House of Commons
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 21 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
We know that energy is simply unaffordable for too many people, and we are clear that we need to get bills down for good. One of the ways that we can do that is by decoupling the price of gas and electricity, and we are already making progress by bringing on more clean power than ever before, so that gas sets the price less of the time. Gas is currently setting the price 60% of the time, compared with 90% in 2020. We need to go further, but we are taking action to do that. We are also expanding contracts for difference that fix the price of renewables. We will take the action necessary over the coming months so that we can break the link between gas and electricity and so that consumers can benefit from cheaper renewables.
Liz Jarvis
I raised the decoupling of gas and electricity prices with the former Energy Secretary in March, so I welcome the Government’s continued commitment. However, eight months into the illegal war in Iran, rising gas prices have pushed the price cap up by 4% this month, wiping out VAT savings on energy bills, while Trump’s lifting of sanctions on Russian diesel leaves fuel prices once again at the mercy of Putin. In my constituency of Eastleigh, more than a quarter of households are in fuel poverty, and I have spoken with many businesses that are struggling with spiralling bills. Will the Secretary of State therefore go further and faster on decoupling gas and electricity prices, including by investing more in home-grown renewable energy?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The answer to that is simple: yes, absolutely. Everyone can see with their eyes what is driving up energy bills: our acute exposure to global fossil fuel markets that we do not control. We on the Labour Benches are clear that our pathway out of this is by investing in renewables and clean power, so that we have home-grown energy that we control. Candidly, it is an absolute shame and a travesty that the Conservatives, who agreed with us for a very long time, are reneging on that cross-party consensus. They would renege on our ability to control our energy system and its impact on our consumers.
Mr Speaker
Can I just remind everybody that their contributions are meant to be through the Chair, not looking at Members, to try to take some confrontation out and to keep the Chamber calm? Thank you.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State is right that gas sets the price for power most of the time. Every wind farm and solar array built in our country weakens that link, but Reform and the Conservatives repeatedly object to developments in Northamptonshire. Does the Secretary of State agree that the route to cheaper bills is to build and invest, not to retreat from green power?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
My hon. Friend is completely right. We are clear that the route to getting bills down is through clean power. We are proud that over the past two years we have unlocked £100 billion of investment in clean power. We will do what is required. It is just a shame that the Conservatives have lost the plot.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
Households and businesses have been left at the mercy of a broken energy system, and they are paying the price. As we have heard, gas is still setting the price of electricity. Gas is now at a three-year high and is due to go up again in January, when energy use goes up. While other European countries are responding to the energy crisis by accelerating electrification, we in the UK do not have a plan. Does the Secretary of State therefore agree with us that we need a national electrification strategy to bring down bills, to decouple gas from electricity and to make the most of our increasing renewables?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The hon. Member is completely right that our route out of this is through clean power, and we need to ensure that consumers and businesses feel the benefit through electrification. I reassure her that we have a strategy, and we are getting on with it. Through our warm homes plan, we are ensuring that homes and businesses across the country have access to solar and to clean heat. That will ensure that they benefit. We are clear that electrification is the way forward. Countries across Europe are watching the UK and seeing our progress, and we will run with it.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
We know that people are worried about rising energy bills when the cost of living is biting, and we know that we need to provide breathing space. That is why one of the first things that the Prime Minister did in the job was to scrap VAT on electricity bills. That is on top of the £150 that we took off the cost of energy. We are clear that the scale of what we are seeing requires us to make a concerted effort to get bills down. That is why we are running up clean energy to reduce our exposure to global fossil fuel markets and rolling out the warm homes plan so that we can upgrade our homes. Solar, batteries and clean heat can reduce bills by £600 to £800. Critically, we are determined to put the public back in control of an energy system that the Conservatives lost control of, so that it can work in the interest of consumers.
Tristan Osborne
In Snodland, in my constituency, Octopus Energy is working with social housing tenants to reduce energy bills and cut costs this winter. What more can the Government do, working with the private sector, to promote renewable technologies to reduce bills this winter?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
My hon. Friend is right to give the example of Octopus Energy in his constituency. Through the warm homes plan, we are investing record amounts—billions—in upgrading our homes, because we know that is a key route towards reducing bills. Solar batteries and clean heat insulation can save households between £600 and £800, and we are committed to devolving that to bring about a huge acceleration, street by street, area by area, and estate by estate. That is how we can drive down energy bills for good.
Jim Dickson
Clearly a great deal is being done to protect low-income residents from the effect of rising bills, but given that the energy cap is expected to rise considerably at the start of next year, may I ask the Secretary of State what further conversations she has had with the Treasury to find additional ways of protecting those on the lowest incomes from the effect of rising bills?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
My hon. Friend asks an important question. We are acutely aware that low-income families will be hit hardest by rising prices. We are working with others across Government, including our colleagues in the Treasury, on how we can give people some breathing room. But it is important to emphasise that we have already acted. We have removed VAT from domestic electricity bills, and that comes into force straightaway. We are taking £150 off the cost of bills, and we are also delivering the warm home discount. That means £150 for 6 million of our lowest-earning households. We understand the pressure that households are under, and we will act and stand by people to support them.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
Many people, not just in my constituency but throughout the country, rely on off-grid energy. I recognise that the Government have taken steps to try and help them, but so many of them have been exposed to massive shocks and leaps in the cost of filling their tanks with oil or gas. Will the Government consider doing a little more to help the many people who are incredibly vulnerable to these energy shocks?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The right hon. Member raises an important point. We know that families in off-grid households are under huge pressure, and we are taking action to support them. We have put aside £50 million to support, for example, families who use heating oil. We are encouraging households to do that because the uptake has been lower than we want, but we are also introducing regulation of heating oil so that we can protect households. We know that there is more we can do, and we are absolutely committed to getting it done.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
Cornwall Insight forecasts that the energy price cap will increase by a further 16% in January. The Secretary of State has spoken about taking VAT off electricity bills, but that amounts to £45 for an average household. In reality, that is like trying to fill a swimming pool with a thimble—it is not going to work. How will she help to protect families who are already struggling, and will she consider an essential energy guarantee so that all the energy that we need can be affordable for every household?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We are very clear about where the end destination is. We need to get to an energy system that is affordable for everyone, and we absolutely recognise that the present system is not. We are taking short-term action to give people breathing space, but ultimately I come back to the question of why families are under so much pressure. It is, in fact, because we are acutely exposed to global fossil fuel markets that we do not control. When we talk about clean energy, it is because that is the route by which we get bills down. We have to take the long-term action. We also have to ensure sure that we are reforming the market so that it works in the interests of consumers. We are providing breathing space and standing by people because we need to, but absolutely taking the hard long-term action so that we can fix this problem for good.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
With approximately 15% of Derby South households estimated to be living in fuel poverty, too many families will be dreading higher energy bills as the nights draw in. What reassurances can the Secretary of State offer my constituents that as much help as possible is on its way?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We know that families across the country will be very worried this winter. I have been to my hon. Friend’s constituency and to constituencies across the country, and I understand the pressure that people are under. We have taken action on breathing space, we will have the £150 warm home discount, and we are driving forward home upgrades because that is the way in which we can get bills down. We are doing that through local authorities. Let no one be in any doubt, however, that we understand that the status quo is untenable, and we will take the action that is necessary to drive bills down.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
Last week, the Secretary of State signed off a massive solar farm in my constituency called the Steeple. It comes on the back of another massive solar farm called One Earth, which was approved by her predecessor earlier in the summer, and a third application sits on her desk today, for a project called Great North Road. In aggregate, if she signs off the latest one, 10% of the entire landmass of my constituency will be solar farms, and my constituents will see no benefit from this in their own energy bills. I wrote to her earlier in the summer to congratulate her on her new position and ask whether she would like to come to my constituency, meet my local residents and make the case for these giant solar farms to my constituents, if she really believes they are in their best interests.
Mr Speaker
Order. The right hon. Member has been here a long time. Please look at the Chair, rather than the person who is answering the question. These are the rules of the House—they are not my rules.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I gently point out to the right hon. Member that less than 1% of the land will be taken up by solar farms, even under our most ambitious assumptions, but let us come back to the conversation that we are having. Energy bills are too high, and we are far too exposed to global fossil fuel markets. We therefore need home-grown energy that we control. Solar is a cheap and effective way in which we can do that. The right hon. Member may not have a plan, or indeed care about having a plan, to get energy bills down, but we on this side of the House are very clear about what we need to do. Renewables is our route to driving bills down, and that is what the public expect of us.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Britain already has the highest electricity prices in Europe, which makes all our families worse off. The Prime Minister’s decision to end VAT on household electricity bills—for only six months—is a tiny step in the right direction, but the Government need to do much more. Will the Secretary of State reduce household energy bills by £200 a year by adopting the Conservatives’ cheap power plan? Will she extend that VAT cut, axe the carbon tax and scrap renewables obligation contracts, so that all British households are better off?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I do not think the hon. Member should have mentioned the cheap power plan, which is based on dodgy figures that the Conservatives cannot add up. Candidly, in the spirit of not point scoring, let us examine their record. They were in power for 14 years. They had the opportunity to decouple us from global fossil fuel markets and to invest in clean energy, but they did none of it. We are in this position because of the inaction and failure of the Conservatives, so they should show a bit of humility. They have no plan. Their cheap power plan is based on dodgy numbers and, candidly, we do have a plan for how to get bills down.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)
This summer we all felt the impact of climate change, whether in our homes, workplaces or schools. The warm homes plan will ensure that cooling measures, as well as heating measures, are available for the most vulnerable homes. Additionally, all eligible households in England and Wales can benefit from the expanded boiler upgrade scheme, which now includes air-to-air heat pumps, which are able to heat and cool homes.
Olly Glover
The Government’s commitment to improving the energy efficiency of our homes is welcome and is a stark contrast to the Conservatives’ apparent embrace of a Fred Flintstone home standard. This year saw the hottest summer on record, and climate change science indicates that such temperatures are going to become the norm. Can the Minister assure the House that the standards that he mentions will take full account of those trends and the need to efficiently cool our buildings?
Martin McCluskey
I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. He will know that we are currently reviewing part O of the Building Regulations on overheating in order to ensure that, in the future, buildings are well prepared for the temperatures that we may face and are able to adapt to climate change.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
With this summer’s extreme heat showing that the effects of climate change are very much with us in the here and now, it is vital that we support households to adapt to the new reality, as well as tackling the effects of climate change at source. The inclusion of air-to-air heat pumps, which provide clean cooling, and heating tech in the boiler upgrade scheme is very welcome, but despite this announcement, the delays in accreditation mean that uptake has been incredibly slow. I convened more than 50 MPs over the summer to push the accreditors to get a move on and ensure that more homes can benefit from this. How are Ministers holding the accreditation agencies to account, to ensure that more households in my constituency can benefit from cooling tech?
Martin McCluskey
I would like to praise my hon. Friend for the work he has been doing and for working collaboratively with us to put some gentle pressure on the accreditation bodies to ensure that we see progress. I will be meeting the relevant bodies soon, and we hope to be able to unlock this at pace.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
The new norms of extreme weather that we are now seeing, caused by climate change, mean that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) has said, we have to think about not only warming our homes, but cooling them. Thousands of families are dipping into hard-earned savings to install heat pumps and to cut emissions. In my constituency of South Cambridgeshire, we are 25th in the country for heat pump uptake—I am really proud of that—as a result of heat pump subsidies, so I am really worried by rumours that the Government are considering deep cuts to the warm homes plan. Would the Minister agree with me that failing to electrify at scale keeps us needlessly chained to overseas gas and volatile petrostates, and that to rob energy security to fund defence is a fool’s errand?
Martin McCluskey
We fully support the warm homes plan and the boiler upgrade scheme. We have had a record-breaking year on the boiler upgrade scheme, with over 8,000 applications in July, which is more than double what we saw in the previous year—not least because of homes that were off grid deciding to adopt a heat pump, and I am sure there are many in the hon. Lady’s constituency. We continue to support the boiler upgrade scheme, and I am sure we will see continued uptake of it over the coming months.
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
The Minister for Climate Transition (Katie White)
My hon. Friends raise an excellent point. In June this year, I, alongside the Cabinet Office, launched a climate and nature security taskforce to assess our resilience. Its first meeting will take place next week, with external experts to challenge our preparedness. Sadly, this taskforce became even more relevant when this summer’s extremes enabled us to feel what scientists have been telling us for many years. The Prime Minister has also confirmed that he will host a wildfire summit this month.
Tom Rutland
Over the summer, my constituents in East Worthing and Shoreham, like many across the country, endured unrelenting and scorching heat. For many years we have focused on cold homes in winter, and now we need to turn our attention to hot homes in the summer. It was good to hear, in an earlier answer, some of what the Government have been doing, but what steps is the Department taking to help people to adapt homes and public buildings to our increasingly hot summers?
Katie White
We are indeed living through extremes of climate change, and we felt that so intensely this summer. This should encourage us all to accelerate our efforts to mitigate, but also to expand opportunities to adapt. As my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West (Martin McCluskey) has just said, the boiler upgrade scheme already provides for air-to-air heat pumps that can both heat and cool our homes at the same time. However, we want to go further, which is why the warm homes plan set out our intention to introduce passive cooling measures in our capital funded schemes, including solar shading, shutters, reflective window-cooling coatings and cooler building materials.
Anna Dixon
As hon. Members have said, we endured one of the hottest summers on record, with 10 days reaching 35°, which is double the previous record. We also saw deaths from extreme heat. When we think about insulating homes, we think about keeping ourselves warm, but home insulation is just as critical in protecting against extreme heat. So can the Minister tell the House a little more about the steps the Government are taking to ensure that the new homes we are building are designed to protect people against extreme heat?
Katie White
My hon. Friend is a long-standing champion of retrofitting and of new build. We on this side of the House are proud of the future building standards, which require all new homes to be zero carbon-ready to ensure they are adapted to and can mitigate the impacts of climate change. The building regulations state that new homes must be designed to reduce overheating risk and prioritise passive measures such as limiting exposure to heat from the sun and openable windows to remove excess heat, but a full technical review is under way to ensure that those regulations remain effective and fit for the future.
Patrick Spencer (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
The proposers of the Easton-Letheringham solar farm application in my constituency have finally been forced to get an environmental impact assessment. Considering the vast size of the proposed development, which would cover over 200 acres of fertile farmland, it was a complete waste of time to think it would ever get through planning without one. Will the Minister consider requiring an environmental impact assessment for all solar developments on rural land?
Katie White
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question; I am a little unsure how it relates to this question grouping. We are looking at how to ensure we align the—[Interruption.] I am speaking from the Dispatch Box, but thank you. On environmental assessments of solar farms, we want to ensure that our policies are in line with Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs policies. We have worked very closely with DEFRA, and continue to do so, on the land use framework to make sure that we are delivering clean power while improving nature restoration. It was great over the recess to talk to solar providers who looked at biodiversity increase from solar farms.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
British food security is in real jeopardy. Extreme weather is becoming more severe, more frequent and more unpredictable. The Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit warns that 2026 could be the worst UK harvest on record. What discussions has the Minister had with DEFRA colleagues on strengthening British farms’ resilience to extreme weather?
Katie White
I thank the hon. Lady for her very important question. This is one of the reasons why, before this summer, we launched the climate and nature security taskforce. As I said, sadly it has become even more relevant after the summer and its impacts on farming and food security. We are working hand in glove with DEFRA to ensure that these matters are considered at the same time, and that cascading climate and nature impacts on food security are considered. That will be a core part of our climate and nature security taskforce.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
National Grid Electricity Transmission has concluded its first consultation on the English section of the cross-border connection, with further consultation expected next year. The Scottish section is being developed by SP Energy Networks; consenting decisions on that portion are the responsibility of Scottish Ministers. It is for the developers to progress their proposals and to seek the necessary consents.
John Lamont
The mega-pylons comprising the cross-border connection will have a major impact on residents in the Scottish Borders. Data centres, wind farms, solar farms, substations and battery storage plants will follow in the wake of the pylons, but local councillors and residents feel powerless to influence these developments. Will the Minister meet me and local Scottish Borders councillors to discuss their concerns? Will the Government support my Energy and Digital Infrastructure (Planning) Bill, which will provide certainty to local communities and the council on how such developments should be considered?
Michael Shanks
I have met the hon. Gentleman in the past, and I am very happy to meet again to discuss these issues, but I reiterate that it is not for me to make decisions on those applications; they are made by the Scottish Government, as are decisions on all planning matters in Scotland. He can shake his head, but it is true. It is important that we bring communities with us on this; that is critical in the planning process. It is why we announced that the communities across the UK who host such infrastructure UK should benefit from bill discounts directly, but there should also be community benefits in communities like his.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
The proposed route of the cross-border connection cuts a swathe across the north Cumbria section of my constituency and passes through, or close to, four sites of special scientific interest. I recognise the importance of the project, but will the Minister please urge National Grid to maximise undergrounding on this section of the project?
Michael Shanks
As I said, individual projects have to go through the planning process and develop their proposals, but the Government have a preference for pylons, rather than undergrounding—the previous Government had exactly the same position—not least because undergrounding is four or five times more expensive, and it is consumers across the country who pay that additional cost. We are very clear that building the grid is absolutely critical to getting clean, cheaper power to people’s homes and businesses. It is a job that the previous Government never did, and that upgrade is now absolutely critical.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Blair McDougall)
The Government recognise that energy costs remain a challenge for businesses across the country. Our British industrial competitiveness scheme, which is now open, will support over 10,000 businesses, cutting electricity costs by up to £40 per MWh. There is also the British industry supercharger’s enhanced support for our most electricity-intensive firms. We know that is not enough, and we are working across both my Departments to explore further options.
Patrick Hurley
I have been investigating the extraordinary differences in domestic electricity standing charges in regions of the country, and I am increasingly concerned that the same underlying network charging system may also be imposing substantially higher fixed costs on businesses in Merseyside and north Wales. Will the Minister ask Ofgem to investigate the impact of regional network charging on business competitiveness, as well as household bills?
Blair McDougall
As ever, my hon. Friend is a champion for business and industry in Southport. The short answer is yes, I will write to Ofgem on this matter, and I will share the response with my hon. Friend. In the meantime, I reassure him that Ofgem’s cost allocation and recovery review is considering how costs should be recovered from consumers, and the arrangements for recovering network costs.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
I entirely agree with the comments made about business costs. That also applies across the public sector; local authorities and NHS trusts and boards all pay substantial amounts for their energy, particularly leisure trusts, which have swimming pools and ice rinks and provide a great deal of community wellbeing. Will the Minister commit to addressing these issues for public authorities as well as businesses?
Blair McDougall
The hon. Gentleman makes one of the many good arguments for acting at pace to get cleaner energy, which is good for business and household consumers, and saves a considerable amount of money for the public sector. That is exactly why we are investing in, for example, rooftop solar across the public sector. We will certainly work with the Scottish Government on that.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Businesses are being crushed by the weight of energy costs in this country, and that is leading to the deindustrialisation of Great Britain, everywhere from the ceramics industry in Stoke to the chemicals industry in Grangemouth. Labour’s policies are making Britain poorer and more vulnerable, and are leading to thousands of job losses. Does the Minister think that is why Gary Smith of the GMB described Government energy policy as “batshit” and the Department as the “ministry for P45s”?
Blair McDougall
As has happened so often, we find ourselves rising to the Dispatch Box to answer Opposition Front Benchers’ questions about why we have not been quick enough to fix the mess that they left us. By all means criticise the speed and the scale of our ambition—we are certainly ambitious to go quicker—but the shadow Minister’s proposal is to regress to the policy of reliance on fossil fuels that got us into this mess, and does not bear any scrutiny.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)
The warm homes plan is already delivering in communities across our country, and last month the Secretary of State announced the devolution of that plan. Giving power to local leaders and communities to make decisions about the areas they know best is essential to upgrading homes on the scale and at the pace that we need. It is key to bringing down bills, reducing fuel poverty and creating skilled jobs.
Chris Webb
In Blackpool, too many families still live in cold and poorly insulated homes, and face disproportionately higher energy costs. How is the warm homes plan benefiting households in Blackpool, and what more are the Government doing to secure cheaper energy bills for my constituents? What support are they entitled to, and how can they access it?
Martin McCluskey
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all the work that he is doing to champion his constituents in Blackpool South. Around 600 households in his constituency received home upgrades in 2025-26. I encourage any of his constituents who want advice on how to upgrade their home to go to gov.uk and search for energy grants—they will find information there. I will soon launch a new tool to make it even easier for people to find support.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Many of my constituents are off gas and rely on heating oil. They are once again writing to me about rising costs. With no price cap to protect them, the best way to cut their bills is to move to low-carbon forms of heating. Will the Minister confirm that the uplift in grants for off-grid properties will not be a victim of budget cuts?
Martin McCluskey
We have guaranteed that the grant will be there until March next year. Decisions for the future of that scheme and the uplift are for the Chancellor to take later at the Budget. That uplift has led to a significant increase in the number of heat pump applications, and applications to the boiler upgrade scheme—there were over 8,000 in July alone—so we can see the success that it is having, and the support that it is providing to off-grid homes.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
In January this year, the former Energy Secretary stood at the Dispatch Box and with great fanfare announced £15 billion for the warm homes plan, so I have a very simple question: can the Minister provide a guarantee today that every penny of that commitment remains intact? Yes or no?
Martin McCluskey
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position. He would not expect me to stand here and make commitments that will be made by the Chancellor at the Budget at the end of this month. The hon. Gentleman’s party is trying to make us more dependent on fossil fuels, and to turn back the clock on the future homes standard—changes that would leave people across the country tens of thousands of pounds worse off.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
Given that a regulatory process is under way, I cannot comment on particular projects. However, we have been very clear that any consenting decisions for new oil and gas must be compatible with our climate obligations. We have set that out at every stage of the process, since we inherited the court judgments on the previous Government’s handling of those consent decisions.
Fleur Anderson
Many of my constituents in Putney have written to me about this. They are very concerned about Rosebank’s lifetime emissions, which are equivalent to 254 million tonnes of CO2. As many colleagues have mentioned, this summer, we had extreme weather. The London ambulance service said that it had more call-outs this summer, because of the heatwave, than it did during covid. With that background, can the Minister tell me whether approving Rosebank is compatible with the UK’s climate targets and obligations under the Paris agreement?
Michael Shanks
Let me reiterate that I cannot comment on particular projects that are being considered for decisions. On the more general point that my hon. Friend rightly raises, it is imperative that we look at the impact that climate change is having. We all lived through this summer, and have seen the evidence of climate change up close. It is important that any decisions we make are compatible with our climate obligations. As even the Conservatives have now accepted, it is worth remembering that any new projects in the North sea will not take a penny off bills.
Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)
Producing our own oil and gas means that we will import less dirtier hydrocarbons, so it is common sense to use our own resources, but while Labour dithers on approving Rosebank and Jackdaw, thousands of my constituents in Aberdeen South are losing their jobs. Will the Minister set out a timetable for deciding whether Rosebank and Jackdaw can proceed?
Michael Shanks
As I have said on a number of occasions, we are considering the evidence that has been submitted on these projects. We have had to pick up a process that was left behind by the previous Government, and we have done that as quickly as possible. We will make decisions in due course. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman speaks about common sense, but thousands of his constituents are reliant on jobs in renewables, carbon capture and hydrogen, yet he stands here, time after time, opposing investment in those things. If he is in favour of jobs in his constituency, he should be in favour of all of them.
Mr Speaker
Order. I know that the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) is a new Member, but his behaviour counts, just as everybody else’s does. I call the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
In Canada, Prime Minister Carney has taken a more pragmatic approach to the energy transition than his predecessor, notably by designating the west coast oil pipeline as a project of national interest. In this country, the Prime Minister says that drilling in the North sea is something that he is pragmatic about. Does the Minister agree with continued drilling in the North sea, and does he see us taking a similar approach to Canada, and securing agreement to emission reductions in return for that drilling?
Michael Shanks
It is always useful to hear from the Chair of the Select Committee; I will look into the example he gave. On pragmatism, we have been clear that we want a pragmatic future for the North sea. That means continued oil and gas for many decades, but also investing in what comes next in the North sea, so that there is a fair and prosperous transition. The North sea remains a vital asset for the country, supporting jobs, growth and our energy security. We are determined to make sure that there is a strong pathway for the communities involved, and for jobs. Oil and gas will be important, but it is critical that we build up the industries that come next.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The Secretary of State has previously said that if we are to have any shot at meeting our climate change targets,
“we can’t have any new oil and gas”.
She also said that new fossil fuel development was “irresponsible and short-sighted”. There is nothing pragmatic about pouring more fuel on the fire of the climate crisis. Does the Secretary of State still agree with herself? If so, why will the Government not rule out Rosebank and Jackdaw?
Michael Shanks
It is pragmatic to say that oil and gas will continue to be a critical part of our energy mix for decades to come, and the North sea remains an important part of that. We are not about switching off the taps in the North sea—we said that in our manifesto, and we will deliver on it—but we are about building clean energy in the future. The Green party comes here and pontificates on a lot of these issues, but it opposes the very infrastructure that would get us off fossil fuels. It cannot have it both ways.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
We are in a global energy supply crisis, as oil shipments remain stuck; a fifth of global liquefied natural gas supplies have been disrupted by the war in Iran; and across Europe, gas reserves are at record lows as we head into winter. But there is good news: Jackdaw and Rosebank could be producing oil and gas this winter. The bad news is that we have a Government who are either too scared of their green lobby, or too naive about the supply risks that we face, to act. Now that the Holborn and St Pancras by-election is over, and before we get too close to COP, when will the Government finally take our energy security seriously and permit Jackdaw and Rosebank?
Michael Shanks
I congratulate the hon. Lady on her new role as shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, as well as on staying in the energy brief. She eloquently outlines the exact problem at the heart of the Conservative party’s policy. She said clearly that the issues in the middle east leave us exposed to an energy crisis, but her party’s plan is to increase that exposure by having even more gas in our energy mix—it is simply not credible. The Conservatives’ plan has already been ridiculed because the figures were wrong when they published it; it had a gas price not based in reality, given everything going on in the middle east. We will make pragmatic decisions on the future of the North sea, but we are also all about our energy security long into the future. They remain stuck on the very exposure that is driving up everyone’s bills.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
The Minister for Climate Transition (Katie White)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has been a champion for Yorkshire and for climate change mitigation and adaptation. We recognise that our peatlands are vital habitats for biodiversity, storing carbon and water. We have strong protections in national planning policy that guide developers to avoid peatland and, where that is not possible, to mitigate. We are working with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to strengthen and collaborate on both climate and nature policies.
Josh Fenton-Glynn
We cannot strengthen one part of our climate response by weakening another. Peatland stores 50% of the country’s soil carbon—3 billion tonnes of the stuff. That is the equivalent of all the carbon stored by forests in the UK, Germany, and France combined. Building on peatland releases that carbon. That is why there are rules against doing so for development or farming. Will the Minister please look at cases of siting wind farms and other energy projects on peatland, so that there is consistency across the board?
Katie White
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the hugely valuable role of peat in storing carbon and water, and in ensuring biodiversity. That is why the Government announced £47 million to restore our peatlands in June. As I said, there is national policy guidance, but we are working with DEFRA and Natural England to improve the interaction that he mentions. I will follow up with the Department to ensure that we are reviewing policy options, so that we deliver clean energy while protecting our natural environment. I am happy to keep him in the loop on that.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
We do not have an abundance of peatland in east Kent, but we do have acres of wonderful marshland and sites of special scientific interest. On that land—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Farron is shaking his head at me. There is some peatland in Kent, so there is a link to the question. I do not need any help, and you shaking your head so violently will not change Sir Roger’s question.
Sir Roger Gale
I am most grateful, Mr Speaker. Let me go back to the beginning: we do not have acres of peatland in east Kent, but we do have acres of wonderful marshland and sites of scientific interest. On that marshland, National Grid is proposing to build a 90-foot-high converter station the size of five football pitches, floated on concrete 2 metres deep. The Secretary of State is due to determine the planning application in short order. When she takes that decision, will she give an assurance that she will take into account the irreparable environmental damage that that ill-conceived project will do to the environment?
Mr Speaker
It sounds like the marshlands will be pushed on to the peatland.
Katie White
Thank you for the clarification, Mr Speaker, and I thank the right hon. Member for his question. Everything we do has an environmental impact, but clearly we want to make sure that we minimise the environmental impact of any infrastructure that we build. I cannot comment on any individual planning application, as the right hon. Member will well know, but I take his wider point on looking to minimise, in all places, the environmental impacts of any of our clean energy infrastructure.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
The Minister for Climate Transition (Katie White)
We all felt the impacts of climate change this summer, whether in our schools and classrooms or in our homes. The warm homes plan and the measures within it to ensure cooling as well as heating are available for the most vulnerable homes. In England and Wales, all eligible households can benefit from the expanded boiler upgrade scheme, which now includes air-to-air heat pumps that can heat and cool our homes.
Sonia Kumar
This summer, extreme heat was responsible for thousands of excess deaths across the United Kingdom. Though I commend the Department’s mission to tackle climate change and the root causes of extreme heat, does the Minister recognise that we must go faster and further in adapting and supporting households, especially vulnerable ones, with regard to extreme heat, and does she recognise that we need a cold homes plan across the country?
Katie White
I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent question. As we have mentioned a few times today, the intention to introduce some passive cooling measures, whether that be shading, shutters, reflective windows or cooler building materials, in the warm homes plan has already been announced. The delivery of the warm homes plan, which has been devolved to mayors, local government and communities, presents an opportunity to shape that in the most appropriate ways locally. We want to go faster to make sure that new homes are built to resilient standards. That is why we have committed to the net zero standards and why we are reviewing the overheating building regulations to ensure that our homes are fit for the future. I want to make sure that we build together heating and cooling options, so that we are thinking about the integration of climate mitigation and adaptation at the same time.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Twenty-five per cent of the properties in my constituency were built before 1900. They are very hard to retrofit; they are solid-wall properties. It is therefore important that there should be a bespoke scheme to ensure that homes that are hard to retrofit, particularly in rural communities such as mine, can be made cooler or warmer in these times of more extreme temperatures.
Katie White
The hon. Member is right that some properties are more challenging to retrofit. That is why we are working with many heritage organisations to determine the best way to do that. We are constantly learning to make sure that there is mitigation and adaptation at the same time. I am happy to keep the hon. Member in the loop on the progress on that.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
Our electricity grid is one of the most important pieces of infrastructure in the country, but it was allowed to get into a complete mess through under-investment and a failure to tackle the grid connection queue, which got to over 700 GW under the previous Government. We have grappled with that legacy head-on, reducing the queue by 300 GW and ensuring that accurate connection offers are issued. We have made progress on that, but there is much more to do to make sure that the grid works for the people of this country. That is why we are injecting public control back into the system by launching Great British Grid.
Darren Paffey
Southampton’s port electrification and decarbonisation projects are ready to go, but we still cannot get the national grid upgrades that we need for at least another decade. The Prime Minister himself has said that this drives costs up, drags growth down and holds Britain back, so I really welcome the announcements about Great British Grid. Will the Minister say when GB Grid will be able to start filling those gaps that exist at the moment, and will he meet me and Southampton’s businesses so that we can find a way forward and get good green growth in Southampton’s postcodes?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the point that the Prime Minister made about how critical it is to fix the fundamental problems with connecting to the grid. That is why we have announced that we have set up Great British Grid as part of Great British Energy. We have made substantial progress on reforming the queue, but we do have to build the grid after decades of under-investment. I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this issue, and I am fairly confident that we can make sure that National Grid is part of that conversation as well.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Bute Energy is planning to build a big wind farm in mid-Wales, and it is going to connect that wind farm over 47 km of pylons into a substation in North Shropshire that does not yet exist. I found out on the National Energy System Operator’s website that that substation is likely to be a 24 bay, 400 kV substation in a place with no substantial roads and a good amount of useful farmland. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the appropriateness of the site? I think it could go elsewhere, which would require a shorter run of pylons for Bute Energy. There are more appropriate places to build it than Lower Frankton.
Michael Shanks
I am very happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss this issue, as I am always happy to meet Members from across the House. It is not for me as a Minister to decide the exact locations of substations, but I am happy to engage with her and to raise the issue with the relevant transmission owner.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
We are clear that energy is an everyday essential that everyone should have access to at affordable prices. We are also clear that, for too many people, energy is simply too expensive. That is why lowering bills for households and businesses is at the very heart of our agenda. That includes cutting VAT on electricity bills and removing £150 of costs to give people breathing space while we deliver the big changes that will get bills down for good: creating clean home-grown power to break our dependence on global fossil fuel markets we do not control; devolving the warm homes plan so that we can upgrade millions of homes to get bills down; and putting the public back in control of an energy system that the Conservatives lost control over. Great British Energy will give our communities a stake in the energy we produce, Great British Energy Nuclear will put the public at the very heart of nuclear generation and Great British Grid will accelerate the build-out of grid infrastructure and connections. We have a plan to get our energy system to work for our community again, and we are absolutely committed to running at that plan.
Jerome Mayhew
Fuel prices are through the roof, but it is okay because the Prime Minister says that he gets it. He has tweeted,
“I won’t accept that there’s nothing I can do to help”,
and he has proved it by pointing to a forecourt price comparison app. What he did not mention was that his Government are adding VAT on top of those price increases. That is a windfall of £2 billion to £3 billion. If the Prime Minister gets it, why is he adding 20% to the misery of motorists?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ms Polly Billington)
In fact, the fuel finder it is a good way of ensuring that people have the transparency that is required for the market to really work. The Competition and Markets Authority has found that, fundamentally, the market works competitively, but if anybody finds anything that they suspect to be price gouging, they should report it to the CMA. I would also like to point out that we have frozen fuel duty. Diesel, for example, is £11 cheaper than it would have been under the previous Government before 2024. It is important for Conservative Members to remember that we are doing what we can to bear down on the cost to the motorist and to ensure that the market works as transparently as possible.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for combining two of my favourite things, energy efficiency and the pub, in one question. I encourage the Wat Tyler to access the UK Business Climate Hub, which provides advice to businesses on how to reduce energy costs. It may also be eligible for the boiler upgrade scheme, which offers a grant of up to £7,500 to replace a fossil fuel boiler with a heat pump or other clean technology.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State and congratulate her on her new post; I look forward to working collaboratively with her on issues on which we agree—I am sure we will find some at some point.
In the last 20 minutes, The Daily Telegraph has reported that, in an act of extreme irony, the former Secretary of State for Energy, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband), has signed off on drilling for new oil in the South Atlantic, off the Falkland Islands. Why is drilling for new oil and gas okay in the south Atlantic but not in the North sea?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The Falkland Islands is independent and self-governing. It is not a matter for us. We are and have been clear that oil and gas will be part of our energy mix for years to come. We have also been clear that we will manage existing fields, and that is what we are committed to doing. I cannot reiterate enough that, if we care about getting bills down and about energy security, we must diversify our mix. That means having clean power and renewables. The Government are pragmatic, because at the very heart of this are consumers who are under pressure. The Opposition support renewables one minute—I think I have a quote from the hon. Member himself—and are against them the next. We have a plan; they have no plan.
Andrew Bowie
Oil and gas workers in Scotland will be feeling cold fury. The Labour party is creating jobs in oil and gas in Port Stanley while killing them in Aberdeen. Why does the unusual pragmatism that the former Secretary of State for Energy has applied in the south Atlantic not apply to the North sea oil and gas industry?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I ask the hon. Member to show some humility. On his watch, from 2016 to 2024, 75,000 oil and gas jobs were lost, because the Conservatives had no plan. Candidly, I will not take lectures from the Conservative party. We are clear that there will be a plan for oil and gas workers in this country, because we do not do what the Tories do—industrial transition that denudes and guts our communities. That is not the Labour way. We will have a plan. They have no grounds to stand on.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
I congratulate St Ann’s, Grove House and North primary school on getting solar panels on their rooftops. I have visited schools that have had solar installed; it is fantastic to see the young people learning about renewable energy at the same time as bills go down in the school and more money is invested in frontline teaching. That is exactly what we want Great British Energy to deliver.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
Ms Billington
As a fellow coastal MP, I absolutely rebut the hon. Gentleman’s idea that this Government do not understand coastal or rural communities. I accept the challenges he found with the fuel finder for the Isle of Wight, and we need to ensure that full transparency also extends to making sure that the cheapest fuel possible is available in all communities. I would like to point out, however, that many of his residents will benefit from the announcement we made today on the regulation of heating oil. Off-grid heating oil has, until now, not benefited from regulation; now it will do.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
The Minister for Climate Transition (Katie White)
The science has been very clear for years, but this summer allowed many people in the UK to really felt it for the first time. He is absolutely correct that net zero remains the goal of this Government. I understand that some people want to weaponise this issue, but ultimately if we want to tackle the climate crisis and to protect the people and places we love, at some point we have to stop releasing polluting gases into the atmosphere.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
All our constituents are paying a high price for energy. It is impacting households and we all know that it is impacting small businesses. The Secretary of State said earlier that she would take any action necessary to get bills down. Does that include reducing green taxes and levies to reduce gas bills?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We have already taken action to reduce the cost of bills—the £150 that was announced earlier this year. I come back to the point: we will do whatever we can to give households breathing space as we drive the big change, but part of the big change is diversifying our energy mix. That does mean more renewables and more nuclear, so that we are not as exposed as we are to global fossil fuel markets. The hon. Member’s constituents can see what is driving up bills. We have a plan to tackle that; the Conservative party does not.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Michael Shanks
When we came into government, we set this incredibly ambitious target to decarbonise the power system, which meant 95% of our electricity coming from clean sources. We have done everything possible to move towards that, and we are closer than we have ever been. It is worth saying that every single solar farm and wind farm that we switch on helps us to get off gas. In just the past few months since what has been happening in the middle east has taken course, we have been saving £5 million a day in displacing gas from the system because of the clean power mission. We are making huge progress and will continue pushing towards it.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Ministers have repeatedly stated their intention to establish local trading to unleash the full potential of community energy, but details are still not forthcoming. Will the Minister set out a timeline to give community energy projects the clarity that they have so long been waiting for?
Michael Shanks
I recognise, as I always do, the hon. Lady’s championing of the sector. We on the Government Benches agree with her about the importance of community energy. She will not have to wait very long.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Yes, I will meet my hon. Friend, who is a brilliant champion, and her constituent.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Can the Secretary of State assure me that those people who are off-grid—they are prevalent in my constituency—are at the heart of the Government’s thinking with regard to energy support? While I welcome regulation on heating oil, which has spiralled in price, it is not clear that regulation alone will bring down prices. Therefore, if the Chancellor is to give energy support, can off-grid be part of that?
Ms Billington
I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman represents one of the most rural parts of the country, and the fact that we have allocated £53 million to help the most vulnerable people across the UK is very important. Some £4.6 million has been given to the Scottish Government, and it is important that they get that money out of the door in order to help the most vulnerable people in his constituency and many others across Scotland.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
I recently met Paul Hughes, who proudly showed me his AI-enabled heat battery boiler. I am delighted that the Government have made that tech eligible for the boiler upgrade scheme. Would the Minister consider speaking to Treasury colleagues about this technology being part of the energy-saving materials VAT relief framework?
Martin McCluskey
As my hon. Friend will know, decisions on tax are a matter for the Chancellor, but my Department has announced our intention to make heat batteries eligible for a £2,500 grant under the boiler upgrade scheme, and a Committee of this House will be considering legislation for that on Wednesday.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
There is a great deal of concern in Staffordshire Moorlands about the Peak Cluster proposal, which would take carbon from four cement plants in the Peak district and pipe it into Morecambe bay. While I am not opposed to carbon capture, many residents are extraordinarily concerned about the impact this will have on them. Will the Secretary of State look carefully at this project and see whether there are alternatives, to ensure that we can keep our cement industry in the United Kingdom without perhaps destroying our environment in the Peak district?
Michael Shanks
I thank the right hon. Lady for what she said about carbon capture more generally. We are absolutely looking at alternatives for decarbonising hard-to-abate sectors. The Peak Cluster is not a Government-backed project; it is for the scheme to do all the community engagement. I have heard from many Members across the House that engagement has not been as good as it should be. I would encourage those at the cluster to ensure that it is as strong as it can be, and the project will obviously be subject to a planning application when it comes forward.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I want to return to Jackdaw and Rosebank. Last week, Jess from my office organised a showing of the “National Emergency Briefing”, which was very well attended. Afterwards, I do not think anybody I spoke to thought that Jackdaw or Rosebank should go ahead. I know the Secretary of State will not be drawn on this for legal reasons, but it would be good to hear her acknowledge the deep concerns that many people have about this issue. One person asked that if it does go ahead, could every single penny of the money raised by the Government be invested in the transition?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I obviously cannot go into the specifics of consenting decisions that are quasi-judicial. What I will say to the House is that we are trying to make those decisions at pace. The other thing I will be very clear about is that any decision I make will be compatible with our climate commitments. That is the first responsibility I have as Secretary of State, and that will be absolutely clear. My hon. Friend and his constituents should hear that loud and clear.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I welcome the announcement today about the Government’s intention to regulate the market in heating oil. For communities like mine that are completely off the gas grid, with the highest levels of fuel poverty in the country, this could be a significant moment. What my constituents would like to know, however, is when they might see this proposal become an implemented reality.
Ms Billington
It is important to make it clear what kind of proposals we are considering taking forward. This is about working with the regulators and industry to ensure we have a proportionate regulatory regime and stronger protections for consumers, and that we develop a robust evidence-based framework. We will work with the industry to strengthen consumer protections in the codes of conduct, and we will review industry practices, which currently set minimum order volumes at 500 litres for some customers. We will raise the awareness of payment plans to ensure that customers have the right options available to them. We want to get this right, and that is why we will work with the industry and consumer organisations to ensure that the regulatory framework really makes a difference for consumers in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency and across the country.
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
I am proud to stand behind a Government who are taking climate action seriously. However, we are already overshooting critical limits, and climate change will only get worse if we do not stop burning fossil fuels. Will the full direct climate impact of Rosebank and the implications of the international community’s efforts to transition away from fossil fuels be considered in making this decision?
Michael Shanks
As I have said in a number of answers, I cannot comment on the particular projects. On the general point, the very reason we are in this situation with these consents is that, because of the court judgment, we have to take into account the scope 3 emissions of these projects, which means there will be a full environmental assessment, and we have been very clear that that environmental assessment is critical in the consenting decisions that we will make in due course.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
As the Secretary of State says, the Falkland Islands are independent, but she seems to gloss over the fact that the Foreign Secretary still has to give approval to oil drilling. Will she therefore give her full-throated support to the decision today and support the Falkland Islands in this important venture? Will she also tell us when she was consulted on the decision?
Michael Shanks
This is quite a change to the Conservatives’ foreign policy if their position is now that we should interfere in the day-to-day decisions of the Falkland Islands Government. That was not their position when they were in government, and it is not the position of this Government.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Ahead of the Budget, I have been talking to many small businesses in my constituency. The Minister might be particularly interested to know that that includes 12 independent breweries, which are really struggling with their energy bills. What representations have been made to the Chancellor about the need to support them?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Blair McDougall)
I am the one who can organise something in a brewery, apparently! We hear lots of representations from hon. Members in support of small businesses, and we recognise the challenges that they face with their energy costs. Eligible small businesses are already benefiting from the VAT cut. On top of that, we will bring forward measures to deal with the third-party intermediaries who are often ripping off small businesses. As I said earlier, we are keen to go further, and I am working across both of my Departments towards that end.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
When Torness closes in 2030, Scotland will be left without a nuclear power station for the first time since the 1950s. That steady, low-carbon power will still have to come from somewhere, but the SNP Government still refuse to back nuclear. What discussions has the Minister had with the Scottish Government about keeping Scotland’s lights on once Torness closes?
Michael Shanks
I know the hon. Lady will be leading a debate on this subject. I completely agree with her: Torness nuclear power station has been keeping the lights on in Scotland every single day of the week, and it is a disgrace that the Scottish Government are refusing to accept the critical role that that firm power plays in Scotland’s system. There is absolute potential for new nuclear and for good jobs in every part of Scotland. It is missing out on thousands of jobs because of the anti-science, ideological position of the Scottish Government. I take every opportunity that I can to persuade SNP Members of the error of their ways, but since they do not even bother to turn up in this House, I am afraid I will have to continue that debate with Scottish Ministers.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
Last year, some of us warned that distributing heating oil support through local authorities carried risks, with some councils imposing strict means tests that help too few and others setting limited criteria, meaning nearly all applicants were successful but got very little and then blamed the Government for insufficient support. In Cumbria, that is exactly what happened. What more can the Secretary of State do to ensure that the right people receive the right level of support?
Ms Billington
My hon. Friend is right that local authorities—in England, in particular—are the ones making the decisions about how they use the crisis and resilience fund money allocated to them in order to support heating-oil households. However, they should be on notice from us. If councils have been allocated money for their crisis and resilience fund in order to support vulnerable households that use heating oil, those councils should be creating criteria so that affected households can access the fund.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Earlier this year, Lindsey oil refinery in my constituency ceased production, creating job losses and meaning that a greater proportion of our diesel products have to be imported at greater cost. Do Ministers now regret not giving additional support to the continuation of production there?
Michael Shanks
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s engagement as we went through that process. As the House will remember, the insolvency was driven by decisions that the directors of the Prax Lindsey oil refinery had made at the time. The investigation into their actions continues. We tried everything we could to find a buyer. I am glad that Phillips 66, next door, has taken over the assets so that we can continue to make use of the site and to do everything we can to support the workers, who do an incredibly important job.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. £15,000 in 1991 is certainly not £15,000 now, so will the Secretary of State meet with me to discuss amending the outdated schedule 4 to the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991 to raise the £15,000 statutory cap on the home loss payment so that my Coalsnaughton constituents can receive fair compensation as they face the demolition of their homes?
Michael Shanks
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all his work with the community in Coalsnaughton. I visited recently and met with householders, and they are going through a hellish situation that is not of their own making. The Mining Remediation Authority is working on a case-by-case basis with individual households to ensure a process is in place that works for individual households. We are limited by the legislation, but the UK Government have been clear that we will meet all the costs for those householders. I am happy to meet with him to discuss the issue further.
Alicia Kearns
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sure the Minister did not mean to, but one might say he seemed keen to misrepresent the relationship between the Falkland Islands and the UK Government. The Falkland Islands are independent, but the Foreign Secretary has a responsibility to sign off any such decision on oil drilling, which is not what the Minister said. It was also a surprise that when I directly asked the Secretary of State my question, she chose not to give her support and directly answer the question. How might I get Ministers to ensure that they accurately represent the relationship between the overseas territories and ourselves?
Mr Speaker
We cannot continue the debate. I know that the hon. Lady will find many other ways in which she can seek an answer, but we will leave it there for now.
Prisoner Early Release Scheme
(1 day, 21 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will make a statement on the early release scheme.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
This Government inherited a prison system on the brink of collapse. In July 2024, men’s prisons were operating at 99% capacity. At one point, fewer than 100 places were available across the male estate. Without intervention, we risked running out of prison places, leaving courts unable to sentence offenders and police unable to make arrests.
This Government have acted to increase capacity and to reform sentencing. We have committed to delivering 14,000 prison places by 2031 and have already delivered 3,200. The last Government added just 500 net places in their time in office. We have also accelerated the removal of foreign national offenders, returning around 11,700 to their countries of origin. It is in that context that we launched the independent sentencing review in October 2024 and subsequently passed the Sentencing Act 2026 earlier this year to place the prison system on a more sustainable footing and ensure that space is always available for the most dangerous offenders. The Act also aimed to avoid the chaotic emergency release schemes carried out with little scrutiny or warning by the Conservatives.
However, we know that aspects of these changes have caused concern, and we are determined to do the right thing for victims. That is why the Government listened to the concerns raised, paused the implementation of the progression model and conducted an urgent review. As the Lord Chancellor confirmed in this House on 1 September, in addition to the 18,000 dangerous offenders already ineligible for the progression model, this Government have excluded rape and serious child sex offences from eligibility for changes to release dates under the Sentencing Act. Unlawful killings, including manslaughter, causing or allowing the death of a child, and death by dangerous driving, are also excluded, as well as indecent assault, ensuring that more historical child sex offences prosecuted under older laws are treated consistently with equivalent offences today. That means that hundreds more dangerous criminals will be staying behind bars for longer, including those who killed PC Andrew Harper in the line of duty.
The first releases on the progression model took place on 1 October, with His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service working closely with operational partners to ensure that eligible offenders were released safely into the community. As the second tranche of releases begins today, robust arrangements remain in place to manage releases, support probation practitioners and supervising offenders, and ensure that those subject to electronic monitoring requirements are fitted with a tag. As part of the supervision of offenders released into the community, HMPPS will maintain rigorous oversight of those on licence, with measures in place to recall those who are non-compliant.
We recognise the significant effect that release date changes can have on victims. We will ensure that those in the victim contact scheme who are affected by the new exclusions are informed if there are any changes to the release date of the offender in their case. I have also instructed my officials to attempt to contact victims not in that scheme to provide information, should they wish for that to happen. We have launched the victim support offender release helpline, with nearly £19 million of additional funding, to provide victims with emotional support, practical advice such as safety planning, and general information about sentencing changes.
It is important to add that the Minister for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending is unable to be here today because she is currently speaking with governors about early release and how the implementation of the progression model is going.
Nick Timothy
Two weeks ago, 700 prisoners were released from prison across the country, and today a further 650 will be released, most after serving just one third of their sentence. The Justice Secretary told the country that proper safeguards would be put in place, with a presumption that all released prisoners would be tagged. He called it the “toughest” tagging regime in history, but that was nonsense. Four days after the first release, the Justice Secretary admitted that he had no idea how many released prisoners had been tagged, and protested that it was unreasonable to expect him to know how many had been tagged so soon into the scheme. I have some advice for him and his Ministers: it is better to work out how to implement your policy before it starts, not after.
We know that a majority of prisoners are not being tagged before release, and we know that reoffending is already off the charts. The Met says that there have been 100 tag breaches in London each day since Labour’s first early release scheme began, while two or three prisoners released early are being re-arrested every week. I do not want to hear the same old lines from the Minister about prison building, though I note he has changed his tune since the Prime Minister took office in July. Since the election, not a single new prison development has been planned or approved—those were the Minister’s words in a written answer. The only new prison opened was begun under the last Government, and prison places are unused because officer numbers are down under Labour.
Can the Minister tell us very clearly the answers to the following three questions? How many prisoners released so far have and have not been tagged? How many tag breaches by released prisoners have there been? If he does not know the answers to those questions, when will the Justice Secretary and his team find out and tell the House of Commons?
Jake Richards
I am grateful for the hon. Member’s questions. I noticed over conference recess that the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien), who I think is the Conservatives’ policy chief, apologised for the lack of investment and action on criminal justice over 14 years of Conservative Governments. It would be welcome to hear that from the Dispatch Box today, but alas, we will still have to wait for that apology.
Turning to the hon. Member’s questions, we have set out the numbers of prisoners who will be released in each tranche—that is publicly available on the Government’s website. We will be setting out data in relation to prisoner releases as we always do, and the next batch of data will be released in January of next year. This is a new sentencing regime, and it is right that we release the data in the appropriate way, as we have always done.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
Tagging could be a way to provide real reassurance to communities and victims, but only if tags are fitted promptly and offenders are monitored. In April of last year, the Justice Committee raised concerns in writing about the time being taken to fit tags, and the Institute for Government found that between January and April of this year, more than 5,000 people who should have been monitored were not tagged—that equates to 15% of all people with an electronic tagging order. It also found that almost 1,600 people wearing a tag were wearing one that did not send a signal, due to technical faults or the device not being charged. Can the Minister tell us whether anything has changed since April? Specifically, what percentage of GPS tags are now being fitted on time? What is the longest time an offender can wait before monitoring begins, and when will offenders be tagged on day one, as victims and the public should be able to expect?
Jake Richards
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of not just having a tagging regime that works, but making sure that that regime is robustly monitored and scrutinised. Since March of this year, there have been improvements by Serco, the company that is operating the tagging regime. My hon. Friend will no doubt have seen the National Audit Office report, and we will fully respond to it in detail as and when the full report is published later this month.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The prison capacity crisis that the Conservatives left behind is unforgiveable, but the situation we find ourselves in two years later is a national emergency waiting to happen. The entire criminal justice system is in freefall. Victims have been left looking over their shoulders for their released perpetrators; more than a third of the places that were freed up by the last wave of releases were filled again within a week; and the very probation officers who are overseeing these releases will decide in the coming weeks whether to take strike action.
The Government have never had a grip on this issue. Everyone who comes into contact with the criminal justice system is being failed, and tinkering around the edges will not fix the problem. Will the Minister commit to tagging prisoners immediately upon release—at the gates—as called for by the Victims’ Commissioner, ensuring that perpetrators are not allowed to evade being tagged or left unmonitored for days? Will he also commit to a royal commission on the entirety of the criminal justice system, so that we can finally get to grips with the deep-rooted issues caused by successive Governments’ complacency and mismanagement?
Jake Richards
I thank the hon. Member for her questions. Of course, we want to ensure that when prisoners are released and it is necessary for them to be tagged—there is a presumption that those who will be released will be tagged—they will be tagged at source as soon as possible. Of course, those operational decisions are matters for the Probation Service.
Regarding the hon. Member’s suggestion of a royal commission, in the first two years of this Government, we have managed to stabilise the criminal justice system. We have begun to get some stability in terms of prison capacity. It was necessary to pass the Sentencing Act 2026 and implement the new sentencing regime, and over the course of the coming years we will make progress on the Crown court backlog—we will debate that later today—and tackling reoffending, which is at the heart of the criminal justice system crisis that we face.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham Yardley) (Lab)
Historically, whether people were released at the right time or were released early under the various different schemes of various different Governments, it has always been rubbish for victims of domestic abuse. They are often not informed, and the proper safeguards are not put in place. I hear the Minister saying that there is now better communication and that there are helplines, but we have to do better than what the Conservative party did. There needs to be a proper, systematic approach for victims of domestic abuse, to make sure that every single possible safeguarding opportunity has been taken in every single case. I am afraid to say that I feel as if the Department does not know what is going on in the world, because I meet women every week who have not been informed and have not been provided with any safeguards. Can the Minister assure me that that vital work is going on?
Jake Richards
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Of course, she is a long-standing campaigner on these issues, and she is right that the criminal justice system has failed domestic abuse victims for too long. The Minister for Victims is working at pace with the Minister for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending and alongside the Victims’ Commissioner to ensure everything is done to try to support victims during this period. We have invested more money, but it is not just about money; it needs to work. Of course, I will make sure that the Ministers for Victims and for the Prisons and Probation reach out to my hon. Friend to get the details of any cases.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
If I understood it correctly, the Minister said earlier that past victims—and, therefore, presumably potential future victims—are being informed and supported. If they need that sort of information and support, does that not imply that the people who are being released pose a threat to them? What sort of category of person is being released? Is it a dangerous person? If it is not, why do the victims need the support that the Minister describes?
Jake Richards
We have debated the cohorts who are subject to the new regime at length in this place, both during the passing of the Sentencing Act and in relation to the changes that were made over the summer. When we returned to this place, the Justice Secretary rightly came to the Dispatch Box on 1 September to update the House.
Going to the heart of this issue, we release 4,500 prisoners every month in this country. We have done so for the past 30 years. Of course, there is an assessment of what measures should be in place and what notifications should be made to any victims, which is undertaken by brilliant probation staff every single day—brilliant staff who were gutted by the last Conservative Government. We are investing in our Probation Service to enable them to undertake the difficult work that they do week in, week out to keep our country safe.
Damien Egan (Bristol North East) (Lab)
Getting prisoner numbers back down to manageable levels depends in part on an effective and well-managed Probation Service, but as I have heard from probation staff in my Bristol constituency, the service is simply overwhelmed after years of cuts. What steps are being taken to support the Probation Service’s ability to manage the specific challenges posed by early release, as well as the strains facing the service more broadly?
Jake Richards
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Probation and our Probation Service do not get enough attention in this place or in public debate more generally. We have invested £750 million in the Probation Service. That is the biggest investment in the Probation Service for a generation. We can compare that with what happened under the last Government, where probation was gutted. We had the failed privatisation experiment by Chris Grayling, which was an absolute disaster. To my mind, it is one of the most acute disasters of the past 14 years. It is right that we invest in probation. We appreciate that there are more challenges to come, and we are working at pace with the Probation Service. Indeed, the Prisons Minister was speaking with our probation colleagues this morning.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
Kaylan Hippsley, who grew up in Ystradgynlais, was just 13 years old when he was tragically killed by a driver under the influence of drugs and alcohol in February 2024. The Court of Appeal increased his killer’s sentence to nine years, with at least six years to be served in custody before he would be considered for early release. However, Kaylan’s family have now been informed that his killer has been transferred to an open prison after serving barely two years and will soon be out on day release. Can the Minister explain how this has been allowed to happen? What assurances can be given to Kaylan’s family that the sentences imposed by the courts for such offences will actually be upheld?
Jake Richards
I thank the hon. Member for raising that clearly tragic case. I am not able to comment on the details of it, as I am sure he will appreciate, but I will make sure that the relevant Minister writes to him about that.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I am sure that the Minister will be aware that care leavers represent some of the most vulnerable children and young people in our society, yet they are over-represented in our prisons. Indeed, a pilot conducted by Catch22 worked across 135 local authorities, supporting and working with care leavers who find themselves in the criminal justice system, and in particular those leaving prison. Will the Minister look at the outcomes of that pilot in his efforts to work towards releasing people from prison?
Jake Richards
My hon. Friend is right that a disproportionate amount of the prison estate is taken up by those who have been in care. It goes to the heart of the debate about how we confront reoffending. We know that reoffending makes up such a large degree of the criminality that we see on our streets. When people come into contact with the criminal justice system, they too often leave it more likely to commit crimes, and we have got to tackle that. It is an issue not only of capacity, but of investment in probation. In fact, just earlier today, the Leader of the Opposition said that she wants to support dealing with reoffending. That was a sensible, grown-up intervention by her, and I was surprised to read it. I look forward to working with her on those issues in the months ahead.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I have Guys Marsh prison in my constituency. It provides valued jobs, and I pay tribute to the prison officers who work there. The Minister will know that all of these policies flow from the pressure on spaces in our prison estate. Not that long ago, the Government had Crown prerogative powers to bring forward new prisons or to extend prisons without going through a lengthy planning process. That would solve the problem at a stroke. Why will the Minister not investigate that in order to speed up an expansion in prison spaces?
Jake Richards
The hon. Member has raised that point on a number of occasions when we have had the opportunity to debate this issue. He is right that we need to look at how we can fast-track planning infrastructure projects of real national importance, such as prisons, and I know that the Prisons Minister and the Justice Secretary are keeping a close eye on that. I just gently push back that some of the hon. Member’s colleagues on the Conservative Benches spend a lot of their time opposing the building of prisons in their constituencies. The hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien), who has apologised for the Conservatives’ record on criminal justice, spends a lot of time opposing the building of the prison in his constituency.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
The reality is that there would not be an early release scheme if the Conservatives had not presided over a record that left our prisons at 99% capacity, having built a staggeringly low 500 places in their 14 years in government. My constituents are angry about the situation in which we find ourselves, so will the Minister set out the steps the Government are taking to reassure victims and to ensure that we never end up in this situation again?
Jake Richards
My hon. Friend is right, and I can set out clearly what we are doing. By the end of this Parliament, there will be more criminals behind bars than ever before under a Labour Government. That is because this Government are spending three times more on prison building than the Conservatives ever did. The Conservative Government closed 23 prisons; we are building 14,000 places. That is the difference between a Labour Government and a Conservative Government.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
The sad truth is that dangerous sexual predators are being released early under this scheme. The sister of a friend of mine was told by police just a few weeks ago that her heinous assailant was being released in a few months’ time and there was nothing they could do. She resigned from her job and has fled the country in terror. That is where things have got to. There are some 4,000 empty cells that require maintenance and refurbishment, and 10,000 cells are occupied by overseas nationals. Will the Government use those places to stop dangerous offenders from being released early?
Jake Richards
I am happy to ensure that the hon. Member has the appropriate information needed about the case that he raises, and we will be able to look into that case individually. Prison capacity more generally is still a challenge. Although 4,000 places may be available today, there are different categories of prisons and there is geographical need. It is not quite as simple as just being a numbers game; the picture is a bit more complicated than that. I am proud that this Government have increased the deportation of foreign national offenders by 40%. We will continue to deport more foreign national offenders when the new early release scheme comes into effect early next year, and I look forward to Members from across the House supporting the Government in our efforts.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
The prisoner early release scheme is clearly simply a result of the failings of the previous Conservative Government, but as the Minister has already acknowledged, we do not want those prisoners to end up back in prison a short time after being released. What is being done to stop those prisoners reoffending, particularly in terms of their employment and resettlement?
Jake Richards
My hon. Friend rightly comes to the heart of this debate, which is how we can confront reoffending. We are working with local employers and we have regional councils to try to ensure that people have opportunities for work and housing. It is a challenge—it has been a challenge for decades—that ex-offenders often do not have the right support when they leave prison. That is why we are investing in the Probation Service and working with local authorities at pace to ensure that when ex-offenders leave prison they are given the opportunities to build a stake in society and not commit offences again.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my role as the chair of the justice unions all-party parliamentary group.
This second tranche of early releases is coming so soon after the first that probation staff are just in despair at their workloads. There was a workload measurement tool that was used to help balance workloads, but it was switched off on 25 September this year. Workload pressures and insufficient pay are why the probation union Napo is holding a formal ballot on industrial action next Monday. Does the Minister therefore recognise that the probation system is on the brink of collapse?
Jake Richards
I do not accept the right hon. Lady’s characterisation of the Probation Service. There are great challenges, however. The prisons and probation Minister is today at a conference with probation colleagues, meeting them, listening to them and working with them, because we need the Probation Service to work with us on the challenges we face. I gently say again that this Government have invested £750 million in probation, which is the biggest investment in probation for a generation. We have introduced new technology, such as Justice Transcribe. That app helps probation officers save a huge amount of time on paperwork and builds their capacity. We accept that there are challenges ahead, but we are meeting colleagues and we will work with them to meet those challenges.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Will the Minister confirm to my constituents that the most dangerous offenders, including rapists, are excluded from the progression model? What steps is his Department taking to repair the prison estate, which was left on the brink of collapse by the Conservatives, and ensure that we never reach this crisis point again?
Jake Richards
My hon. Friend is right. I can confirm, as the Prime Minister and the Justice Secretary have at this Dispatch Box, that rapists will not be subject to the new regime. My hon. Friend is also right that constituents like his and mine expect us to meet this challenge by building more prison places. That is why we are investing in 14,000 new prison places by 2031. There will be more criminals behind bars at the end of this Parliament under a Labour Government.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The Minister will know that all of the 3,000 new prison places that have come online since the election were initiated by the last Conservative Government. Will he tell the House why this Government have not planned or approved any new prison spaces since they came to office?
Jake Richards
We hear this a lot—Conservative Members saying, “Well, we didn’t do anything for 14 years, we didn’t spend much money, and then in the final few months we thought, gosh, we have a prison capacity crisis, we had better start planning, and then we called an election.” It is absolutely hopeless. What we are doing constitutes the biggest prison building programme since the Victorian era, with 14,000 places by 2031. The Conservatives’ policy chief has apologised for their record on criminal justice, as has the Leader of the Opposition. Will the hon. Gentleman do so?
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
Of course, the legacy that we inherited was the failure of the last Government, who did not build enough prison places and left it until the last minute to sanction new places. I appreciate the Minister’s clarity in respect of the new prison places and the Government’s investment in 14,000 future places, but may I ask him about the recruitment of prison officers? Will we have enough personnel to support that expansion so that we do not have to resort to early release in the future?
