House of Commons
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
I inform the House that I have received letters from the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) informing me of her resignation as Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) informing me of his resignation as Chair of the Justice Committee and the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) informing me of her resignation as Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee. I therefore declare those Chairs vacant.
Nominations for the elections to fill those vacancies are now open and will close at 2.30 pm on Monday 7 September. Nomination forms will be available from the Vote Office, the Table Office and the Public Bill Office. Only Members from the Labour party may be candidates in these elections. If there is more than one candidate in any election, the ballot will take place on Monday 14 September between 3 pm and 6 pm in the Aye Lobby.
I remind Members that new rules in relation to campaigning for Select Committee Chair elections, which were proposed by the Procedure Committee, were endorsed by the House on 28 April 2026. A briefing note with more information will be made available from the Vote Office and online.
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
If I may, Mr Speaker, I want to start by acknowledging the devastating floods in Nepal. I know many Members are supporting constituents who have been affected by this tragedy, and our intention remains to support British nationals and the people of Nepal. We have engaged with the authorities in Kathmandu and Beijing, and we stand with them at this incredibly devastating and difficult time.
We categorically do not export any bombs or ammunition for use in military operations in Gaza. We suspended 29 licences in September 2024, and approximately 50 licences have been refused since then. All licences are assessed in line with the strategic export licensing criteria and are kept under continual review.
Brian Mathew
Will the UK ban all trade with illegal Israeli settlements in the west bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan heights, sanction companies profiteering from this trade and enforce the International Court of Justice ruling against illegal occupation?
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman will have heard the statements made by the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on this issue, and he should expect further announcements in due course.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
In September 2024, the Government suspended some arms sales to Israel over its war on Gaza. Given the escalating Israeli violence in the west bank, will the Government review their export licences to ensure no British military equipment is supplied to Israel that could be used there?
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and as I assured the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew), we keep all our licences under review. We only approve licences that are consistent with our legal obligations, and all of them are kept under careful and continual review, as standard. We will of course keep the House updated on the implications of any other announcements we make.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary and the new Ministers to their places in the House.
As previous speakers have mentioned, the UK’s trade relationship with Israel includes the trade in goods from illegal settlements. Members across the House will have been shocked to see the violent scenes of settlers acting with apparent impunity and with overt support from Israeli Ministers who have set out their support for those settlements. May I push the Minister a little bit further, and ask him to confirm whether the Government will introduce new sanctions to target those settlers involved in these attacks as well as the extremist Ministers who are encouraging them; whether their reported progress towards a trade ban on illegal goods will extend to services; and most importantly, whether they will set out the consequences if those bans are breached?
Stephen Doughty
I share the hon. Gentleman’s horror at some of the things we have seen going on in those illegal settlements, and we have absolutely condemned the settler violence—the settler terrorism—that we have seen. We absolutely condemn the proposals for E1 and all illegal settlements; we have joined other countries around the world in condemning that proposal. We have been clear with the Government of Israel that this must stop. The Prime Minister has been clear that we need to do more, including looking at further sanctions on those involved in the violence in Gaza, as well as at measures to ban trade in goods with illegal settlements. We have been clear that British companies should not be financing, constructing or advertising new settlements.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Uma Kumaran)
This Government inherited a situation from the previous Conservative Government where UK control over the vital UK-US military base in Diego Garcia was under threat. This is about the long-term safety and national security of the United Kingdom and the British people. Maintaining the long-term operational control and security of the base remains a top priority; that is the entire basis for the UK-Mauritius agreement. A financial element was a crucial part of that deal.
Dr Evans
We have heard that line for the last two years. The question that the public want answered, and the one I asked the former Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), before the summer, is: where is the case? The former Defence Secretary said that he was looking at the details closely. Six weeks on, can the Minister confirm that the deal is now dead, as it should be?
Uma Kumaran
The hon. Gentleman asks about the payments, but he knows that this is about the long-term safety and national security of the United Kingdom and the British people. Diego Garcia is a key strategic military asset for both the United Kingdom and the United States that has protected our shared security for nearly 60 years. At the time, the Conservative Government held 11 rounds of negotiations with the Mauritians; at the time, they argued that Britain’s defence was best served by having legal certainty over the Chagos islands. Funding for the treaty will be provided within the existing spending review settlements for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Ministry of Defence.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I begin by welcoming the Foreign Secretary and his new team to their places. In particular, I welcome the Minister; I am cross with her for leaving the Foreign Affairs Committee and we will miss her very much. She was a formidable member of our Committee, and I am proud to see her take such a well-deserved place on the Front Bench.
Now to the work. On the issue of islands that the UK— and now supposedly the United States—takes a great interest in, will the Minister provide an official response to President Trump’s latest nonsense that he might withdraw support for UK sovereignty over the Falklands?
Uma Kumaran
I thank the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee for her warm words. The UK has no doubt about its sovereignty over the Falkland Islands: they are, and will always remain, a British overseas territory, in line with the wishes of the Falkland Islanders. The UK is steadfast in our support of the Falkland Islanders’ right to self-determination. While I have seen the comments that the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee referred to, our position remains unchanged.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I welcome the new Foreign Secretary and his Ministers to the team, and I convey the apologies of the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), who is overseas. May I associate Conservative Members with the Government’s condolences following the devastating floods in Nepal and Tibet? Our thoughts are with all those who have lost loved ones, those who are still missing—including British nationals—and the emergency workers undertaking extraordinarily difficult rescue operations.
In April, after the US withdrew its support, Ministers admitted that the Chagos treaty had become:
“impossible to agree at political level”.
However, the Government now say that they are again trying to push the deal forward with Washington. What has changed? I will give the Government another change to answer the question. Has the US agreed to amend the 1966 UK-US agreement governing Diego Garcia, and why is the Department budgeting for a deal that remains blocked by our closest security ally?
Uma Kumaran
We worked in lockstep with the US in developing and testing the deal to ensure that it meets both UK and US security requirements. I am not going to give a running commentary on this matter. The US Administration have repeatedly supported this agreement, and nothing in this treaty has changed since the US originally gave its endorsement to the deal. We have always been clear that the US Government must be content with the agreement before we proceed in ratifying the treaty, and we will continue to work with the US and Mauritius to find a way forward that is in the UK’s best interests and protects our national security.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Ed Miliband)
Israeli settlements are illegal under international law. Last month, we saw the issuing of tenders for the E1 settlement, long regarded as the crossing of a red line because it cuts through the heart of the west bank and risks making a Palestinian state unviable. This action was rightly condemned by a whole range of countries in the international community, including the United Kingdom. In recent weeks, we have also seen appalling settler terrorism and Palestinians driven from their homes. This Government will not acquiesce in the destruction of the two-state solution—we will act. I will set out a comprehensive set of measures in the coming weeks.
James Naish
The UK told the Security Council on 29 June that more than 6,000 settlement housing units had already been approved this year, alongside the declaration on 24 June of a further 465 dunams of Palestinian land as state land, in violation of international law. The situation has only deteriorated since. Does the Foreign Secretary accept that this pace of expansion shows that current UK measures are failing to change Israeli Government behaviour, and that a trade ban is now the necessary next step?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend speaks with great sense on this matter. I am deeply worried about the pace of what is happening. Let us be honest about what is happening here: we are seeing the creation of facts on the ground that seek to destroy the prospect of a two-state solution. We cannot simply stand by and let that happen. My hon. Friend will know that shortly before becoming Prime Minister, the Prime Minister talked about doing more on measures to ban the trading of goods with illegal settlements, and we are working across Government and with our allies on those measures. If my hon. Friend is a little patient, we will have more to say in the coming weeks.
Martin Rhodes
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his answer and for his condemnation of the Israeli Government’s policies in the west bank. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that action against these illegal settlements must include banning the trade in services—as well as goods—such as mortgages, financial support and legal services from UK companies to illegal settlement builders?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend makes another important point. We need to look at our wider economic relationship with the occupied territories, as we are doing, and at the different tools we have. I want to be clear, as my hon. Friend says, that we do not want British companies financing, constructing or advertising new settlements. The work we are now undertaking is on how we can stop that; as I say, I will have more to say soon.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State recognise that the situation that we find ourselves in, in the west bank and Palestine more widely, represents an almost complete failure of British foreign policy in this regard? As a British citizen, one of the most distressing aspects of this conflict, aside from the death, destruction and savagery, has been the sight of British Ministers being sent out to mouth platitudinous condemnations like goldfish, and promise action, only being dragged to take pathetic ineffectual steps by pressure from their own Back Benchers. My question is this: is anything going to change?
Ed Miliband
Yes. I associate myself pretty much entirely with the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks. We need to face facts on both sides of the House here. It has been the policy of successive Governments over a long period to be for the two-state solution, but if we are for the two-state solution and we see it being destroyed by the facts on the ground, we must act. The right hon. Gentleman has a long-standing interest and expertise on these issues, and I assure him that we will do so.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary to his new role. He will be aware that none of his recent predecessors were ever short of an angry word or condemnatory statement about Israel’s actions in Gaza or the west bank, but they were woefully short on any meaningful action to back up their supposed outrage. What is happening in the west bank is happening right now, so time is of the essence. When will he spell out exactly the consequences for the state of Israel and for any UK national or UK-based company found to be complicit in this illegal E1 expansion programme?
Ed Miliband
I do want to defend the record of my predecessors for a moment. Recognition of the Palestinian state was a historic decision made by this Government, and action was taken on arms licences. As the Prime Minister has said, we on this side of the House recognise the need for a step change in our approach, given the urgency. As I say, the hon. Gentleman will not have to wait too long.
Damien Egan (Bristol North East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will no doubt be aware of the Israeli Government’s removal of Dutch representatives from positions monitoring the ceasefire in Gaza following trade bans by the Dutch Government recently. What reassurances can he give the House that in the event of any decision to impose new trade restrictions, the UK’s ability to influence events in the middle east will not be undercut further as a result?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend raises a legitimate point, but I just want to say this: we must listen to the voices across the piece on these questions, including the Palestinian Authority. People rightly worry about the impacts that it can have, but I think it is very important when we weigh our decisions to listen to those who represent Palestinians and who say, “The time to act is now”. That is what we are going to do.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I welcome the new Foreign Secretary and his team to their places. He is the third Labour Foreign Secretary in just over two years. We have had so many hand-wringing statements. He has just said that the time to act is now, but he is asking us to wait weeks more for a statement about banning settlement trade, which it is absolutely clear is essential. What is he waiting for? Will he ban trade in goods, services and investment in both directions immediately, because the facts on the ground are changing now, at pace and faster than ever before? What are the UK Government still waiting for?
Ed Miliband
I can assure the hon. Lady that we are working intensively on this, and as I said in earlier answers, she will not have to wait long. I want to get this right, because we need a comprehensive reset of our policy across the piece. Many Members on both sides of the House have made very important points about not only trade but a whole set of issues, including the International Court of Justice judgment on legality. I want a comprehensive reset of our approach on these issues, for the reasons that the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) and many hon. Members said. It is necessary and high time.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Ed Miliband)
Keeping the British people safe is the first duty of government. This summer we have seen the effects of the climate crisis in starker terms than ever. We are impacted here at home and by what happens overseas. Showing leadership on this will be a core priority for me as Foreign Secretary, and I will bring a group of Foreign Ministers together at the United Nations later this month to discuss how to respond.
Gill Furniss
My thoughts are with the victims of the flooding in Nepal and Tibet last week—a horrifying and pertinent reminder that climate change and its inevitable consequences are the biggest threat to our health, our homes and our way of life. Already drought and resource scarcity are actively fuelling regional conflicts around the globe and driving mass displacement. What diplomatic initiatives is the Secretary of State leading to combat climate change and prevent resource-driven conflict?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the Met Office said today that this was the hottest summer on record. That brings home to us that whatever one’s views on net zero and associated issues—I know there are various views on all sides of the House—this is one of the biggest national security threats that we face. I undertake to my hon. Friend and Members across the House that as Foreign Secretary I will treat this with the seriousness that it deserves.
Melanie Onn
The Humber generates 20% of our electricity and is critical to delivering UK energy security. We have to work with our international allies to build a stronger framework of the friendly to protect all our critical infrastructure. The memorandum of understanding between Humber Marine and Renewables and Norwegian Offshore Wind is a really good example of collaboration that will keep the turbines turning. Has the Foreign Secretary had any discussions with allied partners to protect and grow clean energy projects, to improve collaboration and to better support global energy security?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend—I used to say this at Energy Security and Net Zero questions—is a brilliant advocate on these issues, with huge expertise from before she came to the House. I assure her that, as part of the work that we are doing in alliance with my right hon. Friend the Energy Secretary, we will be working with other countries on these questions. We have to tackle the problem of emissions and we have to help countries adapt—both are crucial.
Perran Moon
I associate myself with the comments of the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), about the appalling scenes in Nepal.
The success of our action on climate change is dependent on working collaboratively with international allies to secure resilient supply chains and limit dependencies on states hostile to the national interest. Cornwall council, as part of its international strategy, is working with the likes of the Breton government and the Quebec government to enhance the resilience of renewable energy and critical minerals supply chains. What is the Foreign Office doing to support national security through such outward-looking initiatives?
Ed Miliband
We love Cornwall, and we love my hon. Friend for his brilliant advocacy on behalf of his constituents and for what Cornwall is doing. He is right, and I will look at his initiative, because working with Governments across the world on these issues—including state governments—is crucial. This is a collective action problem and we have to tackle it collectively.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
May I put on record that the Liberal Democrats’ concern and thoughts are with the people of Nepal and Tibet as this tragedy unfolds? I urge the Government to stay the distance with them.
The UK’s spend on international aid and development aids our national security not only in climate change but in keeping extremism, pandemics and illegal immigration from our shores, but the Government have slashed aid brutally, and the true impact of the cuts was finally realised only in the final hours before summer recess. The cuts are deep and worrying. Will this Administration reverse them? Will the Secretary of State set out a timeline for when UK aid will return to 0.7% of GNI—a commitment that the House legislated for?
Ed Miliband
The hon. Lady makes an important point, but I do say to her that we inherited an incredibly difficult fiscal position, with extraordinary pressures on the public finances. We are doing everything we can on development—indeed, I associate myself with the remarks she made about Nepal and will say more about it later—which is why, as soon as the tragedy happened, we were one of the first countries to show that we would provide financial assistance to the Government of Nepal. We take these issues incredibly seriously and have a proud record.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
With the United States stepping back from multilateral climate co-operation, what specific coalitions is the UK convening to fill the gap that the United States is leaving? Which countries have signed up to that so far?
Ed Miliband
In my six weeks or so in the job, I have met a wide range of Foreign Ministers and have talked to many of them about these issues. Frankly, this has not been at the forefront of Foreign Ministers’ agendas, but in a sense—I know that we have said this many times before on climate issues—this summer is a wake-up call. Important as Energy Ministers are—of course, I was one recently—it also has to be a matter across Government, with a cross-Government approach to these issues. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is what we will do.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
We know that food security is part of national security, and it has been another tough year for agriculture, with a record wet winter and now a record hot summer. We also have bluetongue disease going through livestock—when I was at vet school, that was a disease of northern Africa and southern Europe—which has spread through Europe to the UK and now to Scotland because of climate change. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is hugely irresponsible and scientifically ignorant for the Leader of the Opposition to ban Conservative candidates who believe in taking serious action to tackle climate change from standing at the next general election?
Ed Miliband
The Leader of the Opposition will have to take responsibility for her own candidates. I was once Leader of the Opposition—it is a hard job, as I proved. There is an interesting point here, which is that a debate has broken out in the pages of The Daily Telegraph—an organ I obviously read a lot—on climate change, and people are saying, “Hang on a minute; how can the Conservative party, which cares about preservation of our way of life, ignore this issue?” I urge people across the House to take the issue seriously.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Ed Miliband)
This Government are determined to follow the leadership of every British Government since the Russian invasion and stand shoulder to shoulder with the people of Ukraine against Russian aggression, which has intensified in recent weeks, with July the worst month for civilian casualties since 2022. My first Foreign Minister call was with my Ukrainian counterpart, Foreign Minister Sybiha, and I had the privilege of meeting President Zelenski, alongside the Prime Minister, in my second week in this role. On Russian sanctions, on helping Ukraine with its defence and on helping it ensure that it can prevail in the conflict, we will be with the people of Ukraine and their Government for as long as it takes.
James Wild
The Government rightly champion long-term support for Ukraine and deterrence against Russian aggression, but that diplomatic approach has to be backed up by credible pledges on military capability. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that this Government are committed to spending 3% of GDP on defence by 2030 —something the Chancellor said was essential to defend our country only a few weeks ago?
Ed Miliband
These are matters for the Chancellor to determine, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, but I say this specifically on Ukraine: we will do whatever is necessary to support the Government of Ukraine. It is clear to me that we have shown, at so many different levels, our solidarity—that of the British people and of the Government—with the people of Ukraine, and I pay tribute, as I did in my opening answer, to previous Governments, beginning with the Government of Boris Johnson. Not just solidarity, but action, are absolutely crucial. This conflict matters in principle and it matters to our future security too.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
We know that the Kremlin uses disinformation and misinformation to thwart Ukraine’s effort and that of its allies in the fight against Russian aggression. In recent weeks, there has been evidence that Meta has permitted Russian state propaganda, including threats that Britain should be punished for its assistance to Ukraine, to be targeted at individuals. What steps are the Foreign Office and the Government more widely taking to hold Meta to account?
Ed Miliband
On the end point made by the hon. Gentleman, Russia can make its threats, but we will not be deterred from our solidarity and support for Ukraine. I put that on record and make it clear in the House. I have been reading the back catalogue of Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office questions, because that is the kind of thing I do, and I know that the issue of disinformation and misinformation, which the hon. Gentleman raises, has come up a lot. I undertake to work on that, and specifically on the Meta issue that he raised, with my colleagues across Government.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
I congratulate the Foreign Secretary and the ministerial team, and I wish them well. In recent months I have been proud, alongside the former Prime Minister, to negotiate the UK’s participation in the EU support loan for Ukraine. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, going forward, there should be no unnecessary delays in procurement, and that the kit and the weapons need to get to the frontline in Ukraine, where they are needed, as soon as possible?
Ed Miliband
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the excellent job that my right hon. Friend did in government on Europe and those very difficult negotiations. I pay tribute to him for the brilliance with which he undertook that. The answer to his substantive question is: absolutely, yes. I say to the House that this winter is crucial for the conflict, and we must do everything we can not just to support Ukraine, but to do so in a speedy way.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Members across this House remain deeply concerned about the 20,610 Ukrainian children stolen by Russia since the start of its illegal war. My right hon. Friend’s predecessor established this country’s proud record on that issue, committing £4 million to tracing efforts that have located more than 1,000 children, imposed more than 130 sanctions and supported Ukraine in establishing a special tribunal for the crime of aggression. Will the new Foreign Secretary commit to working with me to continue the Government’s vital work in that area?
Ed Miliband
I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend and other Members across the House on this incredibly important and profound issue. I can say yes, 100%, I commit to working with her and other Members from all parties on this issue.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
We remain steadfast in our support for the Ukrainian people and in our determination that Putin must not prevail. Russia has responded to Britain’s decision to share Storm Shadow technology with Ukraine by threatening British factories with attacks from so-called unknown sources. Mr Speaker, you will know as well as I do the worry that this will cause for workers and residents in places such as Warton and Samlesbury in Lancashire, and across the country. With Putin continuing to reject meaningful steps towards peace, what formal representations has the Foreign Secretary made to Moscow in response, and what diplomatic action is he co-ordinating with our NATO allies to increase international pressure on Russia?
Ed Miliband
I endorse absolutely the spirit and substance of the hon. Gentleman’s important question. Let us be clear where the aggression comes from: it comes from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the wider threat to our allies. I say very clearly that we will stand shoulder to shoulder with the people of Ukraine and we will not be intimidated by Russian threats.
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
The strait of Hormuz should be open to safe, secure and unimpeded transit, in accordance with international law. In the United Kingdom, the Foreign Secretary and I are working closely with international partners to drive diplomatic efforts to restore navigational rights and freedoms. We continue to make it clear to Iran that it must cease its egregious attacks on shipping and on our partners and allies, and it must engage in negotiations to reopen the strait in good faith.
Alison Taylor
My constituents in Paisley and Renfrewshire North are feeling the impact of higher energy and petrol prices, and they will appreciate the efforts that my hon. Friend’s Department is making. Would he agree that military action by the world’s superpowers is risking a return to pricing instability, and that all efforts must be made to cease military activities?
Stephen Doughty
I entirely understand the concerns of my hon. Friend’s constituents, particularly in an advanced manufacturing district such as Paisley and Renfrewshire North—I know her constituency well and understand why she is speaking up for her constituents. These events are affecting communities across the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister is taking action at home to support people with energy bills and the cost of living, but we absolutely need to see a diplomatic solution involving negotiations and the reopening of the strait of Hormuz, and to stand up for the fundamental principles of trade and maritime security.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Clearly, the free flow of shipping through the strait of Hormuz is vital to western economies, but the threat is that Iran will seek to take complete control over shipping through the strait. What sanctions do the Government propose to take to prevent Iran from succeeding?
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we need to see the strait reopened. We need to have an agreement between Iran and Oman, and we need to ensure that there is a free flow of trade, with no tolling, and that the attacks on shipping and on partners in the region cease immediately. We have already imposed 240 sanctions on Iran, and we will continue to work with international partners to apply economic pressure, but a diplomatic settlement is the right way to restore the right of passage in the strait of Hormuz.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
The Iranian regime is deliberately weaponising the strait of Hormuz, using rockets, drones and sea mines to menace international shipping and to hold the global economy to ransom. Its aggression threatens British vessels, drives up fuel prices, and places our energy, aviation and food supply chains at direct risk. Following the latest American strikes and the Iranian retaliation, will the Minister set out what specific and concrete measures the Government are taking with our international partners to resolve this crisis, restore the safe and sustained passage of commercial shipping, and ensure that Tehran can no longer threaten Britain’s energy security with impunity?
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to set out the situation, the threats and the impact on our economy. Across this House, we share a desire to get the strait reopened. That is why, over recent weeks, the Foreign Secretary and I have been engaged in so much diplomatic action with our partners in the Gulf, and made it clear to Iran, directly in conversation, what we expect to happen. I mentioned the sanctions that are already in place. We keep other measures under review. Iran cannot be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon, and cannot continue its destabilising activity in the region or its threats to Jewish and Israeli communities around the world. We need to see this as a whole package of activity. Those are the things that we have been making absolutely clear to Iran and working on closely with partners.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Chris Elmore)
This Government fully recognise that China poses a series of threats to UK national security, from cyber-attacks, foreign interference and espionage targeting our domestic institutions to the transnational repression of Hongkongers. Yet China, as the world’s second largest economy and the UK’s third largest trading partner, presents the UK with opportunities—not engaging is no choice at all. Our approach to China is consistent: we will co-operate where we can and challenge where we must.
Bradley Thomas
It is good to hear the Minister acknowledge that China is a threat. The directors of GCHQ and MI5 have been clear that China presents the most significant state-based threat to the UK. The Government have previously talked about their China audit; will they commit to publishing it in full?
Chris Elmore
As the hon. Gentleman knows, there have been a series of questions on this issue in recent times. I am happy to update him again in writing.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
We have all seen the corrosive impact of the Chinese Government’s policies in Africa, in the south Pacific and throughout the Commonwealth. That is as important for our national interest as it is for the countries affected. What are we doing about it?
Chris Elmore
We continue to work internationally. My hon. Friend will know that I am also the Commonwealth Minister, and part of that work involves showing that some of the United Kingdom’s most important relationships are with those countries, whether across Africa or in the Caribbean.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
Nine weeks ago, the Government were told that Chinese embassy guards were brandishing prohibited electroshock weapons and threatening peaceful vigil holders with them. The Chinese Communist party either breached articles 41 and 27 of the Vienna convention, or it procured these weapons illegally in the UK. The Chinese Communist party will not waive diplomatic immunity, so when will Ministers stop hiding behind a dead-end Metropolitan police investigation and do something to deter future hostilities in the UK?
Chris Elmore
Let me be clear: any attempt by a foreign state to coerce, intimidate, harass or harm individuals on UK soil will never be tolerated, but the hon. Lady knows as well as I do that there is a live investigation by the Metropolitan police. Members of this House should respect the fact that the Metropolitan police are investigating. Frankly, she knows better, and I hope that she will wait for the investigation. That is when we will listen to what it has to say.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his comments about the terrible floods in Nepal. A number of residents in my constituency have lost family in the region, and they will be listening to what the Government have to say on the issue.
What work is the Minister doing with Cabinet colleagues to tackle the important issue of online disinformation? We know that a lot of that disinformation comes from bad state actors.
Chris Elmore
My hon. Friend will know that we work across Government to tackle disinformation. Within my portfolio we have increased funding for the BBC World Service, which is the most trusted newscaster across the world. That is a way in which the Foreign Office tackles disinformation.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
The new shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), is in Taipei, where Taiwan’s Defence Ministry has warned that an increasingly unpredictable China is intensifying preparations to blockade and encircle the island. That comes in the same week that the US exposed another extensive Chinese state-sponsored hacking operation against Government institutions and critical networks. With Beijing threatening Taiwan, targeting our allies and conducting espionage against this country, will the Foreign Secretary finally state plainly that China poses a threat to British interests, and will he place China in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme?
Chris Elmore
The right hon. Lady knows that we keep all these things under review. As ever, I am happy to write to her.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
I pay tribute to our Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office consular teams, particularly for their current work on the Nepal-China flooding crisis. It is also important to pay tribute to the work they do to support the thousands of British nationals who are arrested or detained abroad each year. We are strengthening that support, including through the appointment of the first dedicated envoy for complex detentions, our former colleague the right honourable Alistair Burt. I am sure that was welcomed across the House. He is supporting British nationals and their families in the most difficult detention cases. I have met him to discuss those cases, and I look forward to his challenge and his review of all of those cases.
Douglas McAllister
Today marks 3,224 days of my constituent Jagtar Singh Johal’s arbitrary detention and torture in an Indian prison. I welcome the Foreign Secretary to his place—he is the ninth Foreign Secretary in office since my constituent’s detention. What steps has he taken since his appointment to secure Jagtar’s release? Will he do more than just raise his case? Will he use his authority and take decisive action to end this injustice, and will he agree to meet Jagtar’s family as a priority?
Stephen Doughty
I thank my hon. Friend for his sustained and continued advocacy on behalf of his constituent, which is deeply powerful. I know it is of concern to many Members across this House. Despite some progress in Mr Johal’s legal proceedings, eight of the cases against him remain outstanding. We continue to raise concerns about his detention with the Government of India at every appropriate opportunity, emphasising the need for a prompt, full and just resolution of his cases within India’s independent legal system. The former Foreign Secretary raised the case on 4 June. The Foreign Secretary’s envoy for complex consular detentions met Mr Johal’s brother on 7 August, and I can confirm that we will meet the family in due course. Consular officials most recently visited Mr Johal on 29 July.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I raise the cases of Ryan Cornelius and Jimmy Lai—both United Kingdom citizens—to the attention of the Foreign Secretary, who I welcome to his position. Ryan Cornelius has been incarcerated for 19 years—trumped-up charges by a corrupt regime that is supporting a war in Sudan at the moment. In his case, will the Government first bring sanctions against that regime to persuade, or force, them to release this man, as he should have been? In the case of Jimmy Lai, would the Foreign Secretary also threaten clear sanctions? I now know that Sebastien Lai wants to see the Prime Minister. Would the Foreign Secretary please say to the Prime Minister that he should see him because, again, Jimmy Lai has been wrongly incarcerated by a despotic regime?
Stephen Doughty
The right hon. Gentleman raises important cases. I can assure him that we continue to support the clemency applications of Ryan Cornelius and Charles Ridley and to raise their case with the UAE authorities. In fact, I did so recently; the former Foreign Secretary did so as well and has met the families.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we condemn the politically motivated prosecution of Jimmy Lai in the strongest terms. At the age of 78, his sentence is tantamount to a life sentence, and we are deeply concerned for his health and continue to call for his immediate release. The Foreign Secretary has raised this with his Chinese counterpart and will, of course, be happy to meet the family.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
I have been in regular contact with my constituent, Chloe Pepper, who has expressed serious concerns regarding the welfare of her brother, Ryan. Ryan has been detained in Dubai since the beginning of November, and he has reported that he has experienced mistreatment while in detention, which is a matter of significant concern. The UAE authorities have conducted an investigation and found no evidence of mistreatment. What scope do consular officials have to seek information about the UAE’s investigation to ensure that Ryan’s allegations were properly investigated?
Stephen Doughty
We raise all cases with authorities in line with the appropriate consular protocols. I am happy to speak with my hon. Friend about the case involving his constituents and see what further we can do.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I congratulate the Government on the hiring of Alistair Burt—he is a good hire and will do great things for some of these most complex of cases—but does the Minister agree that many of these cases are extremely difficult and exceptionally traumatic, and that it is far better to prevent them happening in the first place? What more can be done to advise discretionary travellers on the risks they run when travelling to some of these exceptionally challenging locations, and particularly to advise them in advance of the finite nature of any consular support that may be forthcoming if they get into trouble?
Stephen Doughty
I absolutely concur with the right hon. Gentleman’s praise for Alistair Burt. He held my position in the past, and commands immense respect across this House; it has been a pleasure to work with him so far. I certainly will welcome his challenge and review of the most complex cases—as the right hon. Gentleman said, some of these cases are incredibly difficult. He rightly says that prevention is crucially important. We provide FCDO travel advice, as well as tailored advice in some cases, but we absolutely want to make sure that British nationals are aware of the full range of risks of travelling to a number of locations, and we attempt to make those risks very clear in advance.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
The Minister for International Development (Kirsty McNeill)
Tackling the climate and nature crisis is an urgent priority for us all, as recent extreme wildfires and droughts have only served to reinforce. The UK is working with international partners to drive progress, whether through our forest partnerships with countries such as Brazil and Indonesia, or through our global clean power alliance to accelerate the worldwide transition to clean energy. The Foreign Secretary will act as the UK governor to the World Bank, taking personal leadership of the UK’s engagement on development and climate finance, and later this month he will also convene Foreign Ministers at the UN to address climate security challenges.
Liz Twist
My constituents in Blaydon and Consett have suffered through a summer of extreme heat, seeing trains cancelled, signal interruptions and wildfires. Climate change affects every single one of us—not only in the UK but globally, as we have heard today—so how is climate change resilience being embedded directly into our core diplomatic and security strategy?
Kirsty McNeill
I sympathise deeply with my hon. Friend’s constituents, who have been subject to such appalling disruption over the summer. We are very committed to strengthening international co-operation to anticipate, prevent and respond to climate-related risks of all sorts, including extreme weather. The French Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Foreign Secretary have recently reaffirmed their commitment to expand early warning initiatives, including through the climate risk and early warning systems programme, to strengthen protection for the most climate-vulnerable countries and populations, as well as for her constituents.
Ms Minns
The Minister will be aware that the world’s peatlands play a critical role in tackling climate change, storing twice as much carbon as all the world’s forests combined. Thanks to previous EU funding, work to restore the Bolton Fell Moss peatland in my constituency began in 2015. Can the Minister outline what international peatland restoration programmes the UK Government are currently engaged with, and will she press DEFRA colleagues to ensure that the UK continues to provide long-term funding to restore Cumbria’s upland bogs?
Kirsty McNeill
We are committed to peatland restoration, which is critical to tackling the climate and nature crisis and meeting our Environment Act targets, as my hon. Friend laid out. The UK supports international peatland conservation through programmes such as the Darwin Initiative. Darwin projects are, for example, helping communities in Peru and Indonesia to manage peatland ecosystems sustainably. Many tropical forests are also part of peatland ecosystems, and the UK has a long-standing portfolio of work supporting them. Of course, the Department continues to work closely with DEFRA to protect and restore important ecosystems.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
After a horrendous summer of wildfires and the catastrophe in Nepal and Tibet, it is clear that if we are going to solve these problems, we need to act globally but think locally. It is really important that the public trust the information they receive on climate change. Will the FCDO work with Cabinet colleagues to ensure that the public are educated, and will it consider funding a national programme of public information, or perhaps screenings of the “People’s Emergency Briefing”, so that we can all understand more about the situation?
Kirsty McNeill
I could not agree with the hon. Lady more. It is very important that people trust the information they receive. She will have noticed the alert that was sent out across England, which was a sign of how seriously this Government take their commitment to communicate with the public responsibly.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her answer. There are 67 wars across the world—countries in conflict with other countries. What can she do to ensure that sworn enemies come together to tackle climate change, which is the real enemy of every country in this world?
Kirsty McNeill
I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman: climate change is a common enemy, and we have to face it across this House, across this country and across the world. We are committed to working with everybody who is taking climate action seriously.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The Minister for Intergovernmental Relations and European Relations (Mr Hamish Falconer)
There is no British security without Europe and no European security without Britain. The EU is one of our closest partners on foreign and security policy. That is why I was in Austria yesterday meeting a number of our European counterparts, and it is why the Foreign Secretary will travel to Ireland later to meet EU Foreign Ministers. The ambitious security and defence partnership agreed with the EU is boosting co-operation and—as my excellent predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), noted already—we recently struck a deal to join the EU’s $90 billion Ukraine loan initiative.
Richard Foord
Four EU member states have written to the European Commission, asking that it explores new options for Ukraine to make use of immobilised Russian state assets for its self-defence. They propose that EU states spread the legal and financial risks of seizing those assets. When the Foreign Secretary goes to Ireland this evening, will he support that initiative?
Mr Falconer
The Foreign Secretary and I have discussed many of these questions, and he will of course be discussing Ukraine. We have made a signal contribution to European security through our efforts in Ukraine; we will continue to do so, and it will be a top priority in our discussions in the weeks ahead.
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
At the moment, the European Union is taking big decisions to address the challenges it faces. Those decisions affect us, too, but we are not at the table—I am thinking of tariffs on steel made in Europe and the Security Action for Europe defence procurement programme. Will the Minister reassure my constituents in Chelsea and Fulham that the Government will press ahead with a summit this year, that they will get good deals for young people and on the price of food and energy, and that they will seek to be more ambitious and bold in getting us back a seat at the table so that we can play a part in making the decisions that affect us?
Mr Falconer
I can reassure my hon. Friend’s constituents that, after many years of neglect, we are getting back to the table: I was at the table yesterday and the Foreign Secretary will be at the table this evening. We are pressing British interests in relation to steel made in Europe and on a whole range of really important questions. We have applied considerable pressure. Young people and research and development institutions will have access to a closer relationship with Europe, and we will push ahead in the coming weeks and months.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
Labour’s decision to recruit a new Prime Minister directly led to the cancellation of the UK-EU summit in July, but a month and a half later, we still have no date, leaving businesses in the dark about the future relationship. Businesses also want to know whether the Prime Minister is truly committed to a bolder approach to our European relations, or if he will follow the pedestrian approach taken by his predecessor. Will the Minister today provide some certainty by telling the House when the UK-EU summit will take place? Will he also confirm whether the Government will heed Liberal Democrat calls to put the UK’s entry into the single market on the table at those talks?
Mr Falconer
The hon. Gentleman knows how diplomacy works: we do not announce a summit until it has been agreed with our partners. I turn to his substantive question. Are we ambitious to go further and faster? Yes, we are. I said that in Europe yesterday and we have said it repeatedly. We are making every effort that we can make to ensure that there is a partnership that works for both the UK and the EU, and that we are advancing quickly towards it.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Ed Miliband)
I am sure the whole House will want to join me in expressing our deep sorrow for the flooding on the Nepal-China border that has caused widespread death and devastation. There are 987 confirmed deaths and 3,916 people still missing, of whom 36 are British nationals. From the moment the tragedy unfolded, we have sought to provide all the help we can to the Nepalese authorities and to support British nationals, including £5 million in additional humanitarian assistance. Our humanitarian and consular specialists are on the ground in Nepal, and FCDO crisis teams are working around the clock to support relatives of those missing. My deepest condolences go to all those who have lost loved ones in this tragedy, particularly British nationals and their families.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
Has the Secretary of State been made aware of the case of Joshua Wong, a Hong Kong resident who is being prosecuted by the Administration in Hong Kong using the national security law? The Secretary of State will know that Hong Kong has trashed the Sino-British agreement and decoupled the concept of common law from rights and responsibilities. All Joshua Wong has done is to ask for the same rights and privileges that we in this country hold dear. Will the Secretary of State take up that case with the Chinese Government and say to them, “Enough is enough. It’s time to stop chasing peaceful protesters?”
Ed Miliband
I absolutely will take up that case. I know the right hon. Gentleman has a long-standing interest on a whole range of such issues. Because of that interest, I say to him that we will be forthright on human rights when it comes to China, and we will be strong in relation to foreign interference, espionage and on any threats to this country that we find.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend raises a really important point. The reason I took up this role is that I want the World Bank to do more to make adaptation and resilience go further and faster and to make it simpler and more accessible. We know from events around the world how vulnerable countries on the frontline of climate breakdown are, and I undertake to him and to the House that I will make that a top priority.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary has declared that development and climate finance will be “central” to his tenure, yet the aid watchdog has found that the system has too often focused on meeting a spending target, rather than clear priorities or value for money. Before he embarks on an expensive road map back to 0.7%, will he commit to a full national interest review that includes considering value for money for the taxpayer?
Ed Miliband
The right hon. Lady makes a very important point. Any aid spending that we do must be value for money, but this is not just the right thing to do in principle to help to support the world’s poorest countries; it is the right thing from our point of view. That is a very important point, which I hope those on both sides of the House can agree on. If we do not deal with problems around the world, they come to Britain.
Wendy Morton
Let me touch on Nepal and Tibet. The situation there is truly harrowing, with hundreds of lives lost, thousands still missing and British nationals among those unaccounted for. We welcome the deployment of the UK’s rapid response team and the humanitarian package, but when it comes to British nationals, can the Foreign Secretary reassure the House that our consular teams have secured full access on both sides of the Nepal-Tibet border? What specialist British search, rescue and victim identification assistance is being and will continue to be offered?
Ed Miliband
The right hon. Lady raises a very important and sensitive issue about the families of British nationals who are missing. I assure her that we are engaging with the authorities on both sides of the border. We are making available all the resources that we have at our disposal to help in this process; I have said that from the morning after the disaster, when I spoke to the Nepalese Foreign Minister.
Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)
The Minister for International Development (Kirsty McNeill)
We are working closely with international partners to support the African-led response. We acted early to allocate an initial £26.9 million to fund the immediate response in the DRC and Uganda and to support the World Health Organisation and Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention in co-ordinating the regional response. I am pleased to announce to the House a further £51.8 million, which takes our total funding to £78.7 million. We are also taking a leading role internationally. I met Dr Jean Kaseya, the head of Africa CDC, in Addis Ababa last week, and I will discuss this issue with ministerial counterparts ahead of the UN General Assembly later this month.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
The hon. Gentleman knows that we do not comment on future designations, but we have sanctioned a number of individuals in Georgia in relation to actions. We urge Georgia to respect rights and freedoms and an inclusive and open democratic society.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend speaks up powerfully on behalf of his constituents with connections to Nepal. I can absolutely assure him that we are looking at what further support we can offer to Nepal. Let me emphasise that we had stuff prepositioned, and our work on disaster risk reduction over many years has enabled us to be in a strong position to respond. We will stand by Nepal as it has always stood by us, and we will work closely with China.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
Ed Miliband
I take incredibly seriously my role in helping to tackle the cost of living crisis that the British people face, and that means working tirelessly to get back to the strait of Hormuz being reopened so that we can get oil and gas flowing. That is what we need to do.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Chris Elmore)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue, and I was pleased to confirm to the House back in May the £21 million fund over three years to advance LGBTQ rights internationally. This Government will always support the international rights of LGBT people for evermore.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
Ed Miliband
I can assure the hon. Member that Labour MPs are very keen that action be taken, and it will be.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
Globally, the rights of women and girls are being stripped away at alarming speed, particularly when it comes to education and sexual and reproductive rights. Does the Foreign Secretary plan to honour his predecessor’s commitment to making sure that women’s and girls’ rights are embedded across FCDO programming?
