in their written evidence to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, policing and Security Inquiry noted the following: ‘Any reduction in the threat is wholeheartedly welcomed by the PSNI but in practical terms, there is no difference in the operational policing response during periods of SEVERE or SUBSTANTIAL threat. It will take years of continued progress in driving down the threat and degrading terrorist capabilities before the threat reduces to an extent where the Police Service is able to make significant changes to how it operates to keep people in Northern Ireland safe’.
In May 2025, Deputy Chief Constable Singleton stated that ‘Northern Ireland is one of the safest places to live, work and raise a family’.
Why is all this relevant? There is a mixed, often contradictory narrative around Northern Ireland’s security status. There are two points worth making. Firstly, there is a lack of public debate or focus on what ‘normalisation’ is or how it should be measured. There is some optimism that the Northern Ireland threat level may be reduced to MODERATE at some point in the future. Inevitably, once sustained, this must have implications in terms of how the public view security alongside a reassessment of financial costs incurred to keep the public safe. However, there has been a distinct lack of debate and focus around what normal means in a society approaching the 30 year anniversary of the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement (1998).
Secondly, the topic of national security is rarely discussed at a Northern Ireland political level and institutions such as the Northern Ireland Policing Board rarely (if at all) engage constructively with the subject. Overall, this is concerning. Threats and risks are constantly evolving and given Northern Ireland’s unique status in terms of borders there should be a more mature and transparent discussion around managing, preventing and addressing current and future national security issues.
Platforms for this conversation could involve the Northern Ireland Policing Board along with the Northern Ireland Justice Committee.
Annex E sets out five key principles identified as crucial to the effective operation of national security arrangements between PSNI and MI5. My conclusions in relation to these are as follows:
a. All Security Service intelligence relating to terrorism in Northern Ireland will be visible to the PSNI.
It is evident that the PSNI have sight and access to all Security Service intelligence relating to terrorism in Northern Ireland. It is clear that PSNI and MI5 value the relationship and recognise the importance of working collectively to achieve the same goals. There is compliance.
b. PSNI will be informed of all Security Service counter terrorist investigations and operations relating to Northern Ireland.
It was evident from the discussions that both operational and strategic approaches to security were underpinned by the need for joint-working arrangements and co-ordinated processes. There were no independent terrorism investigations taking place in Northern Ireland. There is compliance.
c. Security Service intelligence will be disseminated within PSNI according to the current PSNI dissemination policy, and using police procedures.
All Security Service intelligence is disseminated within PSNI according to the current PSNI dissemination policy, and using current police procedures. All of the material passes through the intelligence branch hub using PSNI grading and intelligence briefing documents. There is compliance.
d. The great majority of national security CHISs in Northern Ireland will continue to be run by PSNI officers under existing police handling protocols.
According to both PSNI and MI5 the majority of ‘national security Covert Human Intelligence Sources’ (CHISs) in Northern Ireland continue to be managed by PSNI under existing handling protocols. The PSNI is regularly audited by the Investigative Powers Commissioner’s Office around HUMINT compliance. There is compliance.
e. There will be no diminution of the PSNI's ability to comply with the HRA or the Policing Board’s ability to monitor said compliance.
There has been no diminution of the PSNI’s responsibility to comply with the Human Rights Act or the Policing Board’s ability to monitor said compliance throughout 2025. The PSNI ACC for Crime Operations meets regularly with the board and members have the opportunity (with support from the Board’s Human Rights Advisor) to probe, ask questions or seek clarification on police approaches, tactics, processes and operations relating to national security. There is compliance.
I wish to note the full co-operation extended to me by both MI5 and the PSNI and the support of the NIO in compiling this report.
It is my conclusion that there is full compliance with Annex E of the St Andrews Agreement between MI5 and PSNI.”
[HCWS1507]
Machinery of Government
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
I am making this statement to bring to the House’s attention the following machinery of Government changes.
First, the management of the Integrated Security Fund, and associated funding, has permanently moved from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to the Cabinet Office. The Integrated Security Fund is the UK’s cross-Government national security fund, which works to address major threats to the UK and its interests. This change consolidates the management of the fund within the Cabinet Office, simplifying the fund’s leadership and delivery structures. By centralising these functions, the Government will improve its ability to respond to an evolving domestic and international threat landscape.
This change took effect from 1 April 2026.
Second, responsibility for the Groceries Code Adjudicator will move from the Department for Business and Trade to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. This will enable greater alignment across the policy framework for fair treatment of businesses in the agricultural and groceries supply chain, while maintaining the Groceries Code Adjudicator’s statutory purpose and independence. The groceries supply code of practice will continue to be owned by the Competition and Markets Authority.
This change will take effect from 1 July 2026.
[HCWS1506]
East West Rail: Consultation
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
East West Rail is central to the Government’s economic growth mission and plans to unlock the potential of the Oxford to Cambridge growth corridor. By delivering new east to west connectivity, EWR can support up to 100,000 new homes, connecting new and established communities with improved access to employment, training, and education. By 2050, EWR is expected to boost the regional economy by £6.7 billion every year.
Strong alignment across Government to positively plan for development will help to capitalise on the transformational growth opportunity presented by EWR. Where development is near to existing or proposed EWR stations, the Government expect local and strategic authorities and developers to maximise housing densities to unlock economic growth. This should be in a way that promotes sustainable transport modes and improves connectivity to jobs and services, consistent with “Better Connected: A Strategy for Integrated Transport”.