Jake Richards
There is indeed a challenge. Alongside our prison building programme, the biggest since the Victorian era, is the need to recruit people to staff those prisons. However, we are implementing a range of new recruitment initiatives to ensure that we have enough prison officers to make them safe and workable.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Several constituents who have been in touch with me are victims of domestic abuse and desperately need to move. Emotional support and safety planning are cold comfort when offenders are cutting off their tags, when they are making threats to kill, and when the victims’ addresses are being disclosed to them, but these vulnerable families are still coming 12th, 15th or 18th on the list for being moved to new social housing. What is the Ministry of Justice doing with local authorities to ensure that these people are properly prioritised?
Jake Richards
That absolutely should not be the case and it is very worrying, so I will ensure that the appropriate Minister meets the hon. Lady to discuss those individual cases. As I have said, we have invested in community safeguarding measures and there is a further £18 million for victim support, but I entirely appreciate that victims want reassurances about their safety rather than just warm words, and that is what this Government are committed to providing.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Local residents and I are deeply concerned about the possible return of a convicted child sex offender to Townsend following his planned release. On Saturday I held a community meeting which was joined by the police and crime commissioner as well as representatives of Dorset police. It is clear that people fear that this man will be not just a cause for concern in his own right, but a magnet for violent and antisocial behaviour to himself and the wider community. Will the Minister arrange for a meeting with the Probation Minister and me, along with local residents? The last thing we want is to see Townsend go through this sort of ordeal.
Jake Richards
My hon. Friend has raised that particular issue, and indeed the issue more generally, with me on numerous occasions. To the extent that I am allowed to make such promises at the Dispatch Box, I will ensure that he has the right meeting with the appropriate Minister.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
I must take umbrage at the idea that the last Government were too slow to react. HMP Millsike, in my constituency, was given planning approval in September 2019, but it took six years to build, and according to the latest figures it still has 344 empty cells. Should the Minister not be moving heaven and earth to ensure that we fill every available cell, rather than releasing dangerous criminals back on to our streets?
Jake Richards
As I have said, the Leader of the Opposition has apologised for the Conservatives’ record, but some of them have not got the message. As for the use of space, the hon. Member is right to say that we need to maximise the prison estate. The Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary, from this Dispatch Box, made it clear that he was looking at how we could maximise all parts of the estate. However, as I said earlier, it is not quite as straightforward as a simple numbers game, because there are different categories of prison and different geographical demands. One in seven of the prison population are on recall and many are on remand, so they need to be near the appropriate courts. It is not quite as straightforward as the hon. Member would like to suggest, but of course we are determined to use every single space that we can.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his comments about probation. We saw the failure of the privatisation experiment conducted by the previous Government, and the impact that it had on probation staff and those who were using the Probation Service, so I welcome those comments. Like the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade), I am really concerned about those who are cutting off their tags. I have spoken to victims of domestic violence in my constituency of Harlow, who have raised the issue with me. What reassurance can the Minister give me that that will not be allowed to happen, and that if it does happen, those who take off their tags will be treated severely?
Jake Richards
Any attempt to interfere with tagging is very serious and will be treated in the toughest possible way. Concerns have been raised about the tagging regime, by the National Audit Office and others, and the Government will respond in due course. Performance has improved since the interim report was published a few months ago. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that at the heart of this is the question of how we tackle reoffending and bolster our Probation Service, which we have invested in. Challenges that have been raised and we accept them, but I will not take lessons on the Probation Service from the Conservatives after their failed privatisation under the now Lord Grayling, which was one of the biggest failed experiments in public service reform over the past 40 years.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Last week I held my regular roundtable for local domestic abuse organisations in Bath. There was fear—real fear—among the organisations that represent survivors and victims about the number of early releases. Representatives of Avon and Somerset police, who were present, tried to reassure the group that they had the capacity and could manage the situation, but how will the Government ensure, through assessment and review, that the Avon and Somerset force does indeed have the capacity to support victims and survivors? How will that be assessed and when will there be a review?
Jake Richards
The Government appreciate that there are concerns— understandable concerns—among victims’ groups and victims themselves. The Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary accepted that at the Dispatch Box, and we have invested more in our victim liaison work in order to do a better job in reaching out to victims, ensuring that they are heard and also listening to them so that we can put into effect safety measures that will help them. We are talking to the police regularly and investing in them as well to ensure that, as much as possible, we keep communities safe during this period.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
Thank you for calling me, Mr Speaker, although I had to leave the Chamber briefly for duties elsewhere in the House.
Today, 650 people are being released. We know that they are coming—we can anticipate the fact that we need to release 650 people. I googled, “What is the reason we cannot tag people on release?” The answer was a lack of capacity in the companies that have the contracts for attaching the tags. It seems to me that the companies are not fulfilling those contracts. It cannot be beyond their technological ability to tag people on release, so what are they going to do about it?
Jake Richards
There have been question marks, to put it mildly, over the performance of the companies that undertake the contracts. We are working closely with Serco, and there has been an improvement in the implementation of tagging since March. However, I would suggest that although there is a presumption that every person who is released should be tagged, ultimately it is an operational decision and a decision for the Probation Service, as is the case in respect of the 4,500 prisoners who are released every month as per normal.
Mr Speaker
We will let the Front Benchers change over after we have heard from Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for his answers. I am sure that he was watching television this morning when the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, said that he was arresting
“two or three early-release offenders a week”,
and that seems to be the case. He gave the example of someone who was released last week having originally been arrested for shop theft, and who lasted just a few days before doing the very same thing and is now back in prison. More worryingly, the Met Commissioner said that those who have been convicted of firearms offences have also been released. Surely it is time to ensure that gun-toting criminals are not allowed back on the streets.
Jake Richards
I had thought that there was going to be a session without a question from the hon. Member, so it is reassuring to hear one.
We know, for example, that one in seven of the prison population are on recall. There are recall provisions in operation, and that is right. If people are released from prison and then break their licence conditions, or indeed commit a further offence, they should be brought back to prison. That is the system working. We want to bring the number down, because we want to tackle reoffending and ensure that when people do leave prison they do not turn to crime again, and that constitutes much of the work that we are doing with the Probation Service and local authorities.
Iran: Threats to British Interests
(1 day, 21 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Foreign Secretary if he will make a statement on the threats posed by Iran to British interests.
I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting me an urgent question in this role for the first time. I fear that it will not be the last, but I am grateful to you for doing so.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for his urgent question, and I welcome him to his new role. He has always been a good colleague and friend, and I thank him for his service to this country, not only as a former Minister but in his past career.
The Government take the threats posed by Iran to British interests extremely seriously. We have acted robustly in response to them, and we will continue to do so. Iran’s hostile activity, both directly and through its proxies and networks, continues to pose a significant threat to the United Kingdom, to our partners and allies, and to the rules-based international system. We know the threats posed by Iran, whether that is directly or through partners such as the Houthis, militias in Iraq, Lebanese Hezbollah and many other groups that the right hon. Gentleman is more than aware of. We will act, because protecting the British public and defending our national security is the Government’s first duty.
Yesterday the Government sanctioned two Iranian IRGC—Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps—officers for their role in state threats activity. In relation to Iran, we have sanctioned nearly 240 individuals and entities whose actions threaten our people and security. We will continue to keep all those tools under review, and will not hesitate to take further action where appropriate.
Yesterday I summoned the Iranian ambassador to the Foreign Office in response to Iran’s activity, and informed him candidly and forcibly that this Government condemn, in the strongest possible terms, the Islamic Republic of Iran’s continued attempts to undermine the safety and security of the United Kingdom and our allies.
Yesterday the Foreign Secretary signed a statement with 35 other Foreign Ministers across the Five Eyes and Europe, making it clear that we will not tolerate state threats activity on our soil and that we are committed to facing those threats together, and earlier this year we strengthened our legislative toolkit through the national security framework. These measures provide enhanced powers to investigate, expose and counter hostile activity that threatens our security, and the right hon. Gentleman will know that we immediately designated the IRGC and the Islamic Movement of Companions of the Right under that framework. We will continue to work closely with the police, intelligence agencies and international partners to identify, disrupt and deter hostile activity directed against the United Kingdom and our allies.
As recent events have demonstrated, the threat from Iran is not theoretical. The Prime Minister made it clear yesterday that the incident at RAF Fairford was highly likely to have been co-ordinated in Iran and was almost certainly directed by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, although investigations remain ongoing. More recently, in September, law enforcement agencies disrupted an alleged plot targeting Jewish communities in Manchester that involved individuals suspected of links to actors in Iran. We will continue to take the action necessary to protect the public, safeguard our democratic institutions, defend communities at risk and ensure that those responsible for threatening British interests are held to account.
Tom Tugendhat
I am grateful to the Minister, whom I call a friend, for his response today. However, after almost a decade of consistent Foreign Office advice to reject photographs with Iranian officials, and particularly handshake photographs, because of the propaganda tool that it gives the regime, it seems that our Foreign Secretary has just been ambushed in New York. Either he was ambushed by a snapper, or there has been a change of policy. It is important that we understand which, because although it is certainly clear that the Foreign Secretary did not look happy, Araghchi was absolutely beaming. If that was not deliberate, has the Foreign Office changed its advice, and if so, why?
Frankly, following the Iranians’ threats against UK airbases that both the Minister and the Prime Minister have mentioned, the state threats that the head of MI5 has listed, which have been reported today, the murder of 40,000 of their own people, their expansion of violence in Yemen by using the Houthis to target civilians in Riyadh, and their attacks on Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, I would be very grateful to know what made the Foreign Secretary believe that it was worth giving them a propaganda win.
Perhaps the Minister will tell me that this does not matter, but he knows better than that. He knows that images project a message, and in this case they project the message that the Iranian regime is equal to the moment. Well, it is not. The reality is that the Iranian regime—and, in fact, Mr Araghchi himself—is merely a front for the IRGC, which is of course the terror group responsible for the murder of thousands in Lebanon, Syria, Israel, Iraq and elsewhere.
I will finish by asking the Minister a few questions. Was the Foreign Secretary aware of his Iranian friend’s threats to the United Kingdom before he decided to shake hands with him and have it photographed? Was he aware that the US and Israel had given warning to the British Government that the Iranian regime’s threats to US airbases in the UK were credible? Lastly, has the policy of the UK now reverted to not giving propaganda wins to such a vile regime?
Stephen Doughty
The Foreign Secretary followed the standard practice of previous Foreign Secretaries of both parties, and of those of many countries, in meeting with the Iranian Foreign Minister. In fact, Foreign Ministers including William Hague, Philip Hammond, Boris Johnson, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), Liz Truss, David Cameron and others all engaged with Iran.
It is important to understand what the Foreign Secretary raised with Foreign Minister Araghchi. He met with him to strongly raise the UK Government’s objections to Iran’s behaviours, to protect our interests. He told the Foreign Minister that Iran should choose de-escalation and diplomacy, instead of prolonging war and conflict. He underlined the importance of restoring freedom of navigation, and of the reopening of the strait of Hormuz. He reiterated the UK’s unwavering resolve to combat threats from Iranian-backed groups on UK soil, including attacks on the British Jewish community. He made it clear that we will not tolerate intimidation, threats or hostile activity on UK soil, and set out the measures that we would take in response. He also raised a matter that I know will be of great interest to the House: the ongoing detention of Craig and Lindsay Foreman. He repeated our call for their immediate release, and stressed that their welfare remains a priority for the Government.
The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that Iran’s threats to the UK are public. Indeed, the evidence that the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and others have set out is public, so we are fully aware of the threat that Iran poses to the UK, our interests, and our allies and partners. I am not going to comment on intelligence matters at the Dispatch Box—he knows why I will not do that. I strongly encourage him to avail himself of opportunities for Privy Council briefings, which we would be very happy to arrange. I know that the Leader of the Opposition and others have taken up those opportunities, and he is very welcome to come in and have a briefing on these matters.
The right hon. Gentleman rightly raised issues relating to Iran’s threats—not just directly to the UK and our interests, but more broadly, including to partners in the Gulf. What Iran has done in relation to Kuwait, Bahrain and other partners is utterly unacceptable. I met with all our Gulf partners in New York over recent days to reiterate our support for them, and we are engaged in heavy diplomatic and other efforts to find a resolution. Just this morning I spoke to my Saudi counterpart and the Foreign Minister of Yemen about the appalling Houthi attacks in recent days, not only on the people of Yemen but on the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, including the attacks at the airport in Riyadh and other threats.
The right hon. Gentleman can be absolutely assured that, whether it is direct threats from Iran or indirect threats through its proxies, partners and others, we take these matters incredibly seriously. A substantial amount of our diplomatic and other effort is involved in countering them, and I welcome his engagement and co-operation in the national interest on these issues.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I welcome the calling out of what seem to be the IRGC’s actions in Fairford, not just by the UK but by more than 30 of our friends and partners, from Albania to the USA. I thank them for standing in solidarity with us.
Much of the IRGC’s divisive work, whether it is feeding antisemitism or through bots wearing kilts, is done quietly in the shadows and often online. This time, it looks like the Iranians have been caught out through the diligence of a local resident. Does the Minister agree that our approach needs to change and that we need to be clear about what Iranian attempts to hurt our country look like—both offline and online, with more examples—so that the public are confident enough to identify such attacks, just as they did at Fairford?
Stephen Doughty
My right hon. Friend raises very important issues. It is a fact that Iran poses threats across a range of domains, and she rightly raises the issue of misinformation and disinformation. I know that her Committee has been doing very important work on that, and the Government have taken that on board. We have announced a new centre for information defence, which the Prime Minister referred to yesterday, but she is absolutely right to say that we need to be open-eyed about the threats that are posed. We certainly attempt to keep the public informed about the nature of those threats, not just in this country but abroad, and we will continue to implement a range of measures to deter and disrupt them.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The Iranian regime is a threat to global security, to the UK’s interests and to its own citizens. The question is how best to respond to that threat, while protecting people at home. The unilateral US and Israeli attack on Iran and the conflict that has followed have driven up prices for British families, while emboldening the Iranian regime.
I visited Oman last week, and I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. At the maritime security centre, we were told that shipping rates are less than half what they were prior to the conflict, with a mere 35 to 50 vessels passing through Omani waters in the strait of Hormuz each night—every one of them at risk of attack from Iranian drones or missiles. What steps are the Government taking, with other maritime nations, to protect shipping and secure safe passage through the straits of Hormuz and Bab al-Mandab, to keep food on our shelves and fuel in our tanks at prices that British consumers can afford?
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Member raises the reason why all this matters, which is that the threats are not just to our security, but to our economy; they affect the prices that British people, and indeed people around the world, pay for energy—and for consumer goods on the shelves, because this disruption to energy has a wider implication, in that fertiliser and other things that come out of the Gulf also have an impact on prices. I am delighted that he visited Oman. I was in Oman just a few weeks ago. It is a key partner and friend, and its long-standing historical relationship with the UK is crucial to us. We and His Majesty the King look forward to welcoming His Majesty the Sultan of Oman to the UK soon. It is a crucial partnership for us.
The hon. Member is absolutely right to talk about maritime security and the work we do in that domain. I am glad that he saw that work during his visit. Just last week, I visited our Joint Maritime Security Centre at Portsmouth, in which incredible work is done jointly by the Royal Navy, Border Force, UK Maritime Trade Operations and a range of civilian and other agencies. It is crucial that we understand the threats to shipping, and that we are able to provide information to mariners and avoid threats and risk. We continue to work internationally with partners on this issue, just as at the UN General Assembly in New York, the Foreign Secretary, working with Bahrain and others, brought together nearly 80 countries to stand up for the principles of international navigation. It is crucial that we recognise that this is not just about what happens in the strait of Hormuz or the Red sea; this is a threat to the very principles of freedom of navigation and global trade. We need to stand up and defend those principles.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
In July, the Government took the very welcome step of designating the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, thus criminalising support for its hostile activities. Given Iran’s support for the Houthis, their recent attacks on Saudi Arabia and their threats to international shipping in the Bab al-Mandab strait and the Red sea, are the Government considering taking this step against the Houthis, or are they looking at proscribing the organisation as a terrorist group?
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend knows that I do not comment on future designations, but he can be assured that we take the threat posed by the Houthis, both in the region and more broadly, incredibly seriously. As I have said, I spoke with the Foreign Minister of Yemen this morning. I am also utterly appalled to hear that the Houthis are using child soldiers, and are carrying out forced re-education of citizens in areas that they have taken. Attacks are currently taking place around Taiz, where there is a humanitarian crisis, and hundreds of thousands of people have been displaced. This is not just about the appalling kinetic attacks we have seen on Saudi Arabia and in Yemen, but the humanitarian suffering caused by the Houthis’ actions. We stand with the recognised Government of Yemen, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and others. My hon. Friend rightly points to the work that we have done on the IRGC, the IMCR and individuals, and that relates to the sanctions we issued just yesterday.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
When the Iranians risked the lives of armed forces personnel by attacking RAF Akrotiri earlier this year, Labour Members took great pleasure in mocking the Leader of Opposition for suggesting that a direct attack required a direct response. Does this latest episode not prove that when we do not respond with force, our enemies are encouraged to come at us yet again?
Stephen Doughty
I am absolutely assured that we will respond to defend our bases, our allies and our partners—and, indeed, UK interests in this country—with absolute resolution and vigour.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s response. As a member of the International Development Committee, I regularly hear about conflicts such as the wars in Gaza, Lebanon and Yemen, in which Iranian proxies are actively fighting, destabilising those countries, and causing death and despair. What is the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office doing to support victims of Iran in these countries, and to ensure that Yemen, Lebanon and Palestine have functioning states, free of Iranian influence?
Stephen Doughty
I completely share my hon. Friend’s objective of eliminating Iranian influence and that destabilising factor in all those contexts. She rightly mentioned a number of them, and I have already mentioned what we are doing in Yemen. We have also announced an additional £10 million for the United Nations humanitarian appeal to respond to that terrible situation. She also points to Lebanon; we are working closely with the Government of Lebanon to respond in a range of ways to the crisis there.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Does the Minister agree with me that it sends a strange signal when people suspected of mounting a terrorist attack backed by Iran are let out on bail? Does he also share my concern at recent media reports of several—fortunately foiled—terrorist attacks that were being planned by people who came into this country illegally, on boats crossing the channel?
Stephen Doughty
As the right hon. Member will understand, I will not comment on the ongoing investigations into the events at RAF Fairford, or on police operational decisions, which are very much for them. However, on his broader point about threats and challenges, he will know that MI5 identified at least 15 credible Iranian-backed plots to kill or kidnap people in the UK in 2022 and 2023 alone. This is obviously activity over a sustained period of time. We have made it clear to the Iranian regime at the highest levels that this must end immediately.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
As we know, Iran’s use of criminal networks and online disinformation is a threat to national security, and to safety on British soil. I welcome the recent designations, but does the Minister agree with me that further sanctions are required on Iran and the IRGC to restrict their capacity?
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend will know that I do not comment on future designations, but I can assure her that we will continue to keep open all possibilities for deterring and disrupting Iranian state threat activity on our soil, or indeed elsewhere. We keep those measures under regular review; I think the action we have taken in recent weeks is testament to that.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
The incident at RAF Fairford proved yet again a point that we have long known, which is that Iran is an exporter of terrorism and violence around the world—not just in the UK, but, crucially, in the region. We have seen the support for Hezbollah undermining security in Lebanon, and we have seen the attacks on our ally Saudi Arabia. What are the Government planning to do to increase the support that we provide to our allies in the region to counter the Iranian threat?
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Member is right about the scale of the threat, which is exactly why we announced measures and made a statement yesterday with many countries, who are joining our efforts to respond to those threats. Whether it is the air defence support we are supplying in Saudi Arabia at the moment and the air-to-air refuelling, or the work we did to support air defence for many Gulf partners when they were undergoing attacks, we will not cease in our efforts to support our partners and allies in responding to and defending themselves from unprovoked Iranian aggression.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
Just this morning, the chief of MI5 warned about the implications of artificial intelligence reducing the barrier to advance terror and cyber-attacks on the United Kingdom, so what work have the Minister and his colleagues done to assess how Iran is using this technology and how we can defend ourselves?
Stephen Doughty
The implications of AI for our defence and security are obviously significant. My hon. Friend knows that important work is being done by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Artificial Intelligence on this issue. It is crucial that we look at this not just in any one context—he rightly mentions the risk of Iran or others using this technology—because it of course applies more broadly. I can assure him that we are leading international conversations on these issues.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I have a lot of time for the Minister, as he knows. I hope he will confirm to the House that he has read the Intelligence and Security Committee report on Iran, published in July 2025, because many of the issues that it covered have been raised on the Floor of the House today. It was in 1862 that the first Iranian became a British national—a dual national in this country. We now have about 120,000 British Iranians living in this country. Not all of them are dual nationals, but many of them are. Given that Iran does not recognise dual nationality, and given that many British Iranians travel to see family in Iran, what further consideration has the Minister given to the Foreign Office’s travel advice, as the Iranian regime is, unfortunately, detaining people illegally?
Stephen Doughty
The right hon. Gentleman rightly illustrates the risk to people. I strongly encourage anyone, whether dual national or otherwise, to read and heed the FCDO travel advice for Iran. These are very serious threats. We know of the risks involved; people have been detained, and I referred to one very high-profile case. We encourage people to follow the advice very closely. I will certainly look at the report that he mentions.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his responses to questions so far, and I reiterate the concerns raised by colleagues about online disinformation, which is clearly designed to undermine our democracy in this country. What are the Government doing to tackle hostile activity by Iran and its network of proxy groups?
Stephen Doughty
We are acting against the threats posed by Iran and proxy groups in a number of ways. I mentioned the statement that we signed in the past few days; also, in June, we issued a joint statement with 23 other countries relating to the lethal plotting and other malign actions by the IRGC, an intelligence organisation, the Quds Force and the Ministry of Intelligence and Security, including threats against dissidents, journalists, and Jewish and Israeli communities. They are undertaking a wide range of activities, and we need to work with key partners to deter and disrupt that activity.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
What assessment have the Government made of the threats we face from the IRGC or its proxies, and of the impact of February’s US-Israeli attack? Did that attack strengthen or weaken the regime in Tehran, internally and externally? Do those assessments show whether the UK has become more or less exposed, since February, to events such as those we witnessed recently?
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman knows that I will not comment on intelligence assessments. What I will say is that we continue to seek diplomatic resolution of the crisis in the strait of Hormuz. There is a huge amount of common ground between all partners on Iran. First, it cannot be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. It must cease its attacks on partners and allies. In our interests, it needs to stop malign activity in our country, as well as others, and of course, it needs to stop the repression of its own people. I think there is a lot of common ground, but I will not comment on specific assessments.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
The threat of Iranian surveillance is very real in my constituency; faith and residential communities have shared with me the real fear that they face. What processes do the FCDO and the Home Office have in place to make sure that communities are as safe as they possibly can be, and that intelligence is appropriately shared?
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight those threats. I co-operate very closely with the Security Minister and others on these matters. I referenced the number of plots that MI5 had identified. Of course, those threats continue, and we have seen some very high-profile examples, which the Prime Minister and others have referred to. My hon. Friend can absolutely be assured that we are putting in place the necessary protective security arrangements, including with faith communities, and particularly the Jewish community, and that we are very aware of where threats are originating from. That is the nature of the response that we have conveyed directly to the Iranian regime.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The regime is using every opportunity to reach deep into our communities and society. Even charities in this country are at risk. The Charity Commission has embarked on an investigation into the extent to which the regime, particularly the IRGC, is percolating into the sector. What assessment has the Minister made of whether Iran has got itself involved in British charities? If he believes that it has, how will he expunge that particular malignancy?
Stephen Doughty
The right hon. Gentleman raises the important wider issue of Iran and other hostile states attempting to undermine or use mechanisms in the UK to conduct their activities. I welcome the work that the Charity Commission is doing. We will look very seriously at any findings that come out of that investigation. Crucially, this is a matter for the Security Minister and our agencies to look at. We take any threats or activity of that nature incredibly seriously, and we will not hesitate to act.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
There is wide acknowledgement of Iranian efforts to weaponise social media in order to promote Iran’s propaganda, spread disinformation and shake UK politics. What work is being done to hold to account social media companies whose algorithms boost dangerous content?
Stephen Doughty
It is an important question. My hon. Friend will know of the work that has been done through the Online Safety Act 2023 and other measures, but the wider challenge and threat of disinformation is growing. We spend a lot of time in this place focusing on Russian disinformation and the billions that Russia is spending on it, but of course it is not just Russia; it is also Iran and others. That is exactly why the Prime Minister is bringing together our capabilities, and responding to the Foreign Affairs Committee recommendations with a new centre for information resilience.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
There is a real fear that Iran has achieved the aim of its attack on RAF Fairford. We have seen the US respond by removing very important military capability away from Europe and away from the United Kingdom. Does the Minister agree—he is very thoughtful on this point and sympathetic to it—that there is a need for increased military spending? Will he use his office to put pressure on Downing Street and the Treasury to come forward with a settlement for our armed forces that ensures we have the capabilities to properly defend RAF Fairford and the many other bases up and down the country?
Stephen Doughty
The right hon. Gentleman will know that we are spending hundreds of millions on defensive measures around bases in the UK. He will also know that operational decisions of the United States are based on a range of factors. The US rightly continues, as our closest defence and security partner, to retain a very significant presence in the United Kingdom. He will also know that we have raised defence spending. We are spending £300 billion over the course of this Parliament. We have increased it to 2.7%, from the 2.3% under his Government. We will continue on that track to 3.5% by 2035.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
Two weeks ago, the Liberal Democrats were clear that if Iran or the IRGC were confirmed to be behind the plot at the RAF base at Fairford, every Iranian diplomat who assisted in acts of terror should be expelled, up to and including the ambassador. That has now been confirmed. What does the Foreign Secretary intend to do, and when?
Stephen Doughty
As I said, the investigations into the RAF Fairford incident are continuing and it is right that they are able to take their course. The Prime Minister yesterday set out the situation very clearly and the Iranian involvement in it. What I would say is that I have conveyed at the highest levels—indeed, I summoned the Iranian ambassador yesterday to make it absolutely and categorically clear—our condemnation of Iran’s actions and our expectation that it ceases them immediately. We always ensure that diplomats operating in the UK are able to do so in accordance with the Vienna convention. We keep all of that always under review.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for his answers. All of us in the House recognise the Minister’s commitment to the job he does. The hostile activities of the Iranian regime, both through state actions and dangerous proxies across the middle east, pose a direct and undeniable threat to the national security of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Minister and I share many things, including the view that Iran’s worsening track record of human rights abuses and religious persecution, and the hanging of prisoners whose only crime is peaceful protest, needs to stop. Will he outline what robust co-ordinated steps the Government are taking, alongside our international allies, to dismantle Iran’s cyber-warfare capabilities and its funding of global terror? Can he reassure my constituents in Strangford and across Northern Ireland that our own domestic infrastructure is fully secured against Iranian state-sponsored cyber-threats?
Stephen Doughty
We are fully aware of the threats that Iran poses. Our agencies do important work in identifying those threats and responding to them. We have excellent teams that work in cyber-defence. Of course, cyber-defence is a responsibility of all in society—businesses, individual citizens, Government and agencies—so we all have to play a part in that endeavour. On internal repression in Iran, including of religious minorities, I share the hon. Gentleman’s deep concerns and abhorrence at the use of the death penalty. That is exactly why we maintain diplomatic relations. We engage closely, through our ambassador and others, to raise those concerns and to hope for a better future for all people in Iran and globally.
Pensions Triple Lock
(1 day, 21 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)
With permission, I will make a statement on the Government’s plan for the future uprating of the state pension. Security and dignity in later life is a mission that has run through every Labour Government. Harold Wilson was the first to introduce the statutory link with earnings. The creation of pension credit in the early 2000s increased the incomes of the poorest pensioners and saw pensioner poverty halve under the last Labour Government.
In our 2024 manifesto, we said we would keep the triple lock for the duration of this Parliament—that is a promise that we will keep to pensioners. Keeping that promise means that this year the full new state pension is rising by £575. It is set to be over £2,000 a year more by the end of this Parliament compared with when we took office in 2024. That will take the new state pension to over 30% of average earnings by the end of the Parliament and it is forecast to be a record high. In the future, we will adjust the triple lock to make those gains permanent but also to put the state pension on a sustainable basis.
Let me set out how that will work and deliver a state pension that rises each and every year. The uprating mechanism will retain its current three elements. There will be a universal state pension that protects against inflation, ensures a material rise every year, and enables pensioners to share in the wealth of the nation as wages go up. From April 2030, the state pension will continue to go up by the highest of inflation, 2.5% or what is required to maintain its record high level against average earnings. That will lock in for the future all the gains from the triple lock up until April 2030.
The adjusted mechanism will mean that the state pension grows in line with earnings over time, instead of outpacing them as is the case with the current triple lock. It will end what is known as the ratchet effect, which makes the triple lock consume a greater share of national wealth over time, making reform at some stage inevitable. In simple terms, it will mean the state pension will continue to rise but not to permanently grow as a share of average earnings.
We know that people want security in retirement and we are committed to protecting the poorest pensioners. Under our plans, pensioner poverty is set to fall. In addition, we have asked the Pensions Commission to include suggestions on further supporting lower-income pensioners in its final report, to be delivered next year.
A good retirement, however, is about more than income. It is about security and peace of mind too, which is why it is so important that the savings from the change will make a significant contribution to a new settlement for older people: a rising, more sustainable state pension alongside free personal care through a new national care service. This is a policy that is better for pensioners, better for families and better for the NHS. It is better for pensioners because so many worry about what will happen to them in their final years; better for families because those worries are shared by children and grandchildren who want to know that their elderly relatives will be looked after when they need it; and better for the NHS because it will ease the pressure we see today, where failings in our social care system mean many pensioners are kept in hospital longer than they need to be because social care beds are unavailable. The cost of inaction—the cost of turning away from this—is more pressure on the NHS, more ambulance call-outs, more A&E admissions, more corridor care and more people stuck in hospital when they do not have to be. That is why change is needed.
The triple lock has of course been the subject of much debate. Economists and commentators have proposed a range of options—as has the Conservative party, over the years—from removing the earnings link to scrapping the triple lock altogether. Some have called for the state pension to be means-tested. We have rejected those proposals. We believe that our plan is the right answer to a difficult question that has been ignored for far too long.
I am enormously grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions for his work in this area, which has helped to ensure that we can have a system going forward that is sustainable and retains, in an adjusted way, the three current elements of the triple lock system. It will mean that the state pension will not continue to outpace average earnings as it would have done under the current triple lock. The savings from the changes will reduce spending by an estimated £15 billion a year by the end of the next decade, rising substantially to around £50 billion a year by 2050.
The pension and social care changes are a new settlement that puts the universal state pension on a more sustainable footing, so that it is there for decades to come, while giving pensioners and older people a better deal on social care. Pensioners can be confident that they will have a rising state pension every year. They can also be confident that we are sorting out one of the most difficult problems the country has faced for a long time—the issue of social care. A new settlement for pensioners, a rising pension, a sustainable system, and a plan to fix our social care system: that is what we will deliver. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
Thirty years ago, nearly one in three pensioners in our country lived in poverty. Today, that figure has halved, thanks in no small part to the decisions made by our party, when in government, to stand by pensioners—people who have done the right thing, worked all their lives and paid into the system. That is the fair and right thing to do. Yet we are faced with a Government that do not seem concerned about what is fair and right. Can the Secretary of State explain why his party has chosen to go after pensioners instead of tackling the fastest growing part of the benefits bill: working-age welfare?
Working-age benefits are costing us £140 billion a year, and rising fast. That includes the cost of benefits to 6 million working-age people who are not working. Many could and should be, but instead they are spending decades of their lives on benefits; it is unaffordable and morally wrong. However, the Secretary of State has done nothing of substance about it, and now his party’s refusal to bring down the welfare bill is putting the state pension in jeopardy.
The Prime Minister is desperate for cash to pay for his new national care service—that is why he is ditching the triple lock. Let’s not beat around the bush and say that it is some kind of adjustment—it is ditching the triple lock. To look at the numbers, the savings that the Secretary of State is hoping for will hardly touch the sides. Come the mid-2030s, a national care service is forecast to cost over £18 billion, versus potentially £4 billion a year in savings from the triple lock. Those numbers are extremely uncertain; the care service could well cost more—demand tends to grow for something that is free—but scrapping the triple lock could save less. At the very least, Labour’s policy creates a £15 billion black hole in the public finances.
And what a way to announce it: a couple of lines in a conference speech—no proper explanation or detail, just millions of pensioners left wondering what it means for their retirement. Labour Back Benchers should remember how these things go. Their last Prime Minister came after pensioners’ winter fuel payments. That was not a plan that stood the test of time; it was the Government’s first U-turn. How many Labour Members in the Chamber today defended that ill-conceived policy, only to see it abandoned in the face of pressure?
Listening to the Secretary of State’s statement, it is clear that he is branding this plan as the Pensions Minister’s idea. It is not his first rodeo. I suspect he can see that this is a U-turn in waiting. How long has it got? And all this before the Government’s own Pensions Commission has even reported. Did the Secretary of State forget that he had one? The Government asked it to look at whether people will have enough to live on in retirement. Why bother asking for independent advice if he has already made up his mind on the biggest question?
The Secretary of State will know that more women rely on the state pension than men. Had he even thought about them before rushing to this change? What happens if the savings from scrapping the triple lock are lower than he expects? Will the Government scale back its social care plan or push taxes up even higher?
The Conservatives introduced the triple lock to give pensioners dignity in retirement after the humiliation of Labour’s pension rise of 75p a week, and we have backed the triple lock ever since. Unlike working-age adults, most pensioners live on fixed incomes and most are unable to work. If the Prime Minister wants to make savings, he should start with working-age welfare; that is what a Conservative Government would do. We have a plan to save £36 billion from the benefits bill and get Britain working again. But the reality is that with the Budget looming, the Prime Minister has no plan for fixing the country’s finances, and this announcement is simply a distraction from the tax rises that are coming.
This is Labour doing what Labour does best—dodging the tough choices, ducking a fight with its welfare-loving Back Benchers, leaving a black hole in its fiscal plans and hammering those who have worked and paid into the system to give more handouts to “Benefits Street”. I am appalled, but frankly I am not surprised.
All we have seen on welfare is a Government missing in action without the backbone to do what is right. They are clearly not on the side of pensioners or hard-working taxpayers. The question is: whose side are they on?
Pat McFadden
I listened to the shadow Secretary of State carefully outline her opposition to our plans. The trouble for her is that so many in her party agree with the case for change. The shadow Chancellor, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), for example, has said that we should “unpick” the triple lock. The shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), has called it “simply not affordable” and described it as a “Ponzi system”. The shadow Justice Secretary, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), actually wrote the 2017 manifesto that pledged to replace it with a double lock.
But my favourite is Lord Gove, who told LBC that if Andy Burnham changed the triple lock he would “declare that I will be campaigning at the next general election exclusively for Stella Creasy in Walthamstow.” I look forward to seeing him at the end of the Victoria line at the next election with a red rosette on his chest!
I could go on, but we would be here all day. Let me just say that I have a file as thick as my morning porridge full of quotes from Tories saying that the triple lock is unsustainable and will have to be changed. They say it in private, they say it before they join the Front Bench and they say it after they leave it, but the shadow Secretary of State did not say it. That leaves her with some questions. How will she fund her opposition to what we have announced? Will it be, as when the Tories were in government before, through faster and faster rises in the state pension age, asking people to work into their 70s before they even get a pension at all? If she will not tell us that, can she tell us how they would fund the future of social care? Should we simply add that to the list of unfunded tax promises that they come out with on an almost-weekly basis? Stamp duty, inheritance tax, national insurance, private schools—all funded from fantasy welfare savings that they never manage to achieve in office.
The right hon. Lady spent her time attacking the system that her Government designed, created and legislated for. She spoke about welfare bills rising. In this Parliament, they are rising at half the rate as in her party’s last Parliament in power. She spoke about pensioner poverty. It rose under the Government in which she served. We look forward to the report of the Pensions Commission next year. I referred to it in my statement. Baroness Casey will also report on how and when the national care system will be rolled out.
In the midst of her attacks against a system that her own party created, the right hon. Lady did ask about welfare reform. We have already cut the gap between the health and standard elements of universal credit, and we have made changes to the Motability scheme. We have stopped people buying British pensions on the cheap, and we will make more changes following the reports of the Milburn and Timms reviews.
The truth is that what we have here is a stark contrast between a party that is prepared to take the decisions needed to offer a new settlement for older people and their families, and one that is in the frankly pathetic position of resisting that change in public while, one after another, agreeing with it in private.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Well, the Secretary of State definitely had his porridge this morning! I remind Members that we reference colleagues not by their names but by their constituencies—although I appreciate that the Secretary of State was quoting.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I particularly welcome the element of the Secretary of State’s statement about improvements to social care, which some of us have been campaigning for in this House for more years than we care to remember. Could he confirm that this is intended to make sure that individuals do not have to pay for their own care directly and that the burden will be lifted from council tax payers, many of whom now have to pay for social care for those who cannot afford to pay directly themselves? That is really important. We should make sure that council tax goes to other services and not massively towards social care.
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that this is designed to cover the kind of personal care that people are having to pay for out of the current system. It is also, as he suggested, a national system and less reliant on the various local differences that we see throughout the current care system.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for sharing his statement in advance. The Liberal Democrats have a proud history around the old age pension. In fact, it was Asquith and Lloyd George who introduced it in 1908. Then in came Margaret Thatcher in 1980 and broke the link with earnings, and that sadly remained for 30 years. Sadly, the Brown and Blair Governments did not ride to the rescue during that period of time with regard to the link with earnings. It took the Liberal Democrats introducing the triple lock when they returned to government in 2010 to start tackling pensioner poverty and drawing it to a conclusion.
The triple lock has been a powerful tool for tackling pensioner poverty. It has almost drawn together the gap between males and females in respect of the state pension. It has helped some of the most vulnerable people receiving pensions. Looking to the future, it ensures that there is a solid foundation that people can build on when considering their future pension savings. That does not detract from the fact that there continues to be a cost of living crisis and that there are many people who are not saving enough towards their pensions. There is an assumption within the system for lots of our society that people should be saving towards their pensions.
We have some serious questions to put to the Secretary of State. We would welcome the Secretary of State sharing any impact assessment on pensioner poverty that the Government have undertaken. In respect of social care, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has identified that the savings from within these proposals do not cover the finances that the Government have suggested. Is the IFS lying?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. For future reference, Mr Darling, you were over time by 30 seconds.
Pat McFadden
Let me begin with a cross-party point of agreement: when the hon. Member draws attention to the Liberal legacy in establishing a state pension system, he is right. He is also right that the break with earnings for many years hurt pensioner incomes. That damage has been put right through many years of state pension rises. When we get to April 2030—when the new system kicks in—those gains will be locked in under this adjusted triple lock for future years.
I began my response by reaching out to the hon. Member. I am afraid that I must also point out that the Liberal Democrats did support faster than expected rises in the state pension age during their time in power. He asked about pensioner poverty, which is set to fall under our plans, the details of which were published on 29 September. He also asked about the pace and scale of rolling out the national care service. That is a matter for Baroness Louise Casey to report on, and she will issue her final report next summer.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and welcome the action that the Labour Government are taking, with a plan that will protect pensioners and ensure they have access to good quality care when they need it, unlike the Conservatives who did nothing to fix the broken social care system and created a hostile social security system. Does he agree that pensioners deserve clarity from the Conservatives, given that the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), has called the pensions triple lock a “Ponzi scheme” and “not sustainable”?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is quite right that we deserve clarity. If the Conservatives are going to set their face against the changes we have announced when so many of their Front Benchers past and present have supported change, why should they be believed for one instant on all the welfare savings they talk about elsewhere? If they cannot be believed on those things, I will tell the House what that leaves them with: a bunch of unfunded tax pledges. We are keeping score. They have not identified the funds to pay for them, and they are racking up promises, which they have not said how they will pay for.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
I think many of us agree with the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State about the need to tackle social care. The plans that have come forward are interesting, but there is a real concern about the £18 billion bill. The Secretary of State has identified £4 billion to go towards it—where is the other £14 billion coming from?
Pat McFadden
As I said to the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), the pace and scale of the rolling out of the national care service will be set out next year by Baroness Louise Casey. I remind the right hon. Member that I pointed out in my statement that the changes we have announced today will actually result in savings of £50 billion a year by 2050.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
One question that pensioners in Feltham and Heston ask is whether their pensions will continue to rise every year with the adjusted triple lock. Will the Secretary of State confirm that that will be the case?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Just before the Secretary of State responds, I know that Mr Speaker reminded colleagues this morning that when they are speaking, they must do so through the Chair—they must not turn their back on the Chair.
Pat McFadden
Let me say to the pensioners in Feltham and Heston, and in every other constituency, that the state pension will continue to rise every year. It will rise by prices or by 2.5%, and the gains that it will show in relation to average earnings will be locked in from April 2030 onwards.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
When the triple lock was introduced by the coalition Government, many of us were surprised that the British basic state pension was bumping along the bottom of the European average. The aim was that it would improve over time, so that it would be at the top—as befits a country like the UK. Is it the Secretary of State’s judgment that by April 2030 we will have reached that point or not?
Pat McFadden
It is important to appreciate that in the UK we have a dual system of a state pension and additional second pensions. We have a very healthy second pension system—trillions of pounds of investment—and it is important to look at pensioner incomes taking both those things into account. By that measure, we have a healthy pension system. Under the plans that we have announced today, the state pension will continue to rise each and every year.
Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)
The British public deserve politicians who will be honest with them about what is necessary in order to rewrite the social contract to make it work. Does the Secretary of State therefore share my genuine disappointment that the Conservatives chose to come here today and play politics rather than get behind our plan when so many of them say in private that they know it is in the interests of the British people?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is right. She knows that many MPs on the Conservative Benches agree with our position. However, their Front-Bench colleagues have chosen to adopt a different position, which is to talk about reducing the Department’s budget and then, when we make a decision to make it sustainable for the future, to run for the hills. That is what they have done today—everyone will have seen it—and it undermines everything else they say about savings in the DWP budget.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
Based on the Government’s own figures, pensioners in Scotland will be £4 billion worse off by 2050. [Interruption.] Those are the Government’s own figures. That is £2,000 for every pensioner in Scotland in the context of what has already been referred to as one of the worst state pensions in Europe.
We already have free personal care in Scotland, and suspicions abound that Scottish pensioners are now being asked to fix a failed English social care system. Will the Secretary of State give me a cast-iron assurance that for every pound spent on fixing that English social care failure, there will be a Barnett consequential for Scotland so that we can restore that money to Scottish pensioners?
Pat McFadden
Let me say first that Scottish pensioners will see a rising state pension every year. The IFS has said that the First Minister was wrong to claim that was not the case.
I turn to the hon. Member’s complacency. It is hugely complacent to suggest that somehow the social care system in Scotland is not in need of improvement. Let me remind him that almost 10,000 Scots are waiting for social care assessments or packages. It is Scotland’s place in the UK that means that the Scottish Government secured a record financial settlement—what have they done with the money? It is Scotland’s place in the UK that means there will be extra funding for social care in Scotland as a result of the changes we have announced.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
I know the Secretary of State shares my pride that it was a Labour-led Government in Scotland who introduced free personal care for elderly people in 2002. Since then, our ambition has grown in Scotland, and we have campaigned for 10 years to introduce a social care system—something that the SNP promised, spent £28 million trying to establish and then dropped. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the money spent on social care in England will be replicated by Barnett consequentials that will be available to the Scottish Government to spend on social care, or anything else they wish to spend it on?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is quite right to remind the House that it was Labour in Scotland who introduced free personal care. I notice that she did not make the claim that somehow the Scottish system is perfect and not in need of improvement; it certainly can be improved. Barnett consequentials—in plain English, a suitable share of the extra money spent in England—will be there to be spent on social care. The Scottish Government could decide to do something different, but that money will certainly be there to be spent on social care. Perhaps it needs to be when almost 10,000 Scots are waiting for social care assessments or care packages.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I welcome the Government’s stated commitment to tackling the crisis in social care. It does pensioners no favours if we kick the can down the road and continually fail to address it. This requires a cross-party approach and an honest and comprehensive conversation, including about the triple lock and other potential sources of funding. However, that conversation must be comprehensive. As the Secretary of State has pointed out today, this will not kick in until 2030, and yet the social care crisis is urgent. We need money now to fix it and much more money than will be released through the changes. Does the Secretary of State agree that funding to fix the crisis in social care also requires taxing wealth fairly?
Pat McFadden
It is right that we do not wait until April 2030 before trying to improve the system. Extra money is going into the social care system as a result of decisions made by this Government. We also need to do more to support the social care workforce through the fair pay agreement that this Government have promised. We will certainly not wait until April 2030 before improving the system. This announcement gives a long-term plan, which makes it different from many of the previous reviews and reports that have been issued. It identifies a sustainable and growing source of funding to pay for the national care service that the Prime Minister set out in his conference speech.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
The Secretary of State says that a range of options has been put forward, but what about taxing the wealth of multimillionaires and billionaires? Funding social care should come from taxing them instead of reducing pensioner security. There are 2 million pensioners in the UK living in poverty, and that is even with the triple lock. Why will the Government not tax the wealthiest to pay for social care instead?
Pat McFadden
Since we came into office, we have changed the system of non-doms and the taxation regime for the wealthiest in society. More broadly, tax is a matter for the Chancellor and he has to weigh all these things up. The way that we are doing this is fair. It is a new settlement for pensioners that ensures a rising basic state pension, but also tackles the long-running issue of social care. It is a new settlement not just for pensioners but for their families, who often are worried about what will happen to their elderly relatives as they approach their final years.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
Diolch, Madam Dirprwy Lefarydd. This Government have said more than once that pensioners who rely on the state pension as their only source of income will not have to pay tax on it during this Parliament. However, the proposed reforms to the triple lock would take effect in the next Parliament. Will the Secretary of State confirm that pensioners reliant on the state pension alone will not have to pay tax when the reforms come into place?
Pat McFadden
Many pensioners pay tax at the moment. For those who are purely reliant on the basic state pension for their income, the Prime Minister and Chancellor have made clear that they will not have to pay income tax for the duration of this Parliament. The Chancellor will announce further details at the Budget.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
In Ealing Southall, there is a wonderful culture of extended families living together and looking after elderly relatives at home. Family members—mainly women—do that often without Government support and at a cost to their own opportunities in life. Does the Secretary of State agree that the national care service, funded by today’s adjustment to the triple lock, will make a real difference for families and unpaid carers, all while ensuring the state pension continues to rise every year for pensioners in Ealing Southall?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the immense contribution made by carers at home. The package that we have announced is good news for carers, as I said. This is a new settlement not just for pensioners but for the many younger relatives who look after older relatives and who can look forward to a new national care service being developed in the coming years.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
More than a quarter of pensioners in my constituency of Birmingham Perry Barr already claim pension credit on top of their state pension, but even with the triple lock they will choose between heating and eating this winter. Now they are being told that their social safety net may be cut even more. Pensioners are worried. The triple lock cannot be lifted until we put an end to the cost of living crisis and provide more support for the most vulnerable pensioners. What is the Secretary of State doing to achieve that, so we can ensure that the poorest pensioners are not left worse off?
Pat McFadden
I refer to our introduction of pension credit, which has done significant amounts to reduce pensioner poverty. Claims have increased by more than 30,000 in recent times. Under the plans that I have set out, pensioner poverty is set to fall. In addition, we have asked the Pensions Commission to look at what further measures may be needed to ensure that we bear down on pensioner poverty in future, because security in retirement is vital for older people.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Government’s ambition to have free personal care and to keep the triple lock for the duration of this Parliament. However, the Secretary of State will know that I have deep concern about the levels of pensioner poverty, with 1.7 million pensioners making difficult choices and 880,000 pensioners not claiming the pension credit that they could. Will the Secretary of State raise his ambition to end pensioner poverty in this Parliament and ensure that we find mechanisms to give sufficiency to those pensioners not claiming their pension credit? Will he also publish an impact assessment so we can have a real understanding of the consequences of the proposals?
Pat McFadden
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for campaigning on this issue. We published a document on 29 September showing that pensioner poverty was set to fall under the plans. We are not complacent about that. That is why we have asked the Pensions Commission to look at what further measures may be needed to reduce pensioner poverty in future years.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has clearly been in this place for a few years longer than I have, so I am sure that, as with me, many people get in touch with him on a weekly and monthly basis about the problems they face in the care system. It is so bad for families out there and I have lost count, even in my short time in this place, of the number of people who have been in tears in my surgeries, talking about the difficulties of navigating personal care for elderly relatives. I thank the Secretary of State for his work on this matter. Unless we get the care system right, we are turning our face away from one of the great evils in this country. The triple lock is a difficult thing to unpick, but the steps that he is taking are proportionate and should lead to that essential care system. May I thank him for the work that he has done in this space?
Pat McFadden
Let me thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He is right to point out the deficiencies and worse that exist in the current care system, and an under-discussed part of it all is the pressure it puts on the NHS. As I said in my statement, if we turn away from this and do not tackle the kind of things my hon. Friend spoke about, we will have more A&E admissions, more ambulance callouts, and more elderly people kept in hospital when they would be better off in a social care setting.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
The SNP wasted more than £28 million of taxpayers’ money on social care plans that went nowhere: no improvement to outcomes, no improvement to the terms and conditions of social care workers in Scotland. Now, the SNP is trying to hoodwink my constituents by telling them that these plans would make them worse off. The plans would increase Barnett consequentials for Scotland, which could be spent on a national care service. Will the Secretary of State learn from the SNP’s failures and reassure my constituents?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to stress the importance of the social care workforce. That is why we are not waiting until April 2030 to make improvements for the social care workforce. She is also right to say that as a result of the changes that I have spoken about in my statement, extra funding will be available to the Scottish Government, in addition to the record financial settlement they have already received since the general election. Were we in a different environment, we could have a constructive discussion with the Scottish Government about how to build the best social care system throughout the UK. Instead, we have the usual claims of perfection, which my hon. Friend knows are not the experience of her constituents.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
The Conservatives show remarkable flexibility when it comes to the triple lock, but absolute commitment to the reckless management of public finances and uncosted pledges. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State confirm the following points to pensioners in Glasgow East and Scotland: that the triple lock will remain in place until 2030; that, following 2030, the pension will always keep track with prices; and further, that it will rise more than that, if needed, to keep its relative value for earnings? Will he confirm that Scottish pensioners are protected under our proposals, that no pensioner will lose money as a result of our proposals and that the Labour party always has Scottish pensioners’ backs?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is right to point out that the state pension will continue to rise in each and every year. He is also right to point out that the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), having confirmed that the Conservatives oppose these changes, is now left with the question of where they would find the money to continue paying the triple lock, should they ever come into power after the next election, and where they would find the money to fund social care improvements. Her failure to respond to those questions completely undermines their waving around more and more savings to fund their growing list of unfunded tax promises. We have seen that movie before, and we know how it ends because the British people are still paying the price.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Fears for their finances and care in old age keep many people up at night. This is the biggest issue of our generation and we must tread carefully. Shamefully, the First Minister of Scotland is exploiting people’s fears by wrongly claiming that Scots will lose their pension, and he doubles down even when corrected by independent voices such as the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Does the Secretary of State share my outrage at this blatant politicisation of the most serious issue facing communities? Will he confirm that the state pension will continue to rise for Scottish pensioners and that the Scottish Government will get extra cash for any care spending in England?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The state pension will continue to rise for Scottish pensioners in each and every year. Furthermore, extra funds will be allocated to the Scottish Government as a result of the social care changes that are part of this package. He is also right to point out that the Institute for Fiscal Studies said that the First Minister was wrong to claim what he claimed over the state pension. There is another thing on top of that, which is the enormous complacency in suggesting that the Scottish care system cannot be improved. It can be improved. There are almost 10,000 Scots waiting for social care assessments, and my hon. Friend knows that that is true for his constituents and the many other constituents who are represented here today.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
We should be clear that setting future indexation to a proportion of average earnings means that, over time, the state pension will be lower than under the current system. Given that future generations will increasingly rely on the state pension, it seems like we are going in the wrong direction, but the real concern is that this policy is asking pensioners to pay for the care of other pensioners. Can I ask the Secretary of State why we are not sharing the cost of a new national care service among us all?
Pat McFadden
On the relationship to average earnings, in future years the gains from almost 20 years of the triple lock by the time we get to April 2030 will be locked in. The difference will be that, instead of outpacing average earnings as the current system does, the state pension will be linked to the level of average earnings that it reaches in April 2030.
On my hon. Friend’s second point, this is a new settlement which guarantees a rising state pension every year but, over time, also releases funds for one of the biggest issues facing the country. I think the Prime Minister deserves credit for facing up to this issue. His criticism of politics, which is merited, is that difficult long-term issues have too often been ducked, which has left them to fester unresolved. In putting forward this new settlement, he is ensuring not only security for pensioners’ incomes but a means of tackling this issue.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
As one of the people on the Labour Benches to call six months ago for a look at an adjustment of the triple lock, I can confirm that many of the people who approached me after I wrote about that were from the Opposition, saying that they wished their own party had had the courage to say the same thing. I thank the Secretary of State for his statement today, and for the bravery to tackle those tough problems that he rightly speaks about. When he talks about a new settlement for older people on how to future fund and reduce pensioner poverty at the same time, which is absolutely to be welcomed, will he also update us on the suggestion for a new settlement for younger people to ensure that they have the opportunities they deserve, so that they can benefit from the current system and indeed pay into it as well?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend probably heard from a great many Tories who agree that change is needed. Perhaps he even heard from the Leader of the Opposition’s Parliamentary Private Secretaries, who have both called for change in the system, to add to the tally on the file beside my porridge. This is a new settlement for pensioners, as I have said. It still ensures a rising state pension every year, but it enables us also to face up to the long-term issue of social care.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State very much for confirming that the state pension will continue to rise and match earnings into the future. That is very important for reassuring pensioners in my Dartford constituency. Does he agree that pensioners across the whole country, including some of us who are soon to be pensioners, will be better off with a new national care service? I very much hope that it will not only provide free personal care but cap lifetime costs and improve the pay and conditions of those who work so hard in the care system, and that as a result, we will all be better off and adults can live a dignified life into the future.
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the social care workforce. It has been undervalued over the years. The jobs that these people do are incredibly important to the people they look after, and we are not waiting until April 2030 before addressing some of those concerns and putting forward a better deal for the social care workforce.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
Rural pensioners are often more reliant on the state pension and experience higher heating and travel costs and poorer service access. Many often experience strict criteria or less outreach for council support. How do we ensure that changes to the triple lock do not leave my rural constituents behind, and that rural communities are not the last to benefit from the vitally needed national care service, especially considering the recruitment challenges we have in areas such as Cumbria?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the needs of rural pensioners. The changes that this Government have made will result in energy bills £150 lower than they otherwise would have been. We have also put forward special help to local authorities in areas where large amounts of people are reliant on home heating oil. We have said that we will remove VAT from electricity bills, and we will continue to do what we can to help households with the rises in energy bills, which are caused by external geopolitical events.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister on having the courage to grasp this issue. I was saddened, but not surprised, by the response from the Opposition Front Bench. However, there may be cause for hope, because the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who is not in his place, has been a consistent advocate of reform of the triple lock, proving the maxim that wisdom comes with age. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, under our adjusted triple lock, pensioner poverty will continue to fall in the 2030s and beyond?
Pat McFadden
I very much agree with my hon. Friend that wisdom comes with age. It is not a view I used to hold, but I am warming to it as the years go past—[Hon. Members: “Mr Ponzi scheme is here!”] I welcome to the Opposition Front Bench the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), who of course referred to the triple lock as a Ponzi system.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
We all need to do politics differently—to work with other parties constructively rather than feeding into a narrative of grievance. The people of Scotland deserve honesty from their politicians, not deceit and scaremongering. Does the Minister agree that the pensions of my West Dunbartonshire constituents will continue to rise year on year, as they will across the UK, and that the Prime Minister’s reforms will result in billions of pounds flowing to Scotland over the decades, which can help to fund Scotland’s creaking social care system?
Pat McFadden
I can certainly assure the pensioners of West Dunbartonshire that the state pension will continue to rise in each and every year. That is true for his constituents and true throughout Scotland. I can also assure his constituents that funds released from this package will flow to the Scottish Government to spend on social care, if they so wish, because we believe that the social care system throughout the UK is in need of improvement. Through this new settlement, that can happen.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
The need for a functioning care system has been clear for decades. The Dilnot report was published in 2011. The Care Act 2014 said that we would get such a system by 2016. That plan was then postponed till 2020, before being quietly scrapped entirely. Then, Boris Johnson rode to the rescue: he said that we would get it by 2021, then postponed it to 2023, and then said, “We’ll do it in 2025,” but had no funding.
What has that led to? It has led to more people in hospitals who do not need to be there. It has led to care workers earning only 39p an hour more than the minimum wage. Care work is skilled work; it should be treated that way. Will the Minister promise that we will not hide behind the triple lock, that we will not fumble the ball like the Conservative party did, and that, when Baroness Casey releases her report, we will actually implement it and make a change?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is right to say that there have been many reports and reviews over the years. There are differences this time. The first is that, in making the changes and putting forward this new settlement, we have identified a source of funding that will grow over the years and will help to fund the social care system. The second is political will. The Prime Minister has put this issue front and centre of his ambitions as Prime Minister, and front and centre of his speech to party conference a couple of weeks ago. He is putting his shoulder behind getting it resolved once and for all.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
The fundamental problems with social care that the Prime Minister outlined so powerfully in his conference speech are exactly the same fundamental problems with social care that my constituents in Glasgow experience, and indeed that my own family experienced when my grandparents had dementia. Does the Minister agree that, rather than playing politics, the Scottish and Welsh Governments should work with the Prime Minister to help to design a national care service that works for every corner of Britain?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I said, it would be a better future if the Scottish, Welsh and UK Governments could work together on this common challenge. That is the approach that should be taken forward, and that is the spirit in which the Prime Minister made the announcement in his speech at party conference. It is a new settlement, and we should be taking it forward together.
Falkland Islands
(1 day, 21 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I remind the Minister that under paragraph 9.5 of the ministerial code, Opposition Front Benchers and the Speaker’s Office should be sent the text of a draft statement a minimum of 45 minutes beforehand. This statement was not received on time. I do not wish to suspend the House on a busy day, but it is regrettable that this important standard was not met in this instance.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Uma Kumaran)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I apologise for the delayed submission. We respect the processes of this House, and I will ensure that that does not happen again.
With permission, I will update the House on Argentina’s escalating campaign against individuals and companies in the United Kingdom and around the world that are involved in the lawful economic development of the Falkland Islands. Let me state from the outset that the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands are British. The United Kingdom has no doubt about its sovereignty over them and their surrounding maritime areas.
As the Prime Minister told the House yesterday, in conversations at the UN General Assembly, he and President Trump discussed the islanders’ clear and declared will to remain British. The Prime Minister reiterated that message to the UN General Assembly. Let me repeat what he made clear to this House yesterday:
“we will also always do whatever it takes to uphold”—[Official Report, 12 October 2026; Vol. 791, c. 24.]
the will of the Falkland Islanders. The Foreign Secretary and I have reiterated this Government’s commitment to the Falkland Islanders’ right to determine their own political and economic future and livelihoods. I made that point very clear in my public statement, which was published online on 30 September, and in my subsequent meetings with members of the Legislative Assembly. I welcome Jack Ford, Chair of the Falkland Islands Legislative Assembly, to the Gallery today; I know that the whole House will want to show him and the Falkland Islanders our full support.
In recent weeks, we have heard inflammatory remarks from President Milei at the UN General Assembly and increasingly aggressive public statements from the Argentine Foreign Minister. The Argentine Government have threatened sanctions and warned that they will pursue criminal measures against businesses and individuals connected directly and indirectly to the Sea Lion project. The Sea Lion field lies on the Falkland Islands continental shelf. The project is lawful and regulated by the democratically elected Falkland Islands Government. Argentina has no jurisdiction over it.
Let me be absolutely clear: this Government will not stand by while Argentina uses economic coercion against the people of the Falkland Islands. We will do whatever it takes to support them. What is particularly disappointing about this is President Milei’s brazen attempt to use the people of the Falkland Islands as some sort of political prop ahead of Argentina’s elections next year. We will not allow the Falkland Islanders to be used as a tool of Argentine domestic politics.
The Government of the United Kingdom are responding in four ways. First, we have confronted Argentina directly. On 17 September, the Minister for Latin America, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Chris Elmore), made clear our position to the Argentine ambassador and rejected the attempted application of Argentine law to the Falkland Islands. He also reaffirmed the islanders’ right to develop their natural resources. Our message is unequivocal: the measures announced by President Milei on 3 September, threatening companies and individuals for lawful commercial decisions, are economic coercion. They will not change the United Kingdom’s position or weaken our commitment to the rights and wishes of the Falkland Islanders, nor will they halt lawful economic activity. We will respond firmly and promptly to Argentine threats to apply measures beyond Argentina’s jurisdiction, which are intended to frighten businesses. Such conduct damages legal certainty and confidence in Argentina as a reliable economic partner.
Secondly, the Government are engaging with affected businesses to understand their concerns and make clear the Government’s position. The Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade, working closely with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, is having regular discussions with the Sea Lion operator and its supporting supply chain. Our message is straightforward: legitimate commercial activity in the Falkland Islands remains lawful, and the British Government stand behind those engaged in it. We are also speaking to wider UK business interests to explain the Government’s position and understand the potential consequences of Argentina’s actions.
Thirdly, I can confirm that the Business Secretary will, subject to the necessary parliamentary protocols, deploy the powers available to him under the protection of trading interests legislation against any Argentine measures that seek to influence or regulate lawful activity beyond Argentine jurisdiction. These steps will provide additional protection for UK businesses against attempts to compel them to comply with measures that Argentina is trying to enforce outside its jurisdiction. They will also demonstrate that the Government are prepared to use the available tools to defend lawful British commercial activity. We will continue to talk to businesses as the situation develops to understand how best to support their operations. Let me emphasise that this action responds to Argentina’s attempted extraterritorial application of its domestic measures.
Fourthly, we are mobilising international partners. Our diplomatic network, acting on the instruction of the Foreign Secretary, is engaging to set out what Argentina’s conduct means for international businesses, secure supply chains and predictable global commerce. We are engaging G7 and G20 partners and Governments across Europe, the Americas and beyond. We urge countries that value open markets, legal certainty and stable trading relationships to stand against the intimidation of companies undertaking lawful business.
Finally, I say to this House, and the Government of Argentina, that the United Kingdom will prepare additional measures if this situation persists. They will be legal, proportionate and, let me assure the House, robust. The United Kingdom never sought this confrontation with the Argentinian Government, and less so with the Argentinian people. We do not want to see wider implications for our two countries. Let us not forget the reconciliation and progress we have seen since the events of 1982. Next year, we will mark 45 years since British forces liberated the Falkland Islands. For some of those veterans who fought in that conflict, this may be one of the last major anniversaries they see. To mark the occasion, celebrate the liberation and remember all those who paid the ultimate price for the freedom of the Falkland Islands—they should never be forgotten—today I can announce that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, in partnership with the Ministry of Defence, will support commemorations on the islands and here in the United Kingdom.
There should be no doubt that the Government will defend the Falkland Islanders from bullying and threats, and defend their right to self-determination. Every part of this response is being developed in close co-ordination with the democratically elected Falkland Islands Government. The islanders’ interests and wishes remain at its heart. The principle at stake is simple: the Falkland Islanders have the right to determine their own future. In the 2013 referendum, 99.8% of those voting, on a turnout of 92%, chose for the Falkland Islands to remain a British overseas territory. Their wishes could not have been clearer. The United Kingdom will remain open to dialogue and practical co-operation with Argentina, where that benefits both countries and our peoples. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) would do well to listen to my statement. Progress must rest on international law and respect for the rights and wishes of the Falkland Islanders. Firmness in defending those principles is entirely consistent with keeping the door open to diplomacy and dialogue.