Ed Miliband
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to my predecessor, now the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, for her excellent work leading the campaign globally on violence against women and girls. My answer is 100% yes, I will continue her brilliant work.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
Ed Miliband
As I said earlier, we are looking at all the economic issues in relation to the occupied territories. The hon. Lady raises an important point, which is that what has happened in Gaza and the west bank has pricked the conscience of a generation, and that is why we will act.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
Does the Foreign Secretary share my concern that the British company, Dana Petroleum, is involved in a consortium that has been granted licences for oil exploration in Palestinian waters off the coast of the occupied Gaza strip? Does he agree that it is illegal and amounts to the war crime of pillage? What does he intend to do to challenge this illegal action by a British-based company?
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend raises an important issue. The United Kingdom recognises Palestine as a state and therefore its entitlement to a territorial sea. Let me be clear: I expect any UK company to abide by its obligations under international law.
Direction of Government
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
We now come to the statement from the Prime Minister. There has been a lot of speculation over the recess, and I just say that this is in accordance with the rules of government. The ministerial code is clear. For those who have asked why I have not commented, it is because it is within the rules, which I do not make. It is this House that abides by them.
The Prime Minister (Andy Burnham)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the direction in which I will lead our country.
I come before this House having visited each of the regions and nations of the UK over the past six weeks, and Ukraine on the occasion of the 35th anniversary of its independence. The UK’s steadfast support has helped sustain Ukraine’s resolve over the past four and a half years, and particularly so in the last two. That was the achievement of my predecessor, and as he stands down from this place, I want to pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer). He has given this country a lifetime of public service, particularly for those fighting for justice. When he delivered in this House on his promise to the Hillsborough families and everyone involved in the Hillsborough law campaign, it was a moment that I will never forget. His leadership took our party from one of its worst defeats to its best victories, and created a platform to change this country for the better. We will use it well, and we wish his family the very best for the future.
The position that my right hon. and learned Friend took on Ukraine, building on the work of his predecessors as Prime Minister, is one that I will not change, whatever the threats that we face. We do not seek escalation, but instead will stand firm in providing what help we can to enable Ukraine to defend itself from this illegal invasion. Britain’s defence starts in Ukraine, and the defence of our nation will always be my first priority.
On public safety, I know that the whole House will wish to join me in expressing our deepest condolences to the family, friends and colleagues of PC Matthew Blades and PC Tom Clough, who were killed in the line of duty on the A66. We will do our best to support the Middlesbrough community, which is hurting and grieving right now, and we hear the call from the Members of this House who represent it for a discussion about investment in policing and police numbers.
I know that I also speak for the whole House in expressing my profound shock and horror at the devastating scenes on the Nepal-China border. My sympathies are with all those affected, including the families and loved ones of those missing in this appalling tragedy. The Foreign Secretary is doing everything he can to support the Nepalese Government and British nationals in the region. This is what the climate crisis looks like. We have just ourselves experienced what is likely to have been the hottest summer on record. This Government will meet the climate challenge, and I can confirm to the House that I will attend COP31 in Turkey in November.
I will build on the work of my predecessor in other areas. When I visited Dover in early August, staff from Border Force and HM Coastguard told me that extra police numbers on French beaches were beginning to deliver real results. I can report to the House today that that has continued throughout the last month, with the numbers arriving over the summer halved on last year, making this year, to date, the lowest for crossings since 2021. Tomorrow, when I welcome President Macron to the UK on the occasion of the opening of the exhibition of the Bayeux tapestry, I will thank him for the co-operation that has enabled us to prevent more than 48,000 people from crossing.
Where it is right to do so, I will build on what has been achieved. However, where necessary, I will not hesitate to make changes. One of the first things that I did after taking office was to review the plans to relieve pressure on prison places with the Lord Chancellor, who will provide a full update to the House following my statement. We took an early decision to exempt rape, grooming and serious child sex offences, and to fast-track work to see whether we could go further, after hearing the calls from the family of PC Andrew Harper and many others. As a result, we are now confirming that anyone convicted of manslaughter, death by dangerous driving or indecent assault will not see any change in their prison term. We will find additional prison places by deporting more foreign national offenders and finally grasping the nettle on an issue that the House has ignored for too long: indefinite imprisonment for public protection sentences—a now abolished policy, but one which to this day keeps people behind bars despite having already served more than their sentences.
None of this is easy, but I did what I always do: apply my values to a challenging situation and a care for people, which I spoke about in Downing Street. I believe the public will support me in recognising the clear difference between those who have served their time and more, and those who have not. We will bring forward legislation soon, but we can find a solution to end this injustice that balances public safety and basic fairness, and I urge colleagues on both sides of the House to help us do that.
This is politics done differently: problem solving over point scoring. It is what the country needs, it is what the public want more of, and it will characterise my time in office. I was pleased to begin cross-party talks over social care in the summer, and I thank the leader of the Liberal Democrats and the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew) for the spirit in which that endeavour began. I wish the latter well as he leaves the Opposition Front Bench.
When it comes to the biggest issues facing the country—the economy and the cost of living crisis—people are looking for much more substantial change, as promised in our manifesto, and that is what I will bring. Britain is not where any of us would wish it to be. Things are not working as they should. Life is too expensive and too hard for too many. That is why this Government’s first moves were to give businesses and people a little breathing space. On tax, in my first week in office we cut VAT on electricity bills and cut business rates for pubs, social clubs and live music venues. We reinstated the £2 cap on bus fares for the whole of 2027. These measures will provide some relief. They were funded by reprioritising within Government, as the bedrock of our approach will be grounded in fiscal responsibility. But in the long term, lifting growth and living standards will require much more.
The Prime Minister
What I bring back to the House after 10 years away is a clear diagnosis of what has gone wrong. Let me lay it out clearly, particularly for the right hon. Gentleman, since he asked.
From the 1980s, this country took a series of wrong turns. Political power was centralised, economic power privatised and the country deindustrialised. Austerity followed, hollowing out councils and depriving them of the agency to act to reverse any of it, and then Brexit compounded the damage, ushering in a decade of low growth and stalled regeneration. [Interruption.] Change begins with honesty, and I am not hearing much of it this afternoon. Unless we are blunt about what went wrong, we will not turn things around. Far from “taking back control”, the combination of those policies took control out of the hands of communities up and down Britain.
For 40 years, too many places have been drifting. Too many British high streets tell the story of this decline. People yearn to see them restored to what they once were, as the Communities Secretary and I heard on our visit to Ilkeston in the summer, but they see no hope if we continue on the same path with a failed economic model, which does not trickle down much to places like theirs and instead allows wealth to be extracted and siphoned out. Britain’s water industry stands as a leaking monument to that approach—a country run in the private rather than public interest. That is now abundantly clear to voters of all parties, including the Conservative party.
The Government I lead will be relentless in giving people and places what they were promised 10 years ago: ownership and control. From that control over their destiny comes change and growth. I say this with confidence. [Interruption.] I do, and let me explain why. It is backed by a decade of personal experience of turning around one of the UK’s former industrial heartlands and turning it into the fastest growing city region in the country, bucking the low-growth trend. It has given me a clear theory of growth and I will apply it to all parts of the UK, learning from what has been achieved in Greater Manchester. For a long time the country did not have ambitions for its regions outside of London. It even talked of the “managed decline” of Liverpool. It took the devolution of power out of this place to allow our big city regions the ability to set new ambitions for themselves. Now, I want every single place across our regions and nations to be able to do the same, creating the conditions for good growth in every postcode.
In that spirit, I was glad to meet the Liberal Democrat leader of Cornwall council, with my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham), on my recent visit. I know, like many rural economies across the UK, that Cornwall lacks a basic level of infrastructure, which in turn harms growth and holds back living standards and life chances, and I heard the cross-party call for a devolution deal. I understand concerns in this House about the potential emergence of a two-tier England—those with devolved power and those without—and I will not ignore them. So, I have asked No. 10 North to begin work with Cornwall council and its six MPs on a devolution deal with or without an elected mayor.
I today extend the same offer to all parts of England without devolved power. The First Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) will today write to every Member of this House setting out how they can engage No. 10 North in the service of the places they represent. I extended the same offer to the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales, and the First and Deputy First Ministers of Northern Ireland when I met them over the summer. As they rightly pointed out, their situations are different, but there is interest in what a local model of devolution could look like in each of the home nations, and we will discuss that with them at a special meeting of the National Economic Council next month.
This Government will oversee the biggest redistribution of power this country has seen. In July, we published a statement on the next stage of English devolution. It will include powers long requested by mayors, such as: post-16 technical education; employment support; and fiscal devolution, starting with the ability to set an overnight visitor levy to commence towards the end of the financial year 2027-28. The driving force behind it all will be No. 10 North. It will oversee the rewiring of the British state, the rebuilding of resilience in our communities and the reindustrialisation of our regions. The creation of No. 10 North was one of the first acts of this Administration and I believe that in time it will be seen as one of its most significant. It is a clear answer to the question with which this country has long wrestled: who, in government, drives growth? My theory of growth requires it to be driven with the full authority of the very centre of Government, in close partnership with HM Treasury.
No. 10 North has been set up with that full focus; the single front door on which regions can knock to get quicker, joined-up decisions from Whitehall, and through which power and resources will be passed to them. Resources will include human resources. This is because a state that has grown too large at the national level now needs to redirect civil service capacity regionally and locally, repairing the damage of austerity and making the service of place the state’s first priority. We can already see what is possible. I am glad No. 10 North was able to stand behind Mayor Richard Parker when he took urgent action in August to prevent the collapse of bus services across the west midlands, and I congratulate Mayor Steve Rotheram who this weekend, after four decades of deregulation, will see the first buses return to public control in the Liverpool city region. Taking back control of essential services such as transport is an enabler of a more productive economy, because it allows local areas to grab hold of the levers of power for themselves.
But driving growth demands we go further. It is taking far too long for businesses to get grid connections and they are being quoted prohibitively expensive sums of money if they try to bring those dates forward, as I heard on my visit to a farm near Truro. Household energy bills are the highest in Europe, and the cost of energy is impacting business and inward investment. Too many areas have seen water supplies disrupted this summer due to a lack of reservoir capacity. Our tourism industry is damaged by too many sewage spills. [Interruption.] “Why?” the Opposition say. It is a question they should ask themselves. This summer has shown us very clearly that water companies are failing to rise to the climate challenge. It cannot go on. Later in the year, our 10-year plan for Britain will set out plans for stronger public control over these essentials, making them work for people and places again.
Alongside that, we will empower all areas to expand the public housing stock, building on the first allocations from the social and affordable homes programme announced by the Communities Secretary last week. Bringing forward the biggest council home building programme since the post-war period is the Labour way to get the welfare bill down, as is reforming our education system, so that it balances academic and technical, and offers a path in life for all young people. Michael Gove calls this “bringing back stupid”, when in fact, for too many young people written off by his reforms, it is bringing back hope. Allowing mayors to shape technical pathways and provide work placements for young people, building back into colleges and schools from the needs of the regional economy, is the way to support more young people into work. So is prioritising more accessible, community-based mental health services, as we announced in the summer.
That will be a major part of our response to the forthcoming Milburn report, which will follow its publication in the autumn. For it to work, a more intentional approach to the reindustrialisation of Britain is required. We will support all parts of the country to take more public control over investment strategy, learning from the Greater Manchester model of a consolidated good growth fund drawn from their own funds, prudent loan borrowing and fragmented budgets held by Government bodies. We will back local industrial strategies—a policy of the Theresa May Government I am happy to revive—by identifying priority sectors and developing the triple-helix approach to economic development by entwining business, academia and Government behind the plan. This is the way we will build a pro-business culture and an innovation-led economy in all parts of the UK, finally capturing the long-term benefits of the invention that is in the DNA of our nation, backing our start-ups and scale-ups to stay in the UK where they were founded.
When I stood outside Downing Street six weeks ago, I said that Britain needs a circuit breaker after a decade of turbulence, negativity, point scoring and divisive politics. This is what I have outlined today: a clear, coherent and credible approach to growth that can unlock a feeling of positivity and possibility in every postcode in Britain. Our job here is to make it real by taking a place-first rather than a party-first approach. It starts with reasserting basic standards for Britain—that this is a country where no one sleeps rough and no community is blighted by an illegal waste tip—and, from there, working together to build a new sense of optimism around the country. We can make this next decade better than the last. We can lift the prospects of all our people and places. We can put more power into every postcode. We can let Britain believe again. We can bring back hope. I commend this statement to the House.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
Can I welcome the Prime Minister to his place at the Dispatch Box and take this, my first opportunity to congratulate him on becoming Prime Minister? He has been in office for 43 days, during which I have learned how he puts the milk in his tea and exactly what he thinks about pork scratchings, but I have not had the pleasure of asking him any questions. We are all grateful that he has finally found time to come to Parliament to answer some.
It is only fair to be gentle with someone on their first day at work, so I am only going to ask the Prime Minister a few very simple but very serious questions. I hope that he can provide me with some simple and serious answers. I genuinely wish him well as he seeks to live up to the dignity and importance of the role. I was pleased to see him in Ukraine over the summer, continuing the Conservatives’ world-leading support for Ukraine’s fight against Russian aggression. That being said, I am also very relieved to see that he has not brought his guitar with him today. His predecessor stood at that Dispatch Box two years ago sounding very triumphant, having just won a landslide victory. What went wrong? Where is he now? Gone. That job is not as easy as it looks from the outside. Labour MPs have not explained why they got rid of him. [Interruption.] They are laughing, but they have not explained it.
We on this side of the House understand that the country’s problems will not be solved by lofty promises alone. In the end, the Prime Minister will be judged on what he actually delivers. This is a very different job from being Mayor of Greater Manchester—a job where he did not have to pick winners and losers, make difficult trade-offs, or have to worry about our national security. He does now.
A Government’s first and most important duty is keeping the country safe. The last Prime Minister and his Chancellor left an enormous hole in Britain’s defence budget. We know that because the current Chancellor quit as Defence Secretary over that black hole, saying that it could put British troops at risk. He said that there could be an attack by Russia on NATO as soon as 2030, and that not funding the defence investment plan reduces the readiness of our forces. Let me ask the Prime Minister very clearly: will he provide the funding that his own Chancellor said was necessary to keep British troops safe? That means 3% by the end of this decade.
Keeping this country safe also means defending our borders. The Prime Minister mentioned boat crossings, but we must be honest: boat crossings have not gone down because of anything that Labour has done. [Interruption.] They have not. We have to be honest. Boat crossings are down across all of Europe, and have been down for much longer. Let us be honest: the problem is still not solved.
The Prime Minister will have seen the extraordinary scenes in Ceuta over the summer, in which more than 70,000 people tried to cross into Europe. Many of those people would like to end up in the UK. This is not just a British problem; it is a growing global problem. Even Denmark is starting to send illegal migrants to other countries as a deterrent. That is exactly like the Rwanda scheme that the Conservatives put in place and Labour scrapped. We now hear that the Home Secretary is thinking about reviving a Rwanda-style scheme, so can the Prime Minister tell me—yes or no—if that is the plan?
Next, the Prime Minister must keep British people safe from dangerous criminals. It was interesting to hear the comments in his statement about early release. Before the summer, I sat with women who had experienced some of the most horrific crimes imaginable, and the perpetrators of those crimes were about to be let out of prison early. The Prime Minister told those women that it was too difficult to keep their perpetrators in jail. Then he changed his mind. The family of PC Andrew Harper appealed to the Prime Minister not to release his killers early. Again, the Prime Minister told them that it was a non-starter. Then he changed his mind. The Conservatives told the Government to create new spaces in the existing prison estate, and to get foreign-born criminals out of our jails. The Government said that we were wrong, but now they are doing both. The Prime Minister has had five different positions on early release in six weeks, putting the victims through hell with his indecision. Will he now set out a timeline for his promise to get more foreign national prisoners out of British prisons?
As well as keeping the country safe, the Prime Minister’s next big challenge will be making people in this country feel richer. The biggest mistake that Labour has made in office so far, and there have been quite a few to choose from, is that it has crushed our economy under the weight of nearly £70 billion in new taxes. The Prime Minister was not here for that, so I will give him the list: the jobs tax, the family farm tax, the family business tax, taxes on pensioners, taxes on workers and taxes on businesses. That is £3,500 a year for every working family. He says that he cares about the cost of living; Labour’s taxes have made that worse. Those taxes have cost people their jobs—thousands of jobs in oil and gas, and thousands of jobs in industry across our country. The recruitment market for new graduates is the worst it has ever been. There are 50% fewer vacancies than last year, which was already the worst on record. If the Prime Minister does not change course, he too, like every other Labour Prime Minister, will leave office with unemployment higher than it was when he came in. Can he guarantee, here and now, on the Floor of the House, that there will be no more tax rises in the autumn Budget?
The year is 2026, yet the Prime Minister said in his statement that everything has gone wrong since the 1980s. He is still complaining about Margaret Thatcher. I am 46 years old, Mr Speaker—I may not look it, but I am. He is talking about a woman who became Prime Minister before I was born. He is living in the past, and he wants to take us back to the 1970s. We Conservatives are for the future, not the past. That is the difference between them and us. His ideas are all about more Government control, more spending, more tax and more politicians. The Conservatives want people to keep more of their own money. We want businesses to grow, invest, expand and create more jobs. That is the difference between the Labour party and the Conservative party. His diagnosis is completely wrong. His theory of growth is completely wrong. He thinks that if the Government spend more money, we will all get richer, but that is not how this works. Companies are not leaving our shores because there is not enough government.
Another difference between us is in dealing with the ballooning welfare bill. Up and down this country, hard-working people are fed up of going to work and paying for their neighbours to sit at home with mild health conditions that do not stop them working. They are fed up of hearing, as we did this summer, that working in Boots is not good for your mental health—ridiculous. We are on the side of those hard-working, fed-up people. I ask the Prime Minister: will he stand up to his Back Benchers in a way that his predecessor never could and cut the benefits bill? It is a simple question.
The Prime Minister engineered it so that he could have as long a summer holiday as possible, so he should be ready with some answers. I am even hearing rumours that he does not want to do Prime Minister’s questions next week, but it is my job to ask him serious questions, and it is time for him to start answering. [Interruption.] I know Labour Members do not like hearing the questions, but they are going to hear them. It is my job to speak on behalf of all the people out there who want to know what he has planned, and it is time for him to start answering some serious questions. Governing is hard, but the country needs the Prime Minister to succeed. Where it is in the national interest, I will help him. He may find that Conservative votes come in handy when Labour MPs are too scared to do the right thing.
Britain faces many serious challenges to our national and economic security. There are difficult decisions to make, and they will show whether the Prime Minister is serious about governing. On defence, his own Chancellor said that 3% spending was needed to keep British troops safe; now, apparently, he does not believe that. On illegal migration, Labour scrapped the Rwanda scheme; now it appears to be considering a Rwanda-style scheme of its own. On prisons, the Prime Minister said that dangerous criminals could not be exempted from early release, and then he changed his mind. This country cannot afford a Government swerving all over the place. Labour has already tried government by U-turn, and it does not work. If he wants to be different from his predecessor, and wants to live up to the optimistic vision that he is painting, he is going to have to start taking this job seriously. That is not what we heard from the Prime Minister today, but that is what the Conservatives are offering.
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Lady for the welcome that she gave me and her kind words; I appreciate the tone of some of what she had to say. I do want to try to work with her across the Floor of the House where we can. She mentions my summer. I notice that she spent hers travelling all the way to Rome to be told by the Italian Prime Minister not to do a deal with Reform. If she had called me, I would have told her that and saved her the trip.
The right hon. Lady was right to start with Ukraine, as I did. I mentioned the work of previous Prime Ministers in setting the right tone. Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Rishi Sunak—everybody played a role in setting that tone, and it has been carried on by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer). It is a very challenging situation, but I was there to send a very clear message that with a change of Prime Minister there does not come any change in Britain’s approach. I hope that I speak for the vast majority of Members of this House in making that completely plain.
The right hon. Lady said that the job of Prime Minister is different from the job of Mayor of Greater Manchester. I can vouch that I know that now, after six weeks in the role. She was wrong, though, to say that in that role I did not have to worry about national security. I did. Within two weeks of taking office, I had to deal with the appalling terrorist attack at the Manchester Arena.
I send all my best wishes to those who gathered last night at the Heaton Park synagogue to remember our friends who lost their lives and the incredible efforts of Rabbi Daniel Walker and others to hold the attackers at the door. We all send them our very best wishers and reaffirm again, hopefully from all sides of the House, that antisemitism is a scourge that we should work together to remove from our society.
The right hon. Lady mentions defence. She is right to, because it is a changing and challenging world in which we live, but I say to her directly: I appointed this Chancellor of the Exchequer precisely because of his commitment to the defence of our realm and the arguments that he has made. He will set out at the spending review the path to honouring our international commitments in full, as I said that we would when I was before the steps of Downing Street.
Those listening at home will find it hard to accept what the right hon. Lady said about the boat crossings, which are significantly down—halved on last year. She said that had nothing to do with anything that this Government have done. That is plainly not the case. I heard an Opposition spokesperson on the radio this morning trying to find any excuse to justify the numbers going down—the weather and all kinds of things. Can they not just accept that the action that we are taking is making progress? That includes the co-operation with the French that I mentioned. The Home Secretary and I will continue to look at all measures, and will be relentless in making sure that we continue to make progress, but the Conservatives would do well to recognise that significant progress has indeed been made.
On the early release of prisoners, I do not think there is any moral high ground for any party in this House. The Justice Secretary will shortly make a statement and lay out the timeline for the return of foreign national offenders. I hope that we can work together on the question of imprisonment for public protection sentences. Too often, issues in this House just get left. I left 10 years ago worried about this issue, and I come back to find that it is not resolved. Social care was something that I spoke about a lot when I left. I come back, and it is not resolved. We have to do better, don’t we? We have to find more ways of working across the House and not just leave issues unresolved with all the harm that that causes.
On growth, I cut tax twice in my first week. I say to the right hon. Lady that I am committed to bringing down the welfare bill not through crude cuts but in a way that provides the right support for people—particularly young people—whom, in my view, the education system has let down.
The right hon. Lady mentioned the 1980s, the legacy of which, I have to say to her, we are still struggling to reverse. It is the reason why—[Interruption.] Well, let us have the argument in this House. Why are people paying such high water bills, while the infrastructure is crumbling before our eyes? Why are energy bills in this country the highest in Europe? Why do Opposition Members represent constituencies where, year after year, bus services have been cut and the fares have gone up? They know the truth of what I am saying. Let us have some honesty so that we can deal with these issues properly.
The right hon Lady raised an ideological point. I noticed that yesterday she appointed a new shadow Cabinet, with a new shadow Chancellor—the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith); I welcome him to his position—who I believe was the author of the mini-Budget. [Interruption.] I think at least half the shadow Cabinet supported the Liz Truss Government. The right hon. Lady said that I have been in my position for 43 days. Well, may I turn that around? In six days, this Government will have outlived the Truss Government, and we will be here for a lot, lot longer.
I will work with the right hon. Lady where I can—we should make that commitment to each other today—but I will still point out where she is wrong. We will not take lectures when the country is moving in the right direction. You can see that on the economy, on small boat crossings and on the cost of living. We will continue to do that to turn this country around.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Prime Minister to his office and to the Dispatch Box—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. People should not leave when a Member is on their feet; it is discourteous.
Dame Meg Hillier
I and my fellow Committee Chairs look forward to welcoming the Prime Minister to the Liaison Committee very soon so that we can drill into his agenda in more detail.
I was pleased by the announcements over the summer on housing, which in London is really holding people back. One of the many challenges is releasing public land that was previously used for education or health, for example, for building on. Will he undertake to put a rocket under the release of that land where appropriate to best deliver housing?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend. I look forward to my first appearance before the Liaison Committee. On the question of public land, she raises a really important issue. We have got to look at how we build as many council and social homes as we can to bring down the housing benefit and temporary accommodation bill, which is ruinous in London for London councils. We must find ways of doing that within the public purse. Public land is one way in which we can achieve that. I will be looking at a programme for the release of public land to build council and social homes, and I look forward to working with her on that.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement and I welcome him to his place. I associate myself with the condolences that he has sent to the family and friends of the police officers killed on the A66 and with his comments on the disaster on the Nepal-China border.
I wished each of the Prime Minister’s predecessors well, but given how that went for them perhaps he would prefer that I did not bother this time. I sincerely hope that he can turn things around, and quickly, because we all know how fed up people are. We hear it all the time. Every year, it gets harder to make ends meet, waiting lists seem to go up, more and more things seem broken, and the populists and extremists are eager to keep things that way so they can profit from it.
Everything the Prime Minister has described in his statement would be possible only if we fundamentally change the way we do politics in our country. Growing the economy, cutting the cost of living, fixing our public services, restoring people’s trust: those are things that every new Prime Minister has talked about. Yet they failed because they stuck to a broken political system; a system that makes it impossible to really change things for the better. The reason so much is broken in our country and can never be fixed is partly that our political system concentrates too much power in the wrong hands —in Westminster, in Whitehall and in big multinational companies. I think the Prime Minister gets some of that, judging by what he has been saying.
There are so many more problems in our political system: too much power in the hands of social media barons who interfere in our politics and crypto billionaires who use donations to buy influence; and too little power in the hands of our people. Britain’s political system too often rewards corruption and leaves everyone else feeling powerless. Our great country is being held back, and it will only be free to thrive again if we put real power in people’s hands.
We have been campaigning on that for decades and the Prime Minister has written about it. His decision over the summer to finally start cross-party talks on social care—talks I have been desperate to start for years and which Conservative and Labour Prime Ministers promised but failed to deliver—is a welcome step in the right direction. There is, however, a lot more work to do, and more fundamental change is needed to make our politics work for the people we serve. Will the Prime Minister start that work today? Listening to the calls of over 170 Members on the Opposition Benches and on his own, will he launch a national commission to change politics so that we can fix our country?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution. There is plenty there that I can agree with and work with him on. Too much power in the wrong hands—that is what I was saying to the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) a moment or so ago. Can anyone in this House say that the water industry is sufficiently accountable to their constituents?
The Prime Minister
Okay, Northern Ireland—[Interruption.] Scotland. My apologies. There are models elsewhere that we can follow.
Can anyone say, with water in England, that the money that is siphoned out in salaries and dividends is justifiable when the system could not provide a basic service to people this summer? When sewage spills out on to our beaches and into our lakes, can anyone justify that? I am surprised that there is not more recognition of that from the Conservative party. Thirty years of privatisation has not left the system in a good state.
Changing some of those big things will require the different approach that the right hon. Gentleman calls for. I was pleased that he came, while on his holiday, to the cross-party talks on social care. I give him a commitment that I will keep them going until Louise Casey reports next year with her options. I hope, even then, that we might be able to find a consensus option that we take forward. I do not want to leave this position without having put all my political capital into solving this issue. As Health Secretary 16 years ago, I could not defend leaving people to lose everything they had worked for, but often only getting in return care that was sub-standard and not good enough. I know from my own family experience that that cannot carry on any longer. Nor can we defend the poverty pay for those people who care for other people’s parents and give everything of themselves to those roles. We owe it to millions out there to fix that. This is a test for this Parliament—what remains of it—to see if we can do that. I will work with the right hon. Gentleman to do that.
On the right hon. Gentleman’s suggestion of a national commission, there is a democracy taskforce working out of the Cabinet Office and I could certainly involve him in the work that that is doing. I am interested in political reform. I am interested in looking at how we restore trust in politics. I am prepared to look at all those issues—alongside the voting system, too—and I think he knows that. I believe that this Parliament needs to be a circuit breaker for the country. I do not believe we can carry on as we are. We are losing the trust and faith of the public. We need to act together to turn it around, and I look forward to working with him, precisely on that theme.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
The Prime Minister is absolutely right: we must free our politics and bring back trust, and it seems to me that we could start doing it tomorrow. We could take foreign influence out of our politics by banning foreign money from our politics. I welcome the fact that the Government are going to amend the Representation of the People Act 1983 and cap such donations at £100,000, but given what has happened since the Rycroft review, I worry that the cap is not strong enough, and I think that the public agree with me. Given that this will probably be our last chance to protect our democracy before the next general election, will the Prime Minister give serious consideration to supporting my new clause 85, which would ban all foreign donations?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend and agree with her very strongly that we need to restore trust, particularly when it comes to foreign donations that seek to influence our politics. I am pleased she recognises the amendments that have been brought forward to the Representation of the People Act, which will be debated in this House later this week. I mentioned the defending democracy taskforce, which has been set up in the Cabinet Office. It needs to continue to look at these issues, and this will not be the last chance. We can come back to these issues in this Parliament, such is their importance.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
May I congratulate the Prime Minister on what he said about Ukraine and on how he conducted himself there? Our enemies should know that this House is completely and utterly united in standing behind the Ukrainian people. That was the most powerful part of his statement, precisely because we are working together, so may I encourage him in that direction? We all know that we are under mortal threat, that we must increase the defence budget and that the decisions to pare back the bloated welfare bill are extremely difficult, so why does he not take up the offer of the Leader of the Opposition to deal with this, to meet our international commitments, to reduce dependency, to ensure that we are living within our means, to work together and to do this now? “Action this day.”
The Prime Minister
I thank the Father of the House for what he said about Ukraine. I saw the sincerity with which he said it, and I appreciate it. It was important for me to make the journey last week. I know it was appreciated by President Zelensky, and he asked me to relay to this House and beyond how much he and the Ukrainian people appreciate the support that we have provided. We will continue to do so for as long as it takes.
On meeting our defence commitments and bringing down the welfare bill, I cannot defend a position where too many people in their 20s are on benefits, but what I say is, “Why is that the case?” I do not believe we have an education system that is setting up all young people for success. There is more that we can do to give young people work-related opportunity at 16, and there is more support we can provide for their mental health. Those are the approaches that we can take, I hope with cross-party support, to set our young people up for life, invest in their success and bring down the welfare bill in a sustainable way.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has spoken powerfully about the devolution of power and giving back control. Will he therefore ensure that the proposals for commonhold and leasehold reform, for which 5 million leaseholders in this country are waiting with bated breath, do give that power and control back to those people, through the right to enfranchise and the right to manage?
The Prime Minister
May I thank my good friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) and say to him that I am looking at every facet of the cost of living crisis and at where people face unfair charges that they cannot avoid? This area of leasehold is absolutely in that territory. I make a direct commitment to him today that it is my intention, and the intention of the Government, to bring forward the commonhold and leasehold Bill, so that we can finally reform this unfair system. We will do that in this Session.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
May I welcome the Prime Minister to his place and sincerely wish him well for the future? He will know the vital importance of livestock farming to this country. It is pivotal to the North Dorset economy. He will also know that there have been 783 confirmed cases of bluetongue since just 1 July. The cost of vaccination is £3 per sheep and £6 for cattle. What support can the Government give to livestock farmers, who are already hard pressed as a result of a very dry summer and a very wet winter?
The Prime Minister
I say to the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) that I am probably not renowned for spending much time on farms—I am more likely to be found in the northern quarter of Manchester— but I was on a farm in Cornwall in the summer, precisely to engage and understand the issues that they are facing. I heard very clearly the issues that have been presented by this very difficult summer for farmers up and down the country. I will focus on farming because, for me, farming and food production are part of this country’s sovereign production and manufacturing capacity, which we will need to strengthen in the years to come. We will need to depend upon it, and therefore we need to strengthen it more. That is a clear commitment.
To give the hon. Gentleman some sign that I mean what I say, I did not go empty handed to Colwyn farm. I took a commitment to allow more flexibility over Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs funding, so that areas that previously could not be used for grazing can be used for that, and to funding to build reservoir capacity on farms, so that summer ’27 will hopefully be less painful than summer ’26. That is my commitment. I look forward to working with him to improve measures for farming.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to continuing Britain’s global leadership on climate action, including by going to COP31. I also welcome his focus on breathing space for people and businesses, but, as he said, it will take a lot more than that to deliver the growth and reindustrialisation that he is so committed to. I encourage him to read the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee’s report on the cost of energy, which includes our recommendations on how to bring down the disastrously high costs that are crippling the competitiveness of so much of British industry.
The Prime Minister
I thank my good friend the Chair of the Energy Committee for that contribution. In the words of the Chancellor, we need to focus on the cost of living but also on the cost of business. We need to address those two things together and bring down the cost of energy, which is ruinous for households but also for businesses. As I said in my statement, the cost of grid connections can be huge, and the long wait that businesses can face is damaging for inward investment. We need serious reform to deal with those issues, and I look forward to working with him on that.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I welcome what the Prime Minister just said about strengthening farming. If he is serious about this, one of the first things he can do is ensure that our farmers do not have to compete with imported food that is produced to lower standards than we expect. On Thursday, the European Union will ban the import of beef from Brazil, because it is not satisfied that it is produced safely, and the USA, China and Norway are likely to do the same thing. Will the Prime Minister offer to our consumers and farmers the same protections that those Governments offer theirs?
The Prime Minister
I am listening carefully to what the right hon. Member is saying. All these issues are on the table at this moment in time, but particularly public procurement. I have been working with the First Secretary of State and the Chancellor to consider how we change British public procurement to support our own production and manufacturing base. I believe that there is so much more we could do to make sure that food grown on British farms is served in our schools, hospitals, prisons and beyond. I do believe that we can do a lot more through public procurement before we reach to protectionist measures, but I hear what he has had to say today.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
I congratulate the Prime Minister on taking office and thank him profoundly for his tribute to the Cleveland police officers, PC Matthew Blades and PC Tom Clough, who were so tragically killed on 22 August. My constituents, and indeed constituents across Teesside, welcomed his remarks in the past week on support for Cleveland police, and I look forward to the Home Secretary’s statement later today.
The Prime Minister’s remarks on greater public control of public service and public utility provision are most welcome, and I look forward to discussing the nature of that public control in more detail in the coming weeks and months. One core aspect of that is the continued waste of public funds through the continued use of outsourcing to provide core public services. I trust that he will engage with key stakeholders who have provided yet more evidence that it makes complete economic sense to insource provision of our services. Does he agree that we must ensure that the new public interest test does its job of economic transformation and delivers, as we promised, the biggest wave of insourcing in a generation?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend. I was really distressed by what I saw in his community following the tragic death of our two police officers, and the seven lives lost in total. I know it has sent shockwaves through the community. I know from my previous role about the unfairness in police funding—or that is how it is felt in some parts of the country—and I know he and his colleagues feel that. We do need to look at that question as part of the Home Secretary’s wider police reform programme.
On the second part of my hon. Friend’s question, the manifesto commits us to the largest wave of insourcing in a generation, and my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State is overseeing that work. Taking one example that I mentioned in my statement, if we bring in employment support, often delivered through outsourced contracts, and put it under the control of mayors and combined authorities, who can spend that funding through the community, voluntary and social enterprise sector, I personally believe that money would achieve far greater results than it currently does.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
Could the Prime Minister explain what was so particularly deserving about the Avanti train drivers that they warranted such a pay increase, or was it done just to avoid the embarrassment of the Cabinet not being able to get back and forth to his “No. 10 of the North” vanity project? Or do we take it that this Prime Minister will cave in to every trade union demand that comes across his desk?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady knows as well as I do the misery that her constituents have suffered on the west coast main line, particularly since her Government handed it over to Avanti West Coast. They should not be expected to put up with that. Manchester lost its services under her Government. We have to have a functioning railway line, and the agreement reached with the drivers will give that security of a good service to people in her constituency and across the north-west.
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has hit the road running and is running into issues where action is long overdue. Following my six-year campaign to scrap “aim to permit”, I thank the Prime Minister for making that announcement over the summer. Local people will now have a say in what their high street looks like and the vibrancy of them, and local councils will now have a say too. Will the Prime Minister work with me to reinvigorate our high streets, and will he also implement a few more of my campaigns?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend, who has been a doughty campaigner for improved services on our high streets, particularly pointing out the risks of the “aim to permit” regime, which has allowed the proliferation of adult gaming centres, for instance, in some of our more deprived communities. My whole approach will be to create an incentive regime that supports the businesses that are bringing good things to our high streets—hospitality businesses and others that give people a place to go and bring communities together—and to take action against those who do harm. In the summer we announced tougher action on vape shops, alongside adult gaming centres and other gambling venues. She deserves great credit for the campaign she has run, and I am pleased that she feels we can now begin to turn our high streets around.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I was encouraged to hear the Prime Minister talk about his support for political reform and, indeed, looking at the voting system, but can I push him to be a tiny bit more specific? He could bring in a change to the voting system ahead of the next general election if he wanted to—we would strongly back him—but if he does not want to do that, will he at least commit to kicking off a national commission on electoral reform?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady, who I know well, for that question. She may have heard me speak before about leaving this place 10 years ago, standing for the first time under a proportional system and seeing how it changed the conversation on the doorstep, where all of a sudden there was an incentive to look for a point of agreement, rather than to score points, as I have been saying. That experience changed me. Where I disagree with her is in saying that we should do that ahead of any general election, because I believe there needs to be a mandate to make that change. There are different views in this House, but I believe that we will need to get a consensus at the next election, and if there is that consensus, a change can be made in the next Parliament.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the work he has done to date on tackling the scourge of rough sleeping, which is so prevalent in many of our cities and towns and outside them. What vision does he have to include the voluntary sector in the crucial task of tackling rough sleeping?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend—I was going to say leadership rival, but I do not think she was ever fully in that category. She is absolutely right to point to the role of the voluntary sector in the mission that I have launched to end rough sleeping, if we can, by the end of this year. I do not think public funds alone will get us all the way; we will need to rely on voluntary contributions and the work of our charities. In the end, they are doing the work to tackle rough sleeping across the country. I believe it is incumbent on all Members of the House to put their shoulder behind this. I am looking at the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), because I remember the work he did and the private Member’s Bill that he brought forward. It should be a cross-party matter. In my view, nobody should sleep rough on our streets. We all have charities in our constituencies that are doing the most amazing work to support people. Any of us can find ourselves in that position, such is life these days. We should all get behind this drive. We should thank those organisations for their work, and let us see if we can give an offer to everyone in this country to come inside by Christmas.
Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)
In a volatile world, I think we can all agree that energy security is important, but so too is food security. I was interested in the answer the Prime Minister gave to my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) a moment ago, because in the eastern side of my constituency there is an application for a huge solar farm on prime agricultural land, when on the western side there are huge distribution warehouses with not a single solar panel on their roofs. Will he commit to review this situation, so that we can have a policy that safeguards both our food and our energy?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman’s point is characteristically clear and he makes a good suggestion that I will take up. I meant what I said when I thanked him for coming to those cross-party talks in the summer. I have always enjoyed working with him and wish him well in whatever comes next.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I welcome what the Prime Minister has said, and I particularly welcome his commitment to go to COP31. What will be even more important than him going there is what he says when he gets there: we look forward to him showing that the UK will continue to remain committed to fighting climate change here in the UK and to doing our bit overseas. Will he say whether, when he goes to COP31, he will be able to commit to the tropical forests forever facility, which the Government have been looking at? Will his fight on the cost of living continue to encourage people to make choices that support the environment, such as by having an electric vehicle, and will he bring down the cost of electric to support heating choices?