The first phase of EWR is nearly ready for opening to regular services. Contracting with the train operator, Chiltern Railways, was delayed by the general election in July 2024, and since its appointment in March 2025, it has been pursuing rolling stock modifications, the completion of the intermediate station, and staffing and training for service introduction. Freight and charter trains are already making use of the connectivity that this new route provides to the wider rail network.
On 14 April, East West Rail Company will launch a route-wide public consultation on future stages of the project as part of preparations for its application for a development consent order in 2027. This follows its “You Said, We Did” report from November 2025 and is expected to be EWR Co’s final public consultation ahead of submitting its DCO application, which will give it the authority to build the railway.
The updated proposals in the consultation reflect ongoing engagement with local communities and recent developments in the corridor such as the new Universal theme park at Stewartby. They include:
new station locations along the route, including at Tempsford, Cambourne, Cambridge East and on the Marston Vale Line, supporting opportunities for local growth;
a new approach to sequencing the project to bring forward transport and economic benefits at the earliest opportunity;
plans for more frequent services along the whole route, with up to five trains per hour in each direction and the potential for services to destinations further afield;
electrification of the railway between Oxford Parkway-Bicester Village and Bletchley-
Tempsford to support faster and greener services on EWR using hybrid battery-electric trains;
enhancements to existing stations on the route to improve facilities and access for local communities;
a road underpass to replace the level crossing at London Road in Bicester, subject to securing third party funding;
detailed changes to infrastructure design across the route responding to local feedback and updated proposals on maintenance depots to support future operations.
These proposals underline the benefits EWR will bring to communities along the route. The launch of this consultation reinforces the Government’s commitment to their growth mission, realising the full potential of the Oxford to Cambridge growth corridor by supporting jobs, housing and economic activity.
[HCWS1502]
Better Connected: Integrated Transport Strategy
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
On 2 April the Government published “Better Connected: A Strategy for Integrated Transport” to deliver simpler, more reliable and better joined-up journeys for people across England.
For too long, the transport system has been fragmented, inefficient and difficult to navigate. Better Connected is a call to action for everyone who works in transport across England to work together to deliver a system that works for people, no matter their need, and one that supports our ambitions for economic growth and access to opportunity. Drawn from extensive research and engagement with the general public, transport workers, councils, businesses and transport organisations, Better Connected establishes a shared vision for transport, for it to work well for people, for it to be safe, reliable, affordable and accessible so they can get on in life and make the journeys they need to easily.
The vision is supported by three guiding principles that will underpin how transport is designed, built and operated. We will ensure that people are at the heart of everything we do, so the transport system serves them no matter their need or background. We will use transport to create better connected places across the country to ensure that communities can thrive. We will work in partnership across Government, with local leaders and the transport sector so that decision making is effective, collaborative and delivers the right outcomes for people and places.
Based on what people told us matters most to them, the strategy sets out our eight priorities for improving the transport system. These are simplifying payments and information, providing safer and more dependable journeys, making travel more accessible and affordable, creating healthier communities, aligning transport and development, championing data and technology, empowering local leaders and optimising decision making and appraisal. By delivering on these priorities with our trusted partners across the country, we want to create a transport network that works for people and places.
To support progress towards Better Connected’s vision, the strategy includes 40 new, fully funded commitments supported by the £30 billion settlement secured in the 2025 spending review. These actions will help modernise ticketing in more places, provide local leaders with the tools to deliver better transport for their areas, improve the quality of travel information and support smoother journeys for drivers. Delivery of these commitments and progress towards the vision and priorities will be monitored and evaluated with a progress update published during this parliament.
Better Connected builds on the major action already being taken to modernise transport and make it work better for people, including the creation of Great British Railways, investment in local roads and rolling out more electric vehicle charge points. As a step towards the strategy’s vision, we have already published updated local transport plan guidance aligned with the principles of Better Connected to help local leaders deliver the transport that is right for their communities. Together, working through a people-focused lens, the transport sector will give people across England a transport network that is reliable, accessible and fit for the future.
[HCWS1503]
EHRC Code of Practice: Services, Public Functions and Associations
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Bridget Phillipson)
This Government have always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex. The Supreme Court’s ruling last year brought clarity for women and service providers such as hospitals and refuges, and made it clear that protections for trans people remain in the Equality Act.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission is the independent equality regulator and ensures compliance with the Equality Act 2010. Their code of practice on services, public functions and associations covers all nine protected characteristics and the steps service providers should take to comply with the law. We share the EHRC’s commitment to ensuring duty bearers have accurate and up-to-date guidance on the Equality Act 2010 including in the light of the recent Court rulings.
We are grateful to the EHRC for their work on the updated draft code following engagement and further legal analysis. The EHRC is rightly focused on ensuring the updated code is robust, accessible and ensures duty bearers can be confident that it is a clear and accurate explanation of the law.
The Government received the updated draft on 13 April. The code will apply across Great Britain and as we are currently in the pre-election period for the devolved Administrations, we are unable to make further announcements on this matter at this time. However, we are taking urgent action to meet our intention of laying the code in May and as soon as practicable after the election period, for parliamentary scrutiny.
We are getting it right, showing leadership by implementing the clarity the Supreme Court ruling delivers.
[HCWS1509]