On 28 September, the Government of Argentina formally notified the United Kingdom that they were commencing arbitration proceedings under annex VII of the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, or UNCLOS. Argentina demanded that the United Kingdom prevent hydrocarbon activity in the North Falkland basin in relation to the Sea Lion project. Argentina threatened to seek provisional measures from the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. I can confirm that the UK Government’s intention is to engage with this process; that is consistent with our long-standing position in respect of international courts and tribunals. On Sunday 11 October, the British embassy in Buenos Aires delivered our formal response to Argentina’s notification. That response sets out clearly the United Kingdom’s position. The House will understand that while legal proceedings are contemplated or under way, I will not provide a running commentary, but I assure Members that we will defend the interests of the Falkland Islanders and the United Kingdom robustly.
At the same time, I want to be clear about what Argentina’s action does not do. Its notification does not constitute a judgment by an international court or tribunal. It does not invalidate licences issued by the Falkland Islands Government. It does not alter the islands’ regulatory authority, and it does not require lawful activity on hydrocarbons development to cease.
His Majesty’s Government stand shoulder to shoulder with the Falkland Islanders. We are in no doubt about their sovereignty. We will defend their security, their livelihoods and their right to determine their own future, while remaining ready to resolve differences with Argentina through diplomacy, dialogue and international law. The United Kingdom’s resolve is absolute. I commend this statement to the House.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement, though it was somewhat belated. Let me start by welcoming Jack Ford, Chair of the Falkland Islands Legislative Assembly, to the Gallery.
Yesterday marked 44 years since the Falklands Task Force victory parade, in which more than 300,000 people lined London’s streets to honour those who liberated the islands. Their sacrifice reminds us of our enduring responsibility to defend the Falkland Islanders’ freedom and right to self-determination. Argentina’s increasingly hostile rhetoric and threats towards the islands, their people and their economic interests are wholly unacceptable. The islanders have overwhelmingly expressed their wish to remain British. No amount of intimidation or economic coercion from Buenos Aires will change that.
The Falkland Islanders deserve more than words of reassurance. They deserve to know that the British Government will stand firmly behind them, protect their interests and defend their right to determine their own future, so I welcome reports that the Foreign Secretary has signed off on the next steps for Sea Lion. The islanders have every right to develop their natural resources, but I am a little perplexed, because in Energy questions today, Ministers suggested that this was not a decision for the British Government. Can the Minister clarify the Foreign Secretary’s role, precisely what he has authorised, and whether further decisions are required? In fact, was the Energy Secretary even consulted? If the Foreign Secretary can support Sea Lion in the south Atlantic, why are the Government still leaving Rosebank and Jackdaw in the North sea waiting?
But back to the Falkland Islands. We welcome the measures outlined today, but approval alone will not protect those involved from Argentina’s threats. British nationals and businesses operating under licences issued by the Falkland Islands Government should not face intimidation or threats of legal action. There are some questions that need answers and clarity today. The Minister has announced the Government’s intention to extend the protection of trading interests measures to cover Argentina. What will that mean in practice for companies and individuals facing Argentine legal action, and what risks will remain? Can she confirm reports that the Government have approached Interpol, and what assurances have they received that politically motivated requests will be rejected? Has the FCDO sought assurances from international partners that British citizens will not face arrest or detention when travelling abroad? What practical legal, consular and travel support is being offered to those affected, and how will the Government help companies to resist attempts to disrupt the project’s financing and supply chains?
What direct support is being provided to the Falkland Islands Government to ensure that development can proceed without interference, because alongside these protections, there must be consequences if Argentina continues to escalate its threats? Has the Minister examined targeted sanctions, or other proportionate diplomatic and economic restrictions? That must also inform our wider economic relationship. President Milei cannot simultaneously threaten British interests while expecting Britain to facilitate closer economic co-operation.
Argentina has applied to join the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. The shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), has made clear that Britain should be prepared to oppose that application if Argentina continues to threaten peace and stability in the south Atlantic. Are the Government prepared to use Britain’s position in the CPTPP to make it clear that such behaviour carries consequences?
These developments underline a wider point about Britain’s standing in the world. When Britain appears unwilling or unable to defend its interests, it risks encouraging those who would seek to challenge them. That is why we Opposition Members are committed to fully costed plans to increase defence spending to 3% of GDP by 2030. What discussions has the Minister had with the Defence Secretary about the resilience of Britain’s military presence in the south Atlantic, and are any additional measures being considered?
Britain must bring together its diplomatic, economic and military strength to defend its interests and stand up to those who seek to intimidate us. Argentina should be working to strengthen its own economy, rather than threatening the livelihoods of the Falkland Islanders. There can be no question of bargaining away their democratic rights or their future. I will end where I began: the Falkland Islanders have chosen to remain British. We on the Opposition Benches will always stand with them and defend their fundamental right to self-determination.
Uma Kumaran
I thank the right hon. Lady for the important points she has raised. I will take some of them in turn. Let me be clear, as the Prime Minister was in the House yesterday, that this Government will defend the Falkland Islanders’ right to self-determination relentlessly. The Falkland Islands are a British overseas territory, and will remain so for as long as the islanders wish. We have made it clear to Argentina that attempts to obstruct lawful economic activity in the Falkland Islands are not an act of responsible international engagement. They damage legal certainty and raise serious questions about Argentina’s reliability as an economic partner.
The right hon. Member asked questions about PTI and CPTPP. We do not speculate on possible future sanctions or designations, but we will continue to consider all appropriate measures, in accordance with our legal framework and wider policy objectives. The UK does not comment publicly on CPTPP accession discussions. Our focus now is on the merit of an application, to maintain the strongest agreement, though Argentina’s behaviour does raise very serious questions about its reliability as a partner for the United Kingdom.
On the question of UNCLOS, the House will understand that while legal proceedings are contemplated or under way, I will not provide a running commentary.
On defence readiness, the Ministry of Defence is confident that our military presence is at the appropriate level to defend the islands, and that posture is kept under constant review. Indeed, I have had conversations with the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, who is present today. Since 1982, the United Kingdom has maintained a continuous military presence on and around the Falkland Islands. HMS Medway is currently patrolling the south Atlantic. The current tranche 1 Typhoons will be replaced with more modern tranche 2 aircraft in 2027, alongside significant investment to ensure that the Typhoon remains at the cutting edge of capability. Those conversations are ongoing.
In relation to climate and natural resources, the shadow Minister will understand the core tenet of self-determination and the need to ensure that the Falkland Islanders themselves and their Government can make decisions to do with their natural resources.
Finally, on the question of what we are doing to give businesses assurance, the Government continue to support businesses affected by Argentina’s actions. We are engaging closely with companies involved in the Sea Lion project and its supporting supply chain. My message to those companies is straightforward: their activity is lawful, and the British Government stand unequivocally behind them. As I set out in my statement, the Business Secretary is prepared, subject to the necessary parliamentary processes, to deploy powers under the protection of trading interests legislation against any Argentine measures that seek to influence or regulate lawful activity taking place outside Argentine jurisdiction. The process is straightforward and would provide additional protection to UK businesses facing pressure as a result of Argentina’s actions.
This House has long had a consensus that we stand together with the people of the Falkland Islands, who, as we all know, are feeling quite scared about these measures. They are feeling very uncertain about their future. It is our job as a Parliament to stand together—[Interruption.] I have met and spoken with a number of Falkland Islanders; they are very worried, and they are scared. It is our job to offer them reassurance, stand together and show them that the United Kingdom stands full sail behind them.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister to her place. My constituents will be really pleased to hear her announcements on the commemoration events, and I look forward to taking part in those in my constituency. Does she agree that the action we are taking today is a clear indication of this Labour Government’s position that if Argentina continues to threaten the Falkland Islanders’ right to self-determination, we will prepare additional measures, no matter what threats or economic coercion Argentina carries out against the Falkland Islanders?
Uma Kumaran
I thank my hon. Friend for that question; I know she has spoken passionately about these matters. Let me be very clear: the United Kingdom Government will continue to do all that is necessary to protect the Falkland Islanders and the Government of the Falkland Islands. As I said, next year is the 45th anniversary of the conflict. We in the FCDO are very much looking forward to working with the Ministry of Defence on the commemoration and celebratory events around Falkland 45.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I welcome the Government’s commitment to Falkland Islands sovereignty and the islanders’ right to self-determination.
In the light of President Milei’s escalating campaign, I think a little history may be in order. The Falkland Islands were first sighted by English navigators in 1592, claimed by Britain in 1765 and continuously settled since 1833, and some Falkland Islands families can trace their roots back nine or even 10 generations. Of course, there is a particular irony in Argentina’s claims of colonial injustice. Of the two countries in this dispute, it was only Argentina that systematically dispossessed indigenous peoples of their homes and homelands. Argentina’s sovereignty claim rests substantially on its asserted inheritance of the Spanish empire, whose imperial ambitions were sanctioned by a 15th-century Pope and the treaty of Tordesillas. The colonial history is rather more complicated than the Government of Argentina perhaps like to acknowledge or remember, which is precisely why self-determination matters so much.
In 2013, I was in Stanley to witness the referendum in which 99.8% of islanders voted to remain British. They spoke for themselves as a self-governing, self-determining, distinct and identifiable people, yet President Milei now seeks to use UNCLOS arbitration to deny the islanders of economic sovereignty and the right to shape their own future. That is neo-colonialism dressed up as anti-colonialism.
I have three questions for the Minister. Will Britain challenge any attempt to use UNCLOS to determine territorial sovereignty? If she is not willing to give an express account of the CPTPP negotiations, can she at least acknowledge that the Auckland principles that underpin the CPTPP are inconsistent with Argentina’s desire to undermine the islanders’ right to develop their own economy? Finally, what concrete measures will this Government take to ensure that Argentina’s threats do not deter investment in the islands?
Uma Kumaran
The hon. Member knows a lot about this matter; indeed, I believe he is a professor who specialises in some of these areas, so I thank him for the brief history lesson that he has treated us to today. The answer to his question on UNCLOS is yes. On CPTPP, we expect good practices from all our international partners. I have made very clear our expectations of the Government of Argentina, and how they are behaving at the moment is not in line with what we would expect.
On the third point, we are expecting all partners to get around the table. Diplomacy and dialogue remain a very important part of moving this forward. We have been very clear that we will engage with this process in full. On diplomacy, dialogue and matters of international law, the United Kingdom will play its full part.
Al Carns (Birmingham Selly Oak) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her support for the upcoming 45th anniversary of some pretty heroic action from the UK armed forces—it involved Buster Brown, who took me through marine training many, many years ago. Does she agree that the UK Government will not cower in any way, shape or form or be intimidated by any aggressive or threatening language from Argentina?
Uma Kumaran
I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for that question. The answer is an unequivocal yes.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I declare an interest: I visited the Falklands a number of months ago as a trustee of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I welcome the Minister to her position, and I entirely endorse the sentiment of her statement, which maintains that the Falklands must remain British. I welcome the Chair of the Legislative Assembly to the Gallery today.
We must match diplomacy with military deterrence. When I visited the islands, I was most concerned that permanent refuelling capability for our military assets there was based elsewhere. I do not expect the Minister to give a detailed answer—although I see that the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry is next to her—but can she ensure that permanent refuelling capability for the Typhoons is put back on the islands if it has not been already?
Uma Kumaran
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that important question. You could see the Defence Minister explaining to me that he will have some conversations with you about that. We do not comment on operational matters, but we are moving our capabilities and assets in the area.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I remind the Minister and all colleagues that they should not say “you” and “your”. They must speak through the Chair. I was not responsible for the question.
Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)
I spent an hour with one of my constituents, James, last week, who was shot in the face in the Falklands war, and I have met him many times to work on these issues in recent months. I welcome Jack Ford, who is in the Gallery, and I give my fullest, strongest backing to what the Minister has said today.
I want to raise two things. First, how are discussions with our allies in the Latin American region—Uruguay and Chile in particular—going, and will the Minister ensure that they are a focus of the talks she is having? Secondly, I want to say this as gently as possible, but we must find a way to assert our sovereignty against what are often spurious claims against us in international courts that basically allow our foes to challenge sovereignty. We have seen it recently, and we are seeing it again now.
Uma Kumaran
My hon. Friend has spent many years engaged in these matters. On conversations with partners in LATAM, my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for LATAM is in regular discussion with friends and allies in the region. They are important partners on this matter, particularly in providing support for the Falkland Islands. On the matter of sovereignty, the United Kingdom Government are in no doubt about the sovereignty of the Falkland Islanders and we will follow their wish at every turn.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. While we in Reform welcome the Minister’s commitment to allowing the Falkland Islanders to determine their own governance, can she confirm that as a nation we would be in a position militarily to defend the Falkland Islands if ever called on to do so by the Falkland Islanders, when we could not even get a single warship to the strait of Hormuz?
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Minister was asked specifically about what the Foreign Secretary had signed off, so will she confirm who granted consent under the Offshore Minerals Ordinance 1994? What does she say to the people of Aberdeen who have been told that they cannot drill in order to protect against global climate change, while 8,000 miles away we can drill? That is incongruent and does not make sense.
Uma Kumaran
I remind the hon. Gentleman that this is a very different situation. The UK oil and gas licensing policy does not apply in the Falkland Islands. I have made it very clear that the Falkland Islanders’ right to develop their natural resources is in line with their self-determination. When deciding whether to grant consent for new hydrocarbon licences in the Falkland Islands, the Secretary of State acts in accordance with the applicable Falkland Islands legislation. We do not comment on individual licences. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is attempting to bring domestic politics into a matter on which this House has long had consensus—the sovereignty and self-determination rights of the Falkland Islanders.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I welcome the Minister to her place. I also welcome her restating Britain’s commitment to the fact that the Falkland Islands are British as long as the people of the Falklands wish to remain so. The Minister has said that Argentina has threatened to seek provisional measures through the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. President Trump, an ally of the Argentinian President, has spoken in support of Argentina’s claim and has recently sanctioned the International Criminal Court. What are the Government doing to ensure that no pressure is brought to bear on international tribunals and that the rule of law is protected?
Uma Kumaran
I thank the hon. Member for his important question. As the Prime Minister told the House yesterday and the UN General Assembly in New York, the Falkland Islands were a matter of discussion with President Trump, and the clear and declared will of the Falkland Islanders to remain British was part of that conversation. The United States is our closest ally. We talk to it about a range of issues. This remains one of the issues that we talk about. Our officials remain in constant communication on matters to do with the international law and courts. We are in constant discussion on this matter and I can write to him further if he would like a fuller answer.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
António Guterres, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, will retire in December. One of the leading candidates to replace him is a senior Argentinian ambassador, Rafael Grossi. Is it the UK’s position that it is supporting the Argentinians in seeking this important role? If not, does the Minister agree that the Costa Rican and the two Ecuadorian candidates should also be disqualified should they have made public statements supporting Argentina’s claim to the Falkland Islands?
Uma Kumaran
The right hon. Gentleman asks a pertinent question, but he will know that the UK Government do not comment on UNSG processes from the Dispatch Box.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
Our overseas territory, which voted to remain British and where our brave troops fought and died for the Falkland Islanders’ right to self-determination, is once again being put in jeopardy because a warmongering Argentinian Government are seeking to rally their base to hide their domestic failures and failing economy. Many international companies are being deterred from investing in that region because of the noise that has been created. What more can this Government do to ensure that international companies that want to invest can do so with confidence?
Uma Kumaran
I assure the hon. Member that matters of sovereignty are not in jeopardy. I have been very clear in my statement today that the United Kingdom stands resolute behind the Falkland Islanders. Conversations with businesses are ongoing and letters of comfort have been issued to businesses where we deem it necessary that they receive those letters.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
As I am sure the Minister is aware, as well as applying to join the CPTPP, the Argentinians are in the final stage of accession to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Membership of that organisation brings with it significant benefits in terms of the risk premium attached to national debt, which could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars—if not billions—to Argentina. However, membership requires consensus from existing members that a country is allowed to join. Does the Minister agree that the conduct of Argentina in this regard is unlikely to engender the kind of consensus needed for it to accede to the OECD?
Uma Kumaran
I thank the right hon. Member for his eloquent question. We will continue to consider all options. Indeed, I have been clear in my statement that the behaviour of the Argentine Government is not what we would expect. I hope that they will reflect on that.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Is it any surprise that President Milei cited the United Nations convention on the law of the sea annex VII in defence of his claim in relation to the sea lion field, when this Government are using article 298 to defend their position in relation to the Chagos islands? On the subject of UNCLOS, will the Minister use its strictures regarding freedom of navigation to ensure any thoughts that Argentina might have of frustrating the upcoming sea route between Punta Arenas and Stanley are given short shrift?
Uma Kumaran
The House will understand that while legal proceedings are contemplated or under way, I will not provide a running commentary. The UK’s established position is that provisional measures ordered under the applicable international legal framework are binding on the parties, and that the UK complies with its international obligations. On the matters raised in relation to Chagos, the situation is in no way comparable.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I strongly welcome all three Front-Bench statements on this vital matter? I would like to say, as someone who was politically active in 1982, that I well remember the failure of deterrence, which was partly fuelled by mass agitation for nuclear disarmament—an unrelated subject—at that time. Although the Minister says that there is no connection or parallel with the Chagos dispute, let me assure her that the signals that have been sent by the Government over Chagos are undermining of deterrence. Will she therefore make it crystal clear to Argentina now that any military action against the Falkland Islands will be met with an overwhelming military response?
Uma Kumaran
I will be very clear to the right hon. Gentleman that we will do everything and anything it takes to protect the Falkland Islands. We have strong support for the nuclear deterrent. On the issue of the Chagos islands, I remind Members across the House that these situations are in no way comparable and bringing domestic politics into these matters does not help us. We have a united approach on how we deal with matters of the Falkland Islands, and we should go forward in that spirit.
Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)
This question has been asked already, but I am still unclear about the process of consenting new drilling at the Falklands. Will the Minister tell us whether the Government have a role in consenting new drilling in the Falklands—yes or no?
Uma Kumaran
I reiterate the answer I gave a few minutes ago: the issues to do with drilling in the Falkland Islands are a matter for the Government of the Falkland Islands, and they are in no way comparable to domestic licences.
Point of Order
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We had a council by-election in my constituency and in the constituency of the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) over the course of the break. I was very surprised to see a picture tweeted by the Secretary of State for Scotland of him standing in front of a street sign in my constituency, with the road very clearly written on it, despite the fact that he had not given me any notice that he intended to be in my constituency. How can I raise with the Secretary of State for Scotland the importance of notifying Members if he intends to be in their constituency to campaign?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I have no doubt that this matter will be raised many times by colleagues. There is a document called the “Rules of behaviour and courtesies in the House of Commons”, which deals with this matter. When a Member visits another Member’s constituency, except on a purely private visit, they should take reasonable steps in advance to tell the Member in whose constituency the visit is taking place. The guidance states that
“failing to do so is regarded by colleagues as very discourteous.”
I have no doubt that the point will be passed on by Front Benchers to the Member in question.
Hares
Tuesday 13th October 2026
(1 day, 21 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Hares Bill 2026-27 View all Hares Bill 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a close season, from the start of February to the end of September, during which the killing or taking of brown hares is prohibited; to protect mountain hares; to repeal the seasonal prohibition on the sale of hares in the Hares Preservation Act 1892; and for connected purposes.
Before starting my speech, I pay tribute to the work of Baroness Helic in the other place. She has been a tireless champion of this cause alongside the wider animal welfare sector, and it has been a privilege to work alongside her in putting together this Bill.
Despite being affectionately heralded as an inhabitant of the British countryside and featuring in the Bank of England’s recent banknote competition—it came fifth—the brown hare is not originally native to these lands. The species is thought to have originated in central Asia and spread across Europe alongside the expansion of agriculture. Academics believe that the brown hare was introduced to Britain following the Roman invasion, although some suggest that hares may have arrived even before the Romans.
Following the introduction of hares to Britain, the hare population continued to grow, peaking in the 18th and 19th centuries. Agricultural reforms, land enclosure and predator control on larger estates all created favourable conditions for hares—unlike other species—to thrive. Experts at the University of Bristol estimate that the hare population reached 4 million in the late 19th century. As a result, the species became deeply embedded in rural culture and folklore. However, those conditions were not to last.
By the early 1990s, gamekeepers and rural ecologists were beginning to sound the alarm. Brown hare numbers had declined sharply, especially since the 1960s. The national brown hare survey organised by Hutchings and Harris in 1996 estimated that the brown hare population had fallen to as low as 817,000—barely a fifth of its number 100 years ago. Hare numbers were estimated to be falling by 2% a year during the 1990s. Shooting, coursing and poaching were specifically cited as a cause of the decline, alongside wider changes in farming intensification, decreasing crop diversity, and the loss of headlands and hedgerows.
Despite brown hares being a priority species since 1992, their estimated number continued to decline, with targets to double the spring population by 2010 missed. Estimates in 2022 put the population at fewer than 600,000, with surveys such as the one done by the British Trust for Ornithology reporting a recovery only in the last few years. It is that worrisome decline that my Bill seeks to respond to by building on existing best practice to protect local hare populations. Principally, it would do so through the introduction of a statutory close season for the killing of hares in England and Wales.
Hares are currently the only game species in England and Wales without a statutory close season, and they may therefore be killed throughout the year. That makes England and Wales outliers compared with Scotland, Northern Ireland and the rest of Europe. That gap in protection makes brown hare populations uniquely vulnerable to commercial shooting. Most organised hare shoots take place during February and March, following the closure of the game bird shooting season. This almost exactly aligns with the hare breeding season, meaning that shoots can devastate the local population. The Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust estimated that
“a February hare shoot can remove 60% of the breeding stock.”
In low population areas, such devastation can pose the risk of localised extinction. Such impacts are already reflected in guidance and voluntary codes, which have clearly proven ineffective.
Researchers at the University of Bristol found that shooting hares in February resulted in a profoundly damaging combination of population shrinkage and the orphaning of leverets, with consequent animal welfare impacts and poor population recovery outcomes. Put simply, the killing of pregnant or nursing female hares during their principal breeding season cannot be reconciled with a modern and coherent approach to animal welfare. At a time when we are committed to restoring nature and biodiversity, such reckless practices only risk putting brown hare populations at further risk.
When considering the welfare of hares across England and Wales, it is critical that we do not neglect mountain hares, the upland cousin of the more common brown hare. While their numbers have declined significantly since the 19th century, the Peak district maintains an established wild breeding population in the Dark Peak of Derbyshire and South Yorkshire. In Wales, however, the mountain hare population has all but disappeared, despite efforts to reintroduce the species in historical habitats. The lack of any specific wildlife protections for mountain hares in England and Wales has been a key contributor to their decline, with moorland and scrubland habitats being lost and intensive culling efforts linked to red grouse shooting.
In responding to the intensifying threats to mountain hare populations, in 2021 the Scottish Government extended full protection under schedule 5 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981—a crucial step, given that Scotland is home to most of the native British mountain hare population. Clause 4 of my Bill seeks to extend the same protections afforded to mountain hares in Scotland to those in England and Wales. That would mean it would become generally unlawful to intentionally or recklessly kill, injure or take a mountain hare without a licence. By providing greater protection, we can give this vulnerable species the breathing room that it needs to recover, boosting local ecology in the process. Having seen hares out and about on spring, summer and autumn evenings near my static caravan in St Davids in west Wales, I know it is a delight to watch them, and I want to ensure that we make all efforts to protect these marvellous little creatures.
This Labour Government were elected on a commitment to deliver the biggest increase to animal welfare in a generation, providing increased protection for domestic, farmed and wild animals. The recently published animal welfare strategy was a major first step in delivering that, including a priority commitment to introducing a close season for hares. This Government have also committed to reversing ecological decline and boosting species abundance. We have had the warm words; now it is time for action.
The Government must urgently back this Bill or an equivalent in the other place to introduce a close season and better protect our hares. Deeds, not words, will determine how this Government are judged before the next election, and that applies to animal welfare and the environment as much as anything else. I commend this Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Ruth Jones, Irene Campbell, Sir Desmond Swayne, Kerry McCarthy, Sir Roger Gale, Neil Duncan-Jordan, Tim Farron, Ben Lake, Tonia Antoniazzi, Terry Jermy and Simon Hoare present the Bill.
Ruth Jones accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 March 2027, and to be printed (Bill 154).
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Before we get on to the next bit of business, I have been updated that the Foreign Office statement was indeed received on time. I did tell the Minister off earlier, but maybe that information can be passed on to her.
Courts and Tribunals Bill
Tuesday 13th October 2026
(1 day, 21 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Courts and Tribunals Bill 2024-26 View all Courts and Tribunals Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 13 October 2026 - (13 Oct 2026)
18:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 189 / Noes: 306 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:15 - The House divided: - Ayes: 196 / Noes: 304 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:28 - The House divided: - Ayes: 89 / Noes: 312 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:54 - The House divided: - Ayes: 301 / Noes: 193 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 1—Report on the effect of the Act on prosecution of rape and serious sexual offences—
“(1) The Lord Chancellor must commission a report on the effect of the provisions of this Act on proceedings of cases involving rape and serious sexual offences.
(2) The matters the report must consider include—
(a) the effect of the Act on the time taken to dispose of cases;
(b) the effect of the Act on witness participation in proceedings; and
(c) the effect of the Act on the experience of victims during proceedings.
(3) The report must make recommendations to improve each of the matters set out in subsection (2).
(4) Recommendations may include—
(a) recommendations about how the Act is implemented, and
(b) recommendations about further provision necessary to improve each matter.
(5) In this section, serious sexual offences are such offences as the Crown Prosecution Service may from time to time specify.
(6) Within 12 months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Lord Chancellor must lay before Parliament—
(a) a copy of a report under this section,
(b) the Lord Chancellor’s response to recommendations made by that report.”
This new clause would require a report on the effect of the provisions of the Bill on the progression of RASSO cases, and require the Lord Chancellor to respond to these recommendations.
New clause 2—Fast-track courts for rape and serious sexual offences—
“(1) The Lord Chancellor must by regulations make provision for specialist court capacity for cases involving rape and serious sexual offences (“RASSO”).
(2) Regulations under this section must include provision for the prioritised listing and progression of RASSO cases.
(3) The Lord Chancellor must take reasonable steps for any necessary judicial, administrative and support resources to be made available to operate such court capacity.”
This new clause would require the Lord Chancellor to ensure that specialist court capacity is made available for the fast-tracking of RASSO cases.
New clause 3—Extended sitting hours for Crown Court Proceedings—
“(1) The Lord Chancellor may, by order, designate specific Crown Court locations or individual court rooms as extended capacity courts.
(2) Proceedings in any court designated under subsection (1) must consist of—
(a) a morning session, commencing at 09:00 and concluding at 13:00; and
(b) an afternoon session, commencing at 14:00 and concluding at 18:00.
(3) Any court designated under subsection (1) will not have a limit on the number of cases that can be heard on the same day.”
This new clause would restructure the court sitting day to introduce a morning and afternoon session, to allow two different cases to be heard in the same courtroom on a given day.
New clause 4—Review of the Feasibility of Two Court Sittings per day—
“(1) The Lord Chancellor must, within 12 months beginning on the day on which this Act comes into force, lay before Parliament an independent report into the feasibility of conducting two trials per day in designated court rooms (“the Scheme”).
(2) The scheme would allow for proceedings in a Crown Court to consist of—
(a) a morning session, commencing at 09:00 and concluding at 13:00; and
(b) an afternoon session, commencing at 14:00 and concluding at 18:00.
(3) A report under subsection (1) must assess the impact of the scheme—
(a) on the efficiency and timeliness of court proceedings;
(b) on the availability of judges, legal practitioners, and court staff;
(c) the potential impact on defendants, victims, and witnesses; and
(d) the cost and resource implications of the scheme.
(4) The Lord Chancellor must, within three months of the laying of the report under subsection (1), publish a response.
(5) The response must include proposals for a pilot scheme based on the findings of the report including the proposed scope and duration of any such pilot.”
This new clause requires the Lord Chancellor to commission and lay before Parliament an independent report on the feasibility of introducing two court sittings per day in designated courtrooms, including an assessment of its impact on efficiency, resources, and court users, and to set out the Government’s intended next steps.
New clause 5—Targets for Backlog Reduction—
“(1) The Lord Chancellor must, within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, set and publish annual targets for the reduction of the Crown Court backlog in England and Wales.
(2) There must be a target for the—
(a) overall reduction of the Crown Court backlog in England and Wales, and
(b) reduction of the backlog in each HMCTS region.
(3) The Lord Chancellor must lay before Parliament an annual report on progress against these targets.
(4) Any report under subsection (3) must include any steps taken to address the failure to meet the targets.”
This new clause requires the Lord Chancellor to set and publish targets for reducing court backlogs and to report annually to Parliament on progress.
New clause 6—Victim-led Intensive Case Management—
“(1) The Lord Chancellor must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a strategy for the implementation of Victim-Led Intensive Case Management in proceedings in the criminal courts (“The Strategy”).
(2) The strategy must outline steps to prioritise the experience of victims in relation to proceedings in the criminal courts.”
This new clause would require the Lord Chancellor to lay before Parliament a strategy for victim-led case management in relation to criminal court proceedings.
New clause 7—Judicial training: anti-discrimination—
“(1) Any member of the judiciary who may be assigned to proceedings for a trial on indictment without a jury must have access to training on matters relating to discrimination against individuals from ethnic minority backgrounds.
(2) Training provided under subsection (1) must cover—
(a) the identification and prevention of racial bias, including unconscious bias, and
(b) the impact of discrimination on access to justice and judicial outcomes.
(3) The Lord Chancellor must by regulations specify how often members of the judiciary must undertake such training.
(4) The Lord Chancellor must lay an annual report before Parliament on the provision and uptake of training provided under this section.”
This new clause requires the provision of training for the judiciary focused on discrimination against ethnic minorities, including racial bias and its impact on judicial decision-making.
New clause 8—Judicial training: violence against women and girls—
“(1) Any member of the judiciary who may be assigned to proceedings for a trial on indictment without a jury must have access to training on matters relating to violence against women and girls.
(2) Training provided under subsection (1) must cover—
(a) the nature and dynamics of violence against women and girls, including—
(i) domestic abuse,
(ii) sexual violence,
(iii) coercive control, and
(iv) so-called honour-based abuse;
(b) best practice in hearing cases involving violence against women and girls, including ensuring fair and trauma-informed proceedings.
(3) The Lord Chancellor must by regulations specify how often members of the judiciary must undertake such training.
(4) The Lord Chancellor must lay an annual report before Parliament on the provision and uptake of training provided under this section.”
This new clause requires the provision of training for the judiciary focused on violence against women and girls.
New clause 9—Judicial training: domestic abuse—
“(1) Any member of the judiciary who may be assigned to proceedings for a trial on indictment without a jury must have access to training on matters relating to domestic abuse.
(2) Training provided under subsection (1) must cover—
(a) the nature and dynamics of domestic abuse, including physical, emotional, psychological, sexual, and economic abuse, as well as controlling or coercive behaviour;
(b) best practice in the management of cases involving domestic abuse, including ensuring fair and trauma-informed proceedings.
(3) The Lord Chancellor must by regulations specify how often members of the judiciary must undertake such training.
(4) The Lord Chancellor must lay an annual report before Parliament on the provision and uptake of training provided under this section.”
This new clause requires the provision of training for the judiciary focused on domestic abuse.
New clause 10—Pilot of trial allocation reforms—
“(1) The Lord Chancellor may not make regulations bringing sections 1 to 7 of this Act into force unless—
(a) he has first made arrangements for a pilot scheme for the provision of those sections in accordance with subsections (2) and (3),
(b) a statutory instrument containing regulations for the commencement of sections 1 to 7 of this Act has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(2) A pilot scheme may—
(a) be for the purpose of trialling all provisions of sections 1 to 7 of this Act,
(b) be for such a period as the Lord Chancellor may by regulations specify, provided that the period does not exceed 24 months beginning with the day on which this section is brought into force,
(c) take place in at least one location in England and Wales as the Lord Chancellor may by regulations specify,
(d) apply to proceedings in the criminal courts as the Lord Chancellor may by regulations specify.
(3) Before the conclusion of the pilot scheme under subsection (2), the Lord Chancellor must—
(a) commission an independent review of the pilot scheme, and
(b) lay before Parliament a report on the assessment under paragraph (a).”
This new clause would require the Government to pilot the removal of the right to elect trial by jury before national implementation, and to report to Parliament on its impact.
New clause 11—Access to free court transcripts for victims—
“(1) Victims of criminal offences shall be entitled to receive, without charge, court transcripts of—
(a) judicial summings-up, and
(b) bail decisions and conditions,
which are relevant to their case.
(2) HM Courts and Tribunals Service must ensure that such transcripts are provided within 14 days of a request.
(3) The duty under subsection (1) shall apply irrespective of whether the victim gave evidence in the case.”
This new clause would give victims a right to receive, free of charge, court transcripts of judicial summings-up and bail decisions relevant to their case. It requires that transcripts be provided within 14 days of a request and clarifies that this right applies whether or not the victim gave evidence in the case.
New clause 12—Report on the effect of the Act on public trust and participation in the criminal justice system—
“(1) The Lord Chancellor must commission a report on the effect of the provisions of the Act on public trust and participation in the judicial system.
(2) A report under this section must—
(a) include consideration of the effect of the provisions of the Act on—
(i) witness participation;
(ii) the effect of these reforms on public confidence and trust in the criminal justice system; and
(iii) the effect of these provisions on BAME engagement with and trust of the criminal justice system,
(b) contain recommendations for further provision, or changes to delivery of provision under this Act, to increase the levels of each criterion set out in sub-paragraphs (2)(a)(i) to (2)(a)(iii).
(3) Within 12 months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Lord Chancellor must lay before Parliament—
(a) a copy of a report under this section,
(b) the Lord Chancellor’s response to recommendations made by that report.”
This new clause would require the Lord Chancellor to commission, lay, and respond to a report on the effect of the Bill on public trust in the criminal justice system.
New clause 13—Duty to provide trauma-informed training—
“(1) The Lord Chancellor must ensure that appropriate training is made mandatory for members of all court staff working in the criminal courts on best practice in relation to victims' trauma.
(2) Training under subsection (1) must include—
(a) the nature, prevalence, and impact of domestic abuse, coercive and controlling behaviour, and rape and serious sexual offences (“RASSO”);
(b) the dynamics and psychological effects of trauma on parties and witnesses involved in proceedings;
(c) the identification and appropriate handling of cases involving domestic abuse, coercive and controlling behaviour, and RASSO offences;
(d) the ways in which trauma may affect memory, communication, behaviour, and engagement with court proceedings;
(e) best practices for reducing retraumatisation within court and tribunals settings.
(3) Training provided under this section must—
(a) take place on initial appointment to a role within a court, and at regular intervals thereafter;
(b) reflect current best practice and be informed by up-to-date research and guidance; and
(c) be developed in consultation with appropriate experts, including specialist support organisations and persons with lived experience of abuse and trauma.
(4) The Lord Chancellor must keep the training under review and revise it as appropriate.
(5) The Lord Chancellor must publish guidance on the implementation of this section.”
This new clause would require the Lord Chancellor to ensure that members of the court staff working in the criminal courts receive mandatory, consistent training on trauma-informed practice to improve understanding of how trauma affects victims’ evidence, behaviour, and engagement with court proceedings.
New clause 14—Review of Efficiencies in the Criminal Justice System—
“(1) The Lord Chancellor must, within 24 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, conduct a review on the impact of the provisions of this Act on the efficiency of the criminal justice system.
(2) The review under subsection (1) must, in particular, consider the impact on the efficiency of the criminal justice system of—
(a) the provisions of this Act;
(b) the wider criminal justice system;
(c) the standard of delivery by court contract providers, including PECS contractors;
(d) the condition of the courts estate; and
(e) the use of technology.
(3) In considering “efficiency”, the review must consider the impact on—
(a) delays,
(b) backlogs, and
(c) the experience of victims and witnesses.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay a report on the review before Parliament.
(5) The report under subsection (4) must include recommendations for further legislative or administrative changes to improve the efficiency of the criminal justice system.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to review and report on whether the Act has improved the efficiency of the criminal justice system, including impacts on delays, backlogs, and the experience of victims and witnesses.
New clause 15—Expiry of sections 1 to 7 in specified circumstances—
“(1) The Lord Chancellor must lay before Parliament a report assessing the effectiveness of the provisions contained in sections 1 to 7 of this Act.
(2) A report under this section must be laid—
(a) within 24 months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, or
(b) within 24 months of the latest date on which any of sections 1 to 7 is commenced,
whichever is the later.
(3) The report must describe—
(a) any time saved in court as a result of the measures included in those sections;
(b) any change in the number of cases awaiting trial in the Crown Court since this Act was passed;
(c) the number of cases awaiting trial in the Crown Court at the time at which the report is prepared; and
(d) any other effect of the provisions of sections 1 to 7 on the criminal justice system.
(4) The report must provide a conclusion by the Lord Chancellor on whether the reforms have been effective in reducing the number of cases awaiting trial at Crown Court.
(5) Where the report concludes that the provisions have not been effective, the Lord Chancellor must make regulations providing for the immediate repeal of sections 1 to 7.
(6) Where the report concludes that the provisions are effective, the Lord Chancellor must make regulations making provision for repeal of sections 1 to 7 subject to the condition in subsection (8).
(7) The condition is that the number of cases awaiting trial in the Crown Court has in the opinion of the Lord Chancellor reduced to a sufficient extent.
(8) Regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This new clause introduces a sunset clause requiring a report on the effectiveness of the provisions. If the report finds that the measures are not effective, the Secretary of State must bring forward regulations to repeal them. If the report finds that the measures are effective, the Secretary of State must set a deadline for their repeal and a return to fully jury trials.
New clause 16—Remote Court Participation: Strategy—
“(1) The Lord Chancellor must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a strategy for the use of remote proceedings to reduce the case backlog (“the strategy”).
(2) The strategy must include—
(a) an assessment of the current use of remote proceedings;
(b) an evaluation of the impact of remote proceedings on the speed of case disposal and the overall reduction of the outstanding caseload;
(c) recommendations on how the principle of open justice can be upheld with the increased use of remote proceedings;
(d) criteria for determining the suitability of proceedings for different forms of remote participation; and
(e) provisions for the security, reliability, and resilience of digital systems used in remote proceedings.
(3) The Secretary of State must, at intervals of no more than 24 months following the laying of the strategy, lay before Parliament a report on progress made against the strategy.
(4) The progress report must consider—
(a) the extent to which the strategy has been implemented;
(b) the impact on the criminal case backlog, including any measures by which that impact has been assessed; and
(c) any further legislative or budgetary provisions to ensure the effectiveness of remote proceedings.
(5) For the purposes of this section, “remote proceedings” means any proceedings in which one or more participants attend by way of live video or audio link.”
This new clause requires the Lord Chancellor to publish a formal strategy for the use of remote proceedings to reduce the case backload in the criminal justice system.
New clause 17—Inspectorate of Criminal Court Administration—
“(1) The Lord Chancellor may appoint such number of inspectors of criminal court administration as he considers appropriate.
(2) Inspectors under this section are collectively known as “His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Criminal Court Administration” (“the Inspectorate”).
(3) The Lord Chancellor must appoint one of the persons so appointed to be His Majesty's Chief Inspector of Criminal Court Administration.
(4) The Lord Chancellor may make to or in respect of inspectors of court administration such payments by way of remuneration, allowances or otherwise as he may determine.
(5) It is the duty of the Inspectorate to inspect and report to the Lord Chancellor on—
(a) the administration and operation of the system that supports the carrying on of the business of—
(i) the Crown Court, and
(ii) the magistrates’ courts;
(b) the efficiency, effectiveness and accessibility of those courts and their services, having particular regard to the experience of witnesses and victims.
(6) Any report under subsection (5) must make recommendations to the Lord Chancellor in respect of subsection (5).
(7) The Lord Chancellor must lay before Parliament—
(a) any report under this section within one month of receiving it; and
(b) his response to the recommendations of a report within six months beginning on the day on which the report in question is laid.
(8) A response under subsection (7)(b) must describe—
(a) any action the Lord Chancellor proposes to take, and
(b) where the Lord Chancellor does not propose to take any action, a reason why he proposes not to take action.
(9) The Lord Chancellor may not issue any direction to the Inspectorate in relation to its duty under subsection (5).
(10) The Lord Chancellor may by regulations make further provision about the Inspectorate.”
This new clause establishes His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Criminal Court Administration as an independent statutory body responsible for inspecting and reporting on the administration of criminal courts, with a particular regard to the experience of victims and witnesses.
New clause 19—Commencement of Part 1: Independent Reports—
“(1) Sections 1 to 7 of this Act may not come into force unless a draft of regulations providing for their commencement has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(2) The Lord Chancellor may not lay a draft of regulations under subsection (1) unless they have first laid before Parliament a report, produced by an independent reviewer, based on published Crown Court data, establishing that—
(a) delays attributable to trial by jury are a primary cause of delays to cases being heard in the Crown Court; and
(b) all possible alternative measures that could reasonably be implemented in criminal courts in England and Wales have been so implemented and found by the independent reviewer not to have reduced the Crown Court backlog.
(3) Alternative measures under subsection (2)(b) may include—
(a) increased funding for sitting days,
(b) holding two trials per day in specified court rooms, and
(c) developing and implementing specialist courts to hear cases relating to sexual offences and domestic abuse.
(4) The Lord Chancellor must appoint the independent reviewer to produce reports under this section.
(5) A person may not be appointed as the independent reviewer if they are a Minister of the Crown, a civil servant in the Ministry of Justice, or an officer of His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service.
(6) A report under subsection (2) must be published without redaction, alongside its supporting data, at least three months before a draft of regulations is laid under subsection (1).
(7) Sections 1 to 7 expire 12 months after coming into force unless a further report under subsection (2) is laid and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament prior to the end of that period.”
This new clause requires an independent report demonstrating that jury trials are a primary cause of Crown Court delays and that alternative remedies have failed before sections 1 to 7 can take effect by affirmative resolution of both Houses.
New clause 20—Court service providers: performance—
“(1) HM Courts and Tribunals Service must make provision for the collection of data where a Crown Court has reported that a trial has been—
(a) adjourned,
(b) vacated, or
(c) delayed by more than 30 mins
due to the failure of a court service provider.
(2) Court service providers under subsection (1) include—
(a) prisoner escort and custody services;
(b) language and interpretation services; and
(c) video-link and information technology services,
and any other private company that provides a service to a court.
(3) The Secretary of State must publish an annual report (a “court contract performance report”) setting out—
(a) the number of trials or hearings delayed due to failures by private service providers; and
(b) an assessment of the impact of such delays on the backlog of cases in the Crown Court.”
This new clause would require all new contracts for court-related services to include a performance-related penalty clause for cases where a failure related to those services impacts the completion of proceedings.
New clause 21—Impact of sections 1 to 6 on domestic abuse victims—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish and lay before Parliament an assessment of the impact of sections 1 to 6 on the experiences and treatment, within the courts, of victims and survivors of domestic abuse.
(2) The impact assessment published under this section must include an assessment of levels of uptake of relevant training among trial judges on the experiences of domestic abuse victims and survivors.”
This new clause would require the Government to assess the impact of the Bill’s provisions on jury trials on victims and survivors of domestic abuse.
New clause 22—Immunity from suit: conduct of police officers in preparation for criminal court proceedings—
“(1) Except while acting as witnesses, no immunity from suit applies to acts or omissions by police officers where these occur in preparation for criminal court proceedings. This includes—
(a) the fabrication, concealment, improper alteration or destruction of evidence;
(b) conduct connected to criminal court proceedings involving dishonesty, bad faith, or negligence;
(c) the reckless or deliberate disclosure, in preparation for criminal court proceedings, of confidential information relating to victims, witnesses, or vulnerable persons; and
(d) breaches of duties owed under the Human Rights Act 1998.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulation make further provision under this section.
(3) Regulations made under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
This new clause would restrict immunity from civil suit for police officers in relation to certain conduct in preparation for criminal court proceedings.
New clause 24—Determination of domestic abuse allegations and related presumptions—
“(1) There is a rebuttable presumption that any reluctance or refusal by a child to spend time with a party against whom the child, or a party representing the child, has made allegations of domestic abuse constitutes a reasonable and justified response to the domestic abuse.
(2) The presumption in subsection (1) may be rebutted only where the accused party demonstrates, on the balance of probabilities, that the child’s reluctance or refusal cannot be reasonably attributed to the domestic abuse.”
This new clause provides that, in family court, where a child refuses or is reluctant to spend time with one party as a result of an allegation against that party of domestic abuse against the child, the court must presume the reluctance or refusal is reasonable.
New clause 25—Expiry of sections 1 to 7—
“(1) Sections 1 to 7 of this Act expire three months after the date on which the condition in subsection (2) is met.
(2) The condition is that the number of cases awaiting trial in the Crown Court has been below pre-pandemic level in each of the previous four quarterly reporting periods.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) the number of cases awaiting trial in the Crown Court is that which is calculated by HM Courts and Tribunals Service.”
This new clause sunsets sections 1 to 7 of this Act so that they will no longer be in force once the court backlog has been resolved.
New clause 26—Unduly lenient sentences scheme: application to the magistrates’ courts—
“(1) Section 35 of the Criminal Justice Act 1998 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)(a) after “Crown Court” insert “, or the magistrates’ court where the sentence is in respect of an either way offence,”.”
This new clause would ensure that those affected by any case that was triable either-way before this Act was passed shall still be subject to the unduly lenient sentence scheme.
New clause 27—Review of jury composition—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a review of the methods used to determine the composition of juries.
(2) The review under this section must include an assessment of whether there are appropriate safeguards in place to prevent verdicts being returned which are influenced by jurors’—
(a) political views,
(b) religious beliefs, or
(c) other demographic characteristics,
in a way that conflicts with the interests of justice.
(3) If a review under this section determines that there are not sufficient safeguards in place, the Secretary of State must publish proposals aimed at introducing sufficient safeguards.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake a review of jury composition, with a view to avoiding juries returning verdicts influenced by their politics, religion or other demographic characteristics.
Amendment 1, page 1, line 4, leave out clause 1.
Amendment 47, clause 1, page 3, line 20, at end insert
“except where subsection (10) applies.
(10) Where—
(a) an offence is triable either way;
(b) the court considers that, if convicted, the accused would be likely to receive a sentence of imprisonment of more than 12 months but not more than three years;
(c) the accused is of good character; and
(d) the accused has not previously been convicted of an offence,
the accused may elect to be tried on indictment.”
This amendment preserves the right of a defendant of good character with no previous convictions to elect Crown Court trial where the likely sentence is more than 12 months but not more than three years.
Amendment 2, page 4, line 16, leave out clause 2.
Government amendment 3.
Amendment 21, clause 3, page 5, leave out line 27 and insert—
“(4) The trial is to be conducted without a jury in any other case only if—
(a) the prosecution has made a written application to the court requesting that the trial be conducted without a jury, and
(b) the defendant has given explicit written consent to be tried without a jury.
(4A) Where the prosecution does not make an application under subsection (4)(a), or the defendant does not give consent under subsection (4)(b), the trial is to be conducted with a jury.”
This amendment states that a case can only be tried without a jury following an application from the prosecution and where the defendant gives written consent.
Amendment 17, clause 3, page 6, line 25, at end insert—
“(4A) A trial conducted without a jury will be heard by one judge and two magistrates.”
This amendment implements the recommendation of the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts to have cases heard in the Crown Court Bench Division by a judge and two magistrates.
Amendment 16, clause 3, page 9, line 17, leave out “no” and insert “a”.
This amendment entitles a defendant to appeal against a judge’s decision to allocate the case for trial by judge alone.
Amendment 51, clause 3, page 9, line 23, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
“(4) Where a court has determined in accordance with section 74A that a trial is to be conducted without a jury, the court cannot pass a sentence of imprisonment or detention of more than three years on a person convicted of an offence.
(4A) Where a person is convicted of an offence and the court considers that the appropriate sentence is more than three years’ imprisonment or detention, the court must refer the case for retrial by jury.”
This amendment prevents a judge sitting alone from sentencing a defendant to more than three years in prison, and requires that if this is the likely sentence, the case must be remitted for trial by jury.
Amendment 10, clause 3, page 9, line 28, leave out subsections (2) to (4).
This amendment would prevent the provisions on trial on indictment without a jury applying retrospectively to cases where the defendant has elected trial by jury before these provisions become law.
Amendment 4, page 10, line 5, leave out clause 4.
Amendment 52, clause 4, page 10, line 16, leave out “one or more of the offences is an offence” and insert “all of the offences are”.
This amendment would limit judge-only trials to situations where all of the offences are listed in Schedule 3ZA.
Amendment 53, clause 4, page 10, line 34, at end insert—
“(3A) A court may not make an order under this section if it considers that it is the interests of natural justice for the defendant to have a trial with a jury.”
This amendment prevents a judge-only trial in complex and lengthy cases where it would be in the interests of natural justice for the defendant to be tried with a jury.
Amendment 54, clause 4, page 11, line 1, leave out from “is” to end of line 2, and insert
“a right of appeal against a decision to make an order under this section on the grounds of natural justice
(5A) where an appeal is made under subsection (5), it must not be heard by the judge who made the original determination.”
This amendment would add a right for defendants to appeal against the decision for a judge-only trial for lengthy and complex cases.
Government amendment 24.
Amendment 57, clause 4, page 12, line 27, leave out subsection (5)(a).
This amendment would prevent the court unilaterally overriding a reason to issue a revocation order so that a case allocated for judge-only trial under this section could be tried by jury.
Amendment 55, clause 4, page 13, line 11, at end insert—
“(g) the interests of natural justice for the defendant.”
This amendment would ensure that the interests of natural justice for the defendant are relevant to the decision to revoke an order for a judge-only trial for the offences listed in Schedule 1.
Government amendment 25.
Amendment 56, clause 4, page 13, line 30, leave out “trial beginning on or” and insert
“cases whose first hearing in the magistrates’ court takes place”.
This amendment prevents the provisions in section 4 coming into effect retrospectively.
Amendment 6, page 14, line 7, leave out clause 5.
Government amendments 26 and 27.
Amendment 59, clause 5, page 14, line 36, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
“(5) The judgment must be given at the time of conviction, except where an adjournment is necessary for preparing—
(a) pre-sentence reports,
(b) psychiatric or medical reports,
(c) victim personal statements, or
(d) further legal advice relating to sentencing.”
This amendment would ensure that judgments are handed down on conviction in all but the circumstances covered by the amendment.
Amendment 60, clause 5, page 15, line 8, at end insert—
“(5B) It is only permissible not to give judgment at the time of conviction if adjournment is necessary for—
(a) pre-sentence reports
(b) psychiatric or medical reports
(c) victim personal statements, or
(d) further legal advice about sentence.”
This amendment would ensure that judgments are handed down on conviction in all but the circumstances covered by the amendment.
Amendment 61, clause 5, page 15, line 16, at end insert—
“(4B) It is only permissible not to give judgment at the time of conviction if adjournment is necessary for—
(a) pre-sentence reports,
(b) psychiatric or medical reports,
(c) victim personal statements, or
(d) further legal advice about sentence.”
This amendment would ensure that judgments are handed down on conviction in all but the circumstances covered by the amendment.
Government amendment 28.
Amendment 7, page 15, line 23, leave out clause 6.
Amendment 11, clause 6, page 15, leave out lines 36 and 37.
This amendment provides that magistrates’ sentencing powers cannot be increased beyond 12 months.
Amendment 62, clause 6, page 15, line 37, at end insert—
“(1A) In paragraph 14A(3), for “negative” substitute “affirmative””.
This amendment ensures regulations to extend magistrates’ courts sentencing powers must be approved by both Houses of Parliament.
Amendment 19, clause 6, page 15, line 37, at end insert—
“(1B) Regulations under this paragraph are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
This amendment would make changing the general limit on custodial sentence for an either-way offence in magistrates’ courts changeable by affirmative resolution only.
Amendment 18, clause 6, page 17, line 18, at end insert—
“(9) After section 15 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, insert—
“15A Entitlement to Crown Court funding levels in certain proceedings in the Magistrates’ Court
(1) This section applies to criminal proceedings in a magistrates’ court where—
(a) an individual is charged with an either-way offence; and
(b) the court, having regard to the sentencing guidelines, considers it likely that a sentence of imprisonment exceeding 12 months will be imposed upon conviction.
(2) Where this section applies, any relevant representation order shall provide for remuneration at the same rates and under the same conditions as would apply if the proceedings were determined in the Crown Court.””
This amendment links legal aid funding to the potential severity of the sentence rather than the venue of the trial. It ensures that defendants facing more than 12 months' imprisonment receive Crown Court level funding, regardless of which court the case is heard in.
Amendment 8, page 17, line 20, leave out clause 7.
Government amendments 29 to 32.
Amendment 67, page 30, line 4, leave out clause 17.
This amendment would keep the rebuttable presumption of parental involvement being beneficial for the welfare of the child.
Amendment 12, clause 17, page 30, line 24, at end insert—
“(3) The Lord Chancellor must, within six months of the commencement of this section, lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on the resources required to give full effect to the repeal of subsection 2A in Section 1 of the Children Act 1989.
(4) The report under subsection (3) must include—
(a) an assessment of the level of legal aid provision necessary to ensure that parties in child arrangements proceedings are able to obtain timely and effective—
(i) advice, and
(ii) representation,
particularly where allegations of domestic abuse or safeguarding concerns are raised;
(b) an evaluation of the capacity of the family courts, including—
(i) the number of judges,
(ii) court staff, and
(iii) available hearing time,
to undertake robust risk assessment and fact-finding processes in line with Practice Direction 12J;
(c) plans to address any shortfalls in judicial training, including—
(i) training relating to coercive control,
(ii) domestic abuse dynamics, and
(iii) child safeguarding,
(d) proposals for investment in the family court estate and technology to ensure—
(i) the repeal operates effectively, and
(ii) decisions are consistently grounded in the welfare and safety of the child.”
This amendment requires the Government to set out how the family courts and legal aid system will be resourced to give full effect to the repeal of the presumption of parental involvement.
Amendment 22, clause 17, page 30, line 24, at end insert—
“(3) The Secretary of State must, within 18 months beginning on the day on which this Act receives Royal Assent, lay a report before Parliament on post-separation abuse in the context of decisions of courts under Children Act 1989.
(4) The report under subsection (3) must set out how post separation abuse is identified and understood in proceedings to which this clause relates.”
Government amendments 33 to 36.
Amendment 20, clause 26, page 35, leave out lines 29 and 30.
This amendment is consequential on new clause (Commencement of Part 1: Independent Reports).
Government amendment 37.
Amendment 13, clause 26, page 35, line 33, at end insert
“, subject to the provisions of subsection (3A).
(3A) The Lord Chancellor may not make regulations under subsection (3) relating to the following sections until he has published a response to the recommendation of Part II of Independent Review of the Criminal Courts—
(a) Section 1 (Removal of right to elect trial on indictment);
(b) Section 2 (Written indication of guilty plea: removal of right to object to venue);
(c) Section 3 (Trial on indictment without a jury: general rule for allocation);
(d) Section 4 (Trial on indictment without a jury: complex or lengthy cases);
(e) Section 5 (Consequential amendments relating to sections 3 and 4);
(f) Section 6 (Increase in maximum custodial sentence in magistrates’ courts);
(g) Section 7 (Appeals from magistrates’ courts).”
This amendment would make the publication of the Government response to Part II of the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts a precondition of Clause 1 to 7 of this Bill coming into force.
Amendment 14, clause 26, page 35, line 33, at end insert
“, subject to the provisions of subsection (3A).
(3A) The Lord Chancellor may not make regulations under subsection (3) relating to the following sections until the pilot in accordance with section [pilot of trial allocation reforms] has been concluded—
(a) Section 1 (Removal of right to elect trial on indictment);
(b) Section 2 (Written indication of guilty plea: removal of right to object to venue);
(c) Section 3 (Trial on indictment without a jury: general rule for allocation);
(d) Section 4 (Trial on indictment without a jury: complex or lengthy cases);
(e) Section 5 (Consequential amendments relating to sections 3 and 4);
(f) Section 6 (Increase in maximum custodial sentence in magistrates’ courts);
(g) Section 7 (Appeals from magistrates’ courts).”
This amendment is consequential on NC10.
Amendment 48, clause 26, page 35, line 33, at end insert—
“(3A) The Lord Chancellor may not make a statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (3) bringing sections 1 to 7 into force until the conditions in subsection (3B) are met.
(3B) The conditions are that—
(a) the Lord Chancellor has provided funding for at least 130,000 sitting days in the Crown Court in the financial year following the coming into force of this Act,
(b) HM Courts and Tribunals Service has made an assessment that the Crown Court has, so far as possible, used the allocation of sitting days provided under subsection (3B)(a), and
(c) the Lord Chancellor has made a statement to the House of Commons that the funding provided under subsection (3B)(a) has not reduced the number of cases pending trial in the Crown Court compared to the start of the financial year.”
This amendment prevents the provisions in sections 1 to 7 from coming into force until the Lord Chancellor has provided funding for 130,000 sittings days in the Crown Court; HMCTS has assessed that the Crown Court has used its allocation of sitting days; and the Lord Chancellor has made a statement to the House that this has not reduced the backlog.
Amendment 49, clause 26, page 35, line 33, at end insert—
“(3A) The Lord Chancellor may not make a statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (3) bringing sections 1 to 7 into force until he has—
(a) undertaken a consultation on the potential benefits of introducing extended sitting hours in the Crown Court, and
(b) laid before Parliament a report on the outcome of the consultation.
(3B) The consultation under subsection (3A) must consider—
(a) potential rates of fees and renumeration for legal professionals and court staff working extended hours, and
(b) the availability of HM Courts and Tribunal Service staff.”
This amendment would ensure that sections 1 to 7 of the Act did not come into force until the Lord Chancellor had reviewed how to increase sitting hours in the Crown Court.
Amendment 50, clause 26, page 35, line 33, at end insert—
“(3A) The Lord Chancellor may not make a statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (3) bringing section 7 into force until he has undertaken an assessment of the rate of upheld appeals on convictions and sentences handed down in the magistrates’ court in the previous two years.”
This amendment would prevent the restriction of right of appeal against magistrates’ court decisions until the Lord Chancellor has undertaken an assessment of how many of those appeals are successful.
Amendment 68, clause 26, page 35, line 33, at end insert
“subject to the provisions of subsection (3A)”—
“(3A) The Lord Chancellor may not make regulations under subsection (3) relating to the sections set out under subsection (3B) until he has taken reasonable steps to increase Crown Court sitting capacity, including but not limited to—
(a) using buildings not currently in use as courts to hear cases where cells are not needed, and
(b) reducing lost sitting days as a result of late guilty pleas and prison transport delays.
(3B) The sections referenced in subsection (3A) are—
(a) Section 1 (Removal of right to elect trial on indictment);
(b) Section 2 (Written indication of guilty plea: removal of right to object to venue);
(c) Section 3 (Trial on indictment without a jury: general rule for allocation);
(d) Section 4 (Trial on indictment without a jury: complex or lengthy cases);
(e) Section 5 (Consequential amendments relating to sections 3 and 4);
(f) Section 6 (Increase in maximum custodial sentence in magistrates’ courts);
(g) Section 7 (Appeals from magistrates’ courts).”
This amendment would ensure that sections 1 to 7 of the Act could not be commenced until the Lord Chancellor has used alternative means to increase Crown Court sitting capacity.
Amendment 5, page 36, line 2, leave out schedule 1.
Amendment 58, schedule 1, page 38, line 3, leave out paragraph 20.
This amendment prevents the Lord Chancellor adding further offences to the list in Schedule 1 by regulations.
Amendment 9, page 38, line 9, leave out schedule 2.
Amendment 46, schedule 2, page 38, line 22, at end insert—
“(2A) After subsection (4) insert—
“(4A) Nothing in this section applies to an appeal which may be brought as of right under section 108(2D).””
This amendment is consequential on amendment 45.
Amendment 45, schedule 2, page 38, line 22, at end insert—
“(2C) Subsection (2B) does not apply where—
(a) the appellant was convicted by a magistrates’ court;
(b) the appellant has not previously been sentenced to a term of imprisonment or detention for an offence; and
(c) having regard to the applicable sentencing guidelines, the offence or offences for which the appellant was convicted are offences for which the sentence imposed, or likely to be imposed, does not exceed 12 months’ imprisonment or detention.
(2D) Where subsection (2C) applies—
(a) an appeal under this section may be brought, and
(b) and no permission to appeal is required.
(2E) An appeal under subsection (2D) may be brought against—
(a) conviction;
(b) sentence; or
(c) both conviction and sentence.
(2F) For the purposes of subsection (2C)(b), a sentence which is suspended, but which is a sentence of imprisonment within the meaning of the applicable sentencing legislation, shall be treated as a sentence of imprisonment.
(2G) Where an appeal is brought under subsection (2D) and (2E), the appeal shall be treated as an appeal brought as of right and the provisions of this Part relating to permission to appeal shall not apply.”
This amendment preserves the existing automatic right of appeal from the magistrates’ court for defendants of good character with no previous convictions where the applicable sentencing guidelines indicate that the offence is likely to attract a sentence of imprisonment of 12 months or less.
Amendment 63, schedule 2, page 39, line 16, leave out from “if” to end of line 18 and insert
“the defendant has made one”.
This amendment would require the Crown Court to allow an appeal if the defendant makes one.
Amendment 64, schedule 2, page 42, line 15, leave out “magistrates’ court” and insert
“jury in the Crown Court”.
This amendment would allow the Crown Court to order a retrial by jury in the event that it allows an appeal against a conviction or sentence in the magistrates’ court.
Amendment 65, schedule 2, page 47, line 13, leave out “magistrates’ court” and insert
“jury in the Crown Court”.
This amendment would allow the Crown Court to order a retrial by jury in the event that it allows an appeal against a conviction or sentence in the magistrates’ court.
Amendment 66, schedule 2, page 49, line 36, leave out from “Court” to end of line 39 and insert
“must allow an appeal under section 108 if the defendant makes one.”
This amendment would remove the provision limiting appeals to specific grounds and instead ensure the Crown Court allows appeals if one is made.
Amendment 15, schedule 2, page 52, line 7, leave out “on payment of a fee” and insert
“to victims of criminal offence without a fee within 14 days of a request”.
This amendment would make magistrates’ court transcripts free for victims and requires that such transcripts are provided within 14 days of a request.
Government amendments 38 to 44.
Sarah Sackman
It is an honour to open the debate on the Report stage of the Courts and Tribunals Bill, and to bring this important piece of legislation back before the House. This is a Bill with victims at its heart. Its purpose is urgent and long overdue: to ensure that justice in this country is delivered fairly for both victims and defendants. Currently, thousands of victims, witnesses and defendants are trapped in the long, slow wait for justice. That is simply unfair. For some, justice may never come. The old maxim rings true in our country today: far too often, justice delayed is justice denied.
Occasionally, there are stories that stop one in one’s tracks. I appeared on “Newsnight” to explain the situation in our courts—backlogs reaching 80,000 and far too many people waiting for justice—and on that programme, I was confronted with the story of Morwenna Loughman. She spoke of the devastating impact that those court delays had had on her life. Morwenna was violently raped in February 2023. She was forced to wait over two years for her attacker to be convicted after her trial was cancelled not once, but twice at short notice. During that time, she lost her job, her home and her sense of self. Her story has stayed with me ever since—it is people exactly like Morwenna whom I have in my mind’s eye as I return to the House with this legislation. For far too many survivors, delays themselves have become another source of trauma. We cannot sit idly by; we have to act now to resolve this situation.