The Prime Minister
I strongly support my hon. Friend’s last point. I know from my experience in my previous role that when we electrified bus depots and the bus fleet in Greater Manchester, the running costs of the system came right down, which helped us to sustain the £2 fare cap that had been removed elsewhere. That is proof that action on climate can reduce the cost of living. Those two things should not be pitched as opposites—they can be causal. We can act on climate and we can bring down the cost of living. I will be at COP31, as he said. I recognise the importance of the rain forest, and we continue to provide support in the form of loans to support work to conserve it. I look forward to working with him on these issues and I hope to see him in Turkey.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
I welcome the Prime Minister to his place. In so doing, I extend my best wishes not only to him but to his family, as he takes up the manifold burdens of his new role. In his assent to high office, he was heard to report that the UK is not working and Westminster is not working —well, I am 100% in agreement with him on that, although my prognosis would be terminal rather than treatable. He understands that energy bills are now £600 higher than Labour promised they would be at the general election, and there is another large increase coming before Christmas. He touched on energy in his statement, so will he give us a date—between now and whenever the general election will be—by which energy bills will be £300 lower, just in the way that Labour promised?
The Prime Minister
I thank the leader of the SNP in Westminster for his very kind words, which my family will appreciate. When I left this place, I could relate more to what I used to hear from SNP Members than when I used to be here, particularly when I sometimes found frustrations, let’s say, with Westminster and the way it works, but that is precisely why we need to rewire the system and get power out of Westminster and into the country. In my view, we do that and we keep the United Kingdom together, because then all parts of it will feel that it is working for them in the way that perhaps they do not feel at this moment in time. When it comes to energy bills, I have acted already to bring in that VAT cut on electricity bills. I recognise that is just a start, but I hope the hon. Gentleman sees it as a sign of intent.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the Prime Minister and welcome him to his place. I also welcome what he said about serving British food across the public estate in this country, but may I push him further to suggest that British food should be served on a British plate, made by British ceramics, and that the houses that he wishes to build should be made with British bricks? Could I encourage him to go as fast as he can on rewiring public procurement, so that British jobs in this country can be benefited by the British taxpayers’ pound?
The Prime Minister
I will be a staunch defender of the Potteries in this House, if not their football clubs. I do not know whether the Potteries are the north-west or the west midlands, but I am certainly very fond of them and I know the crucial importance of the ceramics industry to that part of the country. I do think that there is much more that we can do with public procurement in Britain to support crucial industries; I do not think that we have done enough in the past. Social value weighting can be applied to all public procurement, which makes it more likely that contracts will be awarded to British-based entities. I do not think that we should allow the culture of sending everything outside this country to continue—this will be a big change under this Government.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
In welcoming the Prime Minister to his place, let me say that I noticed his criticism of the water companies—a justified criticism, in many cases. May I direct his attention to the predatory activities of another private company? National Grid is seeking to pre-empt the construction of a station on the Minster marshes, with no planning consent whatsoever and while the results of a Planning Inspectorate inquiry are still awaited. Would he be kind enough to intervene?
The Prime Minister
It is good to see the right hon. Gentleman again, and I appreciate what he said in endorsing my criticism of the water industry. We need to find significant reform; if that can be done cross party, so much the better. I am not familiar with the planning situation and the issue that he mentions, but I will look out for him, have a word with him and see if I can do something to look into it.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for visiting Port Talbot steelworks last week, and for highlighting the importance of securing and protecting our sovereign steel industry, which I know he will do in his role. Steel communities have long faced unfair global trading practices, but our new safeguards will still leave some steel manufacturing unprotected, including galvanised steel made by Llanwern steelworks in Newport. Will the Prime Minister work with business, trade, Tata and the trade unions to see what more can be done?
The Prime Minister
I was really pleased to visit Port Talbot last week. I know the importance of the steel industry in my hon. Friend’s part of the world—the history of it. I came away with a clear sense of what is possible: carrying through an industrial transition that will set up steelmaking for the rest of this century. Industrial transition is definitely another one of the things I have spoken about today that this country has not done well—in the past, we have allowed deindustrialisation before trying to help industry into a new era—and we need to make it work this time in south Wales. I said it to the trade unions last week, I said it to the leadership of Tata and I will say it to my hon. Friend in this House: we will make that happen, and we will guarantee steelmaking in south Wales for generations to come.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
The Prime Minister has spoken a lot about the increase in the cost of living. Much of that is driven by the increase in energy prices, because of the rush towards net stupid zero and the multiple increase in renewables such as solar farms on our productive agricultural farmland. It is madness to import gas from overseas when we have our own gas in the North sea. When will the Prime Minister do the right thing: approve the licences at Rosebank, Jackdaw and elsewhere in the North sea?
The Prime Minister
I do not know if the hon. Gentleman was listening a moment ago when I was talking about how renewables can bring down the cost of living. I gave a very clear example in Greater Manchester: it costs £30 to charge a bus with electric charge, but it costs £200-plus to fill a tank of diesel. He really does need to look into the facts a little bit more before he makes statements like that in this House. Solar panels on people’s homes can bring down the cost of their energy. Yes, we need to be pragmatic—we will still need to rely on oil and gas for some years to come. The mistake he makes is saying that it has got to be one or the other, for political purposes; the truth is that it is going to have to be both.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
I was proud to support the Feltham Convening Partnership’s young leaders summer programme last month. What struck me was their ambition for themselves and their community, as well as their call for more work experience opportunities. When the Tories and Lib Dems in coalition made work experience optional, placements fell by 60,000 in the first year—a drop from which we have never recovered. Does the Prime Minister agree that this Government’s work with employers like Sainsbury’s is now bringing hope, but that we must go further and faster, and we must not deny the next generation the promise of Britain?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for her work on this matter, and on apprenticeships in particular. What she has just said needs to be understood when we consider the Milburn report, because the decline in apprenticeships for young people lies behind some of the statistics that Alan Milburn has revealed. I give some credit to the Conservatives, because my experience in Greater Manchester was that the work placements that came with T-levels were a huge and positive innovation. Those 45-day work placements made a difference for young people. It was enough for them to feel that they could belong in the place where they were. I would like to work with Members across this House to see if we can turn a commitment of a 45-day work placement into a guarantee to all young people as part of our response to the Milburn report. The evidence I have is that those placements are hugely successful. Alongside that, we need more apprenticeships at 19 and more degree apprenticeships beyond that. That is how we give strong, structured pathways to our young people. The technical route is not bringing back stupid, but bringing back hope.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I share the Prime Minister’s vision of ending rough sleeping for good. He was very kind to refer to my private Member’s Bill, but there are two actions that he could take now that he is in office. First, the various different attempts at progress on Housing First could be brought together across the country, because ending rough sleeping is one thing, but building that network of support around people is vital. The second aspect relates to my second private Member’s Bill, which became law in 2023, but is still to be enacted. It would regulate the use of supported housing. Will he act now to make sure that it is enacted, so that vulnerable people are protected from rogue landlords?
The Prime Minister
I meant what I said earlier in praising the hon. Member. He has done a huge amount of work in this area, and I recognise it. He mentions Housing First. I think he was one of those who persuaded Sajid Javid, when he was in the Communities Secretary role, to pilot Housing First in three big city regions: the West Midlands, Greater Manchester and Liverpool. Exactly as the hon. Member said, it was hugely successful. It was about prevention, rather than paying for crisis. What I have experienced in my career is that it is more expensive to leave somebody sleeping rough than it is to give them simple accommodation every night, because of the cost of many visits to A&E, long stays in hospital or time in police custody, which add up to be more expensive than the simple provision of a room. I will look at the Bill that he mentions, and I will speak to the Communities Secretary about it, but this is something we can fix. When issues are fixable, we should work across the House to fix them. We can end rough sleeping—we did it in the pandemic, and I see no reason why we cannot do it again.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend to his place and thank him for his statement. I particularly agree with what he was saying about social security and tackling the drivers of the high rates of young people not in education, employment or training. If I may, I direct him to a report by the Work and Pensions Committee that came out just before the recess specifically on that point.
My question relates to the middle east. I know he has made reference in the past to the importance of being able to hold Israel to account. What does he think is the appropriate action that we and our partners can take not only in ensuring humanitarian aid and access, but in relation to the unlawful settlements? On so many occasions, the law has been broken, and there is a real danger that the Palestine state will not be viable if we carry on in this way.
The Prime Minister
I thank my dear friend for her question, and I will certainly look up the Select Committee report. In answer to her point about the middle east, before I became Prime Minister, I issued a statement saying that I thought we needed to look again at the approach that we had taken, and to be clear about our values and what we believe is right. Obviously, matters are changing quickly. We have seen the worrying statement about the E1 settlements extension and the fast-track tender process. I think that that would lead to decisions being made before the Israeli election, which I understand could imperil, if not end, the two-state solution. These matters are urgent and need to be confronted, and I believe that we will be updating the House on them soon.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Just across from No. 10 North in Manchester, but also in many towns and cities throughout the country, women are being secretly filmed on a night out, and the videos are then posted online along with vile, degrading, misogynistic contents and comments. The women only find out once the videos have been shared 100,000 times and more, and they do not know what to do. We need to change something. Will the Prime Minister support the campaign to end this vile practice, and consider reform to make misogyny a hate crime?
The Prime Minister
These issues are very much at the forefront of my mind. As the father of two daughters, I think about them a lot, while remembering the change that we introduced in Greater Manchester following the appalling murder of Sarah Everard. It was a moment that created a powerful change in the conversation, challenging men, lads and boys for their behaviour and making it absolutely clear that violence against women and girls of any kind, including everyday harassment, is an issue with which they must be confronted and which they must address.
In recent days, I have met Georgia Harrison, who is doing amazing work in campaigning to protect women online and making the very reasonable request for any non-consensual explicit video to be taken down immediately rather than being removed after 48 hours, which is the current totally unsatisfactory approach. I can tell the hon. Lady that I will support her 100% in implementing that change, and also that we will think about the other points that she raised.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
There are 4.5 million unpaid carers in England. I have first-hand knowledge of the impact of that on carers and their families, having been a carer for two members of my own family, but I also know that for millions of carers the emotional and financial toll is far greater than what I faced. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that when the Casey review has been completed, funding will not be the reason for its recommendations not to be implemented?
The Prime Minister
I know that this issue matters to my hon. Friend personally, as it does to me. The leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), pointed out during our cross-party talks—and, powerfully, in the media—that family carers are often simply not seen, and sink slowly as the situation becomes more and more unbearable and unsustainable for them. I know that from my own family experience.
I give my hon. Friend my word from the Dispatch Box that social care will be a huge priority for me. We do need to support family carers, as the right hon. Gentleman said, and we also need to give much more support to paid carers, who, as I have said, are working on poverty pay. I will not leave this role until we have introduced a social care system that we can be proud of.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
My constituents will have been pleased to hear from Sir Jon Cunliffe, who produced 88 recommendations last July. However, his diagnosis is rather different from that of the Prime Minister. He believes that governance and regulation are the key to better performance, rather than some ill-defined version of “better public control”, which, according to the Government’s own assessment, would cost more than £100 billion. Will the Prime Minister promise to enact all 88 of those recommendations without delay?
The Prime Minister
I appreciate that the Cunliffe report takes us forward, but it was to some degree limited in what it was able to consider, and I believe we need to look at all possible solutions for the water industry. I do not think we are in a position to say that what is being proposed will solve everything. It is very regrettable that the privatisation of water has left us in a position that we will find it very difficult to reverse. What has happened is that funding has left through salaries and dividends. Bills were kept low for a period of time, but it is the infrastructure that is suffering. Now, when we need to put those infrastructure problems right, it is bill payers who are being asked to pay 20%-plus on their bills—not those who siphoned the money out in the first place. It is an unsatisfactory situation. It is an industry where the shareholders never lose and the bill payers never win, and I say to the hon. Lady that it is simply wrong and unsustainable.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
The Prime Minister’s commitment to regulate the funeral industry was extremely welcome. It was especially welcomed by those families who have been victims of rogue funeral operators, and I commend him for it. They are now asking when regulation will be brought into effect. Is this still a priority for the Prime Minister, and if so, when will the funeral industry finally be regulated?
The Prime Minister
I say to my hon. Friend that I was truly appalled when I heard about what happened, and I feel for any family who was a victim of that despicable crime. Today I offer him a meeting, on behalf of those families, to listen and to see how we can build a programme of change that will meet what has been exposed by this terrible crime.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Within a few days of the Prime Minister taking office, he announced business rates relief for pubs, clubs and live music venues, but I have spent the summer talking to businesses like hair salons, post offices and booksellers, all of which are just as important in the high street as those that have already been given help. Will he now commit to give business rates relief to all high street businesses and to get rid of this cost, which is destroying jobs?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Member for making a point that I made myself in the Makerfield by-election. I do think that there is more we need to do to support our high streets. I have made a start with pubs and live music venues, but I do believe we need to go further, in exactly the way he describes. I think it is a case of rebalancing the system—some of the large entities and warehouses do not, in percentage terms, pay the same amount in business rates—so that we can support those businesses on the high street that are doing public good and they are able to get a reduction to enable them to survive. That is something that I am looking at. I think we need to get serious about our high streets. We need to take action on those that cause harm—I have mentioned vape shops and adult gaming centres—and we need to do more to support those that do good.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
May I welcome the Prime Minister back to this place and to the Dispatch Box, and welcome the ambition that he has brought to this country? He will know that he will need time to achieve the things he has set out today, which is why I know that he will share my concerns about what is happening in British politics. Reform has accepted £9 million in donations this year alone, with £8 million of it coming from just three UK-based donors. That is more than has been received by the Labour party and the Conservative party combined. Chequebooks are already circling the next general election, and if we wish to defend our democracy and make sure that all voices can be heard equally, we need to make sure it is not money that talks.
I heard what the Prime Minister had to say to my colleagues about the defending democracy review. I welcome it and tomorrow’s legislation on UK donors, but he will know that there are people closer to home who wish to use their money to influence the process too. Can he confirm that his democracy review will look at caps on UK individual and company donors, and that we will legislate before the next general election so that we act?
The Prime Minister
I recognise the importance of the issues my hon. Friend is raising, for the reasons I gave earlier. The Bill we will debate later this week is a start, but I do not think that anyone on the Government Front Bench is saying that that is the end of the matter. We do need to go further. I encourage her to engage with the defending democracy taskforce and, certainly, I have an open mind about what those further measures might be.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
We in northern Lincolnshire look forward to the Prime Minister’s first visit in his new position. He will find that if he travels by train from Manchester there is an hourly service, but that if he travels from London there is no direct service. The Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), and I have been campaigning for 15 years to restore the direct service. If the Prime Minister could give us an early win, it would be a victory for me in 15 years but he could deliver it in 15 weeks. Will he have a word with the Transport Secretary and ask her to have yet another look at providing this service, which I know will be supported by his Parliamentary Private Secretary—the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin)—sat behind him? [Laughter.]
The Prime Minister
Yes, I have only just got back to this House and already my PPS is lobbying me from behind, which is obviously helpful. My hon. Friend is right to do so and the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) is right to raise this issue. I remember, as chair of the Rail North Committee in my previous role, the concern of people in his part of the world. The rail connections to my part of the north are nowhere near what they should be. I heard scepticism on the Opposition Benches. If he is interested, I will fix a meeting for him with the team at No. 10 North so that he can put his case. This is why we took public control of the railways: so that we can start to put services back. There is no point in having public control if it does not deliver public benefit. In my view, every area needs a basic level of connectivity if we are to connect people to opportunity and get growth going in every postcode.
Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)
It is a lamentable tale, but when my father started driving buses in the west of Scotland in 1964, Glasgow was better connected and cheaper to get around than it is now in 2026. With the centralising forces of the SNP Government in Holyrood and a lack of attention by the SNP council in Glasgow, could I ask my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to lend his moral clarity and expertise on this matter and get Glasgow’s buses moving again?
The Prime Minister
I have had a number of approaches from colleagues in Glasgow on how we can support them to move the bus system forward. I was surprised to hear how expensive bus fares are in the city. I believe that there have been moves to put them back under public control, but I am not aware that they have been supported by the Scottish Government. I hope the Scottish Government will provide funding and support to enable the Greater Glasgow area to move in that direction. [Interruption.] If I am wrong, I am happy to be corrected, but I did have a lot of people coming to me saying, “We’re not getting any support; can you help us move things forward?” A great city such as Glasgow should have public transport under its own control. From what I see in Scotland, there is something of the same problem as in England, where the capital city has a public transport system that is way beyond what anywhere else has. It is not that we are anti-London or anti-Edinburgh—it is great that they have those transport systems—but all parts of the UK need to have a level of infrastructure that is seen to be fair and, as I said before, connects all people to jobs and opportunities. Glasgow deserves that, too.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I welcome the Prime Minister to his place and I welcome his commitment to put power back into the heart of communities through a devolution programme, but in places such as Shropshire, where there is no immediate plan for a combined authority or a mayoral authority to be put in place, people are really worried that we will be left behind. Will the Prime Minister elaborate on his earlier comments and explain when authorities such as Shropshire will get those devolved powers—and, crucially, the resources to go with them—so that they can start turning around the lives of people in places such as North Shropshire?
The Prime Minister
It was a serious offer that I made at the Dispatch Box earlier today, to say that there could be a devolution deal for every part of England with or without an elected mayor. I do believe that it will only work if it is based on unitary local government. I do not think it will work with a two-tier system, but that is why I said to colleagues in Cornwall that I am quite happy to see if a deal can be done for a single unitary authority. That is what I understand Members of Parliament for Cornwall to want, working with the leader of Cornwall council. If that is the settled view, I am not going to try to impose anything else—let us work with that. The same could be true in Shropshire, but it needs to be effective and functional, and to be able to stand on its own two feet.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome my right hon. Friend to his role.
Ten months ago, my constituents were promised a public inquiry into our mental health trust, after 10 years of campaigning for it. People have died in the interim, and it is simply unacceptable. In writing about unaccountable power over the summer, I have seen the weaknesses not only in the decision-making processes, but in the lines of scrutiny to ensure that we can deliver for our constituents. Will my right hon. Friend work with me and join me in the work I have been doing to ensure that we are talking about the devolution not just of power, but of scrutiny to hold such bodies to account?
The Prime Minister
That is entirely what the Hillsborough law is about. It builds on a duty of candour that was already there in the NHS, but will now go further to those running NHS organisations and all NHS bodies. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this in more detail, because I can see how much it matters to her. I hope that is a helpful commitment.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
The Prime Minister has spoken about his desire for a written constitution, arguing that a formal legal framework is necessary for the devolution agenda, yet in his short time in office he has already attempted unilaterally to defy the legally binding Good Friday agreement by declaring that a border poll is “off the table”. Does the Prime Minister recognise that he has no mandate to defy the constitutional wishes of the people of Northern Ireland, the people of Scotland or the people of Wales, and that any written constitution or devolution agenda must include a pathway for each of those nations to choose their own future?
The Prime Minister
I think the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood what I said. I answered a media question on a visit to Northern Ireland before meeting the various parties. The question was whether a proposal was being put to the meeting about a border poll, and my answer was that the purpose of the visit was to get functional Government in Stormont, because in my view that would most serve the people of Northern Ireland right now, and that I was not there to distract from that to other issues. I am very aware of every word in the Good Friday agreement, and I will stick to it 100% as Prime Minister. I care about Northern Ireland, which I visit often, and—how do I put it?—that situation pre-empted the meeting we were about to have and I was not there to discuss that.
The Good Friday agreement—if the hon. Gentleman reads it, as I am sure he has—is quite clear on the circumstances in which that issue arises, and as I have said, I honour the words of the Good Friday agreement. However, our common challenge right now is achieving functional Government in Stormont, and I believe everybody should work together to achieve that. I have asked the Northern Ireland Secretary to support that process, and I recognise the concerns people have about the budget in Northern Ireland. Those are the issues to be dealt with first and foremost, and that was the answer I gave to the media.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend to his place.
During the summer recess, I spent time engaging with organisations in my constituency that work with children and young people, and I was struck by their talking about young people being unable to interact with anything except their phones. Can I urge the Prime Minister to move forward at pace with the social media ban for under-16s?
The Prime Minister
I am happy to give my hon. Friend that commitment.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The climate crisis is hitting hard already, and I was glad to hear the Prime Minister acknowledge that in his statement. We have just had the hottest summer since records began, farmers are facing the worst arable harvest since records began and the Met Office tells us today that extreme summers such as this year’s have been made 130 times more likely by burning fossil fuels. In that context, will the Prime Minister remember his words of last year, when he warned against the “siren voices” taking us down the path of “dependence on fossil fuels”? Will he stick to the manifesto promise not to drill any more oil and gas, and will he rule out Rosebank and Jackdaw, because the climate damage they would create hugely outweighs any possible benefit and will lead to more disasters such as we saw on the Nepal-Tibet border just last week?
The Prime Minister
I am ready to work with the leader of the Greens in this place, because I carry from my last role into this one a clear commitment to a carbon-neutral future. I do not resile from that in any way; I am proud of what I have done on that front. What the hon. Member has said is almost the opposite of what the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) said a few moments ago, but the wrong approach here is to be one or the other. We are going to have to find a way to make a transition from oil and gas to a renewable future, and that does not mean that it is all one or the other. There has to be a process where we can make a transition and do it as effectively and affordably as possible.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister back to this place and thank him for his statement.
We have rightly reset our relationship with the European Union, and now is the time to build on that progress and redouble our efforts to strengthen UK-EU co-operation. With the upcoming summit next month, can the Prime Minister reassure me and my constituents in Battersea that he will be bold and ambitious in seizing that opportunity, going further and faster to boost economic growth, remove unnecessary trade barriers and strengthen our economic relationship with Europe, as well as creating opportunities for young people in my constituency and across the country?
The Prime Minister
I recognise the work of the former Prime Minister, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras, who changed the conversation with Europe when he came into office. I have had that played back to me from a number of European leaders. There is something to build on; good steps have been taken. The UK-EU summit is in front of us; it may be the month after next—we are still waiting to finalise. I hope we can make further progress there. There is no doubt that our growth has been hit in the last decade. There is no prospect of getting what we want for our farmers if we take an isolationist approach. We have to work more closely with Europe. That is the approach that I will take unapologetically. I hope my hon. Friend will have some success to celebrate soon.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I welcome the Prime Minister back to the House of Commons and genuinely wish him well in his endeavours. I gently point out, however, that No. 10 North is three hours south of my constituency; I hope his view of the north involves a whole-of-the-north approach. One measure that would not cost him anything and would be popular in the north, and across the whole of the UK, would be to rule out something that appeared in the previous Prime Minister’s Green Paper on the future of television: the suggestion that terrestrial free-to-view television could be switched off in 2034. That would mean that everyone would have to pay to watch television, which particularly affects the elderly, vulnerable and those who live in rural areas.
The Prime Minister
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that No. 10 North will be as much at the service of Scotland and his constituency as it will anywhere else. Members of this House will get used to seeing what an improvement it might be in getting answers out of Whitehall on many issues, including the one that he has just raised. I will give the right hon. Gentleman an honest answer: I am concerned about those plans too. I know that some of my constituents in Makerfield rely on Freeview. There is perhaps an opportunity to look at that as part of the BBC charter renewal process. I cannot give him a final answer today, but I recognise that he has raised a genuine issue that is of concern to his constituents. Let me have a proper look at it.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
I heartily congratulate the Prime Minister on bringing back to the House a bit of optimism and hope, and on his summer tour. Had he made it round our way, he could have seen how, amid a hosepipe ban, Thames Water has been leaking 10,000 litres of water an hour in North Acton. He could also have seen how, at the same time, fat cat bosses are getting pay rises while they dump sewage into our beloved River Brent. I was pleased by the Prime Minister’s words on water today, so I ask him: when can we take this failing company back into public hands?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for what she said; it is my intention to bring back a bit more optimism around the country, to give people the feeling that things can be fixed. That is my style—to face things and fix things. It is the approach I will take to water, too. I do not know whether those on the Opposition Benches were supporting the status quo—it sounded like it, to a degree—but it is not defensible, in my view, for precisely the reasons my hon. Friend just gave. We are looking at options. I believe that we need a strengthened response, particularly when it comes to legislation. I am happy to work with my hon. Friend and plot out a path to repair our water infrastructure, bring down people’s bills and ensure that it is not always the public who are expected to pay for everything.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
On behalf of the DUP, I wish the Prime Minister well in his job. I hope that he does deliver on his promises on energy, the economy and so on. I note, however, that it took him only about 30 seconds to break his promise on no point scoring when responding to the Leader of the Opposition, although a bit of point scoring is not a bad thing.
The Prime Minister has pointed out that confidence in Government is important. In Northern Ireland, it has recently been shown that the Parades Commission—a public body with a very significant role in curtailing people’s freedoms—acted illegally, showing bias and showing disdain for applications from the Unionist community. The commission failed abjectly in its duty, and yet its arrogant members have refused to resign, even though they know they do not enjoy any public confidence. Will the Prime Minister have discussions with the Secretary of State to ensure that there is an immediate dismissal of this discredited body?
The Prime Minister
It is good to see the right hon. Gentleman again. I thank him for his comments; I am bringing a problem-solving approach. There will still be the odd point scored here and there—it would be a bit dull if I did not do a little of that—but where we can find common ground, we should. The public expect it. I think they are fed up of watching the television when things are broken and seeing us playing politics with those things. Let us see where we can make progress, and score the points where we cannot.
The right hon. Gentleman raises a very serious issue. As I said a moment ago, I was in Northern Ireland last week, where I met his colleagues as well as colleagues from other parties. I know there has been a serious loss of trust in the commission, and I know it needs to be addressed. The Northern Ireland Secretary has taken some action, but I believe more is to come.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the Prime Minister to his place and commend him for the direction and spirit of his statement.
Small and independent businesses are the lifeblood of my constituency. I hear regularly from owners such as Colin and Jack, who own two Feast coffee shops in Sheffield, that they are facing an onslaught of financial pressure. On my way here this morning, Jack told me how rising VAT and electricity prices have meant that there is very little left at the end of the month to pay himself. I know that this is the case for many other owners, and that it goes beyond the normal ups and downs of businesses. I welcome the Prime Minister’s decision to cut VAT on energy bills from October, but is he willing to explore how else we might be able to help small and independent businesses?
The Prime Minister
As I said to the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), I believe we need to do more to support the businesses that my hon. Friend talked about, and there will be more to come. The cost of doing business is too high. As I have said this afternoon, energy bills are too high for businesses and households, and we need the determination to bring those bills down and lower the cost of doing business. There will be more to come on that. This will be a pro-business and pro-small-business Government. Nobody should make any mistake about that. The approach that I led in Manchester was all about the public taking control of what they need to do in order to make a place functional for businesses and people. That is Manchesterism, and that is what we will bring nationally. It is all about setting businesses up to succeed. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend to improve that business, and her high streets, too.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
As someone who was politically active in the Thatcher decade, may I gently remind the Prime Minister that it was the period that she did so well in because the Labour party was in a terrible state? For example, it embraced unilateral nuclear disarmament at the height of the second cold war—mercifully, a position that it has long left behind.
I welcome what the Prime Minister said about wishing to work consensually and across party lines. In that spirit, will he look again at the shameless gerrymandering around the local government reorganisation? At the beginning of the process, the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) promised us that there would be no unnecessary fragmentation or boundary changes without strong reason for them, yet my constituency is being torn apart, with the Waterside, which has looked towards the New Forest for centuries, being taken over by Southampton. The same is happening elsewhere. That was not in his party’s manifesto. It is a good opportunity for the Prime Minister to show that he means what he says about consensus.
The Prime Minister
I will take on that challenge and ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to consider what the right hon. Gentleman has said this afternoon. These changes do benefit from having the maximum consensus. On the Thatcher Government, we will probably have to agree to disagree, but I make one observation: we have a public housing stock that has 1.5 million fewer homes than in the ’80s and ’90s, and we now have 1.5 million people on housing waiting lists up and down the country. I would put it to him that that is a cause of further public cost, in terms of the number of people who are in a crisis situation. I think we can do better. I have been prepared to criticise the Government that I was in; maybe one day he might criticise the one that he was in, and then we will be able to find some solutions.
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister to his place and associate myself with all his comments about the two police officers sadly killed up in Cleveland. I speak with first-hand experience when I say that any police officer will start a shift not expecting to be able to go home at the end of it. It is really important that we recognise that. In that spirit, I ask the Prime Minister to give the commitment that the Government will always have our police officers’ backs, and to ensure that police forces are properly funded, so that my former colleagues can look after communities up and down this country.
The Prime Minister
I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. I point to my record as Mayor of Greater Manchester: I had the back of all the thousands of officers who were out serving, keeping Greater Manchester safe, day after day. I pay tribute to the families of those officers we lost in Middlesbrough in the line of duty, sacrificing themselves for their community.
I also want to assure my hon. Friend that I heard the voice of PC Andrew Harper’s family before making my decisions on early release. Before I was here, this House passed Harper’s law. The spirit of that legislation really should have been honoured in that early release scheme, and it now will be. It always should be that this House gives the maximum recognition to those who put themselves at risk for our safety and that of everyone else.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The Prime Minister says that he puts devolution at the heart of his agenda, and I believe him. We both know that decisions are best made closer to the people they affect, but Wales still lacks the powers already available to Scotland, and even to Greater Manchester. That cannot be right. When he meets the First Minister next month, will he work with Plaid Cymru to make good that devolution gap on policing, on the Crown Estate, on rail and on the fiscal powers that Wales needs to build and prosper?
The Prime Minister
I am ready to have a constructive conversation with the First Minister, as I did when I met him in July in my first week in office. I believe from my own experience that a form of local devolution in Wales and Scotland might further strengthen the economy and public services. That is the point that I am making in relation to buses in Glasgow and other services as well. Where power is too centralised and too remote, sometimes poor decisions are made. My agenda is all about putting power in the hands of people at the community level, so that they can drive changes that are right for them. There is a model of local devolution that could be made to work in Scotland, in Wales and possibly in Northern Ireland, and I am ready to support that, if that is what the right hon. Lady wishes.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
Social media and the harm that it does to our young people is one of the biggest issues brought to my attention by my constituents in Putney, as well as by people across the country. I am really glad to hear the Prime Minister’s affirmation that he will carry on with raising the age of those covered by the social media ban from 13 to 16. Will he further say that the ban will not be watered down at all, but will remain a full ban for all of the day, to reduce the harm done to our young people?
The Prime Minister
I think I am right in saying that the Leader of the Opposition made strong statements early in the year—going back to January—on this very issue, and I indicated then that I supported the strongest action, recognising the damage to children’s mental health that social media has been doing. That is an example of how I work and how I will work in this role. Where something is obviously wrong and causing harm, particularly to children, it is incumbent on all of us to act. From my point of view, there is no watering down; we do need to take action. Those of us with children can sometimes see the damage being done, and we should not just accept it. I will lead from the front on this issue.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I welcome the new Prime Minister to the Dispatch Box. I note that in his statement he referred to the biggest issues facing the country as being “the economy and the cost of living crisis”. Will he accept that one of the things that has damaged our economy and caused prices to be higher is the tax-and-spend Budget in November 2024? He has cut taxes twice—two small tax cuts—since he became Prime Minister. Will he commit that in the Budget there will be no further searching for new things to tax? The biggest message of hope he could send to the country today would be to rule out further tax rises.
The Prime Minister
May I say clearly to the hon. Lady and to the country more broadly that I fully understand the pressure that businesses are under? The cost of doing business is higher it than it should be, owing to the pressures from energy costs and other things. I do not come into this position in any way in denial about that. We need to take further steps to reduce the cost of business, and I have indicated a direction of travel on that today.
These are matters that we need to give the utmost consideration to. We need to get growth up. The hon. Lady tried to give an analysis, but we have had a decade of low growth—these issues go back, and are much deeper—which is why, in my statement, I laid out the issues very clearly, and put forward a plan for growth. That plan requires us to be pro-business, and to provide what support we can.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Before I call for the next question, may I remind Members that I am trying to get in as many people as possible? If the questions could be shorter, that would be very helpful for everyone.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)
I will follow your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker. Neighbourhood police numbers are down, and youth services have been cut to the bone. Is it any surprise that youth crime is rising? Does the Prime Minister agree, as do the constituents of Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley, that we need to commit to both, not as optional extras, but with long-term ringfenced funding, so that we do not lose another generation to the streets?
The Prime Minister
If we are closing down digital space for young people, it is incumbent on all of us to open up more physical space in communities, and to repair the damage to youth services that was done 15 or so years ago. We will not get crime down without that. That is the other side of the coin to increasing police officer numbers. My hon. Friend has my commitment on that.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) asked the Prime Minister about bluetongue. He gave an answer about farming, but he will recall that he did not address the issue directly. He was elected for the first time to this place in 2001—I welcome him back—in the election that was postponed because of the foot and mouth disease outbreak. There are 754 reported cases of bluetongue in Great Britain already. It takes three weeks after the first dose of vaccine for sheep to become immune, and six weeks for cattle. This is an animal welfare disaster, a human tragedy, and a farm business nightmare. Will the Prime Minister make the tackling of bluetongue and the immediate delivery of the vaccine an urgent priority for him and his Government?
The Prime Minister
On my visit in the summer, I heard concerns about the availability of vaccine, and the time it was taking for farms to access it, so I am aware of the issue. I will seek an update from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary and, if necessary, I am prepared to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss this.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s visit to a farm in Cornwall over the summer, where, I believe, the work of the Labour Rural Research Group was mentioned to him. One of the LRRG’s campaigns is to end the rural penalty, whereby the cost of living is higher in rural areas, and there is weaker access to transport, energy, food and digital services. Will the Prime Minister confirm that it is his intention to make rural areas a priority during his premiership?
The Prime Minister
As I said before, and I am pleased to give my hon. Friend this assurance, I want to ensure that we do not have a two-tier England in which rural and coastal areas feel in some way shut out or left behind. There is a devolution deal that can be done for everywhere; he has my commitment on that. I encourage him to look at the letter from the First Secretary of State about No. 10 North; it is about providing for practical areas. I also encourage Members on all sides to start being practical about agreeing a combined authority, where that can be brought through. That, in our experience, is the best way to secure a building block for economic growth and to sustain important services. I want rural areas to benefit from exactly the same.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Over the summer, the Prime Minister opposed development on green spaces in his constituency, saying:
“It offers no benefit to the local community and will place huge strain on local infrastructure.”
My constituents face the same pressures, so will he commit to new and meaningful green-belt protections, to protect those green spaces in both our constituencies; make sure that houses are built only when there has been meaningful consultation with communities, when communities are being listened to, and when infrastructure is in place; and please, scrap the ridiculous “grey belt” definition?
The Prime Minister
My new constituency—in fact, it includes a good chunk of my old Leigh constituency, so I know it well—has been hugely developed over the years, and we have brought through significant new housing. Anyone who visited during the by-election will know that the infrastructure is struggling to cope with the number of houses that have been built in the constituency. All I am saying to the right hon. Lady is that I support taking a balanced approach where there has been significant development, but I do not think that it is sustainable to turn our back on all development completely. It is about a balance, and I will work in this role to find that balance with the right hon. Lady.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
I hugely welcome the Prime Minister’s £422 million investment to end rough sleeping, but in Ealing Southall many of those on the streets have no recourse to public funds, so it is illegal for the council to spend money helping them. Many would go home, but they face delays getting travel documents and from closed police cases being left open. Will the Prime Minister ensure that the relevant Home Office and Housing Ministers meet me to ensure that Ealing Southall is not left behind when it comes to his groundbreaking pledge to end street homelessness?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and we will absolutely work in the way that she has described. The commitment is real, and it is not a temporary commitment. The money that she mentions is, as far as I am concerned, ongoing. “Everyone in” should be and will be the permanent policy of the Government that I lead. I do not believe that we should accept that anybody sleeps rough on a British street at any time, but I also know that if we are to help people on a journey away from the streets, it requires a whole-person approach, with all Departments working together. It can be done and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend on it.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
Earlier today, Members from across this House and the other place, along with stakeholders from throughout the United Kingdom, met to discuss the scourge of microplastic pollution. I chair the all-party parliamentary group on microplastics, and today we launched our report, the second in 10 years. I have an easy ask for the Prime Minister: will he organise a meeting for me, the stakeholders and Members from across the House to meet the relevant Minister to discuss the report’s recommendations?
The Prime Minister
I have given quite a few commitments to meetings today, so I will say to the hon. Gentleman, recognising the seriousness of the issue, that I will ensure that the relevant Minister meets him at his or her earliest convenience, given the seriousness of the issue and the report that he has done.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
Over the bank holiday weekend, a treasured green space in Sawbridgeworth was decimated by building work without planning permission. Thanks to our community’s exceptional response, East Herts council was able to move quickly and secure an injunction, but across the country that is sadly the exception and not the rule. While this kind of unpermitted development is not a specific offence, residents in my community certainly felt that what started on Saturday was criminal. The Prime Minister has made it clear that he wants to tackle the thorny issues that make a real impact on people’s lives in communities like mine, so will he agree to meet me to discuss why we need to change the law to ensure that the police and local authorities have the right powers to stop this kind of unpermitted development in its tracks?
The Prime Minister
It is a real commitment of mine to ensure that the right powers are held at local level to take action on issues that matter to communities. We have had similar issues with illegal waste tipping in constituencies that leave people feeling that there is no accountability—almost a sense of lawlessness—and we cannot allow that to continue. I absolutely will look out for my hon. Friend to discuss this further. We can do more to empower local authorities, and he will have heard something I said in my statement: it was a real commitment to taking resources from a national level and bringing them back down, particularly to support local councils, which have in recent times, I am afraid, seen themselves hollowed out and they do not have the enforcement capability that they once had. We need to find ways of putting it back so that the people who do these things in communities can be held accountable and councils can enforce their own laws.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Our schools and colleges cannot be fuelled by hope alone. At the start of the summer, the Prime Minister outlined an overhaul of 14-to-16 education. This comes on the back of far-reaching reforms to special educational needs provision and a new—and as yet un-resourced—requirement to expand enrichment activities in our schools. Could the Prime Minister tell schools, and indeed parents, across the country how he is going to find the people and the cash to deliver all this? Our schools are at breaking point and teachers are leaving in their droves already.
The Prime Minister
I do recognise the need to fund education in exactly the way the hon. Lady describes. This goes back to the point I made about investing in success rather than paying for failure. We need to be serious about giving all young people a path to success, and therefore reducing the number of young people dependent on benefits in their 20s. This is a shift that we need to make. The Milburn report will hopefully lay out a way to do that, and I look forward to working with the hon. Lady on this important issue.
Al Carns (Birmingham Selly Oak) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister to his place. In this short time in government, we have done a fantastic job of changing the lives of young people—I always say that the next generation is our greatest legacy. The number of people not in education, employment or training is now below 1 million for the first time. Will the Prime Minister lay out what the strategy will be for people not in education, employment or training, and make it a national mission to give them the opportunity that they deserve?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that this should be a national mission. I talked earlier about a guarantee of a quality work placement between 16 and 18. We could look at doing more to support young people with transport costs, as we did in Greater Manchester. We need more youth apprenticeships—those went into decline, and we need to turn that around—and we need to see many more degree apprenticeships.
