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.