The Bill seeks to turn a crisis into an opportunity—an opportunity to rebuild a justice system that is swifter and stronger, and has victims’ voices at its core. We have the opportunity to rebuild a system that gives courts, rather than defendants, the ability to triage cases, and that transforms our approach to the culture around rape and serious sexual violence. That is the ambition of this Bill—not just to repair what is broken, but to build something better in its place.
This Government inherited a criminal justice system that was on its knees, with trials taking longer, hearings constantly cancelled and victims facing unacceptable delays. Years of inaction and under-investment had led to a courts system that, as Lord Leveson’s report concluded, was and remains simply unfit for purpose. Today, the Crown court backlog stands at almost 81,000 cases, and the pressure is growing. Cases themselves are increasingly complex, not least because of the growth of digital and forensic evidence. A single smartphone can hold the equivalent of 50 million printed pages, and this adds to disclosure, complexity, and the time it takes to reach a verdict. The police are arresting more criminals. We make absolutely no apologies for that, but a system that is already under strain cannot continue to absorb ever-rising demand without reform. Old structures are creaking under new volumes and new types of crime, and if we do not act, the situation will continue to spiral.
Not only are we failing victims, this situation and these unacceptable delays are corrosive of public trust in the justice system itself. We can and must do better. To do so, we need a sensible, principled and pragmatic approach. As we will no doubt hear, the Opposition have offered plenty of objections, but precious few answers to the reality facing our courts. We will not take lectures from the party that left the criminal justice system in this state. This Government have a plan: a serious package of measures designed to drive down the backlog and ensure that victims get the fast, timely and fair justice that they deserve. Lord Leveson’s conclusion in the independent review of criminal courts was clear that there is no silver bullet for addressing this problem. We need to pull every lever—investment, modernisation and structural reform—and this Government are doing precisely that.
Let me begin with investment. For a start, we have removed the financial limit on court sitting days. We have recruited more judges and magistrates. By uncapping Crown court sitting days—meaning that there is no financial limit on the number of cases that courts can hear—we have unleashed the potential of our Crown courts, which are hearing more cases than ever before. We are investing an additional £287 million in court repairs and digital upgrades, alongside record investment in criminal legal aid to support the solicitors and barristers who run our criminal cases, alongside a package of more than half a billion pounds for victim services over the next three years.
In addition, I am proud that we have announced a £23 million package to introduce specialist rape courts—a manifesto commitment—in every single Crown court centre. That will improve the experience of victims of rape and other sexual offences at court, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), whose bravery and determination has driven forward those changes.
Modernisation and efficiency matter, too. I abhor inefficiency. When I speak not just to victims, but to defendants and to people who work within the system, the wastefulness of ineffective trials is so frustrating. We hear stories of trials being put off because a prisoner was not produced on time or because counsel was unavailable. Working with the judiciary, we are modernising our system and we are throwing the kitchen sink at it.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I am extremely grateful to the Minister for throwing the kitchen sink at the problem, including court repairs. We wish to see those repairs make progress at Taunton Crown court. The Minister was good enough to write to me at the beginning of the summer to explain that the court, which has been closed since 2023, will be closed for longer. Will she contact me to give us an update on when Taunton Crown court will finally be reopened?
Sarah Sackman
I was glad to meet the hon. Member to discuss the situation at Taunton, which I know has been a deep source of frustration. Nothing could more exemplify the years of neglect of our justice system than our crumbling court estate that was presided over by the Conservatives. This Government are investing in the fabric of our court estate. That is not just in the bricks and mortar, but in the digital upgrades that are so important, and I will speak to those now.
We have the technology for remote hearings; we need to be deploying it. This Government will develop a pilot of virtual remand hearings, so that we do not need as many prisoner transfers as before. We will work with our judiciary to develop a new pioneering national video model. The model will allow suitable cases to be allocated to available judges across different locations. It might be that a judge in Cardiff is hearing a matter based down in London, helping to alleviate the pressures there, to make much more effective use of capacity and to target those areas facing the greatest backlogs.
We are also adopting a new national listing tool, harnessing the capacity of AI to schedule cases more efficiently. We will have case progression officers in every single Crown court, making the more complex cases progress further and faster. We are working with the judiciary to set up short trial courts, which hear similar cases together over concentrated periods so that they can be dealt with more quickly. We are also expanding a scheme already used in Manchester, Bristol and Nottingham to allow prison vans to use bus lanes. I agree entirely with those who say we need to make the system more efficient, and we are stretching and straining every sinew to do exactly that, with the investment to go with it. We welcome in particular the judiciary’s reforms to prioritise rape and serious sexual offences and to end the unacceptable practice of floating trials for such cases, giving victims greater certainty about when their case will be heard.
Lord Leveson’s review was clear that investment and modernisation can only take us so far. No single lever can fix a crisis that has been years in the making. We have had decades of under-investment in a system that has simply not kept pace with the 21st century, where cases now take twice as long as they did 25 years ago. So our third lever is pragmatic, principled structural reform to ease the pressure on the Crown court and ensure that its time is concentrated on the most serious cases, and that is precisely what the Bill delivers.
The case for reform remains as strong as ever, but good government requires us to listen, and this place exists to scrutinise and improve legislation. When concerns are raised, it is right that the Government reflect and react. When the Prime Minister took office he committed himself to looking at these proposals again, and that is why over recent months the Prime Minister, the Lord Chancellor and I have listened carefully to stakeholders, to Members on both sides of the House, and to people who work within the system. We have heard that strength of feeling, and we have acted. I can confirm today that the Government have tabled an amendment to remove clause 3, relating to the bench division. The effect will be that all defendants facing a trial in the Crown court will be heard with a jury. That decision does not change the destination or the ambition of the Bill, which has always remained the same: swifter justice for victims.
Simplifying our approach and avoiding some of the operational reforms that would have come with a new division in the Crown court gives us the opportunity to move faster in implementing the changes set out in the Bill. Implementing those changes more efficiently will free up court capacity and make better use of court time, helping us to bring about fast, fair justice for victims. We remain confident that the guts of the Bill—the package of reforms backed by the record financial investment that I have described, along with our ambitious programme of modernisation—will be sufficient to free up Crown court time to turn the tide on the backlog within the current Parliament. This is the right decision for victims, and it is the right decision for the justice system.
I know that the Opposition have tabled amendments to remove the remaining clauses relating to Lord Leveson’s review, but I am afraid that doing so would be to bury one’s head in the sand. We are proceeding with other structural reforms in the Bill, including the removal of defendants’ right to choose whether their cases are heard in the magistrates court or the Crown court when they involve an either-way offence. The reform that we have always proposed is that, as in Scotland, it should be the court rather than the defendant that triages cases. This has a double effect. Not only is it more efficient, ensuring that when the prosecution and the court decide that a case can be heard in the magistrates court, that is where it is heard; it is also fairer. It is about putting the power in the hands of the court rather than those of the defendant and giving a far greater say to victims whose voice can be heard through the prosecution, which puts its case as to what venue the case should be heard in, as well as hearing from the defence. It means that cases will be heard on the basis of their seriousness and not simply the preference of the defendant, as is the case in Scotland.
This is exactly the right thing to do. These measures will not only reduce the demand on the Crown court, but will prevent defendants from gaming the system, electing for a jury trial in the simple hope that delays will drag on and the case will fall apart when the victims or witnesses withdraw. Our reforms are not only pragmatic but principled. For instance, giving magistrates courts greater sentencing powers means that more cases can be dealt with more quickly. The magistrates court is an efficient jurisdiction. It currently deals with triable either way cases about four times faster than the Crown court.
Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and Tavistock) (Con)
Is the hon. and learned Lady as concerned as I am about the backlog in the magistrates court, which is four times larger than that in the Crown court and growing at 16% a year, whereas the Crown court backlog is stabilised? If this really is a reform in the interests of efficiency, should she not be sparing the magistrates court at a time when their backlog is growing so fast?
Sarah Sackman
I do not accept the premise of that question. I do not accept that we have a backlog in our magistrates court. What we have is a substantial caseload. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will know that the magistrates court hear more than 1.5 million cases a year, and it is coping well. What I do acknowledge is that we need to increase their capacity, which is why we are increasing the number of sitting days. In 2025 there were 114,000 sitting days, and we will increase that to 130,000 by 2028-29.
The other thing we are doing is increasing the number of magistrates. Under the previous Government, the number of magistrates in this country halved. We are going to restore the magistracy to its former glory. The changes that we have made to the application process, and the investment that we are putting into recruitment—quadrupling the budget—are already reaping the rewards, and we are on course to meet the 21,000 target. The right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox) is right to say that we need to grow capacity as we see a more expanded role for the magistracy, but I believe that we can do it and we are on track to do so.
We are reforming the automatic right of appeal. It is vital that there is a right of appeal, but it is also reasonable to ask a defence to identify grounds for appeal. By introducing a permission to filter out cases without merit, we will avoid a situation in which victims are needlessly put through unnecessary re-hearings where the appeal totally lacks merit. As I said, these reforms must be matched by the capacity to deliver them. That is why we are investing in our courts and in the people who make justice possible, and we remain on track to reach our target of 21,000 magistrates by 2028-29. We are also strengthening judicial capacity by boosting the number of district judges and legal advisers, who need to see better pay and career progression.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to take part in the further consideration of the Courts and Tribunals Bill as we reach Report stage. Not for the first time with this ministerial team, this Justice Secretary and this Prime Minister, what we were told was necessary has turned out to be unnecessary, what we were told was impossible is now possible, and what we were told was unavoidable was avoidable after all. This Minister told us again and again on Second Reading and throughout the Committee that each and every one of the measures in this Bill—each and every part of their proposals—was the only way to get on top of the court backlogs. But apparently not, because only days ago the Justice Secretary appeared on national television to announce a significant U-turn: the Government are dropping clause 3. We were told that their new division of judge-only trials was the only way the Crown court backlog could be brought down—that it could not be brought down without it. Yet now Ministers inform us that removing this very provision will actually allow the work to proceed faster.
The Opposition welcome this decision. I welcome the fact that the Justice Secretary put his name to our amendment removing clause 3, but how we got here matters. It is not the first time that this ministerial team and this Justice Secretary have let their Back Benchers defend the indefensible and then drop them in it. This same ministerial team and this same Justice Secretary told us that the release of various serious sexual and violent offenders was an absolute necessity, that they had no choice other than to put victims through the distress and upset over the summer. And then they did have a choice.
Why does this matter? Most of the time in politics in this place we are debating choices—which choice we should make as MPs and as different parties, weighing up the pros and cons of the options—but sometimes Ministers attempt to cut through that to secure the support of MPs by saying that they have no choice. When MPs resist and tell them their concerns over what the Government are proposing, Ministers have a fundamental duty to this House and to their own Back-Bench colleagues in particular. That duty is to test to destruction the proposition that there is no choice.
Only the Ministers have the army of civil servants, the data, the costings and the honest advice. When a Minister tells their own MPs that they have no choice, surely it must mean exactly that. That is how they secure the support of their Back-Bench colleagues. These Ministers have failed in that duty and have failed their colleagues. Ministerial credibility is a precious resource and this Minister has exhausted hers. If clause 3 was never truly required to tackle court delays, we must ask: what other assertions made by this Front-Bench team are equally unfounded? How can they expect their propositions of “no choice” to be accepted in future, and not just in future but on this very Bill before us today?
We must also be clear that, despite the headlines surrounding this partial retreat, the core damaging framework of the Bill remains almost entirely intact. The Government continue to press ahead with clause 1, which completely strips adult defendants charged with triable either way offences of their historic right to elect for a jury trial. At the same time, clause 6 doubles magistrates’ maximum sentencing powers up to 24 months. That means complex, high-stake cases—including sexual assault, actual bodily harm and burglary—will be retained in summary courts, exposing defendants to two-year prison sentences without ever having access to a jury.
Clause 7 and schedule 2 dismantle the automatic right of appeal from the magistrates court to the Crown court. Instead of a full rehearing before a judge and lay magistrates, wrongly convicted individuals will face a restrictive permission barrier on written papers alone.
It should be clear that, taken together, we are still facing a fundamental attack on the existing rights to a jury trial. The provisions still represent a sweeping contraction of access to jury trial and summary justice safeguards. The opposition from legal professions, victims groups and civil liberties organisations remains as firm today as it was on Second Reading.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham Yardley) (Lab)
As somebody who has had someone elect to have a jury and now awaits a trial in 2029 on a simple order breach, I ask the hon. Gentleman: does he think, in his defence of jury trials, that a victim should be able to say whether they want the case to be tried by a jury, or should it just be the defendant? That is the system we have today. In the light of his desire to see jury trials, does he think that the system should be changed so that anyone can say, “No, I want it to be heard in front of a jury”?
Dr Mullan
What we are talking about is where we draw the ledger. I do not think the hon. Member is suggesting that we should have everything done by magistrates. Why not have everything done by magistrates? If it is fundamentally unfair to allow people to have a jury trial, why not let everything be done by magistrates? Then the victims do not have a say on whether it is a jury trial. The point we are clear about is that this is an unprecedented erosion of that right. It was not in the Government’s manifesto, it was until recently largely opposed by very large numbers of their own MPs, and it is based on a premise of necessity that I am afraid is paper thin. Ministers turned around and said that these were things that they had to do to get the backlog down. It turns out that they did not have to do that.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
I think the hon. Member misses the point of the question that was just raised. The question he seems to misunderstand is the fact that the right to choose a jury trial is being used by perpetrators to continue the abuse of the victims and survivors. Does he think that the state should be party to continuing that abuse and allowing perpetrators to play the system through a jury trial selection or an appeals process?
Dr Mullan
I listened closely to the words that the hon. Member used: she talked about “perpetrators”. We heard the word again and again from Labour Members in Committee. May I remind her that defendants are not guilty until found guilty, and that this erosion of rights affects innocent people, too? Labour Members repeatedly forget that. Being accused does not make you a perpetrator. I ask the hon. Member to think about that carefully.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
Does the shadow Minister agree that justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done? One of the key cornerstones of getting justice is being tried by one’s peers, and giving that to a defendant builds confidence in a jury system.
Dr Mullan
The hon. Gentleman is right. As I pointed out at the start, and as Labour Members have highlighted, it is not just people concerned about defendants who have raised concerns about the proposals; victims have as well. Victims groups wrote an extensive letter to the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, asking them to think twice about the erosion of jury trials. Any criticism that Members make of me will, I am afraid, also have to be levelled at the victims who do not agree with them. Victims are not all of one voice on this issue, and we should respect that, instead of assuming that every victim agrees with Labour Members, which they do not.
The erosions under the proposals are significant. This Government, in which trust is so low, also seek for themselves an extraordinary power to do what they set out to do in clause 3 through the back door, via clause 4, in which they are not only introducing judge-only trials in the Crown court for what they describe as lengthy and complex cases, but giving themselves the power to add to the list of eligible cases through order alone, bypassing the fullest scrutiny of Parliament. That is quite extraordinary from a Government who, when in opposition, concerned themselves greatly with the proper use of delegated legislation.
The Opposition remain as concerned as everybody else about the Crown court backlog. We know that victims and innocent defendants are suffering as a result of it, but so much of the Bill will not help, and may make matters worse. That is the reality. I notice that the Minister was happy to repeatedly say in Committee that opposing the measures does not suggest not having concern for victims; I hope that she sticks to that line during the rest of the debate, and I would encourage all of her colleagues to listen to the words that she said. Being concerned about the erosion of jury trial rights does not in any way mean that we do not care about victims, and I hope that the Minister repeats that later.
I was able to visit the Supreme Court yesterday, and I encourage any Members mulling this over to head to the exhibition space and take a look at the replica of Magna Carta. They should read for themselves the words illuminated on the wall: at its heart, the highest and best form of justice is justice delivered by your peers. That brings me to the position of Labour Members. Prior to this partial U-turn, dozens of Labour Back Benchers, including 37 MPs who signed a public letter, expressed deep opposition to the Bill’s proposals to curtail jury trials. They rightly described the stripping of jury rights as “madness” that
“will cause more problems than it solves”.
Labour Members spoke forcefully about the unique value of the jury, yet today, following the removal of just one clause—just one element of this damaging Bill—the Government expect those same Members to walk through the Lobby in support of it. I ask those Members: what has actually changed? Clause 1 still abolishes the right of an ordinary citizen to elect for jury trial. Clause 6 still pushes serious cases into summary courts, where backlogs are already surging, and clause 7 still cuts off automatic appeals. If removing the right to elect a jury trial in either-way cases was wrong before, it remains wrong today. Dropping one element of a bad package does not make the remaining elements good law.
In Committee, Opposition Members and Labour Back Benchers put forward a series of modest, constructive amendments designed to insert basic safeguards into the Bill, and the Government rejected every single one. We tabled amendments to preserve a natural justice exception, ensuring that where a defendant could demonstrate that a summary-only trial would result in a clear breach of natural justice, a jury trial would remain available. The Ministers defeated those amendments. We pressed the Government on the severe misalignment in legal aid—a defendant in a Crown court benefits from higher legal aid eligibility thresholds—but the Government rejected those amendments. Everything we sought to do to protect natural justice and lessen the impact of the Bill was blocked.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
I thank the shadow Minister for being generous with his time. What did his Government do in 14 years to ensure that people were tried by their peers? That is exactly what magistrates are there to do. I know that all too well, because my dad served as a magistrate in Warwickshire for over 40 years, and I am proud to say that. Magistrates courts are the bedrock of our justice system. The shadow Minister’s Government did nothing to protect them, but that is exactly what we are doing: we are investing in more magistrates, so that more people can be tried by their peers, and we are supporting those magistrates in doing the job effectively.
Dr Mullan
The hon. Lady asked what we did to preserve the right to trial by jury. We brought the backlog in the Crown court down from the level we inherited from the previous Labour Government. Prior to the pandemic, our record on the Crown court backlog was better than the previous Labour Government’s, which is something that Labour Members all conveniently seem to forget.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument in defence of jury trials. Members are rightly thinking about the impact on victims and defendants, but would he agree that the erosion of jury trial also has significant implications for the judiciary? In jury trials, for the public, the jury very often stands between the defendant, or the convicted, and the judge. If we remove that shield between the two, the judge, their prejudices, demographics and how they were selected become more a focus of public contemplation, and that may in the end lead to political interference in the selection of judges.
Dr Mullan
My right hon. Friend is right on both points. As he was speaking, the Justice Secretary said from a sedentary position that he removed that clause. Perhaps he does not understand his own Bill. You are retaining judge-only trials for complex and lengthy cases, and retaining the power to use delegated legislation to allow judges alone to sit on those cases. Exactly the sort of scenario that my right hon. Friend was describing would be produced.
Magistrates have a degree of confidence and community support that is in proportion to the use of their powers. If we significantly increase the use of their powers, the pressure on magistrates, and scrutiny of them, is also likely to increase. Picking up on that point, I want to make sure—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. That is the third time that I have heard the shadow Minister say “you”. It is not my legislation.
Dr Mullan
Lucky you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I take that point.
The schedule 1 powers that I have talked about are a significant Henry VIII power. Under proposed statutory instrument powers, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State will have the authority to add further categories of offences to schedule 1 by secondary legislation. I am not aware of any time before in this place when the Secretary of State could use secondary legislation to erode and remove the right to a jury trial from a particular defendant. That is completely unprecedented and indefensible.
The Conservatives do not merely criticise this bad package of legislation; we have repeatedly sought to put forward practical, evidence-based alternatives that tackle the delays without taking a sledgehammer to our constitutional rights. The Government must fix the operational failures that currently waste thousands of court hours every year. Last year, between 23% and 26% of Crown court trials were ineffective. Rather than stripping citizens of jury trial rights, the Minister should be focused instead on failures in prisoner transport, which result in hundreds of trials being derailed, simply because defendants are late to the dock.
The Government must keep all existing courtrooms open and fully funded, and must use new artificial intelligence tools for disclosure and listing, and they must expand live-link video participation. [Interruption.] Ministers on the Front Bench chunter that they are already doing that. If that is the case, why is the Crown court backlog going up? They are clearly not succeeding with the measures that they are bringing forward, and a number of things are getting worse.
We must improve case management and incentivise earlier case resolution, instead of forcing complex cases into the overburdened summary courts, where there are backlogs too. Extraordinarily, the Minister claimed that there was no backlog in the magistrates courts. I do not know how she decides what is or is not a backlog. Cases going up by 10% in one year is a backlog by any measure. I visited Liverpool Crown court, where the wait for trial is roughly half the length of the wait for trial in other parts of the country. The Government should replicate the proactive case management model successfully pioneered in courts like Liverpool, Preston and Cardiff, where active Crown Prosecution Service case ownership and early trial-readiness reviews have driven down backlogs.
Our sunset clause draws attention to the true motivations of this Government. If the Government sincerely feel that these measures are a necessity to bring the backlog down, as they have argued repeatedly to their Back Benchers, our clause is quite clear that when the backlog is down to the pre-covid average for a period of four quarters, these damaging, rights-eroding measures should be withdrawn. I do not expect that the Government will support that proposal today, because fundamentally they do not have the same faith that we do in the importance and value of a jury trial.
The Government’s partial U-turn demonstrates that sustained scrutiny can force a rethink, but a partial U-turn is not enough. The central flaws of the Bill remain: the abolition of the right to elect trial by jury, the risky expansion of summary jurisdiction, the restriction of appeal rights and the creation of secondary powers to expand juryless trials. We should not erode centuries of procedural safeguards to achieve marginal administrative speed gains. I urge hon. Members across the House, and especially those who have previously spoken out against these measures, to stand by their previous words, to stand by their principles, and to reject these remaining clauses tonight.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Ind)
May I begin by welcoming the Justice Secretary to his place, and thank him for his engagement with me over recent weeks? More particularly, may I thank him for appointing Holly Lynch, the former Member of Parliament for Halifax, who apparently—goodness knows why—is still a big fan of me, despite the fact that I have opposed these policies in previous months?
Goodness me, a lot has changed since I last addressed the House on the Bill, and not just in the Bill itself. I welcome the removal of clause 3, which introduced the idea of the Crown court bench division, but let us not pretend that its removal is because of rebels, or opposition from across the House, the Bar Council, the Criminal Bar Association and the Law Society—or indeed, I am told, from the Lady Chief Justice herself. The reality is that the CCBD was completely, unbelievably unworkable, as Members from across the House warned the Government. It would not—could not—have worked. It will never work.
I welcome the fact that the Government have done the right thing—they have listened to those of us who were bitterly opposed to the idea of the CCBD—but I regret to say that I cannot support the Bill today, in its current form. The backlog in the magistrates court is 380,000 cases and rising. The backlog in the Crown court, as I understand it, is 80,000, and it is fairly static; the number is probably falling. If we do away with the right to elect, the backlog will be transferred from the Crown court. The Government estimate that 25,000 fewer cases will be heard in the Crown court, and 5,500 trials will be moved from the Crown court to be heard at summary trial in the magistrates court. Well, that just removes a problem from the Crown court and transfers it to the magistrates court. I do not care what we call it, be it a backlog or something different; however the Government want to describe it, there are 380,000 cases and rising in the magistrates court. That is 380,000 criminal cases, in which complainants are waiting for an outcome—for their trial to be concluded.
I agree that a trial in the magistrates court is a lot quicker than a trial in the Crown court. Of course it is—it is swift, summary justice. But that is why we need to be very cautious about what category of case is heard before a bench of lay magistrates in the magistrates courts. That matters, because the rights and liberty of the accused are at stake. That is why we limit magistrates’ power on sentencing in the system in England and Wales. I cannot support clauses 1 and 2.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is talking about complex and lengthy trials. Has he considered the effect on the Court of Appeal of making those types of trial judge-only? If I have correctly understood the Government’s proposals, they wish to require a judge to give reasons for conviction. Juries need give no reasons for conviction. Does he think that that will change the rate and frequency of appeals to the Court of Appeal in such cases?
Karl Turner
The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes a very good point—of course it will. When a judge is required to give reasons, counsel for the by-then appellant is poring over the judge’s statement, looking at every single line. Clever people such as the very eminent King’s counsel, the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox), will be instructed to pore over the judgments in those cases, and the likelihood of an appeal will increase. The beauty of a jury trial is that the men and women—the ordinary citizens who are picked at random and summoned to court to hear a trial as a member of a jury—go home at the end of the case and very rarely, and certainly not publicly, speak about the case again. There is no requirement to give reasons in that scenario.
Ayoub Khan
On appeals, if elected trials do not happen and cases are dealt with summarily, there is a good prospect that those appeals will also find their way into the Crown court. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that would not allay the concerns that the Government want to address?
Karl Turner
I agree completely, and the hon. Gentleman makes the point very strongly indeed.
Clause 6 is on magistrates’ sentencing powers. I cannot support the idea of magistrates having powers to give sentences of between 18 and 24 months without a credible plan to address the dire, desperate need to recruit magistrates, legal advisers, court staff and lawyers. That risks just transferring the pressure rather than solving the backlog. That is the reality of what this Bill will do.
That brings me to the anomaly in the Bill. As currently drafted, it presents a fairly obvious problem: a defendant of good character, with no previous convictions and who has never been arrested, interviewed, charged, prosecuted or convicted of a criminal offence is likely, by virtue of the sentencing guidelines on an either-way offence, to be tried in front of a magistrates court, whereas a defendant with numerous previous convictions, by virtue of the fact that under the guidelines that offending behaviour exceeds the three-year threshold, gets the benefit of a Crown court trial.
Let us picture the scenario: a section 47 offence of actual bodily harm is triable either way. This is a serious assault in a domestic scenario. Defendant A has no previous convictions and has never been convicted by a criminal court—
Jess Phillips
Just because a domestic abuser has no prior convictions, it does not mean he does not have priors. It does not mean he has good character.
Karl Turner
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. She is absolutely right, of course. In my experience, offenders who appear in incredibly serious cases of violence in domestic scenarios have often never had previous convictions.
Let us think about the fairness of this scenario. Defendant A, who has never been convicted of a criminal offence, is charged with a section 47 ABH and appears in a summary trial. It is a very serious assault, an ABH. Defendant B, who has had numerous convictions over his adult life—let us be honest, it is mainly men who commit domestic assaults; that is the truth of it—gets the benefit of a trial in front of a jury. How is that possibly—[Interruption.] Well, it is a benefit. I am hearing “Why is it a benefit?”
Karl Turner
I am hearing comments from a sedentary position. I have an awful lot of time for my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), I truly have—she is a mate of mine, as it happens—but there is a benefit to a jury trial.
The reality is that when a defendant appears in a summary trial before a bench of lay magistrates or a district judge, it is swift, summary justice. The evidence is heard, but it is not heard and presented in the same way as it is in a Crown court. That is just the truth. A Crown court trial in that scenario would last four or five days, and potentially into a second week. There is an opportunity to call defence evidence. Legal aid is available for experts. There is the potential for reports by the defence and the prosecution. It is about equality before the law. That is the reality of the scenario, and I cannot believe that this consequence is intended by this Labour Government. That is why I say that I cannot possibly support clause 6.
Emily Darlington
Is my hon. Friend aware of the Rape Crisis report that says that juries bring misconceptions and bias into the system and are less likely to convict? I am sure he is not talking about that being the benefit, is he?
Karl Turner
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the intervention. I will be honest: I did not know about the report, but I am keen to have a look.
Dr Mullan
As I said in my opening speech, a number of women’s victims rights groups were the leading critics of getting rid of jury trials. We cannot make out that victims have a singular view on this and that they are happy with it. There are different opinions among victims groups, and many of them agree with the hon. Gentleman.
Jess Phillips
None of them agree with you about the presumption of contact.
Karl Turner
Well, I am not going to get into the whys and wherefores of this particular juncture of the debate.
There is an easy fix for the scenario that I have described. My amendment 47 states that where a defendant has no previous convictions and the court decides that the case is suitable for summary trial, that defendant should be entitled to elect to have their trial in the Crown court. I do not think that the numbers will be very big. It is probably impossible for the Ministry of Justice to do modelling. In the 16 years that I have been a Member of this House and have been involved in debating criminal justice issues, I have rarely seen MOJ modelling that has been anywhere near accurate. However, even if it could do the modelling—I suspect it cannot, because that data is not kept—the numbers would be tiny. Why? Because only 0.4% of all convictions in the magistrates court are appealed.
However, in 41% of that 0.4% of cases—it is a tiny number—the conviction is overturned in the Crown court, because there has been a wrong decision. The Bar Council has produced more up-to-date data, which suggests that that 41% has now gone up to 56%. More than half the cases that are appealed from the magistrates to the Crown court for a rehearing end up with a defendant who was convicted in the magistrates court being acquitted in the Crown court. Why do I say that there is a benefit to a Crown court hearing? It speaks for itself.
What could the Government do instead? There is plenty that they could do. They could implement the relevant recommendations of the Leveson review. They could improve co-ordination between the police, the CPS and the courts to progress and identify unnecessary prosecutions earlier. It happens to be a fact that prosecutions sometimes end because the CPS—the Crown—throws in the towel. There is lots to welcome in the Bill, and I do welcome it, but there is too much in it for me to support it at this time.
Finally, I want to say a few words of gratitude. I thank the Prime Minister, because from the very outset of my opposition to the worst excesses of the Bill, he was supporting me in the background. Similarly, Lord Sadiq Khan was there texting me, encouraging me and supporting me when it mattered. My biggest thank you of all is reserved for my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) for her bravery in standing up, waiving her anonymity and explaining her personal situation in the criminal justice system, in the face of all the pressure that was being exerted on Members who had the audacity to say that these measures were not suitable for a Labour Government to be implementing. We suffered the pressure exerted on us, and my hon. Friend showed real bravery and determination. For that, I will forever respect her.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Can I just emphasise to Members that votes will come at 6 o’clock, which leaves us very little time, and inevitably not all Members will get in? I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The entire criminal justice system is on the brink of collapse. We can all agree today that the current backlog in our Crown courts is unacceptable, untenable and unsustainable. The situation we face—a backlog sitting at over 80,000 cases and victims of rape waiting on average 424 days for their case to complete—is the direct result of the historic and monumental failings of successive Governments. Whether it is a lack of prison places, soaring reoffending rates or the horrendous backlog in the Crown courts with a growing backlog in the magistrates, it is a national emergency waiting to happen. But the Government’s plans to address this situation have been equally dangerous. Under Keir Starmer, this Government led us down a path—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. We must refer to other Members by their constituencies. Oh, he is not a Member any more—apologies!
Jess Brown-Fuller
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Under Keir Starmer, this Government led us down a path towards curtailing jury trials, presenting it as the only way to deal with the backlog. That was despite widespread opposition from the legal profession and Parliament, including from their own Benches, and despite the absence of any coherent modelling or trialling to demonstrate the impact of the proposed Crown court bench division. Political capital was wasted pursuing a solution that was never feasible. What we are presented with today is still fundamentally a flawed plan.
We remain deeply concerned about the pressure that these changes will place on magistrates courts. The plans for those charged with either-way offences to lose their right to elect trial by jury, alongside the increases in sentencing powers and the removal of the right to appeal, will place immense and dangerous pressure on magistrates courts, while simultaneously removing vital safeguards. The Government now predict that an additional 25,000 cases will be added to magistrates court caseloads each year, and the current rate of increase in the backlog of open cases is expected to be 9%—it is exceeding that of the Crown court backlog.
Increased complexity also raises questions regarding the suitability of summary justice to deal with these cases—a point that has been raised by the Bar Council and others. I also have profound concerns about the experiences of victims in summary justice; it is not just the Crown court where victims are so often failed. The Minister spoke very powerfully about Morwenna. I remember Morwenna’s powerful testimony. I am thinking today about Georgia, whose case in the magistrates court was postponed four times in a row. She spent months and months of building herself up for that moment before being totally failed because she did not get her day in court. The Government have done little to address those concerns, which is why amendment 11, tabled in my name, remains on the amendment paper. It would prevent magistrates’ sentencing powers from being increased beyond 12 months.
The Liberal Democrats also fundamentally oppose the removal of the automatic right to appeal decisions made by magistrates. This is a vital safeguard for summary justice, where lay magistrates are expected to make decisions with significant and real consequences. On the whole, we all agree that they make these decisions very well, with fewer than 1% of cases being appealed. But of those cases, the latest figures show that 56% were successful. We are now expecting magistrates courts to hear more complex cases carrying higher sentences at the same time as the Government are bluntly removing this protection against those miscarriages of justice. The Government want to speed up the process within a system, but changing the appeals process at this point is unnecessary and frankly dangerous. The reasoning, as per their own response, is:
“If we do not reform the appeals process, we expect absolute volumes of appeals to the Crown Court to increase given the impact of other reforms will be to retain more cases in magistrates’ courts.”
Let us reflect on that for a moment. Over half of current appeals are currently successful, and because the Government believe this number may increase, they are satisfied to remove that safeguard. How can the Minister defend a position that removes that vital safeguard in summary justice, while also accepting that it would be more needed than ever?
There is also scant provision in this Bill for, or consideration of, the implications for legal representation in magistrates court. Currently, there are differing income thresholds for legal aid between the Crown and magistrates courts. Shifting cases from the Crown courts will mean that many more defendants who may be accused of crimes carrying sentences of up to 24 months will be ineligible for legal aid, leaving them unrepresented. Baron Leveson reflected in his review that the differing thresholds for legal aid could be creating a “perverse incentive” for a defendant to choose the Crown court, but the Government rejected Baron Leveson’s recommendation in their response yesterday.
This not only has a profound effect on fairness in our justice system; it also affects the Government’s assumptions about how quickly the backlogs can be cleared. A lack of legal aid impedes efficiency and will slow down cases, leaving victims and defendants waiting once again. That is why we have tabled amendment 18, which links legal aid to the severity of the sentence, rather than the venue of the trial, and we have written to every Member of the House asking them to support it.
New clause 20, tabled in my name, requires all new contracts for court-related services to include performance penalties, to put an end to these sham contracts that are currently failing to deliver prisoners on time.
The Liberal Democrats also believe that opportunities have been missed to maximise the use of time within the existing court structures. There is scope to increase the number of trials heard in selected courtrooms across England and Wales from one to two a day. That approach was trialled during covid, and it resulted in 3.5 trials per week being cleared, compared with fewer than 0.9 trials in courtrooms operating under standard hours. New clause 4 calls for a review of the feasibility of hearing two trials a day in selected courtrooms, split between morning and afternoon sessions, with each trial sitting for four hours. Solutions such as this—which have not been explored by this Government, as confirmed in Committee—would supercharge the Crown court process, with a specific focus on clearing the backlog.
Sir Jeremy Wright
I recognise the hon. Member’s enthusiasm for making the criminal courts work more efficiently, but I put to her a practical problem with the solution she proposes of courts starting at 9 o’clock in the morning—especially if we were not able to resolve the problem she identified of prisoners not always being brought to court on time. She will recognise that those of us who represent criminal clients in the criminal courts do not start our day at the time the court starts; we start a lot earlier. The opportunity to speak to our client, discuss the case properly with them and perhaps find a way of resolving the case without the need for a trial is extremely valuable. Does she recognise that problem?
Jess Brown-Fuller
Absolutely. The right hon. and learned Member makes a really important point about the prisoner escort and custody services contract and ensuring that defendants are delivered to court on time, but not all defendants going into a Crown court are being held on remand. There are also defendants on bail who can get themselves to court, and it would be up to the listing officers to ensure that those cases are heard in the morning, which would take off the pressure that the PECS contracts clearly have in delivering people to start at a 10 am slot; instead, those defendants might be arriving for a 2 pm slot. He raises an important point and gives me a lovely opportunity to explain why I have thought about that and how we would overcome it.
New clause 2 supports the implementation of fast-track courts for rape and serious sexual offences. We have heard powerful testimony across the House during the passage of the Bill about the need for rape and serious sexual offence courts, which we on the Liberal Democrat Benches have called for. It was therefore welcome when the Government announced their plans to implement them, but it is puzzling that they have not included those provisions in the Bill, because there is no point in waiting—these courts should be implemented urgently, to bring an end to the disgraceful waits that these victims are facing.
The Government also announced when they agreed to roll out these RASSO courts that all judges presiding over them will undergo specialist trauma-informed training. Given the Government’s decision not to include domestic abuse cases in these RASSO courts, that would surely strengthen the case for having universal specialist trauma-informed training for all of the judiciary, which we have called for throughout the passage of the Bill.
New clause 11 would give victims the right to receive transcripts of all judicial summings-up and bail decisions relevant to their case. Amendment 15 is particularly relevant given the direction of the Bill, as it would ensure that magistrates court transcripts are free for victims and accessible within 14 days. On the issue of transcripts, the Government have made real progress, which I welcome. Many victims choose not to attend the entirety of their hearing or trial, and even when they do attend, being able to process the events of a court case afterwards provides a valuable opportunity to better understand why those decisions were made. Transcripts being freely accessible aids in moving forward with one’s life, and at every turn, the Liberal Democrats will continue to push the Government to go further.
Finally, I turn to new clause 17, tabled in my name. The Courts Act 2003 introduced Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Court Administration, which was established in 2005 but then closed in 2010. A 2022 Justice Committee report found that the argument for closing the inspectorate had not stood the test of time and called for the re-establishment of an inspectorate body. In his review, Baron Leveson also recommended a mechanism to inspect His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, which was rejected by the Government. This is a particularly important time to introduce the additional oversight that a courts inspectorate would provide—a position that was also supported by the Victims’ Commissioner.
In conclusion, the Government have approached this issue in the wrong way, pushing unworkable measures, opposed by those working in the legal sector who have to deliver the reforms, and eroding the safeguards that protect those who come into contact with the criminal justice system, be it defendants or victims. The Bill before us today makes dangerous changes that will have little effect on the backlog. That is why the Liberal Democrats will be unable to support the Bill, which is unfortunate especially given the good clauses at the end of the Bill that deal with the serious issues around presumption.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
When I first put on my barrister’s robes and horse hair wig nearly 20 years ago, victims and defendants were not commonly waiting years for trial, victims of rape and serious sexual assault were not having their cases adjourned at the last minute multiple times, and it was not common to see significant numbers of defendants in the magistrates courts facing custodial sentences without lawyers and representing themselves.
Years of austerity, court closures, pandemic pressures, court sitting day limits and increasingly complex evidence have driven the Crown court backlog to 80,000 cases. Removing the limits on court sitting days has not been enough. The backlog is still going up and our criminal justice system remains in crisis. I welcome the fact that this Bill is now back before the House, as further action is needed. I thank the Government for responding last week to the Justice Committee’s June report on the Bill. I welcome Government amendment 3, which directly answers the concerns raised by the Committee and Members across this House regarding the proposed Crown court bench division, where a judge, without a jury, would have decided cases.
The Committee raised a number of other concerns. I will focus on three: the impact of magistrates courts delays, how the question of whether cases stay with the magistrates court or go to the Crown court will be determined, and the impact of the number of people representing themselves in our criminal courts, which is already too high. In order for the backlog in the Crown court to come down in this Parliament, as the Government intend, the reforms are to be brought forward sooner. I want to see rapid action, but we cannot ignore the storm that is gathering in our magistrates courts.
Clause 6 doubles magistrates’ sentencing powers to up to 24 months’ custody, shifting significant caseloads out of the Crown court, but the backlogs in our magistrates courts are already climbing month on month. Even without these reforms, the workload in magistrates courts over the last three years has increased by 65%. The Committee made it clear that without “significant additional support”, our local courts will not be able to cope.
It is positive that the Government are confident that they are on track to meet their target of 21,000 magistrates, taking numbers back to where they were in 2014, and I welcome additional recruitment of trainee legal advisers and district judges. But will that be enough? Will it happen fast enough? Do we even have enough physical courts to cope with demand, when 165 magistrates courts were closed between 2010 and 2020.
Ayoub Khan
Is there not another problem? Even if we had capacity at the magistrates courts, where trials would be taken away from the Crown courts, is not the elephant in the room that we do not have enough lawyers?
Catherine Atkinson
While there are some lawyers on the Benches of this House, there are also many coming through the ranks; we need to ensure that they are going into the criminal justice system, and I am concerned that we are not seeing enough taking that path.
Accelerating reforms means accelerating the strain on our magistrates court, so will the Minister bring forward target dates to match the accelerated timeline? Precisely what capacity will be added to the magistrates court before this wave of work arrives?
Removing the right to elect in either-way offences drives an even bigger wave of work into the magistrates court. I understand the Government’s concern that more and more defendants are electing a jury trial; many are exploiting the Crown court delays and betting that victims and witnesses will tire and pull out. I have spoken to lawyers and judges who share our frustration. However, if the right to elect is removed, the allocation guidelines that the magistrates apply in deciding whether defendants should face a magistrates court or a jury trial should be reviewed.
Jess Brown-Fuller
As the hon. Lady has just turned a page, I am confident that she will go on to the fact that, at the same time, the Government are proposing to remove the automatic right of appeal. If somebody has no legal background and cannot navigate a system that is totally alien to them, they will not know how to follow the process or what legal backing they could have if they had grounds for appeal.
Catherine Atkinson
I am very conscious of the time available for this very important legislation, so I am turning the page to conclude.
To return to where I started, I welcome the Government’s commitment to bringing down the backlog. However, if we sweep the queue away from the steps of the Crown court only to lengthen the line around the block at the local magistrates court, we will not serve that aim, and we will continue to fail victims of crime and defendants alike.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I will be introducing a five-minute time limit after the next speaker.
Sir Geoffrey Cox
I draw your attention, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
It has been a peculiar pleasure to listen to the two speeches made so far by Labour Back Benchers. Both the speech of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) and that of the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), have been treats to listen to, and I feel I can do no better than to say, “Listen to both of them.” However, it would be wrong of me to say that I oppose the Bill in its entirety. The truth is that some of its provisions contain very useful and reasonable directions of travel. Personally, I do not have the profoundest objection to grounds needing to be given for an appeal to the Crown court. I think that would be a reasonable thing to require, provided that the Chairman of the Select Committee’s warnings are heeded and those who have to fill out that appeal are given the opportunity of advice. As has been said, I think by Opposition Members, the problem is that there is a lack of legal advisers in the magistrates court—what we used to call magistrates court clerks.
That brings me to another way in which I should commend the Minister and the Government. The initiative to enhance the resources of the magistrates court can only be a good thing, although I must warn the Minister that the recruitment of more magistrates is something that we looked at years ago, when I sat in the position that she now sits in. It is social and economic factors that are effecting the diminution in the number of those willing and able to put themselves forward for this onerous type of public service, so that diminution is not going to be remediable just by brave words and advertisements. It is going to have to be a sustained campaign, and it will not happen even in the term that she will serve as Minister—long may that continue. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] That was not a wish—it was an observation—but nevertheless, it was heartfelt.
With those cautious commendations given, though, I have to return to the very focus and centre of this Bill. It is a bit like asking us to be grateful to the crocodile who leaves us with our head after it has taken our legs. The reality is that the right of election of trial by jury is at the very heart of the right itself. Since the 17th century, Governments of all colours that have come and gone have continued to respect that as a right, not as a concession or a privilege afforded by the state to a defendant. It is perfectly true that in Scotland it is the court that decides whether or not the defendant should enjoy the right of trial by jury, but in England, it has always been a right—a right given, broadly speaking, to anybody accused of an offence serious enough to warrant more than 12 months’ imprisonment.
For the first time in English legal and political history, a Government have decided to breach that right, and to make the decision reside with the representatives of the state. That places the decision out of the hands of a powerless defendant—some of the most powerless in our society. Some of them may very well be guilty. Many of them may very well be guilty, but the system we have adopted over the centuries does not legislate so much for the guilty, but for the innocent caught up in the system. So many examples in history have shown how the innocent can be caught up in this system, and it is for the innocent that the criminal justice system is ultimately designed. It is designed for their vindication, requiring against them the level, burden and standard of proof that the criminal justice system enforces, with the presumption of innocence.
Sir Geoffrey Cox
Because time is short, I will give way to the hon. Lady, but only she.
Jess Phillips
What the right hon. and learned Member is saying about the system being designed for the innocent is compelling, but the system is absolutely not designed for the person who is absolutely innocent in the system, and that is the victim. No part of the system asks them to elect where the trial might go. No part of the system asks them if they think it should be appealed. The real innocent—the definitely innocent—gets no say.
Sir Geoffrey Cox
That invites a long answer, which I do not have time now to give, but any defendant who appears before a court enjoys the presumption of innocence, and it is upon that basis that any system has to proceed. In England, the right has been accorded to those who enjoy this presumption of innocence to decide where they should be tried. Any abrogation of that right, such as for an offence that carries a sentence of more than 12 months’ imprisonment, removes the power from the individual and hands it to the state. In England—peculiarly in England—it has always been regarded as the right of a defendant. Make no mistake, this is an historic Bill for that reason.
To remove and abrogate the right of a litigant to trial by a jury of their peers has exactly the effect that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East has said. A person of good character, a professional person or an employee in the workplace accused of theft from his employer—all of these would have had the right to say, “No, I wish to have the careful and meticulous process that the Crown court provides, not the swift and summary justice that the magistrates court provides.” That person may suffer for the remaining years of their life the most profound impact upon their history. A Member of this House accused could be tried before the magistrates court, despite the impact and consequences that that might produce. In the magistrates court, the only criteria will be whether it might receive more than two years’ imprisonment. Many such offences would not. That is broadly the criteria that is applied by the magistrates.
If this egregious act is to be taken by this House, I strongly support that the Chairman of the Select Committee’s recommendation be taken on board by the Minister, because unless the magistrates have the express ability to consider whether someone is of good character, whether they have a profession, whether it would mean that they would be disqualified forever from whatever profession they are in, or expelled from their employment—with massive implications for the rest of their life—how can it be fair or proper to impose upon that person a system of summary justice that cannot, at its heart, achieve the levels of fairness of a Crown court trial? That is not only because legal aid is available in the Crown court, but because of the forensic scrutiny that the allegation is placed under. The automatic right of appeal has always been provided in the magistrates court, even where the sentence would be less than 12 months, because it has always been acknowledged that the kind of justice distributed in the magistrates court is necessarily swift and necessarily summary.
There are not provisions for the disclosure of unused material in the magistrates court. What is to be done about those, if offences are now going to be tried that might carry a two-year imprisonment? None of these things have yet been thought through within this Bill. There has simply been a transference from the Crown court to the magistrates court, in breach of a provision and a right that has been respected in this country for 300 years.
I therefore say that Members should listen to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East and to the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Derby North. They spoke the milk of human wisdom, and I suspect the fact that it came from them is not wholly unrelated to the fact that each of them have years of experience in professional practice in the courts. Heed them.
I urge the Minister—even if she is to take the step that I profoundly oppose and regard as an historic mistake: the abrogation and dilution of the right to trial by jury, making it, in fact, no longer a right but a concession made by the state to the individual—to listen, please, to the comments, the recommendations and the warnings given by those on her own side. For someone of good character to come before a court for the first time, facing a two-year sentence of imprisonment, and for the magistrate to be unable to consider such a factor would, in many cases, constitute the profoundest injustice. The risk is that over the coming years there will be all the appalling, wearisome, grievous experiences of realising that injustice has actually been done, although the whole system that we have devised over the centuries was designed to avoid that at all costs.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
I come to this debate with experience. I spent 15 years as a prosecutor, and during that time I was designated a sexual abuse prosecutor, which meant that I dealt with a great many cases involving sexual abuse and of course, domestic and other violence. I then defended cases, both in the magistrates court and, obviously, in the Crown court.
I welcome the Government’s decision to get rid of clause 3. I also welcome their decision to introduce a RASSO court, and the money that will ensure that that happens. I am grateful for the fact that the Government have listened. However, the central plank of my argument is that restricting jury trials is assumed to be the panacea that will solve the problem of the backlogs in both the magistrates court and the Crown court, which, with respect, is not the case.
The reasons for those two backlogs are virtually identical. Covid played a massive part, but so did closures in the magistrates court as well as the Crown court. The number of judicial sitting days were cut massively in the Crown court, and there were not enough sittings in the magistrates court because of the record shortage of lay magistrates. The cuts in legal aid for defendants in both the magistrates court and the Crown court have caused problems. Defendants in the Crown court often do not know what they are doing until they have sorted out their finances and can obtain legal advice from lawyers, and many who appear in the magistrates court are not represented.
We must also not forget that the police and other bodies in the criminal justice system have caused delays. Sometimes evidence is not ready when a trial starts. That applies particularly to unused materials and forensic evidence. In many instances pleas have not been discussed, and I know that even now many lawyers who are in court find that on the day of the trial there is a gaping hole in the evidence. That is something that we do not talk about. There is a capacity issue in other parts of the criminal justice system, and that must be dealt with as well. There has also been a problem with the prison services who produce defendants in courts. Defendants are often not produced in time, and that has an impact on trials, which are adjourned to other dates. The backlog is caused by those factors, not by the fact that in the case of either-way offences defendants have been electing for Crown court trials.
I believe that the Government have made a good start. They have spent money on increasing the number of judicial sitting days. However, I ask them to go further, and to provide even more sitting days, open up even more courtrooms in both the magistrates court and the Crown court, and, of course, ensure that there is proper legal provision for everyone. I think that that, along with the other things I have mentioned, will bring the court backlogs down. However, I am concerned about an aspect of the Bill that others have already mentioned.
At present, someone who is convicted in the magistrates court has an automatic right of appeal against conviction and sentence. Most people who appear in the magistrates court are unrepresented. The Bill currently states that such people must make a reasoned argument to the judge to obtain leave to appeal, but there is no way an ordinary lay person will be able to draft complicated legal arguments to justify why a sentence or, especially, a conviction should be considered further. I know that if I had to draft grounds for appeal, it would take me hours and days. I cannot imagine an ordinary person being able to that, because the court would have to say, “Fundamentally, you’re wrong in so many aspects.” Because of that, there will be unfairness in the magistrates court if people are not given their right, and we have heard that 56% of appeals are successful. The system is there for a purpose, and it helps.
Coming back to the RASSO courts, I know that some of my colleagues have talked about victims. Of course we all want to protect victims, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) said—
Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
I want to draw the House’s attention to new clause 22, which I have tabled with the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), my parliamentary neighbour, whose absence from the Government Front Bench is a matter of regret to all of us on the Conservative Benches. I thank both the Lord Chancellor and the shadow Lord Chancellor for engaging with us on these issues. The new clause would restrict immunity from civil suits for police officers in relation to certain conduct in preparation for criminal court proceedings.
I want to draw the House’s attention to a deeply troubling development in our law. Last year the Court of Appeal handed down a judgment that, in my view, risks placing police forces beyond proper accountability for serious wrongdoing committed during the preparation of criminal cases. If left unaddressed, this new legal principle could make it far harder for victims of police misconduct to obtain justice, even where the harm that they have suffered is severe and life-changing. The doctrine has been described as a form of police misconduct immunity. We all know that the rule of law depends on a simple principle: no one is above the law—not politicians, not public officials and not the police.
New clause 22, which I have tabled with the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley, would restore accountability and make it clear that there cannot be one rule for the police and another for everyone else. The issue arises directly from the 2025 Court of Appeal case of the chief constable of Sussex police and the CPS v. XGY. I know that the hon. Lady will refer to the case of XGY if she catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. The victim of the abuse had given her confidential refuge address to the Sussex police, and that address was later disclosed in court, exposing her location to the abuser and forcing her to flee.
The Court of Appeal answered the question by extending what is known as core immunity. Historically, this immunity was narrow but existed to protect witnesses and advocates for what they say and do in court, allowing them to give evidence freely without fear of being sued, but the Court’s judgment went much further. It expanded that protection beyond the courtroom and into the wider process of criminal investigation and prosecution preparation. In practical terms, it means that certain police actions connected to a future prosecution may now be shielded from legal challenge, even where those actions caused significant harm. The Court’s ruling therefore raises serious concerns about whether victims will be able to seek redress when police misconduct, negligence, human rights breaches or serious errors occur. That is why the case of XGY matters far beyond the individual victim involved.
I want to illustrate the practical consequences of the new doctrine, and the human cost, through another case with which I have been closely involved for some years: the case of Ali Kololo. Mr Kololo is a Kenyan forest dweller and woodcutter who was wrongfully convicted in 2013 in connection with the murder of a British tourist and the kidnapping of that tourist’s spouse, Judith Tebbutt. These were grave crimes. At the time, I was the Secretary of State for International Development and was engaged in the Government’s response to the kidnapping through COBRA, but we now know that Ali Kololo was innocent. A Kenyan court has since overturned his conviction, with the evidence showing that he had become a scapegoat in a deeply flawed investigation.
What makes this case particularly troubling is that the Metropolitan police played a significant role in supporting the investigation. The Independent Office for Police Conduct found that a senior Metropolitan police officer had a case to answer for gross misconduct. The investigation concluded that the evidence provided by the officer had the potential to mislead the court, because important forensic information had been omitted. The consequences for Mr Kololo were catastrophic. He spent 11 years in prison, he faced a death sentence, and he endured abuse, illness and separation from his family. He lost years of his life that can never be returned, and although his conviction was eventually quashed and he was released, he has yet to receive redress for the harm he suffered.
Let me be clear: the original principle of witness immunity serves an important purpose—witnesses should be able to give evidence without fear of personal litigation, and our justice system depends on that protection—but extending immunity far beyond the courtroom and into the wider conduct of criminal investigations risks creating an accountability gap.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Clause 17 of the Bill—Jack and Paul’s law—fulfils my constituent Claire Throssell’s promise to her two beautiful boys after they were killed in a house fire set alight by their known domestically abusive father during a court-ordered contact visit. Claire promised her sons that no more children should lose their lives like they did at the hands of an abusive parent. For nearly 12 years, she has campaigned relentlessly to honour that promise. When I first met Claire, I told her that if I was elected, I would do all I could to help her fulfil that promise, so it is a pleasure to have her in the Chamber with us today. I urge Members across the House to support this Bill and ensure that no more children die like Claire’s sons did, and that no more towns like our hometown of Penistone are left to grieve.
Clause 17 will repeal the presumption of parental involvement in the Children Act 1989: our Government putting children’s best interests first and tackling the pro-contact culture that prioritises parental involvement over children’s welfare. This is urgent. Domestic abuse continues to be everyday business in the family courts, featuring in 90% of the cases reviewed by the Domestic Abuse Commissioner in 2025. Being a parent is a privilege, not a right, and when a parent poses a serious risk to a child, the law must act. Conservative Governments had a decade to act after the tragic murder of Claire’s boys and her campaign to change the law.
Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is staggering that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), did not even mention amendment 67, tabled in his name, in his remarks?
Dr Tidball
I do indeed agree with my hon. Friend.
The Tories failed to act while they were in government, despite the fact that it was a Conservative Government who commissioned the harm report published in 2020. The report stated that
“the presumption should not remain in its present form”,
and recommended addressing its “detrimental effects”. It specifically said that
“the courts’ pro-contact culture operates as a barrier to addressing domestic abuse”,
with the presumption reinforcing that culture and children’s voices being “muted or unheard”, leaving children invisible and silenced like those referred to only as Child A or B in serious case reviews. But Conservative Governments did nothing, and the retention of presumption continued to be fatal.
Since Jack and Paul’s murders in 2014, 19 more children—who we know of—have died at the hands of known domestically abusive parents, including Sara Sharif. That makes a total of 68 child homicides since Women’s Aid started researching this issue. Yet today the Conservatives have the audacity to attempt to remove Jack and Paul’s law from this Bill with their amendment 67. They have the audacity to ignore a report their Government commissioned and to table that amendment, after the inaction of no fewer than five Conservative Prime Ministers. I will not stand for it. Claire Throssell, my fearless constituent, will not stand for it. The people of Penistone and Stocksbridge, so many of whom have stood behind Claire and held her up, will not stand for it. I ask this House to show that it will not stand for it either, and to vote to finally repeal the presumption of contact in law, in order to demonstrate that this House believes that every decision that this Government make in the family courts and justice system must prioritise children’s safety, wellbeing and right to grow up free from harm.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
I make my contribution as someone who served as a magistrate for 20 years. I am deeply concerned about increasing magistrates’ sentencing powers to two years of custody. That must be accompanied by rigorous training, because in reality we get good and bad, and experienced and inexperienced, magistrates on magistrates’ benches. For a lay person, removing the liberty of another is one of the biggest decisions that they can make.
I am also concerned about the presumption of suspension of all custodial sentences of up to 12 months. That is what is in the guidelines, but in training, magistrates are being told that there is a presumption of suspension of sentences of up to 18 months. Punishment should not be dumbed down because of insufficient prison places. Furthermore, the Government are leaving the supervision of the requirements of community orders in the hands of the Probation Service. How can those in the Probation Service be qualified to do that, when they are not trained to do that, unlike magistrates? Even more troubling is the fact those in the Probation Service are being given the power to cancel community orders, if they feel that the offender has been sufficiently rehabilitated. This comes at a time when the Probation Service has never been so overwhelmed and underfunded. The policy of the presumptive suspension of sentences, and the removal of magistrates’ powers to decide on community orders, betray justice for victims.
Jess Phillips
There are so many things in the Bill that I could talk about, but I shall start where my friend, the right hon. Member for the royal town of Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell), left off; I am from the royal town of Birmingham Yardley. I want to get Members to understand what we are seeking to change and clarify in law. When we are in this Chamber, we do not get sued for the things we say. I can be held accountable for anything I say—I would not say it on X, because I would not go on it—until I walk into this building. Civil action could be taken against me for work that I did leading up to that point. Let me set out what the judgment that the right hon. Gentleman talked about means. In cases in which the police or the Crown Prosecution Service make mistakes, they should of course have immunity covering all the time that leads up to them entering court, as any witness does; but that that immunity cannot cover them against civil action relating to anything that happened in the case. If I had a pound for every time I have seen terrible mistakes made by police officers or the CPS, I could get rid of your backlog—not your backlog, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the nation’s.
I want to be clear about how dangerous the overreach is that results from the Court’s decision to allow that immunity, and will refer to some cases that caused Front Benchers to change the law. These were legal cases taken by victims of rape, domestic abuse and other forms of sexual violence that have changed the law of our land. They were based on civil actions taken by those victims against the police and the CPS, including by Jade Blue, the survivor of rape who waived her anonymity and brought a claim against the CPS after it made an erroneous decision to discontinue the proceedings against her abuser. As a consequence of Jade’s civil action and campaign, and her successful claim against the CPS, the Government rolled out the early victims’ right to review scheme. That was done on the basis of civil action taken by a rape victim, but this could be threatened by this new overreach in the law, and I hope that the Minister will tell us how she intends to sort this out. If we do not allow victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence—or any victim, or anyone who is treated poorly by the police and the CPS—to take civil action, we in this place are missing an opportunity to make better laws. Frankly, if I can be held accountable, coppers and the CPS should be held accountable, too.
I understand that we are awaiting a Supreme Court judgment, but I would be interested to hear what the Front Benchers can say to allay the fears of victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence all over the country. They fear that if, say, their address was wrongly given out, they would have no recourse to civil action, despite the danger they would be put in.
My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) gave a powerful speech. I worked with Claire Throssell for years. The shadow Minister said that victims groups do not all think the same about the jury part of the Bill; I can tell him that they all think the same thing about the presumption of contact. The fact that the shadow Minister did not even mention that he has tabled an amendment that would genuinely endanger victims of domestic abuse across the country is—I do not know what I am allowed to say—a bit cowardly. He should have stood by his words and argued the case.
As a victim who has been dragged back to court on a completely unmeritorious appeal case by people who stalk me, so that they can get me in another room, I am pleased about the changes in the Bill. In these debates, I often think that this place thinks that the very worst thing that could happen to a person is being accused of rape. I think the worst thing that can happen is to be raped and have no one believe you.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to the fact that I am a member of the Bar of England and Wales, and my wife is an employment judge. Notwithstanding some noble and commendable elements, particularly in clauses 12 to 17, in totality, I am afraid that this is a bad Bill. It was a bad Bill when it came before the House on Second Reading; it was a bad Bill when it left Committee; and without significant refinement, it will be a bad piece of law, should it come on to the statute books.
This is not the Lord Chancellor’s legislation; he inherited it from his predecessor. It is right to welcome his efforts on the amendment that recognises that clause 3 is unsustainable; it would be churlish not to. He has listened to the legal profession, to this House, and most importantly, to the public, who have raised serious and significant concerns. But I am afraid that the measures do not go far enough. If this Bill is the answer, then the exam question is fundamentally wrong. Nowhere can that be seen more clearly than in clause 6. That is why I am very supportive of amendment 7 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), which seeks to remove clause 6.
The clause, as we have heard, merely moves the problem from one part of the system to another. It pushes, on a conservative basis, some 25,000 cases into the magistrates court. About 5,500 of those are likely to be trials—and not necessarily straightforward trials; they may take more than a day or two to be heard. We are asking an under-resourced and ill equipped magistrates court to deal with them. That is not the way to deal with the magistrates court backlog, which, in the last year, increased by more than 9.5%.
Karl Turner
I think I am right in saying that a lay magistrate is required to sit 15 days a year. Very often, magistrates sit for a day at a time; they may do a day every other week. The scenario that the Government are presenting expects a lay magistrate to sit for two or three days in a row, and potentially into a second week. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is unsustainable?
Dr Shastri-Hurst
The hon. Gentleman, as always, has his finger on the pulse on these issues. The Government’s proposals would narrow the pool of magistrates able to deal with these cases, by virtue of the time commitments that would be foisted on them.
I want to spend a little bit of time on clause 4, which deals with complex and lengthy cases. In essence, through new schedule 3ZA to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the clause confines complex and lengthy cases to fraud or fraud-aligned cases. However, importantly, there is a provision that the Secretary of State can increase the number of offences captured in this provision. The danger is that there will be a slow accretion of such offences. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that misconduct in public office could be added to that list. The provision fails to recognise the very important work done by Jonathan Fisher KC in his independent review. He pointed out that these cases are not held up because of a jury; under the Bill, they would be delayed, because a judge would have to weigh up the evidence, and reach and write up a judgment. The provision also fundamentally undermines the point that facts of dishonesty—the offences in the schedule are offences around dishonesty—are matters for judgment by the ordinary citizen. Removing the jury element risks the erosion of civic ownership of these cases by the criminal justice system, and the criminal justice system’s engagement with them.
The provision would also have a chilling effect, in that the powerful narrative can be developed that these cases are being heard behind closed doors. This stems from a single case from 2005, the Jubilee line case. When the case was reviewed, the very sensible conclusion was reached that the issue came down to poor strategy by the CPS in processing the case; the issue was not jury trials themselves. Amendment 4 from my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle is therefore eminently sensible.
If the House is not with me on that, there is an alternative. Amendment 52 by the shadow Justice Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), seeks to limit the scope of this provision to trials where all the offences that a defendant is charged with are captured by new schedule 3ZA. That seems eminently sensible in the circumstances.
I want to mention the rule of law. If the rule of law is to be taken into account, we must have an impartial system of adjudication. That means having a fair hearing, which in turn means having the ability to challenge. Therefore, amendment 54 must be right. It must be right that in complex or lengthy cases, a defendant has an opportunity to challenge the decision that the case will be heard by a judge sitting alone.
I want to spend a few moments on new clause 25. When this Bill was brought before the House, the narrative that we heard from Government repeatedly was that it was being introduced so that we could deal with a backlog in the Crown court. It appears from the Minister’s remarks—she knows that I have enormous respect for her—that it is more of an ideological argument. The question today is whether hon. Members want to do this to deal with a backlog—a specific problem—in which case a sunset clause would be eminently sensible, or whether they are making an ideological argument, which I think is much more chilling on our society.