The point I am making is that we need to lay out a technical path from 14 for all our young people, so that we do not have a situation where it seems to them that the university route is the be-all and end-all—important as that is for those who want to go on it. Too many young people hit their middle teenage years, in year 10 and year 11, and cannot see where the path is going, and then they start to drop out. That is what I am determined to fix. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend on that.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
It is hard to disagree with a lot of what the Prime Minister has set out, but I am going to make sure my conscience is clear. I worry. I worry about our economy. Whenever I hear the Chancellor refer to a continuity Starmer Administration, that is a red flag for me. My Lagan Valley constituents cannot pay their bills. They are struggling with life in a way that they have not known before. I believe that this Prime Minister is serious about wanting to reach those people. Believe you me, when we met in Northern Ireland last week, rest assured that I can guarantee this House is not interested in hearing about the stuff from our past. My constituents want to get on with life in the here and now—right here, right now. The VAT cut for electricity is soon to be engulfed by rising prices. Did the Prime Minister not have it right the first time, when he said that our people need a new economic model?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. We had a good meeting last week. I do not disagree with what she says, and nor do I disagree with the power with which she says it, because many people watching this will be saying, “It’s too hard now; we need help.” The VAT cut on electricity did lead to a funding offer to the Northern Ireland Government, but I would be the first to say that that is only a start; it is a small step, for the reasons that she gives. We can do more to bring down the cost of transport, and we are going to set out more plans in the Budget to help with the cost of living. She should keep that level of determination to support her constituents. We will make this country feel better, more contented and more united if we are dealing with these issues in a meaningful way for them. I want that to be the hallmark of this Government.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the Prime Minister to his place and thank him for his recent visit to the north-east, where he committed to trying to tackle the totemic infrastructure issue of the north-east, which is the dualling of the A1. I thank him for committing to find alternative ways to fund that. This afternoon, I and 12 other MPs, the mayor and—in the spirit of cross-party working—the local Conservative leader wrote to him to ask what more we can do to work with him and his Government to secure this generational change for infrastructure in the north-east.
The Prime Minister
I will ask the Transport Secretary to work with colleagues at No. 10 North to see what can be done to bring forward a new way of delivering this much-needed infrastructure. I know how critical it is. I do not think any region of the country—certainly not the south-west and the north-east—has a level of infrastructure that is acceptable. This is something that has been long promised and not delivered. Let us see whether No. 10 North can make the breakthrough.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for articulating a desire to reach across the political divide on issues that are common among all our constituents. across all our constituencies, more and more people are struggling to have a family—to have children. This is a greater and greater issue all across the country. In Staffordshire, for example, if a family need NHS IVF treatment, they are not even entitled to one round of treatment, despite the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence saying that they should be entitled to three.
The Prime Minister has a Health Bill coming to this House next week. I have tabled an amendment that would ensure that across England all our constituents can have the basic minimum recommended by NICE, so that they can have a family. Will the Prime Minister encourage his Health Secretary to look at the amendment and see whether there is a way to work across parties and have an impact on something that is so important to so many people?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman will be speaking for many people in his area, and I can see the passion with which he does so. I am not aware of the detail of the amendment at this point in time, but I will certainly ask the Health Secretary to take a close look. I do not like the idea of a postcode lottery in the national health service. There should be an expectation that services available anywhere should be available everywhere, particularly when it comes to an issue as important as this. I give him a commitment to look at the issue, but I will have to come back to him to let him know what we are able to do.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Prime Minister to his place. In July he pledged to end rough sleeping, and that is warmly welcomed by me and my constituents in Cities of London and Westminster, which faces the highest levels of rough sleeping in the country. We have already heard people raise this issue in the Chamber today. When I speak to people who have been sleeping rough, they talk to me about feeling passed from pillar to post; when they have been offered somewhere to stay in a hostel, they simply do not feel safe and secure in it. The Prime Minister has made important statements in the Chamber today. Will he work with me on the way in which local authorities are applying the issue of local connection and on the condition of hostels in this country, which is simply not good enough? We need a real focus on that if we are to meet this ambitious pledge.
The Prime Minister
I will certainly work with my hon. Friend on this issue. I credit The Passage—I believe it is in her constituency—which is a wonderful charity that supports homeless people, and which I was proud to support on the morning I went into Downing Street. It focused me on what I needed to be focused on before I did that.
I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. If people are passed from pillar to post, they will not settle enough to be able to begin their journey of recovery —that was all my experience on this issue in Greater Manchester. We had it right in the pandemic, when people were given a settled place to stay. When people are in the same place every night, that is when they begin to recover. I do not believe that it is beyond us to provide now what we provided then. That is why my commitment to Everyone In is a permanent commitment. That should allow organisations such as The Passage, and others doing brilliant work in this area, to start planning for the long term, and to turn around what is, sadly, a tide of misery for so many people. We are wasting money on failure when we could be investing in recovery. That is what we should do.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I welcome the Prime Minister to his place and thank him for his show of cross-party support for my campaign to scrap the time restriction on disability bus passes. I genuinely and sincerely appreciated the fact that he came to the parliamentary event and drop-in that we held last year with Whizz Kidz, the Royal National Institute of Blind People, Bus Users UK, Transport for All, and many other charitable organisations, as well as the likes of Jackie Snape from Disability Action Yorkshire. The Prime Minister showed what cross-party working can do when he delivered that change for Greater Manchester, and is now rolling it out across England. I am grateful to him that, come next year, disability bus passes will not start at 9.30 am, because disabilities do not either.
The Prime Minister mentioned in answer to another question that he does not like postcode lotteries. With that in mind, one issue that will still exist relates to companion bus passes, which are granted to disabled people who need someone to accompany them. This is an issue where we will still see a postcode lottery. The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) has been campaigning on this vigorously. Will the Prime Minister look at this issue, and deliver the same cross-party success to scrap those injustices too?
The Prime Minister
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman; he was kind enough to invite me to a meeting of the all-party group when he was campaigning on that issue, and we did work on it cross-party. I was pleased to be able to make that change as Prime Minister. It is something that will benefit a huge number of disabled people, but he is right that the job is not done because many disabled people will say that they cannot go out and live their life without a companion, and sometimes they cannot afford to pay for that. There is further work to be done, but let’s celebrate—I was going to say, “let’s celebrate the small wins,” but I do not think it is a small win because it means everything to somebody who now can, or will soon be able to, get out whenever they need with that change. I pay credit to the hon. Gentleman; he ran a great campaign. It was something I did in Greater Manchester—I was proud to support him. And that is the thing I am saying today: let’s do more of that.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister to his place. According to the Office for National Statistics, manufacturing directly contributes 15% to the economy of Staffordshire—double the national average—so I really welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to reindustrialisation, which is vital for towns like Stafford. Will he meet me and other interested MPs, particularly those who are members of the Reindustrialisation Research Group, so we can speak about this issue, specifically as it relates to towns? We know that towns have more manufacturing employment than cities, so to have growth in every postcode, with manufacturing booming again in towns, is going to make such a difference.
The Prime Minister
I could not agree more. The agenda of reindustrialisation goes hand in hand with lifting high streets, and I know that my hon. Friend has campaigned on both those things. I am serious in saying that we need quite a change in British public procurement to support our industries. As she will see as we go towards the Budget, we will talk more about what can be done to support high streets. Too many tell a story of decline. If we can turn them round, it could completely change the way people feel about the areas where they live. It could build that sense of optimism that can then make many more things possible. That is what I intend to do for her constituency and many others, working with her.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Your Party)
I congratulate the right hon. Member on becoming Prime Minister and on his stamina at taking questions for already even longer than the longest world cup match. He has said some helpful and useful things about housing, particularly on rough sleeping. Could I ask him to look seriously at the issue facing renters living in the private rented sector, where the local housing allowance, in most cases, comes nowhere near the level of rent being charged? In reality, less than 2% of private sector rents are within the local housing allowance. Raising the local housing allowance often means chasing the market all the time, and it therefore costs more and more. He must know the numbers of people living in the private rented sector. Surely the obvious answer is to bring in some kind of ceiling—a rent control of some sort—to the sector, and immediately look at not postponing the rise in the local housing allowance, but to bring real relief to people who are desperately up against it and subsidising their rent out of their benefits. The current situation is not fair, it is not right, and I am sure that he would agree with me.
The Prime Minister
While I may have already outlasted the longest world cup match, I am sure that my right hon. Friend and I did a longer Q&A at a hustings in 2015—so this is just a small one.
I agree with what my right hon. Friend says about the change we need to see to the housing market. He mentions local housing allowance. It has been repeatedly frozen in recent years, and that has meant that the gap between benefits and rents has grown bigger and bigger. It is the biggest reason that London councils have a huge temporary accommodation bill, which I think has gone over half a billions pounds now. The freeze does not save money, because it just creates an unfunded pressure in council budgets. He may have seen that in our first allocations from the social and affordable homes programme, which I mentioned in my statement, London is the biggest beneficiary by some distance, particularly through the building of council homes in London. We have made a significant down payment there. I hear what he says about local housing allowance. We need a package of measures to turn the housing market around. Hopefully, some of what I have said today answers his concerns.
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his words on cross-party working, which I know my constituents believe in very strongly. On that basis, I would like to endorse comments made by Opposition colleagues around farming, drought and bluetongue, all of which are very important to my constituents. To move on to the matter most immediately at hand for my constituents, Jodrell Bank in my constituency faces a significant problem in the medium term because of funding cuts. Would it be possible for the Prime Minister and No. 10 North to work with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) to address this issue?
The Prime Minister
Every one of my generation went on a school trip to Jodrell Bank, and there is no way that we can see its demise—it will not happen under my Government. I know that changes have been made in relation to research funding, but Jodrell Bank is a heritage asset for the country as well as a research asset. I will indeed set up the meeting that my hon. Friend requires. There must be a way to save Jodrell Bank, and I give her a commitment today at this Dispatch Box: we will find it.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
We have had the hottest summer on record, and we have had an exceptionally high number of tragic deaths in the rivers and seas around the country. At the same time, so many children are no longer able to learn to swim; over 200 public and school swimming pools have closed since 2020. Will the Prime Minister look at how we can better fund leisure centres and swimming pools to make sure that every child knows how to save themselves and to float—with the advice from the Royal Life Saving Society? Will he ensure that we do not have such a terrible summer again?
The Prime Minister
There have been too many tragic deaths this summer, and the best way to prevent that is to do exactly what the hon. Member said. Swimming should be an entitlement for young people on the curriculum, and I look forward to seeing how we can deliver that, working with her.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
My constituency includes the towns of Dumbarton and Clydebank, and both share proud histories as industrial powerhouses, not least in shipbuilding. If we are to reindustrialise every part of our UK—every postcode—that must include West Dunbartonshire. We have two sites on the Clyde ready for investment: Carless in Old Kilpatrick, and the former Exxon site in Bowling. Will the Prime Minister help me to restore industry to these sites, and will he visit my West Dunbartonshire constituency?
The Prime Minister
I will at some point—as soon as I can. In relation to shipbuilding, I worked with the Mayor of Liverpool, who was setting a contract for a new Mersey ferry and found that there was pressure to have it built overseas. Using social value commissioning, he and I worked together to ensure that the ferry was built at Cammell Laird in Birkenhead, and it will soon come into service in Liverpool. We need to see more of that. Too many buses are being bought from companies outside our shores, when we have Wrightbus in Northern Ireland and Alexander Dennis Ltd in Scotland and Scarborough. We should be doing more to back British business, and my hon. Friend can expect that fully from me, as well as commitments to the shipbuilding industry.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Can I say that I am flattered to be associated with the Prime Minister? It must be mistaken identity—I am not sure if he would be as flattered. I welcome him to the Dispatch Box and back to the House, and I welcome his commitment to Ukraine. I would like some clarity on the defence budget. It seems over the recess—of course, there has been no scrutiny of the Prime Minister and the Government over the recess—that there has been a talking up of the Government’s commitment to spending 3.5% of GDP on defence by 2035. There has not been as much talk about meeting the 3% target by 2030. Would the Prime Minister like to inform the House and the country, given that his Chancellor, in his previous role as Defence Secretary, said that this country should prepare to be on a war footing?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman raises a crucial issue that matters greatly to me and to the Chancellor. We will meet all our international commitments, and we will set out how at the spending review.
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
The Prime Minister is right to pursue further devolution within the United Kingdom, but in my work on the Public Accounts Committee, I am regularly struck by how little the different parts of the United Kingdom appear to learn from one another, even when tackling very similar challenges. Devolution allows different places to take different approaches, creating real opportunities to learn from what works and what does not. As we devolve more power within the United Kingdom, does the Prime Minister agree that we must also get much better at grasping these opportunities, so that every part of the UK can learn from and benefit from the experience of others? Is he thinking about how we could bake this into further devolution in a way that it is not currently?
The Prime Minister
That is an excellent suggestion. It is exactly the thing No. 10 North was set up to do, and I will pass my hon. Friend’s suggestion on to them.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister speak multiple times about his trip to Cornwall, and I hope he enjoyed Exeter services on his way through Devon. It is disappointing that he did not spend more time in rural Devon in particular, because the biggest issue I dealt with over the summer was the Government’s local government reorganisation announcement, which will see a huge rural Devon constituency of 2,200 square miles with just 103 councillors, compared with 220 councillors for three urban centres of about 600 square miles between them. I accept the Prime Minister’s ambition for growth in every postcode, but he mentioned earlier the lack of infrastructure in the south-west. How can that version of local government reorganisation produce growth in every postcode? I urge him to revisit that decision with the Minister responsible, because, quite frankly, constituents across rural Devon are devastated by what it might mean for them.
The Prime Minister
I did intend to visit Devon at the same time, but I was diverted to Stourbridge—I hope the hon. Lady will understand why—because of the devastating fire in people’s homes that we saw in the middle of the summer. As I said before, I am prepared to look at local government reorganisation or ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to do that. Where possible, we need as much consent as we can get. If the hon. Lady is telling me that we need to work harder to find that, I am always prepared to do what I can.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and welcome him to his place. The Prime Minister knows the Hoolickin family from Middleton, who tragically lost their beloved Michael as a result of the callous actions of a violent reoffender who should have been recalled to custody far sooner, if only the local probation service had been more rigorous in its monitoring. Will the Prime Minister commit to looking seriously at the Probation Service’s accountability and how it operates, so that serious further offenders are given no opportunity to cause further harm to constituents like mine?
The Prime Minister
I do know Garry and Lesley Hoolickin well; I have met them many, many times. The murder of their son was something that sadly could have been prevented. It was, in some ways, caused by chaos in the probation system, as my hon. Friend knows. When I was leaving this House in the middle part of the last decade, probation services were plummeting into chaos, and only in recent times have we started to lift them back up again. Personally, I think there does need to be accountability for what happened to probation services in that period. It was a disastrous reorganisation that had real human consequences, and I have always supported the call for work to give answers to the families who lost loved ones—truth and justice.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
We know that Labour’s NHS policy on mandatory advice and guidance and single point of access has led to deaths. We on the Opposition Benches warned about it, doctors warned about it, and patients warned about it, and we were told repeatedly that it was total nonsense, misinformation, opportunism and even conspiracy theories. Now the Health Services Safety Investigations Body, the Government’s safety watchdog, has produced a report linking this system to deaths and asked for a rapid review. The right hon. Gentleman has been a Health Secretary before. Will he commit to that review, to ensure there are no further delays in diagnosis and no further deaths as a result of this policy?
The Prime Minister
I have not yet had a chance to read that review. I will, and I will then seek to speak to the hon. Gentleman, to see what we can do.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
In my constituency, more than one in five people are employed in logistics and related industries, and they will welcome this Government’s focus on growth in every region. Given the impact that business costs have on consumer prices, what steps will my right hon. Friend take to improve the operating environment for logistics businesses and help ease the cost of living pressures for families? Will he commit to meeting with small family-owned logistics companies in my constituency?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Again, I cannot give a time commitment, but I will at some point do exactly as she asks and have that meeting. I recognise that the cost of doing business is too high. We need to show serious intent to bring it down, and that is what we will do.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Given that Chequers is in my constituency, may I welcome the so-called king of the north to his new Buckinghamshire residence? Next time he is at Chequers, before he heads off to enjoy the wonderful pubs in Wendover, as I know he has, could I persuade him to take a drive to the Buckinghamshire villages on the Oxfordshire border—villages like Ludgershall, Marsh Gibbon, Oakley, Long Crendon, Boarstall and Brill—and see for himself just how inappropriate it is to put an asylum centre just over that border at MOD Bicester? He can then make an intervention with the Home Secretary to ensure that a more suitable site is found for such a centre. While he is talking to the Home Secretary, could he ask her to respond to my letter containing a series of very detailed questions about this site that my constituents have been asking, which I sent to her over six weeks ago?
The Prime Minister
I will certainly look carefully at what the hon. Gentleman says. He will have heard me say in my statement that small boat crossings are down, and the number of people coming over is down, but we still have a challenge in relation to accommodation. I will look at the issue. I think Piddington is nearby, and I know there are concerns in that community as well. The only thing I would say is that it cannot be only the most deprived parts of this country that are asked to deal with the whole issue of asylum accommodation. A balance has to be struck, but it has to be fair for everybody. I of course recognise that large-scale institutions can put pressure on nearby villages. Let me look at the issues that he raises; I can see that they are genuine, but this is an issue that has to be dealt with as a whole country, and that is what I will do.
Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)
September is Childhood Cancer Awareness Month. I raised with the last Prime Minister the case of Max Hall. During our summer recess, Max passed away. He will forever be 14. Will the Prime Minister commit in his direction of Government to prioritise brain cancer—the biggest cancer killer of those under 40—and get his Ministers to meet with Max’s family and the organisations that support families, such as Brain Tumour Research and Brain Cancer Justice?
The Prime Minister
I will absolutely give my hon. Friend the commitment that I will ask the relevant Minister to meet them, and would he do me the favour of passing on my sympathies to Max’s family? That is devastating news. There is so much more we need to do on brain cancer. You can be sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I will always do that in the name of my good friend Tessa Jowell, whose family still work on these issues. There is so much more that we can do. I know that these issues have been in the media recently. There is encouraging research being done. We need to see a breakthrough. I will keep a close eye on that meeting, and I am happy to work with him further on this issue.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Today the Prime Minister has spoken with great passion about empowering local people and allowing them to make decisions that affect their own lives. On that theme, could I ask the Prime Minister what action he will take to restore the sovereignty of the United Kingdom and its people to Northern Ireland when it comes to making the laws? Currently, laws in 300 areas are made by a foreign Parliament, not by this United Kingdom. These are laws we do not make and cannot change. Indeed, the Prime Minister inadvertently put a focus on this issue when he referred to the cut in VAT on electricity bills—a cut that could not apply to Northern Ireland because we are subject to foreign EU law that no one has voted for. In his crusade to empower local people, will the Prime Minister set about the fundamental task of restoring UK sovereignty—people’s sovereignty—to my constituency? Speaking of my constituency, he mentioned Wrightbus. May I invite him to visit it at the earliest opportunity?
The Prime Minister
I always love visiting Northern Ireland, so who knows? On the hon. and learned Gentleman’s main point, I will probably disappoint him. Obviously, the arrangements put in place are about supporting the economy of Northern Ireland, because Northern Ireland can get the benefits of access to both markets. It is important that he sees the benefits of the arrangement that the Windsor framework brought as well.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has rightly described council tax as “highly regressive”, saying that it is unfair that people in Greater Manchester often pay far more than people living in London. Does he agree that that same injustice is even more stark in towns like Hartlepool, where a band D household pays £2,556 a year compared with £1,048 in Westminster? He has rightly attacked that unfairness, so will he now commit to attacking the problem and replacing the hated council tax system that hammers towns like mine?
The Prime Minister
I do not think I can go all that way from the Dispatch Box today, but I understand the point my hon. Friend makes. A council tax system based on 1991 valuations is not going to deliver fairness across the country. The first steps at reform were taken in last year’s Budget. We need to proceed with consensus on this issue, if we can. I understand what he is saying, but the more wholesale reform might have to wait for another day.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
At the weekend, the Prime Minister stepped in to ensure that his No. 10 North railway service continued, so in that spirit of problem solving, will he use his office to ensure that rapid action is taken to restore a reliable service from King’s Lynn to King’s Cross for my North West Norfolk constituents, who had 380 trains cancelled in July and 280 in August?
The Prime Minister
I have said to the Transport Secretary, and she agrees, that the performance of the railways over the summer we have just had has been nowhere near good enough. On a very hot day, passengers on a train from Edinburgh to London had no working toilets on the entire train, and coming back from Cornwall and Devon, the train that I was on was abandoned at Taunton—I think we have all had those kinds of experiences. The railways need to improve and public ownership of them needs to drive that improvement. I will be convening a rail summit soon to discuss the summer just gone—I would be happy for the hon. Gentleman to write to me with details of the service he mentioned—because we need to see significant improvement on our railways.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to grasp the nettle of social care reform. At Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS foundation trust, which is a well-performing trust, about 20% of beds are filled with people who should be getting better at home, but with a 10% vacancy rate in social care, we cannot fix the problem without having high-quality jobs and progression in social care. Will the Prime Minister direct Louise Casey to look at that area of social care so that we can build a national care service that people want to work in?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is exactly right. The first stage of any social care reform should be workforce reform to create the foundation on which to build a new approach and a more preventive, higher quality service that actually keeps people out of hospital. I think it starts with people’s pay, terms and conditions, their prospects for progression and their ability to move towards the NHS. I have always favoured seeing this as a single approach across all care. I am happy to work with him on that, because from my point of view, he has articulated perfectly the first stage of social care reform.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
The Prime Minister has spent all summer trying to be all things to all people. My constituents in Broxbourne want the Government to cut wasteful spending, lower taxes and get a grip on our immigration system, which all require tough decisions to be made by the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister choose his left-wing Back Benchers or will he choose the British people?
The Prime Minister
There was nothing easy about reopening early release. I was listening to the British people when I made changes to exclude rapists, groomers and those guilty of the most serious sexual offences against children from the scheme, and then went even further to exclude manslaughter and other historic child sex offences. Regardless of what the hon. Gentleman might read on social media, I do take difficult decisions. I have done that for 25 years as an elected politician and it is what I will carry on doing. The proposals that the Justice Secretary will outline soon show that that is exactly the nettle that I have grasped.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister to his place. He is right to say that we need more power and more ownership back in the hands of our communities. My constituency of Aylesbury is in a relatively wealthy part of the country, but if he were to talk to people at the Vineyard food bank or the Youth Concern drop-in he would not know it, because that overall wealth masks significant inequalities within Buckinghamshire. In fact, people in parts of Aylesbury live on average 11 years less than people in the wealthier parts in the south of the county. What does more control and more ownership look like for my residents, particularly those at the sharp end of the inequalities that I have described?
The Prime Minister
It is so important that rural communities do not feel shut out from the drive towards devolution. That is why I have made that clear commitment today. I believe that rural communities can benefit from public control of bus services, possibly more than urban areas, because bus services in rural areas are so fragile, expensive and often intermittent. It is only moving to a regulated service that can put in place a decent, reliable bus service for people. That is something that we should support for rural areas, working through No. 10 North, and we should put it into effect for our rural communities as much as for our urban areas.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Gorthugher da ha meur ras, Madam Deputy Speaker. On behalf of my Cornish parliamentary colleagues, I welcome the Prime Minister’s recognition of Cornwall’s special case, his visit to Cornwall and his kindness in communicating with me in advance of that meeting. Notwithstanding his experience in his previous job, does he recognise that the metropolitan template is not appropriate in all circumstances when dealing with devolution? There are Celtic regions and nations, such as Cornwall, that require a bespoke settlement. I know that we will be discussing the matter at No. 10 North and I welcome that opportunity. I hope that the Prime Minister will engage in it with a very open mind.
The Prime Minister
It is a very real offer and I am glad that it finds favour with my hon. Friend—I call him that because we have worked together over a number of years. I heard some groans from the Opposition Benches when I mentioned the overnight visitor levy, but bear in mind that many of us will have been on summer holidays where we have spent a few extra euros to recognise the benefit we get from using services in a local area. If such a power was extended as part of a devolution deal, it could be quite transformational for Cornwall because it could open up a new revenue stream to address infrastructure. That would be a choice for Cornwall, but I want to consider a devolution deal that gives real levers that can help Cornwall and other rural areas to start to improve their services. It might provide the revenue to sustain bus services, for instance. It is about fairness. We heard about the unfairness of council tax. It cannot be right to make residents pay for all the services when visitors should make a fair contribution as well. As British tourists, we pay it elsewhere, so I do not see why visitors to Cornwall should not pay a little extra. That is the type of discussion we need to have—it is not a fluffy discussion but a real discussion—about what can be done to move Cornwall forward. I am ready to do that and maybe make it a template for other rural areas across England.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
May I figuratively raise a glass to the Prime Minister’s much-needed 20% cut to business rates for pubs, clubs and live music venues? That really is a win for our high streets, but other hospitality businesses—the hundreds of hotels, cafés, restaurants, fish and chip shops and takeaways right across my constituency—need support with the cost of business rates. These are family-owned businesses, and they are the backbone of our high streets. Ahead of the Budget, will the Prime Minister look closely at widening the support so that other hospitality businesses can benefit?
The Prime Minister
I assure my hon. Friend that I am giving close consideration to that very suggestion.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, many happy returns.
I welcome the Prime Minister to his place, and I welcome his words. In an answer to someone else, he said that he will always demand the highest level of recognition for those who put themselves at risk to keep us safe. I am sure that after six weeks of being Prime Minister he includes in that our amazing armed forces, yet our Northern Ireland veterans face a never-ending process of prosecution, absent any new or compelling evidence. Does he think that our Northern Ireland veterans need more protection? If he does, what will he do about it?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Before the Prime Minister responds, let me say that questions need to be super short. Let us keep the responses tight as well, Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister
I mentioned the Good Friday agreement earlier. It is important to deal properly and fully with all the issues that are still there and need to be addressed. I do not think it is a case of leaving anything hanging over anybody. The commission proposed in the Bill allows answers to be given for those who are still seeking answers. This is about the right protections for veterans, too. Amendments will be brought forward soon, and we can discuss them as a House then.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
I am extremely proud to have seen the huge expansion of clean energy over the last two years—a key way in which we are tackling the horrendous climate change that we have seen this summer. In fact, my constituency is the biggest clean energy generator in the whole country, with Heysham 1 and 2 nuclear power stations. Will the Prime Minister confirm that the clean energy revolution will continue under his Government and will continue to be a top priority?
The Prime Minister
I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that commitment.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Your Party)
The Prime Minister has reeled off a list of policies since coming into office. Interestingly, he has failed to mention one major intervention: his Government have continued his predecessor’s policy of arming Israel—an apartheid state that has committed and continues to commit genocide in Gaza. Instead of deflection and the boring nice-guy act, will he finally admit to the House that he has chosen to continue arming Israel and is therefore complicit in the genocide of the Palestinian people?
The Prime Minister
I do not think the hon. Lady was in the House at the time, but I did signal a change on Israel and Palestine when I came into office as Prime Minister. A further statement will be made to the House very shortly.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Happy birthday, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The Prime Minister will know that the commitment he has made on social and council housing will be very welcome in places such as Bracknell, where lots of families are waiting for a home. However, that is undermined when social housing providers sell off their social homes through the disposals process. I know that we are taking steps to address that issue through the Social Housing Bill, but I am concerned that we are not going far enough. It is good to see the Housing Minister in his place. Will the Prime Minister work with him to address this issue and ensure that we can stop disposals?
The Prime Minister
The Housing Minister has just assured me that we will look at the very issue my hon. Friend raises, so he may want to pursue that conversation with him.
Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)
The Prime Minister spoke earlier about deindustrialisation. That is exactly what is happening in my constituency, but that deindustrialisation is being caused directly by Labour’s energy policies. The energy profits levy, the ban on new licences and the delay in approving Jackdaw and Rosebank are all having a huge impact on thousands of jobs. Will the Prime Minister take a different approach from his predecessor and protect jobs in the oil and gas sector?
The Prime Minister
I have been very clear that I will take a pragmatic approach, and the hon. Gentleman will see that in action soon.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. He mentioned the triple-helix model, but what is missing from that model in Scotland is that local authorities are not empowered to play their part. On Friday, Liz McAreavey from the Edinburgh chamber of commerce and the chief executive of the Glasgow chamber of commerce wrote to the Prime Minister asking that he works with the First Minister in Scotland and city region leaders right across the Edinburgh-Glasgow region to forge a devolution deal that enables these cities to meet their full potential. Will he take that offer seriously?
The Prime Minister
It is certainly on offer from me to have a devolution deal that does precisely what my hon. Friend says and gets business, academia and local government all pulling together. Obviously it is a matter for the Scottish Government—I am not going to go round their back—but I hope that we can agree something at the National Economic Council next month.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
As the Prime Minister looks ahead to what is predicted to be one of the wettest winters on record, my constituents are expecting more of the same: Southern Water pumping sewage into our precious chalk stream, the River Lavant, which feeds directly into Chichester harbour. What does he believe is an acceptable timescale to get to grips with the water industry and regulate it properly, rather than a review that has delayed everything and is limited in scope?
The Prime Minister
I understand the last point, and I have hinted at it today. The Cunliffe review was too limited and should have looked at all options for the water industry. I do not want this issue to drag on, but I do not believe we have a water industry that is fit for the climate challenges of the future, for the reasons that the hon. Lady has given. We will come forward with our proposals soon; it will not be too long.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s plans for the biggest redistribution of power that this country has ever seen. Does he agree that in addition to redistributing power via geography, we need to rebalance power between the generations? Will he have a look at my ideas of a youth triple lock and a dedicated Minister for younger and future generations?
The Prime Minister
I think this House will need to have a very profound debate when the Milburn report is published. We need to make a generational change in the way that we support our young people, and I will engage my hon. Friend fully in that discussion.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Towns and villages across my constituency are often besieged by utility and engineering works. Will the Prime Minister look at and personally respond to my campaign for a statutory duty to co-ordinate those works to keep Runnymede and Weybridge moving?
The Prime Minister
Yes—this issue used to drive me mad as Mayor of Greater Manchester. Only the capital has had some of those powers, but everywhere should have them. I am in full support of what the hon. Gentleman says.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
It was a pleasure to welcome the Prime Minister to Portsmouth this summer when he visited His Majesty’s naval base. It was especially good to welcome a fellow north MP to Portsmouth North! He saw at first hand the dedication of our armed forces, so does he agree that supporting personnel and their families remains a priority? Like the police, they should offer proper paternity leave for every serving father and ensure that our self-employed fathers are no longer left behind.
The Prime Minister
I fully agree with my hon. Friend. We need to provide the very best support we can to those who serve in our armed forces. I know that the Chancellor, in his previous role, did a lot to improve forces accommodation. There is more that we can do, and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend on that. I enjoyed my visit.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
My mum and I survived domestic abuse when I was a child, but today many victims are petrified about their own survival in the light of the early release scheme. I know the Prime Minister has already excluded perpetrators of some offences from that scheme and pulled out the stops there, but what stops will he pull out to further protect victims of domestic abuse?
The Prime Minister
I do not want to steal the thunder of the Justice Secretary, but he will soon announce a much-enhanced licensing and tagging regime in which victims will be able to be given a say in the setting of the restrictions. We are moving for the first time to a system of restriction zones, rather than exclusion zones. That means that the victim is much more in control and we are not allowing people just to have places that they cannot go into; we are instead giving them a zone that is the only area they can go into. That completely alters the balance in favour of victims.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
As the MP for Aldershot, I was really pleased to hear that the Prime Minister has held bilateral talks with Prime Ministers Carney and Frieden, who are leading the founding of the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank. For the past 18 months, I have pushed for the UK to join this multilateral bank, because I believe that we must work internationally to fund defence. Will the Prime Minister commit the UK to standing with our allies and joining this world bank for defence? It could unlock millions in investment for our British defence industry.
The Prime Minister
We will certainly look at that scheme, and indeed we are doing so. I have been in touch with the Canadian Prime Minister. There are other schemes in Europe. We need to be pragmatic about our defence commitments and look at all ways of collaborating so that we can save money, as my hon. Friend suggests.
Lara Bird (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
Scotland is not a region, and nor should it be treated as one. Those in Scotland are hurt and frustrated at the way the Prime Minister has conducted the conversation around devolution and so arrogantly dismissed the pro-independence mandate that the Scottish people gave. Why does the Prime Minister think he can dismiss the democratically elected mandate of the Scottish people?
The Prime Minister
I certainly have not in any way disrespected Scotland. I came to Scotland to support the opening of the Commonwealth games in my first week in office. I met the First Minister. He shared some of his concerns about the Council of the Nations and Regions. He felt it did not give due consideration to the nations, and I listened to that, as well as putting the proposals on the table about more local devolution. I have not done anything of the kind the hon. Lady describes. Similar to Northern Ireland, it is about when public support changes and the position changes. I do not follow all the polls in Scotland, but I am not aware that they are consistently showing a change and a need for another referendum.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
Across the east midlands, persistently low apprenticeship start rates mean that loads of our young children do not get the opportunities they deserve. As the Prime Minister witnessed in Derby, there are some excellent examples of young people with good apprenticeships. Will he work across industry to make sure that we increase the rate of apprenticeship starts, so that more young people can get a start in life?
The Prime Minister
It was brilliant to be at Alstom with my hon. Friend and to see all the apprentices that it employs, as well as those employed in its supply chain. It is a model for what we want to see elsewhere. We need to make a massive change in this area. It should be a big part of our response to the Milburn report, and I can give my hon. Friend a commitment that that is exactly what I will be seeking to do.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
The Prime Minister’s warm words about rural and coastal communities will be seen, I am afraid, like the chocolate Freddo bar that he said he could not affect the price of: sweet, but ultimately insubstantial. Similarly, his triple-helix theory of growth is like the purple sweet in Quality Street: largely nuts. We need much more detail, Prime Minister. Rural communities are crying out for help. We need action. We cannot have the Stone Roses’ “Fool’s Gold”.
The Prime Minister
The hon. Member has worked hard at that question. Full marks for creativity. It must have looked great in front of the mirror, and it was still pretty good in the House. On the triple-helix model, perhaps he needs to speak to Baroness May down the corridor, because that was her theory in the local industrial strategies that I mentioned, and it has worked pretty well in Greater Manchester. I would not dismiss it quite so quickly. Greater Manchester had average growth for a decade of more than 3%; maybe there is something worth looking at there.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and also for the fact that his first visit after being elected as leader of the Labour party back in July was to the north—north Kent, in this instance. Does he agree that his visit showed him that we need to continue to invest in our infrastructure? In our case, that is the lower Thames crossing, but we also must fix our crumbling roads, such as Galley Hill Road in my constituency. We need to double down on infrastructure to have growth in every postcode, do we not?
The Prime Minister
I completely agree. It was striking that people were pointing out the loss of the ferry service between his constituency and Tilbury. [Interruption.] Sorry, between Gravesend and Tilbury—have I got that right? That type of connectivity is crucial to local communities, and I completely agree with my hon. Friend. No. 10 North is there to get that infrastructure back in, and I hope he will work with it.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
I welcome the Prime Minister to his place with his message of optimism, hope and change for water, climate change and procurement. On procurement, may I be presumptuous and give him a quick win? We can remove Palantir from the federated data platform in the NHS and replace it with a Greater Manchester model that works today and supplies more than Palantir does or ever can. That is an easy win.
The Prime Minister
I have already got Members on the other side of the House championing my achievements as Mayor of Greater Manchester. The hon. Member makes a good point.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister to his post. My constituency of Amber Valley is made up of three small manufacturing towns with surrounding villages, but it has been overlooked for far too long, so I am pleased to hear the Prime Minister speak of growth in every postcode. My constituents will be particularly pleased to hear about reindustrialisation after our largest employer, Denby Pottery, recently closed its doors for the last time after 217 years. Can the Prime Minister advise how we can prioritise constituencies like mine, which are still experiencing the effects of deindustrialisation?
The Prime Minister
I was sad to hear about Denby Pottery, and I know my hon. Friend’s part of the world fairly well. We are serious about making sure that where there are world-class sectors in our communities, we back them properly and help them transition to future technologies. We have not done that well as a country in the past; we will do it much better in the future.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
I am glad that the Prime Minister had a nice tour of the UK over the summer. Had he come to the Isle of Wight, he would have heard about our No. 1 cost of living issue, which is the price of travelling to and from the Isle of Wight. It is astronomical, and it is harming our tourism economy and restricting access to health and education. If he stands by his comments about people power and putting power back into communities, will he at least be open to creating regulatory powers so that we can control the prices levied by private equity companies, put passengers first, and ensure that the Isle of Wight is treated fairly, just like every other community in the UK?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Member sounds like he could be speaking from the Government Benches. I got a lot of jeers from the Opposition when I talked about public control earlier this afternoon, but that is precisely what he is calling for, and he is right to do so. It enabled me to reduce bus fares in Greater Manchester, and I do not see why it would not enable him to reduce ferry fares. Bring me a proposal—that is what I say to him. I will look seriously at it, because I understand completely how critical those transport links are to opportunity and growth, both on the island and on the mainland.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister to his place, and I thank him for the positive actions he is taking, particularly to end rough sleeping by Christmas. Will he join me in thanking the amazing charities and organisations in Southend that do so much good work in this area, including the Homeless Action Resource Project—HARP—St Vincent de Paul, the One Love Project, the YMCA and Off the Streets? Can he give me an assurance that this policy is only the start of solving a problem that can often involve a complex set of individual circumstances?
The Prime Minister
When we think of rough sleeping and homelessness, bricks and mortar is only part of it. In effect, what we are talking about is a journey of recovery. That was the Housing First philosophy that was discussed earlier. It is about giving people a firm base, and then giving them the support to move forward. Every person in my view is capable of recovery. We just need to give them the circumstances in which it can happen.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
The extremes of this summer cannot simply be wished away with emollient phrases like it not being all “one or the other” when it comes to new fossil fuel drilling. Can the Prime Minister tell us whether he meant that all our climate commitments are at risk from his Government, or just this one?
The Prime Minister
The climate commitments in our manifesto are not at risk. I have made clear today that we need to plan for a carbon-neutral future. I am not one of those who will pander to those going in a different direction. I was convinced as Mayor of Greater Manchester that our future lay in adopting renewables, and I am of the same view as Prime Minister. Where I differ from the Green party is on its ideological, rather than pragmatic, approach to getting there. That, I am afraid, might delay the transition that the hon. Member seeks.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Chris Vince—and how I have missed him!
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and may I wish you a very happy birthday?
I thank the Prime Minister for making one of his first visits as Prime Minister to Harlow. It was almost as if he knew that I was going to mention Harlow quite regularly. Very seriously, I want to refer to an announcement made recently by the German Government about an incident at Leipzig airport. Does he agree that we should condemn this outrageous act of Russian aggression, and send our support to our German allies?
The Prime Minister
This is a very serious matter indeed, and I believe that news has broken about it as we have been gathering a statement from the German Government about the incident at Leipzig. I want to leave the House in no doubt that the UK stands in full solidarity with Germany in the face of these egregious and unacceptable attacks. Russia’s attempts to undermine our united resolve and our willingness to support Ukraine are futile and doomed to fail, and we will be steadfast in the face of them. I am in touch with Chancellor Merz, and we are working closely with our allies to defend any threats to NATO and our allies, and to NATO territory. I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised this matter; it is a very serious development, and it requires the most intense European co-operation in response.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I wish the new Prime Minister the very best, and welcome his commitment to a better kind of politics.
Nationally, 4.4 million people are now in council tax debt, 1.2 million more than in the previous year, and last year 1.7 million instructions were made for bailiffs. Bailiff use comes at a significant human and economic cost, so will the Prime Minister look at this issue? Will he, for instance, consider revoking regulation 45 of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992, which allows councils to call in bailiffs, and introducing a new duty of care that puts harm reduction at the heart of council tax collection and helps to write off unfair debt?
The Prime Minister
I happen to agree with the hon. Gentleman. I know that there have been moves to improve the regulation of bailiffs, but I would encourage the 10 councils in Greater Manchester to take a different approach to debt, because many people in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and mine fear the sound of the letterbox opening or a knock at the door. Personal debt can be completely destructive of people’s mental health, and I think that there is a different and better way, which the hon. Gentleman has described.
Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)
When the Prime Minister travels up the west coast main line through Milton Keynes and Bedfordshire, he will be travelling through a bit of the country where there is a lot going on. We are building many new homes, we are building a new hospital, a new railway line and a new theme park, and we are expanding Luton airport. Without a devolution deal, however, we cannot make those projects a success for the area, and there is a fear that we will be left behind. Will the Prime Minister work with local councils and Members of Parliament to deliver a devolution deal as quickly as possible? Unlike many of the local MPs, including me, some local councillors are still not convinced of the benefits of devolution. What would the Prime Minister say to them about the benefits that it would bring to Milton Keynes and Bedfordshire?