Kirith Entwistle
I speak today as a victim of domestic abuse who has found going through the court system especially triggering and on behalf of constituents who have shared their harrowing experiences with me. One wrote to me and said that
“the system still allows a father to weaponise the child, to throw accusations whilst protecting his position, while none of the issues I raised got any acknowledgement.”
Another felt that
“the process itself has repeatedly failed to meet the standards expected of our justice and child protection systems.”
I start with new clause 6, on victim-led intensive case management, which I stress is an issue across all courts. Recent experience of the courts shows that special measures are still not being properly implemented. The lack of a common-sense approach to communication is still a problem in 2026, when great technological advances have been made.
I commend the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) on her many amendments that seek to improve experiences for victims, such as new clauses 7 to 9 on judicial training. I stress that all members of the judiciary should always have access to training. In fact, they should have to hear at first hand from victim-survivors about their experiences as part of that training. It does not matter how many times somebody tells me that they understand what I am going through or acknowledge what I have been through—they really cannot unless they have lived it themselves or they know somebody who has.
The phrase “trauma-informed” is incredibly powerful and crucial. Such training should always be trauma-informed. That brings me to new clause 13 and the duty to provide trauma-informed training, which needs to include looking at how we communicate what will happen in court with victims, as well as the impact those proceedings will have on victims.
There are severe issues with diversity and representation across all levels of the judiciary. I would be interested to hear more about what our Government are doing to ensure better representation.
New clause 16 is about remote participation. As someone who has recently been through that as a victim, I believe that we must include an assessment of the special measures involved and whether they are adequately communicated to victims. In my case, they were not. I recently experienced an online hearing in which I had my perpetrator staring at me the entire time. I was not able to blur the background on my screen and I was not able to hide his face. The hearing was adjourned because the relevant documents did not reach the right parties on time, despite the fact that email exists and has done for some time.
Jess Brown-Fuller
I thank the hon. Member for her bravery in sharing her powerful story and for highlighting how special measures do not work if people do not know that they available to them. During the Bill Committee, I argued that special measures should be there as standard, with people having the ability to choose to remove them to face their perpetrator in court. Does she agree that we could easily roll that out across all our courts so that every victim would be protected from the moment they arrived?
Kirith Entwistle
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I agree that we should look for that to be the standard measure. I did ask for special measures, but when I turned up at court they were not implemented, so I had to walk past my perpetrator before going into the courtroom. That is what I experienced as a Member of Parliament. I dread to think—although I do know—what some of my constituents are experiencing.
On new clause 24, I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) for ensuring that children’s voices and views are enshrined in the family courts. I know that representatives of Women’s Aid are here, as is the formidable Claire Throssell. I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) on her tireless efforts in making that happen; she is incredible. The pro-contact culture embedded in the court system puts too many children at unnecessary risk. I am really pleased to see that the Government are removing that.
I am also pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) addressing, in the form of amendment 22, the issue of post-separation abuse, which the courts have facilitated. I thank him for being a strong ally and for standing up for his constituents. He and I have both experienced a deluge of constituents contacting us about the abuse that they face and their experiences of the court system. It is always good to have his support.
I am grateful that the Government are taking steps to go further for victims by introducing the victims helpline, addressing the issue of the automatic right to appeal so that victims are not retraumatised, and establishing specialist RASSO courts. However, I want to put on record my experiences as a victim and those of my constituents to ensure that the system truly supports all victims and ensures that they are genuinely heard and properly communicated with, that they know what their rights are and what is available to them, and that we are all shielded from further triggering and traumatic experiences involving our abusers.
I am fed up of people and institutions telling me that they understand and then taking action that tells me they do not. I am fed up of being told that they are familiar with domestic abuse or coercive control and then telling me that it does not matter. I am fed up of feeling ignored and dismissed, and so are my constituents. Our justice system exists to protect victims, not to enable perpetrators. We should always remember that.
We still allow our perceptions about how good a person looks on paper to cloud our judgments. Perpetrators walk among us: they are police officers; they are teachers; they are fathers; they are mothers. They are here in every aspect of our daily lives, and we cannot judge somebody because of how good they look on paper and give them the benefit of the doubt because of that. We have to look at the facts, we have to ensure that victims are heard and, crucially, we need to make sure that their voices are put at the heart of every decision that we make and that they are properly and adequately supported at every single step of the way.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With an immediate three-minute time limit, I call Sir Ashley Fox.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
I start by expressing my relief that the Government are removing clause 3 from the Bill. I congratulate the Lord Chancellor on performing that U-turn so swiftly upon taking office.
In earlier debates, the Courts Minister said that curtailing the right to a jury trial was a good thing in any event and that she would go ahead with the change even if there were not a court backlog. What caused her to change her mind? Perhaps it was the change of Prime Minister. The Minister is a skilled orator. I am quite sure that she will manage to persuade the Lord Chancellor that she meant something completely different and always supported his position, and her rise through the ranks of Government will continue. We on the Conservative Benches wish her well.
The Crown court backlog is a serious challenge, and both victims and defendants deserve timely justice. Throughout the debate, Ministers have struggled to demonstrate that curtailing jury trials would meaningfully solve the problem. I still have concerns about clauses 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7, which serve to add restrictions to jury trials and transfer more power to magistrates courts. That is why I support new clause 25, tabled by the shadow Justice Secretary, which seeks to put a sunset clause in the Bill. That would see the remaining restrictions on jury trials proposed by the Government end when the backlog is reduced to its pre-covid level.
I urge the Government to be cautious about the expansion of the powers of magistrates. The evidence is not clear that that will result in a reduction of the backlog. Where is the assurance that increased jurisdiction will not simply create new delays in different courts? Thousands of additional magistrates will be required in the coming years, yet previous recruitment efforts have failed. What will be different this time? The Justice Committee described the targets as “unrealistic”. Perhaps the Minister should consult her new Solicitor General and ask what his views are on the subject.
The Government still intend to remove the right to a jury trial for those charged with an either-way offence. I oppose that and support amendment 1, tabled by the shadow Justice Secretary. This matter poses a particularly grave threat to those who would face professional ruin if they were convicted of an offence of dishonesty. Solicitors, barristers and Members of Parliament, for example, would all have their careers destroyed were they convicted of theft, which is an either-way offence. That is why I support the sentiments in amendment 47 tabled by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) and amendment 69 tabled by the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson). I appreciate that we will not vote on those amendments tonight, but I hope that Members of the House of Lords will look at the issue again when they consider the Bill.
Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)
I want to raise three issues. Having been a magistrate for 20 years, I think that one of the things that has led to the problems has been the closure of so many courts across the estate. The potential to reopen some of those sites should be in the mix to get the magistrates courts up and running.
On the right to elect a court, I was opposed to clause 3, as the Minister will know, but the right to elect a court was not a red line for me, because it does not happen in Scotland, and I do not see its constitutional skies falling in upon its system.
I would like to see some changes in the victim contact scheme. At the moment, the scheme does not allow victims to be advised of whether an offender has changed their name or their appearance. That information is not routinely shared with victims because it is considered to be sensitive personal data, and there is a presumption that it will not be disclosed unless there is lawful reason to do so. Let us take the example of the Haselip family. In 2003, Mick Haselip was violently murdered in his home in Corby. Rikki Stewart was convicted of the murder and received a mandatory life sentence. When he was released in July 2024, he changed his name to Rory Wilson. Nobody informed the family of that, and they were absolutely unaware that he had changed his name. They say:
“This omission has undermined our ability to understand his movements, monitor our own safety and engage meaningfully with the Victim Contact Scheme.”
In 1986, Adam Stein murdered six-year-old Collette Gallacher. He has changed his appearance and name multiple times, and Collette’s younger sisters, Lauren and Claire, fear for their own safety if he is ever granted parole again. They do not know what he looks like. They do not know what his name is. The family are not aware. These people are living in plain sight, and this is a loophole that we need to close. We need to change the presumption that this information will not be disclosed to a presumption that it will be, so that families know what is happening.
To put the shoe on the other foot, Izzy was murdered by her husband as their two young daughters slept in the room next door. Izzy’s mum, Helena Sharrott, was granted a special guardianship order and there is a request to change the children’s names, but they have been told no because the father, who murdered their mother, has a say in it. That is wrong; it is unjust, and we need to change it.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Clause 17 would repeal the presumption of parental involvement contained in section 1(2A) of the Children Act 1989. That presumption currently provides that unless the contrary is shown, the involvement of each parent in the life of the child will further the child’s welfare. Amendment 67, tabled in the name of my hon. Friends the Members for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) and for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), would keep the presumption that parental involvement is beneficial for the welfare of the child. It is my belief that our legal system should reflect the fact that in most cases, a child benefits from having both parents involved in their life. Clause 17 would do the opposite. It sends a serious social signal that the active involvement of both parents is no longer our expected starting point when considering a child’s welfare.
Dr Tidball
Does the hon. Member not agree with the harm report commissioned by her party in government, which found, on the basis of the evidence, that this presumption creates a pro-contact culture, meaning that the voices of children are hidden and unheard? The evidence from Women’s Aid demonstrates that 68 children have lost their lives because of the presumption.
Rebecca Smith
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention and for her powerful speech earlier. Ultimately, the impact assessment for this Bill says that there would be no impact, but I believe that the impact on families more broadly is not worth the change.
Dr Mullan
As my hon. Friend points out, the impact assessment says that this particular measure, on its own, will not make any difference to the harm done to children, but we absolutely recognise that the checklist as a whole, and the way that it works, does need to be reformed. We think a more wholesale reform of the checklist is more appropriate than just attracting interest in one particular element of it.
Rebecca Smith
Exactly. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.
My concern is that, in some cases, clause 17 will increase the state’s power to erase one parent from a child’s life, and we know that that is often their father. It will rebalance the relationship between parents and the state.
Rebecca Smith
No, I have already given way twice. I will not get any more time. I am very sorry.
We must avoid a situation in which the law views children as the state’s ultimate responsibility while parents must justify their involvement on a case-by-case basis. We must also avoid anything that presumes that the state makes a better parent than the actual parents themselves. Of course, the state should intervene when a child is at risk, but our default position should be that, wherever it is safe and appropriate, children benefit from the love and guidance of both their parents. The state should step in only when there is clear evidence that it should do so, and we do not reject that point. If we remove this principle from the law, we take another step towards a system in which parental involvement becomes discretionary and the state’s role becomes paramount. That is not a healthy direction for family justice.
I recognise, of course, that this is a sensitive issue for survivors of domestic abuse. To be clear, there is no absolute right to contact under existing law. Courts already have the power to restrict unsafe contact. The presumption of parental involvement is already qualified by risk of harm to the child, so why do we need this clause at all? Surely we in this House should be ensuring that current safeguards work properly instead.
As I said in a recent debate on fathers and male role models,
“There is a widespread perception that family courts make it difficult for fathers to maintain a meaningful relationship with their children.”—[Official Report, 10 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 450WH.]
One possible solution is a child-centred parental relationship test. The test would direct courts to consider the quality and sustainability of the child’s relationship with each parent. It would help courts to distinguish between safe and harmful contact.
As things stand, there is a real risk that clause 17 will weaken, not strengthen, children’s relationships with safe parents without addressing the current failures that leave children exposed to their unsafe ones. Fundamentally, parental involvement is a relationship recognised by the state, not a privilege granted by the state. Both parents matter, and we should not be afraid to say so.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
I will focus my remarks on clause 17 and the presumption of contact. My involvement in this issue started with a letter from a constituent—a mother trying to protect her child from an abusive ex-partner. In such cases, the court can play a role in retraumatising people, and can even be a tool of the abuse.
Since I first spoke out about this matter, I have heard from countless victims. I say to them: thank you for telling your story, sorry that the justice system has failed you for so long, we will make progress, and we will not allow the Opposition to ignore your lived experience and the hard evidence that has been given to us by people who work on the frontline. I pay tribute to Claire Throssell, who is in the Gallery today. Her boys, Jack and Paul, were killed by her abusive ex-partner in horrific circumstances. No mother should have had to have shown the strength that Claire has shown, but she has changed the law and saved lives. I will vote today to make sure that the Opposition do not block that legacy.
The presumption of parental involvement is so damaging because it has allowed abuse to continue through the courts. The safety of children must always be the top priority. Over the past 30 years, 68 children have died because the presumption of involvement was applied when it never should have been—68 children who should have grown up, but whose lives were taken from them. I am proud that this Bill will ensure that that terrible number never rises again.
Changing the law must only be the start. Judges, magistrates and Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service operators work within the pro-contact culture that has been set by the laws we have at the moment. The Judicial College must take that on board. In the almost two years I have been working on this, the worst opinion I have heard came from a family magistrate, who told me about his friend’s experience of the parental alienation myth—ignoring the evidence, and letting his anecdotes override it.
Survivors in Calder Valley tell me that they fear not being believed, being blamed or being pushed into unsafe arrangements. They fear the drive to drop off their children with an abusive ex-partner. They fear the agonising wait for their children to be returned to them safe. For too long, the judicial system has felt unreliable, as a deeply traumatic tool of abusers. This Government have committed to halving violence against women. This change is a step towards that. There is more to come, but our courts must put victims and children at the centre of the decisions.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I will be starting wind-ups at 5.52 pm, so for the last two minutes, I call Sarah Russell.
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
I draw attention to my declaration of interests: I am a solicitor. I continue to have two concerns about the Bill as drafted, and I am very grateful to the Government for changing their position on clause 3. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron), who said that the right to elect is being abused and probably is not critical, but there are two things that are.
First, I support amendment 70 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) on the importance of the extension of legal aid in the magistrates court. As solicitors, we have a saying: the lawyer who represents themselves has a fool for a client. As solicitors, we do not attempt to represent ourselves, even in our areas of interest—I have given employment law advice to an employment lawyer. Yet we expect lay people to go into the magistrates court with sentencing powers of now up to two years with no legal advice and representation. When the Justice Committee asked what evaluation had been made of the impact on unrepresented litigants in person on the Crown court backlog, the answer from the MOJ was that no evaluation had been done. I feel strongly that we need to look at that as one of the causes of delay.
The second matter I want to draw attention to is that sentences under the unduly lenient sentence scheme only apply in the Crown court. When we double the magistrates courts’ potential sentencing powers to two years, we will take very large numbers of offences out of the purview of the unduly lenient sentence scheme overnight. Fear of domestic violence, stalking involving fear of violence, coercive and controlling behaviour, and many first-time sexual offences will be likely to attract sentences of less than two years. They will be heard in the magistrates court, and if those sentences are unduly lenient, there will be nothing that we can do about it.
Sarah Sackman
We live in an era of problem solving, not point scoring. Indeed, as the Courts Minister, that has always been my focus. There is no bigger challenge in my portfolio than the unacceptable—indeed, intolerable—delays in our criminal courts, and that has always been the approach. To do politics is ultimately to make choices, and the choices we have made as a Government are around the action that is needed to reform, invest in and modernise our criminal justice system, so that it is fit for purpose.
I always enjoy the oratory of the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox)—I am sorry that he is not here—who talked about our ancient rights. Magna Carta is absolutely clear:
“to no one will we deny or delay right or justice.”
That is a recognition that timeliness is an essential ingredient of the thing that the state must guarantee: a fair trial. A trial that arrives for a victim today in 2029 or 2030 is not fair on the victim or defendant alike.
It was said that we should try to invest. Well, we have done that. We have lifted the cap on sitting days and made record investment in legal aid and in our court estate. It was said that we should look at the Liverpool model, and I have been to Liverpool; it is indeed an excellent model, and we are entrenching many of those practices in the new national listing framework in the introduction of case progression officers. It was said that we should make prison vans run on time, and we are pulling out the stops to do just that, asking local authorities, Transport for London and others to open up bus lanes, while ensuring that PECS actually does its job. Those on the Opposition Benches say, “Nightingale courts” and “Let’s work longer days,” but they do not recognise the fact that the court day does not start at 10 am or 10.30 am. As we know, judges and barristers are working around the clock and around the court day to prepare cases and get the show on the road. We cannot ignore the conclusion of the independent review of the criminal courts: there is no single solution. There needs to be investment and modernisation—and we are doing both those things—but there also needs to be structural reform.
I thank Members across the House for their valuable contributions, which have raised some really important themes that I want to address. The first is the impact that these changes will have on our magistrates courts, which was raised by the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst), my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor), who talked so credibly about the contribution of her father as a magistrate. Those who act as magistrates and volunteer their time do an incredible job. They bring local voices—lay voices—into our justice system, which is incredibly precious.
It is right that we are challenged and held accountable for whether we are increasing capacity in the magistrates courts to absorb the additional work, and indeed we are. Whether it is our recruitment drive for 21,000 magistrates—not an unrealistic one, as the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) put to me, but a credible one to get back to where we were as recently as 2014, and I am pleased to report to the House that we are on track—or the recruitment of an additional 166 legal advisers since April 2025 and an additional 100 district judges, that is what I mean when I say we are rebuilding our justice system from the bottom up. The impact on the magistrates courts is important, and we are increasing capacity.
The hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) made a really good point about training. The Judicial College is working overtime to ensure that magistrates and district judges alike are trained, so that they are able to exercise the sentencing powers that this Bill will give them.
The second excellent point that was made was about allocation and whether trials should be heard in the magistrates court or the Crown court. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) and I have had our differences in the course of this debate, but I have always respected his voice, and I have always listened. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby North made a similar point about the allocation process. Let me be clear: the exercise that we are committing to in this Bill is the same that has always existed in primary legislation, whereby the court will look at allocation guidelines published by the Sentencing Council. Sentencing and likely sentence is a relevant factor, but so too is hearing representations from both sides—the prosecution and the defence, the prosecution being able to bring in the victim’s perspective—on not just the likely sentence but the seriousness and complexity of the case at hand. Given the procedural, legal and factual complexity and any aggravating factors, that holistic exercise will determine where a case should be heard, so that the determining factor is the seriousness of the case, rather than the identity of the defendant.
The next point that was forcefully and well made by the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), my hon. Friends the Members for Derby North and for Congleton (Sarah Russell) and others was in relation to legal aid, and new clauses 18 and 70. There is no greater champion of access to justice and the importance of legal aid than this Government and myself. I am a powerful advocate for legal aid, not least because I saw at first hand—when I was in practice, before coming to this place—the vital role it plays in our justice system. That is precisely why one of the first steps that I took as a Minister was to invest in our criminal legal aid system, with £116 million for criminal solicitors and an additional £34 million for criminal legal aid advocates. That investment is important, but it will not go all the way, and I recognise that. That is why we need to review the support that we give to unrepresented defendants in our magistrates courts or, indeed, in the Crown court in the rare cases where that arises. As I said in our response to the Leveson review, we will look again at those thresholds once these reforms have been embedded.
I am sorry that I have to be very brief, but I want to address new clause 22 in relation to police accountability. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) will be aware—as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips) will be—that there is currently a case before the Supreme Court relating to this matter, so he will understand that the Government have to carefully consider the outcome of that before giving a full response to the issue raised around police accountability.
I want to conclude by returning to what I said about the removal of the right to elect. This Bill is designed to bring down the backlog and to deliver timely justice, but it is also about building a better and fairer system—one in which the court triages cases, not the defendant. That is about redressing the balance of power between defendant and victim. It is also about making improvements to open justice by enhancing transparency and expanding the use of transcripts; improving the laws of evidence; and improving training for our court staff and judiciary by having trauma-informed training, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) implored us to do.
To govern is to choose. We are making that choice. In the Courts and Tribunals Bill, we will deliver not only timely justice but a fairer justice system that puts what has been the pride of the world—the English and Welsh justice system—back on its feet.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 23 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Norris)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Before I turn to the substance of this important Bill, let me recognise those who have helped bring it to this stage: those who have sat in the Chair, both in this Chamber and in Committee; the excellent Clerks of the House, who serve us so well; the Whips on all sides; the hon. and right hon. Members who served in Committee with such vigour; the Minister for Courts; my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy); Members from across the House for their contributions to debate on the Bill, today and at previous stages, especially those who shared their or their constituents’ experiences; and those legal professionals from outside who have engaged with us.
I give specific recognition to the artist formerly known as Sir Brian Leveson for his landmark review. During this process, he has been elevated to the other place, where he is the noble Lord Leveson of Liverpool. What a public servant he is, and what work he did in his review! I recognise his efforts, in this area and in many other aspects of British life. It is a real pleasure to work with him, and we are grateful for his work, which underpins the Bill. Crucially, I recognise the victims and survivors who have shaped the reforms, including those who join us today in the Public Gallery. They should be proud of what they have done. I know that they bring forward their stories at a cost to themselves, in order to make change, and we are very lucky that they do so.
The Bill has victims at its heart. Its purpose is urgent and long overdue: to ensure that justice in this country is fast and fair, because victims today face intolerable delays. People suffer appalling crimes; they summon extraordinary courage to come forward; they relive their most traumatic experiences; and they put their trust in the system, and hope that justice will be done. What happens next is that they wait, and wait, and wait. Trials are pushed back. Cases drift further into the future, and there are years of anxiety before a trial can even begin, while confidence in the system drains away. All too often, victims give up because the process is unbearable.
As the Minister for Courts said—and as the age-old maxim goes—justice delayed is justice denied. This Government cannot and will not accept that. The Bill grips a problem that the previous Government simply would not. It tackles the record and rising Crown court backlog that we inherited, which now sits at nearly 81,000 cases—more than double the level in 2019. I am afraid that is testament to the Conservative party’s record in government, and their failure to grasp the nettle and tackle the reform needed to wrestle our criminal justice system back on track. Again, today we have seen the Conservatives simply deny the reality; they refuse to be reconciled with their record.
Our modelling shows exactly where this trajectory leads, if things are left unchecked: to even deeper delays, collapsing confidence, and a justice system that cannot fulfil its most basic promise, which is that justice will be done swiftly and fairly. This Government will not normalise that delay and allow victims, witnesses and defendants to bear the burden of a system under strain. We cannot continue to try to meet 21st-century pressures with a 20th-century model.
On Report and throughout this process, we have heard colleagues call for greater investment. They are right, and we are investing at record levels. There are unlimited sitting days for our criminal courts.
Others have called for modernisation. They are right to do so, and we are modernising. Through greater use of technology and AI to maximise our capacity, we can speed up justice and ensure that our system responds to the changing nature of crime, which has meant massive increases in digital evidence and demands on court time. But investment alone will not solve the crisis, nor will modernisation. As the noble Lord Leveson of Liverpool made clear, and as all the evidence shows, only when we have structural reform in the form of pragmatic changes can we really begin to turn the tide on the backlog. That is what this Bill will deliver.
I make no apology for looking again at this proposal— I myself as the new Lord Chancellor and my right hon. Friend as the new Prime Minister. Of course we looked again at some of the measures in the Bill. We listened to the strength of feeling from across the House and the legal sector, and we have made changes that mean that now almost all defendants facing trial in the Crown court will continue to be tried by a jury.
The Bill is not solely about bringing down the backlog. It is about making the system work better. I am proud that through other legislation alongside this Bill we have already been able to bring forward measures to improve victims’ experiences of court, with new specialist courts for survivors of rape and sexual offences. I want to recognise, as other colleagues did, the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) at previous stages of the legislation to bring us to this point.
The Bill goes further in supporting that wider effort and challenging the damaging myths that have so often silenced rape victims. It makes it easier for victims to access special measures in order to give their best and proper evidence. Crucially, in the family courts it will finally repeal the presumption of parental involvement. The safety of children must always come first. I recognise the incredible efforts of Claire Throssell to bring this change forward and make it a reality today. It has come at extraordinary cost. I hope that this is a day of pride at what is a significant step forward.
Much of the debate around this Bill has invoked tradition, but the history of our justice system has never been a history of standing still. It has always been a history of adaptation and institutions evolving to meet the demands of a changing society and a changing age. This Bill represents those timeless values applied in a modern context. We are acting to put the interests of the British people first, because the status quo, which would take our courts to a point of no return, which continues to deny fast and fair justice to those who need it, and which damages public confidence and consent, is simply unacceptable to us.
The Government are the only ones with the courage to address the challenges we face head-on, and we have heard that in debates at all stages of the Bill. We are pulling every lever within our power to rebuild a court system capable of delivering justice fairly, swiftly and sustainably. With this Bill, we choose that path, because the cost of doing nothing is simply too high. I commend the Bill to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Time and again, for more than a year now, Ministers have come to the Dispatch Box and told the House that their attack on jury trials was essential to making the courts work efficiently. Time and again we told them that they were wrong, and so did more than 100 of their colleagues on the Government Benches. We said that the right to a trial by jury is an ancient English right—a vital part of our national inheritance and a necessary safeguard against the might of the state.
Ministers ignored us and said that we did not understand. They briefed against their colleagues and, in the case of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), they smeared him disgracefully. Now they admit that they were wrong and we were right. All those Ministers and Labour MPs who stuck to the Government line in the face of all the evidence should reflect on the limits of blind party allegiance and following the instructions of their Whips. It makes them look very foolish today.
I remind the Courts Minister in particular of our exchange in the House in June. When I told her that the incoming leader of the Labour party, now the Prime Minister, was going to scrap her prized policy, she told the House that I misunderstood his position. She said that the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) did not in fact oppose their assault on jury trials. Yet here they are, with their policy largely abandoned, and her authority as Courts Minister lies in pieces.
Like Monty Python’s Black Knight, the Courts Minister declared in June, “I move for no man.” As her policy lost one limb, she insisted it was but a scratch. As it lost another, she claimed it was just a flesh wound. Now that the Bill is left completely dismembered, she has gone from insisting, “I am invincible,” to finally saying, “All right, we’ll call it a draw.” But it is not a draw; it is a very serious defeat, and it is a victory for our constitutional settlement, our rights under the Crown and the sacred principle that no one shall be convicted and deprived of their liberty except by a jury of their peers.
This was a battle that should never have been fought. In the last year, 17,601 sitting days were lost because Crown courtrooms sat empty. On average, about 16% of Crown courts are not sitting on any given day. We have repeatedly called on the Government to get the courts sitting throughout the year. That is how they should cut backlogs, not by attacking juries.
I said that the attack on juries had been largely abandoned, but the Government have not completely given up. There remain serious problems with the Bill, which will remove the right of defendants to elect a jury in either-way cases and increase the sentencing power of magistrates courts so that more cases are heard there. However, the magistrates backlog has reached 380,000 open cases—a 9% increase on the previous year. The Government have not told us what additional resources will be given to magistrates to manage the increase in workload, nor what new safeguards will ensure justice. Indeed, there has been no assessment of the likely effect of the change on appeal rates. We know that of appeals against verdicts given by magistrates, up to 56% are allowed.
The Bill will also remove juries from what it calls complex and lengthy trials, which are normally said to be cases involving fraud. The independent reviewer of fraud, Jonathan Fisher KC, concluded that there was no justification for the change. But clause 4 does not only concern fraud trials; the Government seek to extend the scope of judge-only trials to other complex cases in later years by secondary legislation. That would give them the power to resume their attack on jury trials without proper scrutiny or debate. The proposal is a disgrace and we reject it emphatically.
The Bill as amended will also establish a review of the court system with a specific remit to consider inequality of outcome based on racial identity. Once again, the Labour party is trying to engineer judicial outcomes based on identity rather than treating us all as free individuals accountable before the law. The Opposition will resist that and stand for the principle that it is only our actions that matter, not who and what we are.
Opposition Members are committed to the ancient right to trial by jury, but while the principle of jury trials is sacrosanct, there is increasing evidence from recent cases that juries may, in some examples, have been compromised by the political or religious bias of some jury members. We have seen the acquittal of violent thugs, including the man who smashed a female police officer’s spine apparently because he was a member of Palestine Action. We have seen vandals from Just Stop Oil found not guilty despite clear evidence of their guilt.
Many in the legal profession are concerned that this is an increasing trend in courts across the country. If those who break our laws walk free because jurors feel kinship towards them or because the cause for which the defendant committed a crime is just, justice is no longer blind. That flies in the face of the rule of law. It must be stopped.
Jess Brown-Fuller
The hon. Gentleman mentioned that many in the legal profession are sounding the alarm about the perceived bias of juries. Will he please state which legal organisations have expressed that view to him?
Nick Timothy
Had the hon. Lady listened, she would have heard that I said individual barristers—I did not say organisations. [Hon. Members: “Ah!”] The Justice Secretary and others ought to listen to those professionals who experience the justice system every day.
The Government’s handling of the Bill has been a shambles from start to finish. It still contains dangerous provisions that limit the right to elect and to appeal, and that allow Ministers to attack jury trials by secondary legislation and put more cases through the magistrates court. We will vote to reject the Bill to preserve equality before the law and the right to a fair trial.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over Extension)
Tuesday 13th October 2026
(1 day, 21 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland Troubles Bill 2024-26 View all Northern Ireland Troubles Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Notices of Amendments as at 13 October 2026 - large print - (13 Oct 2026)
20:38 - The House divided: - Ayes: 304 / Noes: 179 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I remind the House that this is a procedural motion. I encourage Members to focus their remarks on the issue of the carry-over extension. I remind the House that Mr Speaker granted an ongoing waiver to allow limited reference to active legal proceedings relating to historical troubles-related deaths.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chris Bryant)
I beg to move,
That the period on the expiry of which proceedings on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill shall lapse in pursuance of paragraph (13) of Standing Order No. 80A shall be extended by 198 days until 29 April 2027.
This is a short motion, but it stands for a lot. Strictly speaking, all it does is allow the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which was introduced a year ago, to continue its passage through Parliament, but it is actually about far more than that. It is about families who lost loved ones during the troubles, often in the most awful circumstances imaginable: daddies, mammies, brothers, sons and daughters—more than 3,500 of them, 90% of them murdered by paramilitaries. It is about families living for decades with doubts, uncertainty and unacknowledged grief, families desperate for answers about what happened to their loved ones—answers that might help them understand the how, the why and even the who, answers that might help provide some degree of comfort. We will be joined in a few moments in the Gallery by Mo, Pat, Jennifer and Laura, all of whom lost loved ones during the troubles and who have bravely, admirably and heartbreakingly spent years trying to find the truth of what happened. They deserve answers.
Let us not forget that more than 1,000 of those who were killed were members of our security forces, serving under Operation Banner or targeted by the IRA in military barracks and towns across England. Twenty-five per cent of the investigations involve victims from the military. A further 17% relate to victims who were police officers. So I am determined that veterans’ families will get answers, too. The Hillsborough families had to wait far too long, and so too have many families across Northern Ireland and Great Britain. We promised in our manifesto that we would put that right, and that is what we are going to do.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
My cousin was murdered on 10 December 1971. Fifty-five years ago, he was murdered. Alongside him was a man called Daniel McCormick. They were a Protestant and a Roman Catholic, but they both served in uniform. Nobody—in 55 years, this 10 December—has ever been made accountable. The three-man IRA team that killed those two gentlemen on that morning of 10 December ran across the border to sanctuary and safety. With great respect, Secretary of State, you tell me and my family that we can have justice—we do not see justice. We have been waiting 55 years for justice. I don’t believe it, Secretary of State. Can you talk to me honestly, for all the families? I could name many others who have had been murdered over the years. I think of the four UDR men; one person was made accountable, but no one was held accountable for the murders of those four UDR men at Ballydugan some 36 years ago. On behalf of the victims, my family and all the families, we need justice. I want justice for my family and for every one of those victims who served in uniform—RUC men, UDR men, British Army—and who gave their lives for this Province and this country.
Chris Bryant
I pay tribute to the way the hon. Gentleman has presented his case, because it is remarkably similar to what I heard from others this afternoon and what I have heard repeatedly in Northern Ireland. I met one man whose father served and was murdered, and he meets the man who he knows murdered his father every single week in Marks and Spencer. It has not even been acknowledged in any tribunal of any kind. That is why it is so important that we get answers for people. The kind of pain that the hon. Gentleman shows is the kind of pain that exists in so many families, and many of them are families who lost loved ones who served.
I remember going to the RUC memorial garden. It is very, very touching because, for decade after decade, it has the names of RUC officers who were killed, and for decade after decade, it is three or four names, three or four, then six, then eight, and then dozens, dozens and dozens. Many of those families have never had an answer. If there is one thing I feel very strongly after all the communications and conversations I have had with individuals and veterans groups over the last few months, it is that there is not one set of people who are families and another set of people who are veterans; actually, the largest group of families are veterans’ families, and they deserve answers, too.
We went further in our manifesto: we committed to replace the previous Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. Why? Because it was legally flawed, it offered equal immunity to terrorists as to our armed forces, and it did not carry the confidence of communities in Northern Ireland. I pay warm tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), for negotiating the joint framework with the Irish Government, for introducing and working to improve the Bill, and for all he did to repair trust and address the hurt that was caused by the previous legacy Act.
Yesterday, following extensive engagement with bereaved families and veterans associations, I tabled a series of amendments. These can only be considered if we agree the motion tonight. One thing that has been clear in our discussions with veterans is that few ever wanted immunity at all, either for the armed forces alone or for veterans and terrorists. Indeed, many saw the previous Government’s immunity provisions, which were conditional, as implying an equivalence between their actions and the actions of terrorists. We will amend the Bill to bar the commission and coroners from treating the lawful actions of the security services as equivalent to the actions of paramilitaries.
Moreover, because our soldiers operated in a unique operational context during the troubles, and because the use of lethal force was lawful in certain circumstances to prevent harm, we will seek to amend the Bill to ensure that factors such as soldiers’ training, experience and, crucially, the orders they were operating under must be taken into account in any investigation. Those points were made in previous debates by the shadow Secretary of State—the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart)—and my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles (Michael Wheeler), the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) and the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), so I hope the amendments will gain cross-party support.
We have also listened to concerns raised by the right hon. Members for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), the hon. Members for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) and for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) and others over the on-the-run letters. These never provided immunity from prosecution, but we will put in black and white in the Bill that these letters cannot be used to prevent or frustrate potential prosecutions. Where there is evidence of criminal wrongdoing by terrorists, such letters will never act as a barrier to them being convicted. We have also heard the cries for dignity from families who have never even been able to get death certificates. We want to make that easier, and we will give oversight of the commission’s work to His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services, which will improve the efficiency of investigations and thereby the process for victims and families.
There is more we can do if this motion is allowed tonight. The men and women who serve in our armed forces represent the very best of our country. They volunteered to place themselves in harm’s way, accepting significant personal hardship and sacrifice on behalf of this country, as did their families. In return for their service, they are entitled to expect that the state will support them and their loved ones throughout their military careers and, crucially, long after their service has ended. Where a service member has made the ultimate sacrifice, this commitment includes giving their bereaved families the opportunity to establish the circumstances of their loved one’s death, which is what we will create through the legacy commission.
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker), who unfortunately cannot be here today because of a family situation. Since the Bill was introduced, she has fought for the veterans in her constituency and played a key role in bringing about a number of changes to the Bill. Alongside the hon. Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) and my hon. Friends the Members for Swindon North (Will Stone), for South Ribble (Mr Foster) and for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger), she has argued for greater protections for individuals, to prevent an endless cycle of what I call rinse and repeat. We have heard those concerns and brought forward significant amendments to address them. The first is a provision to ensure that no process that has already been undergone can be repeated by the commission or, crucially, by a coroner unless it is essential, which is a very high bar—much higher than in previous legislation; for instance, because there is new information or a new forensic process.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
Could the Secretary of State set out in greater detail for us what the word “essential” will mean in law?
Chris Bryant
As the hon. Member will know, the word used in the legacy Act is “necessary”, which is a much lower bar. “Essential” is traditionally a higher bar, and it is used in lots of legal judgments already. The kind of thing we are talking about is where there is a new forensic process that was not available 30 years ago—for instance, we might be able to examine a fingerprint on a piece of shrapnel much more effectively today than we could previously—or where there is literally a new piece of information, and it is essential to be able to conduct the work of the organisation.
Secondly, there is a new provision that the legacy commission must obtain and review any information it needs from the state itself before it considers whether to request an individual to come as a witness.
Thirdly, there is another new provision that the legacy commission must not request information from a witness unless it has considered whether compelling new evidence exists or the likelihood of a witness being able to provide new information.
Fourthly, the legislation will put the protection from cold calling into law and strengthen the provision for remote attendance, ensuring it applies to all aspects of the commission’s work.
Fifthly, prosecutions in troubles-related cases are rare— I expect them to be rare— but to provide greater assurance and confidence in decisions to prosecute, any future prosecutions of serious troubles-related offences will require the consent of the Attorney General acting quasi-judicially. That will apply regardless of whether the offence relates to state or non-state actors. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who I know was committed to making this change both inside and outside of Government, and who rightly pointed out that there is precedence for this approach and it in no way changes the thresholds required to proceed with the prosecution or the prosectors’ independence in considering the evidence before them.
I have also tabled a number of amendments in relation to the legacy commission’s victims and survivors advisory group, providing clarity that former paramilitaries cannot be appointed to the group and that former service personnel, many of whom are also victims, must be represented.
The legacy Act’s immunity scheme was previously being repealed from statute via a remedial order. To enable Parliament to consider the changes we are making in the round, we will now repeal it through the Bill. This addresses the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, to whom I am grateful.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
May I say how much I appreciated the joint letter that the Secretary of State and the Defence Secretary sent to colleagues, which I think has pacified a lot of our concerns? However, what he is describing is a wholesale filleting of the legislation. Will he comment on why the legislation was initially drafted in this way and apologise to those servicemen, many of whom are now in their 70s, who have been deeply troubled by the fear that they will be a victim of the 3 o’clock knock?
Chris Bryant
I arrived in post a few months ago and I sat down with the Defence Secretary. We looked at some of the amendments that had already been drawn up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South, and we were convinced that we needed to go a little bit further than that. For instance, the amendment in relation to the Attorney General is a new amendment, as is the amendment in relation to compelling new evidence. I really want to proceed as much as I possibly can in a consensual way with Members from across the House. That is why I have provided as many opportunities as possible to take Opposition Members and Members from other political parties through the details of all the amendments.
Sometimes we need time to get our legislation right. One problem was that we had a long period—some of these amendments could have been dealt with several months ago and we might have got to a better place sooner, and then we would not have needed the carry-over motion either. However, there is not much point in crying over spilt milk; it is much better just to try and get the Bill right, which is precisely what I am trying to do.
Importantly, I should say to the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), all of the amendments that we have tabled are wholly consistent with our human rights obligations and the fundamental principle that everyone is equal before the law.
Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and Tavistock) (Con)
What substantive difference does he think the Attorney General’s consent will make to a decision of this kind?
Chris Bryant
Whether this was the right route to go down was obviously a material consideration for us, for all the obvious reasons that other hon. Members may adduce in the debate later on. However, many in the veterans community keenly felt that it would be much better if this decision were not being made just by the prosecuting authorities in Northern Ireland, and that it would be better if it were made here. Obviously the standard prosecutorial question does not change at all—in other words, is there a more than 50% likelihood of getting a successful conviction, and is it in the public interest? The Attorney General will act in a quasi-judicial function, as she is very keen to point out.
I have heard back from large numbers of veterans that this measure provides a degree of confidence and reassurance to those who have been worrying about this issue. For instance, it applies equally to anybody who might be prosecuted for being involved in the M62 bomb or the Guildford pub bombing. I take the point that the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox) makes, but that was one of the things that was asked for. Where possible, I have tried to make the argument as strongly as I possibly can on behalf of veterans to ensure that we get the Bill right.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
Who will make the final decision on who goes on to the commission advisory board? While it is good to know that no paramilitaries will be allowed on that board, can the Secretary of State assure me that members of a political party that supported violence and those paramilitaries—Sinn Féin—will not be allowed on to the board?
Chris Bryant
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point—indeed, he also made it to me yesterday. The Secretary of State makes the decision about who sits on the advisory group, which is a key distinction of the legacy commission. One of the things I have repeatedly heard loud and clear is that this whole process needs to be focused on the families and the victims, and the only way we can secure that is if we have an effective advisory group. The hon. Gentleman is quite right; there should be no one in the group who espouses or has espoused the use of violence. Ensuring that will be one of the Secretary of State’s key responsibilities. The advisory group can have between three and seven members, and we are saying that at least one of them must be a veteran, a former member of the police or one of their representatives, although the number may be more than that.
Co-operation and sharing of records by the Irish authorities may be the key to obtaining information for families about the circumstances in which their loved ones died and who was responsible. That may meet the point that was made earlier.
Chris Bryant
I will, in just one second. That is for the precise reason that sometimes people popped over the border, did the killing and then returned. That is why it is very important that one of the things that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South secured in the agreement with the Irish Government was their full co-operation in this process.
Chris Bryant
I was just going to give way to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I will then give way to other Members, if that is all right.
Jim Shannon
My own family members are very clearly aware of the three IRA murderers who escaped across the border and stayed there; they did not return home. I put it on the record that Gerry McMonagle, who was involved in the murder of Lexie Cummings in Strabane in 1982, not only escaped across the border, but became a mayor and sat on Donegal county council. There is a person who should be held accountable for his actions. He escaped because a wrong notification was made by the police in relation to the summons. He was able to run out of court, get on a motorbike, cross the border and live a new life. There are also the two superintendents who were murdered at the border. There has been collusion from the Garda Síochána and the Government of the Republic of Ireland. There has to be accountability for the people in the Garda Síochána who gave evidence and for the people in government at the time who oversaw it and did nothing about it. There is a big role for the Government of the Republic of Ireland to play, so let us ensure that we keep their feet to the fire and keep the heat on the back of their neck.
Chris Bryant
That is precisely the point I am making. The Irish Government need to step up to the plate and provide answers. Where they fail to do so, we will take issue with them assertively. The key difference that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South made was ensuring that the Irish Government are introducing legislation that will require them to co-operate in this process and, in many cases, provide answers that are essential in relation to the kind of person that the hon. Member for Strangford refers to.
Gavin Robinson
The Garda legacy unit has been much lauded, particularly by the Secretary of State’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn). It formed part of the framework that was published last year, and it was meant to be operative from January. Is the Secretary of State aware that from that date until now, that unit has failed to provide any answers or any responses, answer the telephone or respond to emails with any information? Is he aware that there was a public perception that it was providing information until we challenged Helen McEntee as the Minister responsible? She then said that no information would be passed at all until the legal uncertainties were cleared—they have been cleared by Dillon in the Supreme Court—or this legislation passes, yet the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information continues to investigate cases. It continues to seek answers for families, and it is getting no responses whatsoever. Does the Secretary of State have an indication that the legacy unit will provide those answers, either following tonight or next Tuesday?
Chris Bryant
I am going to come on to some of the answers to precisely those questions in just a moment, but I have spoken to Helen McEntee myself repeatedly and made some of those points, as well as to Jim O’Callaghan in the Irish Government. It is very important that the Irish Government play their part; otherwise what is the point? The right hon. Gentleman makes very strong points. He has made them to me before, and I have made them to the Irish Government.
Chris Bryant
I will give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman, and then I ought to make progress.
Jim Allister
The Secretary of State lays great store by the southern authorities in the Republic of Ireland co-operating, but did we not have a classic example yesterday of the duplicity of the Dublin Government? In the Omagh inquiry, it emerged that they had sat for 28 years on an intelligence document that indicated that the night before the Omagh bomb, there was a phone call to the Irish army’s Finner Camp indicating that the bomb was coming, with the declaration “Omagh, Omagh, Omagh.” That was never passed to the RUC that night. It was sat upon until now, allowing the narrative to grow that it was the RUC that had been negligent, when it was quite clear that the southern authorities had held back information that could have avoided that horrendous bomb.
Chris Bryant
I too have read the reports that the hon. and learned Gentleman refers to, which of course are very disturbing. There is an ongoing inquiry, and it is not my job to do the work of that inquiry, but it is absolutely the job of the Irish Government to provide all the information the inquiry needs to do its work effectively.
The Irish Government have set out the framework for their own legislation, and we want to see that progress swiftly in parallel with ours. In previous debates, there was some question about whether we had to complete our legislation before the Irish Government were going to do their legislation. To give further assurance, we will require the Secretary of State to lay a written ministerial statement before the full commencement of the troubles Bill, outlining the progress made by the UK and Irish Governments. I have spoken directly to Minister McEntee, and she has now said repeatedly in public that the Irish Government will march in lockstep with us when it comes to legislation, with the aim of having both of our sets of legislation come into force on the same day.
The Bill’s Committee stage will be next week, and colleagues will want to consider all these matters in depth, but I want to end by urging everyone not to underestimate the importance of us enabling families to get the answers they require. We have already heard in this Chamber from our own Members the pain, grief and anguish—and sometimes the sense of revenge and anger—that comes with the fissures that opened up many, many years ago. I cannot tell Members how many times I have heard those same calls, often from people who lost members of the armed forces serving under Operation Banner, and often from people who served in the RUC. When the Good Friday agreement came about, I suppose there was a moment when everybody thought, “We’ve done our work now. Peace has come.” The last couple of weeks have shown that peace can sometimes be a very thin veneer, and sometimes the people who bore the biggest brunt of that peace—who had to sort of suck it up—were the families who had lost loved ones. Those families have never managed to get answers. I do not think we can ever really build a strong future for Northern Ireland unless we fully understand the past, and understanding the past means making sure that we get answers for people.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his comments and the briefing that his team gave mine at the start of this week. At the outset, I want to acknowledge that he and his team have worked hard to try to make improvements to this Bill. I am afraid, however, that the Bill is a mess. That mess is attested to by the fact that we are still debating it when it was introduced a year ago tomorrow and we have yet to breach Committee of the whole House. The mess is attested to by the fact that we are debating a carry-over motion for the second time. It is attested to by the fact that the Government told us in April that they were going to submit their amendments after six months of delay, but published them only yesterday after another six months. We have 144 Government amendments making up a pack of about 300 amendments over 119 pages. This is a mess in the process of becoming a bigger mess.
The Secretary of State has been handed this mess. I know it is not of his making, but he has been given the unenviable task of fixing it. Yet this Bill cannot be fixed, because the fundamentals are wrong. However much one scrubs off some of the worst corners and the worst excesses, the fundamentals are still there. Next week, we will have a chance to debate this legislation and its many amendments, but the amount of time set aside is wholly unequal to the task. For reasons I cannot understand, the Government have effectively denied the House the Report stage. Only an hour has been set aside for Report, and it is inevitable that the Committee of the whole House will eat that away entirely. As a Back Bencher, the Secretary of State was a defender of this House’s role in scrutiny. It is upsetting that we will not be able to give this Bill proper treatment in the Commons and that it will only get proper scrutiny in the Lords. That, though, is only a minor quibble in the face of the problems in the Bill itself.
In simple terms, we cannot support this legislation because it reopens the door to vexatious litigation against those who served in Northern Ireland during the troubles. In the long time in which this Bill has been in the Table Office, a number of cases have come to public attention that illustrate both the problem that requires fixing and the inadequacy of the Government’s response. In November last year, we debated the findings in the case against soldier F from Bloody Sunday.
Alex Burghart
Soldier F was found not guilty after the longest and most detailed inquiry in British legal history. Judge Patrick Lynch told Belfast Crown court that even after such an investigation, the evidence fell well short of the standard required.
Alex Burghart
The judge said:
“A 53 year old statement cannot be cross examined”—
Alex Burghart
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, but I will finish my sentence.
Alex Burghart
Because I was in the middle of speaking. The judge said:
“A 53 year old statement cannot be cross examined, nor can I assess the demeanour of a sheet of A4 paper.”
It is becoming vanishingly difficult to get convictions.
Colum Eastwood
I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for giving way, but I would also be grateful if he actually mentioned a victim in his speech. We are three minutes in, and there has not been one mention. He talks about soldier F, who murdered lots of people on Bloody Sunday along with his colleagues. They were unarmed people, as proven by a British Prime Minister-appointed court of tribunal, and as understood, recognised and supported by a Tory Prime Minister. Will he mention some of the victims of soldier F or some of the other victims that we should be talking about tonight, instead of people who were willingly and openly going into streets and shooting people down who did not have a gun in their hand? That is what happened.
Alex Burghart
The hon. Gentleman, if he had waited a moment, would have heard me talk about the victims. The victims, who suffered so much, are being given the promise of convictions that will never come. Even when we have the most detailed inquiry in British legal history, no conviction comes, yet this House is now expected to believe that the legislation before us will open the road to all these convictions. It will not happen. It is a promise that will not be fulfilled, but that does not mean that soldiers who did nothing but their duty will not be pulled through the courts time and time again.
In February last year, this House debated the terrible ruling in the Clonoe case from 1992. On that occasion, four men—known terrorists—armed with semi-automatic weapons and a Dushka machine gun attacked an RUC police station and then moved on to commit further crimes. They called themselves an army. They carried weapons of war, they sought to kill and they operated entirely outside the bounds of the law, and yet we were asked to believe that the use of lethal force against them was not justified. The men will now be subject to unjust and unfair scrutiny of the decisions that they had to make in exceptionally difficult circumstances, decades ago.
The case of soldier B, a former SAS officer, has been raised repeatedly in the House. In 2024 a coroner ruled that he had been justified in using lethal force in Coagh in 1991. Then, in 2025, the case was taken to the High Court in Belfast, where it was thrown out by a judge who described it as “ludicrous” and said that it should never have come to court. Despite that, in April this year the case went to the Court of Appeal, where it was again thrown out. Last month an attempt was mounted to take it to the Supreme Court, and that attempt is ongoing. Soldier B has been dragged through the courts for five and a half years, when the legal system in this country admits that the case against him is ludicrous.
Chris Bryant
I would just gently point out to the hon. Gentleman that all that is under his legislation.
Alex Burghart
I am giving the Secretary of State an example of the things that will not be stopped by his legislation. This will continue. The Bill does not solve the problem.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sarah Owen)
Your problem.
Alex Burghart
The hon. Lady says that it is our problem. Our legislation drew a line in the sand which meant that things like that would never happen again. That case had already started, and if the hon. Lady were familiar with the legacy Act, she would know where the line in the sand was drawn.
The Minister for Veterans and People (Mr Calvin Bailey)
I just want some clarification on whether the problem that you state is access to the Supreme Court.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. “The problem that he states”. We cannot have “yous” creeping into the debate. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. May I remind Members that debate in this Chamber occurs through the Chair? I will not have Members yelling at each other in an unseemly way across those Dispatch Boxes.
Alex Burghart
My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was pointing out to the hon. Lady and the Minister for Veterans and People exactly the sort of problems that the legacy Act was designed to solve. There was obviously a cut-off point—[Interruption.] As I am sure the hon. Members know, the legacy Act had a cut-off point, and cases that had already started were not caught by that. I am giving an example of similar cases that will now come about because of their legislation.
As Philip Barden KC wrote in The Spectator this week, the Government’s attempts to solve this issue, and the Government's proposed protections, are wholly inadequate to the task. They fail on their own test, because the Bill and the Government’s amendments “will permit repeat investigations.” Earlier, the Secretary of State raised the use of the word “essential”, and talked about new evidence. As Philip Barden pointed out,
“Any lawyer worth their salt can find new evidence.”
This might sound like a high bar, but it is an extremely low bar.
All the while—throughout the year and more in which we have been dealing with this legislation—the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, set up by the legacy Act, has been doing its work. A few weeks ago, ICRIR published its first report, which laid out the details of Mr Rory O’Kelly’s murder by the IRA in 1977. That was an information-recovery exercise which concluded that no perpetrators were ever likely to be identified, but it still provided answers to questions that have haunted Mr O’Kelly’s family for half a century. His daughter described, in extremely moving terms, how the report had moved the family into a
“space of serenity and light, all anger taken away”.
Yet just as ICRIR has started working as intended, the Government are to reprogramme it into what two generals have described today as essentially a criminal investigations body, charged with collecting evidence to a criminal standard, although we know that the chance of prosecutions is incredibly unlikely. Those who work in ICRIR are desperately concerned that that will lead to a massive increase in their workload, with no increase in funding, and that it will inevitably mean long delays and distraction from the core information-recovery exercise, which was intended to be their central function. Those on the Government Benches may not want to take from me the case that I am making against this Bill, and I understand that, but they should take it from the retired generals and soldiers who have repeatedly spoken out.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is talking a lot about veterans and the roles of those veterans. My concern is for my constituents who served but never got to be veterans because they did not survive their service in Northern Ireland. What those families want is the truth, and they want a truth that is undebatable. Does he not recognise that we should be talking about the victims and the survivors, rather than trying to make this a false dichotomy? There is more than one level or tier of victim.
Alex Burghart
The hon. Lady speaks powerfully on this point, and she is absolutely right to say that many victims were people who served. I was talking about the way in which ICRIR works and is now being seen to work. Regardless of who was killed, it can be used by victims’ families in order to assist in the information-recovery process, and one of the advantages of ICRIR is that it is a non-adversarial system that has already started to enable families to find out things they did not know before. The hon. Lady is absolutely right: that process is very valuable, which is why it was put in the legacy Act by the previous Government.
I hope that Labour Members, and anybody in the House who is thinking of supporting the continuation of this legislation, will listen to the two retired generals who wrote today that the Government should stop pretending that their amendments offer veterans meaningful protections. The consequence of continuing down this route will be that some men who served decades ago, like soldier B—not soldier B himself, but men like him—will spend years in the jaws of vexatious litigation, that victims will not receive the justice that they are being promised by this legislation, and that many more veterans will continue to live with the nagging sense that those using lawfare may come for them. They are already being punished by the idea of this legislation.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that his party’s legacy Act actually gave no protection whatsoever to veterans’ families because it was found to be unlawful? He has therefore let those families down.
Alex Burghart
The hon. Lady will know that her Government, when they came in, did not appeal against that case. We have a human rights framework that is wholly inadequate for dealing with cases from decades ago, and it is clear that the current Government would rather protect that framework than protect people from that period.
The failings of this Bill, should it be passed, will be quickly seen and long felt. The House has the power to stop it tonight. If we do not and the Government persist, the next Conservative Administration will repeal it and once again draw a line under the troubles.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
As Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, I have met many people whose lives have been shaped by the troubles and who, decades later, continue to search for the truth about what happened to their loved ones. As the Secretary of State has mentioned, today I hosted in Parliament victims’ families from WAVE. They also had the opportunity to meet the Prime Minister, which I was really pleased about. I pay tribute to Jennifer, who was 12 when the IRA took over her family’s home and her father, Patsy, was abducted and killed; to Pat Molloy, whose son John was 18 when he was killed on his way home; to Mo Norton, whose brother Terence was serving when he was killed in the M62 bus bomb in 1974; and, finally, to Laura Burns, whose dad Robert was killed in their home.
It is always emotional listening to any victim, so I would personally like to thank victims for speaking to us; they are in the Gallery. As we debate this Bill and consider the next steps in this process, we must keep those people at the forefront of our mind.
At the end of last year, my Committee completed a year-long inquiry on the legacy of the past. It was a serious and comprehensive piece of work, engaging extensively with all communities, and revealing strong cross-party consensus on a number of key issues and areas where the Bill can be improved. Our hope is that the detailed evidence and recommendations in our report will help shape debate in this House and beyond. I encourage all Members to review our report as we consider this Bill.
My Committee heard powerful testimony from victims, survivors and families who continue to live with the consequences of the past. Many are still struggling to obtain answers, accountability and a measure of closure. We cannot build a more reconciled future without addressing the past, and for that reason, we must ensure that the Bill is carried over, and that Parliament has the time to give these issues the careful consideration that they deserve. It is clear that there is still much that we need to do to improve this Bill, so that victims and survivors remain at its heart, and so that it addresses the concerns raised during our inquiry.
Time and again, witnesses pointed to the importance of resources. Whatever structures Parliament creates, they will succeed only if they are properly funded. Without adequate resources, expectations will be raised that cannot be met. We also heard concerns about whether victims’ and survivors’ voices would be fully reflected in the new arrangements. This process should never be framed as a choice between different groups; the focus must remain on those who continue to carry the burden of loss and trauma. More broadly, questions remain about how the new system will work in practice: who can access investigations, how will information be disclosed, and can we build confidence in the process? These issues go to the heart of public trust.
In conclusion, while views differ on many aspects of legacy, one message came through clearly: people want a process that is properly resourced, commands public confidence and places victims and their families at its centre. The challenge for the Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Office is to deliver that. We owe it to those still carrying the legacy of the past to get this right.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
As has been said many times before, and ignored just as often by Conservative Members, the Tories’ legacy Act utterly failed our veterans, drawing an unacceptable equivalence between the actions of those seeking to defend peace and uphold the rule of law, and the terrorists who sought to undermine it by maiming, murdering and doing all they could to encourage sectarian division and hatred.
Of course, the Conservatives are trying to argue that they are defending the interests of our brave veterans, when in reality they are cynically using them to score political points. That is why so many veterans organisations will have nothing to do with their grandstanding. The legacy Act failed to uphold our obligations under the European convention on human rights. At the time, that was just collateral damage, but now it has become central to the Conservatives’ ill-conceived plan to leave the ECHR, and thereby fatally undermine the Good Friday agreement and the Brexit deal of which they are so unjustly proud.
The legacy Act failed the communities of Northern Ireland. No political party, be it from the Unionist, nationalist or non-aligned tradition, supports the Conservatives’ flawed legislation, which fundamentally failed to gain the support of those it was supposed to protect. Most devastatingly, it failed innocent victims and their families by barring the pathway to justice, truth and reconciliation. As we have seen throughout these debates, the Tories are still in denial about the legacy Act’s failings, just as they are in denial about their many other failings in government—from Brexit to their financial mismanagement. I am sorry to say that it is what we have come to expect from a once-great party. It is shameless, and they should be shame-faced.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Mr Kohler, please could you focus your comments on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, and not give a dissertation on history?
Mr Kohler
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The Labour party’s willingness to deal with these failings is most welcome. At this point, may I, with your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, give my brief thanks to the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), who was the architect of the original Bill, for the courtesy and time he gave me when I first became my party’s spokesperson for Northern Ireland? I am pleased to acknowledge that it is an approach normally followed by the shadow Secretary of State, and followed by the new Secretary of State.
Although 156 Government amendments landed with a thud in my inbox yesterday morning, we are not meant to be discussing them today. Under the mysterious procedures of this place, we are simply revisiting the carry-over motion we passed before the end of the last parliamentary Session. I am sure there are good historic reasons for such repetition, but I trust that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) and his fellow trailblazers on the Modernisation Committee will give due consideration to reforming many of our time-wasting practices. The Bill we are considering today is the same one we considered the last time we debated it, so my party will again vote against the motion.
I have worked closely with veterans organisations, such as the British Legion and the SAS Regimental Association, throughout my time as spokesperson on Northern Ireland. Anxiety about future threats of lawfare, and veterans being dragged through repeated investigations, has been at the heart of every conversation I have had. Against that background, clear and robust safeguards must be established. The original safeguards in the Bill were vague and did not go far enough to ensure that the process does not become the punishment.
I commend both the Secretary of State and his predecessor for engaging with me on these issues. As they both promised, the Secretary of State has now published the aforementioned raft of 156 amendments. However, there is just a week before the Committee stage. That raises serious concerns about scrutiny, as we and the various veterans organisations wade through pages of bizarrely numbered and then re-numbered Government amendments. The devil, after all, is in the detail. Only today, I had to ask the Secretary of State to point me in the direction of one of the most important amendments.
Mr Kohler
He did, but I have now discovered a table, helpfully produced by the Northern Ireland Office, detailing the key ones. It is very useful, but what we and the veterans groups need is time to work through the implications of each amendment, and to talk to our veterans. That is simply not possible in only a week.
As the Secretary of State knows, I also have concerns that scrutiny is being undertaken via a Committee of the House. What this legislation requires is detailed line-by-line examination of each clause, but what we will have is two days of the usual pantomime in this Chamber.
Chris Bryant
It is really important to explain why we do not generally consider Northern Ireland legislation in a Committee upstairs; it is so that a lot of Members can take part in these debates.
Mr Kohler
I thank the Secretary of State for his intervention, but I was coming on to that. I am told, as he has just told me again, that the reason we have a Committee of the whole House is that we need to include our colleagues who represent Northern Ireland. However, I do not see why that absolutely legitimate point could not have been addressed by the three major parties giving up some of their places to MPs who represent Northern Ireland constituencies—a solution that I suggested, but that the Secretary of State ignored.
This legislation will have profound consequences for victims and veterans. Getting it right is essential to maintaining the confidence of communities across Northern Ireland, and the confidence of current and former members of the armed forces. Our amendments propose clear statutory safeguards to prevent repeated investigations, unless there is materially new evidence that is certified as necessary and proportionate. They establish a presumption of remote participation, so that veterans are not compelled to relive traumatic experiences in person unless it is strictly essential. They also provide for anonymity, proper welfare support and regulated contact through official channels. Additionally, our amendments seek to ensure that veterans’ views are properly represented, including by guaranteeing veterans a place on the victims and survivors group. We would also establish an independent reviewer, who would report annually to Parliament. This would ensure that protections were consistently applied, properly scrutinised and upheld in practice.
The Government’s amendments do indeed seek to address many of those points, but we need to work through the detail of the drafting before we can say whether they achieve what is needed. For example, the clause requiring compelling new evidence to exist, or be reasonably expected to exist, before a witness can be contacted is already giving us cause for concern, as the director of investigations will be the sole judge of his own decision.
Adam Jogee
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I enjoy working with him on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. I have also enjoyed listening to him talk us through his many amendments. Does he not realise, though, that we will not be able to consider or vote on those amendments if he does not back this motion this evening?
Mr Kohler
The point is that we have only a week to consider 156 amendments, and then we have only two days to discuss them. We need line-by-line scrutiny.
The legislation does not exist in a vacuum. The House is aware that tensions have increased in the wake of the decisions to allow the Drumcree march, and then to ban it. Against that backdrop, it is even more important that the legislation provides genuine routes to reconciliation, so that future generations growing up in Northern Ireland no longer have to experience the divisions of the past.
On that point, I am still disappointed by the lack of weight given to restorative justice in the Bill. The process cannot only be about legal mechanisms that conceive of justice through an all-too-narrow lawyer’s lens. That is why the Liberal Democrats have proposed a statutory duty to promote reconciliation, alongside a framework for restorative justice. That would offer victims and survivors, where they choose to participate, the opportunity for truth telling and acknowledgment outside of purely adversarial processes.
For many, the primary question is not about punishment but understanding. The recent report from ICRIR into the death of Rory O’Kelly, who was murdered by an IRA gunman, shows that answers, not retribution, are key. His daughter Frances issued a powerful statement, describing the catharsis and closure that the report brought to her and her brother Roger, who died shortly before its publication. The work undertaken ensured that Roger did not die without knowing what had happened to his father. Yes, this was a form of restorative justice, but our amendments would allow more intensive forms of RJ.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would reserve arguments about his amendments for Committee, so that we can focus on the carry-over extension.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman will confine his comments to the carry-over extension. He may gesture all he likes at the Secretary of State, but I remind him that I am in the Chair now.
Mr Kohler
I remain to be convinced that the Bill, even after 156 amendments, can deliver on its essential function, and I am concerned that we cannot properly scrutinise the proposed wording to see if it will. For those reasons, the Liberal Democrats will continue to oppose the motion.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I am voting in favour of the carry-over motion, because we need to debate the Bill, and to have the Bill. We need to have it for the future of peace in Northern Ireland. Not only are the victims of terror attacks looking at the Bill—many are in the Public Gallery—but the eyes of the world are on us. This is an international issue. We have shown the way by bringing peace to Northern Ireland through the Good Friday agreement—one of the proudest legacies of the Labour party—and the tireless work of community activists, Members in this Chamber and those from different parties in Northern Ireland, representing a future full of peace.
To have that future, however, we need to understand the past, and there are over 1,000 families who have not got answers about what happened to their loved one. For those families, that is a pain that is almost too hard to tell. They do not know what happened in the last minutes of their loved one’s life, who committed those atrocities, and in many circumstances, where they are. That pain is being passed on to future generations, who they are understandably worried about.
Today I met members of the WAVE Trauma Centre community in Belfast. Sandra Peake and WAVE do an amazing job of addressing the continuing trauma. They enable us politicians to hear from some of the families. Those stories were hard to hear, but I will share some of the words spoken, because I support the carry-over motion on their behalf. One victim said:
“It is important to get legacy right now or it will keep affecting our children and future generations”.
They said it was important to debate the motion and have the right product set up,
“so that we can move on.”
Another person said,
“My mum has been fighting for decades and passed it on to me, but she should have the answers before it is too late.”
Someone else said,
“I would really like the truth. Who was responsible.”
Another said, “People need the truth.”
People have been researching what happened, in some cases for 20 years or more. They know some of the names and have begun to piece some of it together. There is always the concern that there might be an investigative journalist knocking on the door with some of the answers, but with no actual investigation to back it up with and to say what really happened.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
I am listening to the powerful message that the hon. Lady is giving. Is she concerned that in moving away from ICRIR and the work that has already been done and moving to a commission, trust and the search for truth will be lost and some families, veterans and victims may be put off the process because they see yet another body?
Fleur Anderson
I really welcome that question. I think that the Bill will enable us to build on the work of ICRIR and that it will prove itself. If the Bill is not agreed to, investigations will not go forward at the pace that they need to, and then justice is stopped. I think that more families will come to the commission in its new and improved form, and then more families will have answers.
If we do not approve this carry-over motion and pass the Bill behind it, we will not see an improvement to the commission and it will not be able to continue doing its work. Too many court cases have been stopped because of the Conservatives’ legacy Act. Too much justice has been stopped. More than 1,000 police investigations, including investigations into the deaths of over 200 members of our armed forces and civilians, were stopped. That Act failed to win the confidence of families and victims. It shut down civil claims and halted inquests. Now we need the good work of peace and reconciliation to go ahead.
At the same time, the Government have rightly recognised the need to protect veterans. I pay tribute to the former Secretary of State and the current Secretary of State for their work in delivering that. The overwhelming majority of those who served during Operation Banner—several of my constituents have come to talk to me about what they did—served with courage, professionalism and distinction in extraordinarily difficult circumstances. The Bill’s protections against unnecessary repeat investigations, recognition of operational realities and safeguards for witnesses will help to ensure fairness for those who served our country honourably.
More than a quarter of a century after the Good Friday agreement, Northern Ireland has made extraordinary progress, as I have seen for myself. But for far too many families, the shadow of the troubles remains. We cannot change what happened or undo the enormous suffering that was inflicted, but we can ensure that families have the best possible chance of discovering the truth. That chance will continue to wither away if there are more delays, because it will be harder to get the evidence, talk to witnesses and get to the truth.
This Government have chosen not to look away; they have chosen to act. I therefore welcome the carry-over motion, the Bill that will follow and the commitment that it represents to victims, survivors, families and the whole of the Northern Irish community that there can be justice.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to follow the former Minister. I enjoyed working with her in that role.
It is incumbent on me to make two initial points. The first is that we only have 30 minutes left in this 90-minute debate and this is the first substantive Northern Ireland contribution. Because of that, I will keep my remarks as brief—uncharacteristically brief—as I can.
Can I also uncharacteristically welcome the tone of the Secretary of State in introducing the carry-over motion? It should be no surprise to him that I lament that we are here debating it. I lament the fact that a Government who came in with such a majority on a promise of repeal and replace is doing neither. I resent the fact that it took 18 months before we received the Bill a year ago, and the advice of my colleagues and I six or eight months ago was that if they Government were going to amend their own legislation so substantively, it would have been better to withdraw it and reintroduce it with coherence and consistency, so that people could look at it and understand its implications properly.
What we have now is but one week. I said this morning and I say again that it is deeply unfortunate for innocent victims and veterans to have but a week to consider and comprehend the import of the amendments—scores of them, with 60 additional pages in the amendment paper—and understand the impact they will have on their rightful quest for truth and justice.
The Secretary of State will know if he has educated himself on these issues and the history of them that we did not support conditional immunity. We do not support those measures, and we are pleased to see some of the issues that he has opened today, and which he released to the media and to parliamentarians yesterday. I lament that during the passage of the legacy Act, although the former Secretary of State, Brandon Lewis, took on board many of the amendments tabled by me and my colleagues, he could not do so in this representative House of Commons, but had to leave it to the House of Lords. Here again, we have amendment after amendment where the Government have thankfully finally listened to some of the amendments tabled by me, by my colleagues in the Democratic Unionist party and by Ulster Unionist party, Traditional Unionist Voice, independent and Alliance Members. The Government have, however, tabled their own amendments.
I do not understand why the Labour Government resisted for so long committing to legislate to root out equivalence between those who upheld the law and those who set out to destroy law and order in Northern Ireland—between veterans and paramilitaries. I am glad that that will be put beyond doubt, because it was a statement of fact before and it should not have been resisted.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman is right that the Secretary of State has tried to weave, with a certain degree of assiduity and dexterity, a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. We have ended up with something satin, and it may not be a purse at all, but what is certain is that we need more time to consider it. It would be preposterous to have such a short time to consider the Government amendments that have been tabled. I suggest that they were tabled in good faith, but good will needs to prevail. We need much more time to consider this matter than the very short time allocated next week.
Gavin Robinson
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman—and I am pleased to see that there is a new Deputy Speaker in the Chair, so I do not have to hold myself to the commitments I made earlier. [Laughter.]
I say to the Secretary of State that I am pleased that the Labour Government have accepted that they will legislate on the matter of on-the-runs—again, it is a statement of fact, and I could never comprehend why the Labour Government were resisting such an amendment. So, too, will they legislate to ensure that paramilitaries and former paramilitaries—people who sullied themselves and tried to destroy our society—will not form part of any advisory board to the commission. That is right. I could not for the life of me understand why the Labour Government were resistant to that approach. I am grateful—[Interruption.]. No, it was always indicated that it would not happen in practice, but they would not legislate on the face of the Bill. I say “they”; I mean the Labour Government. I am glad that at least that concession has been given.
I am grateful that the Prime Minister is here, because I want to make a fundamental point, which draws on comments that were opened earlier. It is not often that I agree with the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), but I am pleased that he referred to what happened yesterday in the Omagh inquiry. It is beyond me—I hope it is beyond every sensible Member of this House—that the Government are still resisting the dates for the legacy commission. The legacy commission has to stop its work on a given date—the date the Belfast agreement was signed—yet the largest atrocity of the troubles occurred just three months later in Omagh. The Government are resistant to allowing the legacy commission to consider the case of Omagh.
Why is that important? It is important because the Omagh inquiry is set up, and its terms of reference allow the inquiry only to look at what the British state could have done to prevent the largest atrocity of the troubles, yet the Irish Government have questions to answer. Yesterday when John Ware, the former “Panorama” journalist, opened up his evidence in court, he referred to the Irish soldiers who received a bomb warning the day before—on 14 August—in Finner base, as has been mentioned. I have every word of that. Will the Secretary of State ask immediately for a copy of that document? He knows that it goes further; he knows that it says clearly that on 14 August they have to inform the guards and the Northern Ireland security forces and that they have to place people on border checkpoints 196 and 194. It was very clear and precise. Why was it opened up yesterday? Because the belief is that, in a 1,500-page bundle, the Irish did not know that they had given it, and they were worried that it was going to be taken back and not opened up.
If the Irish Government had information the night before, at Finner base, that the Omagh bomb was going to be placed in Omagh, as was opened yesterday in the inquiry, that needs to be explored. Yet it falls outside the terms of reference. All we ask in the amendments is that we legislate for ourselves to say that the legacy commission can at least consider the largest troubles-related incident that sits outside the dates of the troubles.
Jim Allister
Is the right hon. Gentleman’s point not strengthened by the fact that the Dublin Government, despite a recommendation from the Northern Ireland High Court, have refused to hold an inquiry into their role and knowledge of the Omagh bomb? Therefore, the fact that the legacy commission can never investigate it means that it will never be investigated anywhere.
Gavin Robinson
It was Mr Justice Horner, as he was then, who declared in 2021 that there should be an inquiry on both sides of the border to deal with the jurisdictional issues. I say this to the Prime Minister: the legacy commission will have the ability to look at the issues, provided the dates are moved from 21 April 1998 to 31 August 1998. It is easily done, and it is so fundamentally important for those victims and families who suffered at Omagh and who require truth and justice. I make the plea, knowing that I am going beyond the bounds of a carry-over motion debate, that this is so fundamental that we cannot allow this point to pass and for the Government fail those families yet again. Yesterday’s revelation is as stark and as telling as it needs to be. The information shared yesterday falls outside the terms of reference, and yet the legacy commission should and could take on that work.
I intend to revisit this matter next week, but in the interim I implore the Secretary of State, with whom I have raised it on numerous occasions, and the Prime Minister, who I am grateful is here, to consider the import of what was shared yesterday in the inquiry and what was withheld from the Sir Peter Gibson review in the past, when it was emphatically said that the Irish had no warning when they did. The inquiry’s chairman is incapable of drawing conclusions from that because it falls outside his terms of reference. The legacy commission could do that work; it needs to be done.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Members will be aware that we are pressed for time. I will try to get as many people in as I can, so I immediately reduce the time limit to three minutes.
Al Carns (Birmingham Selly Oak) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his engagement throughout the process. Generals, veterans, veterans’ commissioners, ex-chiefs of the defence staff, victims, those who live in Northern Ireland—he has engaged with them all and collectively they are thankful for it. The Government amendments are also welcome; they are moving in the right direction.
There is one thing that I request from those on both sides of the House. Behind the victims, the soldier Bs and the soldier Fs, and underneath the passion and the emotion, there are human beings. We have to ensure that the message we send to them in this House is that we are after their best interests. We must remember that they will be watching this debate and that it affects every single factor of their lives.
I know what it is like to be in the dark, facing terrorists, when snap decisions have to be made in a difficult environment. Unfortunately, I also know what it is like to console the family members of lost loved ones. I do not know what it is like to have all that wrapped into a community and into neighbourhoods—neighbour on neighbour, street on street. I pay tribute to and commend all the individuals in the Gallery. Thank you so much for attending.
I resigned from Government in part because I could not support our approach to legacy. In particular, I remain concerned about the different routes we created to examine the same conflict and some of the same incidents.
It is my belief that we are adopting a twin-track approach to truth, justice and reconciliation. On the one hand, we have inquests, where the chance of prosecution is vanishingly small, but the prosecution is often not the end state. The process has become the punishment. With a minimum cost of £20 million, on average, and a maximum cost of £20 million per inquest, the total equates, as one Policy Exchange paper put it, to in excess of £1 billion of taxpayers’ money. On the other hand, we have the legacy commission. Let us build it. Let us make it better. Let us make it the single route to truth, reconciliation and justice. It has more investigative powers, it can move faster and it will bring the end state at a delivery cost of a fraction of that of inquests. What other country delivers reconciliation through a twin-track approach? It just does not happen.
I will vote in support of the carry-over motion tonight, but there is more to be done to streamline the route towards truth, reconciliation and justice, so my vote tonight should not be taken as support of the Bill as it stands. I believe that there is a better way, and more work to be done: one route, one process, no more lawfare, no more twin-track approach, stop the legal exploitation of the system, and put all the inquests through the legacy commission. I will vote tonight to carry the Bill over, but when we get to Committee, it must change.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
I rise to talk about the carry-over motion that we have in front of us this evening, because much of what we have heard from the Secretary of State was what we heard from the previous Secretary of State in regard to why we needed to see the remedial order rushed through. The remedial order went nowhere, but now we are compensating and bringing it into the legislation that we have been asked to consider next week.
I echo the comments from the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) in regard to the number of amendments that have been laid before us when considering the Bill and the very short time that this Government have given everybody to consider them. That applies not just to the legislators in this House but to the victims groups, the veterans not just of the United Kingdom but of Northern Ireland, and the small family groups, who will find it extremely difficult to work through that booklet of amendments to see how it applies to them, to their cause and to their loved ones, and how it supports them in their search for truth.
I ask the Secretary of State to look at the timing of the Committee stage and also at what contribution Northern Ireland MPs will get to make in this House. I make a plea to those on the Government and Opposition Front Benches: let us not use victims and veterans in Northern Ireland as political playthings. We have heard that from the Labour Benches. The Government are at times as bad as what we have seen from the Opposition, and I think the Lib Dem spokesman, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), has a lot to apologise for here tonight in regard to the topics that he brought forward. I ask the Secretary of State to consider a Keeling schedule, setting out with clarity how the amendments would apply to the legislation, what amendments can be brought forward and how they would amend the Bill. That would make a big difference.
The Secretary of State strayed away from the carry-over motion into some of the amendments. Can I ask him and the Government to look seriously at my amendment 4, which would bring sexual crime under the remit of the new commission? I know what the previous Secretary of State said, and what the Northern Ireland Office said, and it is often stated in here that the previous Government’s troubles Bill did not receive any support from the Northern Ireland parties. My amendment has support from every Northern Ireland MP who takes their seat in this House, as well as from Labour Members and Lib Dem Members, so I ask the Government to seriously consider it. When I met the Secretary of State to talk about this, he was very open and honest, and he said that the Government would consider non-Government amendments to make this Bill better. It has a long, long way to go before it could be acceptable to many in my community.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
I will be supporting the carry-over motion today. I would also like to pay tribute to the victims from the WAVE Trauma Centre, who, alongside many of us, have shared their powerful stories with parliamentarians in the last two days.
Nearly 30 years on from the Good Friday agreement, these men and women are still seeking truth and justice for the awful crimes inflicted upon them. With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will share a couple of the stories that they shared with me. The first is the story of Jennifer Gillespie. Jennifer was just 12 years old when masked Provisional IRA men broke into her house, took her and her mother hostage, and forced her father, Patsy, to drive into an Army checkpoint as a human bomb. Patsy, who was a civilian cook in the local barracks, was chained to the driving seat of a van packed with 1,000 lb of explosives, followed by kidnappers in a separate car, while his family was held at gunpoint. He was forced to drive into the checkpoint. As he approached, Patsy shouted a desperate warning to the troops guarding the checkpoint, but the IRA detonated the van, killing Patsy and five soldiers from the King’s Regiment. That was just one of three co-ordinated proxy bomb attacks that evening. Jennifer and her mother, Kathleen, are still seeking justice so many years after that horrible attack.
I also met Mo Norton, whose brother, Bombardier Terence Griffin, was one of 12 killed in the M62 bombings. A Provisional IRA bomb was stowed in their coach luggage locker, and exploded as the young soldiers and their families were returning to Catterick after their weekend leave. Nine soldiers and three civilians were killed, including two children, aged just five and two. Mo is still devastated after all these years, and she and her family in Wigan are still seeking answers.
I never served in Northern Ireland myself, but I have served alongside many soldiers and Marines who have. They spoke of the constant threat of snipers and bombs, of not knowing who among the local population might be trying to kill them or when they would strike. They took on strict rules of engagement, serving in the United Kingdom among British citizens to protect them. They fought paramilitaries that were unencumbered by those same rules, as the cowardly attacks I described earlier show.
We owe a huge debt of gratitude to these veterans, but victims and veterans are not two separate groups. Two hundred and sixty-four members of our armed forces were murdered by terrorists. They had their unresolved cases terminated by the 2023 legacy Act. We owe these families a chance at justice. The last Conservative Government attempted in good faith to draw a line under the troubles, but their offer of conditional immunity was unacceptable to bereaved families, and the courts found it unlawful. The legacy Act must be replaced, and today’s motion allows for that work to continue. The families have waited for decades. I urge the House to pass the carry-over motion and allow the Bill to proceed.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
The Government ask the House to grant the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill a carry-over extension. This is not a trivial request. It will extend the life of the Bill, and this House should not grant it lightly, particularly where the legislation is as contentious as this.
I ask a basic question: what will the extension actually achieve? I am aware of the Government’s proposed amendments. The Government will be aware of the substance of the amendment I have tabled, which seeks to bar former paramilitaries from appointment to the victims and survivors advisory group. I welcome the fact that my amendment has been substantially engaged with, but a Government amendment or amendments, however welcome, cannot cure a Bill that must be judged in the round. Taken as a whole, the legislation remains substantially flawed.
Behind this procedural motion lie real people: victims and survivors who have waited decades for truth and acknowledgment, and veterans who served this country with courage and distinction, who now face the prospect of repeated investigations into events from more than 50 years ago. That is my impression. Isn’t the reality that neither group is served by legislation that does not command the confidence of either?
William Faulkner wrote:
“The past is never dead. It’s not even past.”
Nowhere is that felt more keenly than in Northern Ireland. Families will seek answers about loved ones they lost. Veterans who served under extraordinary pressure deserve fairness and certainty in equal measure.
We must speak honestly about the history. Around nine in 10 troubles-related deaths were caused by terrorist organisations, not by the state. Any legislative framework that does not reflect that reality with clarity and proportionality risks compounding injustice rather than resolving it.
Lord Hewart reminded us over a century ago that
“Justice must not only be done but must manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.”
That principle cannot be set aside by a Bill extended for procedural convenience while its fundamental flaws remain unaddressed. Carry-over should be the exception, not the default—granted where a Bill is close to being fit for purpose, not where it remains substantially flawed. Extension will not repair this. The House owes victims, survivors and veterans more than delay dressed up as progress. I urge Members to oppose this motion.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Politics is ultimately about confidence. Leaders cannot lead without the confidence of their party, a Government cannot govern without the confidence of this House, and legislation cannot work without the confidence of the people it affects. The legislation passed by the previous Government did not have the confidence of any party in Northern Ireland, victims groups or, ultimately, the courts, but it is entirely apparent that this legislation has never had the confidence of veterans, and I genuinely believe it unlikely that it can be recovered. I am talking about veterans like Mick Male, a member of the Hartlepool armed forces liaison group, who came to my office to express his lack of confidence in the Bill and who invited me to meet his veteran colleagues who said similar.
I fully appreciate the efforts of our new Secretary of State and his attempts to rescue this Bill and restore that confidence, and also the efforts of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) and his efforts to go further to restore confidence. On balance, I believe that these arguments deserve to be heard and debated, but veterans in my community of Hartlepool deserve to be able to debate them as well. I am deeply sceptical that in the next few days they will have the opportunity to make their views heard, in the way they should be allowed to, to their elected representatives. I say clearly to Mick and all the veterans in Hartlepool that if, ultimately, in just a few days’ time this Bill does not have their support, then it will not have mine.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
With the Prime Minister sitting next to him, I hope that it will not influence the future of the Secretary of State when I tell the House that he and I are very long-standing friends and even occasional allies. He has obviously done all he can to mitigate what is a morally flawed Bill. A year after the Government introduced this Bill, the central question remains unanswered: how will it deliver justice without subjecting soldiers who served lawfully and honourably to endless punitive investigation?
My judgment has not changed since October’s debate, nor April’s. The Bill was sold as a defence of human rights and the rule of law. I yield to no one in this House on human rights and defence of the rule of law, but this is not that. Instead, it is morally bankrupt and makes a mockery of both. If this Bill was really about human rights and justice, the first coroner’s inquest would not be about whether the killings at Loughgall were unlawful; it would instead be about one of the 1,800 murders carried out by the IRA, every single one of which was unlawful.
The Government, unfortunately, have prioritised their relationship with Dublin over their duties to their own veteran soldiers. Ireland will undoubtedly come to regret its own role in this Bill. Scrutiny of its actions during the troubles will show that it was never the impartial party it tries to present itself as now, but instead a partisan and a criminal insurgency. The Irish Government provided active sanctuary for IRA terrorists, and justice cannot mean relentless scrutiny for British soldiers but selective scrutiny for the Irish Government. They must accept the scrutiny of themselves that they demand of others, and we might start with an independent review of their role in the Omagh bombing, which we have heard something of today.
I am afraid that this is a nation much of whose politics is hostile to Britain—we should not avoid that fact. Britain must not sacrifice its soldiers for an illusory diplomatic advantage. This vexatious use of lawfare is designed with one intent: to re-present the behaviour of IRA killers—vicious, psychopathic murderers—as somehow liberators and heroes, by destroying the reputations of our own soldiers. The Government must not pursue this course. The Government must drop this evil Bill and start again.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
It is at times like this that I feel very despondent. I share some of the frustration expressed by the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) tonight, because I do not think it is ideal that I am standing here with 180 seconds to try to sum up what this carry-over motion and this Bill mean.
The people of Northern Ireland have heard it all before. This is not perfect, and the manner in which it is being done is far from perfect, but people have died waiting. We have been at this in Northern Ireland for at least 20-odd years. I am not going to stand in the way of any family. I have held the hands of families—families I know from my constituency—people who served, people who were innocent Catholics, and people who were innocent Protestants. No one person is above anyone else. I hope to God that those people in the Gallery understand that and do not go away from this place despondent tonight. I am glad more people from Northern Ireland are not listening to this—I really am—because there has been a lot of grace lacking in this.
Let’s stop playing games. No one has any right above another. It has been many, many years, and many mistakes have been made. All I want anybody in Lagan Valley, Northern Ireland, across the UK and wider afield, where people have been drawn into what was such an intimate, insidious and disgusting conflict, to know is this: you are seen, and you all matter. We are not going to get this 100% right, but if we do not act now, people will die—many already have—without the truth. I will be supporting this carry-over motion tonight.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With the final one and a half minutes, I call Jim Allister.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) put his finger on this matter. The genesis of this is important. The previous Secretary of State went to Dublin and entered a legacy framework agreement in September 2025—in good faith, I am sure, on his part—where the Dublin Government promised the fullest possible co-operation. Yet we saw exposed yesterday just how meaningless that is when it comes to the most serious and extensive terrorist attack there ever was, when they sat on the intelligence from the night before that there was a bomb heading to Omagh. “Omagh, Omagh, Omagh,” is what the message said, and it was ignored.
The Secretary of State referred to the fact that there are many cross-border dimensions to this. Yes, there are. The killers of hundreds of people crossed the border, took sanctuary south of the border and were supplied from the south of the border, and yet we are talking about a legacy arrangement where no answers will come from the Dublin Government. They were sent 52 questions by the Omagh inquiry. They answered two of them. That is the extent and scale of the good faith, and yet that Government are still suing the United Kingdom Government in the European Court of Human Rights—
David Davis
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the rush to fit my speech into three minutes, I omitted to draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, some of which has direct relevance to Northern Ireland legislation. I do so now.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He has now put that matter on the record.
Business without Debate
Bone and Joint Health
(1 day, 21 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
It is a real pleasure to lead this evening’s debate during Bone and Joint Week, raising awareness of an issue that affects millions of people, but receives nowhere near the attention it deserves. I start by thanking Arthritis UK and the Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Alliance, known as ARMA, for their work raising awareness of these conditions, for the information they have provided ahead of this debate and for the parliamentary event they put on today.
Musculoskeletal conditions or MSK conditions affect our bones and joints and the muscles and tissues that hold them together. They include arthritis, osteoporosis, chronic back pain and joint injuries. For some, these conditions are manageable. For others, they are utterly debilitating, leaving people struggling to walk, to work or to carry out basic everyday tasks.
More than 20 million people in the UK live with an MSK condition. Some 10 million have arthritis, including an estimated 15,000 people in my constituency. Such conditions are the single biggest cause of pain and disability in this country, accounting for around one in seven GP consultations, yet I fear that we underestimate their seriousness, perhaps because they are rarely immediately life-threatening. While they may not kill people, however, they can slowly rob them of their mobility, independence, ability to work and quality of life.
I want to explain why this issue matters to me personally. Six years ago this month, my life changed significantly, although I did not know it at the time. It is something that I have avoided talking about publicly, and if I am honest, I have struggled to accept it. However, I believe we should draw on personal experience in this place, particularly when it might help improve our country.
In October 2020, I was an extremely fit and physically robust former regular Royal Marine with multiple operational tours behind me. I was also competing at the highest level of wingsuit skydiving as a member of the Team GB squad. I can see Members thinking that those activities and MSK injuries are natural bedfellows, and they are probably right, but nothing prepared me for the debilitating consequences of what happened that October.
On a grey and windy day in Devon, I decided to go parachuting, which was a near weekly occurrence. As a reservist member of the Royal Navy parachute display team, I needed to keep current for the following season. I had completed around 700 jumps, and I was not frightened—this was like any other day—but I had something far more dangerous: complacency. The winds were strong and the parachute centre had restricted jumping to experienced parachutists only. I was practising precision landings and convinced myself that it would be good training. I also chose to wear trainers, rather than my usual military boots that provided ankle support. The plane took off and we climbed to 15,000 feet. The green light came on and I jumped.
Everything went to plan until the landing. Rather than landing in the middle of a muddy field away from obstacles, I decided to land closer to where I would be picked up. It was a lazy decision, and it was a stupid one. As I approached the ground, gusting winds caught my parachute, lifted me and slammed me into the side of an aircraft hangar. My left foot took the initial impact, before the rest of my body smashed into the building. My parachute went over the roof, leaving me dangling from the hangar. Fortunately, I remained conscious, managed to release my harness and fell the remaining 5 feet or so to the ground. I remember lying there in shock, checking everything was still attached. Then came the searing pain in my left ankle. My wife came and picked me up and drove me straight to accident and emergency. After examinations and scans, I was told that I had suffered a severe sprain. I was advised to get the ankle moving and seek physiotherapy, because timely NHS support was unlikely to be available. Having had little experience of the NHS, I trusted that advice.
Over the following months I worked hard at rehabilitation. Gradually, I regained strength, but I remained in considerable pain. I took the classic Royal Marine approach: crack on and hope it gets better. Having served alongside men who lost limbs in Afghanistan, I considered myself lucky, and I certainly was not going to complain about a sore ankle, but six months later, something was clearly wrong.
My physiotherapist recommended an MRI scan, which I paid for privately—again, I was advised that the NHS process would take too long—and, when the results came back, I had to catch my breath: my ankle had been broken the entire time. The fracture had been missed at A&E and I had spent six months rehabilitating an injury that had never been properly diagnosed.
I was advised to see a private consultant—again, because of the time it would take to access specialist help through the NHS. This is where I was incredibly fortunate. By complete chance, the consultant whom I went to see happened to be ex-forces himself. Having discussed my injury and background, he suggested that I see him through his NHS practice, where he could continue to oversee my treatment, and I am enormously grateful to him for doing so. After months of uncertainty, pain and frustration, I finally felt that someone understood the problem and could help me to work out what came next. I want to make an important point here: my experience has left me deeply frustrated with parts of the NHS and particularly with the difficulties in accessing timely diagnosis and treatment, but it has also shown me that there are some outstanding people working within it who go above and beyond for their patients.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue. I spoke to him this morning to ensure that it would be okay for me to intervene in the debate.
Arthritis UK has said that there is an “escalating musculoskeletal health crisis”. In Northern Ireland, some 550, 000 people—nearly a third of the population—are now living with arthritis or a similar condition. Those living in chronic pain face long, painful waits—the very thing the hon. Gentleman referred to—with some reporting having to wait for up to eight years for a rheumatology appointment. Many are unable to work or live independently as a result, and almost 80% report that their mental health has deteriorated significantly, so it is not just a physical problem. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that while more must be done to reduce waiting lists, we must also ensure that, in the interim, patients living with chronic pain have timely access to appropriate mental health support?
David Reed
I will come on to the points that the hon. Gentleman has made, but he is completely right. We must look at these problems in the round, because this is an issue of not just physical but mental health. People who were once fit lose that fitness, both physically and mentally, and then they become a bigger burden on the state.
Let me return to the subject of the surgeon who helped me out. I have been fortunate to benefit from that care, but I recognise that I was lucky. At the time, I had the means to access private treatment, and through that process happened to find a consultant who could help me back into the NHS system. That should not be a matter of luck, and it certainly should not depend on someone’s ability to pay.
Six years on, despite the excellent care that I now receive, I am left with osteoarthritis that can, at times, be severely debilitating. I can no longer run. I avoid activities that cause my arthritis to flare up, and I face the prospect of eventually having the bones in my ankle surgically fused. For the first few years I held on to the hope that I would recover and return to the active life that I once had, but I have now accepted that it is likely that I will not. That is difficult when physical fitness and independence have been such an important part of one’s life. At times, it has been an incredibly lonely journey. My current NHS consultant gives me hope that advances in medical technology may offer better options, but because I limp, other bones and joints are now beginning to suffer. I know that I am likely to place increasing demands on the NHS in the decades ahead.
My experience has shown me a health service that can be brilliant at dealing with life-threatening emergencies, but pretty poor when it comes to conditions considered less serious, even when they fundamentally change someone’s life. I was fortunate enough to be able to afford private care, but millions of people cannot. They are left waiting, living with pain and sometimes watching manageable conditions develop into lifelong disabilities. That brings me to the wider purpose of this debate. People living with musculoskeletal conditions are about one and a half times more likely to experience mental health problems, and I understand why. When pain becomes part of everyday life and you can no longer do the things that you enjoy, it takes a toll. However, there is another dimension that we must urgently address in the House: the economic cost of doing nothing.
In 2024 alone, 26.5 million working days were lost to musculoskeletal conditions. Arthritis UK estimates that working days lost to osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis cost £2.58 billion in 2017, with the figure projected to reach £3.43 billion by 2030. About 646,000 working-age people claiming sickness or disability benefits cite a musculoskeletal condition as their primary reason. I am not suggesting that they can all return to work, or that every disability is preventable, but I do believe that too many people deteriorate when early intervention might have kept them healthy, independent and economically active.
Let us consider someone working in construction, hospitality or healthcare. They develop a back problem or knee injury but cannot access timely treatment, so they carry on through the pain. Eventually, they cannot carry on. They fall out of work, their health deteriorates and they become increasingly dependent on public services. The taxpayer potentially picks up the bill several times over through NHS treatment, welfare payments and lost tax revenue, and the individual pays an even greater price. We focus too much on the immediate cost of treatment, without considering the potentially much greater cost of failing to treat someone early. Surely that is economically illiterate. If timely physiotherapy, imaging or specialist intervention can prevent lifelong disability or someone losing their job, we should see it as an investment, not simply another NHS cost.
However, it is not all doom and gloom, and there is reason for optimism. In my constituency, the Royal Devon University healthcare NHS foundation trust held its first MSK community appointment day in Exmouth. More than 100 people attended, accessing clinical assessments, rehabilitation advice and community support together. Patients particularly valued being listened to, and early results suggested fewer unnecessary follow-ups. One pilot does not provide all the answers, but it does show what can happen when services are organised differently and patients receive joined-up support.
That brings me to my questions for the Minister. First, where is the national leadership on MSK health? The previous Government recognised MSK as one of six major conditions in their major conditions strategy, yet we have not received a firm commitment that the current Government will develop a dedicated modern service framework. Will the Minister commit to establishing such a framework, with clear accountability and measurable outcomes? Will the Minister also commit to a national approach, with clear responsibility and measurable outcomes, and meet the Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Alliance to discuss it? I thank the shadow Health Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), for tabling an amendment to the recent Health Bill that calls for just such a framework.
Secondly, what more can be done to improve early diagnosis and timely access to rehabilitation to prevent avoidable deterioration while patients wait? Thirdly, will the Government work across the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Work and Pensions, and the Treasury to properly assess the economic case for early intervention?
Lastly, as a veteran, I want to raise veteran issues. MSK injuries are a major reason for medical discharge from the armed forces, and their consequences can follow people long after they leave service. Will the Minister work with Defence colleagues to improve access to rehabilitation for veterans, and examine whether the armed forces covenant properly addresses their long-term MSK needs? It cannot make sense for any one part of Government to save money by delaying treatment, only for another part to spend considerably more in dealing with the consequences.
I will finish where I began. Six years ago, I was able to soldier. I could run for miles, jump out of aircraft and represent my country in sports. Today, I have to think about every physical activity and the associated cost in pain. I do not share that to seek sympathy; I share it because I understand how profoundly an MSK condition can alter someone’s life. Millions of people across this country are living with far worse circumstances than mine.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mr James Frith)
I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) not just on bringing this debate on bone and joint health to the Floor of the House during Bone and Joint Week, but on sharing his personal insights and testimony. I thank him for his service and give him an assurance that I am very happy to talk about veterans, about the specifics and about his insights into how we can deliver on the armed forces covenant. I signed Bury’s first armed forces covenant when I was an armed forces champion, and although it was not the service level that he was accustomed to, I take very seriously our need as a country to pay our respects to the men and women who have put themselves in harm’s way or given the ultimate sacrifice in service to their country, so I thank the hon. Gentleman.
Jim Shannon
I was trying to intervene before the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) sat down. While one door closed when he had his injury, another door opened. The door that opened was to be an MP coming here to represent his constituents, so he has an opportunity to speak up for all those who have such injuries, and that is a voice he has now.
Mr Frith
As ever, the hon. Member sees the upside—the glass half full—of all life’s experiences.
I thank and pay tribute to the charities, clinicians, researchers, carers and campaigners who support patients and refuse to let these conditions be overlooked. Bone and joint conditions are too often overlooked or dismissed as an inevitable part of ageing or frailty, but they are not; nor should we accept them as such. Arthritis, osteoporosis, fragility fractures and other musculoskeletal conditions can mean relentless pain, lost mobility, lost confidence, lost work and lost independence.
In 2024, almost one in five adults in England reported a long-term MSK condition. This is not a niche issue; it is a national challenge. Our task is clear: diagnose earlier, treat faster, prevent more illness, and help people remain active and independent. The Government’s 10-year health plan is built around three decisive shifts: hospital to community, analogue to digital and sickness to prevention. For people with MSK conditions, that means simpler access and the ability to refer themselves through the NHS app to services, including physiotherapy, pain management and orthopaedics.
The hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East sought advice on how we educate sooner and inform sooner, but the work we are doing with the single patient record, the new iteration of the NHS app and the development of NHS online—or the digital doctor, as I am calling it internally—is about providing that useful information in a timely manner. It should be as accessible as we have become accustomed to for information we consume online, whether through retail or consumer habits. That is the level of expectation we should have for services such as this, which can give future patients the certainty and knowledge they need, when otherwise they may endure pain while waiting to access services at a later point. That is an important distinction.
On osteoporosis, we are acting before the fracture, not merely after it. This March, the Government invested £2.6 million in 20 new DEXA scanners across England, following £1.9 million for 13 scanners last year. Earlier scans mean earlier treatment and fewer painful life-changing fractures, especially for older people and women. Patients must also benefit from effective medicines. Since 2022, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has recommended Eladynos and Evenity for osteoporosis in post-menopausal women—an important distinction within the debate—both of which strengthen bones and reduce fracture risk. The UK National Screening Committee is reviewing the case for screening women for osteoporosis. Its consultation closed last week, and we will consider its independent recommendation carefully when it reports.
We must be frank: community waiting lists for MSK remain the longest of any community service. Every delay can mean more pain, less mobility and a greater risk that somebody leaves work or loses independence. I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point about having a cross-departmental approach to ensure that support is timely to prevent people going off work and losing their income, identity, self-esteem and worth, and everything that we understand comes with a forced departure from work. That is why the Getting It Right First Time MSK community delivery programme is backed by about £6 million in 2026-27. It is redesigning services, improving referrals and connecting patients to wider support. The first cohort saw waits of over 18 weeks fall by about 20% in participating systems. That is real progress and we must spread it.
We are also expanding MSK physical activity hubs. They use the skills of the leisure and fitness workforce to improve mobility, reduce pain and fatigue, and help people stay in or return to work. The principle is simple: care should come to people, not force people to navigate the maze. Throughout neighbourhood health, community MSK services, physiotherapy and occupational therapy will support recovery, protect mobility and manage long-term conditions closer to home. We have set a clear national ambition that by 2028-29, at least 80% of community health services activity should take place within 18 weeks. National guidance will define a consistent core offer and bear down on unacceptable variation or postcode lottery.
General practice is often the front door. We are increasing capacity so that patients are seen sooner and urgent cases are directed to the right care on the same day. Elective recovery matters. We remain committed to meeting the constitutional standard by March 2029: 92% of patients treated within 18 weeks. For bone and joint conditions, that means stronger links between primary, community and hospital care, and faster access to specialist advice.
Women’s health must be central to this argument as well, not peripheral. Menopause-related hormonal changes raise the risk of osteoporosis and frailty. The renewed women’s health strategy therefore focuses on earlier recognition, easier access, better treatment and practical support at work.
Bone and joint health is an inequalities issue as well. Chronic MSK conditions are a major cause of poor health and work limitation, often occurring alongside mental ill health—as the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East described—and obesity, which is often concentrated in poorer communities. A postcode must not determine whether pain is relieved, mobility restored or independence protected. Reducing delays and unwarranted variation is not an optional extra; it is a matter of principle and fairness.
In conclusion, let us reject the idea that these conditions are simply to be endured. Pain is not inevitable. Disability is not inevitable. A life-changing fracture is not always inevitable. Earlier identification, effective treatment, rehabilitation and prevention all change lives and save the NHS the greater cost of acting too late.
I again thank the hon. Member for his service and for securing this debate, and all those working through Bone and Joint Week. The Government will work with the NHS, local government, clinicians, charities and patients to turn ambition into action: fewer fractures, shorter waits, better mobility and more people living independently for longer.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Railways (Interoperability in Northern Ireland) (Convention on International Carriage by Rail) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 21 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 12 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Railways (Interoperability in Northern Ireland) (Convention on International Carriage by Rail) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. The regulations implement the United Kingdom’s rail interoperability obligations under the Windsor framework and update domestic legislation, implementing the convention concerning international carriage by rail, commonly known as COTIF. The regulations establish the technical requirements that railway vehicles, infrastructure and component products must meet before being marketed or brought into service in Northern Ireland.
Interoperability ensures that trains, rail infrastructure and equipment can operate safely and effectively across connected rail networks. Northern Ireland’s railway is unique in the United Kingdom because it connects directly to the Republic of Ireland’s network. Regular Belfast to Dublin passenger services mean that technical compatibility is essential for safe, effective cross-border rail. The interoperability framework in Great Britain is set through the Railways (Interoperability) Regulations 2011. Under the Windsor framework, the UK must apply directive 2016/797 in Northern Ireland where it concerns placing on the market, putting into service and the free movement of railway products. These regulations create a dedicated Northern Ireland framework, supporting interoperability between the Northern Irish and Irish networks and giving industry legal certainty.
The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments did not draw the regulations to either House’s special attention. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee raised several questions, and I shall briefly address each directly. The Committee questioned the time between the UK’s obligation to implement the Windsor framework requirements and the laying of these regulations. The UK had not implemented the directive before leaving the European Union. Introducing these arrangements therefore required careful work to ensure that the distinct rail framework to Northern Ireland and Great Britain could continue to operate effectively.
Developing the regulations involved substantial technical and legal work across areas including vehicle authorisation, rail interoperability and safety. It also required close engagement with the Department for Infrastructure and the European Union Agency for Railways to ensure that the new arrangements operate effectively from day one. Substantial implementation work was also required to make the regime operational, including the development of Northern Ireland national technical rules to supplement the EU specifications.
The Committee also questioned the Department’s understanding that domestic legislation was required to implement this directive in Northern Ireland. We have been clear that legislation is necessary and have worked to put the framework in place as soon as is practicable. While the legislative framework was being finalised, the Department introduced interim administrative arrangements to enable the new interoperability regime to operate in practice. We also informed the European Commission of this work while legislation was in preparation. Therefore, many of the requirements in the directive already reflect practices and standards in operation in Northern Ireland.
The Committee also asked why COTIF-related updates are being brought forward only now. The amendment reflects the UK’s position following EU exit. While the UK was an EU member state, the issue was addressed through EU arrangements. Following EU exit, it became necessary to reflect the UK’s position directly in domestic legislation.
The Committee questioned why the Government did not undertake a formal public consultation. The Government carefully considered this issue. The regulations implement obligations that the UK has already entered into under the Windsor framework and COTIF. As the policy approach was shaped by international obligations, the Department therefore undertook targeted engagement with organisations most affected, including the Department for Infrastructure, Translink, the Office of Rail and Road, the Rail Safety and Standards Board and conformity assessments bodies. The Government consider that targeted engagement was proportionate, given the nature of the regulations and the limited scope for alternative policy options.
During scrutiny, concerns were raised about the differing regulatory arrangements in Northern Ireland and Great Britain, including in a submission from the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim. I recognise those concerns, but it is important to be clear about the purpose of these regulations specifically. They do not create the UK’s obligations under the Windsor framework; those obligations are set out in the withdrawal agreement. Their purpose is to implement those obligations through a clear and legally operable framework for industry and regulators. The Government continue to work closely with the Department for Infrastructure to manage any future impacts arising from divergence between the regulatory frameworks in Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
In conclusion, these regulations provide legal certainty and a clear, workable framework for the railway industry in Northern Ireland. They implement obligations that the UK has already entered into, support the continued safe and effective operation of cross-border rail services on the island of Ireland and update domestic legislation to reflect the UK’s international rail commitments. Although technical in nature, the regulations perform an important function by providing clarity for industry and regulators. I therefore commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond, and also to be across the Floor from the Minister for the second time today. This morning we discussed the coach industry in Westminster Hall, while this afternoon we are discussing an issue that goes to the very nub of our constitutional settlement as a union of nations.
As the Government reference in the documents published alongside these regulations, the operation of the railways in Northern Ireland has always been slightly different from that in the rest of the United Kingdom. For example, the 1843 compromise with the Board of Trade on a 5 feet 3 inches gauge and the subsequent Railway Regulation (Gauge) Act 1846 set the railways of Northern Ireland on a different technical path.
However, despite acknowledging that long history, I wholly recognise the concerns that have been raised, and that I expect will equally be raised today, specifically those relating to how the new regime alters the 2011 regulations that cover the whole of the United Kingdom.
The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim has already set out in detail, as I am sure he will again later, his concerns about the impact that this could have on Northern Ireland, particularly in relation to divergence within the United Kingdom. In their impact assessment of the proposals, the Government comment that, outside of the Windsor framework, the main advantage of these proposals is that they will
“provide more certainty to businesses as to which technical standards and processes apply to rail projects being undertaken in Northern Ireland.”
However, what is not clear is why clarity could not be offered under the regulations set out in 2011, even if that must be under a slightly altered regime. Merely because clarity is offered, it does not necessarily mean that the situation is better.
I recognise that in response to concerns about the impact, it has been said that the Department for Transport and the Department for Infrastructure in Northern Ireland have agreed a common framework establishing mechanisms for officials to monitor and avoid regulatory divergence impacting the UK internal market. Even though this is the only risk noted, it is not an insubstantial one. Divergence between the two markets could easily put parts of Northern Ireland’s supply chain at risk. While there is a role for European elements, the requirement for UK goods to have an EU declaration of conformity is a further burden which should not be necessary.
There is also the broader point that, moving forward, we need to ensure that technology and progress in the rail sector in Northern Ireland is able to work within the framework of its relationships with the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom more widely. I fear that removing so much power without even consulting those affected could begin to create significant discrepancies that will have a significant impact.
I appreciate the status of these measures within the framework, but ultimately, we need to ensure that our legislation serves all the people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I am afraid that these measures simply will not achieve that.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond.
The Liberal Democrats support this legislation. I made my first ever trip to Northern Ireland in the spring of 2023, to do work with Northern Ireland Railways as part of Translink. That network has had huge investment this century and the user base is benefitting vastly from it.
As the shadow Minister said, it has some unique features: not just its gauge but it has remained state owned throughout and is run jointly alongside state-owned buses. It also jointly operates with Irish Rail, the second, undeservedly less famous, international passenger rail service in the UK, linking Belfast with Dublin, which offers very fine views of the Irish sea coast in the Irish Republic and the Mourne mountains in Northern Ireland. I strongly recommend it for those who have not yet indulged.
The arrangements that the Minister proposes will help to continue and enhance the strong partnership working between Irish Rail and Northern Ireland Railways, which is necessary for the current cross-border line and proposals for further cross-border infrastructure in the future. As the shadow Minister said, of course, in relation to Northern Ireland and its status under the Brexit agreement, the Windsor framework, there will always be some complexities and sensitivities. I hope that the Minister will address the concerns that have been raised in his comments later.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Thank you, Sir Desmond, for the opportunity to contribute to the Committee. Here we are today with a 40-page document of 54 regulations, and these 30 minutes, if even that, will be the only scrutiny to which they will be subjected in this Parliament of the United Kingdom. Yet, these regulations will introduce a divergence in law and authority in respect of a part of this United Kingdom at the behest of laws not made in this Parliament. They will introduce and give effect to a law made in a foreign Parliament that will be imposed on my constituents and every other constituent in Northern Ireland. The lack of opportunity to even debate them—never mind change them—makes this absurd, and it is also constitutionally absurd that a part of this country should be ruled by laws we do not make and we cannot change. Yet, that is the import and effect of these regulations.
It is because we are impotent to change one word of the foreign Parliament’s legislation that there has been no consultation. Nowhere else do we legislate without at least the façade of consultation, but when it comes to the colonial rule of the EU in Northern Ireland, we do not even consult, as the Minister effectively said, because there is no point. He is obligated under the folly of the protocol to implement these regulations. Whether he, I, or any elected Member of this House thinks it is a good idea, we are effectively told we have no choice. What sort of a way is that to rule any part of this United Kingdom? Is it something that other Members would accept for their constituents that they cannot change the laws that are imposed and handed down from colonial masters and they simply have the obligation, upon criminal sanction, to implement them?
We are creating in these regulations a scenario where railways will be governed in a part of this United Kingdom not by an agency of this United Kingdom but by the EU’s railway agency. When we look at regulations 28 to 30, we discover that, for a supplier in GB to supply any railway equipment to Northern Ireland, they must have an EU declaration of conformity. They must apply and obtain a declaration of conformity that they are complying with the handed-down laws of a foreign Parliament for the item that they wish to supply. That is why I say to this Committee, as I have said on multiple occasions, that unless and until this United Kingdom takes back control over all the laws of the United Kingdom, we will be put in the pitiful, absurd situation of coming to a Committee Room such as the one we sit in to discuss something that we cannot change, in blind obedience to a foreign legislator. That should offend us all, and it certainly offends me and my constituents.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Yet again, Northern Ireland is being told to accept different rules from the rest of our country. We have had no formal public consultation and no elected voice in making EU laws—just another instruction to put up with the consequences of the protocol. That is the reality of where we find ourselves today. Ministers will tell us that the regulations are technical, but the reason we are here is political. The protocol, now dressed up as the Windsor framework, requires Northern Ireland to implement EU rules while Great Britain continues under its existing framework. The name of the protocol changed, but the problems continue to grow.
I want safe railways, and trains and equipment that work properly together, but my constituents should not have to surrender their democratic voice to achieve that. The regulations create a separate railway regime for Northern Ireland, and businesses supplying equipment to Northern Ireland will have to meet the requirements that apply under them. The Minister needs to explain clearly what that actually means for suppliers trading within their own country. In reality, we all know that it means additional paperwork, additional assessments and additional cost.
Once again, there has been no acknowledgment of the impact the measures have on the ground for businesses in Northern Ireland, nor an explanation for why there was no formal public consultation. Speaking to the Department for Infrastructure and Translink does not give everyone who is affected, including suppliers and businesses, the chance to have their say that they deserve. The Government’s answer is that their obligations under the Windsor framework leave them no alternative. That says everything about this arrangement. Ministers came before Parliament and told us that their hands are tied by an agreement that they continue to defend, but my hands are not, and I, along with the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim, who sits beside me, and others will continue to challenge it.
I find it incredible that after all the promises that we have heard, we are here again to debate another separate rule for Northern Ireland. People are sick and tired of being told that each new measure is small, technical or unavoidable. People in Northern Ireland are not wearing that, because every small, technical or unavoidable measure creates a further barrier between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Minister should explain the consequences for businesses, justify the absence of public consultation and recognise, at the very least, the impact that the Windsor framework and the protocol continue to have on people and businesses in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is part of the UK, and our people, just like the constituents of hon. Members in other parts of the UK, deserve to have a say in its laws. “The protocol requires it,” will never be a good enough answer for my constituents.
Keir Mather
I thank all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. I shall do my level best to address the points that they have raised, although the broader constitutional questions and sentiments that were espoused in some of the speeches might not pertain directly to my responsibilities or be for the Department for Transport to address. From a personal perspective, I am incredibly proud to be British and a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and part of that is about meeting the obligations to which we as a UK Parliament assent. This Committee is a part of that process, and that is why I am glad that we have had such a robust debate on the regulations. Let me respond to a few of the issues raised by hon. Members.
As I outlined in my opening remarks, substantial technical and legal work has been undertaken to ensure that the framework can operate effectively alongside existing domestic rail legislation, and provide a workable, durable and legally robust regime for industry and regulators. That is what will ultimately provide the certainty that rail infrastructure investors need to be able to invest in the UK-wide market—in Northern Ireland, and in Great Britain.
On the concerns that the shadow Minister raised on supply chain coherence—a very fair point—I bring to his attention that we have of course already been working under interim arrangements, which closely mirror the system that we presently have. In that regard, businesses have been working to the tune of what this framework institutes. I wonder whether there is a challenge for the viability of projects in the longer term if the arrangements that we have are discordant with our obligations under the Windsor framework.
De minimis assessment was provided in relation to this legislation, as it is for all legislation, and it concluded that the impact on business was not sufficiently great to raise the merits of the shadow Minister’s concern, but it is of course something that we keep a very close watch on within the Department for Transport, given our obligations to look out for the entirety of the UK rail industry, as well as to ensure growth in rail freight and the maintenance of our railway network.
I turn to the questions on the consultation. As I already mentioned, the Department worked with those organisations that are most directly affected by what is an incredibly technical piece of legislation. That engagement informed the practical approach to implementation that was adopted in these regulations.
I fully take on board the view of the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim on the constitutional question, which underlies why this decision has been taken, but the purpose of these regulations is not to reopen the overall question of the Windsor framework. The arrangements under the Windsor framework represent the international obligations that exist on the United Kingdom. These regulations do not create those obligations; they implement them. They are legally binding, are already entered into in good faith and provide legal certainty regarding how those obligations operate in practice for the railway sector in Northern Ireland.
On the broader question of divergence, the Government recognise the importance of protecting the integrity of the UK’s internal markets. These regulations do not introduce a new policy of divergence. Rather, they establish a clear statutory framework to implement obligations that already apply under the framework.
The Department continues to work closely with the Department for Infrastructure to understand and manage any future impacts arising from regulatory divergence and to ensure that businesses and regulators have clarity regarding the applicable framework. If Members have concerns, particularly as pertains to industries that exist in their constituencies, I encourage them to raise those matters with either me or the Rail Minister.
These regulations provide the legislative framework necessary to implement the UK’s obligations relating to rail interoperability in Northern Ireland and to update domestic legislation implementing the convention concerning international carriage by rail. They provide clarity and certainty to regulators, infrastructure managers, operators and manufacturers; support the continued operation of cross-border rail services on the island of Ireland; and ensure that domestic legislation accurately reflects the United Kingdom’s already existing international obligations.
These are technical regulations, but they perform an important function in providing a clear, stable and legally operable framework for the rail industry in Northern Ireland. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Question put.
Draft Overseas Prudential Requirements Regime (Credit Institutions and Investment Firms) Regulations 2026
Draft Over the Counter Derivatives (Intragroup Transactions) Regulations 2026
Draft Building Societies Act 1986 (Assimilation to Company Law and Changes to Funding Limit) Order 2026
(1 day, 21 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Overseas Prudential Requirements Regime (Credit Institutions and Investment Firms) Regulations 2026.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Over the Counter Derivatives (Intragroup Transactions) Regulations 2026 and the draft Building Societies Act 1986 (Assimilation to Company Law and Changes to Funding Limit) Order 2026.
I will now call the Minister to move the first motion and speak to all three instruments. At the end of the debate, I will put the question on the first motion and then ask the Minister to move the remaining motions formally.
Lucy Rigby
Although the three instruments before us concern distinct parts of the financial services regulatory system, they share a common purpose, which is to ensure that the UK regulatory framework remains clear, proportionate and able to support growth, while maintaining appropriate safeguards and financial stability. I will address each instrument in turn, beginning with the overseas prudential requirements regime regulations.
Following EU exit, the UK retained a body of EU-derived financial services legislation, including the UK capital requirements regulation, which sets prudential requirements for banks, building societies and larger investment firms. The first instrument supports the Government’s programme of replacing that assimilated law with a framework tailored to the UK. It brings the existing UK capital requirements regulation equivalence regimes together in a single overseas prudential requirements regime. It also makes targeted changes so that the treatment of exposures to overseas exchanges better reflects the underlying risk; updates the definition of overseas investment firms without changing the overall scope of existing treatment; and enables eligible overseas covered bonds to be recognised in future, subject to a further statutory instrument.
The second SI makes a targeted and important reform to the UK’s framework for regulating over-the-counter derivatives—those traded directly between buyer and seller—by addressing intragroup transactions. It replaces the temporary intragroup exemption regime, which everyone present will know as TIGER, with a permanent framework. In doing so, it provides firms with long-term certainty while preserving appropriate safeguards and regulatory oversight. The benefits of oversight of intragroup transactions are well recognised, so exemptions from certain clearing and margin requirements for certain transactions are a feature of regulatory regimes in the UK and other jurisdictions.
TIGER was introduced following EU exit to provide a temporary regime for exempting certain transactions, but it was only ever intended to be temporary. Having been extended once already, it is due to expire at the end of this year, and the Government consider that a further time-limited extension would not provide the long-term framework and stability that firms need. The instrument therefore establishes a permanent framework for qualifying intragroup transactions.
The third SI concerns the legislation governing building societies—specifically the Building Societies Act 1986. The order makes two specific changes. First, it removes the requirement placed on building societies to execute legal documents such as mortgage deeds using a common seal, enabling them to use authorised signatures instead. That is a practical and proportionate modernisation, reducing unnecessary administrative burdens. Secondly, the order makes specific and limited exemptions from the wholesale funding calculation that building societies are required to make, to ensure that they continue to be majority owned by their members.
Taken together, these instruments modernise our financial services framework. They replace or update inherited arrangements, provide greater clarity and certainty, and support the effective functioning and competitiveness of the UK financial sector, while maintaining appropriate safeguards. I commend them to the Committee.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
Dr Murrison, you will be delighted to hear that this is a highly uncontentious set of proposals, which the Opposition are fully behind. There is an opportunity, potentially, to talk about the merits of the Building Societies Act 1986 and how it could be updated, but now is probably not the time. You will therefore be delighted to hear that I will bring my words to a close right now.
Lucy Rigby
I welcome those comments, and I suspect that this is a preview of the Budget debate.
The Chair
You might think that. I could not possibly comment.
Question put and agreed to.
DRAFT OVER THE COUNTER DERIVATIVES (INTRAGROUP TRANSACTIONS) REGULATIONS 2026
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Over the Counter Derivatives (Intragroup Transactions) Regulations 2026.—(Lucy Rigby.)
DRAFT BUILDING SOCIETIES ACT 1986 (ASSIMILATION TO COMPANY LAW AND CHANGES TO FUNDING LIMIT) ORDER 2026
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Building Societies Act 1986 (Assimilation to Company Law and Changes to Funding Limit) Order 2026—(Lucy Rigby.)
Petitions
Dentistry in coastal areas
Warehouse development in Pilning
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Third sitting)
Tuesday 13th October 2026
(1 day, 21 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Immigration and Asylum Bill 2026-27 View all Immigration and Asylum Bill 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 13 October 2026 - (13 Oct 2026)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 13 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 13 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 13 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 14 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 13 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 14 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 13 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
Good morning, everyone, and welcome. Before we begin, I remind Members to switch electronic devices to silent, please, and that teas and coffees are not allowed.
We will now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for the sitting is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. It shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Any Division on amendments and new clauses takes place in the order that they appear in the amendment paper. The Member who has put their name to the lead amendment of the group is called to speak first. For debates on clause stand part, the Minister will be called first. Other Members are then free to indicate whether they wish to speak in that debate by bobbing. Please bob on each occasion on which you wish to speak during proceedings.
At the end of a debate on a group of amendments and new clauses, I shall call the Member who moved the lead amendment or new clause again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or new clause, or to seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press any other amendment, which includes grouped new clauses, in a group to a vote, that is at the Chair’s discretion. The order of decisions follows the order in which amendments appear in the amendment paper.
Clause 1
The Independent Immigration Appeals Authority
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
I beg to move amendment 64, in clause 1, page 2, leave out lines 1 to 5 and insert—
“(5) In the exercise of its functions, the IIAA must—
(a) be accessible, fair and independent,
(b) handle its cases quickly and efficiently.”
This amendment would remove the requirement for the IIAA to “aim to” operate fairly and independently and handle cases quickly and efficiently, so that the IIAA instead has a duty to so act. It would also remove the requirement for the IIAA to have regard to the public interest.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 48, in clause 1, page 2, line 2, leave out “aim to”.
Amendment 49, in clause 1, page 2, leave out lines 4 and 5.
Amendment 87, in clause 1, page 2, line 4, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
“(c) give effect to the public interest in the effective enforcement of immigration control, including the prompt removal from the United Kingdom of persons who have no right to remain, having regard to the fact that the IIAA operates as a key part of the immigration and asylum system.”
This amendment would require the IIAA to give effect to the public interest in effective immigration control, including the prompt removal of those with no right to remain, rather than merely to have regard to the public interest.
New clause 12—Independent Immigration Appeals Authority: commencement—
“(1) The Secretary of State may not make regulations under section 52(1) for the purposes of bringing Part 1 of this Act into force unless—
(a) the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a report into the establishment of the Independent Immigration Appeals Authority (IIAA), and
(b) a statutory instrument containing regulations for the commencement of sections 1 to 7 of this Act has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(2) A report under subsection (1)(a) must contain—
(a) the full cost of establishing and operating the IIAA, including transition and set-up costs, adjudicator recruitment and training costs, and ongoing annual administrative costs for at least the first five years of operation, with a comparison to the equivalent cost of operating the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (‘the Tribunal’);
(b) the date, or expected range of dates, on which each stage of commencement is expected to take effect, including the length of any period in which the IIAA and the Tribunal will operate in parallel and the date by which the full transfer of jurisdiction from the Tribunal to the IIAA is expected to be complete;
(c) the expected capacity of the IIAA, including the number of adjudicators expected to be appointed at each stage of commencement and the number of appeals the IIAA is expected to be capable of determining per year at each such stage.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the full costs of the IIAA, its expected commencement timetable and its expected capacity before the implementation of Part 1 of this Act.
Siân Berry
It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. I am moving amendment 64, to make fairness and efficiency duties of the Independent Immigration Appeals Authority. I should add that in this group I also support amendments 48 and 49, tabled by my Lib Dem colleagues, I oppose amendment 87 tabled by my Conservative colleagues and I support the Lib Dems’ new clause 12.
My amendment would impose on the IIAA a duty to operate fairly and independently and to handle cases quickly and efficiently. The Bill only imposes an obligation on the IIAA to aim to do those things. The amendment also removes the requirement for the IIAA to operate as part of the immigration system.
The Independent Immigration Appeals Authority will be a body that is independent in name; the reality, however, will be much murkier and more ambiguous. The Home Secretary will personally appoint senior figures in the IIAA, including its chair, and a Home Secretary appointee will be responsible for appointing adjudicators who make appeals decisions. The effect of the Bill is to make asylum decision making less independent, less fair and less expert. It brings asylum appeals under greater political control, putting at risk people’s basic human right not to be persecuted for who they are.
The major driver of the appeals backlog is the poor quality of Home Office asylum decisions, not tribunal judges. The Refugee Council has shown that about two thirds of Home Office asylum decisions that are challenged are overturned, either by the tribunals or by the Home Office itself. My preference, therefore, is for the Government to scrap all of part 1 of the Bill and get back to the day job of making good asylum decisions. If part 1 does go ahead, however—I will debate later whether that should happen—it should contain safeguards for basic standards of independence and fairness.
The amendment deals with two ways in which the Bill tries unfairly to align the IIAA with the Home Office’s policy priorities, rather than the requirements of justice and fairness. First, clause 1(5) states only that
“the IIAA must…aim to be accessible, fair and independent”—
not that it must be independent, fair and accessible in practice, but merely that it must aim to be so. By contrast, under existing rules for tribunals, there is a duty, an overriding objective on tribunals, to deal with cases fairly and justly. That is not an aim, but a requirement. As such, subsection (5) is a watering down, a weakening and an undermining of the independence of asylum appeals. My amendment would make it a legal duty for the IIAA to be independent, fair and accessible, as it is for tribunals, and not merely an aim.
Secondly, the attempt to draw asylum appeals into the Home Office’s sphere of influence is seen even more clearly in the fact that subsection (5) requires the IIAA to prioritise
“in particular…the fact that the IIAA operates as a key part of the immigration…system.”
That, I think, is an unambiguous push to align the IIAA not with the requirements of justice and fairness, but with Home Office policy priorities. My amendment would therefore remove any risk that the IIAA will be pressured into aligning with the Home Office’s immigration policy priorities, and let the IIAA be what it is meant to be: a quasi-judicial body for deciding appeals fairly and independently.
Ultimately, without my amendment, the IIAA will be a body with a conflict of interest at its heart: a requirement to aim to be independent and fair, but also a priority to view itself as part of immigration control. If the Government are sincere about creating a body that can deal with cases independently and fairly, without interference from the Home Office, the IIAA’s duty to operate independently and fairly should be more than an aim; it should be a requirement, just as it is for tribunals. Moreover, there should be no pressure on the IIAA to align with the Home Office’s political vision of immigration control, whoever is in charge of the Home Office. The amendment would create that safety against the priorities of future Governments, as well as this one, being able to put political pressure on the IIAA. The amendment would put all that beyond doubt. It gives the IIAA the best chance of being truly independent and fair. I will seek a Division on this amendment.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I will speak to Opposition amendment 87 and to two other amendments in the group.
As this is the Committee’s first debate on part 1 of the Bill, let me set out the test that the Opposition will apply to it. On Second Reading, the Home Secretary told the House that more than 150,000 people are waiting for an appeal decision and the average wait is well over a year. Every one of those months is a month in which someone whose claim may well fail remains in this country, very often at the taxpayer’s expense. The public have been promised for years that that would be fixed, and we need to see it happen now. Our test for every clause in this part is a simple one: will appeals be decided faster, and will those who lose be removed?
Clause 1(5) is where the Bill tells the new authority what it is for: the authority must aim to be accessible, fair and independent; it must aim to handle its cases quickly and efficiently; and it must have regard to the public interest. Amendment 48, in the name of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, would remove the words “aim to” from the first paragraph only, so that the authority would be under a firm duty to be “accessible, fair and independent”. I understand the instinct, but that hardens the wrong limb of the measure. If any duty in this subsection needs to be firmer, it is the duty to handle cases “quickly and efficiently”. That is the duty that the authority is being created to discharge, and it is the one that the public will judge it on.
Amendment 64 would remove “aim to” from both limbs, subsection (5)(a) and (b), but it would also remove the public interest duty in paragraph (c) to which I now turn. Amendments 49 and 64 in its second paragraph would go further than amendment 48. They would remove the duty to have regard to the public interest altogether. I respect the concern for independence that lies behind amendments 49 and 64, but I cannot agree. It would be remarkable for Parliament to tell the body that decides who may stay in this country that it need have no regard to the public interest or to public confidence in the system it is part of. An immigration system that does not have the confidence of the British public is a system that will not work.
Amendment 87 takes the opposite approach. It strengthens the public interest duty instead of removing it. In the Bill as drafted, the authority must merely “have regard to” the public interest, and the only content that the Bill gives to that interest is the fact that the authority is part of the immigration and asylum system. That tells an adjudicator nothing. The amendment states what the public interest is:
“the effective enforcement of immigration control, including the prompt removal from the United Kingdom of persons who have no right to remain.”