The Prime Minister
I think that the evidence is undeniable when it comes to growth. I have mentioned Greater Manchester, and the Liverpool city region is now growing at a faster rate than the UK average, which, for most of our lives, was simply was not the case. It is not in managed decline; it is actually flourishing, and my hon. Friend’s area is, as well. However, it can go even further. The model of devolution in England is working, and I want it to be available to all areas. If my hon. Friend wishes to lead a delegation to No. 10 North, I will ensure that he receives the warmest possible welcome.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I know that the Prime Minister is a huge advocate for the combined authority system of devolution. I have good news for him: all of London’s 32 boroughs called for exactly that in London, in a rare cross-party call last year. In the spirit of cross-party working, and to apply his experience from Manchester to the rest of the UK—as he has said that he wishes to do—will he reshape London’s devolution settlement by at last giving London boroughs a seat at the table when making decisions with the mayor?
The Prime Minister
I am aware of that change. Obviously, the Greater London Authority was created by statute, and there are other voices in the mix, including those of London Members of Parliament. I will always respond to a change when it is brought to me with a clear consensus and cross-party support. I am not aware that that exists fully across London, but if such a proposal were brought to me, I would always look at it carefully.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
The previous Prime Minister announced a £200 million fund to create a green industrial revolution in Grangemouth. My constituency needs to be reindustrialised, and my communities need to be re-energised. I know that the Prime Minister is as passionate as I am about both those things. Will he make it a top priority to reindustrialise Grangemouth, get good, secure jobs into the town, and build the industrial future that Grangemouth and all of Scotland need?
The Prime Minister
I understand that there is a possibility of sustainable aviation fuel production at Grangemouth. I find that very interesting, and I keep coming back to it. Perhaps my hon. Friend wishes me to persuade No. 10 North to support him in the development of that proposal; I know that there is a financial commitment, but if we do reindustrialise, the money that we put forward to support that process can pay us back over many years to come, through a bigger and flourishing economy in all parts of the UK.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Last week, the High Court delivered a killer blow to the Parades Commission in Northern Ireland, uncovering unlawful decision making. For 28 years, the commission has denied Portadown District the right to return home from its annual church parade. All Unionists and grassroots loyalists have said that they have no confidence in the Parades Commission, but today, staggeringly, the Prime Minister’s Government have said that it has their full backing. The belligerence and arrogance of these commissioners is staggering. May I ask the Prime Minister to intervene and give them their P45s?
The Prime Minister
I do not know whether the hon. Lady is right about the full backing. I believe that an independent review of the Parades Commission and the process that it undertook has been announced. The Northern Ireland Secretary has already taken some steps, and the review of the process will go further. We will work hard to ensure that the trust of all communities—but particularly the communities that the hon. Lady represents—in the commission is restored.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
I commend the Prime Minister for his commitment to building good growth in every postcode. Throughout Lichfield, Burntwood and the Villages, my constituents will say that there is a real opportunity to look at High Speed 2. There have been almost endless delays and disruption from roadworks and road closures on the stretch that would have linked Birmingham to Crewe and Manchester. There has been nothing but pain, and nothing but an anchor on our growth—and for all that pain we will see no gain. No station is planned anywhere in Staffordshire, and no new services are planned anywhere in the county. Will the Prime Minister meet me to discuss how we can make this project work for every postcode along the line?
The Prime Minister
I think there is a need for a resolution on what will happen from Handsacre to Manchester via Crewe, and a solution for the communities in between. This cannot be left where it is indefinitely. I understand the points that my hon. Friend has made, but given my past role, I hope he will be assured that this is something that I know a lot about.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
Happy birthday, Madam Deputy Speaker.
There are teachers in West Sussex who are giving up running after-school clubs so that they can take on a second job, because the cost of living, and particularly the cost of housing, is so high in the area. One of the issues is that West Sussex has the fifth-lowest secondary unit of funding in schools. Will the Prime Minister review minimum per-student funding levels, so that they truly reflect the cost of living in West Sussex?
The Prime Minister
I will ask the Education Secretary to look at precisely the issue that the hon. Lady has raised.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
On the subject of social care, does the Prime Minister agree that there is a fundamental unfairness in dementia care being means-tested, while cancer care is funded by us all through general taxation? Is not that unfairness the issue that we need to address?
The Prime Minister
I have always said that we will not have a health and care system that is fit for the 21st century until it supports people with dementia as well as it treats people with cancer. We are some way from that, but it is the goal we should be working towards.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I welcome the Prime Minister to his role, and I also welcome his commitment to restoring local ownership and control. Sadly, that has not been the experience of my residents in Bicester, Piddington, Blackthorn, Ambrosden and Arncott, who face a proposal for the building of a huge asylum centre, costing millions of taxpayer pounds. Fifty-five days ago, the Government said that this was an urgent application, yet it remains veiled in secrecy and has not been published. Will the Prime Minister honour that commitment to restoring local agency, withdraw the urgent application, and publish the details, so that they can be scrutinised by the people who should be scrutinising them—local people and local representatives?
The Prime Minister
I am aware of the concern, and it is similar to the issue that was raised by the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith). All I can say is that I give the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) a commitment that I will familiarise myself with all the details of the planning application. I will happily report back from this Dispatch Box when I have done that.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
May I welcome the Prime Minister to his place and invite him to my place? There are good flight connections from Manchester to the Western Isles, where he will see that we have the highest concentration of community-owned wind farms in the country. If he really wants to fulfil the potential of the energy transition, these communities should be given priority access to grid connections, and he should use the muscle of GB Energy to give communities and local councils the ability to buy shares in renewable schemes anywhere in their area. It is devolutionary, it is revolutionary, and the template for how to do it is in Na h-Eileanan an Iar.
The Prime Minister
That was put very well, and this is exactly the agenda that I have been talking about from the Dispatch Box today. All parts of the UK need to have control over basic services, and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend to support what he is saying.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Over the summer, the national maternity review confirmed what we all feared in Taunton: Musgrove Park hospital’s maternity unit is the most challenging estate in the country. It cannot be right that mums are giving birth in 30° heat, and that staff are fainting when they are looking after them. If that is the most challenging estate in the country, they cannot wait until 2033. Will the Prime Minister please look at moving forward the new maternity unit at Musgrove Park as an urgent priority?
The Prime Minister
I remember well visiting Musgrove Park in my days as a Health Minister. I did some work shadowing at the hospital, so I know how much it is in need of renovation. I will look into the issue. Across the NHS this summer, staff have been working in unbearable conditions, and it is the same for patients. I know that this is high on the Health Secretary’s agenda, and I will come back to the hon. Gentleman when I have had a chance to look at the latest status of that issue.
Criminal Justice Reform
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Norris)
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the implementation of the Sentencing Act 2026. When this Labour Government took office, we inherited a crisis in our prisons. They were regularly at 99% capacity, with fewer than 100 places available at one stage. We were one bad day away from running out of space, which would have meant the courts being forced to suspend trials, the police being unable to make arrests, and there would be nowhere to put dangerous criminals—a total breakdown of law and order, with victims bearing the brunt.
My predecessors acted swiftly to stabilise our prisons by committing to the most ambitious prison-building programme since the Victorians and pledging 14,000 new prison places by 2031, with 3,200 already delivered. Compare that with the record of the Conservative party, which added just 500 net places in 14 years. We have also deported nearly 12,000 foreign national offenders, but we had to ensure that we never return to the shambolic emergency releases carried out, with little scrutiny or warning, by the previous Government. We passed the Sentencing Act, which introduced the earned progression model, whereby offenders on standard determinate sentences spend at least a third of their sentence behind bars, and longer if they behave badly. More serious offences require people to serve at least half of their sentence, with no upper limit for time spent inside for bad behaviour.
But release from prison is not the end of the story. We have overseen the largest ever expansion of tagging and, working closely with the police, we are giving the Probation Service access to the largest and toughest range of measures to manage offenders. Every single offender leaving prison can now be tagged, and strict licence conditions can include curfews and bans from pubs, clubs and even football matches. There will be exclusion zones where criminals cannot go. For the most serious sexual and violent offenders, we are introducing world-first “restriction zones” that confine them to specific areas, which are sometimes a few miles wide, curtailing their liberty in order to give victims more freedom. If conditions are breached, offenders can be recalled to prison.
This clearly asks more of our brilliant Probation Service, so we are also investing £700 million more in probation and community services by 2028-29, and we are hiring a further 1,300 trainee probation officers, on top of the 2,300 recruited in the past two years.
Let me be clear about who the model applies to. The most dangerous offenders, who have been locked up for serious violent and sexual offences, and those on life sentences were never eligible, but the Prime Minister and I were determined to look again. We moved quickly to exclude rape and many serious child sex and grooming offences, and we have gone further still by excluding all unlawful killing offences—including death by dangerous or drink-driving, causing or allowing the death of a child, and manslaughter—as well as indecent assault, which has been used to prosecute historical child sex abuse. This means hundreds more dangerous criminals staying behind bars for longer, including those who killed PC Andrew Harper in the line of duty. It is the right thing to do, and I pay tribute to his wife Lissie and his mother Debbie, who campaigned for this. We would like to have gone further, but we were unable to do so due to the lack of investment by the previous Government over 14 years.
I want to reassure the House that victims in the victim contact scheme are being kept informed by dedicated victim liaison officers. We are rightly giving victims the opportunity to have their say on licence conditions for offenders in their case, and I have instructed my officials to attempt to trace all affected victims for whom we do not have the details. On top of that, we are boosting victim support with a £18.9 million funding package, including a dedicated free helpline offering emotional support for anyone affected, and specialist support for victims of violence against women and girls. I have asked the Prisons Minister to work with victims groups to shape our response, because victims must come first.
The Prime Minister and I have pushed the system to its limits. At the same time, my duty is to ensure that we always have the space to lock up offenders. Today I can announce a fast-tracked plan to create more headroom in our prison system by bringing forward more than £110 million of funding. We have identified where we can accelerate the delivery of more places, including by converting space within prisons into cells, and we are pushing to deliver current building plans more quickly. We will also invest in new land for prisons and build a credible pipeline of new sites to enable more prison building, because my top priority is to build a long-term, sustainable future for our prison estate.
We are also freeing up space in the shorter term. There are thousands of foreign national offenders in our prisons, at vast expense to taxpayers. We have increased removals by 41% compared with the last two years of the previous Tory Government, and we have changed the law to expand the early removal scheme. Now we will go further. Next year we will begin removing foreign national offenders serving determinate sentences immediately after sentencing, but I want to reassure the House that the most dangerous offenders, such as those already excluded from the Sentencing Act changes, will still be required to serve prison time before being deported. I want to be clear that all removed offenders will be barred from returning to the UK for life, because deportation is the anchor of that punishment. If you break our laws and abuse Britain’s hospitality, we will permanently remove you.
We will also act on a long-standing injustice. More than 2,000 people are still trapped by indeterminate imprisonment for public protection, or IPP, sentences. They were rightly abolished a decade ago, but offenders are still locked up for far longer than envisaged, often for crimes that, if committed today, would see them spend much less time in jail. Of those who have never been released, 99% are beyond the tariff imposed by the court, and 80% have served 10 years or more beyond it. Tragically, with no end of their sentence in sight, some IPP prisoners have taken their own lives.
Concerns about IPPs have been raised across the political spectrum, including by the former Justice Secretary, Alex Chalk, who called them “a stain” on our justice system. The number of IPP offenders has been reducing, but the Prime Minister and I want to go further. We will soon bring forward legislation to end the sentence, once and for all, by the end of this Parliament. These are complex cases, and some of these offenders have committed serious crimes. Public safety will always be my top priority, but we must balance that with fairness on sentences. It will take time to get this right, but the work will begin immediately, and I offer Members of all parties and none in this place the opportunity to work together on a cross-party basis. I will listen to experts inside and outside this House, including the former Justice Secretary, Robert Buckland, and the former Home Secretary, David Blunkett. They are committed advocates of IPP reform, whom I thank for agreeing to work with me. In the meantime, we will do everything within the existing framework to support those in prison to move towards a safe and sustainable release.
I also intend to look at how we can improve outcomes for offenders with complex needs. Women in prison often have high levels of trauma, abuse, mental ill-health and addiction. Many are mothers and their children can be affected profoundly by them being in prison, so I want to reduce the number of women in custody where it is safe to do so, alongside a cross-Government agenda to address the drivers of women’s offending. For youth offenders, I am announcing £4.5 million of investment for robust community alternatives to locking children up in expensive, ineffective and unsuitable prisons. To help solve the crisis in adult prisons, I have decided to temporarily hold some 18-year-olds in our youth estate for longer.
My job is to balance the sustainability of our prisons with public protection, the rights of victims and public confidence in the justice system. The decisions that the Prime Minister and I have had to take are difficult ones. We would like to have gone further, but the Government inherited a system on the brink of failure. I am clear that there must always be space for dangerous offenders, because protecting the public means fixing prisons for good. Otherwise, it is victims who are let down. We will never let that happen.
This Government will run towards problems, including the tough decisions needed to build a justice system that is firm, fair and that protects the public. Those aims will guide me as I tackle its challenges, reform it for a sustainable future and ensure it commands the confidence of the British public. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
I welcome the Justice Secretary to his place.
This is the Government’s fifth early release policy in just six weeks, since the Prime Minister took office. At every stage we were told that Ministers had no choice but to include dangerous criminals, because the alternative would be the “collapse” of the “entire system”. Now the plan is to stop one group of dangerous criminals leaving prison early by letting a different group of dangerous criminals out instead.
The Justice Secretary and the Prime Minister have justified the plan to release IPP prisoners as a matter of principle, but it is no such thing. It is a fag-packet policy written to get them out of this crisis. Last year a Justice Minister rejected it, saying it would “put the public at risk”. Some 1,415 IPP prisoners had to be recalled to prison after release. The Parole Board says that the rest—856 prisoners—are too dangerous to be freed. Despite the new exclusions, many violent criminals will still be released after one third of their sentence. That includes domestic abusers and some paedophiles.
The Justice Secretary says that if a domestic abuser breaches the terms of their release, tagging means that probation and the police will be alerted. He said this morning that these are “really good systems”, but most breaches result in no action at all. In fact, the Justice Secretary said this morning that early release is now “business as usual” and will go on for years to come. With that in mind, the Sentencing Act provides no end date to SDS33, so is this a permanent provision? If not, for how long does he think it should last? Can he rule out letting prisoners out even earlier with home detention curfews? Will he publish detailed capacity projections and all relevant data?
Will the Justice Secretary give us a timeline and a target for his promise to get more foreign national prisoners out of the country? What is his plan to overcome barriers to deportation caused by the European convention on human rights, and in particular unqualified rights such as articles 2 and 3? How many cells will be established within the existing estate by the end of 2026, 2027 and 2028? Will he release every IPP prisoner by the end of the Parliament, as suggested in the Ministry of Justice statement on Sunday? Will prisoners who would have received a life sentence, had IPP sentences not existed, remain locked up? Will the Justice Secretary rule out watering down the criteria used by the Parole Board to assess IPP prisoners? And can he confirm that the changes to early release will come through secondary legislation, presenting MPs with a false binary choice and no chance to amend their plan?
We have more than 700 fewer prison cells than last year and 1,600 fewer prison officers since the election. No new prisons have been planned or approved by this Government since the election. There are more than 4,000 operational available places and 4,000 more that are certified but out of use because of rules and regulations, officer shortages, and, in the case of Dartmoor prison, levels of radon gas that local residents live with every day. Describing the early release of criminals, a dangerous and irresponsible policy, as “business as usual” is not just an insult to victims, but a dereliction of duty.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for the shadow Secretary of State’s kind words of welcome. I do not know him well, but I know that he, like me, shares a love for this country and that everything he does is seen through that prism. My commitment to him is to work with him. There will be times, perhaps even including today, when we will need to disagree in the best traditions of this place, but I know there will be a lot that brings us together over the months and hopefully years to come.
On plans and changed plans, I make no apology—certainly not to the Opposition—for being able to grab hold of a system that, when we left here in July, was not going to exclude rape offences, child sex offences and those who have taken lives. We have now done that, which is good. I recognise that it has created uncertainty and I apologise to victims, but I hope they understand that it was done with noble purpose. We must now use the time available to make sure that victims get the right support, particularly when it comes to shaping restrictions on offenders if they do come out.
The hon. Gentleman mentions plans. The reality is that if we followed his plan, we would have a prison system that would be bust before Christmas. What would that mean for justice in this country? How could that be right? He jumps on the phrase “business as usual”. The point I am trying to make is that this Parliament has changed legislation. The Sentencing Act is the basis on which standard determinate sentences will be governed, and that will be the case for the foreseeable future. Linked to that, he talks about how the changes will come into force. That will be done via varying the commencement order. He talks about home detention. I can say that I have no intention of going any further. The work we have put in as a result of the Sentencing Act is our way of managing the pressure in the system.
On capacity, the hon. Gentleman asks for clarity. Well, I can provide a little bit of clarity: we should be clear that we have added 374 places in the adult male estate since the general election. Now, that is nowhere near where we want to get to as the end state—that is why our building programme has 14,000 places in it—but I would hope that wanting to do more is a point of shared interest. Of course, things do come in and out of the estate, including because of fire damage; I would not underestimate the importance of contamination either. Nevertheless, there will of course be significant places added in this Parliament and in our programme to 2031.
The hon. Gentleman also asks about the chance to scrutinise the data. He will know that, under the Sentencing Act, we are committed to publishing an annual report. That is what we will do, and I am sure that he and I will get into it at that point.
On foreign national offenders, if the hon. Gentleman has doubts, I will state my record to him and to the House. We have increased by 41% the removal of foreign offenders in this country. I gently say that that was my role in the Home Office, so he should not doubt my vigour. He mentions changes to article 3. He will know about the important work done on that at the Council of Europe. The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards), has done a lot of important work in that space. Similarly, our work on article 8 is important and I hope the hon. Gentleman will support that when it comes before Parliament. He should not doubt our vigour; as I say, we are already doing well better than his predecessors—they are sat next to him, so he can talk to them about that—and we will go further.
Let me finish on the IPP point, because I am really interested to see how it does and does not hold. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a champion of individual liberty and a sceptic of what he thinks is uneven justice. If I am able to make this acknowledgment, I hope he will at least reflect on it: there is a real dissatisfaction, as a result of the changes we have had to make, that some people will leave prison earlier than their sentence dictated, and that in many cases there will be people who are still there 10 years after. There is no easy solution to that. All I ask of him is to engage in a process to bring that to its resolution.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
Opposition Members seem to need reminding that the early release programme was devised by a Conservative Government. We have been debating at great length, in the media and among politicians, keeping people in prison for longer. I support Government policy on this issue, but I remind the House that the only things, ultimately, that make people safer are: giving more support to prison officers, including their salary; putting money into improving the prison estate—some prisons are Victorian buildings; and, finally, putting effort and money into the rehabilitation of prisoners, not just keeping them in prison longer.
Alex Norris
I agree wholeheartedly with the value my right hon. Friend places on the important work of our prison officers and our probation officers. She is exactly right that what surely binds all of us is that we want to reduce reoffending. What I have presented to Parliament today is a measure to get us through a crisis, but we know that we have to build a new criminal justice system. That can be done from this Dispatch Box, but it also has to be done much more widely, including through work with our prison officers, our Probation Service, the police and our communities in order to reduce reoffending, which is what we all want.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The Justice Secretary knows that the chaos and uncertainty for victims and their loved ones over the summer months from the handling of this scheme have been unforgivable. The Government have changed course countless times, leaving PC Andrew Harper’s family and countless others without the certainty that they deserve.
The reality, as we all agree, is that in a properly functioning justice system, no victim or loved one should ever be told that their perpetrator is being released earlier than they were told when that sentence was handed down. However, if tough decisions have to be made, they have to be made carefully, sensitively and preparedly, with the safety of victims, loved ones and the public front of mind. How, therefore, will the Justice Secretary be communicating these—I hope—final changes to those who received the generic letters, including victims of grooming gangs and sexual abuse, earlier this year, and will those letters be tailored to each victim? He mentioned in his statement those who are not in the victim contact scheme and an effort by the MOJ to contact them. Can he please provide an assessment of how many victims he thinks that is, and how much resource he will be given to try to track them down?
The reality for the new Justice Secretary is that his inheritance is now a public safety crisis. If probation staff go ahead with strike action, as threatened last month, is he confident that the system can safely manage the risks of releasing thousands of extra offenders? This has all the hallmarks of a national emergency waiting to happen, yet where is the emergency response? Can he explain why the national Criminal Justice Board has not met all year, despite these changes being discussed last year as part of the Sentencing Act, and will he now convene Cobra to give the situation the gravitas it deserves?
The prison capacity crisis is one that this Government inherited two years ago, but they now own the response. As highlighted by the chief executive of the Howard League, we are
“one major incident away from a disaster.”
Prisons such as Wandsworth have been operating at 62% above their intended built capacity as the new normal, creating dangerous conditions that undermine any effort to rehabilitate offenders. What confidence can the Justice Secretary provide that he can deliver this increase in capacity on time, given past failings to do so, and that he can adequately staff it?
Alex Norris
I am grateful for the Liberal Democrat spokesperson’s contribution. As I hope she heard me say, I do accept that the impact of our taking the summer to carve more offences out of this regime in a way that is safe and means we have a resilient prison estate has had an impact on victims and survivors and on their families, as they wait with uncertainty. I hope that is not unforgivable, in the sense that I hope it is understood that our aims were noble ones and have allowed us to go further—I think all Members would say that was a good thing.
My mitigation and attempt to balance the situation is in what we do now. I am making a commitment from this Dispatch Box about the quality of engagement with victims and survivors. Everyone is being written to immediately to have a contact sent to them—trauma-informed engagement. This will introduce a conversation with a victim liaison officer specific to them and specific to the information about their offender’s release date and whether it is changing, and will help them to tailor the controls on their perpetrator so they can live the fullest possible life.
On probation and capacity, I pay tribute to my predecessors as Lord Chancellor for the work that has been done to recruit more staff. That is not at its end state, but the £700 million investment is nevertheless starting to bear fruit. I think that gives us optimism for probation, but I am aware that there are still challenges. I have met staff and will continue to engage, and we of course want to avert strike action, as the hon. Member says.
The hon. Member’s point on the national Criminal Justice Board speaks a little bit to the point I made to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott): I want to reinvigorate it as a place that takes real ownership of a reform of our criminal justice system. I think we would all accept that our criminal justice system is not delivering, and we are paying a lot for failure as well. I have not had very long in my role, as I hope the hon. Member would accept, but I certainly look forward to meeting the board.
On convening Cobra, I have to say that it is not in my gift, but it is in the Prime Minister’s. However, the changes we have made are exactly to avert the scenario of getting to such a crisis. In the spirit of what the hon. Member says, I am conscious of the pressures we have put on over the summer—they have been for good aims—but now we need to build a much better system.
Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the statement, which will be welcomed by my constituents after a period of great anxiety, and I also thank him for his engagement with me over the summer.
When PC Andrew Harper was killed in my constituency, it devastated our community, but it also left a deep determination to stand by our brave police, who run towards danger every day. Andrew Harper was the absolute best of us, and I would like to pay tribute to his family, who have fought so bravely in his memory. I would also like to thank everyone in my constituency and beyond who signed a petition and made their voices heard. Will the Secretary of State outline what steps he will take to show our brave police that this Government will always be on their side?
Alex Norris
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her very direct campaigning to me over the summer about her and her community’s expectations. I join her in what she said about PC Andrew Harper: he was the very best of us. I really respect both Lissie Harper and Debbie Adlam for never having asked for special treatment. However, I think it is reflected in the actions of this Parliament—we changed the law subsequently—that we do think it is different when our emergency service workers are killed in the line of duty. It is right that we did that did that, but it did create an inequity, and it is right that we have corrected it. Again, I have apologised to both of them about the time it took to do so, but I am glad that we have been able to do it.
On my hon. Friend’s final point, what I want to do for our brave police up and down the country is to have a system that is not running as hot as this, so they are not having to chase around all those symptoms of failure. That is a long-term piece of work, but it is one that starts immediately, and my commitment to them is to have them in the room during the process.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I know the Government will be doing their best to protect potential future victims of early release offenders, particularly those who were in jail for domestic abuse or other fixated behaviour, but it is not good enough simply to try to improve tagging measures; what one has to do is to improve the ability of potential victims to summon help if attacked again. Can the Justice Secretary confirm that the Government will make a unified representation of how such potential future victims can protect themselves—for example, by emergency alarms being fitted as a matter of routine?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Before the Secretary of State responds, let me say that I understand how sensitive this topic is, but we have been in the Chamber a long time, and we have other items of business to get to, so please keep questions short and answers just as short.
Alex Norris
The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise that point. It is part of the conversations that victim liaison officers are having, so that every victim and survivor is able to shape the support around them to make sure that they are feeling safe and secure.
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s decision to end early release for certain serious offenders, including those responsible for the appalling killing of PC Harper, as we have heard. My former police colleagues and other emergency workers put themselves in harm’s way every day to keep us safe, and they must be able to have confidence in our system. Does the Justice Secretary agree with me that this decision sends them and others a clear and unequivocal message that this Government value their service, stand firmly with them and their families, and will ensure that those who commit the most serious crimes against them face the consequences of their actions?
Alex Norris
I recognise my hon. Friend’s service in the police. It was made clear to me by lots of colleagues and in conversations that I had that the policing family were looking closely at our actions in this regard. I hope they have got the message from the changes in the law that have happened, and the changes that we have now been able to make, and that they will measure us by the work we do with them to improve the criminal justice system going forward.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
Cheshire police estimates that the additional cost to man-mark criminals who are back on the streets due to Labour’s early release scheme will be £1.4 million a year. Can the Minister reassure police forces up and down the country that those extra resources will be handed to them?
Alex Norris
The right hon. Lady will know of the significant increase in funding to our police that we have already made. Through the National Police Chiefs’ Council, representations have been made about police resourcing and the support we can give to policing. We are still having those conversations.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
I welcome the Lord Chancellor’s statement. As a former criminal law barrister, I represented defendants who were given IPP sentences. They were required to complete courses, treatments and rehabilitation before they could be considered for release, yet many were never offered any of those things in time, leaving them unable to be reviewed by the Parole Board through no fault of their own. Can the Lord Chancellor say what he is doing to ensure that prisoners get the help and courses that they need in time for their parole eligibility?
Alex Norris
I hope that my hon. Friend takes comfort from what both the Prime Minister and I have said about ensuring that the right support is in place for those who are paroled to stay out of prison, and for those who have not yet passed that stage to get to it and pass it. That has to be done with public safety in mind. Whether it is my hon. Friend’s insights or insights from colleagues across the Chamber, we are up for that dialogue because we are resolute in our intention.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
When the Justice Committee visited a young offenders institute earlier this year, we found that most of the young people were not able to access even a minimal amount of education or training, which means that they are more likely to go on to commit more offences. What is the Lord Chancellor doing to improve access to education, training and financial preparedness to ensure that young offenders and their adult counterparts do not reoffend and fill up the prisons again?
Alex Norris
The hon. Lady hits on an important point: what are we using our facilities for if not to rehabilitate people, particularly our young people? That is a symptom of what happens when the estate runs as hot as it does. It is a big factor in the reoffending of young people and, frankly, all people. That is why we are taking pressure off. She has heard what I said about the investment that we are putting in to get to what we want, which is a system that prepares people properly for release.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
I thank the Justice Secretary for engaging with me and other colleagues over the summer and taking action to bring forward the point at which the victims hotline will be up and running, so that it is available next month for victims who are worried about their offender’s release. At present, offenders can be banned from a victim’s local area, but that still leaves victims worried about running into them when they leave their area. Restriction zones reverse that burden by confining offenders to specific areas. Will the Justice Secretary be more ambitious about the use of restriction zones, so that it is the freedoms of perpetrators that are curtailed, not those of their victims?
Alex Norris
First, I recognise my hon. Friend’s work in the Department, which we are building out from, particularly on the hotline. That is why we have brought it forward. I am pleased that she has given me the chance to talk about restriction zones, because they are world leading and we are introducing them for the first time. I received an email literally as I was about to stand at the Dispatch Box about how they could operate. The commitment I have made to campaigners is that we will bring into the room those who are interested in ensuring that the zones work in order to challenge us on what we are doing and to make sure we are going as far as we can to make them effective. It is going to take time to build up, and it has to be done in the right way, but the zones have high potential. My commitment from the Dispatch Box is that we will have maximum engagement, so that people know what we are doing and can help us do it well.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
Mark Sanders was a teacher who raped young girls. His sentence was nine years and nine months, yet in July, after serving just two years, he was moved to an open prison, free to come and go and have overnight stays. I raised his case at Justice questions with the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards), and also wrote to him. He promised to review the case, but I have had no response. I am sure the Lord Chancellor recognises that for survivors this feels like a form of early release. Mark Sanders should not be in our communities—which he now is—after serving only a quarter of his sentence.
Alex Norris
The hon. Lady will have heard what I said about who we have taken out of the scope of the progression model, but I will undertake to look at that specific case and get back to her as soon as possible.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor may know that I have written to him about my constituent William Payne, whose girlfriend Abigail Eggleston was killed by Liam Bowes, who was sentenced to 12 years for causing death by dangerous driving. I therefore welcome the Government’s decision to exclude that offence from the new release arrangements. Is the Lord Chancellor able to confirm that, as a result, Mr Bowes’ custodial release point will remain at two thirds of his sentence, rather than being brought forward to one half, and will he ensure that my constituent receives formal confirmation of that?
Alex Norris
As my hon. Friend knows, we have taken death by dangerous driving out of scope of the progression model, so anybody whose sentence was being reduced from two thirds to a half under the model and was in prison for death by dangerous driving is now not in scope. I will get full clarity on the release date for the case my hon. Friend raises.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
The daughter of one of my constituents was the victim of a knife attack in her own home in 2014. Thankfully, the perpetrator was convicted. He is now charged with another offence—that of rape—and is appearing in court next month. One can imagine the concern of my constituent’s daughter when she received a letter from Victim Support to say that this individual was going to be released. I have written to the Lord Chancellor about the case. I appreciate that he might not have seen the letter, but could he give an assurance that he will look at the case and do all he can to ensure that this individual is not released?
Alex Norris
Again, I say to the hon. Gentleman that rape has been excluded from the progression model, but I will look at that case as a matter of urgency and come back to him. The important thing to say to all colleagues is that the victim-survivor should engage with their victim liaison officer, so that they can answer some of the questions. I will do anything I can to speed up that process.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Does the Justice Secretary agree that one way of increasing prison capacity is to reduce reoffending, as 80% of people in prison are reoffenders? Far too often, we have prisoners who leave prison with no home, job, family or social connections. Are we doing enough to address that?
Alex Norris
The answer to that question is no. When the system is running as hot as it is, it becomes a self-defeating cycle of a system that runs hot and therefore does not do those things. I hope my hon. Friend will take, as I do, a lot of comfort from what the Prime Minister said in his statement earlier about addressing housing, so that people have a stable base from which to rebuild their lives.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
I want the Lord Chancellor to know how grateful I am for the phone call he placed with my constituent, Rosie Shepherd, whose sister, Fenella Hawes, was killed by a drunk driver four times over the limit. The words he was able to speak to her were a great comfort to her family. Does he accept that the nature and timing of the communications that have gone out during the summer have been devastating for families? Have lessons been learned in general for future situations that require wholesale correspondence with victims?
Alex Norris
The hon. Gentleman is right, and I hope that he has heard me accept that. I hope that there will be a degree of recognition that it was done in the noble cause of wanting to go further, but I still recognise everything he says. On correspondence, particularly correspondence that is more general and may go out more widely, our commitment is to ensure that it is trauma informed.
Mary Creagh (Coventry East) (Lab)
I welcome the Lord Chancellor to his place and congratulate him on the steps he has taken this summer to reduce prison populations while excluding the most dangerous offenders. We must never again be in the position of having more prisoners than prison places. Can he reassure the House that, as he looks at the use of prison capacity and spare places, he will not remove the workshops and training areas in prisons, in which our brilliant prison staff do so much work to reduce the cycle of reoffending?
Alex Norris
My hon. Friend has made an important point. I hope she heard what I said about our enthusiasm for those things that prevent reoffending. The Prisons Minister is looking closely at that in our estate plans, because we know that those areas help prepare people for release and keep them from reoffending.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
There is no dispute that the IPP topic is a difficult challenge. There is also no dispute that many of those IPP prisoners have been deemed a high risk to society by the Parole Board. Is it the Government’s position that the Parole Board is incorrect, or are the Government willing to lower the threshold of risk?
Alex Norris
I do not think there has to be a binary choice between those two things. I want to recognise the good work that the Parole Board does. I think there is definitely a challenge, as the hon. Gentleman will have heard me say, around support for those who have been in prison for a decade longer than they were sentenced to. As I say, people in those circumstances might struggle to adapt to life on the outside. It is incumbent on us to work across Government; our Probation Service does so much, and other wraparound things can help us to go further. I think that the hon. Gentleman would accept, as I do, that these sentences have more than had their time—let us work together to bring them to an end.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. His colleague the Minister for Policing and Crime wrote to me over the summer to confirm that from 26 October, police in Ealing Southall will have the power to use Labour’s new respect orders, with persistent antisocial behaviour offenders facing up to two years in prison. Does he agree that the steps this Government are taking will help to ensure that there is room in our prisons for those who are making life a misery right now for many of my constituents in Ealing Southall?
Alex Norris
I totally agree. It is sad that this needs to be stated, but there must always be places for people to go to prison when they have committed serious offences; the worst-case scenario would be either trials collapsing or people being rebailed back to the situation in which they were offending. That is why we have made the changes we have made.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
The Secretary of State has spoken about sentenced prisoners, but he has not yet spoken about the 15,000 prisoners who are being held on remand, which includes one in four of all women in prison, particularly young women; those held for non-violent crimes, including protesters; and a higher proportion of people from minority groups. When will we see real action on remand decisions, and especially on the relevant recommendations from the Women’s Justice Board earlier this year?
Alex Norris
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s question. The remand population is very much a material part of this consideration. There is an important place for remand in public protection, but, as she will know, court delays are often a factor in the size of the remand population. There is important legislation on that making its way through this House; we will no doubt have important exchanges on that shortly.
Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)
I echo the remarks made by my hon. Friends the Members for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey) and for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop), who are no longer in the Chamber, on Andrew Harper. What kind of message would it have sent to our 140,000 police officers if those killers had been released? It is important that those officers know that this House has their back, whether they are opening their locker at 6 am for the early shift or at 10 pm for the night shift, but I am afraid to say that due to Governments of all different stripes over a long period, police officers have not felt that. They are all used to politicians saying that they support the police and so forth, and we are grateful for that, but what police officers really need is for that support to be borne out in decision making and actions. I beg the Justice Secretary to bear that in mind in all the decisions he takes in what will, I hope, be a very successful tenure.
Alex Norris
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I recognise his service; he knows of what he speaks in this area. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean, I am well aware that the eyes of the policing family are on us. I ask them, as I ask my hon. Friend, to judge us by our actions. We want to get to the same place as them, which is a criminal justice system that is not running so hot, which means they will not have to be dragged away in all sorts of places, particularly on recall. We have lots of work to do, but my commitment is to do it with them.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor will know that a substantial proportion of criminals released under Labour’s previous early release scheme have reoffended and are now back in prison, yet his Department refuses to release the exact numbers. Will he commit to releasing that data and, going forward, to release data on the new cohort of early release criminals who reoffend, so that this House can judge the success, or otherwise, of his policies?
Alex Norris
I always enjoy a thorough debate on the statistics. The hon. Gentleman will know that the MOJ produces a wide range of statistics quarterly, and it will continue to do so. I will, of course, have a look at the important suggestion that he makes. It is really important that the public have the fullest amount of information in order to have the best public conversation.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and I am grateful that he has worked hard to exempt more criminals from early release, such as rapists and child sex offenders. The VAWG sector is clear that perpetrators of violence against women should not be included in the early release scheme. I know how difficult this is, because the Conservatives left us a complete mess to clear up. Welsh Women’s Aid is really grateful that the victims fund has been announced, which will help it to look after victims. Could the Secretary of State reassure me that no survivor will be harmed as a result of these releases?
Alex Norris
I recognise the vigour and spirit with which my hon. Friend asked her question, and indeed the voice that she gives to a sector that is very concerned about these changes. I want to recognise that we wanted to go further than this. In being unable to do so, our commitment—what we are doing to close that gap—is to bring more support forward to ensure that there is direct support, whether through the victims hotline or the important work that the local sector does at a community level. It seems to me that the test for us to pass in order to prove that to victims is the process of engagement, getting quality information to people at the right time, and then designing the controls on perpetrators. That is the best thing we can do to seek to close that gap. Again, I appreciate that the burden of proof falls on us to demonstrate that we are doing that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. In order to help me to get every Member in, questions must be just one sentence. I call Caroline Voaden.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
I am going to say this all in one breath, Madam Deputy Speaker. Prison governors talk about the revolving door of prisoners, with almost half reoffending, but those who go through the LandWorks rehabilitation project in South Devon reoffend at a rate of just 5%, with 90% of them going into employment and back into the community. It is proven to be a success; it works. Will the new Minister for Prisons please come to South Devon to see LandWorks and what it does? It is magic—it is cheaper than prison, and it works. We need to roll this out across the country.
Alex Norris
The Minister is very much looking forward to doing so.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
Happy birthday, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. Officials will have given him a date or timeline for when the current prison system will reach full capacity. Could I ask how that compares to the previous assessment?
Alex Norris
Like pretty much every Lord Chancellor for a number of years now, the first thing in my inbox on day one was a note saying, “By the way, we are going to run out of prison places”—my note said in November. I am pleased to say that as a result of changes made by my two immediate predecessors, the Sentencing Act improves on that saturation date, moving it comfortably into the future. Where we are on that will be set out when we publish our capacity report later this year, but my commitment is to go much further. Colleagues will have heard the Prime Minister say that he wants us to take a 10-year arc on these things, and the same is true for prison capacity.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The Government tell us that restriction zones will keep people safe, but victims need to see the small print to believe that, especially after the warnings in July’s National Audit Office report into tagging. If an offender leaves a restriction zone, what guarantee can the Justice Secretary give that the GPS system will warn police and probation officers so they can act to keep victims safe in real time?
Alex Norris
Tagging is exceptionally important. The technology is improving, as is compliance with the contract. Similarly, we are making changes as part of this process. The presumption of tagging eliminates a point of failure, and tagging in prisons—a pilot that is developing—also reduces failure at that point. However, I appreciate the substance of the right hon. Lady’s point: we have to demonstrate to those who are interested in this space that this big commitment will be impactful. That is why I have made the commitment to do challenge work with those who care about this issue to demonstrate what we are doing.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
My constituent Terry Rowley received an IPP sentence on 8 February 2008 with a minimum tariff of one year and 126 days. That was 6,780 days ago—more than 18 and a half years—and yet he remains in prison. The Government have rightly committed to ending this injustice. Will the Justice Secretary ensure that as we do so, people like Terry will have a fair, transparent and genuinely rehabilitative route to release, while the public continue to be protected?
Alex Norris
I totally agree. It is worth pausing and reflecting on what my hon. Friend has just said: someone who went to prison for a one-and-a-half-year sentence is still there 18 and a half years later. All of us should feel discomfort about that. It is right that we put the best possible support in place for those who are on that journey and passing Parole Board processes in order to attain their release from prison. For those who are not, we have to look at a way to bring IPP to a close. I am committed to working with colleagues to do so.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I welcome the Lord Chancellor’s announcement of investment in the Probation Service. Will he lay out what the Government are doing specifically to fix the vetting delays and staff attrition problems that have kept levels broadly stable despite previous investment, and will he commit to a date by which Cambridgeshire and Peterborough will exit prioritisation?
Alex Norris
The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point about vetting. I heard from probation frontline leaders about cases that have taken them the thick end of a year, and the attrition rates as people go and get other jobs. We do not want to see that happen. Vetting must be done properly, and my hon. Friend the Prisons Minister and I are working with the Cabinet Office to improve it. On the specific point about Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, I will revert directly to him.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is crucial that conditions are followed on release. However, automatic recall often means that people who miss a probation appointment end up in prison, often for months on end. Will the Secretary of State look at the recall process and ensure that it is fair and equitable and that if people do err on their conditions, there is work to support that person outside prison rather than their being brought back into custody?
Alex Norris
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. I think we could say unanimously across this place that if an individual out on licence contacted their victim, that would be a significant transgression, and it would have the most significant response, as would breaching their conditions flagrantly and clearly deliberately. There is an element around non-compliance that is more technical—I have to say, I do not think that this is happening widely, but I want to recognise it in the spirit of my hon. Friend’s question. I would defend strongly the principle that people must turn up to the meetings that they are expected to attend, but as my hon. Friend has asked me to look at that issue, we will of course do that, because we want the recall system to be effective.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I am sure that the Lord Chancellor is aware that it is estimated that 20% of the prison population is made up of young people or adults who have previously been in care. Will the Lord Chancellor take a leading role across Government to ensure that there are measures in place to prevent care-experienced people going into prison, and that if they are in prison they have the necessary support to make sure that they do not return?
Alex Norris
I absolutely agree. I have been having conversations with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education very recently on that point. I always took very seriously as a local councillor the role of corporate parent. For those children in care, we were their parents in law and in substance; we had to give them all the opportunities to thrive, and, as my hon. Friend says, when they were challenged to help them get out of that and build a more positive path. She is exactly right to raise that.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)
Happy birthday, Madam Deputy Speaker—a fellow Virgo.
I very much welcome the clarity in the Lord Chancellor’s statement, but on the issue of additional prison capacity, the Prison Officers’ Association has already raised extreme concerns about understaffing, under-resourcing, risk of extreme violence and overcrowding. What reassurances can he give today that additional resources will be provided to operate the extra spaces safely?
Alex Norris
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I look forward to having these conversations with the leadership of the POA and its members, who do such a great job. I am very aware of the attrition rates and retention challenges among people working in our prison system because the estate runs hot. What we are doing is exactly in the service of making it a better place to work, so that they are not having to administer a system that is tense and running at its margins all the time. Deflating it in the ways that I have talked about will help us to build a more stable regime and a better place to work.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
We know that these decisions are not easy and that they reflect the state that the system was left in, but I have concerns, as do charities, about domestic abuse survivors, because perpetrators are going to be let out as early as next month. It is clear that we need to do more to support these victims, so can the Minister please tell me what services will be put in place to ensure that there is adequate support for victims of domestic abuse whose perpetrators are being released?
Alex Norris
I am grateful for the question. As I have said to other colleagues, I think that this is an important thing to demonstrate. My hon. Friend will have heard what I said about bringing the helpline forward and about support for local organisations to help support survivors through difficult periods, but the critical thing is high-quality engagement with victim liaison officers so that those individuals have certainty about what is happening and can help design controls around their perpetrator.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
Probation officers and their trade unions have expressed concern about the proposed removal of the workforce measurement tool used to ensure that staff caseloads are at safe levels, and no date has been set for a replacement. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the capacity of the Probation Service to manage rising caseloads safely, and will a new platform be delivered before the current one is decommissioned?
Alex Norris
I am grateful for the chance to address that. That system is coming to an end because it is 15 years old. It is right that we address that. I want there to be much better tech enablement across the Probation Service. I met staff and heard about the importance of AI transcription, which is able to reduce their paperwork load. We of course want to have effective workload management tools in place. That is what myself and my hon. Friend the Prisons Minister are working closely on as we move to the new model.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for grasping the nettle of IPP prisoners. I remind the House that it was Bob Neill, the Conservative Chair of the Justice Committee, who built consensus on that Committee and brought forward a report to urge the Government to act and set up a number of proposals. I see that Bob’s name is not on the list of advisers that the Secretary of State has mentioned. It would be useful having him on board, I believe.
Alex Norris
That is an excellent suggestion by my right hon. Friend; I will be in touch with Bob. We do not intend for this to be a long, drawn-out process. We want to build from the best evidence that is available from those who have been active in this space. I certainly will make sure that I contact Bob to see how he can help us in this process. I remember him very fondly from his time in this place.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will be aware of my constituents Gemma Chappell and Rachel Walls, the great-aunts of baby Maya, who died at the hands of her mother’s partner. I thank the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister for reviewing the early release scheme so that Maya’s mother, who was scheduled for early release this month, will not now be included in this scheme. I commend him for the proposals that he has explained to increase accommodation. Can he say how victims will be supported in the future?
Alex Norris
My hon. Friend raised directly with me and colleagues that appalling case, which when it came to public attention rightly sickened everybody who saw it. I am pleased that we have been able to make the changes that we have, but I again recognise the impact of the uncertainty across the summer. On the point about victim support, it is about high-quality engagement through victim liaison officers as well as access to local support services. We are augmenting our funding for that and the victims helpline.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
I thank the Lord Chancellor for the focus on victims in his statement. Some of the most harrowing conversations I have had as an MP have been with victims and survivors. The failures in the tagging system have had a great impact on them, retraumatising them again and again. Can he explain to my constituents what the impact of the new restriction zones will have on them and their experience of the criminal justice system going forward?
Alex Norris
It is a really significant change. What I am about to say is not just about restriction zones, but it is really important that I say it. Traditionally, victims and survivors have lived their lives around the licence conditions of their perpetrator. We need to flip that, and restriction zones give us that chance. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is here on the Front Bench, which is very helpful, because she built this system out. That is the change that we want to see to ensure that victims are living full lives.
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor has inherited an absolute mess in the prison system, and I feel heart sorry for him trying to balance the needs of victims with the need for justice and the need to manage the prison estate in a meaningful way. Exclusion zones could be absolutely transformative in enabling victims to live their lives going forward, but it is contingent on the tagging service being effective. At the moment, people and particularly victims would assume that if someone breaches their tag restriction zone, at the very least their probation officer would be automatically informed, but the IT does not function in that way. When will that be in place?
Alex Norris
The technology is rapidly improving, as is compliance. There are other points of failure, such as people not getting tags. That is why that presumption helps, as does tagging in prison. I was with staff on Friday and I was tagged, as colleagues may have seen. I have to say it worked very effectively in that case. We are absolutely resolute that it must work. That is why we are putting this effort and investment in.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I welcome the Lord Chancellor’s statement and the changes he is making. I know that victims have been at the forefront of his and the Prime Minister’s minds. Families such as those of Chloe Holland and Skye Nicholls have seen the devastating consequences of domestic abuse. How will these and future changes better protect victims and ensure that the psychological harm caused by domestic abuse, particularly coercive control, is properly recognised?
Alex Norris
I really recognise the importance of that question, and indeed the anxiety caused for survivors of domestic abuse as a result of the changes. We need clearer, earlier flagging. That is something that has been lacking, and we are resolute in addressing that. As I say, it is important that extra support is brought forward sooner and more investment is put into it. We also need really good engagement with victim liaison officers so that the victim or survivor knows exactly what will happen with their perpetrator and can shape the controls on them.
Policing in Cleveland
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Before the statement on Cleveland policing, I should inform the House that charges have been brought against a number of individuals in relation to the fatal collision on the A66 and the house fire in Grangetown. Those cases are now sub judice. It is possible that other charges may be brought.
Mr Speaker is granting a full waiver for today, and for future proceedings, to enable discussion on support for the victims and wider issues of concern raised in the context of these incidents. However, I must urge Members not to discuss the details of any individual case. That includes not discussing any motive, or the guilt or innocence of any individual. Members should avoid wider speculation that could be prejudicial in any future criminal trials.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement about the fatal crash near Middlesbrough on 22 August, and the death of two brave police officers that day: Police Constable Matthew Blades and Police Constable Tom Clough. It is the most humbling duty of any Home Secretary to oversee the work of our police forces and the thousands who serve in them, and that is never more true than on a day like today, when we honour those who have fallen in the line of duty—those who lost their lives as they sought to protect us all.
The detail of what happened will by now be well known to most in the House and beyond it, but it is right to begin by recounting the facts. At 3.39 on the morning of Saturday 22 August, a Volkswagen Passat containing five young men, travelling the wrong way down the A66, collided with a marked Cleveland police armed response vehicle. The police car was, I should add, travelling on the correct side of the road. A significant emergency response was deployed. I must pay tribute to all the first responders who attended the scene and worked in extremely difficult circumstances. Despite their best efforts, PC Blades and PC Clough both died as a result of the collision, as did the five individuals who were driving on the wrong side of the road.
Following such an incident, it is mandatory that a referral is made to the Independent Office for Police Conduct. That has happened in this case, and the IOPC has begun an independent investigation. On 23 August, it issued an update, which I will now summarise. Prior to the crash, Cleveland police received intelligence regarding numerous incidents linked to a Volkswagen Passat. The Passat was later sighted and an armed response vehicle began a pursuit. The pursuit lasted just under seven minutes before the Passat crossed over to the wrong side of the A66. At that point, the pursuit was aborted by officers, who continued to travel on the correct side of the carriageway. However, about 10 seconds later, the Passat collided with a police vehicle that was not involved in the pursuit but was in the area to assist in the search. That car contained police constables Blades and Clough. This is an ongoing investigation, so we must heed the request of those best placed to examine the circumstances of this awful incident by avoiding speculation and giving them the time and space they need to carry out their vital work.
Significant police activity has followed the crash. Some 27 arrests have been made as part of a wide-scale investigation into suspected serious and organised crime. There are limits on what can be said publicly at this stage, but both the IOPC and Cleveland police have my full backing in their respective tasks.
Members may be aware that Cleveland police has also been investigating a house fire in Grangetown in which two people died, including, tragically, a child. It should be noted that the force is not treating that as connected in any way to the A66 crash. However, it has undoubtedly added to the sense of disquiet in a community already reeling from that earlier tragedy.
Many in the House and across the country will have also been troubled by the scenes in County Durham, where a number of vehicles were set on fire at a memorial for one of the occupants of the Passat. I recognise how unnerving it will have been for law-abiding citizens in both the affected areas and beyond to see a spate of incidents in close proximity and in quick succession. Let me therefore assert once more that lawlessness of any kind will never be tolerated, and the Government stand squarely behind the police as they face down criminality and disorder on our streets.
The Government are supporting the police in word and deed. Cleveland police, like all forces, is receiving a real-terms uplift this year, taking its total funding to £197.8 million—an increase of £7 million compared to 2025-26. Clearly, the events of recent days have placed exceptional pressure on Cleveland police, and I can confirm today that the force has received additional resource under mutual aid arrangements, which have seen officers deployed to Cleveland from around the region. I thank those forces and personnel who have stepped up and taken on this additional work.
I can also announce today that in the light of the situation Cleveland police has faced, we will allocate an additional £2 million to the force to tackle serious crime in the area. That will build on existing operations, including the “clear, hold, build” approach, which is tough both on serious crime and on the causes of serious crime, and has been shown to work across the country.
In addition, as I have said, we are committed to a wider review of the police funding formula to ensure that force funding is fair and keeps the public safe. A new approach to allocating funding will be brought in as part of our reforms to police structures. In the meantime, the Government will continue to work closely with Cleveland police to ensure that it has all the support it needs as it faces these challenging circumstances and grieves the loss of two of its own.
Let me end by paying tribute to those two men. PC Blades and PC Clough devoted their lives to the noblest form of public service, protecting their fellow citizens. In remembering them, we hold in our hearts those they leave behind—above all, their family and all those who love them. I think also of their colleagues in uniform, not just in Cleveland but across policing, who have lost friends, colleagues and fellow members of the policing family.
This tragedy speaks to an enduring truth: policing is not just a profession; it is a calling answered only by those who are willing to place themselves in harm’s way to protect us all. PC Blades and PC Clough epitomise that courage. At 37 and 38, they were no age at all, but in their all too brief lives they gave so much. An extraordinary number of tributes have poured in, but I think we must leave the final words to their families, who knew them best and loved them most. PC Blades’s wife remembers a “beloved husband” and “the most devoted father” to their two young boys. She said:
“He was loved beyond words by all his family and friends, and his loss has left a space that can never be filled. He gave his life in the line of duty, protecting and serving others with courage, dedication and selflessness.”
PC Clough’s family describe him as their “hero”. They remember his “fantastic sense of humour” and pay tribute to a man who
“jumped into action whenever needed”
and who was
“always on public duty throughout his short life.”
A death in the line of duty is a moment of profound national sorrow, but our public loss is a fraction of the private and personal tragedy for these two families, so, across the House, let us offer them our love, support and prayers. Let us never forget who those two brave men were and how much they meant to those who loved them. For all they did and all they gave, PC Blades and PC Clough were the very best of us. Today, we remember them. I commend this statement to the House.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. I know that the whole House will join the Home Secretary and me in paying tribute to those brave officers tragically killed in the crash on the A66 in the early hours of 22 August. Our thoughts are with the families of PCs Matthew Blades and Tom Clough, whose lives were cut short by a car recklessly driven on the wrong side of the road by criminals. Those brave officers made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty. They will never be forgotten.
Every day, police officers up and down the country risk their lives to keep us safe. We owe them all a deep debt of gratitude. This tragedy has sent shockwaves through Cleveland police and the public more widely. The Home Secretary has set out some of the steps being taken to support local police, but will she confirm that every request for extra assistance made by Cleveland police has been met?
In the aftermath of 22 August, I was shocked to see so-called tributes staged for some of the men directly responsible for PCs Blades and Clough’s deaths that included cars being driven dangerously and set on fire. Criminal activity of that kind is wrong in principle and deeply offensive in these circumstances. Will the Home Secretary join me in condemning that activity and calling on the police to ensure it does not happen again?
Organised crime was allowed to take hold in whole parts of Middlesbrough. Criminal gangs ran rampant and engaged in retaliatory attacks on one another. Homes and properties were attacked with no consequence, and that escalated even further in the days after 22 August. Although it is welcome that 27 people have finally been arrested, such lawless gang chaos should never have been allowed to take root in the first place. The police need proper resources to stop that. Many campaigners, including my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), the shadow police Minister, who I see in his place, have raised concerns for some time that there is a multi-million pound shortfall in funding for Cleveland police in the current financial year. Even the local Labour police and crime commissioner, Matt Storey, said this Government’s financial settlement this year
“completely fails to deliver the resources required to meet the demand faced by Cleveland Police and falls far short of what is needed.”
Does the Home Secretary accept her own police and crime commissioner’s assessment that the funding she put in place for Cleveland police this year is inadequate? Lawless chaos followed that underfunding, and I think the Home Secretary should apologise for that. The £2 million just referred to is only 0.5% of Cleveland’s budget and is clearly wholly inadequate in the circumstances.
I am afraid that that reflects a wider national trend that goes beyond Cleveland. The last Government left behind record ever police numbers, but there are now 1,800 fewer police officers under this Government. As a result, crime has increased by 10% and antisocial behaviour has gone up by 15% in just the last year. The Home Secretary must accept that cutting overall police numbers was a mistake. Will she take steps to reverse that decline? The truth is that only zero tolerance of crime and disorder will ensure that criminals are the ones who are afraid, and not the law-abiding public. We have seen the consequences, with the rampant gangs going unchallenged in Middlesbrough, and it is clear now that a zero-tolerance approach is required to keep the public safe.
Shabana Mahmood
Let me start by saying that I appreciate that, at the beginning of his statement, the shadow Home Secretary paid tribute and gave his condolences to the families of PC Blades and PC Clough. There is, at least, agreement across this House on their enormous sacrifice, and the need to support their family and friends as they face that loss. On the wider matters that he raises, he has absolutely no credibility when it comes to police numbers. It was his Government who cut police numbers, not by a few thousand here and there, or a few hundred, but by 20,000 police officers. They then decided to replace the 20,000 that they cut, but did so in a distorted way that meant that we have warranted police officers working in admin jobs and behind desks across police forces in this country.
The truth is that the Tory Government made an absolute mess of policing over their time in government. I have said this many times to the shadow Home Secretary, and though it falls on deaf ears, it remains true and I will keep saying it: he would have more credibility entering this debate if he fronted up on what went wrong under the Tory Government and apologised for it. I notice that he has the shadow Justice Secretary sitting next to him; he was a special adviser to a former Tory Home Secretary. Until there is humility about the mess that the Tories made of our public services and our policing in particular, they have no credibility, and I will take no lessons from them, especially given that his party oversaw the loss of over 200 officers in Cleveland.
This Government are righting those wrongs. We have increased funding for policing by £2 billion since being elected, and all forces will receive a real-terms uplift in their funding this year as part of an overall £18.5 billion package. Funding to Cleveland has increased by £18.3 million since 2024, and that is a real-terms increase of 4.4% over two years. That is the truth of what we have had to deal with as an incoming Labour Government, and we will not stop until we have our police service functioning exactly as the public would expect.
Let me also say to the right hon. Gentleman that, on the issue of criminal gangs and the efforts made by Cleveland police, I do not think it is a fair characterisation of that police force to suggest that they have done nothing for all this time and have only sprung into action since this horrifying incident took place. They are responding to the incident, arrests have been made and they will continue, and this Government will stand shoulder to shoulder with them as they get control of the matter and of the streets in Cleveland. That is why we have announced the additional funding today and that is why there are mutual aid arrangements in place to assist them.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on the unlawful activity that has been taking place in relation to tributes and memorials for some of those who lost their lives in the crash. I of course condemn all unlawful activity and all attempts to breed public disorder as a result of what has happened. Again, we stand four-square behind the police as they respond to those incidents. People should be in no doubt that any attempt to instigate public disorder or to break our laws will be met with the full force of the law, and the Government will support the police as they carry out that incredibly important work.
There will be questions about the ability of the police to respond effectively and to ensure that we are able to give confidence to all the public about the standard of service that they can expect from their policing. Members of this House should have absolutely no doubt that this is a Government who have increased funding for policing and who are going to make sure that we reform policing so that the police are capable of dealing with every type of challenge that a modern force faces and we have a police service that we can all be absolutely proud of and can rely on in our time of need. I hope that all Members across this House, acting reasonably, can unite around that.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
I join the Home Secretary in paying tribute to PC Matthew Blades and PC Tom Clough. I also pay tribute to all the officers of Cleveland police who, while grieving the loss of their two colleagues, have continued to serve with extraordinary professionalism, remaining visible in our communities, pursuing offenders and making arrests. My thoughts, those of my Middlesbrough and Thornaby East constituents and those of everyone across Teesside remain with the families of the officers, their friends and colleagues. That has been magnificently demonstrated by the overwhelming generosity shown in donations to the fund established to support the families of Matthew and Tom, and at the outpouring of love and solidarity at the Riverside stadium on Saturday, which reflect the decency of the overwhelming majority of people in our communities.
We must, however, confront the reality of crime honestly. The latest figures show around 123 recorded crimes per 1,000 people across the Cleveland police force area—the highest rate of any police force in England and Wales. Yet Cleveland has experienced the largest percentage reduction in full-time equivalent officers since 2010, losing around 13% of its officers. Police numbers are not the only factor, but a force facing the highest demand in the country needs the resources to respond. I am truly grateful to the Home Secretary for the financial assistance she has announced for Cleveland today, and that will address the mutual aid bill and some. Will she meet me and my colleagues to discuss how that deficit in resources can be urgently and permanently corrected?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. I know how deeply affected he and other parliamentarians who represent the local area have been by what has happened, and I pay tribute to their ability to give voice to what their communities are experiencing. I particularly agree with him on thanking the officers who are still on duty, who have lost one of their own. They are showing incredible bravery in very difficult circumstances.
I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend and colleagues from neighbouring constituencies to discuss these matters in more detail. I hope he will take comfort from the additional resourcing that has been announced today. We believe that is important to get on top of the serious and organised crime issues in the area, but of course we will want to ensure that the force has everything it needs in order to respond. More widely, I would like to discuss with him how this matter makes the case for wider police system reform, so that we can ensure we have a service that can not only respond to local need but, at regional level, surge resources into areas that are experiencing particularly high levels of crime.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
I want to join others in extending my sympathies and those of my party to the families and colleagues of PC Matthew Blades and PC Tom Clough. My thoughts are with their loved ones at this extremely difficult time. By virtue of my in-laws, I am from a policing family, so I know the shock and grief that is being felt in the wider policing community, too. That should be acknowledged today in the Chamber.
At least one of those killed in the Middlesbrough crash is in multiple videos posted on TikTok depicting dangerous driving. This is part of a concerning wider trend on social media platforms, where lives are being risked in the pursuit of clicks, and we must ask: who is benefiting from this? It is some of the world’s richest people. They are getting richer off the back of these platforms, which are currently under-regulated, while communities suffer the consequences. Can the Home Secretary explain why, despite her Government’s intention to force platforms to remove dangerous content that leads to dangerous activities and deaths, such platforms still have no legal obligation to do so? Events in America have shown that these companies can be brought to heel, so will the Home Secretary work with the Culture Secretary to strengthen the Online Safety Act 2023, so that the glorification of dangerous driving is brought into scope?
It is, as others have said, deeply worrying to see the scenes of unrest that have followed this incident. We know that there are national pressures on police resources, so can the Home Secretary tell the House how long mutual aid will continue, and can she say something about the support given to the other forces that are losing resource under mutual aid arrangements? Given the apparent links, is she confident that her reforms will give the police and the National Crime Agency the resources and powers they need to tackle the scourge of organised crime that impacts not only Middlesbrough but so many communities across our country?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the Lib Dem spokesman for his comments and questions. Let me assure him that I am already discussing with colleagues across Government the wider issues of social media platforms and the content that is posted on them. He will know that this Government have been implementing various elements of the Online Safety Act and that from the middle of next year the wider measures within the Act will come online. That will mean that the larger social media platforms, including TikTok, will be under a legal duty to act against harmful content that breaches their terms of service. That will include content of this nature. In the meantime, most of the platforms are taking this content down. It is a reactive process, in the sense that they are responding to content being flagged—it has then, for the most part, been removed from their platforms—but from the middle of next year there will be a duty on those platforms to act proactively, not just reactively.
However, as I have said to the hon. Gentleman before, there are wider questions about the efficacy of the Online Safety Act and whether we need to revisit the measures in that Act and go further, given the unique pressures that some of the content on those platforms poses for law and order, and for criminal justice more broadly. Those are matters that the Government are considering, and other Government colleagues will come to the House to update Members in due course. Let me assure him that I work closely with colleagues on the specific matters raised by this case.
On the hon. Gentleman’s question on mutual aid, that will continue as long as it is needed by the chief constable in Cleveland, but I think this case shows the need for wider police structural reform. Cleveland is a relatively small force, and we can see the pressures on a small force that is having to do local neighbourhood policing as well as the much more specialist investigations that go with organised crime and public order-related issues. As I have made clear before, moving to a three-tier system with local forces, regional forces and also the new national police service will put us in the best possible position to provide a policing service that is able to respond to local issues in the way that local people expect, with a very visible local policing presence, as well as giving us the flexibility to respond to cases across a larger area, such as those we have seen in Cleveland, with the capacity and numbers needed to deal with public order risk, for example, without having to rely on mutual aid to get through and survive day by day, and having a national police service that can take up the types of crime that are prevalent nationally and also have an international dimension. We will bring forward our proposals on reform later this year, and I look forward to debating those with the hon. Gentleman and others across this House.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
The whole of Teesside has been shaken by the tragic deaths of PC Tom Clough and PC Matthew Blades last week, and the real Teesside—the one not depicted in the media—is the one that filled up the Riverside with a standing ovation for those two brave officers on Saturday, that has raised over £1 million for their families and that stands with our emergency services every single day. However, those services need their Government to stand with them, too. I am grateful for the £2 million extra funding that has been announced today, and for the 300 extra officers who have been deployed from across the country to keep our streets safe in the short term, but what we need in the long term is funding formula reform, so will the Home Secretary bring that forward at pace and ensure that we get the fair funding settlement that Cleveland so desperately needs?
Shabana Mahmood
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the way that he has responded to this incident on behalf of his constituents, who I know have been deeply affected, as he has himself. The outpouring of support for the families of PC Blades and PC Clough is a real testament to the people he represents. Let me assure him, on ensuring that the Government proceed with their planned review of the funding formula, that as we change police force structures, the case for the necessity of changing the formula is also made out. We could not keep the same funding formula with a new policing system in any case. I say that to assure him that both reviewing and reforming the police funding formula are absolutely critical to the programme of police reform. We know that on many occasions over 14 years the previous Government promised reform of the funding formula but then ducked that reform at every opportunity. The move to a new structure for policing in this country provides the best opportunity to relook at funding, and let me reassure him that that is absolutely on the agenda. We will be updating the House on the timetable for that, once the independent review on police force structures has been completed and presented to the House.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
As a local Member, I pay tribute to PC Matthew Blades and PC Tom Clough, and to every police officer who has worked tirelessly throughout these horrific and tragic events. Our thoughts remain with their families and colleagues. Despite having the highest crime rate in the country, Cleveland received the lowest increase in funding, with our local Labour police and crime commissioner warning of a £2.4 million shortfall. I very much welcome the mutual aid and the funding that has been announced, but will the Home Secretary guarantee that the new funding formula will properly reflect the pressures of serious and organised crime faced by Cleveland, so that this funding does not prove to be merely a sticking plaster?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Gentleman is a local Member, and he is taking the opportunity to ask a question from the Back Benches to reflect his local interest; I pay tribute to him for his response to this incident and the wider pressures in his local area. I assure him that, when we begin the work on reforming the funding formula, we will start with a first-principles approach to what we are seeking to achieve. That will include broader issues of demand for policing and will reflect the reality of what policing different areas looks like.
The new police force structure—a new regional force model that is big enough to surge capacity to local areas when required—will give the flexibility to ensure that forces are not condemned to permanently relying on mutual aid. It is to the credit of the policing system that people step up and do what is required to keep their areas safe, but nobody could argue that that is the right way to run policing in our country in the 21st century. It desperately needs reform. Most of the policing system leaders recognise that the structure needs reform. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that funding reform will flow as a result of that. The first phase of consulting on funding reform will relate to the first principles of what the funding is for and how to reflect the needs of different areas.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I join the Home Secretary and the whole House in paying tribute to PC Matthew Blades and PC Tom Clough, and in sending our heartfelt condolences to their families and loved ones. Matthew was a coach at my son’s football club, FC Hartlepool, and at Seaton Carew FC. The teams played each other last Saturday, when I was proud to join so many other Poolies in paying tribute to a remarkable man who was so loved by everyone who knew him. I also pay tribute to our police and all emergency services personnel, who are getting up every single day grief-stricken at the loss of their two colleagues, but are still doing their jobs to an amazing extent.
These tragic events did not materialise out of the blue. The lawlessness that we are seeing in certain parts of our communities did not happen overnight. It is the consequence of systemic underfunding of our police and our fire service. I welcome the £2 million announced by the Home Secretary today, but does she agree—I join my colleagues in saying this—that we need a long-term solution to fix the funding formula, for both our police and our fire service, if we are to protect all of our communities? I hope that she is sincere about ensuring that that happens.
Shabana Mahmood
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work in providing reassurance to his local community. It is particularly difficult when you have a personal connection to somebody who has lost their lives in these circumstances, so I pay tribute to him for the work he is doing in what are very difficult circumstances for local representatives and all members of our emergency services in the area. I reassure him that the work that we will do on police funding is a very real part of the wider police reform programme. I hope that when we discuss these matters, as we will when I meet local Members of Parliament for the area, we can see how this fits in with the wider programme of police reform.
This incident shows, in a very horrifying way, why we need to reform policing structures so that we have the right level of policing in each of our areas, such that we can respond to shop theft and antisocial behaviour on our high streets, ensure that we can deal with local organised and serious crime, and ensure that specialist investigation and public order are not left to be looked after by mutual aid arrangements. The case for reform is made out; as a necessary part of that reform, we will of course look at the funding formula. I look forward to discussing that with my hon. Friend very soon.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
The deaths of PC Matthew Blades and PC Tom Clough have, of course, been felt acutely in Cleveland, but they have also been felt more widely across the whole north-east and the policing family. I pay tribute to colleagues across the House, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley), who has spoken with dignity as a local representative in the light of those terrible events.
As the Home Secretary said, some of the officers stepping forward to provide mutual aid are from neighbouring forces, such as Northumbria, Durham and others. Unfortunately, the sad reality is that three of the four forces that have had the highest fallen officer numbers from 2015 are north-east forces. That makes the Home Secretary’s point about the need for fundamental change in the funding formula. Those officers are, despite the cuts, putting themselves back into duty and providing mutual aid at enormous personal cost. As she reviews the funding formula, will she ensure that officers have ongoing access to wellbeing and mental health support to help them respond to communities as they have been?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. I assure him that the usual arrangements on the engagement of the national police wellbeing service have been activated and support is being provided. We will obviously monitor that to ensure that it is adequate and can rise to the challenge of what we are seeing in Cleveland. His point is incredibly important because, at the end of the day, police officers are human beings; they are still running towards danger, working very long hours and helping people in their local community, but they do need support. When you have lost two of your own in such terrible, terrible circumstances, the case for that support is more than made out. That is being provided, but the Policing Minister will continue to talk to the chief constable and others to ensure that our officers are being supported and looked after.
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend on the need for fundamental change in the way that we do the funding formula for policing. That is also tied to the fundamental change that we need on police force structures as well. He will know that Cleveland is a force of about 1,500 officers. Even before the cuts under the Conservative Government, it was around 1,700. That is very different from a force such as mine in the west midlands, which has 6,000 officers, or Greater Manchester, which has around 8,000 officers. We have a system that is very lopsided when it comes to police force sizes and, more importantly, the number of officers in each force. That sometimes limits what smaller forces can do without needing mutual aid to support them.
There is a case for structural reform, but it needs to be done in a way that ensures that the public have absolute confidence that their local forces will be highly focused on local issues and that regional forces can handle these specialist investigations and public order issues—and then there is the National Police Service on top of that. I look forward to discussing these issues with my hon. Friend; I know we will do so, because he is a member of the Home Affairs Committee.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. I echo her words about the two brave police officers who lost their lives in this collision incident on the A66. My constituency has experienced similar deeply antisocial and incredibly dangerous experiences of racing and speeding on our roads. Groups of predominantly young men gather along our main roads, watching cars speeding down those busy roads as content is filmed to be posted on social media. We had a particularly bad spike and hotspot over the weekend in a stretch of road called Bob Dunn Way, next to the Bridge estate. I thank local people who have raised this matter with me and BBC South East, which has highlighted the problem. This activity is clearly dangerous for other road users and is really disruptive for local residents. Does the Home Secretary agree that we must do absolutely everything we can to tackle this lawlessness on our roads and the social media trends that appear to be driving it?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter in his constituency, which faces some of the same issues as we have seen in Cleveland; I see the same in parts of Birmingham as well. He is absolutely right that we have to do everything we can to clamp down on the emerging pattern of behaviour that glorifies this type of activity, which can lead to incredibly dangerous situations on our roads. As I said in response to an earlier question, social media platforms—admittedly, in a reactive way—are taking down the content flagged with them. I urge him to ensure that he shares any local examples he has with those platforms directly, but also with the Home Office, so that we can ensure that they are taken down. As the wider measures in the Online Safety Act are implemented, we can expect the platforms to take a much more proactive position, so that we can stop this trend in its tracks.
Bills Presented
Vehicle Emissions Trading Schemes Order 2023 (Revocation) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Richard Holden, supported by Claire Coutinho, Andrew Bowie, Sir Gavin Williamson, Richard Fuller, Jerome Mayhew, Greg Smith, Mr Gagan Mohindra, Katie Lam, Rebecca Paul, Rebecca Smith and Joe Robertson, presented a Bill to revoke the Vehicle Emissions Trading Schemes Order 2023; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 January 2027, and to be printed (Bill 134).
Greyhound Racing Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Lisa Smart, supported by Liz Jarvis, Anna Sabine, Tom Gordon, Will Stone, Neil Duncan-Jordan, Cat Eccles, Dr Simon Opher, Hannah Spencer, Alison Hume, Irene Campbell, presented a Bill to prohibit the racing of greyhounds on racetracks in England; to create offences in connection with the organising of, and the keeping, breeding or training of greyhounds for, such racing; to make provision about the welfare and rehoming of greyhounds retired from racing; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 March 2027, and to be printed (Bill 135).
Road Safety Plans
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require local authorities in England to prepare and publish a road safety plan in respect of each school in their area; and for connected purposes.
It is good to be back. The reasons behind my bringing the Road Safety Plans Bill to the House are the events of December 2025 in Madeley Heath in the northern part of my constituency. A local dad was walking his daughter to Meadows primary school not far from their home and, on this fateful day, was struck down by a reckless and speeding driver. That is what this Bill is about. We are here to demand action and to ensure that those responsible—in our case, Staffordshire county council—get on with actually doing something rather than more warm, weasel words, on occasion, about understanding the problems.
Newcastle-under-Lyme is home to many brilliant schools, from Meadows primary school to St Wulstan’s in Wolstanton to Hassell primary school—which I was outside yesterday with Labour’s candidate in the town by-election scheduled for 8 October, Andrew Fox-Hewitt, who went to that school back in the day—up to Churchfields in Chesterton, St Mary’s on Silverdale Road and, of course, May Bank infants school. They are all excellent schools, all returning this week, and all would be safer if the provisions of my Bill became law.
This is important, because no child, no parent, no carer—nobody—in Newcastle-under-Lyme or anywhere else in England should be at risk of injury, serious injury or, indeed, death when on the journey to school in the morning or from school in the afternoon. While we would all agree that no one should be at risk of losing a loved one, forced to push a child out of harm’s way or, indeed, at risk themselves on that journey, we have seen far too many close calls in Newcastle-under-Lyme. Since my election to this place, I have heard countless reports from local people back home of serious incidents on our roads, whether that is the continued speeding on Hanbridge Avenue that has seen near misses for humans and family pets killed by reckless drivers, or concerns from a number of local people about speeding along Basford Park Road and Silverdale Road—not to mention the disgraceful boy racers who wreak havoc up and down the A34 and in the car parks of neighbouring hotels, or the junction at Bowsey Wood Road, where there was a recent fatality, and, of course, the incident at Meadows primary school back in December 2025.
Dangerous driving, boy racers and the associated impact are the very worst forms of antisocial behaviour. My constituents have had enough of this antisocial behaviour, and they want it sorted. Just a few days ago, I was copied into an email from a constituent of mine that was sent to Staffordshire county council. I want to share a few sentences from that email with the House:
“The community has established a Community Speed Watch Group, with volunteers dedicating their own time to conduct numerous monitoring sessions. More than 10,000 vehicles have been observed.
Police presence was recommended by the council as the primary and short-term solution; however, it has not proved to be a readily available option. Nevertheless, as previously stated, police presence cannot be considered a suitable substitute for a permanent solution, such as the provision of a pedestrian crossing.
In light of the above, we would be grateful for a clear update (from Staffordshire County Council) on the current position and, in particular, whether any specific road safety measures have now been identified for the A525/A531 junction.
The local community remains committed to working constructively with Staffordshire County Council and relevant partners to find a lasting solution.”
I could not have put that better myself, and I am grateful to my constituent Zsuzsanna for her tenacity and to Carol, Rebecca, Louise and another of my constituents, Jill Whitmore, who has been a lollypop lady outside Meadows primary school for many years and sits on the borough council.
These brilliant campaigners had me out on a cold wet morning earlier this year. It was raining cats and dogs, although I think I used other words at the time, and it was clear from being with them that morning that the junction at Meadows primary school is not safe, nor is it fit for purpose. They have together, in all weathers, campaigned hard and demanded action from the county council and the police to do more to stop speeding drivers and to keep our community safe. That is why this Bill is so important and so timely, not just in my community back in Newcastle-under-Lyme but right across England.
I have repeatedly called out Staffordshire county council for falling short and failing on its duty to get a grip of the situation and finally install the necessary traffic-calming measures. While we wait for the county council and its leadership to wake up, there continue to be what feel like near misses every day. This Bill would mean that the council has no excuse. I know that members of the county council like to watch my speeches, so I hope that they watch this one and then get up from behind their desks and get on with doing whatever is needed to make our roads safe.
That starts with ensuring that journeys to and from school are made safe, but it does not stop at that. At one of my coffee mornings in the summer, I met a constituent of mine, a 97-year-old man who is in very good shape, who came along to the church hall at St Werburgh’s in Clayton. He noted the speeding along Dartmouth Avenue outside the library, and outside the medical centre on Kingsbridge Avenue. My constituent told me that he has almost been knocked down several times and has seen families with small children in similar situations.
While my Bill starts with schools and making the school journey a better experience for all those concerned, let it be a catalyst for safer roads in Newcastle-under-Lyme and right across the country. There were 160 casualties in Newcastle-under-Lyme alone last year, including two fatalities. The case for my Bill is made by those statistics and the many, many families impacted by dangerous driving, speeding and criminality—this is a crime, and we need to tackle it.
I am proud that this Labour Government have made vital progress on road safety since the election in July 2024, and I welcome the publication of the first road safety strategy in over a decade earlier this year. I am particularly grateful to the excellent former Minister for Road Safety, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), for her engagement with me on issues of road safety in Newcastle-under-Lyme and for speaking to me about my Bill before the summer recess. Staffordshire county council could learn a thing or two from the Minister, because I am sick and tired of receiving responses that tell me that the councillor for the division will look at my request for action. To date, no county councillor has properly stepped up to be counted. Reviews, investigations, empty words and broken promises are all well and good, but they are boring. We need action and a comprehensive approach, not a ward by ward attempt at a solution. My Bill will help to make that so: it forces those who dither and delay to fix up and look sharp. I know that that applies to councils across the nation.
While accidents outside our schools often result from small, careless mistakes, the very worst consequences are felt by those impacted for the rest of their lives. As I bring this Bill before the House today, my thoughts are with all those in Newcastle-under-Lyme and beyond who have lost a loved one or suffered an injury on one of our roads.
By backing this Bill, we can make our road networks, specifically those surrounding our schools, safer for pupils, parents and teachers. School entrances should be among the safest crossing points for pedestrians in our communities. My Bill is about ensuring that everyone in Newcastle-under-Lyme and across England feels safe on their journey to school and back home by mandating all local authorities to develop and implement a bespoke road safety plan for every school in England. What a good idea!
Like people in my community and across the country, I know exactly where the problems lie, as do those who walk these journeys every day. Listening to those who share those experiences is important if we want to ensure that every child can make the journey between their home and their school safely, but we should not have to rely on the hard work of local campaigners to fight for change or wait around for another serious accident before action is taken.
As each and every school in England is nestled in different communities with different road networks, the existing macro approach to school road safety just has not worked. It has missed the concerns and challenges that children, parents and teachers face in different locations. One size clearly does not fit all, and that is why my Bill will provide local authorities with a mandate to take action to address specific problem areas. Dangerous crossings, speeding vehicles and blind spots all contribute to near misses, and they need to be targeted on a case-by-case basis by proactive local authorities.
My Bill sets out a local-first approach, designing plans that respond to the concerns and experiences of local people who know their areas best. Every child and every parent and carer deserves to walk to school safety, without living in fear that they may not make it to the school gates, and the same goes for the end of the school day. Every teacher should also be able to expect their pupils to arrive safely for a full day of learning and to come back the next morning. And no Member of the House should be forced to come to the House with a Bill like this again.