It would require the authority to give effect to that interest, not simply to have regard to it. The difference between “have regard to” and “give effect to” is not a lawyer’s nicety. A duty to have regard to something can be satisfied by thinking about it and then setting it aside; a duty to give effect to something cannot.
Clause 1(5) reaches well beyond the final decision in each case: it governs the authority in the “exercise of its functions”, which means how it lists cases, handles requests to adjourn and manages its caseload. Under clause 4(5), the Procedure Rules Board must also have regard to those objectives when it writes the rules. Amendment 87 would therefore shape every deadline, every adjournment rule and every listing decision the authority makes. It would put the effective enforcement of immigration control into the DNA of the institution from the start.
The Committee heard in evidence why that matters. Professor Ekins of Oxford University told us that one of the potential advantages of the new authority is that it could make
“the public interest in the enforcement of migration law a more pressing consideration.”––[Official Report, Immigration and Asylum Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2026; c. 22.]
Amendment 87 would make sure that that advantage is actually realised, rather than left to chance. This is not new ground for Parliament. Section 117B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 already states that
“the maintenance of effective immigration controls is in the public interest.”
The Minister may say that amendment 87 would compromise independence, but it would not. Clause 1(4) will still require the authority to
“exercise its primary function with a view to ensuring that justice is done.”
Clause 1(6) will still require every Minister to uphold the IIAA’s independence. Each case will still be decided on its evidence and on the law. What changes is that the institution is told plainly what it exists to achieve. We are clear that the public interest includes the swift removal of those who have no right to be in the country. That is one of the public’s most pressing concerns, and the new authority should be in no doubt that it is there to serve it.
New clause 12 asks for a report on the cost, timetable and capacity of the authority before part 1 can be commenced. Whatever view the Committee takes of a statutory lock on commencement, the questions are fair, and I will put them directly: what is the full cost of setting up and running the authority over its first five years, and how does that compare with the tribunal it replaces? How many adjudicators will be in post on the first day, and how many appeals will they decide each year? On what date does the Minister expect the authority to hear its first appeal?
We will press amendment 87 to a Division when it is reached.
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Anna Turley)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank all Members for the constructive debate we have had on the amendments to clause 1 of this Bill, particularly the hon. Members for Brighton Pavilion and for Stockton West, and the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire, who tabled amendment 87.
I would like to say up front that it is very clear that consent for our asylum system in the public domain is fraying. The important part of this Bill is to seek to restore control, restore fairness and rebuild the public’s confidence. We have made huge progress on initial decision making; we have cut the backlog in initial decisions by 72% from the 2023 peak. However, as we have done so, the appeals backlog has grown substantially, now with waiting times of more than two years. Some appeals are absolutely genuine, and they of course must be heard fairly. However, it is clear that some claimants are lodging appeals to frustrate their legitimate removal from this country.
As of June 2026, the open caseload in the first-tier tribunal immigration and asylum chamber was about 156,000. The average time taken to clear appeals across all categories is currently at 65 weeks: 72 weeks for asylum protection, 74 weeks for human rights and 48 weeks for European economic area free movement. The Government have substantially increased both capacity and productivity in the FTT IAC, but demand has risen considerably faster. Receipts increased from around 58,000 in 2023-24 to almost 118,000 in 2025-26, while the outstanding caseload rose from around 50,000 to more than 150,000. We have done our best to try to support the workforce within that existing system. We increased the judicial workforce by 21% to 311 judges, including 61 new fee-paid judges and 25 salaried judges who began sitting between January and March this year, and we are continuing further recruitment.
The structural constraint is just how quickly judicial capacity can scale. Judicial recruitment draws on a relatively limited pool of experienced lawyers, and it currently takes around 12 to 18 months from launching an exercise to a judge being able to sit, so that is not feasible. The IIAA therefore broadens the recruitment pool, providing greater flexibility and allowing us to increase capacity while maintaining robust safeguards around training, legal support, quality assurance and professional standards.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
Is it not the case that the long backlog of cases for judges is largely driven by the poor quality of original decision making by Home Officials, as shown by the number of successful appeals? I was slightly concerned that senior officials at the evidence session seemed not to be willing to acknowledge that. Will the Minister acknowledge that the quality of some of those first Home Office decisions is not particularly good?
Anna Turley
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and all of us, as Members of Parliament, will have had our own cases that challenged some of the standards. However, what we have seen is that, while the number has increased, the decision making quality has not gone up or down. I would also say that, at the moment, the delays in the current system mean that decision making becomes poorer, because evidence is produced later in the system and some of it is not sustainable, and more and more different routes are being attempted to string out appeals. The longer the process goes on, the more complex and difficult the decision making becomes. This is about having swift and fair decision making, but we will always keep the quality of decision making in this process under review in the Department.
To create the swift and fair appeals system that we need, we are scrapping the judge-led asylum and immigration tribunal, which just cannot keep pace with demand, and we are replacing it with a new independent appeals authority to deliver swift and fair decision making. This authority will be staffed by independent adjudicators, who will be ordinary citizens trained like magistrates. To reduce abuse of the system, claimants will be allowed just a single route for appeal, which must be lodged as early as possible. That will remove the scope for bringing multiple appeals, as some claimants do, that are often vexatious and at the very last minute before removal. Late claims will be heard under an expedited process, ensuring that they cannot be used to frustrate a removal. There will be a right for a further appeal to a judge-led tribunal only on a point of law.
The new authority will be independent of Government, with a chair and chief executive officer who are accountable to the Home Secretary and Parliament for delivering an effective and efficient system. All appointments will be based on merit and subject to fair and open appointments principles. All Ministers, including the Home Secretary, will be under a statutory duty to uphold the IIAA’s independence and not to influence its decisions.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
It is undeniable that there is an appetite in the country for an asylum system that is robust but fair, and it seems to be the case that people are abusing the system. With the extended period for appeals in the current process, despite the good will in the intentions behind it. This IIAA process will not only speed up the decisions, which is compassionate for people, rather than leaving them lingering in a system for months or years on end, but provide the British public with the necessary confidence and security of knowledge that the system we have employed in this country is fair and robust.
Anna Turley
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We are really keen to ensure that public confidence is at the heart of this process; it cannot be allowed to operate in a vacuum. The public rightly expect us to have an immigration system that has regard to the public interest, and that is what these amendments and the Bill seek to reinforce.
Clause 1 establishes the Independent Immigration Appeals Authority as a body corporate: a public body that is independent of Government. It is the first step in the Bill to overhaul the immigration and asylum appeals system, which has seen unacceptable caseloads and waiting times for determinations to be reached. Amendments 64, 48, 49 and 87 concern subsection (5), which sets out the objectives the authority must meet when exercising its functions, namely
“(a) the aim to be accessible, fair and independent,
(b) the aim to handle its cases quickly and efficiently, and”—
crucially, as the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion mentioned—to
“(c) have regard to the public interest”.
Melanie Onn
The Minister talks about the public interest test. Could she explain how public interest is considered under the current judicial system?
Anna Turley
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I do not think many members of the public understand how our appeals process works. They see, particularly in the public domain, many cases that have been strung out with tentative evidence and means to do so, and that has led to a huge crisis of confidence. The Home Secretary set out very clearly that she is keen to restore order and control in our immigration service. That is crucial to the public confidence that we need in this country and for us to have a system that protects people from genuine war and persecution. It is vital that we maintain public confidence. Having regard to public interest is a key part of the system; the public would expect nothing less.
Today, asylum and protection appeals take 72 weeks to be determined on average. As we set out in the “Restoring Order and Control” announcement, that extended period can lead to people bouncing around the systems for years—that is neither fair on them nor, given its cost, acceptable to the public—and, in turn, accruing new, additional reasons for delay. The objectives make it clear not only that justice will be done, but that to have an effective immigration and asylum system, the end-to-end decision making and the enforcement regime must be aligned. Importantly, the decision making is still independent, but it cannot operate in a vacuum. The body must be a key part of the country’s immigration and asylum system; as I say, the public would expect nothing less.
New clause 12 seeks to require the Secretary of State to provide a report on the authority’s operations prior to commencement under clause 52(1). In our view, producing such a report prior to commencement is both unnecessary and, given the requirement on the IIAA to operate independently, inappropriate. Decisions on recruitment and training, which will ultimately inform capacity, timeframes and productivity, are for the authority alone; the Home Office should not pre-empt them in a parliamentary report. The Bill contains plenty of parliamentary reporting and accounting measures, which I am sure we will come to—
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
The Minister mentions other scrutiny measures, but the Bill in its entirety relies heavily on Henry VIII powers. Additionally, the impact assessment repeatedly admits uncertainty, and we do not know the deterrent impact. How does she make the case that there will be better scrutiny and accountability? Does she not agree that having a full understanding of the implementation of the Bill up front would be a good thing?
Anna Turley
I hope the hon. Gentleman has seen the revised impact assessment, which now has a green flag.
Let me set out some of the reporting avenues that are already in the Bill. At the end of each financial year, the authority must produce an annual report on the exercise of its functions and any other information as directed by the Secretary of State. The chief inspector of UK Border Agency will also produce a report once a year, and at other times if requested by the Secretary of State. The chief executive of the authority has a statutory duty to respond to that report and to send that response to the Secretary of State, who must lay it before Parliament alongside the report. The chief executive may also lay written representations on matters they consider to be of importance through the Secretary of State. There is a wide range of provisions in the Bill to ensure proper accountability to Parliament.
Let me pick up the questions asked by the hon. Member for Stockton West about the costs of the IIAA. Detailed plans are currently being developed, and full costs and affordability will be developed through the business case; I undertake to keep Parliament completely updated throughout the process. As I say, we will be developing that, and I will make sure that Parliament is able to scrutinise it in the fullness of time, but in terms of operational capacity and productivity, we should not be pre-empting this. A report prior to commencement is not appropriate; it is for the IIAA, once established, to undertake its reporting duties.
Amendment 87 seeks to narrow the scope of the public interest considerations to those that concern just effective immigration control and the “prompt removal” of those with no right to remain in the United Kingdom. While I have some sympathy with the objectives of the amendment, I am afraid that it cannot be accepted because it is far too narrow in its definition. The authority is an independent body—we have established that very clearly in the Bill—and one crucial part of the immigration and asylum system, not just an extended branch of immigration enforcement. The public interest spans the entire spectrum, and could include things that are not included in the amendment, such as public safety, operational impact and value for money. We do not want to lose those other factors by limiting the definition to effective immigration control and removal. It is important that we keep the scope broad.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
It is important to consider this—and this is why we must reject the Opposition’s approach—in the same way that we consider the police. We must ensure that the public interest covers a wide range of things; if we said it only concerned crime, we would end up in a situation where our police were not protecting individuals or running an effective constabulary in their area and were, in effect, letting down the rest of the country. Does the Minister agree?
Anna Turley
My hon. Friend is absolutely right and makes a really good comparison with the police. The police are to some extent accountable to the Home Secretary, but she does not get involved in operational decision making. Our approach to the IIAA is similar: it is vital that we ensure that we have the wider public interest at the heart of it, because it will be a key part of the country’s nationality, immigration and asylum process.
Tom Gordon
One of my concerns is that the public interest is quite subjective; we are, in effect, giving a statutory steer on what any Government at any given point decide is in the public interest. Does the Minister not have concerns about how that could be applied by future Governments?
Anna Turley
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but we live in a democracy. The Home Secretary of the day will be the Home Secretary of the day, and it is for them to define, legislate and direct the broader immigration system. To me, that is a key feature. It is really important that we have the flexibility to respond to the challenges and changes that our system faces, and that we ensure that we maintain public confidence in this process. At the moment, we have an abstract body that operates in a vacuum, purely with lawyers, and does not become part of the broader immigration process. It is important that public interest is part of this.
Melanie Onn
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point about flexibility. Over recent years, we have seen such an increase in the number of applications and appeals. A system that pays no regard to that finds itself falling behind the times, does it not?
Anna Turley
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I said, we know that things ebb and flow in the immigration system, and it is important that the Home Secretary has a system that commands the confidence of the general public, does not operate in a vacuum and considers the wider public interest.
For the reasons that I have outlined, the Government cannot accept the amendments, and I invite hon. Members to withdraw them.
Tom Gordon
I want to press the point that I made to the Minister a moment ago about how one defines public interest. It concerns me that the appeals body that will be deciding on these cases of law will end up with a challenge when different Ministers of the day provide a different steer as to what is in the public interest. Stemming from that, how does Parliament hold the relevant Ministers to account when we are introducing subjective terms and concepts around public interest? For that reason, we will be pressing amendments 48 and 49.
Amendment 48 would make the provision about the IIAA’s exercise of its functions affirmative: as amended, the clause would say that the IIAA must be accessible, fair and independent, not just “aim” to be. What really concerns me and my colleagues is that the element of flexibility, as the Minister calls it, might lead to unfair application and due process throughout the entirety of the process. I would like to know more about what is meant by “aim to”, as opposed to it being actually accessible, fair and independent.
I will oppose amendment 87, because the IIAA should be independent. The amendment would require the authority to give effect to prompt removals and turn an independent adjudicator into an arm of enforcement, and I am concerned that the public and courts would have no confidence in its decisions.
I welcome the fact that the impact assessments have been updated, but there are lingering questions about the scale and timing of the benefits, and the costs are unclear. We are being asked in effect to abolish a working tribunal jurisdiction without a price tag at this point. I would appreciate clarity on those issues as we move forward.
Anna Turley
A lot of these issues will be addressed during the course of the day’s discussion, so I look forward to responding to the hon. Gentleman further on those points.
Siân Berry
I am not convinced by anything I have heard from the Minister. She talked about my amendments not allowing flexibility, but let us be clear what she has said: she is asking for flexibility in fairness, but not flexibility in the political definition of public interest. The risk to human rights here is huge. Let us not forget that these are life and death decisions for people who are among the most vulnerable in the world. It is clear from the data that the backlog is being driven by the fact the Home Office is deciding to refuse more cases, and the risk that those decisions are bad ones is also pretty clear; we see the frequency with which they are overturned, or the Home Office’s objections are withdrawn, when they go to the current tribunal.
We know that bad decisions can be driven by a target-based culture. We saw that in the Windrush lessons learned review, which said that there was a target-dominated work environment and low-quality decision making. Those things go hand in hand, and we will create a hugely dangerous risk by putting the IIAA together with these objectives right at the heart of what it does. We risk doing Windrush again; we risk huge injustice; we risk huge costs for the Government in compensating people who have been subject to enormous detriment. This would be a really simple thing to fix at this stage. I will not withdraw my amendment, but will press it to a Division.
Question proposed, That the amendment be made.
Siân Berry
I beg to move amendment 65, in clause 1, page 2, leave out lines 11 to 14.
This amendment would remove the provision which prevents individuals from being able to initiate judicial review proceedings against decisions made by the IIAA.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 85, in clause 1, page 2, line 13, leave out from “decisions)” to the end of line 14.
This amendment would mean that IIAA decisions could not be appealed to the upper tribunal.
Siân Berry
Amendment 65 to clause 1 would allow judicial review of decisions. It would remove the provision in the Bill that excludes all judicial review of IIAA appeal decisions. Clause 1(8) is a so-called ouster clause, as the explanatory notes confirm. It is designed to immunise the IIAA’s appeal decisions from judicial review in the High Court. The purpose of the amendment is to remove the Government’s attempt to undermine the rule of law.
There will be two ways to challenge an IIAA appeal decision in the Bill as it stands. The first is that the IIAA can review its own decisions, under clause 6, and the second is that the upper tribunal can hear an appeal based only on a point of law, under clause 7. I hope we can agree that judicial review is a mechanism of fundamental constitutional importance and therefore should be restricted in only very limited circumstances. The Ministry of Justice has referred to judicial review as
“the rule of law in action”.
It ensures that public bodies act only in accordance with their legal powers and with respect for our human rights. The Home Office’s wish for faster and cheaper appeals does not come above the rule of law.
Ousting judicial review is unnecessary and disproportionate. Where there is a suitable alternative remedy, such as an appeal to the upper tribunal like the one for which the Bill provides, the High Court will normally refuse permission for a judicial review anyway. That is because the High Court considers that the alternative remedy will protect the rule of law. If the High Court considers that the upper tribunal appeal in clause 7 is sufficient, there will rarely be judicial review cases. Retaining the claimant’s ability to apply for judicial review would simply mean that the High Court could grant permission in residual cases where it believed that an upper tribunal appeal would not be an effective alternative remedy.
Clause 1(8) attempts to remove that residual right entirely. It is a rare absolute ouster clause, which does not permit judicial review of an IIAA appeal’s decision in any circumstances. Even the previous Conservative Government, when creating an ouster clause in section 1 of the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022, retained access to judicial review in some circumstances. Clause 1 of this Bill is constitutionally exceptional, and I would like the Minister to explain why this absolute exclusion from justice is deemed to be okay for those seeking asylum, when even the previous Government would not apply it to unnaturalised citizens.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
The core point of the hon. Lady’s speech is the rule of law, which all members of the Committee support, but does she accept that, first, we are talking about the appeals process? At this point, they have already appealed—that is one opportunity that someone seeking asylum has already taken to question the decision. Secondly, there are two other ways in the Bill through which a person seeking asylum can have a decision reviewed. Some of the hon. Lady’s rhetoric does not do justice to the Bill.
Siân Berry
I appreciate that, and I have laid out the possible alternative remedies, but judicial review is an essential backstop. I do not see why the Government are trying to remove it. This is constitutionally exceptional and I want the Minister to explain why it is okay.
This measure will not only undermine the rule of law; it will inevitably provoke litigation in the courts about how this ouster clause should be interpreted and effected. It is concerning that the Government want the IIAA, which is a novel—experimental, even—non-expert body institutionally close to the Home Office, making life or death appeal decisions, to be made completely immune from judicial review at the outset. It demonstrates the Government’s continuing and concerning prioritisation of speed over the rule of law and justice, which we have seen in other Bills. In those circumstances, my amendment is completely necessary. It would ensure that judicial review remained available in those cases where the High Court believed it was necessary. I hope that all Members will support it.
Matt Vickers
I want to speak about amendments 85 and 65. Clause 1(8) provides that a decision of the authority may be questioned in legal proceedings in only two ways: through the authority’s own review power under clause 6, or through an appeal to the upper tribunal under clause 7. Amendment 85 would remove the latter, ending the onward appeal to the upper tribunal.
One of the public’s deepest frustrations with the immigration system is appeal after appeal after appeal. The Home Secretary herself described it on Second Reading. She told the House about a convicted rapist whom it took more than four years to remove from this country after he had served his sentence because of a succession of late claims and legal challenges. We agree with her diagnosis, but we do not understand why the Bill preserves the structure that makes that possible.
Let us consider the journey this Bill still allows. A claim is refused by the Home Office, so the person appeals to the authority and loses. They can then ask the authority to review its decision or for permission to appeal. If that is refused, they can ask the upper tribunal. If permission is granted, there is a hearing, and if that succeeds, the case may be sent to be decided all over again. Each step is measured in months and, at every one, the person remains here—usually at public expense. That expense is considerable—the National Audit Office estimates that the immigration and asylum chamber cost around £79.5 million to run in 2024-25, and that is before the cost of legal aid.
Siân Berry
I appreciate the hon. Member’s laying out the process, but can he honestly say that, if he were subjected to any area of justice, he would accept those arguments and the process for taking away his right to appeal twice, which the amendment would effect? Does he believe that that genuinely represents justice without fear or favour?
Matt Vickers
The hon. Member for North Northumberland made a valid point—this is an appeals process. The case has been considered once but can go to appeal for reconsideration and even that decision can be reviewed again—that is a lengthy process. The entire objective of this Bill is to speed up the process so that it is fair to the taxpayers, as well as to those subject to it. Removing a whole tier of appeal would reduce the burden on the taxpayer, as would other amendments the Opposition have tabled. The time limits in clause 8 will not help, because they bind the authority rather than the upper tribunal. The Bill does not shorten the queue; it moves part of it upstairs.
The Government’s case for part 1 is that the new authority will make robust and defensible decisions with trained adjudicators, a chief appeals officer overseeing quality, and a professional standards officer setting standards. If that is right, its decision should be capable of being final. Where a genuine error is made, clause 6 allows it to be corrected and that review should be carried out by a legally qualified senior adjudicator. That is a fair hearing—a check for error and then an end.
Let me be clear about what amendment 85 would leave in place, because the Minister will say it removes any check on the authority. It does not. Every appellant would still have a full hearing before the authority on the facts and the law. Every decision could still be reviewed for an error of law under clause 6. Government amendment 36 will mean that that review is confined to exactly the kind of point the upper tribunal would consider. Amendment 85 would remove the second external tier, and its two separate applications for permission—the listing queue and the power to send a case back to the start. The Government accept that the onward appeal is only on a point of law and not a rehearing. The question is simply who checks the law and how long it takes. Our answer is a legally qualified senior adjudicator, with the authority, and quickly.
There is a further problem with subsection (8) as drafted. Professor Ekins told the Committee that this is not an effective ouster clause, that the courts would read it narrowly and that the Committee should not rest content with it. He pointed to the more precise model that Parliament used in the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022. If the Government agree that the authority’s decisions should be final, they should draft subsection (8) so that it works, and we would welcome their help in doing so on Report.
Amendment 65, in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, would take the Bill in the opposite direction. It would delete subsection (8) altogether and reopen the possibility of judicially reviewing every decision the authority makes, adding a third route of challenge to the two already in the Bill. I understand the hon. Lady’s concern for safeguards, but they are already there. Parliament legislated in 2022 to end judicial review of the upper tribunal’s refusals of permission, precisely because that route had become a means of delay. Clause 7(3) rightly carries that rule across. Amendment 65 would reopen at the first tier what Parliament closed at the second. Our position is clear; enough is enough. Years of delay and expense must come to an end, and the legal merry-go-round has to stop. We will seek to divide the Committee on amendment 85 and we will oppose clause 7.
Anna Turley
Amendments 65 and 85 concern the routes through which decisions of the authority may be challenged. I thank the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion and the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), who tabled the amendments.
Amendment 65 would allow individuals to bring judicial review proceedings against the decisions made by the authority. As we have heard, the Bill already provides clear routes for correcting errors and for onward appeals. The authority can review its own decisions under clause 6 and decisions can be appealed to the upper tribunal on a point of law under clause 7 where permission is granted.
Siân Berry
On a point of clarification, is it not correct that under clause 7 the upper tribunal can hear an appeal only based on a point of law? Will the Minister comment on the way that challenging the processes or the administration of someone’s claim could therefore not be taken to the upper tribunal? Is she removing that safeguard? I remain concerned that the complexity of the law and the lack, often, of legal representation, as well as the difficulties that we all see in our casework of people claiming asylum, dealing with the Home Office’s processes and making their way through all this, mean that quite often there are process problems that ought to be challenged, and that this has been denied to people at the upper tribunal.
Anna Turley
The process mirrors the existing first-tier tribunal, which reviews errors of law, so it is important to clarify that this remains the same and retains the same definition. It is only on errors of law that a process can be appealed; this does not narrow that process any further.
Amendment 85 takes a very different approach. It would prevent decisions of the authority from being appealed to the upper tribunal at all. I am afraid we do not consider that acceptable. We do not believe that the authority’s decisions should be entirely prevented from onward appeal. That goes too far in the other direction and denies the right of justice where there has been an error of law.
Removing the statutory right of appeal could potentially open us up to even more litigation, as appeals where there has been an error of law would end up going straight to that process without this important safety valve. The authority will make important first-instance decisions, and it is right that there should be a means of correcting a decision when an authority has made, as we have said, an error of law.
Ben Goldsborough
One of the main arguments that the Opposition spokesperson put forward was that the system would be too slow under the Bill. However, one key thing that was not mentioned was clause 9(4), which gives the Secretary of State the ability to expedite individual cases. Is it not the case that the Bill as drafted protects the individual’s legal right while also making sure that, when there are grotesque crimes against this country, we can expedite to give people the certainty they need that the system is fair and swift?
Anna Turley
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The hon. Member for Stockton West suggests that any unsuccessful appellant could appeal to the upper tribunal and that it will just create another tier, but that is not the case. An appeal may be brought only on a point of law and permission must be granted first, so those safeguards are in place. Permission acts as an appropriate filter so that only cases raising an arguable legal error can proceed. The upper tribunal’s role is not to rehear the appeal simply because a party disagrees with the outcome. It is important to determine whether the law was applied correctly.
Another point about an error of law has been flagged, and I would like to clarify what that means. An error of law is a mistake about the law or its application, rather than a simple disagreement with the outcome or an administrative error. It may arise, for example, where the wrong legal test has been applied, relevant matters have not been considered, the process has been unfair or the reasons given are legally inadequate. The purpose of the review and appeal framework is to ensure that those legal errors can be identified and corrected. It is important that we allow the process to be clear, legally fair and balanced so that, where there is an error of law, that can be referred onwards.
Taken together, the provisions in the Bill strike the right balance. They support the finality and efficient disposal of cases while ensuring that errors can be corrected through clear and appropriate routes. The Government cannot accept these amendments, and I invite the hon. Members not to press them.
Question proposed, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 22 to 24.
Schedule 1.
Anna Turley
I would like to speak to clause 1 in more detail. As we have discussed, clause 1 will establish the Independent Immigration Appeals Authority as a body corporate: a public body that is independent of Government. It is the first step in the Bill towards overhauling the current immigration and asylum appeals system, which has seen unacceptable caseloads and waiting times for a determination to be reached. The clause details the primary function of the authority, which will be to determine immigration and asylum appeals as well as applications for immigration bail. It will give the IIAA the authority to determine the same case types determined by judges in the first-tier tribunal immigration and asylum chamber today.
Access to justice is a fundamental common-law principle and a core requirement of the rule of law. Clause 1 will place a statutory duty on the IIAA to uphold that through a statutory objective to be accessible, fair and independent. As set out in the clause, the authority must also aim to handle its cases quickly and efficiently, and have regard to the public interest in the performance of its functions. The clause makes robustly clear that Ministers must uphold the independence of the authority and not influence decisions through any special access to its adjudicators. The clause also states that a decision of the authority in relation to its primary function may be challenged in legal proceedings only in line with the review and appeal framework. Such challenges will be directed to the authority’s review process and onward appeal route to the upper tribunal.
Schedule 1 makes a number of consequential amendments needed to transfer specified immigration and asylum appeal and immigration bail functions from the first-tier tribunal to the authority. Government amendments 22 and 24 make further consequential amendments to the schedule, which I will be detailing in due course. The schedule updates the relevant legislation so that references to the first-tier tribunal, the tribunal and tribunal procedure rules are replaced, where appropriate, with references to the IIAA and its procedure rules. Those amendments apply across the categories of cases that will form the IIAA’s primary function, as set out in clause 1. They are necessary and largely technical amendments, required so that the wider legislative framework operates coherently once the authority begins determining those cases. I commend Government amendments 22 and 24, clause 1 and schedule 1 to the Committee.
Matt Vickers
Government amendments 22, 23 and 24 make further consequential changes to schedule 1 and appear to be technical. We do not oppose them. Is the Minister confident that the list is now complete? On clause 1 itself, the Opposition and the British public have one main question: how will this new appeals body get decisions made more quickly? What will the authority be able to do that the existing tribunal cannot? What reduction in waiting times do Ministers expect it to deliver, and by when?
Let me put the question plainly. The Government are taking immigration appeals away from the first-tier tribunal and giving them to a new body, but let us look at what stays the same: the same appeals brought by the same people against the same Home Office decisions, with a right of appeal to the same upper tribunal. Unless something fundamental changes in how quickly cases are decided and in how many people are removed at the end of them, this is rearranging the deckchairs. A new name on the door and a new chief executive will not clear a single case. The public will rightly ask what all that upheaval is for.
The Committee has been given very little to go on, and it has not been told what the Government heard before they wrote the Bill. In March, the Home Office opened a call for evidence on how the body should be designed, covering the recruitment and training of adjudicators, timeframes and oversight. It closed on 6 May. The Home Office said the responses would “inform the legislation”. The Bill was introduced seven weeks later and, so far as I can find, no response to that call for evidence has been published, then or since. Why not? What did the respondents say? Where did the Government disagree with them, and why? Will the Minister commit to publishing the response before Report stage?
Next, the backlog. More than 150,000 people are waiting for an appeal. Do those cases move to the new authority? Do they stay with the first-tier tribunal until they are finished? The authority is to take over gradually, so both systems will be running side by side for some time. How will the Government stop that creating more delay, or cases being lost between the two? The Government will be aware, from the difficulties of folding NHS England back into the Department of Health and Social Care, how hard it is to move functions, staff and buildings from one body to another while keeping a service running. What lessons have been learned, and when will any of this actually happen? The Bill does not say.
Part 1 comes into force when Ministers decide. The authority opens its doors when Ministers decide. Under clause 15, the first-tier tribunal carries on hearing immigration appeals for as long as Ministers decide. The Committee is being asked to approve the replacement of the tribunal without being told when it will be replaced. I ask the Minister for three dates. When will the first case be transferred to the authority? When will the last? On what date will the first-tier tribunal hear its final immigration appeal? If the Government do not know, they should say so.
Turning to the breadth of what the authority will decide, subsection (2) goes well beyond asylum. The authority will decide applications for immigration bail, appeals against deprivation of British citizenship and appeals under the EEA citizens’ rights regulations. Those are serious decisions about liberty and nationality. Under clause 2, many of them could be taken by adjudicators with no legal qualification. Will deprivation of citizenship appeals and deportation appeals brought by foreign criminals be reserved for senior adjudicators? Also, how will clause 1(8) operate where the complaint is about a procedural decision taken during a case, rather than about the final outcome?
Finally, on the practicalities, when will the authority start hearing cases? How many cases will it handle in its first year? Are the staff and money in place? Will the Minister publish the staffing, funding and transition plans, including the arrangements for appeals that are already listed for hearing?
The Opposition’s own borders plan would go further than the Bill. It would abolish the immigration tribunal altogether, with decisions instead being made in the Home Office through a quick, internal appeal. However, whichever model is chosen, the test is the same: decisions made quickly, and decisions acted on.
Siân Berry
I will speak to why clause 1 and schedule 1 should not form part of the Bill. Although I will not speak to every clause, all these reasons equally apply to the rest of part 1, which deals with the creation and implementation of the IIAA.
It is a real shame that this policy has not yet become another U-turn from this Administration. I compare this Bill with the Courts and Tribunals Bill, particularly how adjustments were made following feedback from the legal profession and human rights experts on the establishment of truncated legal process and rights, which was one of the Bill’s most misconceived parts. After the Government pressed on with those plans during the Bill Committee, on which I also sat, today it is being debated on Report without several of the clauses that would have put jury trials out of reach for far too many offences. Although they were quite rightly not selected, I tabled amendments to this Bill that would have removed part 1, which creates the independent immigration appeals authority and all its workings, and I look forward to seeing such proposals also being removed before its Report stage.
The Government said that clause 1 and the rest of part 1 are needed to clear a backlog of more than 150,000 appeals, which currently take an average of over 60 weeks to decide. That backlog is real, and it is important that actions are taken to clear it, but part 1 misconceives the issues. Evidence shows that delays are driven by poor initial Home Office decisions and a severe shortage of legal aid, but part 1 addresses neither.
Instead, the Bill would replace a working, independent judicial tribunal with a costly body that risks being ineffective and lacks independence and fairness. Above all, creating unfair processes and further adding to a hostile environment for asylum will not help stop the boats. In its written evidence, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees called for
“a comprehensive strategy addressing the drivers of irregular movement, expanding safe, regular pathways, strengthening international responsibility-sharing, and enhancing practical cooperation with European and other partner States.”
In oral evidence, the Government’s own National Crime Agency had no analysis or explanation about the real drivers of small boat crossings, being concerned only with the Government’s approach of layering an even harsher deterrence and enforcement regime on to the real causes. It is those real causes that need attention.
I want the Government to listen on this issue, and that depends on Ministers hearing the arguments—that is what this Committee is for. I will be here throughout the Committee to highlight the points made by experts on the needs and real lives of those seeking asylum. They are talking about the difficulties they face in gaining a hearing for their case or in dealing with Home Office processes. In particular—this is something we all know as MPs, because we try to help constituents navigate this system in our casework—they talk about how poor the decision making in the Home Office is, and how the Bill does nothing to improve it.
I want to bring some evidence from Brighton, given by one of a large number of charities that are providing direct support to refugees, as befits a city of sanctuary. The organisation One Church, which does a lot of work in this area, told me:
“The impact of UK immigration policies for the past 15 years has at times crippled our ability to do business and operate a charity focussed (ironically) on marginalised people across Sussex. The escalating cost of filing for visas, the precarity and punitive nature of asylum claims and other proceedings, and the emotional devastation when facing all-too-common Home Office errors have all contributed to outcomes including business costs we can’t afford, charitable work that we’ve had to stop or rein in, and full-on mental health breakdowns that rupture communities and cost incalculably more in long-term complications.”
One Church gave me several examples, but here is one:
“An asylum seeker from Zimbabwe…was unable to earn income or work a job for more than eight years—even as he also was barred from public funds—while his own appeals went through the Home Office system, requiring the community to house him for free and support his basic living needs for many years. He ultimately won his case as well, including a public apology from a judge, but struggled to cope with the effects of such a long stint in a precarious and dependent position. This entire cascade of events was due to an unclear Home Office deadline that meant his paperwork was alleged to have been filed less than 24 hours late.”
David Smith
I thank the hon. Lady for the powerful story that she has just shared. I ran a homelessness charity before becoming an MP, which housed people who were refugees or seeking asylum. Is not expediting the process—stopping appeal after appeal—as much about supporting those who seek asylum, doing justice to them, as it is about wider society?
Siân Berry
I disagree. I think that the Government are focusing on the wrong part of the system here. As MPs, we are all aware of the processes involved in the initial decision making of the Home Office. The number of similar messes that my caseworkers have had to try to clear up—we often succeed—is absolutely huge, so not to focus on getting that initial decision making right the first time, and instead for the Bill simply to take away people’s rights of appeal, is absolutely the wrong approach.
With all such problems, the people who need asylum also need real knowledge of their rights and real access to people who can support their claims, but all that is really hard to get. Late claims and appeals with new information, when people finally get the right support and legal guidance about the grounds on which they should be making their claim, are all necessary to protect asylum rights. Therefore, judicial processes should not be downgraded and truncated, and people who are not legally qualified should not be hearing those cases.
Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)
I share a lot of the hon. Lady’s concerns about the initial quality of assessment. I have one of the highest burdens of asylum seekers in my constituency in Scotland. Will she concede that the emphasis that the current Home Secretary has put on upgrading the quality of the assessment of those initial appeals since she has been in post is starting to work? I certainly feel that in my casework. Moreover, on the number of people who appeal to the first-tier tribunal at the moment and the current trajectory of the numbers coming in versus the numbers being processed, does the hon. Lady concede at least that the status quo is completely and utterly unsustainable? How we manage that system needs a fresh look.
Siân Berry
As I am sure the hon. Member will have imagined, I cannot agree, given the number of cases overturned. We have had some data from the Minister in her letter of 6 October, and 44% of human rights appeals are being allowed. Those are appeals where the initial decision was wrong. Emphasis needs to be on clearer processes, in which people can truly participate and get their information to the Home Office the first time, with the Home Office not losing it or reading it mistakenly, or any of the other problems. That is so important. These changes to the judicial process are the wrong solution to the wrong diagnosis, as with those in the Courts and Tribunals Bill.
Melanie Onn
One of the issues that the Bill seeks to address is the fact that, when it comes to the appeals process, people have been left for far too long. The longer they are here, the more routes of appeal they have. Does the hon. Member not agree that that needs to be resolved?
Siân Berry
I agree about the growth in the backlog, but as I said earlier, the analysis is pretty clear that that growth comes from an increase in refusals as well as the increasing speed with which the Home Office is making decisions. To me, those two things go together. The increase in refusals is likely to represent an increase in mistaken refusals—refusals that should not have happened. We cannot get away with just looking at the proportions here, either. We have to recognise that this will result in a number of people being treated as badly as they possibly can be by a country in which they are trying to seek asylum, having already had to leave the country in which they would much prefer to stay due to human rights considerations that are not properly taken into account at the initial decision stage in 44% of cases.
Siân Berry
I have very nearly finished, so I will press on. At its heart, the IIAA fundamentally represents another ill-thought-through Government proposal to create a truncated legal process. It is part of the previous Prime Minister’s misconceived attempts to pander to the disturbing ideas of Reform UK and its even more unsettling offshoot, Restore Britain. We saw from Reform UK’s proposals yesterday that only standing up for asylum rights will do in the face of its politics, and that the far right of politics will never be happy with anything other than the total removal of asylum rights.
Meanwhile, measures like those in clause 1 of this Bill will prove impractical, expensive and ineffective in addressing the backlog, and they will hurt the most vulnerable people in the world. These proposals must be dropped, if not today then well before the Bill leaves the House of Commons. I will vote against clause 1.
Anna Turley
I thank all hon. Members for speaking in the opening debates. As we have discussed, clause 1 and schedule 1 will establish the IIAA, with the key aim of overhauling the current system and driving down the unacceptable waiting times, which are causing significant problems in the system. As I set out, we know that public consent for our asylum system is fraying, and we have heard that from colleagues today.
The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion set out very clearly and passionately that the current system is letting down those who are genuinely fleeing war and persecution as well. Genuine asylum seekers are not served by a process that gets ensnared in legal chew and does not have the opportunity to correct errors quickly. This is about enabling us to streamline the process, reduce errors and deal with people quickly and fairly in a much more managed way than the current system, which is letting everyone down on all sides, including those who are going through the process. As has been demonstrated, they are living in limbo at the taxpayer’s expense for far too long, and that is making it increasingly difficult for their cases to have a fair hearing. We all know the phrase about justice delayed, and I am afraid that that is the situation we are currently in.
I have set out the case fairly substantially, so I will not go over the arguments about the principles behind this again. Independence from Government is a cornerstone of the establishment of this new authority, and clause 1 seeks to protect that. Government amendments 22 to 24, while technical, will allow for the full operation of the IIAA when they begin their important work of determining cases. I want to come back to some of the questions raised by the hon. Member for Stockton West about transition and so on. As we have discussed, the scale and nature of the current asylum appeals caseload cannot be sustainably managed within the existing limits of the first-tier tribunal. Our assessment is that a fundamental reform is required to create a system capable of handling caseload volumes at speed while maintaining quality of decision making, fairness and independence.
Tom Gordon
The Government have already increased the first-tier tribunal sitting days by 19% and set a 24-week target. Is there a reason why the Minister does not want to see those measures work before dismantling the judge-led system? Could she elaborate on that?
Anna Turley
We have put in substantial investment. I mentioned at the beginning that we have increased the judicial workforce by 21% to 311 judges, with 61 new fee-paid judges and 25 salaried judges starting between January and March this year, but we cannot continue to increase the judicial workforce at the rate that we need to deal with the ever-burgeoning appeals process—it is simply not sustainable. We need a system in which we can recruit people far more quickly and flexibly to make important decisions. I will come on to this later in our discussions, but we trust all sorts of people with important decisions, whether magistrates or planning inspectorates. We are building a workforce that will be making serious and consequential decisions, and we are doing so in a way that is not reliant on a slow process to increase the judicial workforce, which simply cannot cope with the increase in volumes of appeals.
Tom Gordon
I appreciate the Minister being generous with her time. Is she able to rule out this model becoming something that other tribunals, such as benefits or property, might end up seeing, with Departments gaining greater statutory powers over the tribunal hearing appeals against them?
Anna Turley
I think we have been clear, and the Bill is clear, about the safeguards—not least the statutory requirement for Ministers to respect the independence of the authority. Those important safeguards are on the face of the Bill, and we are very clear about that.
To continue responding to the questions from the hon. Member for Stockton West, we are establishing the authority to offer increased and more flexible capacity and an enhanced ability to prioritise cases in the public interest. We expect a significant period of dual running, where the first-tier tribunal will continue to hear the existing appeals. That will run in parallel to the new Independent Immigration Appeals Authority, and will ensure continuity and that backlogs are addressed as quickly as possible.
On costs, implementations and benefits, as I mentioned earlier, we will bring forward detailed plans for the new authority, which will include the costs. Work is continuing across the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice and His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service to refine those costs and establish comparable current costs for the first-tier tribunal immigration and asylum chamber. Those are not yet agreed or publishable for either comparison, but throughout the business case we will develop the full programme costs, affordability and benefits.
In terms of when we will start to make decisions, the authority will be introduced through a phased transition. The first-tier tribunal will continue to hear existing appeals in parallel, as I said, while the new authority begins to take on specific cohorts of new cases. We know that the new system will be quicker. The current system is taking too long to deliver decisions. The Bill creates a scalable appeals system with greater capacity and faster processes, while retaining independent scrutiny and fairness on individual decision making.
I have hopefully answered most of the questions that have been raised so far, so I will conclude by summarising the Government amendments in this group. Although technical, they will allow for the full operation of the IIAA when it begins its important work of determining cases. Therefore, I commend them to the Committee.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Siân Berry
I beg to move amendment 66, in clause 2, page 2, leave out lines 24 to 28 and insert—
“(2) The executive and non-executive members of the IIAA specified in subsection (1) are to be appointed by the Judicial Appointments Commission.”
This amendment would require the Chair, Chief Executive, Chief Appeals Officer, Professional Standards Officer and adjudicators of the IIAA to be appointed by the Judicial Appointments Commission.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 25 and 26.
Amendment 67, in clause 2, page 3, line 6, leave out “a senior” and insert “an”.
This amendment would require all adjudicators deciding appeals for the IIAA to have legal qualifications or experience.
Government amendment 27.
Clause stand part.
Schedule 2.
Siân Berry
I will speak to amendment 66, about the appointments process to the IIAA, and amendment 67, about the legal qualifications and experience of adjudicators.
Under the Bill, the chair of the IIAA will be a Home Office appointee. The chair will decide the IIAA’s chief executive, who will then appoint adjudicators. By contrast, I believe that the leadership and decision-making roles in the IIAA should be decided by the Judicial Appointments Commission, the body that appoints judges. That would plainly and simply ensure independence from the Government and Parliament, which the Bill does not currently guarantee. We cannot risk leaving policies like this under the day-to-day political control of anyone in Government. Every safeguard must therefore be in place to make sure that this or any future Secretary of State cannot direct the outcome, prioritisation or disposal of these cases. My amendment 66 would fix that and make appointments to the IIAA the responsibility of the Judicial Appointments Commission, not Ministers or their appointees.
I will expand on some key points. According to the Bill, all members of IIAA, senior and junior, will be appointed either directly by the Home Secretary or by someone appointed by them. The chair of the IIAA, for example, will be appointed directly by the Home Secretary, and adjudicators will be appointed by the chief executive, who is given their role by the chair. The Home Office’s fingerprints will therefore be all over the membership of the IIAA, from top to bottom. As has been consistently clear, this Bill drags asylum appeals closer to the Home Office, risking the independence and fairness of appeals in a serious way. By contrast, tribunal judges, who currently hear asylum appeals, are appointed by the Judicial Appointments Commission, which is independent, with no direct input from Ministers.
Evidence has consistently shown over many years that Home Office officials face significant and sometimes inappropriate pressure to make decisions, including asylum decisions, in accordance with political goals. The independent chief inspector of borders and immigration found that that was the case as part of Operation Bridora in 2022, which was a Home Office strategy designed to speed up the processing of Albanian asylum claims. The chief inspector concluded that Ministers imposed an arbitrary and secret target on Home Office officials for only 2% of Albanian claims to be successful. In addition, in a report from the chief inspector this year, it was found that the Home Office was prioritising the quantity of decisions over their quality.
The Home Office’s institutional history is anathema to the independence and fairness that is needed. The ties between the IIAA and Home Office could impose political pressure on the IIAA to operate in accordance with Home Office preferences rather than law and facts. If Ministers are sincere about creating a truly independent appeals body, the safeguards to ensure independence should be robust and tried and tested. My amendment would make all appointments the responsibility of the Judicial Appointments Commission, not Ministers.
Ben Goldsborough
I understand the hon. Lady’s concerns about independence from the Government and other bodies, but many bodies across Government are involved in complex cases, such as in criminal law. For example, the Criminal Cases Review Commission is appointed by the MOJ to look into miscarriages of justice. Are we honestly saying that the IIAA would not have those same safeguards, in this case from the Home Secretary rather than the Lord Chancellor? Within the Bill, we are introducing a process that maintains independence while keeping accountability to Parliament, which will be vital in securing our constituents’ trust in a fair and transparent process for our immigration system.
Siân Berry
The hon. Member is right that, sometimes, appointments of supposedly independent commissioners are made—I had experience of that recently in relation to equalities—but there is often a political element to the appointment and the direction they seem to take. We must always appreciate that and guard against it. Taking the appointments one step away from the Home Office may not completely remove the possibility of that, but the Judicial Appointments Commission is a robust body doing a similar job already and should have this role. That is what my amendment seeks to introduce. The Judicial Appointments Commission has two decades of experience in appointing independent judges, and I think it is the body best able to ensure the independence of candidates for adjudicators.
David Smith
Before the hon. Lady moves on, I wish to build on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk. It is a well-established principle within governance that quasi-judicial bodies are appointed by the Government. For example, the chief planning inspector is appointed by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. The chief inspector of prisons is appointed by the Secretary of State for Justice. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman is appointed by the Prime Minister. Furthermore, the Bill outlines that only the first chair and professional standards officer will be appointed by the Home Secretary. Is the hon. Lady arguing that all those other appointments made by Government have the same illegitimacy?
Siân Berry
All I am pointing out is that the Home Office’s record on this kind of thing is not brilliant, and that there exists a body far more appropriate than the Government’s proposal for direct appointments. I do not quite understand why Members are arguing so hard against that, when I am certain that the Judicial Appointments Commission would be happy to take up the role.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
The issue is about consistency. The hon. Lady mentioned specifically the Home Office. Well, the Home Secretary appoints the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration, the Migration Advisory Committee chair and the Domestic Abuse Commissioner. Why is this different? Surely, the hon. Lady’s argument is fundamentally inconsistent, given what the Home Secretary already does.
Siân Berry
I do not agree with that at all. This body will be making legal decisions. I will talk in a moment about how the chief executive and chair, who will be under the Home Office’s wing, will not be legally qualified to make those appointments. I cannot understand why every single safeguard should not be introduced in the Bill. Furthermore, this is a judicial process, so why should it not be the Judicial Appointments Commission? I fail to see the controversy with the amendment. The adjudicators will be making judicial decisions and considering law, evidence and facts. The Judicial Appointments Commission has the experience, the processes and—I am certain—the willingness to fairly test candidates’ skills and aptitudes in judicial functions. Therefore, the amendment would be highly appropriate, and I hope Ministers consider it.
Anna Turley
I thank the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for introducing her amendments. I will address amendments 66 and 67 and respond to some of the points she raised, but I will first give an overview of the measures grouped for consideration, including the Government amendments.
Clause 2 introduces the IIAA’s non-executive and executive members and deals with their recruitment. Those are fundamental roles, needed to enable the authority to recruit more widely and to begin operating, and with the leave of the Committee, I will explain some of them now.
The chair and the professional standards officer are non-executive members. The Secretary of State will be responsible for their appointment in accordance with the existing public appointments process; there is clear guidance from the Cabinet Office for setting up new bodies. The chief executive and chief appeals officer are executive members. The Secretary of State will appoint the first holders of those roles on merit through fair and open recruitment. Subsequent appointments will be made by the chair in consultation with the professional standards officer. Ministers will have no role in subsequent appointments of the executive roles.
The IIAA adjudicators will also be executive members and each will be appointed by the chief executive as an executive adjudicator or senior adjudicator. All IIAA executive members will be employees, meaning they will be subject to the terms and conditions of their role, have employment law protections and could be subject to employment proceedings as appropriate. Such proceedings could be in respect of poor performance, and may even lead to dismissal, enabling the IIAA to take the action it considers necessary.
The IIAA will incorporate experience and expertise as much as possible and certain roles will have statutory appointment criteria. The professional standards officer and chief appeals officer must have practised as legal professionals, as defined in the clause, in the UK for at least five years or, in the opinion of the chief executive, have suitable experience in law-related activities. Government amendments 25 to 27 will make a small change to that arrangement, in that the chair, rather than the chief executive, will be the individual who decides whether the professional standards officer possesses that suitable experience.
Senior adjudicators must also meet appointment criteria. They will need to have practised as a legal professional, as defined in the clause, in the UK for at least two years or, in the opinion of the chief executive, have suitable experience in law-related activities. The IIAA will thereby be able to recruit from a much wider pool of potential candidates. Enabling those who have suitable experience in law-related activities to become a senior adjudicator will make the authority better able to retain talent and knowledge, as it will allow executive adjudicators with no prior legal background to be appointed as senior adjudicators. Being able to retain a strong pipeline of talent with clear opportunities for career progression will be key to our success.
Tom Gordon
The Committee has heard from several stakeholders, including UNHCR, which stated:
“Lowering professional requirements in response to capacity pressures risks undermining the quality of decision-making and may ultimately prove counterproductive.”
Will the Minister address that point?
Anna Turley
I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s challenge, but I am not sure how that is lowering standards. Just because they are not legally qualified does not necessarily demean the professional standards by which people will be making these decisions. I will explain more about our expectations of people in those roles.
Melanie Onn
Is it not the case that there will be people working in UNHCR who are not lawyers, such as people who have worked in refugee charities or who are experts in migrant work, and who have been doing that for a lifetime more than the time that somebody needs to go to law school in order to practise, or to go through the glad-handing process of becoming a judge? Would such people not be equally well qualified as somebody who has gone through an academic route?
Anna Turley
My hon. Friend makes a crucial point. We have to be really careful to say that having legal qualifications is not a prerequisite for having good judgment. We see all sorts of good judgment by professionals; it is demonstrated every day by magistrates, ombudsman and planning inspectors, for example.
Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)
The Minister mentioned magistrates. Magistrates are the backbone of our court structure, and they are not legally qualified. Does she agree that there is a huge precedent there and that magistrates do a great job?
Anna Turley
My hon. Friend is right to pay tribute to our incredible army of magistrates, who are volunteers. We are talking about professionals who will have a whole process of support, qualification and assessment. It is wrong to say that legal qualifications should be the only prerequisite for that kind of judgment.
Tom Gordon
I want to press the Minister a little further. While our magistrates do incredible work, they often hear cases concerning relatively low-level crimes. Does she think that is comparable to understanding immigration and asylum claims, which might be really complex, from people fleeing political violence overseas?
Anna Turley
I am afraid I completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The decisions that we ask our magistrates to take, which may result in restrictions on liberty, are life-changing. I think they are just as important as the decisions that we are discussing.
David Smith
To reiterate the point, as someone who stood to be a magistrate and was accepted, I can say that there was no requirement for legal qualifications, but there are still really important decisions that have to be made. Also, as I understand it, in the current system, first-instance asylum decision makers in the Home Office do not require legal qualifications, so this is not new.
Anna Turley
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. As I have set out, there will be senior appointees within the organisation who have legal qualifications, so any concerns on any aspect of law can be immediately referred to seniors. We do not have to have people with those incredibly costly and time-consuming qualifications to enable people to make these decisions. That is a really important point of principle.
Schedule 2 introduces important protections that will enable the authority to operate independently and autonomously. It makes it clear that the IIAA is not to be regarded as a servant or agent of the Crown. The disqualification of IIAA members from serving simultaneously as members of any UK legislatures underlines the expectation that authority members will be impartial in the performance of their functions. To further protect the IIAA from undue influence, all IIAA members, inclusive of senior officers and adjudicators, must be appointed on merit and based on fair and open competition.
The schedule limits the grounds for removal of non-executive members to serious misconduct, conflict of interest or being unable, unwilling or unfit to carry out their functions. Those in these important roles cannot be removed through the involvement of the Secretary of State. Executive members of the IIAA, the chief executive, the chief appeals officer and the adjudicators will be employees. The terms of their employment are to be set by either the Secretary of State, in the case of the first chief appeals officer and chief executive, or the IIAA, in the case of future appointments of senior officers and adjudicators.
The IIAA will be accountable to Parliament as a public body. Schedule 2 places a duty on the IIAA to report annually, providing Parliament with a means to scrutinise the authority on the performance of its functions. I hope hon. Members agree that the schedule strikes the right balance between operational autonomy and parliamentary accountability.
Let me move on to the amendments tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. Amendment 66 would give the Judicial Appointments Commission a role in appointing not only adjudicators, but the IIAA’s executive and non-executive members. These are completely different statutory roles from judicial offices, with their own employee arrangements and distinct governance, leadership and adjudicative responsibilities, and it would not be appropriate to apply the single judicial appointments model to them. That is designed for people who are legally trained to be candidates for judicial office. That is not what the adjudicators will be. They are not legal appointments—professionals who will be highly trained, yes, but not legal appointments.
The Bill establishes clear and transparent appointment arrangements appropriate to each role. The non-executive members and the first chief executive and chief appeals officer will be appointed by the Secretary of State. Subsequent appointments of the chief executive and chief appeals officer will be made by the chair, and adjudicators will be appointed by the chief executive. Those appointments must be made following fair and open competition, as set out in paragraph 2 of schedule 2. Ministers will also be under an express duty on the face of the Bill to uphold the independence of the IIAA.
To be clear, there will be no direct involvement of Ministers in the recruitment processes for adjudicators. I therefore do not consider that involving the Judicial Appointments Commission in appointments is necessary or appropriate.
Matt Vickers
I will deal first with the amendments and then with the clause. Amendment 66, in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, would require every member of the authority, from the chair to each adjudicator, to be appointed by the Judicial Appointments Commission. I understand that that is offered as a guarantee of independence; in practice, it could rebuild the very recruitment pipeline that the Government say they are trying to escape. The case made for part 1 is that reliance on judicial availability has left the system without the capacity or the flexibility to meet demand. Routing every appointment through the commission would import that constraint on to the new body on its first day. We cannot support that.
Amendment 67 would require every adjudicator to be legally qualified. It raises an important question, and the Opposition have our own concerns about qualification, which I will come to. What matters is that every adjudicator is properly equipped to make sound decisions quickly and that the authority can recruit enough of them to make a real difference.
Government amendments 25 to 27 provide that where a professional standards officer is appointed on the strength of experience rather than formal qualifications, it will be the chair and not the chief executive who judges whether that experience is sufficient. That seems sensible, since the officer who sets standards for adjudicators should not owe their appointment to the executive they oversee. I would be grateful if the Minister set out the rationale in a little more detail.
Clause 2 states that the Home Secretary is to appoint the chair, the professional standards officer, the first chief executive and the chief appeals officer. After that, the chair will appoint the two chief officers, and the chief executive will appoint the adjudicators who hear cases.
On qualifications, the Bill sets out a test for senior adjudicators: they must have spent two years in practice as a legal professional or have law-related experience that the chief executive considers equivalent. On executive adjudicators, the Bill is silent; clause 3(2) says only that adjudicators must receive “adequate training”. The Committee would benefit from knowing more of what the Government have in mind. What standard will an executive adjudicator be expected to meet before deciding a case, and how will it be tested? Will it be set out in the standards the professional standards officer must publish under clause 3(6), so that Parliament and the public can see it? That matters for speed as much as for fairness. Whoever is recruited, training and assessment must be up to the job. A poor first decision is one that is challenged, set aside and heard again, and every such case is potentially another year in which someone with no right to be here remains.
I have several further questions for the Minister. What criteria will the chief executive use to decide whether law-related experience is equivalent to legal practice? How many adjudicators will be recruited at the outset, and will experienced tribunal judges be encouraged to apply? Which categories of case will be reserved to senior adjudicators, and will the time it takes to recruit and train this new workforce add to the backlog in the meantime? Finally, when will the first appointments be made? Can the recruitment process begin before Royal Assent?
Anna Turley
The shadow Minister mentioned the Bill’s use of the phrase “adequate training and support”. In answering his question on that, as well as some of the other questions he asked that were more practical, it is really important for me to specify that it is not for the Home Office to decide that. The chief executive will be responsible for ensuring that the IIAA adjudicators have adequate training and support to maintain their independence from the executive. The chief appeals officer is responsible for overseeing the quality of decisions and developing a quality assurance mechanism. They will be able to identify any specific training needs of adjudicators and recommend them to the chief executive. It is really important that I confirm to the Committee that the IIAA is independent. It is not for the Government to decide what accreditation and continuous development will be required for the IIAA adjudicators, who will, in essence, be making decisions on appeals to which the Home Office is a party.
Siân Berry
I have heard arguments from Government Back Benchers and the Minister that, for example, Home Office officials are not required to be legally qualified. This is a notoriously complex area of law, and I cannot see how that does not reinforce the need for true expertise in appeals. We have also heard that magistrates are not required to be legally qualified, but magistrates’ decisions are backed up by appeals to a body of legally qualified people. The Bill seeks to remove that, so I cannot honestly agree with this measure.
There are two extra points I want to make from the written evidence that we received from JUSTICE. The first is about training. The Minister talks about the fact that adjudicators will be properly trained. According to JUSTICE, Home Office asylum decision makers were given 22 weeks’ training, but it was found that that was inadequate and did not provide them with the necessary information to perform their job effectively. I fail to see how things are going to work out any better for adjudicators taking the place of legally qualified professionals.
The Minister mentioned that legally qualified people advise magistrates and that legally qualified people will be available to advise the adjudicators. JUSTICE makes the point very well—
Siân Berry
I have not made the point yet, so I will carry on. JUSTICE makes the point that there is a paucity of specialist lawyers able to advise in human rights and asylum appeals, and that these lawyers are doing—
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourth sitting)
Tuesday 13th October 2026
(1 day, 21 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Immigration and Asylum Bill 2026-27 View all Immigration and Asylum Bill 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 13 October 2026 - (13 Oct 2026)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 1 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 1 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 12 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Government amendments 25 and 26.
Amendment 67, in clause 2, page 3, line 6, leave out “a senior” and insert “an”.
This amendment would require all adjudicators deciding appeals for the IIAA to have legal qualifications or experience.
Government amendment 27.
Clause stand part.
Schedule 2.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
It is great to have you in the Chair, Mr Stuart. I was just summing up on my amendments 66 and 67. When we adjourned, I had only one further point to make, which is a practical one. I well remember the arguments and discussions we had on the Courts and Tribunals Bill: yes, taking things off judges and putting them on to magistrates seems efficient, and we would save on judge time, but a serious concern is whether magistrates could fill the gap, given the number of magistrates that we would need.
In its written evidence, Justice stated that non-legally qualified adjudicators are going to require legal support. It raised the issue of the paucity of specialist lawyers able to advise in human rights and asylum appeals. A serious risk is that if those specialist legal advisers are brought into the tribunal system, they will be drawn away from their existing work, which is lower paid, of advising and preparing individuals in their appeals. That might even compound existing backlogs.
The Minister has said, I think, that a new impact assessment has more clarity, and I hope that in future debates—because I am just winding up this one—she will be able to say more about what is going on with the practicalities and the obvious shortages of specialist people needed to advise the new legally qualified people. That is a real issue, and I will press my amendments to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 88, in clause 3, page 3, line 34, at end insert—
“(3A) The Chief Appeals Officer must, for each financial year, publish—
(a) the number of applications for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal against decisions of the IIAA, and the number of such applications granted;
(b) the number and proportion of decisions of the IIAA set aside by the Upper Tribunal; and
(c) the number of decisions reviewed under section 6, and the outcome of those reviews.”
This probing amendment would require the IIAA to publish annual data on the quality of its decisions, including data on onward appeals, decisions set aside by the Upper Tribunal and internal reviews.
Blake Stephenson
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart; I hope you are ready for a lot of Divisions over the next few weeks. While clause 2 decides who the adjudicators will be, clause 3 decides how the quality of their decisions will be protected. That matters because poor-quality decisions will result in appeals, and appeals mean delays, fewer removals and increased costs for the taxpayer to bear.
Clause 3 sets out who is responsible for what: adjudicators decide on the cases; the chief executive must ensure that the adjudicators are adequately trained, as the Minister explained earlier; the chief appeals officer allocates cases, organises a system of legal support and oversees quality development and assurance; and the professional standards officer sets standards and publishes a code of conduct.
Dr Casey warned that adjudicators without legal training would be more likely to make “errors of law” and that the backlog, rather than genuinely decreasing, could simply relocate to the upper tribunal. The solution to that potential consequence must lie in this clause. What exactly is the “system of legal support” for adjudicators in subsection (3)(b)?
A question occurred to me over the adjournment, following the earlier debate about magistrates: will adjudicators sit with legal advisers, as lay magistrates do? That may or may not be helpful, but I would be interested in the Minister’s response. If so, at what cost?
The Law Society points out that the chief appeals officer is responsible for quality but has no power to intervene in any decision. What powers will the chief appeals officer have to act on poor performance?
Amendment 88 is a probing amendment. It would require the chief appeals officer to publish the number of applications for permission to appeal to the upper tribunal, how many are granted each year, the number and proportion of appeals authority decisions that the upper tribunal sets aside, and the number of decisions that the appeals authority reviews under clause 6, with their outcomes.
In her oral evidence session before the recess, Dr Sumption told this Committee that one of the key measures of success should be how many decisions are overturned. This amendment would ensure that Parliament is told every year whether that relocation of the backlog to the upper tribunal, which Dr Casey described, is happening.
Will the Minister confirm whether the appeals authority will publish annual data on the quality of its decisions, including the rate at which they are set aside? If the Minister can give assurances on that, we will not press this amendment. Finally, what training standards will apply under clause 3(2), and will they be published? Will the code of conduct be published before the first case is heard?
The Opposition support clause 3, which ensures that the quality of the decision making is the best answer to the criticism that the appeals authority would generate more appeals than it resolved, but only if it is real, resourced and reported to Parliament.
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Anna Turley)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Members for Mid Bedfordshire and for Stockton West for tabling amendment 88. I will turn to that after giving a brief overview of the clause as it stands.
Clause 3 sets out the IIAA’s executive and non-executive members’ powers and duties. It makes the adjudicators responsible for the authority’s primary function: to make decisions on immigration and asylum appeals and certain bail applications. This will be the sole responsibility of executive adjudicators. Senior adjudicators will also have a responsibility to perform this function, but they may also have further responsibilities that are delegated to them by the chief appeals officer, as the clause permits. No other member or employee can determine the outcome of an appeal or application, reinforcing the autonomy of the adjudicator as the decision maker.
The clause also makes clear what the chief executive, chief appeals officer and professional standards officer are responsible for. Those members are responsible for putting adequate training and support in place for adjudicators, developing a quality assurance mechanism and setting the standards required of IIAA adjudicators. Those roles together will enable the IIAA to operate effectively and independently. Parliament will be kept abreast of important matters concerning the IIAA members or the administration of justice through written representations of the chief executive. Those representations must be laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State. This will also act as an important mechanism for the independence of the authority, which can communicate to Parliament through the Secretary of State on matters of concern.
Amendment 88 tabled by His Majesty’s Opposition would require the chief appeals officer to publish annual data on internal reviews and onward appeals against IIAA decisions. The Government support transparency and agree that the quality of the authority’s decisions must be properly monitored. However, we are confident that the Bill already establishes a comprehensive framework for quality assurance and accountability. Clause 3 requires the chief appeals officer to oversee the quality of adjudicators’ decisions, organise legal support and develop a quality assurance mechanism. The professional standards officer is also responsible for setting and maintaining the standards required of adjudicators, as well as publishing a code of conduct.
The authority will be required to produce an annual report; that is not for me to determine, but I fully expect it to cover the kinds of areas that the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire set out in his amendment. The annual report will be laid before Parliament. Its operation will also be subject to independent external scrutiny by the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration. Although I agree that it is important to scrutinise the specified figures that the hon. Member flags in his amendment, we do not feel that they on their own would provide a reliable measure of decision quality. It is therefore unnecessary to prescribe those particular measures in primary legislation. I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment, but will quickly refer to a couple of points that he raised.