I hope that the road safety plans Bill and its aims find swift and productive support. I look forward to working with one and all to keep people safe on the way to and from school. It is not difficult or controversial but it is vital, so let us get on with it because our children and their families in Newcastle-under-Lyme and across England deserve nothing less.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Anna Dixon, Callum Anderson, Dame Karen Bradley, Mrs Elsie Blundell, Sarah Russell, Dr Al Pinkerton, Leigh Ingham, Simon Hoare, Dr Allison Gardner, Jacob Collier, Anna Gelderd and Adam Jogee present the Bill.
Adam Jogee accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 October, and to be printed (Bill 136).
Business of the House
Ways and Means
Sovereign Grant
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
I beg to move,
That—
(1) provision be made amending the Sovereign Grant Act 2011—
(a) to specify the amount of the Sovereign Grant for the financial year 2027-28;
(b) to specify the percentage of the income account net surplus of the Crown Estate to be used by the Royal Trustees to determine the amount of the Sovereign Grant in subsequent financial years;
(c) to confer a duty and a power on the Treasury to specify the amount of the Sovereign Grant in subsequent financial years in certain circumstances; and
(d) for connected purposes;
(2) any increase attributable to such provision in the sums payable under that Act should be payable out of money provided by Parliament.
The motion stands in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If we approve it, the Bill to establish the sovereign grant will be published later today, and I am sure the House will have an opportunity for a longer and more detailed debate on Second Reading. The sovereign grant is the annual funding provided to support the sovereign’s official duties and the work of the royal household, including staffing, official travel and the maintenance of the occupied royal palaces.
Since 2012, the level of the grant has been determined through a statutory framework that links it to a specified percentage of the revenue of the Crown Estate—an independent public business whose net revenue profits are returned to the Exchequer. Additionally, in 2016, the previous Government agreed a temporary £369 million uplift to the grant over 10 years from 2017-18 to 2026-27 specifically to fund the Buckingham Palace reservicing programme, a major 10-year project to modernise and safeguard the palace’s essential infrastructure.
Periodically, Parliament requires the royal trustees to review whether the arrangements for the sovereign grant remain appropriate. Earlier this year, the then royal trustees completed that review and made recommendations for the appropriate level of sovereign grant funding from 2027 to 2032. The trustees recognise that with the Buckingham Palace reservicing programme nearing completion, the exceptional funding requirement for the scheme no longer exists. They therefore recommended that the overall level of funding provided through the sovereign grant should reduce from next year from £137.9 million to £99.9 million in 2027-28.
The recommendation was made based on an assessment of the royal household’s expected costs and the Crown Estate’s expected revenues between 2027 and 2032. The new level of the grant will ensure that the royal household can continue to deal with property maintenance backlogs, following some years of constrained funding during the pandemic. It will also allow the royal household to replace ageing systems to strengthen cyber-security and install energy-efficient heating systems.
With the consent of the House, given that we will debate the clauses in the Bill in more detail on Second Reading later this month, I will bring my remarks to a close. Overall, these measures ensure that the grant will continue to fulfil its core purpose of supporting the official duties of the monarch and maintaining the occupied royal palaces. I hope the House will agree that the clauses in the Bill will improve the existing framework governing the sovereign grant so that it continues to operate just as Parliament intended.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The background to this motion dates from 1760, when the agreement was reached with George III to surrender the Crown Estate revenues to the taxpayer in return for Government support, but it was not until the Sovereign Grant Act 2011 that financial support was delivered through the sovereign grant. The purpose of the Act was to bring together a patchwork of funding streams and arrangements into a more transparent system with greater accountability to taxpayers.
The motion that the Minister has moved proposes three important changes: it sets the baseline for the sovereign grant for next year, it updates the percentage and, finally, it creates a mechanism to allow the Treasury to set the grant in future years in certain circumstances, which includes potentially reducing the amount in the sovereign grant. Given that the grant funds the duties of the monarch and the royal household, we support this approach and the motion.
It is worth reflecting that in an era when many institutions struggle to find public support and respect, the monarchy continues to play a unique role in our lives. Whether it is representing Britain overseas, supporting charitable organisations, strengthening diplomatic relationships or bringing communities together at moments of celebration or national reflection, the royal family performs an indispensable public service. We saw that in the response following the death of the late Queen and in the support that His Majesty the King has had as he has taken on the responsibilities of the Crown. I should note that His Majesty is a constituent when he is resident at Sandringham in my constituency—[Hon. Members: “He can’t vote!”] He cannot vote. Although Sandringham is a private residence, it hosts official events that are covered by the grant.
The value of the royal family is not simply symbolic. Independent analysis has shown the substantial soft power and economic benefits flowing from the institution, whether it is trade, tourism, cultural influence or the prestige associated with royal warrants, which many firms in our constituencies are fortunate to benefit from. The grant enables those benefits to be realised.
For this financial year, the sovereign grant stands at £137.9 million, with £97 million of that in core funding and £40 million as the final payment for the Buckingham Palace reservicing programme. When many construction projects—I could mention a number—seem to miss their budget and targets, it is right to acknowledge the National Audit Office’s finding that the 10-year programme has managed to remain in budget, despite challenges, by making trade-offs, actively managing risk and learning lessons. Despite the completion of the reservicing programme, without these proposed changes the funding would remain at the £137.9 million level in 2027, which clearly could not be justified. That is what lies behind the resetting of the baseline to £99.9 million, with the reference percentage raised to 20.5% for the period through to 2031-32.
At first glance, that looks like a significant reduction from the current level, but it comes after the completion of the 10-year programme, and core funding has actually increased to £97.6 million this year, from around £52 million in 2024-25. According to the House of Commons Library, if it had simply increased with inflation from 2016, it would now be £59.4 million. We have to ask what lies behind that growth. The jump from £52 million to £72 million in 2025-26 was largely driven by property maintenance, higher payroll and other spending, alongside a top-up to the reserve sovereign grant after a period of largely flat grants. More than half the total grant was allocated to the preservation of the occupied royal houses, which must be right.
The further rise to £97.6 million appears to mainly relate to royal travel, digital services, housekeeping and hospitality, although I would welcome the Minister shedding some more clarity on where the remaining costs come from. As we move forward, there is a considerable backlog of maintenance at the occupied royal palaces, a need to modernise ageing systems, to improve cyber security and to invest in more energy-efficient infrastructure. I am grateful to the royal household and the Keeper of the Privy Purse for the constructive conversations I have had with him on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition regarding the settlement, which does two things: preserve the historic national buildings and run a modern, secure, fit-for-purpose operation.
I have a few points that I would like the Minister to clarify. First, ahead of Second Reading, when we will be able to get far more into the detail than we can this evening, will he commit to writing to me with a breakdown of the planned expenditure behind the new £99.9 million figure? For example, why is payroll expected to rise by £7 million between 2026-27 and 2031-32? Core property maintenance rises by 25%. The case for addressing maintenance, particularly in stateroom areas, is clear. Is he confident that the broader programme reflects value for money? Can he confirm that any capital expenditure above £6 million, such as replacing the boilers at Windsor, would require Treasury approval of a business case?
Encouragingly, income supplementing the grant is forecast to increase by a quarter over the period. How confident is the Minister in those projections? It is important that there is a focus on efficiency. What external benchmarking of the royal household cost base has there been? Which comparator organisations were used, and what specific efficiencies have resulted or are planned as a result?
The reserve, as I have mentioned, fell with the impact of covid and now stands at £21 million. Is there a formal target reserve level that the household is managing toward for resilience purposes, distinct from the statutory 50% reduction trigger threshold? If so, over what timeframe is that expected to be reached?
The motion provides for the reference percentage used to calculate the grant rising from 12% to 20.5%, as the Government have set out. That is described as being calibrated to the household’s expected costs for that five-year period. What specific cost forecast underpins that rate? Has it been independently tested or benchmarked, or is it effectively set simply by reference to the household’s own submitted budget? For those who may be concerned that this settlement is too generous, the reality is that there will be a real-terms reduction as the grant remains flat in cash terms over the period.
One of the significant parts of this motion, which we will scrutinise carefully in the legislation, is a mechanism to allow the sovereign grant to decrease when circumstances warrant it. This reforms a long-standing feature of the existing system, the “golden ratchet” provision in section 6 of the 2011 Act, under which funding cannot decrease in cash terms. The Government’s briefing note on the King’s Speech tells us that the proposed change means that
“the Grant can be reduced from one year to the next, preventing inappropriately high funding”.
Of course it is important for all taxpayer funding to represent value for money, but can the Minister elaborate on the rationale for that, given that the settlement is expected to be flat cash over the period? In what circumstances would a reduction be considered appropriate, and what role would Parliament have in scrutinising any such decision?
We support the motion and the resetting of the sovereign grant following the completion of the Buckingham Palace works. It is important that we establish a sustainable funding framework for the years ahead. However, there are important questions that I have raised about the increases in the last year ahead of the setting of this new baseline, and in what circumstances the Government may look to reduce the funding. Those questions are asked in the spirit of supporting both the institution of the monarchy and the principle of responsible stewardship of public money.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
I welcome the Government's decision to introduce legislation to make it possible for the sovereign grant to be reduced, but there remain a number of issues surrounding the grant that I believe they should also address. The first is the link between the grant and the profits of the Crown Estate. The Crown Estate is quite separate from the monarchy, and operates to generate revenue for the Treasury. That seems a very odd form of indexation, and raises the question of why the grant is not based on the needs of the monarchy or its costs. That, I believe, needs to be reviewed. The fact that the grant could only ever go up—until the Government tabled this motion—was described by the Financial Times as an arrangement whereby in a good year the monarchy would win, and in a bad year the taxpayer would lose. It is therefore right that the Government are addressing that anomaly.
The motion also raises the question of how the grant should be set. I believe that the Treasury should have the power to specify the amount on an annual basis. It is important for the funding of the monarchy to be transparent and open to MPs for debate. On numerous occasions I have tried to table questions about these issues, only to be told that this is not something for Parliament to discuss. That has to change.
Finally, there are some anomalies relating to the monarch’s wider financial arrangements. Why, for example, are they not subject to inheritance tax? Why is no account taken of the profits of the Duchy of Lancaster in the setting of the level of the sovereign grant, and why are the monarch’s financial affairs exempt from freedom of information legislation? While the Bill might be viewed as an administrative adjustment, it is important that we ask why the grant needs to be 322% higher than it was when it was first introduced in 2012. Even when we allow for inflation, the proposed grant is well over twice the real value of its starting point.
I would be grateful if the Minister commented on those issues when he sums up the debate.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
The sovereign grant does not provide personal income for the King, the Queen or any member of the royal family. It funds the work of the institution, and the largest part of it funds buildings. Between 2025 and 2026, £67.5 million went on property maintenance alone, including the Buckingham Palace reservicing programme and the installation of more energy-efficient heating. These are heritage sites carrying a maintenance backlog that has built up over decades, and the purpose of the reservicing work is to stop a serious risk of fire and flood. We should, of course, take the action that is needed to protect these national heritage assets.
The grant is also funding green infrastructure across the estate and better cyber-security, which, in the current international climate, is not an optional extra for any national institution. However, we should treat the increase as temporary in nature, and it is right that the sovereign grant will be readjusted once those projects have been completed. The Government have already committed to legislating for exactly that when the reservicing works finish.
That brings me to a key issue: transparency. The taxpayer is funding this grant. Taxpayers are entitled to see where their money goes, and as the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) has already mentioned, Parliament is entitled to hold the Government and the Treasury to account for it. Some of that framework already exists, and it works. Under the Sovereign Grant Act, the royal household’s accounts are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General and laid before this House, and the royal household sits within the National Audit Office’s value-for-money remit. But that is not the whole picture.
We have an institution spending more than £130 million of public money a year, and its published accounts are the beginning and end of what the public can ask for. If one of my Hazel Grove constituents wants to know how a figure in the report came to be, there is no route for them to find out. May I encourage the Minister to let us know whether he has any plans to review the reporting requirements attached to the grant, so that Parliament and the public get spending detail at a level that allows genuine scrutiny? It is right that taxpayers will have questions about where and, importantly, whom this money goes to.
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor holds no title, no office and no public role; as far as the state is concerned, he is a private citizen. As such, not a penny of this grant should reach him. Neither should any other taxpayer funding, and that has to include what happens at the end of his life. Frequently, members of the royal family have received publicly funded funerals, having either ceremonial funerals or state funerals. For context, the Queen Mother’s ceremonial funeral in 2002 cost more than £5.4 million, of which £4.3 million was spent on policing. Can the Minister confirm that no public money from the sovereign grant or any departmental budget will fund a ceremonial funeral, a lying-in-state or state honours of any kind for Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his introduction, and for setting the scene for the motion. Clarification is needed, and the Minister has provided that in a way that I think is transparent. The nation needs to know as well.
Do the Minister and this House agree that although we must always ensure absolute value for money for every single taxpayer in my constituency and right across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the monarchy provides an immeasurable service, stability and global prestige that far outweighs the costs?
Looking at the figures, we see that the Treasury is rightly acting to reduce the overall sovereign grant to £99.9 million for the 2027-28 financial year. Will the Minister acknowledge that that demonstrates a clear commitment from the palace to be transparent and to tighten its belt alongside the public, and that it will ensure that the continuous maintenance of our historic national heritage can continue?
Dan Tomlinson
I thank Members from across the House for their questions and for beginning the scrutiny that will take place, should the House agree that the Bill should be laid and for debate to proceed at Second Reading. Let me turn to some of the points that were raised.
The shadow Exchequer Secretary, hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild)—I hope he still has that title, given the Opposition’s ongoing junior ministerial reshuffle—raised a whole range of important questions and asked whether I would write to him on these matters. I would be very happy to write to him, and I am sure the letter can be made available to others in this place, given that a whole range of questions were asked and I may not be able to cover them all in concluding.
One key question asked by Members on all sides was on the increase in the value of the sovereign grant above inflation. That is, of course, an important question, and one that the trustees went over in detail in making the decision to increase the grant, relative to the pre-Buckingham Palace servicing costs, up to £99.9 million. It is reducing by a quarter from the current year to next year because of the Buckingham Palace refit finishing. A large part of the increase in expenditure has been on the refurbishment and the servicing costs of the occupied royal palaces. That was at £18 million in 2016-17 and next year it will be at £33.6 million. That accounts for a large share of the above-inflation increase.
The shadow Minister mentions—the House of Commons Library and others have also pointed to these—other increases in expenditure faced by the royal household: yes, on buildings and maintenance, but also on ensuring the palaces can take proactive steps to improve the energy efficiency of their heating in line with broader net zero goals that have at least some level of consensus across the House. I hope that one day we may be able to rebuild that consensus, which seems sadly to have been lost in recent months, on ensuring that we, along with our international allies, can reduce our domestic carbon emissions. There is the need for investment in cyber-security, which is growing in line with AI, and we must target other long-term measures to make sure the royal household is more resilient.
There was a whole range of questions on whether the trustees have ensured a focus on external benchmarking and on what work has been done to scrutinise the costs. I am assured that that work has taken place, and we can discuss it in more detail on Second Reading. That touches on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) and others about the fact that the sovereign grant will now be set at close to 20% of the revenue of the Crown Estate, rather than 12.5%. That reflects the bottom-up assessment that has taken place, looking across the needs of the royal household and making sure it is being funded adequately for the public duties that His Majesty the King and the royal family carry out.
It is worth pointing out that those activities have increased significantly in recent years. Towards the end of her reign, the late Queen was not carrying out a large number of foreign engagements and was also hosting a smaller number of state visits. The King has increased the engagement he is carrying out on our behalf as part of his public duties. That has involved more expenditure in staff costs and to ensure that those engagements and the benefits the shadow Exchequer Secretary talked about—the representation of our country and supporting good causes here in the UK—can get the funding and support they need.
It is worth noting, in response to the question raised by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, that the sovereign grant is very clearly focused on the official duties that the royal family carry out on our behalf. It is not about supporting or funding their private activities, or things it would not be appropriate for the sovereign grant to fund.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poole raised the need for debate on these topics. We will get plenty of time on Second Reading to debate the issues that he and others have raised on transparency and clarity on where the sovereign grant is being spent. I have set out today some initial outlines. I will respond in writing and I am sure we will have a thorough debate later in the month.
I will have to get back to the shadow Exchequer Secretary on the business case thresholds, but the Treasury does of course make sure that every penny of our money is well spent, and that includes the £99.9 million that will be allocated.
I have, I hope, responded to many of the points that have been raised. I thank Members for their contributions. I look forward, if we proceed, to debating this matter on Second Reading.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That a Bill be brought in on the foregoing Resolution;
That the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Alex Norris and Dan Tomlinson bring in the Bill.
Sovereign Grant Bill
Presentation and First Reading
Dan Tomlinson accordingly presented a Bill to specify the amount of the Sovereign Grant for the financial year 2027-28 and the percentage of the income account net surplus of the Crown Estate to be used by the Royal Trustees to determine the amount of the Sovereign Grant in subsequent financial years; to confer a duty and a power on the Treasury to specify the amount of the Sovereign Grant in subsequent financial years in certain circumstances; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 137) with explanatory notes (Bill 137-EN).
Backbench Business
Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call Alex Sobel, who will speak for up to 15 minutes.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House notes the critical threat that Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) pose to press freedom, public interest research, and the right of citizens and campaigners to speak out on matters of public concern; recognises that SLAPPs predominately target individuals, including private citizens, utilising novel legal tactics, with the weaponisation of libel law and data protection claims and the aggressive use of injunctions, which often come hand in hand with other forms of harassment including smear campaigns and surveillance; further recognises that the anti-SLAPP provisions within the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 are ineffective due to their complexity and insufficient due to their narrow focus on economic crime; further notes the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) view that the ‘main way to address the problem of SLAPPs is through a robust legislative solution that gives the courts more powers’, and that SRA regulation will inevitably be severely limited absent a new law; highlights concerns over the suppression of public interest information and acts of public participation in the absence of a universally applicable anti-SLAPP law; and also recognises the urgent need for the Government to find a legislative vehicle for simple, comprehensive anti-SLAPP provisions that filter out abusive lawsuits swiftly and fairly.
I rise to speak on this motion on the impact of strategic lawsuits against public participation, also known as SLAPPs. It is the custom to thank the Backbench Business Committee. This is our second attempt to have this debate. Last time, I agreed to pull it, so there could be a longer debate on settlement goods. However, I thank the Committee for giving us 90 minutes of protected time; otherwise, we would have had only 44 minutes for this debate. That is really why I am thanking it this evening.
A SLAPP is litigation, or commonly the threat of litigation, designed primarily to silence criticism, rather than vindicate a legitimate legal right. The objective is often not to win in court, but to make speaking out so expensive, stressful and risky that journalists, campaigners, academics, whistleblowers and ordinary citizens decide that remaining silent is the safer option. On the surface, SLAPPs may appear to be a niche media law issue. However, as we will no doubt hear in examples from Members today, by suppressing information that is in the public interest, SLAPPs undermine our democracy, our public watchdogs and the integrity of our justice system.
Back in June, during Justice questions, the then Secretary of State recognised the profound financial and psychological impact of SLAPPs, and the threat they represent to democracy and free speech. He also highlighted that SLAPPs extend beyond journalism and issues of free speech, and are used to silence sexual abuse survivors and tenants who have complained to landlords. That is one of five reasons why this debate is particularly important and timely. Many think SLAPPs are confined to journalists being threatened by Russian oligarchs. In fact, the threat is more diverse than ever. The expanding scope of this abuse across all types of public interest is deeply concerning. There has been a significant spike in cases reported to the UK Anti-SLAPP coalition over the last 18 months, a large proportion of which are from private citizens who have spoken out about concerns in their local area, or services they have received. No doubt, we all have constituents affected by SLAPPs.
Secondly, the tactics are evolving. While defamation remains a common legal basis for use, SLAPPs are now being brought through claims such as harassment, data protection, privacy and trespass, demonstrating that any effective response must establish universal protections, irrespective of the cause of action.
Thirdly, the UK appears to be an attractive jurisdiction for this kind of legal abuse. Our expensive litigation and claimant-friendly reputation have made London a popular destination, while the European Union has moved ahead with an anti-SLAPP directive and 22 EU countries have taken action to progress anti-SLAPP legislation at a national level. In the UK, broad protection is still absent, and we risk becoming an outlier.
Fourthly, in recent months, the limit of the regulatory framework has been brought into sharp focus. The Solicitors Regulation Authority has faced challenges in progressing SLAPP complaints, particularly those that have reached the tribunal stage, and recent Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal judgments have failed to address the fundamental issue of SLAPPs as an abusive tactic. Despite over 70 cases being opened since 2022, only three have so far progressed to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. Moreover, the Solicitors Regulation Authority has not publicly released any data regarding the state of its SLAPP-related investigations since 2024. While new legislation is urgently required, it must be accompanied by strong regulatory guidance and enforcement action.
Finally, Parliament now has an opportunity to act. Before the summer recess, two new private Members’ Bills were introduced: one by the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale)—I am sure that we will hear more from him on that—and one in the other place by Baroness Stowell. The Bills aim to create broader anti-SLAPP protection. The issue before us is no longer whether the problem exists; it is whether we are prepared to legislate with the urgency the problem demands.
Many of Britain’s biggest national scandals only came to light because determined journalists, courageous whistleblowers and persistent campaigners refused to be intimidated, but SLAPPs have often been present. SLAPPs delayed reporting on the Horizon Post Office scandal, maternity scandals in teaching hospitals—such as those in Oxford and in my constituency in Leeds—and the Grenfell tower tragedy. Think about the scandals we have never discovered because someone successfully silenced those asking the questions. That is why the issue is about far more than protecting journalists; it is about protecting the public’s right to know.
I acknowledge that the previous Government recognised the problem. Following the Ministry of Justice’s 2022 consultation, reforms were introduced through the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, creating protections against SLAPPs connected to economic crime, including an early dismissal mechanism and greater protections on legal costs. Those were welcome reforms, but they are also flawed and limited; they only protect investigations into economic crime and depend on a complex and time-intensive process to determine the intentions or mindset of the claimant.
Those limitations matter. Public interest speech is not confined to speech about corruption, fraud and money laundering. It also concerns patient safety, environmental harm, housing conditions, human rights abuses, sexual violence, animal welfare and failures of public administration, among other things. People should not lose protections simply because the wrongdoing they expose does not fit within a narrow statutory category. That is why I am calling on the Government to use the opportunity of the two private Members’ Bills to introduce universal anti-SLAPP legislation.
I will keep my remarks short because we are short on time, and I want to ensure that all Members who have come to this debate get to speak. I take the opportunity to thank all those who have been working on this issue for the last five years, supporting the cases that we will hear about, including the Foreign Policy Centre, the Index on Censorship, Global Climate Legal Defence, the News Media Association, the Bureau of Investigative Journalists, Reporters Without Borders, Spotlight on Corruption, Transparency International, and all the members of the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition, as well as the Media Lawyers Association and the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, which supports this work.
I also thank the targets of SLAPPs who have bravely spoken out about the legal threats they have faced. SLAPPs encourage silence to avoid increasing liability, but we only know about the scale of the issue because brave people across the country have spoken out. We are indebted to them.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) on obtaining this debate. It is a subject that we have discussed in this place a number of times over the years, and each time the need for action becomes even greater. Indeed, the hon. Member picked up the baton from the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell), who was initially going to hold this debate before he was elevated to high office.
I speak in my capacity as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on media freedom, and also, as the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley said, as the sponsor of a private Member’s Bill, which I shall introduce in November. SLAPPs have been a stain on this country’s reputation as a defender of media freedom for too long. We actually set up the Media Freedom Coalition in 2019, and I am delighted that under the outgoing Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley (Yvette Cooper), the UK has taken back the co-chair position with Finland.
The UK’s position on media freedom is one that we can be proud of. We have gone up in the world press freedom index ranking—we are now 18th—but in its commentary on the UK, RSF said
“lawsuits aimed at gagging journalists”
are one reason why we are not in a higher position.
SLAPPs are not new; they have been around for a long time. I spent part of my summer in my deckchair, reading an excellent book by David Hooper that recounts the history of SLAPPs, starting with James Goldsmith and his war on Private Eye, followed by Robert Maxwell, who took on Aurum Press and the biography written about him, and then, perhaps most notoriously, Mohamed al-Fayed, whose appalling actions in abusing young employees at Harrods were known about and reported on, but then suppressed as a result of the lawsuits that he sprayed around liberally, using very expensive lawyers.
It is generally the case that SLAPPs are used by rich people seeking to suppress information that is clearly in the public interest. When I chaired the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, now 15 years ago, we looked at the advent of libel tourism—the fact that the UK courts were specifically being used by people with very little connection with the UK to bring libel suits, because we were seen to be sympathetic to the idea of libel actions, in order to suppress information. Since then, Russian oligarchs in particular have queued up to come and use the British courts. As the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley said, we have talked to and met some of the brave people who have sought to expose those oligarchs’ actions and have been subjected to SLAPP cases—people like Catherine Belton, the author of “Putin’s People”, and Tom Burgis, the author of “Kleptopia”. It continues today. I am not going to go into a number of cases; we will perhaps have more opportunity to do so when the private Member’s Bill comes forward. However, I am particularly grateful to the Anti-SLAPP Coalition for its help in taking forward this campaign.
Progress has been made: the Defamation Act 2013 sought to address some of the worst aspects of libel tourism, and the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 focused specifically on those who are alleging economic crime, and it put in place some protection. However, the problem is that some of the worst cases—I go back to the work of both Catherine Belton and Tom Burgis—were not allegations of economic crime, but were more serious than that. Clearly, the provisions in that Act would not have been sufficient. In the previous Parliament, Wayne David sought to extend its provisions to cover a far wider range of actions, but sadly his private Member’s Bill did not complete its passage due to the calling of the general election. My intention is to try to complete the work that Wayne David started with his Bill.
As the Minister will be very much aware, at the beginning of this year, 120 editors—including the editors of every major publication not just in the UK, but across the world—called on the Government to act. I know that the Government were committed to taking action, but unfortunately could not find a slot to do so. I am extremely grateful to the Minister for the discussions that we have already had about how we might work together to bring that legislation on to the statute book.
The hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley is right that Baroness Stowell has introduced a private Member’s Bill in the other place. Her Bill has been published. There is some debate as to the mechanism that is most effective; there were concerns that the attempt in Wayne David’s Bill to set out lengthy definitions might make it more complex, and there is an argument for trying to make the test of a SLAPP simpler. Those are details that we will want to continue to discuss with the Minister and her officials. For my part, I very much hope that we can find an agreement that all of us are happy with and that will achieve the objective we all share.
I should say that I am not opposed to people having the right to bring defamation actions or other suits where they feel that they have been wrongly accused of something—that is a fundamental right. What I am opposed to is the abuse of lawsuits with the deliberate intent of suppressing information that is clearly in the public interest. It is that definition that we will seek to explore how best to set out in legislation.
I look forward to further meetings with the Minister. I welcome this as perhaps the first opportunity to debate what I believe is a very important issue for the freedom of speech and journalism in this country.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, I would like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) for working with me to secure today’s debate. It has been about nine months since I initially presented the application to the Backbench Business Committee, but I am pleased to say that it has already been worth the wait.
I also congratulate the Minister on her reappointment. It was a real pleasure to work with her in my role as a Ministry of Justice Parliamentary Private Secretary in the last Government. I found her no less supportive, engaged and collaborative when I have come to her with constituency issues, as I will speak to in more detail later.
I would like to take this opportunity to share at least one particularly egregious example of vexatious litigation in the form of a SLAPP. Before I go any further, let me confirm that the cases I will mention today are not subject to ongoing legal proceedings. Back in 2016, Jennifer McAdam invested the inheritance that she received from her late father into a cryptocurrency called OneCoin, but OneCoin was a £3 billion lie. In reality, it was a global Ponzi scheme. When it collapsed the following year, millions of people from 125 countries lost money.
In order to raise awareness and protect other investors, in 2017 Jennifer organised a webinar for other victims and cryptocurrency experts to explore ways to hold the company to account. Three weeks later, she received a legal threat from OneCoin and its co-founder Ruja Ignatova, dubbed the “Cryptoqueen” in the viral podcast that followed. That threat, sent via law firm Carter-Ruck claimed that Jennifer had defamed the so-called “Cryptoqueen” during the webinar. It went on to say that the only way to avoid a court case was to refrain from publishing similar allegations and to retract the webinar video. Even as legal action was threatened against Jennifer, regulatory action against OneCoin was already under way in a number of countries. Jennifer should have been celebrated for trying to help other victims and prevent future ones, not threatened and harassed.
In 2025, Claire Gill, a partner at Carter-Ruck, instructed by OneCoin, was referred to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal by the Solicitors Regulation Authority on allegations that she sent a letter to McAdam that contained an improper threat of litigation. However, by the end of the year, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal refused to dismiss the proceedings, stating that Gill had acted on explicit client instructions and had no reason at that stage to disbelieve them, and that the SRA’s allegation was founded on hindsight rather than evidence of professional misconduct. The SRA has also been ordered to pay Gill’s costs, which Carter-Ruck claims to be around £1 million. Naturally, such sizeable costs raised fears that they may dampen the regulator’s appetite to challenge similar SLAPP-related cases in the foreseeable future.
There are serious questions to be asked about the tribunal’s approach in setting such a high bar of actual knowledge of wrongdoing—effectively requiring evidence of complicity—before professional ethics really kick in. My concern is that the high bar makes it conveniently easy for lawyers to simply avoid asking questions that they do not want to know the answers to. If lawyers are allowed to blindly and ignorantly pursue their clients’ interests—even when that involves silencing the police and “in furtherance of fraud”, to use the tribunal’s wording before the case was thrown out—then we will never stop SLAPPs.
This is not just about London lawyers and international scams. According to reporting by the Manchester Mill, back in 2021 a solicitor named Andrew Milne acquired 67 residential freeholds at auction for around £130 per property in Horwich, in my constituency. Milne then proceeded to demand thousands of pounds from my constituents in return for their freeholds, often citing spurious breaches of lease covenants. Yet when the Sheffield Tribune sought to report on Milne’s equally outrageous behaviour in Yorkshire, he sent them a message that included the following threat:
“We will definitely bring proceedings for defamation and malicious falsehood if you publish such complete and malicious lies”.
This is how it works: bullies, charlatans and chancers like Milne using their privileged positions to seek to silence journalists and whistleblowers from lifting the lid on their abhorrent actions.
On a general policy point, I have been encouraged by noises coming out of the SRA since the regulator’s change in leadership, but as in the cases described, it strikes me that the regulatory framework as it currently stands is not up to the job. That is why a universal anti-SLAPP law is needed to ensure that those who speak out in the public interest are protected.
I welcome the recent comments about the Government’s commitment to introduce universal anti-SLAPP legislation and the opportunity that the two private Members’ Bills on SLAPPS present both in this House and in the other place. In particular, I know that the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) is keen to work with the Government in what I trust will be an exemplar of cross-party working. I hope that across party lines we can seize this opportunity to put to bed the spurious litigation put forward by individuals who seek to silence dissenting voices.
To close, let me reiterate the ask from the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition that legislation must be accompanied by strong regulatory guidance and enforcement action to ensure that lawyers are held to account for abusive legal tactics. I hope that the Government can deliver on that in the fullness of time.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I am the secretary of the National Union of Journalists parliamentary group and will speak in that capacity, but I am also a victim of the Goldsmith foundation, which the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) referred to. If Members are unaware of what the Goldsmith foundation was all about, it was basically an organisation funded by James Goldsmith that employed Carter-Ruck to identify people who James Goldsmith politically disagreed with, and targeted them. In my instance, I was writing to expose the then MP for my constituency—a Conservative MP—who was being hosted on a series of trips to Iraq by Saddam Hussein and then coming back here to justify the gassing of the Kurds in Halabja, where 4,000 people were gassed to death. I was then sued by Carter-Ruck.
It was the same issue overall: you just cannot afford to fight. In fact, as a result of that action, I had to hand over the deeds to my property—we simply could not fund it. Even though there was some Labour party support for funding, the general view was that we could not match that sinking pit of funding. That is just one example of how the Goldsmith foundation operated. It is an example of the operation of SLAPPs, which, as the right hon. Gentleman said, have happened over a long period of time—that was way back in the ’90s.
Reference has been made to how the issue of SLAPPs is not just about journalists. It is not, but they have been the main target, and the consequences for some have been devastating because of the legal costs they have had to incur just to try to demonstrate that they have been writing truthful analyses of the events they have been trying to report. SLAPPs stifle free speech and undermine the right of the general public to know information. Exactly as has been said, there is a deterrence effect: they are a form of intimidation against telling the truth.
The previous Prime Minister gave a commitment with regard to legislation; unfortunately, that was not in the King’s speech. Now is the time to pick up the pace. I am grateful to the Minister for now offering briefings on how we can move forward, as well as for working on a cross-party basis. The issue for us is that although everyone who has spoken so far welcomed the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, it just applies to economic crime reportage. Therefore, even though some journalists will be protected under that legislation, the individual they have been reporting on will find another matter on which to take action, and as a result the journalist is not protected. The thresholds and criteria of judgments taking place—whereby the judge has to consider the intent of the SLAPP filer and the intent of the defendant—are far too high. We can cite case after case, but the most recent to have caught publicity was that of Dan Neidle. He exposed a firm operating a tax avoidance scam and won the case, but he was left with £146,000 of legal fees.
As has been said, there have been various attempts by hon. Members to try to tackle the issue. The Scottish Government have also said that they are awaiting an opportunity to bring forward legislation. The NUJ is part of the Anti-SLAPP Coalition. The proposals put forward include: clear, 10-point criteria to identify SLAPPs; a higher merits threshold for likely success at trial; and a filter mechanism for swift disposal of actions that clearly seek to gag individual journalists and others. We welcome the Government’s engagement now—hopefully including with the NUJ over these coming weeks—so that we can get this legislation on the statute book as rapidly as possible and protect freedom of speech.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) on securing this important debate. I really welcome being here with friends who are so committed to this issue, and who have been for such a long time. This debate is about much more than press freedom, although it is very much about that; it is about whether ordinary people can speak out in the public interest without fear of being silenced by those with deeper pockets, greater resources and access to expensive legal representation.
Strategic lawsuits against public participation—SLAPPs, as they are so unattractively described—are designed not necessarily to win in court, but to intimidate, exhaust and suppress scrutiny. They are increasingly deployed against journalists and campaigners, whistleblowers, survivors of abuse, community activists and ordinary citizens. Anyone who raises legitimate concerns about matters of public interest can find themselves on the receiving end of aggressive legal threats, as we have heard. The consequence of that is a chilling effect that extends far beyond the individual target. When one person is punished for speaking out, countless others are forced to conclude that it might be safer for them to remain silent. That should concern every Member of this House.
One case that demonstrates that danger particularly clearly is that of my constituent, the investigative journalist Clare Rewcastle Brown, founder of Sarawak Report. Ms Rewcastle Brown played a key role in exposing the 1Malaysia Development Berhad scandal in Malaysia—one of the largest corruption scandals in recent history. Her reporting helped bring international attention to allegations involving billions of dollars that had been diverted from a Malaysian state investment fund. Those allegations subsequently became the subject of investigations and prosecutions across multiple jurisdictions. But instead of scrutiny being met simply with accountability, it was met with legal pressure. Between 2017 and 2019, Ms Rewcastle Brown was pursued through the London courts in a libel action brought by Abdul Hadi Awang, the president of the Malaysian political party PAS. The claim was eventually withdrawn and settled in her favour before trial.
The significance of that case lies not merely in its outcome, but in what it demonstrates about the power imbalance at the heart of SLAPPs. As Ms Rewcastle Brown has described, she understood that the objective was not simply to challenge particular words on a page; rather, it was to place immense pressure on a journalist through the prospect of years of costly litigation, with the hope that, eventually, that pressure would force a retraction, damage credibility and discourage further reporting. Even when defendants ultimately prevail, they cannot recover the years lost to litigation, the stress inflicted upon them, or the time diverted away from public interest work. That is why campaigners often say that in a SLAPP, the process becomes the punishment.
Let us consider what is at stake. Without investigative journalists such as Clare Rewcastle Brown, one of the world’s most significant corruption scandals might never have received the scrutiny that it deserved, important information might never have reached the public domain and powerful individuals might never have been held accountable; yet our legal system left the burden on the journalist to endure years of legal challenge before reaching that outcome. The reality is that many people do not have the resilience, resources or support to do what Clare did. Many local journalists do not, many campaigners do not, many victims of wrongdoing do not, and many ordinary citizens certainly do not.
Increasingly, these tactics are evolving. They are no longer confined to traditional defamation claims; we now see claims framed through privacy law, data protection law, harassment claims and injunctions. The legal mechanisms change but the purpose remains the same: to drive up cost, create fear and suppress participation in public life. That is why the existing protections are insufficient. The anti-SLAPP provisions in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act, as we have heard, were an important first step. However, they are limited to economic crime reporting and leave many people vulnerable. A journalist investigating corruption may receive some protection; a survivor speaking about abuse may not, a local campaigner raising concerns about environmental damage may not, and a resident exposing wrongdoing in their community may not. That cannot be the right approach.
I am also concerned about questions surrounding enforcement and regulation. The Solicitors Regulation Authority has made it clear that solicitors must not pursue abusive litigation tactics, must not advance unmeritorious claims and must not use their professional position to intimidate those engaged in lawful public interest activity. Those principles are absolutely right, but principles alone are not enough if those subjected to abusive legal threats do not have confidence that the system is working. That is why legislation and regulation must go hand in hand in this scenario. We need a robust statutory framework that allows judges to dismiss abusive claims at the earliest possible stage, we need strong cost protections for defendants, and we need effective professional regulation that ensures lawyers who facilitate abusive tactics are held to account.
This should not be a partisan issue. Members across this House depend on a free press. We depend on campaigners, researchers, whistleblowers and engaged citizens bringing serious issues to public attention. Democracy itself depends on scrutiny. I therefore urge the Government to work constructively with all colleagues from all parties to bring forward comprehensive anti-SLAPP legislation that protects public interest speech, upholds press freedom and ensures that our courts cannot be used as instruments of intimidation by those seeking to escape scrutiny. We should ask ourselves what is holding us back from tackling this, because ultimately, this debate is about a simple principle. In a democratic society, the law should protect those who speak truthfully in the public interest, not provide powerful individuals with the means to silence them.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
When debating this issue, I crudely used to think of Greenpeace activists taking on multinationals or journalists writing books about oligarchs—Erin Brockovich-style figures exposing injustice—but, as has already been raised, SLAPPs are far more relevant to ordinary people than these cases indicate. Those people include my constituent Jeff Thomson.
Jeff moved to Penrith to enjoy his retirement. What he did not expect was the Penrith pong, a foul odour that periodically hangs over the town. Many residents believe the smell is linked to the Omega Proteins rendering plant operated by Leo Group. The company disputes that it is the only source of the odour. Jeff set up a Facebook group called Fresh AIR for Penrith—a place for residents to moan about the pong, share information and learn how to make complaints to the Environment Agency. For running a Facebook page, Jeff received his first legal letter in February 2023 and found himself living under the threat of a defamation claim, with all the stress and fear of legal costs that that brings, all because he spoke up on an issue that he and his neighbours cared about.
When I was elected, I said publicly that I wanted to tackle the pong. I grew up in Cumbria and people have talked about the smell for decades, so I was genuinely surprised by how many people warned me not to get involved. People said I might be sued, but until I learned about Jeff’s case and the basis of the action against him, I dismissed those warnings as absurd. I will be honest: when I was first elected, Jeff got right under my skin. Every MP has someone in their inbox with legitimate concerns who is awkward, and some who are extremely awkward. Jeff is one of them. He is very demanding and good at irritating people, but over time I have come to see Jeff in a different light.
I now cast Jeff in the tradition of awkward people: the people who pester, who prod and who refuse to let things go. The truth is that without people like Jeff—and there is at least one in every town in my patch—nothing changes. Communities rely on them to keep pushing until someone listens. Jeff also had the courage to fight back, and in June 2026, more than three years after the first legal letter, Omega Proteins and Leo Group finally issued a notice of discontinuance. They agreed to pay Jeff’s legal costs, and he is now free to speak about what he describes as a living hell. But for every Jeff, there will be many out there now who are simply gagged, and their stories will not be told as part of this debate. That is why his story matters. His case shows exactly why we need an anti-SLAPP law.
The UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition and Index on Censorship helped my constituent in ways I never could, but they need us to act now. They have set out one crucial step that would have protected Jeff: a simple early dismissal mechanism based on objective signs of abuse—not a subjective test about what was in the claimant’s mind, not years of litigation; just a clear, fast filter that lets a judge say, “This is a public interest issue. This is a citizen speaking about their community. This case should not proceed.” If that mechanism had existed, Jeff would not have spent three years under threat, he would not have faced the stress, cost or fear, and the company would not have been able to use litigation as a tool of intimidation.
No constituent should fear being sued simply for speaking about an issue that they believe is wrong. We must ensure that our legal system protects public participation rather than punishes it.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
Our society is grossly unequal. Local councils have been hollowed out by years of austerity, people need food banks to survive, kids go to school hungry and people are trapped in low-wage, precarious employment, all while corporations make record profits and the super-rich become even wealthier. Inequality destroys society and ultimately reduces people, places and systems to nothing more than commodities and assets to be used and exploited by the wealthy. That is obvious in our legal system. With SLAPPs, the law can be used as a weapon by the powerful and wealthy, making a mockery of things we like to believe are the foundations of our justice system: fairness, equality, transparency, and the notion that money should have no bearing on someone’s receiving justice.
Every debate that we have in this place comes down to the fundamental issue in British politics and society, the same issue we have had for hundreds of years: class. SLAPPs are the embodiment of capitalism and the inequality it creates, because SLAPPs are used to intimidate people, restrict activists and campaigners, and exhaust their time, energy, emotions and, crucially, as we have heard from so many hon. Members, finances—all to suffocate freedom of speech.
I wish now to speak about Lucy and Verity Nevitt, who in 2018 reported allegations of sexual assault and rape to the police. Following an investigation, at the end of January 2019 the police decided that they would take no further action due to insufficient evidence. After Lucy and Verity’s cases were dropped, the ladies decided to speak out online to warn others about him. Specialist Metropolitan police officers encouraged them to speak out online, but told them not to name him, to say “alleged” and to call it serious sexual assault instead of rape. However, the sisters decided to say who he was and what he had done. Their attacker responded by bringing a legal action against the sisters, based on accusations of misuse of private information, harassment and defamation. As legal action continued, the sisters became aware of cease and desist letters being sent to CrowdJustice, where they were raising money for the defence, and to supportive MPs.
In May 2020, the High Court decided on a number of applications made by Lucy and Verity and by the claimant. The sisters were allowed to lift their anonymity order to allow themselves to be publicly identified, while the court allowed the claimant to remain anonymous. However, the court rejected his application for reporting restrictions. In its intervention to oppose this application, PA Media, then called the Press Association, argued that
“the main thrust of the claimant’s application for anonymity is to protect his reputation rather than his privacy”.
In her rejection, Justice Steyn stated that
“a reporting restriction order is a peremptory order affecting the right to freedom of expression of the press and the public. It is a form of censorship.”
After numerous hearings and, obviously, hugely increasing legal costs, all parties agreed on a settlement, allowing Lucy and Verity to speak about what happened to them, as long as they did not name their abuser. Lucy said,
“It was a really difficult decision…If we had the money we would have gone the whole way…This wasn’t just about us, there are so many other victims out there.”
After founding the Gemini Project in 2018 and fighting back against their attacker’s attempt to shut down the organisation during the legal battle, the sisters’ campaign in support of survivors against SLAPPs and other abusive tactics continues today.
As legislators, we in this Chamber are not exempt from blame. We, the state, allow this practice to happen. Our inaction makes us complicit in this inequality. I say to the Minister tonight that we must stop wealth, both corporate and personal, from buying silence and evading accountability and justice. We must do everything in our power to equalise the legal system and wider British society. An end to SLAPPs would be a big step forward towards achieving that.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) on leading today’s important debate and for setting out comprehensively, but also succinctly—I am very grateful for that—why we are here debating SLAPPs. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) on originally securing today’s debate.
Our justice system was built on the principle of fair and equal treatment for all who go through it. It should not be a tool for the rich and powerful to systematically silence accusers and avoid accountability, but the growing use of SLAPPs makes it abundantly clear that the system is in fact tilted towards those who harness power or wealth. Victims, journalists, academics, whistleblowers and many more, all attempting to speak truth to power, are being silenced by mechanisms within the justice system that are being weaponised and abused. Those mechanisms are not intended to protect these rich and powerful individuals but are doing just that and preventing access to justice. Lawsuits and threats with immense financial implications and additional time constraints are being used to intimidate and coerce individuals into stepping out of the legal system and stopping their actions. They are keeping cases of immense importance and significance to the public out of the courts, undermining the fair and equitable justice system that we should all strive to achieve.
I know many today have been supported by the work of the Anti-SLAPP Coalition, which has done so much to expose these cases and push for the legislative changes that are necessary. The coalition has reported spikes in the number of cases sent to it in recent years, blaming an environment in the UK that is claimant friendly and in favour of those suing. That is not something that we should be proud of. Of course, there have been high-profile cases that have come to light, and some have been alluded to today. Mohamed al-Fayed, the Horizon scandal and Grenfell all provide serious regrets, and attempts to bring those scandals to light were continually blocked from the courts, elongating the pain of their victims and meaning that many never saw justice served at all.
One case provided by the Anti-SLAPP Coalition illustrates many of these issues. It is the case of Heidi who, having contracted a building firm to carry out an extension of her home, became concerned about the quality of the work carried out. She terminated the work, but having taken a six-figure loss, made a complaint to the trading standards authority. She was informed that she would need other cases to take the case forward, which she then requested on social media. Having done that, Heidi was challenged by the building company’s lawyers with a letter stating that her actions amounted to harassment, defamation and malicious falsehood and falsely questioning her legal qualifications.
It is very similar to a case brought to me by a gentleman connected to the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition, who spoke to me about the intense level of legal correspondence he received from an estate management company that he had accused of poor service and mismanagement. He had created a Facebook group not just for that estate management company but to find other cases of estate management companies that had been failing their residents. He was relentlessly pursued by the estate management company’s legal team, with letters insisting that he remove the group or he would face legal action.
There is also the harrowing case study that was covered by the BBC’s “Woman’s Hour” of a clinic that performed plastic surgery. Having encouraged customers to leave reviews on its website and on Trustpilot, the clinic had its lawyers pursue legal action against at least five individuals who dared to write negative reviews of its service. Those reviews related to legitimate concerns about the quality of treatment provided by the clinic, yet the customers were pursued with vigour—threatening legal action of taking individuals to court and defamation claims of thousands of pounds. One woman said that she hid the whole case from her husband for fear of losing their family home. She felt totally silenced by this plastic surgery company that was threatening to take away her home. It resulted in a number of the individuals removing their completely legitimate concerns about their treatment from the online forums.
All of these cases highlight situations arising up and down the country in which the legal system is being used to intimidate and to scare individuals into not speaking out—and those are the ones we know about. As many Members have said today, this is just the tip of the iceberg, because a number of people will have folded under the immense pressure and immense amount of money being thrown at them. We do not know how many cases we do not know about.
What we need to combat such practices are universal statutory protections to counter SLAPPs in UK law—something eminently achievable, as has been shown in the US and Europe. Currently, well-meaning journalists, whistleblowers, campaigners and victims speaking out on matters of public interest unrelated to economic crime have no legal recourse, and these gaps must be addressed. New legislation should be introduced that ensures equal access to the justice system and does not allow those with vast amounts of money the opportunity to silence victims or those undertaking legitimate scrutiny. That legislation must include a filter mechanism that allows courts to swiftly dispose of SLAPPs; an extension of early dismissal procedures; cost protections for defendants in all SLAPP cases, not just those involving financial crime; and the empowerment of courts to impose financial penalties on those who bring forward abusive SLAPP claims or use SLAPPs relentlessly against multiple claimants.
We must also strengthen the regulatory powers of professional standards bodies and ensure that there is robust enforcement against lawyers and law firms that engage in abusive SLAPP litigation, while at the same time improving access to legal advice and support for those facing SLAPP threats. This is a position that the Liberal Democrats have consistently held—we were the only party to support such legislation in our manifesto in 2024—but the point is now clearly recognised across the House.
The previous Conservative Government’s amendment to the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act provided protections in cases of economic crime, as has this Government’s public recognition of the issues in this area. We have seen two private Members’ Bills in this Session containing anti-SLAPP provisions, including one due to be presented by the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) in November. Will the Minister confirm the Government’s position on those two private Members’ Bills and whether it is the Government’s intention to support them in their passage through the House? Could she outline what conversations she is having or planning to have with the legal profession to stamp out these sorts of practices?
The current context, the attention and the support across the House demonstrate that the time is right to take steps to protect victims and protect the chance of equitable justice. That will only happen with legislation that stamps out malpractice as early as possible, avoiding extortionate costs for victims and allowing the truth to finally be heard.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) on securing it and the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) on his previous efforts. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for his long-standing work in this area. It was helpful that he set out in his contribution that the issue is not new and that similar attempts to use the law in such a manner go back quite some time.
Free speech is not simply a “nice to have”—it is one of the foundations on which free society is built. It allows whistleblowers to come forward, victims of abuse and misconduct to tell their stories and be heard, and journalists and campaigners to hold the powerful to account. However, free speech is not real if it can be exercised only by those wealthy enough to defend it. When people are frightened into silence not because what they have said is false but because of the cost of being right is too high, something is fundamentally wrong. That is the danger posed by SLAPPs.
At their worst, SLAPPs are not really about winning in court but about using the process itself as a punishment. They are designed to make the journey to court so expensive and exhausting that the journalist, campaigner, whistleblower or victim gives up before a judge ever considers the merits of the case. That chilling effect is not accidental—it is the point. Claims that go all the way to trial can cost an enormous amount in legal fees. Even a defendant who wins can be left with thousands of pounds of unrecovered legal bills. The threat being made is not always “We will win”; very often, it is “We can afford this for longer than you can.” Asymmetry is the weapon.
We have seen that in some of the most high-profile cases involving British journalists and publishers. Catherine Belton and her publisher faced multiple legal actions after the publication of “Putin’s People”; Tom Burgis and HarperCollins faced litigation over “Kleptopia”; and Eliot Higgins and Bellingcat were pursued through the courts by Yevgeny Prigozhin. I pay tribute to those publishers and businesses who resisted that pressure and were willing to pay those legal bills that enabled those publications to survive, when we know others do not.
These cases show how wealthy and powerful overseas actors, including Russian oligarchs, Kremlin-linked figures and large foreign corporations have been able to use or threaten to use English courts to put pressure on British journalists who are investigating corruption, kleptocracy and misconduct. That should concern every Member of this House. We have to have a situation in which journalists can continue to act without fear or favour. We want charities to be able to raise concerns about wrongdoing and survivors of abuse to speak publicly about what happened to them.
I have spoken in the House before about how the UK is the most frequent international origin of legal threats against journalists, accounting for 31% of all such cases. There are lots of things that we can be proud of about our judicial system and its popularity around the world, but that should give us pause for thought. Around 30% of SLAPPs in 2023 were used to prevent reporting of sexual misconduct. We cannot think of that as an intangible threat to freedom of speech alone: it is being used to silence victims of some of the most personal violations imaginable.
The shadow Justice Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), put it plainly in a previous debate on this subject:
“SLAPPs have been deployed by those with deep pockets against company employees, non-governmental organisations, campaign activists, survivors of abuse and people from many walks of life.”—[Official Report, 21 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 423.]
He was right. This is experienced not only in Fleet Street, but by charity workers who have documented wrongdoing at care homes, by campaigners who have published evidence of environmental harm and by the victims of sexual violence.
Let me be clear about the Conservatives’ position: we support the principle of regulating further to stop abusive SLAPP litigation. It is not right that wealthy individuals, foreign oligarchs or large corporations can use disproportionate spending power and the threat of financial ruin to silence legitimate public interest. Any legislation must be well drafted and carefully considered. People must still be able to defend their reputations in court. If a person is genuinely being defamed or false allegations have been made against them, they must have access to justice. I am sure we have all had our own experiences. During a previous election campaign, a so-called journalist decided that my record as a volunteer policeman was entirely fantastical and made up, and that I was a criminal, and I had to get a solicitor involved to get that taken down. I am sure that we have all had similar experiences.
Clearly, at the moment the balance is wrong. The question is whether the courts should be used by those with the deepest pockets to intimidate critics, bury investigations and frighten others into silence. They should not. It is important, as many hon. Members have already done, to recognise the progress to date. The previous Conservative Government introduced the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 that provided the first statutory definition of a SLAPP and created a power to strike out abusive claims at an early stage in cases relating to economic crime. We recognise, as the motion notes, that those provisions were narrow, but they were a start.
The previous Government also ran a call for evidence in 2022, covering the wider landscape of SLAPP abuse, and supported the private Member’s Bill from the then Member of Parliament for Caerphilly that would have extended those protections significantly. That Bill fell before the election and a new version of it was not proposed by the new Government.
The current Government’s record on the issue has been underwhelming. The former Prime Minister, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), described the abuse of courts by the rich and powerful as intolerable. In October 2024, the Justice Secretary promised legislation as soon as parliamentary time allowed, but it did not appear in the King’s Speech. We then learned that plans had been drafted and were ready to go, but they were reportedly shelved due to fear of the backlash from some lawyers.
Some 111 peers, including eight former Cabinet Ministers, signed a cross-party letter in April demanding action. In its 2022 model law, the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition set out a possible clear legislative framework and has been waiting for a response ever since. The co-chair of the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition described action on SLAPPs as “a relatively easy win”, not only for a Government, but for the protection of public interest speech and the overall health of our democratic society. I acknowledge the work done in the other place by Baroness Stowell of Beeston. For some time, the Lords have been an important advocate of legislation in this area.
The point I make to the Government is simple. They do not need to start from scratch; they have years of cross-party debate, expert testimony and the lived experience of victims. They have campaigners, journalists, lawyers and Members from across both Houses calling for action. The building blocks are there, and the Government have accepted the principle. The previous Prime Minister has called SLAPPs intolerable.
The Justice Secretary has said that legislation will be brought forward, but the King’s Speech has been and gone, so what is the Government’s plan? If the answer today is only warm words, I think the 111 peers who signed the cross-party letter, the editors of The Times, The Sun and The Guardian, the National Union of Journalists, the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition and every Member who has spoken in this debate are perhaps entitled to a little something more. People must be free to defend their reputations in court, but wealthy individuals and corporations must not be able to abuse that freedom and use disproportionate legal firepower to silence legitimate free speech.
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
Let me start by echoing the thanks to my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) and for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) for securing time for this important debate. I thank everybody across the House who has contributed so thoughtfully to it. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate and ensuring that time has been given for considering this vital subject. It is perhaps all too rare that cross-party consensus breaks out on such an issue, as it clearly has done at this slightly ungodly hour, but it is all the better for it.
Let us be clear: SLAPPs are an abuse of power and the legal system, designed to shut down scrutiny, not to seek justice. As we have heard, they are brought to harass, intimidate and wear down opponents through financial pressure and psychological strain. They are often brought by wealthy individuals or corporations to silence journalists, authors, publishers and academics, and, as we heard particularly powerfully from my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours), to silence ordinary individuals and to seek to exploit the power imbalance that exists in our society.
In this David and Goliath situation, it is not just individuals who lose out. This issue is corrosive to the principle in our society that respects the rule of law and says that everyone should be equal before the law. This is a media freedom issue, but it is not just that; it is about access to justice. When SLAPPs predominate, we all lose out. As we heard eloquently from my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake), they pose a threat to our democracy, because the purpose of SLAPPs is intimidation—to silence critics through fear and to deter public interest reporting through the threat of costly litigation.
As the Minister for Courts, I want to underline that the courts should always be a forum for justice, not a weapon of intimidation. The Government’s position is clear: freedom of expression and investigative journalism must never be undermined by abusive litigation. The calls that we have heard tonight from across the House for universal anti-SLAPP legislation are calls that the Government welcome. As others have pointed out, we have begun to take the stepping stones towards that universal framework.
I pay tribute to the previous Government, who put on the statute book the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, which this Government began to implement. It was designed to stop wealthy elites from effectively silencing critics, journalists and activists, but, as a number of Members have pointed out, that definition of SLAPPs—defined in statute for the first time to help courts to identify abusive claims—was confined narrowly to economic crime. As we have heard, SLAPPs are used in a far wider context. While it is a vital stepping stone, it is just that. As we have heard tonight, there is agreement that we need to go wider, because many alleged SLAPPs fall outside the current framework, including cases involving sexual abuse allegations, medical negligence concerns, academic research and consumer reviews. Such things are in the public interest, so we need a wider definition of SLAPPs that goes beyond economic crime and adopts an objective test of what is reasonable behaviour in the conduct of litigation. We recognise as a Government that the test needs to be simplified, so that we can deploy that early dismissal mechanism—that cost protection in the 2023 Act framework—in a more refined and effective way. I and the Government find an objective test attractive. A better definition of harassment, alarm or distress is needed, and we will look to work on that with those who bring forward the private Members’ Bills.
Other Members have spoken about the need not just for legislative action, but for a culture change in the legal profession and among our independent regulators. To be clear, the overwhelming majority of solicitors and legal professionals in this country and in this jurisdiction act with honesty, professionalism and a deep commitment to the rule of law. There is a reason why England and Wales is rightly regarded as world-leading when it comes to legal services and as a legal jurisdiction. Lawyers play a vital role in upholding justice and protecting rights, but that should not detract from the high standards that need to be demonstrated right across the profession, because maintaining public confidence requires recognising not just the profession’s strengths, but those cases where legal processes are being misused and abused by legal professionals. That is why I welcome the calls for further action and robustness from our independent regulator, the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
We need to look again at the SRA’s enforcement powers and whether it has the tools it needs to charge fines and place disciplinary sanctions on those lawyers who let down the reputation of the profession. That culture change is important, and it needs to be a cross-government initiative. Legislation is not worth the paper it is written on if it is not applied properly. That is why the initiative led by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, working with the National Committee for the Safety of Journalists—it brings together Government, the media, the legal profession and civil society—to track the use of SLAPPs and how journalists are being targeted is so important.
The hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) asked what work we are doing with the legal profession. I can assure her that I meet regularly with the Solicitors Regulation Authority, and that this matter is frequently a topic of discussion. She asked, rightly, about the Government’s position on the forthcoming private Member’s Bill from the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale). As he acknowledged, he and I are in constant contact. We are working together, because there is much common ground. We see that there can be a good way forward that gets the results that we need on the statute book, and that strikes a coherent balance between the right to access the courts—that must be maintained, so that people can protect their reputation and their right to privacy—and freedom of expression for journalists and individuals, which many have spoken about tonight. Our conversations have been constructive. We are working closely with one another, as well as with Baroness Stowell in the other place. I am confident that we can get a carefully balanced and proportionate approach that the Government can support, and I look forward to continuing that work with him.
To conclude, our focus is on tackling all SLAPPs. This abusive litigation is used to intimidate and silence public participation. It is necessary to tackle it for the integrity of our legal system, to protect freedom of expression and to protect democracy itself. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley once again for his championing of this critical issue. I thank not just those in the Chamber, but all those ordinary individuals and brave investigative journalists who determinedly campaign against the abuse of our legal system and for freedom of speech, for bringing these matters to the nation’s attention.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call Alex Sobel to wind up the debate, briefly.
Alex Sobel
I think that tonight’s debate has shone a light on the practice of SLAPPs, and that the whole House now understands the urgency with which we need to move forward, and we have two opportunities to do so through private Members’ Bills.
All the contributions to the debate, but particularly the Minister’s winding-up speech, have made clear the determination throughout the House and across parties to ensure once and for all that those who speak up about these vital public interest issues can be heard, and are not crushed by those with the money and power to use our legal system to ensure that their voices are not heard, so that we can end this terrible practice for good.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House notes the critical threat that Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) pose to press freedom, public interest research, and the right of citizens and campaigners to speak out on matters of public concern; recognises that SLAPPs predominately target individuals, including private citizens, utilising novel legal tactics, with the weaponisation of libel law and data protection claims and the aggressive use of injunctions, which often come hand in hand with other forms of harassment including smear campaigns and surveillance; further recognises that the anti-SLAPP provisions within the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 are ineffective due to their complexity and insufficient due to their narrow focus on economic crime; further notes the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) view that the ‘main way to address the problem of SLAPPs is through a robust legislative solution that gives the courts more powers’, and that SRA regulation will inevitably be severely limited absent a new law; highlights concerns over the suppression of public interest information and acts of public participation in the absence of a universally applicable anti-SLAPP law; and also recognises the urgent need for the Government to find a legislative vehicle for simple, comprehensive anti-SLAPP provisions that filter out abusive lawsuits swiftly and fairly.
Sudden Cardiac Death: Young People
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I have initiated this Adjournment debate on behalf of my late constituent and his family. It concerns a tragic case that raises serious questions about emergency response, clinical training, information sharing, and whether the systems meant to save young lives are fit for purpose.
On 31 January 2024, Adam Ankers, aged just 17, collapsed while playing football for the Wycombe Wanderers Foundation’s under-19 development team. He was a much-loved son, brother, friend and team-mate. He dreamed of a career in professional football, and on the captain’s armband that he was wearing that day he had written the words “strength, inspiration, leader, desire.” Despite the presence of first-aid-trained coaches, despite a defibrillator being brought straight to the pitch, and despite multiple calls to 999, no one recognised that Adam was in sudden cardiac arrest. No cardiopulmonary resuscitation was started.
The coroner found that Adam’s brain had been was starved of oxygen for about eight minutes because no one had attempted CPR, and heard evidence that for every minute without CPR, the chances of survival decrease by 10%. South Central Ambulance Service’s serious incident review reached the same conclusion independently, acknowledging an eight-minute period in which CPR should have started and did not. The ambulance arrived within 11 minutes of the first 999 call, at 2.31 pm, but by then the critical window in which to act, having been led by telephone, had already been missed.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Member has raised a heart-rending and very difficult case, and I congratulate him on that.
The British Heart Foundation estimates that in Northern Ireland one person under the age of 35 dies every month from an undiagnosed heart condition. In view of that, does the hon. Member agree that more must be done to ensure that the public are equipped to perform effective CPR and to use a defibrillator, and are confident about carrying out bystander CPR?
Greg Smith
I do agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I will explore many of those issues later in my speech.
When paramedics arrived, they found Adam cold, blue, not breathing, and without a pulse. They immediately started CPR, and took him to Harefield hospital, with the support of Thames Valley Air Ambulance. Despite the best efforts of clinicians, Adam was declared brain-stem dead on 4 February—in law, that was the moment of his death—and his heart stopped for the final time on 5 February, when life support was withdrawn. His parents, Alastair Ankers and Naomi Wakefield, both work in healthcare. Through devastating experience, they came to the conclusion that Adam’s death could have been prevented.
Adam’s parents fought for more than two years for a proper, in-depth inquest, rather than the four-hour online hearing first offered. They were represented by a single barrister, paid for by remortgaging their house, against an array of solicitors and counsel for the NHS bodies and the Football Association. That is not a fair fight. The underlying condition was arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy—ARVC, a genetic heart disease, the first sign of which can be sudden cardiac arrest. This was a failure to identify a life-threatening emergency in real time, and it is why recognition, escalation and response matter so much.
The inquest raised serious concerns about the handling of 999 calls and the ability of call handlers to recognise abnormal breathing and cardiac arrest. Ambulance services in England use one of two systems: MPDS—the medical priority dispatch system—and NHS Pathways. NHS Pathways is used by just over half of 999 services and by all 111 services in England, and it was the system used on the call that day. The inquest heard expert evidence from paramedic David Davis—not the one of this parish—who told the court,
“I am unable to say that NHS Pathways as is currently configured can always properly support members of the public to identify agonal or ineffective breathing. I am also uncertain as to whether NHS Pathways can adequately identify potential out-of-hospital cardiac arrest where there is seizure-like activity at the outset.”
That is about as serious a warning as an expert witness can give. If the system cannot reliably recognise the signs of cardiac arrest, people are being put in danger, and if the public are left uncertain about whether to follow the advice they are given or to act on instinct, that is a public safety problem.
The coroner issued a five-point prevention of future deaths report on 16 April this year. It was addressed to 13 bodies, including NHS England, the Department of Health and Social Care, the Football Association, South Central Ambulance Service, the UK National Screening Committee and Cardiac Risk in the Young. Responses were due by 11 June. There is a pattern in those responses: every organisation expressed sympathy and described some work under way, but almost none attached a date to anything. NHS England says that a genetic service specification is “currently being revised”, but with no timetable. Staff at Resuscitation Council UK say that responsibility sits with NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care, not them. The Association of Ambulance Chief Executives says that it is
“not constituted to mandate or instruct ambulance services”.
Everybody has pointed to somebody else, and there have been warnings for years about call handlers and cardiac arrest, sepsis and other conditions, with no clear public evidence of improvement. Why?
I therefore ask the Minister to instruct the Care Quality Commission to urgently and regularly assess ambulance services on call-handler skill in detecting and managing abnormal breathing and suspected cardiac arrest. A CQC inspection of South Central Ambulance Service before Adam’s death had already found call handlers struggling to recognise abnormal breathing, with serious incidents leading to patient harm as a result—this is not new information to the trust. South Central Ambulance Service’s own response to the coroner’s report suggests that the public should understand that call handlers follow a fixed script, and that callers may need to act independently of the advice given. If it is genuinely the Government’s position that people in the worst moment of their life should second-guess the emergency services, the public deserve to hear that plainly, not discover it buried in a filing after a child has died.
Training alone will not be enough. NHS Pathways plays a central role in how millions of emergency and urgent care calls are handled every year, yet there is strikingly little publicly available data on its safety and effectiveness. That is not good enough. Will the Minister commit to a fully independent review of the effectiveness and the culture of NHS Pathways—not simply a restatement that the National Clinical Assurance Group already provides oversight? That body assures the clinical safety of dispositions; it does not examine culture. Its terms of reference are set by NHS England and it reports to NHS England, which is the body that runs NHS Pathways.
I want to press further on one other point, because it speaks to whether the Government can even get the basic facts right in responding to a dead child’s inquest. NHS England’s own prevention of future death response states that Adam was triaged through “Protocol 12, Convulsions/Fitting”—an MPDS reference. However, the coroner’s findings state that NHS Pathways, a different system owned and run by NHS England itself, was used as the script for that call. Why did NHS England’s response point to the wrong system entirely, rather than confront the failings of the system it actually runs? Did national leadership check its own response against the coroner’s findings before sending it? Will it now formally correct the record and explain how that error ever happened?
Moving on, there is the question of how genetic risk is communicated within families. Distant relatives in Scotland had known since 2018 that a genetic variant, PKP2, which is associated with ARVC, ran in the family, but that was not passed to Adam’s immediate family in full until after his death, and only then because Adam’s parents themselves had to go back to that distant relative and ask directly whether there was a letter he had not shared. There was. Once the risk was confirmed, the genetic service’s answer for cascading that information further to the wider family was a brown paper envelope containing 10 photocopied letters, which the family were left to hand round themselves—a grieving family doing the NHS’s job of tracing and warning their own relatives, with no support offered.
Adam’s grandmother had, in fact, raised the family history with her cardiologist at Papworth hospital, who accepted that it was recorded in three places in her notes but said he had not seen it. A 2022 referral from the GP was read by this doctor but never followed up due to an administrative error. Separately, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, which held the original genetic records, refused to disclose them to the English coroner’s inquest as it fell outside its jurisdiction. The coroner considered applying to the Scottish High Court to compel co-operation, but decided against as it was not a proportionate use of public funds. No family should be told that it is not proportionate to pursue the truth about their son’s death across a devolved border. I ask the Minister to raise this issue with counterparts in the devolved health systems, so that no hospital anywhere in this United Kingdom refuses to co-operate with an inquest into a child’s death ever again.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making an incredibly powerful case. The tragic case of Adam will be felt across the country, including by my constituents in Sandhurst where we remember the tragic death of Lewis Marsh in not dissimilar circumstances while he was taking part in a sporting activity. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that screening is available for young people who might be at risk of cardiac death. I pay tribute to the work of the charity Cardiac Risk in the Young. Does he agree that we should see more of that rolled out, so that young people, in particular those who might be at a heightened risk, have screening made available so that they know they face that risk?
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I agree with him on that point and I will come on to screening in one or two moments.
Families should not be left to act as their own caseworkers in the aftermath of grief. We need to review how genetic findings are communicated to all relatives, and how families can be properly supported in doing that work; we should not simply be told, as NHS England and the British Society for Genetic Medicine have both said so far, that a service specification is under review with no date attached.
The coroner also asked whether there is adequate sudden cardiac arrest training for coaches and referees at organised football matches. If young people are taking part in organised sport, those supervising them must know how to respond when something goes wrong. I welcome the fact that the Football Association is exploring improvements and that Adam’s parents have engaged constructively with that work, but this should not depend on a grieving family campaigning after a tragedy. It should be standard for every club, not just the accredited ones.
I am also concerned that the English Institute of Sport, Sport England and the Faculty of Sport and Exercise Medicine UK—all recipients of this prevention of future deaths report, and all in receipt of public or national lottery funding—did not respond to it at all. Public funding should carry a basic obligation to engage when a coroner writes to them about a child’s death.
Finally, I come on to the point made by the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) about screening, and here there is a specific, checkable gap. Cardiac Risk in the Young estimates that 12 apparently fit and healthy young people die of undiagnosed cardiac conditions every week in this country, with no prior symptoms in about 80% of cases. These are not abstract numbers; they are lost sons and daughters.
The UK National Screening Committee is currently consulting on the evidence, and the Government should be guided by that work. However, I have checked directly what that evidence map actually contains, and I want the House to hear this clearly. Its literature searches were conducted on 10 April 2025. On 24 February 2026, the Journal of the American College of Cardiology published the largest and most relevant UK study ever conducted on this exact question. With outcomes from over 104,000 young people screened by Cardiac Risk in the Young over a 10-year period, led by City St George’s, University of London, it had real-world data on what actually happened to people after a positive result, which is precisely the evidence the 2019 review said was missing. That study did not exist when the map’s searches were run, and I have confirmed directly against the published document that it is not in it. If anyone reaches tonight for the map’s citation of an unrelated 2022 cricket screening paper by a different MacLachlan study, I want it on the record now that that is not the same study.
So my question is direct: will the Government confirm that the evidence map has not considered the February 2026 JACC study, and commit tonight to its being formally included in the deliberations of the committee when it meets in November, rather than filed away for a further three-year wait, as the map’s own conclusion currently recommends? If the committee does not recommend population-wide screening, will the Minister commit to implementing the FIFA 2025 consensus statement, which recommends screening young footballers aged 12 to 18 as best practice? This is football’s home country and football is our national sport. We should be asking whether we do enough to protect the young people who play it.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
My constituent Sue Carter lost her son Ryan, aged 25, to sudden arrhythmic death syndrome, and her friend Charlie Gradidge lost her brother, Danny, who had been a friend of Ryan’s when they were at scouts together. Had they been screened, both those relatives believe that their lost ones would still be alive. They now spend their time fundraising, £7,000 at a time, and they have done this three or four times to enable CRY to screen 100 youngsters and pick up people with irregularities. That is great work, but it ought not to be done by private individuals, ought it?
Greg Smith
I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend and commend his constituents’ wonderful fundraising, but his master point that it should not be left to individuals to have to fundraise for that is absolutely correct and well made.
To conclude, I have seven requests: first, that the CQC regularly assesses call handlers’ skill in recognising cardiac arrest and abnormal breathing; secondly, a fully independent review of NHS Pathways’ effectiveness and culture; thirdly, a correction to the record on which triage system was used, and how that error occurred in Adam’s case; fourthly, a dated review of how genetic findings are communicated to relatives, including funding—currently dependent on British Heart Foundation charity money—to embed genetic testing into coronial pathways; fifthly, proper consideration of the FIFA 2025 statement and the JACC study by the National Screening Committee before it reaches its conclusion in November; sixthly, a statutory duty requiring NHS hospitals in one devolved UK nation to co-operate with coronial inquests in another, so that no hospital anywhere in this United Kingdom can again refuse to disclose records relevant to a child’s death; and seventhly and simplest, a meeting between a Minister and Adam’s parents. The Football Association has already met this family, and I struggle to see why the Government cannot manage to do the same.
Adam’s family deserve answers, and they deserve action. Every organisation that responded to the coroner has been sympathetic, and I believe that sympathy is sincere, but sympathy did not bring Adam home and it will not stop the next 17-year-old collapsing on the next pitch this winter. What will stop it is somebody in Government saying, “This is mine to fix and here is the date.” Adam’s family have shown extraordinary patience throughout an inquest, a prevention of future deaths process, and now this debate. What they are asking for is not extraordinary: that the Government read the evidence, tell the truth about what their own agencies have and have not done, and commit—with dates—to ensuring that no other family buries a child because a system could not tell the difference between a boy fighting for breath and a boy breathing normally. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I am conscious that another Member has risen, but we have only 10 minutes left. The hon. Lady might prefer to confine her comments to an intervention on the Minister in the interests of time.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mr James Frith)
I am honoured to be standing at the Dispatch Box as the new Minister for Health Innovation. Let me start by thanking NHS staff for their heroic shifts over the summer months. I also thank the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) for bringing this debate forward and speaking with such deep conviction. I am humbled that this is the subject of my first outing in this new role, and I thank him and other Members for their work in this important area. I know that the hon. Gentleman, through his work on the APPG, already met a previous Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), in July.
Reading about it and then listening to the hon. Gentleman’s account again in this debate, we agree that Adam’s death was an absolute tragedy. As a dad, I cannot begin to imagine what Adam’s mum and dad continue to go through, and I pay tribute to them. It goes without saying that I would of course be happy to meet with the hon. Gentleman and Adam’s parents to discuss what more we can do to change the system, to go through the seven requests in detail, and to help save other parents from the same heartbreaking loss that they have endured.
I am determined that the benefits of innovation are felt first and fastest by patients and families, as quickly and safely as possible. That means accelerating the adoption of technology, digital services and the Government’s single patient record, and better integration between our national platforms, so that relevant information about known conditions, family associations and medical history can follow the person across services, professionals and organisations.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
In January 2023, Mia Jennings died suddenly from a cardiac event. She was a swimming instructor, star apprentice, and, by all accounts, a wonderful young lady. Since her passing, her family have made incredible efforts to raise money for CRY—over £50,000—bringing screening directly to communities across Macclesfield. Will the Minister join me in commending Mia’s family for their extraordinary efforts in her memory?
Mr Frith
I never fail to be impressed by the sheer determination of humans who have endured the worst of losses to turn such loss into a positive contribution. Without hesitation, I pay tribute to Mia’s family for their fundraising efforts.
Done properly, innovation can support more joined-up care and personalised services, and faster sharing and implementation of new guidance and learning.
Let me now turn to some of the specific points raised by the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire. NHS England has made changes to the call script in response to new advice from Resuscitation Council UK, issued in November 2023. That advice was given just two months before Adam’s death. It is tragic that it had not yet come into force by the time that Adam stepped on to that pitch. As healthcare professionals, Adam’s mum and dad will know that those changes would have given him a much better chance of survival, as callers now receive advice to begin life support, as well as the certainty of using a defibrillator on a teenager.
The hon. Gentleman raised a number of important points about the NHS pathways system. The challenge we face in improving the sensitivity of cardiac arrest identification is to do so in a way that does not generate false positives. Ongoing performance monitoring of NHS pathways finds that the system accepts over-triage; this is an intentional safety feature of triage systems. As the hon. Gentleman knows, at a time when many ambulance services are under such significant strain, the management of stretched resources is paramount.
The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that NHS England works with the NHS pathways clinical team, ambulance services and specialist organisations, including Resuscitation Council UK, to review data and emerging evidence and to see where we can do better.
Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to intervene during this important debate. This is an issue that I care about deeply, both because of the impact on young people in Barrow and Furness, and because I have the privilege of serving as chair for the APPG on cardiac risk in the young. I came to be chair of the APPG after learning about the tragic loss of two Barrow and Furness residents, Wilson Shepherd and Vicky Parker. Wilson and Vicky died only two weeks apart and a few miles away from each other in 2023, and both deaths should have been preventable. I pay tribute to their mums, Lesley Mease and Donna Parker, for their tireless campaigning. Will the Government commit to developing a national strategy for the prevention of sudden cardiac death in young people in places like Barrow and Furness and across the country, bringing together screening with experts on cardiac pathology and inherited cardiac conditions and on the identification and investigation of blackouts?
Mr Frith
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I would be very happy to discuss those requests in person. I also pay tribute to the families of Wilson and Vicky. The impact of more and more defibs being available is incredibly important, and I am very happy to speak in more detail on that issue.
Amanda Hack
In the summer, I went to Glenfield hospital to talk to staff about the amazing genetic testing done there. Something that strikes me through all the conversations I have had as the former chair of the APPG is how much work could be done in A&E to strengthen that pathway. What can the Minister tell us about looking at ECGs after people have been tested in A&E, which could go back to cardiologists?
Mr Frith
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention; I hope I will cover and do justice to those important points.
NHS pathways also give providers call-level CPR data to support local reviews and improve quality, as well as reviewing data and emerging evidence to see where we must do better. They send quarterly reports to the national clinical assurance group, which is made up of senior clinicians drawn from royal colleges, professional bodies and urgent and emergency care services. These professionals can and often do submit constructive feedback on the way that pathways are run.
At present, NHS clinical staff are trained in CPR, but from April 2027, this will be extended to all NHS staff, including those in A&E. The roll-out of this training will take time, but it will hugely increase the number of people in the country with valuable lifesaving knowledge.
Finally, when it comes to recognising cardiac arrest, I can confirm that the Care Quality Commission does assess call handlers’ skill as part of its inspections. We know that no human system is perfect, and I am all too aware that a list or accounts like this can risk sounding defensive, so let me repeat my openness to sitting with the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, Adam’s parents and other colleagues to see how and where we can do better and go further.
Turning to the hon. Member’s points about genetics, I am hugely optimistic about the potential of genomics and life sciences over the next 10 years. The NHS clinical genetics services deliver a comprehensive clinical genetics and genetic counselling service for individuals with a family history of genetic conditions, including cardiac conditions. They provide a detailed review of family history that can direct the diagnosis, risk assessment and lifelong clinical management of patients of all ages and their families who have, or are at risk of having, a genomic condition.
The current specification for the clinical genetics services was published more than a decade go under the previous Government and is no longer fit for purpose, not least because this is one of the most innovative fields in healthcare. Today, specialist clinical services simply do not have the capacity or infrastructure to contact family members proactively, except where a particularly high risk has already been identified. For me and my work, it is a clear example of why innovation must help connect our public services.
NHS England’s genomics programme, working with the genomics clinical reference group, has done a review of the 17 regional NHS clinical genetics services. This has shone a light on the challenges to be addressed for this service to match the Government’s expectations.
I am unable to confirm a specific date for the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, but suffice to say, there is much more to be done before expectations are met by service. On his point about the UK National Screening Committee, it is true that the draft recommendations, which have been consulted on, did not find that the current scientific evidence—