We discussed earlier the standards of adjudicators that the hon. Member mentioned, but it is important to reiterate that adjudicators should have the required training to give them the necessary decision-making expertise to make determinations on appeal cases and bail applications. It will be the responsibility of the chief executive to ensure that adjudicators have adequate training and support. The chief appeals officer will be responsible for organising a system of legal support for them. The Bill provides strong safeguards and quality assurance mechanisms to ensure high standards and to ensure adjudicators are entirely independent of the Executive.
The hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire flagged adequate training and support, and it is important go into a bit more detail on that. The chief executive will be responsible for ensuring that the authority’s adjudicators have adequate training and support to maintain independence from the Executive. The chief appeals officer is responsible for overseeing that quality. The chief appeals officer will also be able to identify any specific training needs of adjudicators and recommend them to the chief executive if they desire. The important point is that the authority is independent. It is really important that we remember that. It is not for the Government to decide what accreditation and continuous development is required for the authority’s adjudicators. They will be making decisions against appeals to which the Home Office will be a party, so it is important that we allow the authority to set those standards itself.
I will move on to how things will be monitored. As I mentioned, we have built a few steps of quality assurance into the system from the outset through training, legal support, professional standards, decision quality oversight, internal review and onward appeal rights. As I said, the chief appeals officer will be responsible for organising that system of legal support, the professional standards officer will be responsible for setting professional standards, and the detailed operation of those arrangements will be developed through the authority’s quality assurance framework and procedural arrangements as they are established.
I hope that reassures the hon. Gentleman that we agree with the principle behind the amendment. We do not think the specific figures he outlined are the best way to reliably measure decision-making quality, but we share the determination to ensure that there are opportunities to scrutinise it throughout the process.
Blake Stephenson
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Siân Berry
I beg to move amendment 63, in clause 4, page 4, line 21, leave out
“have regard to the desirability of”
and insert
“do so with a view to”.
This amendment would make the requirements relating to the IIAA Procedure Board equivalent to those of the Tribunal Procedure Committee when exercising its power to make rules.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Government amendment 28.
Amendment 68, in schedule 3, page 66, line 3, at end insert—
“(4) The Rules must make provision that when the IIAA reviews a decision, any adjudicator involved in the initial decision may not be involved in any review of that decision.”
This amendment would ensure that an IIAA adjudicator may not be involved in any review of their own decisions.
Government amendments 29 to 35.
Schedule 3.
Clause 5 stand part.
Government new clause 2.
Siân Berry
The Bill currently states that the IIAA procedure rules board must
“have regard to the desirability of”
ensuring that justice is done and that it is accessible, fair and independent. The amendment would simply strengthen that duty and ensure that it must act “with a view to” securing those things rather than merely considering them “desirable”. Importantly, the amendment would make the IIAA’s duties equivalent to the duties of the Tribunal Procedure Committee, so it would prevent the watering down that the clause represents.
Watering down and undermining fairness is a golden thread that runs through the Bill. We saw it originally with the watering down of the duty to be independent and fair, which was made an aim rather than a requirement, and we see it again in the IIAA’s powers over its procedure rules, which will govern the processes by which the IIAA hears and decides appeals.
Currently, the Tribunal Procedure Committee, which makes rules for the tribunals, has an obligation in section 22(4) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 to make procedure rules
“with a view to securing…that…justice is done”.
By contrast, clause 4(5) of the Bill says that the IIAA will have an obligation only to
“have regard to the desirability”
that justice is done. That is clearly an attempt at watering down and weakening obligations of fairness—from “duty” to “aim”, from “duty” to “desirable”. The amendment would ensure that the IIAA has equivalent obligations to ensure fairness as the Tribunal Procedure Committee currently does—no more, but certainly no less. In such high-stakes appeals as asylum, that is the least of what claimants, Ministers and the public should expect.
I will briefly quote the Bar Council’s written evidence, because it brings home that there are real people behind this. It says that on account of errors by the IIAA,
“a British citizen may wrongly be deprived of British citizenship, a refugee be returned to a place where they risk persecution or torture, a British family with a foreign member may be broken up, or an EU citizen be denied Withdrawal Agreement rights.”
Those are all serious consequences. We must strengthen this clause. It is not sufficient for this to be left to chance, to the courts or to later guidance on the IIAA produced by Ministers. It is so basic to fairness that it should be on the face of the Bill.
Amendment 68 fixes an omission from the Bill by the Government. It proposes preventing an IIAA adjudicator from reviewing their own decision. Under clause 6, the IIAA currently has the power to review its own decisions. In principle, there is nothing objectionable in this. The mechanism could provide a cheaper, quicker way to overturn inaccurate decisions than an appeal to the upper tribunal and provides a way for mistakes to be corrected quickly and without fuss. However, there is no provision in the Bill to say that an individual IIAA adjudicator cannot review their own decision when it is challenged.
I should note that the first-tier tribunal currently has the power to review its own decisions but adjudicators will not have the independence, experience and legal expertise of tribunal judges—at least if the Government have their way. It would be against fairness for such a non-judicial adjudicator to be in effect a judge in their own case. The adjudicator reviewing their own decision would also have an uncomfortable conflict of interest: either validate their own professional competence or vindicate the rule of law. No adjudicator should be put in that position and no asylum appellant should have their appeal dealt with in this unfair and potentially biased way.
Any internal review of an IIAA asylum decision should be heard by a different adjudicator who is as independent as possible from the original adjudicator. Amendment 68 is the best way to secure the psychological and emotional distance needed to conduct a fair review. It is perhaps indicative of the lack of serious thought that has gone into the Government’s proposals that the Bill does not contain a safeguard so basic and so clearly needed. The amendment would prevent an adjudicator from reviewing their own decision in any circumstances, thus increasing the chances of a fair and independent review. I hope it will be supported by us all today.
Government amendment 29 provides for information to be given on legal representation. That is an improvement on the original Bill, but a lot more should be done to prevent an appellant from being disadvantaged because they cannot obtain legal representation.
I welcome new clause 2, which inserts some concrete steps to provide some assistance in some cases, and the Government’s recognition of the significant issues when it comes to the availability of legal advice for people in different parts of the asylum system, which I have seen with my own eyes. It would be helpful, though, to know more about the Government’s thinking and their plans for providing this advice. How much additional funding and resource will the Home Office provide to deliver it? Will the Government commit to consulting with relevant groups and organisations that support people seeking asylum on how this advice can best be provided and routed to those most in need?
Blake Stephenson
The procedure rules will determine how fast the appeals authority works in practice, time limits, hearings, evidence and late claims. As Professor Ekins warned in oral evidence, they are also the part of this scheme most exposed to legal challenge. The group that we are considering includes clause 4, schedule 3 and clause 5, which cover the rules and the board that makes them, together with amendments 63 and 68 in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, a set of Government amendments to schedule 3 and Government new clause 2 on advice and representation, so there is a lot in there.
Clause 4 provides for the appeals authority procedure rules, made by the procedure rules board after consultation, with regard to the objectives in clause 1. They are to be made by statutory instruments subject to the negative procedure. Schedule 3 sets out what they may contain, including time limits, restrictions on fresh applications, decisions without a hearing and the treatment of late evidence. Clause 5 sets up the board that will write the appeals authority’s procedure rules, including the chief executive, the chief appeals officer, the professional standards officer and standing members appointed by the chair.
Anna Turley
I again thank the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for her amendments. We are having numerous Divisions today, but it keeps us all on our toes. I will take her amendments in turn.
Clause 4 sets out that the authority will operate under a set of procedure rules determined by the IIAA procedure rules board. I will set out the details about the establishment of the board when we discuss clause 5, but that board is the body that will determine the procedure rules. In reference to some of the requests for more information on the rules, or for draft rules, those are not for us to determine. The procedure rules board will be set up through a proper establishment process as it is a statutory body, and it is important that it leads on the drafting of the procedure rules.
Those rules will be made by statutory instrument so we will have the opportunity to scrutinise them at that point. Making the IIAA procedure rules that way provides an important safeguard to the independence of the authority by placing control of its procedural framework—set out in schedule 3—in the hands of the IIAA procedure rules board. That is broadly similar to the process for the current tribunal rules, which sees the Tribunal Procedure Committee draft rule changes following consultations with relevant stakeholders. The IIAA procedure rules board, like the Tribunal Procedure Committee, will make its own procedure rules as if it were a Minister of the Crown.
Amendment 63, in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, seeks to amend clause 4 so that the authority’s procedure rules board must draft the procedural rules “with a view to” securing the statutory objectives in clauses 1(4) and 1(5). It would replace the current requirement for the board to draft the rules with
“regard to the desirability of”
meeting those objectives. The amendment mirrors the wording of the duty placed on the Tribunal Procedure Committee in the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act.
The Bill sets out that in the exercise of its primary function, the IIAA must
“aim to be accessible, fair and independent…aim to handle its cases quickly and efficiently, and…have regard to the public interest, and…to the fact that the IIAA operates as a key part of the immigration and asylum system.”
The procedure rules board is internal to the authority and therefore members of the board would be expected to comply with the statutory duty set out in clauses 1(4) and 1(5). Amendment 63 would therefore have no practical impact on the way the authority’s procedure rules board develops its rules.
Siân Berry
The Minister has not justified why the wording is different. She said that members of the board would be expected to comply; my amendment would simply make that even clearer. Why say that they should
“have regard to the desirability of”
instead of using the wording that I suggest in amendment 63?
Anna Turley
We simply do not believe that is necessary. The procedure rules board does not require that change to the wording about its objectives, because that already forms part of the authority. As I have specified, the authority is under a duty, which is made explicit on the first page of the Bill, towards those objectives in the performance of its functions—it has to undertake them. It has a statutory objective to aim to be “accessible, fair and independent” in the performance of its functions, so we do not agree that this is any sort of watering down. The way that the procedure rules are made will be independent of the Government and it is crucial that we maintain these safeguards.
Schedule 3 establishes the framework within which the procedure rules of the authority will operate and ensures that the IIAA has the powers necessary to manage proceedings fairly, efficiently and transparently. The schedule provides for rules-governing matters such as hearings, evidence, representation, reviews of decisions, appeals to the upper tribunal, costs and the publication of decisions. It also enables the IIAA to make effective use of modern case management practices, including remote hearings and measures to support vulnerable participants.
The schedule promotes the timely and effective resolution of cases. It allows the procedure rules to address the treatment of evidence provided late, while preserving appropriate safeguards where there are good reasons for delay. It also reinforces transparency and accountability by providing for the publication of decisions, subject to safeguards, to protect the interest of justice and the anonymity of those who should not be identified. Taken together, these provisions will enable the authority to develop a clear and comprehensive procedural framework, supporting it to discharge its functions fairly, consistently and without unnecessary delay.
I turn to amendment 68, which would require the authority procedure rules to provide that an adjudicator involved in making the original decision cannot take part in a review of that decision. The Government recognise the importance of ensuring that these reviews are conducted fairly and impartially. Again, the Bill already provides appropriate safeguards around the exercise of the review power. Clause 6 will require a review to be carried out by an IIAA adjudicator, while schedule 3 will enable the procedure rules to set out the circumstances in which and the procedure by which the power under clause 6 may be exercised. Clause 3 also makes the chief appeals officer responsible for allocating cases to adjudicators and for developing a quality assurance mechanism. These are important safeguards to enable the fair and impartial allocation of reviews. The Government therefore consider that the allocation of reviews is more appropriately addressed through the authority procedure rules and case allocation arrangements, rather than being prescribed in the Bill.
Clause 5 sets out which of the IIAA members will sit on the IIAA procedure rules board and how appointments of standing members to the board can be made. The procedure rules board will consist of
“the Chief Executive…the Chief Appeals Officer…the Professional Standards Officer, and…any standing members appointed by the Chair.”
The statutory make-up of the board will ensure that it has adequate expertise to draft rules that are fit for purpose, including the legal expertise of the chief appeals officer and the professional standards officer. The option to appoint further standing members will enable the chair to ensure that the board can make rules in areas requiring specialist expertise, where relevant; that might include social worker expertise for rules related to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, for example. Beyond that, as clause 4 sets out, the board must consult such persons as it considers appropriate. Again, that will support the IIAA to incorporate a range of views, expertise and experience into its rules.
The Government amendments in this group seek to achieve several aims. I will cover expedited appeal proceedings in more detail when we debate groups 8, 9 and 11 on the selection list. In this group, amendments 30, 31, 33, 34 and 35 will ensure that the immigration bail provisions operate consistently within the Bill’s expedited proceedings framework. The Bill already requires regard to be had, when considering whether to grant immigration bail, to whether proceedings are subject to the late claims process under clause 12. These amendments simply make equivalent provision where proceedings before the IIAA relating to a person are being expedited pursuant to a request by the Secretary of State under clause 9, which we will come to later and which will apply where the Secretary of State considers that it would be in the public interest for proceedings to be expedited. It is therefore appropriate that cases proceeding under the expedited process be treated consistently with cases subject to the late claims process.
These amendments will simply ensure that both categories are reflected in the matters to which regard must be had when determining whether to grant immigration bail. Crucially, however, they will not alter the legal test for immigration bail. The amendments will also remove applicants for immigration bail from the paragraph 11 credibility provisions in schedule 3, with the effect that those provisions apply only in relation to appellants. Taken together, these are technical and consequential amendments that will ensure that part 1 of the Bill operates as intended.
Government new clause 2 will give the Secretary of State a power to take such steps as they consider appropriate to increase the supply and capacity of qualified immigration advisers to appellants in the IIAA—that is, people who are qualified within the meaning of section 84 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 to provide immigration advice and services. Provision has already been made in schedule 3, which requires appellants to indicate whether they have obtained advice or representation.
This power is intended to complement that provision by expressly empowering the Secretary of State to invest in increasing the availability of advice and representation for appellants and bail applicants in the IIAA. I am glad to hear it welcomed by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, because it is intended to support access to justice by encouraging growth in the advice and representation sector and by increasing availability and access to advisers and representatives. It creates a clear legal basis on which to increase the general availability of IIAA advice and representation through financial and other assistance. For example, investment may be in training, accreditation, workforce development and support for service providers. Early legal advice helps to avoid delays and late claims, leads to better decisions and, crucially, ensures that individuals get the advice and support that they need at an appropriate time.
Government amendment 29 will amend schedule 3 to ensure that the IIAA procedure rules require the IIAA to provide all appellants and bail applicants with information on how to access advice and representation, reinforcing our intention that all appellants should have the opportunity to obtain it. Government amendment 28 is a small technical change to enable amendment 36, which we will come to in the next group. Finally, Government amendment 32 will limit the application of paragraph 11(3) of schedule 3, so that IIAA procedure rules are not required to make the same provision as is made in new clause 3, which we will come to later.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I support amendment 68. My concern, which I am sure many people outside this place share, is that in effect it means people marking their own homework. Is there not a basic principle of fairness involved here? If we wish to see a genuine review in which all the information can be summed up and weighed, there might be issues of internal bias if the person who has already made the initial decision is reviewing it.
Anna Turley
The ultimate decisions on how this will be set up are for the procedure rules board. I am sure that its members will be watching and listening to these proceedings, and I am sure that they will be very careful to ensure, when they set up the procedures, that there can be no accusations of any duplication or of people marking their own homework in the process. I hope that the safeguards I have set out will ensure that, but it is not for us to propose that in the Bill; it is for the board to do so as it undertakes the whole assessment and development of the procedure rules.
Tom Gordon
May I press the Minister a little further on that point? What really concerns me is that a lot of this will be done using the negative procedure, as she has referred to. Our ability to influence and to resolve the issue down the line if the board does get it wrong, which I hope it does not, will be further constrained and our hands will be tied. Does the Minister share that concern?
Anna Turley
We are putting a huge amount into ensuring the quality and the expertise on the board that is setting up these rules. As I say, we have the legal expertise of the chief appeals officer and the professional standards officer. They will be reporting to Parliament in a whole range of ways, so we will be able to monitor the process throughout. The amendment would simply tie the hands of the procedure rules board. It is not for us to dictate how it undertakes the review process. It is important that it be independent of Government and be able to establish its own process, which will ultimately be accountable to Parliament.
It is also important to flag the equality and impartiality. There will be training, legal support, professional standards, decision quality oversight, internal review and onwards appeal rights, so there are a whole range of factors to ensure that the quality of adjudicators’ decisions is high. The chief appeals officer will oversee that. They will have to develop a quality assurance mechanism as well, and the professional standards officer will be setting and maintaining professional standards. We are putting a range of things in place to ensure the highest standards in the decision-making process.
On new clause 2, the shadow Minister asked about costs, about access and about when people will be able to have advice and representation during the process. We will ensure that all those who lodge an appeal to be heard in the new IIAA can access advice and representation, with access to legal aid where the eligibility tests are met. On the bail process, we are also ensuring that when we ask people to state whether they have advice and arrangements in place for representation, we encourage the uptake of suitably regulated advice and representation. That will help us to reduce delays, avoid disruption and provide fairness throughout the process.
I think I have answered most of the questions that hon. Members have raised, but if there are any further points that I have missed, I will come back to the Committee.
Siân Berry
The Minister’s insistence that this is not a watering down of previous rules does not wash. In my opinion, it is a double watering down: clause 4 makes a change to “have regard to”, and clause 1 includes a double use of “aim to” rather than “must”. That is certainly a watering down of the previous duties, and I think we should go along with the wording in amendment 63.
On amendment 68, we have heard a lot of assurances from the Minister that the quality assurance and rule-making processes are unlikely to do the opposite of what this amendment asks. We have heard the Minister say, “They can do this.” If she were prepared to say, “They will do this,” I could potentially withdraw the amendment, but in the absence of that assurance—with only “This is possible” and “We might see this,” and with only the negative procedure—I am afraid I will have to press it to a vote.
Anna Turley
I appreciate what the hon. Member says, but as I say, it is not feasible for the Home Office or the Government to dictate in that way. I cannot give her that assurance, because we are setting up the body so that it can be independent and can set up its own rules, processes and procedures. It is really important that we allow it to undertake that, so I cannot put her recommendation explicitly in the Bill.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Anna Turley
I beg to move amendment 36, in clause 6, page 5, line 12, at end insert—
“(1A) The IIAA may undertake a review of a decision under this section only for the purposes of determining whether the decision contains an error of law.”
This amendment would mean that reviews under clause 6 may only be undertaken on the grounds of an error of law. Errors of fact may be dealt with under IIAA Procedure Rules made under paragraph 17 of Schedule 3.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Clause 7 stand part.
Anna Turley
Clause 6 provides the IIAA with the power to review its own decisions. This is an important safeguard in the new appeals system. It enables the IIAA, among other things, to identify and correct errors in its decisions without requiring parties to pursue an onward appeal to the upper tribunal. The review power supports the efficient administration of justice. It provides a mechanism for correcting errors at an earlier stage, which can reduce unnecessary litigation and ensure that cases are resolved more quickly where appropriate.
The clause reflects a common practice of decision-making bodies implementing a mechanism to review their own decisions. By enabling the IIAA to review its own decisions, the clause helps to promote fairness, accuracy and public confidence in the appeals system. The review power sits alongside the onward right of appeal to the upper tribunal provided by clause 7. Together, the provisions create a coherent framework through which decisions may be scrutinised and, where necessary, corrected. Clause 7 provides an important safeguard within the new appeals system by preserving a right of appeal from the IIAA to the upper tribunal on a point of law. A party will need permission from either the IIAA or the upper tribunal before an appeal can proceed, which should prevent the onward appeal route from becoming an opportunity to rehear the full case. That broadly mirrors the existing route from the first-tier tribunal to the upper tribunal, therefore maintaining continuity and legal accountability as cases transfer to the new authority. Where the upper tribunal finds an error of law, it will be able to remake the decision itself or remit the case to the IIAA for a fresh decision. The clause is necessary to ensure that the decisions of the new IIAA remain subject to judicial scrutiny at upper tribunal level. The upper tribunal will provide independent oversight of whether the law has been applied correctly.
Blake Stephenson
The clause allows the IIAA to review its own decisions once, to correct errors, amend reasons or remake the decision. An internal review of that kind is consistent with the Opposition’s own plan for a short internal appeal. Clause 7 provides the only route from the IIAA to a court—appeal to the upper tribunal on a point of law, with permission—and also applies to the post-Cart ouster in section 11A of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, with refusals of permission. Government amendment 36 limits the IIAA’s power of review to errors of law. Errors of fact will instead be corrected under the procedure rules. We do not oppose that. A review that can reopen the facts is a rehearing by another name.
That changes the argument about clause 1(8), however. The narrower the IIAA’s own remedies, the harder it is to say that there is an adequate alternative to judicial review. How will errors of fact be corrected, and how quickly? Do the Government still regard review and appeal together as an adequate alternative remedy? What time limit will apply and will a pending review delay removal or an onward appeal? I think that the Minister touched on that in her remarks, but I will be grateful if she could unpack that somewhat. How many reviews do the Government expect, and what effect will those have on the upper tribunal? Do the Government regard review and appeal together as an adequate alternative remedy that justifies excluding judicial review?
The Government’s own impact assessment—admittedly the one published earlier, not the one published yesterday, because I have not seen that—expects a “sustained increase in demand” on the upper tribunal. What additional capacity—judges, sitting days and so on—has been funded, and how many onward appeals does the impact assessment assume? What proportion of IIAA decisions do the Government expect to be set aside?
Clause 6(3) is significant; it applies the partial ouster that the previous Conservative Government enacted in the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022, which was drafted precisely with narrow exceptions and is accepted by the courts. Professor Ekins, in his oral evidence a few weeks ago, told us that the model could be applied here to IIAA decisions. If that is right for the upper tribunal, why is it not right for clause 1(8)?
I have two final questions. First, will time periods such as those in clause 8 apply to upper tribunal appeals? Secondly, where an error of law is found, will the upper tribunal remake decisions itself or send them back? We support Government amendment 36 and clauses 6 and 7. A credible internal review and speed at the second stage, as well as the first, are part of a system that is fast, final and defensible in court.
Anna Turley
I thank hon. Members for the constructive way they have approached the clauses and amendments. As I mentioned, the clauses are important to ensure that decisions can be reviewed either by the authority itself or by the upper tribunal where there are errors in law. The Government amendment in this group seeks to clarify this position and support it on the face of the Bill.
I will turn to a few of the questions raised. On the point of law and the question posed about whether a review power is necessary if there is already a right of appeal to the upper tribunal, the review power enables IIAA to correct errors directly without requiring parties to pursue what can be a longer and more resource-intensive appeals process. This can lead to quicker resolution of cases and reduce unnecessary onward appeals. On the supposition that this is just an additional layer of appeal: it is not. The clause provides the IIAA with the power to review its own decisions, as I said. It does not remove or replace the onward right of appeal to the tribunal. The review mechanism and the onward appeal route operate as part of the wider appeals process established by the Bill.
On the question whether an appeal is limited to a point of law, this measure reflects the existing onward appeal route from the first-tier tribunal. The IIAA will determine the merits of the case. The upper tribunal’s role is to consider whether the law was applied correctly rather than, as the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire mentioned, to provide a full rehearing. I think reference was made to why permission is required as well. Permission provides an appropriate filter so that we can ensure that appeals only within an arguable point of law proceed. We are keen to avoid unnecessary resource expenditure and delay in the finality of decisions. Permission may be sought from either the independent immigration appeals authority or the upper tribunal. Any further questions, particularly around costs, will continue to develop during the process and development of the policy, and I will continue to keep Members updated.
Amendment 36 agreed to.
Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Siân Berry
I beg to move amendment 83, in clause 8, page 6, line 32, leave out “the IIAA” and insert “individuals and organisations with an interest in how the IIAA operates, including—
(a) the IIAA,
(b) people granted protection status,
(c) people with lived experience of the asylum system,
(d) legal practitioners and organisations representing the interests of people with, or seeking, protection status, and
(e) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
This amendment would expand the list of those whom the Secretary of State must consult before making regulations about time periods for IIAA proceedings to include people and organisations with experience of the immigration system.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 89, in clause 8, page 6, line 32, at end insert—
“(8) The first regulations under subsection (1) must be made before the end of the period of six months beginning with the day on which section 1 comes into force.
(9) The annual report of the IIAA must state the proportion of proceedings in which a time period set out in regulations under this section was extended.”
This probing amendment would require the first time-period regulations to be made within six months of the IIAA being established, and the IIAA to report how often deadlines are extended.
Clause stand part.
Siân Berry
Clause 8 allows the Secretary of State to set time limits for the work of the IIAA. That is in notable contrast to all the claims of independence, and I think it is very wrong to do that. My amendment 83 therefore expands the list of people whom the Secretary of State must consult before making those regulations, although I would still be against the clause as a whole.
I have worked on this amendment with organisations that represent people who claim asylum and with people with lived experience, including Freedom from Torture. It would require a wide consultation, including with people with lived experience, before any time limits are set. That is because clause 8 gives the Home Secretary the big power to set default time limits. I think it is concerning that the IIAA itself will not be able to decide those, based on the time that it thinks it needs to decide appeals fairly, as if it were a truly independent body. Clause 8 is a prime example of how, in fact, the new system will not be as independent or fair as is claimed. Through those regulations on time periods, the Home Office could overtly put pressure on the IIAA to fulfil a political wish for rushed appeals.
There is a long history of seeking to rush immigration appeals through fast-track proceedings; every time that has been tried, it has turned out badly. In 2014, for example, the Tribunal Procedure Committee introduced fast-track rules setting time limits for asylum appeals. The Court of Appeal and the High Court both found those fast-track rules to be structurally unfair and unjust, because
“the time limits are so tight as to make it impossible for there to be a fair hearing…in a significant number of cases.”
The Court of Appeal explained in 2015:
“The scheme does not adequately take account of the complexity and difficulty of many asylum appeals, the gravity of the issues that are raised by them and the measure of the task that faces legal representatives in taking instructions from their clients who are in detention”,
and, as the Court of Appeal robustly summarised,
“justice and fairness should not be sacrificed on the altar of speed and efficiency.”
We need to make sure that history does not repeat itself. My amendment would, at the very least, require the Home Secretary to consult widely before issuing regulations about time limits, including with people with lived experience of the asylum system and professional bodies that represent individuals in asylum decisions and appeals. That should increase the chances that the time limits set are not politically driven only, but are realistic, workable and fair. Under the current version of the Bill, however, the Home Secretary is obliged to consult only the IIAA itself.
Open consultations are essential for good government and good decisions. They make sure that decision makers get all the relevant information that they need, including information that they do not know they do not know, which comes from people experiencing the systems that they set up. It is incredibly important to ensure that the Home Secretary has access to the full range of external opinions and advice when setting those time limits. My amendment would mean that people with lived experience of the asylum system—the kind of people directly affected by the Home Secretary’s policies—could offer their views and explain what different time limits would mean for them in practice.
When we took oral evidence in September, I asked the Minister about the issues around engagement and making sure that what is done is fit for purpose as far as people experiencing the asylum system are concerned. She said:
“I am always a believer in service user feedback, including from people who have been through the process and have lived experience, to help us develop better policymaking.”––[Official Report, Immigration and Asylum Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2026; c. 81, Q148.]
In that light, I do not see why this amendment should not be fully accepted by the Minister. People with lived experience of the asylum system bring essential experience of how legal processes operate in practice and how they are felt by the people who are affected by them, and they can help policymakers to identify barriers, unintended consequences and gaps that may not be visible from institutional data alone. Meaningful consultation with people who have navigated the asylum appeal system strengthens the quality of policy and must be done.
Blake Stephenson
I am going to start using the words “appeals authority”, because “IIAA” is doing my head in.
Clause 8 lets the Home Secretary set time periods for the appeals authority decisions, with extensions where compliance is not practicable or not in the interests of justice. The Opposition supports statutory deadlines; 67-week waits for an appeal are, frankly, indefensible.
Amendment 89, in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West, is a probing amendment. It would require the first regulation setting time periods to be made within six months of the appeals authority being established, and require the appeals authority’s annual report to say how often a deadline was extended. A power to set deadlines is, of course, not a deadline. What periods do the Government intend, and when will the first regulations be made? Extensions “in the interests of justice” could become routine. How often do the Government expect them, and will extension rates be published? There is also a puzzle in here: schedule 1 repeals the 24-week statutory timeframes in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 before they have even come into force, and I would like to know from the Minister why that is the case. Why are out-of-country appeals, including deportation appeals after certification, excluded? What happens if the appeals authority simply misses a deadline? Is there any consequence beyond a line in an annual report?
Amendment 83 would broaden the list of those the Home Secretary must consult before setting time periods to include people with protection status, those with lived experience of the asylum system and legal practitioners, as we have just heard from the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. Consultations of course have their place, but this list would turn every set of regulations into a lengthy exercise and delay the very deadlines we need, so we intend to oppose that amendment.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
I should probably have directed my intervention to the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. The point she was making is that decisions done too speedily are against the interests of justice and fairness. The argument the shadow Minister is making—a far more powerful one from my point of view—is that delays make the system unfair. Of course, that is the system we currently have, which is why I support the position that he has taken in support of the Government.
Blake Stephenson
I thank my hon. Friend for those very kind words about how powerful my arguments are. I am sure the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion will respond to that when she has the opportunity.
Siân Berry
My arguments were not that it should be longer, but that it should be the right amount of time to achieve fairness and justice. I am sure that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East would not disagree that the right amount of time is essential, and that shorter is not necessarily better.
Blake Stephenson
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention.
The Opposition will support clause 8 and oppose amendment 83. We want deadlines that are set, met and reported on. If the Minister can tell us when the first regulations will be made and that extension rates will be published, we will not press amendment 89 to a vote.
Anna Turley
I thank Members again for their amendments in this group. I will turn to those amendments after explaining the drafting of clause 8.
Clause 8 enables the Secretary of State, following consultation with the authority—I have been using the word “authority” for brevity, so I hope that colleagues know I am referring to the IIAA—to set time limits for certain appeals, bail applications and procedural steps. The cohorts of appeals that may be expedited under clause 8 will be set out following consultation between the Home Secretary and the authority, but potential cohorts could include removable foreign national offenders, for whom the swift resolution of appeals and enforcement of deportation where appropriate is a long-standing Home Secretary priority, as set out in the Government’s “Restoring Order and Control” statement.
The purpose is simple: to support the timely resolution of cases. The clause will help to ensure that the appeals system is efficient, responsive and capable of delivering justice without unnecessary delay. Let me be absolutely clear: this clause does not affect the authority’s independence in deciding cases. It concerns the management of proceedings, not their outcome.
The Secretary of State must consult the authority before making regulations, and the authority retains the flexibility to allow additional time where the interests of justice or the practicalities of a case require it. This is a balanced and proportionate measure. It will improve efficiency and accountability while preserving fairness and access to justice. This clause is about timely justice—which, as other hon. Members have mentioned, is just as important for those undergoing the process as it is for the wider public—not rushed justice, and efficient case management, not ministerial control.
Amendment 89 would impose an arbitrary deadline for making the first regulations under clause 8. The clause is deliberately flexible, allowing time periods to be introduced where the evidence shows that particular cases should be prioritised. I appreciate the entreaties of the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire, but it is really important that we do not pre-empt the evidence, particularly during the authority’s early development. Further reporting requirements are also unnecessary. Clause 8 already requires the authority’s annual report to cover cases where time periods have been extended.
Amendment 83 would unnecessarily broaden the statutory consultation requirement. Stakeholder engagement is of course important, and it is something I believe in very strongly, but prescribing a lengthy list of consultees in the Bill could delay our ability to respond quickly where particular cases need to be prioritised. Clause 8 already requires the Secretary of State to consult the authority and, crucially, does not restrict wider engagement if needed, so there is an opportunity for that.
I would also like to make this point: for me, Parliament is the ultimate stakeholder, and the public are ultimately the people this Bill is for. Our constituents have lived experience of this process, so it is important that they have the ultimate say, and that is why the Home Secretary is accountable to Parliament in this process. It is Members of Parliament, who represent their constituents, who can ultimately represent that stakeholder, and it is crucial to remember that.
More broadly, the Bill already places clear duties on the authority, which must exercise its primary function with a view to ensuring that justice is done. It must aim to be accessible, fair and independent, and it must aim to handle its cases quickly and effectively. It is in everyone’s interests that cases are resolved swiftly.
Before I finish, I would like to respond to a couple more of the points that were made. On the point of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion about lived experience, we recognise the value of wider stakeholder engagement, but prescribing this lengthy list could delay action where particular cases need to be prioritised. We do not want to restrict the flexibility around that. As I have said, the Bill already requires the Secretary of State to consult with the authority before making regulations and, crucially, it does not restrict that wider engagement, which is so important.
The hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire asked for details on the timeframes and the kinds of cases that the authority will prioritise, which will be set out in regulations in due course. The Government are clear that appeals may be prioritised where there is a strong public interest or compelling operational reason to do so. As I have already mentioned, that could include the cases of foreign national offenders, where we have a genuine need to protect the public, or individuals who are in detention. Any prioritisation will support the efficient operation of the appeals system while ensuring that we maintain fairness and justice. For those reasons, I respectfully ask for the amendments not to be pressed to a vote.
Siân Berry
I will not labour the point any further. I will press my amendment to a Division, and I hope the Minister will keep looking at how this kind of consultation can be made more statutorily inclusive.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Anna Turley
I beg to move amendment 37, in clause 9, page 7, line 21, at end insert—
“(7) In Schedule 10 to the Immigration Act 2016 (immigration bail), in paragraph 3 (exercise of power to grant immigration bail), in sub-paragraph (2), after paragraph (e) insert—
‘(eza) whether any proceedings before the IIAA relating to the person are being expedited pursuant to a request by the Secretary of State under section 9 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 2026,’.”
This amendment would mean that, in considering whether to grant immigration bail, the decision-maker must have regard to whether the applicant’s proceedings were being expedited pursuant to clause 9 of the Bill (as well as whether the late claims process applies: see clause 12(3)).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 90, in clause 9, page 7, line 21, at end insert—
“(7) The IIAA must expedite any appeal brought by a person who—
(a) is liable to deportation under section 3(5)(a) or (6) of the Immigration Act 1971, and
(b) has been convicted of an offence in the United Kingdom or elsewhere,
and subsection (3) applies in relation to such an appeal as if the Secretary of State had made an expedition request.”
This amendment would require the IIAA to expedite appeals brought by foreign criminals liable to deportation rather than leaving expedition to a discretionary request by the Home Secretary.
Clause stand part.
Anna Turley
The clause allows the Secretary of State to request expedition of an appeal, bail application or procedural step within these proceedings where there is a public interest in securing a quicker resolution. This is an exceptional power for exceptional cases. It ensures that matters of particular importance can be brought to the attention of the IIAA for consideration of expedited treatment.
Let me be clear: this is a power to request expedition, not direct it. The IIAA decides whether a case should be accelerated and may refuse a request where expedition would not be reasonably practicable or would not be in the interests of justice. Nothing in the clause permits Ministers to influence the outcome of proceedings or diminishes the authority’s independence. Cases will continue to be determined impartially and on their merits. The clause is a balanced safeguard. It supports the timely resolution of cases, engaging public interest while preserving fairness and independence. The principle is simple: the Secretary of State may ask, but the authority decides.
Government amendment 37 seeks to ensure that the immigration bail provisions operate consistently with the Bill’s expedited proceedings framework. The Bill already requires regard to be had, when considering whether to grant immigration bail, to whether proceedings are subject to the late claims process under clause 12. The amendments make equivalent provision where proceedings before the authority relate to a person being expedited pursuant to a request by the Secretary of State under clause 9. Clause 9 applies where the Secretary of State considers that it would be in the public interest for proceedings to be expedited. It is therefore appropriate that cases proceeding under that expedited process are treated consistently with the cases subject to the late claims process.
Blake Stephenson
The clause lets the Home Secretary ask the authority to expedite a case where it is in the public interest. The authority must agree unless it is not practicable or not in the interests of justice. The Home Office has said that the power will be used for cases such as high harm foreign offenders and human rights claims that are clearly without merit. The Opposition support that.
On amendment 90, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West, the principal question is: why leave it to discretion? The public have a direct interest in foreign criminals being deported and being deported quickly, so why leave it to the Home Secretary’s case-by-case discretion? Amendment 90 would require the authority to expedite any appeal by a person who is liable to deportation and has been convicted of an offence either here or abroad, exactly as if the Home Secretary had asked. Will the Government accept that incredibly sensible amendment, which I think the British public would support? I have a couple of basic questions. What criteria will the Home Secretary use, and will they be published? How many requests do the Government expect each year?
Government amendment 37 requires anyone deciding bail to consider whether the authority is expediting the person’s appeal at the Home Secretary’s request. We support that—someone whose appeal is being fast-tracked should not be released while it is heard—but it has a cost. How many additional people do the Government expect to remain in detention as a result, and is there the capacity? How do the Government intend to implement that?
On legal robustness, the House of Commons Library notes that lawyers are already asking how an appellant could challenge a decision to expedite, given clause 1(8)—we come back to clause 1(8) and the robustness, or otherwise, of that clause. That question will be answered in the courts if it is not answered here, so how do the Government expect expedition decisions to be challenged, and do they expect them to be judicially reviewed? When will the process regulations be made, and how long will the authority have to respond to a request?
We support the clause and the Government amendment. We will oppose any attempt to remove the power. Our amendment 90 would ensure that the appeals that matter most to public safety are always at the front of the queue, and I will seek to press that to a Division.
Anna Turley
I thank the hon. Member for his contribution to this debate and for tabling amendment 90. To reiterate, the Government amendment ensures that the immigration bail provisions operate consistently within the Bill’s expedited proceedings framework. The Bill already requires regard to be had, when considering whether to grant immigration bail, to whether proceedings are subject to the late claims process under clause 12. The amendment makes equivalent provision where proceedings before the authority relating to a person are being expedited pursuant to a request by the Secretary of State under clause 9.
Let us move to amendment 90. The clause is deliberately designed to deal with cases where the Secretary of State considers that expedition would be in the public interest. It allows those cases to be identified individually and an expedition request to be made to the IIAA. Amendment 90 would instead apply expedition automatically to a broad category of appeals, which is not the purpose of the clause. Where there is a case for setting time periods for a wider group of proceedings, clause 8 provides the appropriate mechanism.
That said, I think it is also important that we are not specifying a particular group in the Bill. Otherwise, potentially, we may need to amend legislation for every category of appeals that the Home Secretary wishes to expedite. It is really important that we maintain flexibility for the Secretary of State to respond to public opinion and to public safety in terms of the category of appeals that she would wish to be expedited.
Anna Turley
I will give way first to the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire, then to my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk.
Blake Stephenson
You never know, Chair, we may be asking the same question. I asked the Minister whether she would provide some criteria—I am expanding my question, in fact—to give the public some certainty as to the decisions that the Home Secretary might make. Does the Minister expect some criteria to be published?
Anna Turley
It is important that we maintain flexibility, as I said. The Bill provides distinct mechanisms for very broad categories of cases and for exceptional individual cases. We should retain that flexibility, so I am afraid that I disagree with the hon. Gentleman on limiting the approach of the Home Secretary in the Bill. Particularly, this is also about case-specific assessment. We want to allow the Home Secretary the opportunity to look at case-specific assessments, rather than being too defined.
Ben Goldsborough
Does the Minister agree that the problem with amendment 90 is that if we expedite everything, we expedite nothing? Having the clause as drafted—making this a precise move taken by the Secretary of State—ensures that those cases that our constituents know need to be expedited, will be. The broadbrush approach proposed by the Opposition would fail that completely.
Anna Turley
My hon. Friend puts that perfectly, succinctly and clearly. I appreciate him saying that. This Government are absolutely clear that foreign national offenders with no right to remain should be removed as swiftly as the law allows. I have every anticipation—the Home Secretary has been clear—that in restoring order and control, they are exactly the kind of cohort that we have in mind. It is important, however, that clause 8 provides the appropriate mechanism for setting those time periods for groups of cases, clause 9 allows for individual cases to be expedited, and we continue to allow the Secretary of State to have that flexibility to respond to the public interest, rather than narrowing the measure to one specific cohort in the Bill.
Amendment 37 agreed to.
Amendment proposed: 90, in clause 9, page 7, line 21, at end insert—
“(7) The IIAA must expedite any appeal brought by a person who—
(a) is liable to deportation under section 3(5)(a) or (6) of the Immigration Act 1971, and
(b) has been convicted of an offence in the United Kingdom or elsewhere,
and subsection (3) applies in relation to such an appeal as if the Secretary of State had made an expedition request.”—(Blake Stephenson.)
This amendment would require the IIAA to expedite appeals brought by foreign criminals liable to deportation rather than leaving expedition to a discretionary request by the Home Secretary.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 1—Enforcement.
Anna Turley
The Independent Immigration Appeals Authority has a statutory objective to handle its cases quickly and efficiently. It cannot do that if it cannot enforce the requirements set out in its procedure rules. It is anticipated that the requirements on parties to proceedings will be set out clearly under the authority’s procedure rules.
Clause 10 provides the authority with a lever to set tangible consequences for non-compliance by enabling it to charge a party to proceedings, among others, who has acted “improperly, unreasonably or negligently,” and whose actions have caused the authority’s resources to be wasted. That is intended to disincentivise tactical delay. The charge will be payable to the authority, rather than an order to pay costs to another party. It will be for the authority to determine what meets the threshold for a charge according to the circumstances of the case, and the detailed operation of the power should be set out in the authority’s procedure rules. Any moneys the authority receives under the power will be paid into the consolidated fund.
Government new clause 1 will enable a party or the authority to seek enforcement, as if the decision of the authority were that of the relevant court. That will simplify the process of recovering funds and will bring the authority in line with existing provisions in the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.
Blake Stephenson
Clause 10 allows the authority to charge a party or representative who acts “improperly, unreasonably or negligently” and wastes its resources, and the Opposition support it. Last-minute applications and poorly prepared cases waste time the system does not have.
I have a couple of questions. The Bar Council objects that non-lawyer adjudicators could charge or fine barristers, with a chilling effect. We do not accept that representatives should be immune from the consequences of abusing the process, but the power must be clear. What level of charge is envisaged, and will there be a cap? How often are wasted costs orders made in the tribunal now? Will a person who is charged have a right to review or appeal?
Of course, fairness cuts both ways. The Home Office is a party. The Library records that 36% of asylum appeals disposed of last year were withdrawn, and the Refugee Council attributes that to poor initial decisions, a point that was made earlier in the debate. Will the Home Office be liable to charges when it withdraws a decision shortly before a hearing, and will guidance define what counts as acting improperly, unreasonably or negligently?
Government new clause 1 makes sums payable under a decision by the authority, including charges under clause 10, recoverable as if they were county court orders in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and enforceable in the sheriff court in Scotland. We support that. A charge that cannot be collected is no deterrent at all. Will charges against the Home Office be enforceable in the same way? What sums do the Government expect to be recovered each year?
We support clause 10 and Government new clause 1. A clear, fairly applied and enforceable power will discourage abuse of the process, which we think is important.
Anna Turley
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. Government new clause 1 ensures there is a mechanism for the enforcement of cost orders between parties to proceedings in the authority, in addition to charges made by the authority under its powers in clause 10. The clause allows the authority to charge a participant in proceedings where it considers that they have acted improperly, unreasonably or negligently, and that that has resulted in the authority’s resources being wasted. Schedule 3 provides for the authority to make rules in relation to cost orders, whereby the authority may order costs to be paid between parties as a result of any party acting improperly, unreasonably or negligently. In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question about whether the Home Office is accountable, yes, we will be.
The new clause enables a party or the authority to seek enforcement as if the decision of the authority were that of the relevant court. When enforcement of a sum is pursued following the authority’s decision, that decision is to be treated as a registrable judgment in the relevant jurisdiction—in this case England and Wales, and Northern Ireland. This simplifies the process of pursuing sums payable under the authority’s decision. It is broadly in line with equivalent provisions in the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, which enable tribunal costs to be enforced.
The hon. Gentleman made a few points about fairness and the ability to recoup the money. It is anticipated that the authority will take into account the circumstances of the case and the person’s ability to pay when deciding whether to impose a charge. Where there are genuine reasons for delay, for example, it is unlikely that those actions will meet the threshold for a charge. The value of the charge will, rightly, be set through the authority under its procedure rules. It will need to strike a balance between being proportionate and fair, and deterring tactical delay of the process. There will be appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of the charging power through the procedure rules, which will be subject to the negative procedure. We heard earlier a challenge to the use of the negative procedure, but the current tribunal rules are decided through that procedure, so there is no difference in the process.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned enforcement. The new clause provides that a sum payable under an order of the authority is enforceable as if it were payable under an order of the relevant court. That means the person to whom the money is owed as a result of a decision of the authority can rely on the court processes for the enforcement of that sum.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Blake Stephenson
I beg to move amendment 91, in clause 11, page 8, line 36, at end insert—
“(7A) Where the recipient of a claim notice provides any reasons or grounds after the claim notice deadline, those reasons or grounds may not be relied on in any appeal before the IIAA or the Upper Tribunal unless the IIAA is satisfied that they arise from a material change of circumstances occurring after the claim notice deadline.”
This amendment would require people served with a claim notice to raise all their grounds by the deadline, so that grounds raised later could not be relied on in an appeal unless they arise from a material change of circumstances.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 38.
Clause stand part.
Government amendments 39 to 42.
Clause 12 stand part.
Government new clause 3—Late claims process: credibility.
Government new clause 4—Late information etc: proceedings before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission.
Blake Stephenson
Clause 11 tackles one of the most damaging features of the current system: claims raised at the last minute to prevent removal. It allows the Home Office to serve a claim notice on anyone liable to removal or deportation, requiring them to set out every reason they should be allowed to stay, including any modern slavery information, by a deadline. Clause 12 gives teeth to clause 11. Where someone ignores a claim notice and raises new grounds only once they are detained or given removal directions, their appeals will be fast-tracked and the late claim will count against them when bail is considered.
The Opposition support that approach, but there is a problem. The Minister told the Committee during the oral evidence sessions:
“More than a third of our charter returns that fail to go ahead have involved a modern slavery referral raised after the return arrangements have been made.”––[Official Report, Immigration and Asylum Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2026; c. 5, Q3.]
That is exactly the gaming of the system that the public will no longer tolerate. Our plan would require applicants to submit their claim in one go, with later claims disregarded unless there has been a material change in their home country. Clause 11 moves in that direction but stops short: a late claim goes into the late claims process and damages credibility, but it can still be heard and can still succeed. How long will people have to respond? Where will that be set? Who will be served? Beyond clauses 12 and 36, what are the consequences of failing to comply? Can late grounds still succeed on appeal?
Amendment 91 would close the gap: reasons or grounds raised after the claim notice deadline could not be relied on in an appeal before the appeal authority or the upper tribunal unless the appeal authority is satisfied that they arise from a material change of circumstances after the deadline. That is the principle of our plan: claims must be made in one go, and later claims disregarded unless something has genuinely changed. Will the Government accept that approach and therefore our amendment?
Clause 11(10) repeals a large part of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, including provisions on late evidence in section 26 and accelerated detained appeals in section 27. Why repeal them rather than bring them into force? What will replace them? The Immigration Law Practitioners Association points out that the priority removal notice regime gave recipients a period to access legal advice and clause 11 does not. We do not support the ILPA’s proposed legal advice precondition, but the Government should explain their answer to that point, because if they do not, it will be litigated.
Government amendment 38 goes further, repealing section 19(2) of the 2022 Act on credibility statements, which is replaced by new clauses 3 and 4. We do not oppose that approach. The risk is legal. Justice and the Bar Council remind us that, in the Detention Action case, the Court of Appeal quashed the detained fast-track rules because they were systematically unfair, and that the Court took comfort from specialist judges hearing those cases, which will not be true of the appeal authority. A fast track that is quashed delivers nothing.
What timetable will apply? Justice reports that the Home Office intends decisions “within a week”. What legal advice do the Government have that this process will survive legal challenge? How many cases are expected and what will happen to other appeals pushed back in the queue? What effect will the new bail conditions have on detention numbers and capacity? Will these cases, which often feature detention and are often complex, be decided by senior adjudicators?
Government amendments 39 and 42 mean that a person who gives modern-day slavery information late, after detention or after removal directions, will not go into the late claims process. I understand the reasoning, which responds to concerns from anti-trafficking organisations, but the Minister told the Committee that more than a third of failed charter returns involved a modern slavery referral raised after return arrangements were made. Does this change not reopen exactly that gap?
New clause 3 requires adjudicators in late claims cases to treat late information and late evidence as damaging credibility unless there are good reasons, and new clause 4 does the same for the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. We support them, but everything turns on “good reasons”. If that phrase is read generously, the rule will be swallowed up by the exception. Will the Government look to define it in the Bill or in guidance?
The written evidence adds two points to ILPA’s concern about legal advice. First, ILPA notes that nothing in clause 11 exempts under-18s from the credibility consequences of missing a claim notice deadline. Will children be exempt or protected by guidance? Secondly, Women for Refugee Women says that the Home Office’s guidance on gender-based claims
“recognises that late disclosure is common among survivors of trauma.”
The organisation After Exploitation and a coalition led by Hibiscus call a requirement to disclose everything at the outset “highly unrealistic”. How will the claim notice regime be applied consistently with the Home Office’s own guidance? Will trauma-related late disclosure count as a good reason? We want grounds raised early, but a regime that the Home Office’s own guidance contradicts will not survive its first test case.
Justice adds a point on Detention Action that the Minister should look to answer. When the Court of Appeal considered the fast-track rules, it took into account that independent specialist tribunal judges were hearing the cases. That will not be the case with the appeal authority. Has the Government’s legal advice taken that into account?
We support clauses 11 and 12 and the Government’s amendments, and we oppose attempts to weaken them. One notice, one deadline and one claim: that is the principle, and the Bill should apply it fully. I will seek to press amendment 91 to a Division.
Anna Turley
As the hon. Gentleman set out, we have an issue in our system in this country with late claims that are made in detention just prior to planned removal, which inevitably require release or lead to bail, as there is no mechanism for dealing with the appeals in an expedited way. That leads to a significant degree of gaming the system and compromises removals performance.
On the late claims process, a single fast appeal process, which we are setting out here, will apply to late claims—those made after the expiry of the new claim notice. Individuals must submit all relevant information up front. Failure to do so, unless justified, will damage their credibility and result in expedited handling, which will be relevant to maintaining their detention until removal. Late disclosure of modern slavery information may similarly damage credibility unless justified.
Receiving information at the earliest opportunity helps to ensure that cases are considered on the fullest possible picture, enabling timely and better-informed decision making. Clause 11 seeks to deliver that through a new claim notice, which may be issued to individuals to inform them of the need to submit any immigration claim or modern slavery information they have to the Home Office at the earliest opportunity. Where modern slavery issues are raised, that will help support early identification of needs.
Clause 11 works in conjunction with clause 12 to ensure that individuals are informed that failing to submit an immigration claim following receipt of the notice, only to make a claim from immigration detention or after being served notice of departure details, will leave them subject to an expedited late claims process and may have negative implications for their credibility. For modern slavery purposes, the notice will advise recipients that failure to provide modern slavery information only to do so after the claim notice deadline will be taken into consideration, under clause 36, as damaging the credibility of their account by decision makers assessing whether they are a victim of trafficking, unless there are “good reasons” for the delay. Clause 11 is intended to encourage early disclosure of immigration or modern slavery information and remove any perceived advantage of delayed disclosure.
Clause 12 sets out that anyone who receives a claim notice, as set out in clause 11, but makes a claim or provides information only after the deadline given in the notice when they are either in immigration detention or have received notice of their departure details from the UK will enter the expedited late claims process. It also states that, as far as is reasonably practicable, the authority will hear any appeal against such a late claim as a priority above all other claim types. The provision supports earlier disclosure of claims and enables more efficient and expedited determination of late claims. The swift timescales associated with the late claims process will support the maintenance in immigration detention, and subsequent removal from the UK, of these individuals.
Blake Stephenson
I beg to move amendment 92, in clause 13, page 10, line 33, at end insert—
“(d) the proportion of decisions of the IIAA set aside on appeal to the Upper Tribunal;
(e) the number of persons removed from the United Kingdom following the dismissal of an appeal by the IIAA.”
This probing amendment would require the Chief Inspector’s reports on the IIAA to cover the outcomes of its work – decisions set aside on appeal and removals after dismissed appeals – as well as process.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
New clause 28—IIAA: publication of data—
“(1) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for the publication of data relating to the work of the IIAA.
(2) The data required by this section must be updated and published at least every three months.
(3) The data to be published under this section must include—
(a) the number of appeals submitted to the IIAA;
(b) the number of decisions made by the IIAA;
(c) the outcomes of decisions made by the IIAA;
(d) the proportion of people submitting appeals to the IIAA who had legal representation;
(e) the number of appeals waiting to be processed by the IIAA;
(f) the length of time taken for a decision to be made on an appeal by the IIAA;
(g) the number of appeals that were withdrawn before being heard by the IIAA;
(h) the number of reviews of decisions made by the IIAA under section 6; and
(i) the outcomes of reviews of decisions made by the IIAA under section 6.
(4) The data published must, where possible, be broken down by—
(a) the type of appeal;
(b) the nationality of the person submitting the appeal;
(c) the gender of the person submitting the appeal; and
(d) the age of the person submitting the appeal.”
This new clause would require the Home Secretary to arrange for the publication, at least every quarter (as is the case for the existing Immigration and Asylum Tribunal), of data relating to the work of the IIAA.
Blake Stephenson
Clause 13 brings the authority within the remit of the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration, with an annual report and the chief executive’s response laid before Parliament. The Opposition support accountability to Parliament, as we have discussed on several occasions today.
Amendment 92 is another probing amendment. The inspection regime in clause 13 focuses on process: premises, technology and training. Parliament will also want to know whether the authority is working. Dr Sumption told us that the data needed to judge those reforms—what happens to refused cases and how many decisions are overturned—largely does not exist.
Amendment 92 would require the chief inspector’s report to cover two outcomes: the proportion of the authority’s decisions set aside by the upper tribunal, and the number of people removed after the appeals authority dismisses their appeal. Will inspection reports cover those outcomes? What additional resources will the chief inspector receive? Is one report a year enough in the first years? When would material be omitted from published reports?
New clause 28, in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, would require quarterly publication of data of the authority’s work on appeals, outcomes, representation, the backlog, timings, withdrawals and reviews. It overlaps with our amendment 88 on decision quality. Transparency around whether the new body is working is in everyone’s interest. I hope the Government will say whether they intend to publish data of that kind.
We support clause 13. Scrutiny should measure results, not just process. If the Minister can give assurances on the outcome data, we will not press amendment 92.
Siân Berry
I agree with the shadow Minister that amendment 92 and new clause 28 are quite compatible. They both ask for more data from the Government and the IIAA about its work and what is going on. That is essential.
My new clause 28 would require the Home Secretary to arrange for the publication, at least every quarter—that timing is the same as for the existing Immigration and Asylum Tribunal—of data relating to the work of the appeals authority. It sets out properly detailed requirements for quarterly data publication. It includes requirements for information on decisions, appeals and outcomes, including where the appeals authority has reviewed decisions ahead of appeals and where appellants withdraw; information about who has had legal representation; and information about backlogs, timelines and delays on decisions.
The new clause also ensures that we can see that data broken down by nationality, gender and age, and what kind of appeal grounds are being made. Given the concern about the discriminatory and human rights impact of the Bill on people claiming asylum and our obligations under international agreements, all that information is essential.
We cannot have a publication scheme only set out by the appeals authority itself or by Ministers. It is important that Parliament should put such essential reporting information into the Bill; otherwise, we will simply not know the consequences of those changes or their consequences will become a matter of contention and further politicise the lives of those seeking asylum here. I have a related new clause that asks for a report in a similar fashion on current decision making, and the comparison between the two is vital.
I asked the Minister for some baseline data on the current situation during the oral evidence sessions. The reason I asked is that until March 2023 we had quite a lot of details, including around nationality, in the Home Office’s own quarterly statistics release. However, for over three years now, the appeal statistics have not been included, and we do not see the information about nationality broken down. The letter we received from the Minister on 6 October gave some information about the breakdown of different human rights grounds, which was useful, but unless comprehensive information is provided about the current situation and the changes that will take place when we introduce the appeals authority, we will not really see the impact of the Bill. This is absolutely essential.
Anna Turley
The clause sets out the extension of the remit of the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration so that they may inspect and report on the authority’s performance. That will allow them to examine the authority’s efficiency, effectiveness and consistency, as well as wider operational matters.
Independent scrutiny is an important safeguard. It will support transparency and accountability and help maintain public confidence in the new appeals system. The clause preserves the authority’s independence. The inspector will not be able to reconsider, overturn or otherwise interfere with the outcome of any individual appeal. The inspector’s role will be to identify systemic issues and opportunities for improvement, rather than to provide an additional route of challenge for individual appellants.
Inspection reports will be handled through the existing statutory framework, including the provision for reports to be sent to the authority and the Secretary of State, and for the Secretary of State to lay them before Parliament. The clause therefore strikes the right balance between robust independent oversight and the protection of independent decision making.
Amendment 92 would require the independent chief inspector’s report on the IIAA to include the proportion of authority decisions set aside by the upper tribunal and the number of people removed following the dismissal of an appeal. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire for tabling it. The Government agree that the authority must be subject to effective and transparent scrutiny, which is precisely why clause 13 extends the remit of the independent chief inspector to cover the authority’s performance. However, it would not be appropriate to prescribe those particular measures on the face of the Bill. The chief inspector will already be able to examine the authority’s efficiency and the effectiveness of its processes. Their role is to monitor the processes, not the outcomes.
The number of decisions set aside by the upper tribunal cannot by itself provide a complete assessment of the overall quality of the authority’s decision making, and nor will the number of removals following dismissed appeals provide a direct measure of the authority’s performance. The amendment would therefore risk holding the independent chief inspector, and indirectly the authority, to account for outcomes not wholly within the authority’s control. The chief inspector already has an established role in inspecting the immigration system, and clause 13 enables them to assess, as they consider appropriate, the efficiency and effectiveness of the authority and how it is delivering against its objectives. For those reasons, the Government cannot accept the amendment, and I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.
New clause 28 relates to publishing information on the operation and performance of the authority. The Bill already contains a comprehensive framework for accountability and transparency of the authority. First, paragraph 11 of schedule 2 requires the authority to prepare an annual report on the exercise of its functions, which must be laid before Parliament. That will ensure regular parliamentary scrutiny of the performance and operation of the new body. Secondly, the clause provides independent inspection of the performance of the authority’s functions. The purpose of that is to provide additional external reporting on the IIAA’s efficiency and effectiveness. It is unnecessary to prescribe a detailed list of operational metrics in the Bill.
Siân Berry
The Minister said, “efficiency and effectiveness”. One of the issues that I raised was equalities issues and discrimination. Will that also be in the remit?
Anna Turley
The hon. Lady makes an important point. Again, that is not something that is prescribed in the Bill. As we establish this, it will be important to have a look at whether that ought to be a key principle. I cannot make the commitment at the moment, but it is important that we reflect on that as the authority is established.
As I said, it is unnecessary to prescribe a detailed list of operational metrics. Precise reporting arrangements should be a matter for the authority once operational. Mandating specific requirements in primary legislation would reduce flexibility and constrain the authority’s ability to adapt its reporting arrangements as it becomes established. That will be an operational matter for the authority as it is set up, and should not be prescribed in the Bill. The Government therefore do not accept the amendment or new clause 28.
More broadly, I appreciate that there is a wider point, separate to the context of the Bill, about data and statistics. The Ministry of Justice publishes quarterly statistics that include information on receipts and outcomes. The Home Office immigration system statistics quarterly release covers data on a range of topics, including claims, outcomes and nationality. The full set of official statistics published by those Departments is kept under review in line with the code of practice for statistics. I think that is a conversation that we could have another day, but it is important that we do not accept amendments that seek to require the inspector to focus on what is not in his remit.
Blake Stephenson
Given the insufficient assurance on the outcome data, I wish to press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 93, in clause 15, page 12, line 32, after “force” insert
“, but no later than three years after the day on which section 1 comes into force,”—(Blake Stephenson.)
This probing amendment would limit the Home Secretary’s power to route appeals to the First-tier Tribunal to the first three years after the IIAA is established, so that the transition cannot run indefinitely.
Government amendment 43.
Clause 15 stand part.
Clause 16 stand part.
Anna Turley
Clause 14 addresses the dual-running process between the authority and the first-tier tribunal. It gives a power to the Secretary of State or the Lord Chancellor to, among other things, transfer property, rights, liabilities or staff used by the first-tier tribunal from the Secretary of State to the authority. This provision allows for operational flexibility and makes for a smoother transition in case it is later decided that assets or property should transfer to the authority.
Clause 15 provides an essential safeguard during implementation of the authority. Its principal purpose is to protect continuity. Before part 1 is fully in force, clause 15 provides for specified descriptions of cases that would be decided by the authority to be transferred to the first-tier tribunal. This could prove necessary in case of a significant disruption affecting the authority’s operation—for example, to manage unpredictable spikes in demand in the implementation period when the authority is not yet fully formed.
The clause may also be used to correct the rare occurrence in which a case needs to be moved to another body. This ensures that cases are heard by the appropriate forum without avoidable procedural complexity. This is not a power to influence individual decisions, avoid judicial scrutiny or alter appeal rights. Appeals will continue to be determined independently and in accordance with the law. Clause 15 simply provides the resilience and flexibility needed to keep cases moving and correct exceptional allocation discrepancies.
Clause 16 provides the Secretary of State with the power to make provision that is consequential on part 1 of the Bill, which establishes the authority. The clause ensures that the wider statute book can operate properly when functions transfer from the first-tier tribunal to the IIAA. It provides that the authority is generally to be treated as a tribunal where legislation applies to tribunals. However, not every provision applying to tribunals will necessarily be suitable for the authority. The clause therefore enables regulations to modify how individual provisions apply, or to disapply them where appropriate. The clause may be used to amend, repeal or revoke provision made by primary legislation that has been passed before the Bill receives Royal Assent, or passed later in the same parliamentary Session.
Government amendment 43 provides the Lord Chancellor with limited and backstop powers to make amendments to the tribunal procedure rules in connection with regulations made to transfer cases between the authority and the existing first-tier tribunal. Tribunal procedure rules will continue to be made by the independent Tribunal Procedure Committee in the usual way in all other circumstances, and in connection with the transition to the new appeals structure where time allows. However, during the transition there may be exceptional circumstances requiring urgent practice and procedural changes to be followed in the first-tier and upper tribunals that cannot be accommodated through the usual rule-making process. This amendment provides an important safeguard to ensure that tribunal procedure adequately supports the transfer of cases and that proceedings are not delayed should such circumstances arise.
Blake Stephenson
This group brings together the machinery clauses of part 1: transfer schemes in clause 14, the transition in clause 15, and the consequential power in clause 16. I will speak to amendment 93 tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West and to Government amendment 43.
Clause 14 is technical in nature. It allows transfer schemes to move property, rights and liabilities to the appeals authority. The Opposition support that, but it is also where the costs of the reorganisation begin to show. The impact assessment—again, the previous impact assessment, not the one that was issued yesterday—warns of significant judicial liabilities in winding down the tribunal, because full-time judges hold lifetime appointments and there are the additional costs of running two systems. What is the estimated cost of winding down the tribunal? How many staff will transfer? Why does the Lord Chancellor, as well as the Home Secretary, need this power? What will the parallel running costs be?
We want the new body up to speed as quickly as possible. Will existing first-tier immigration judges be able to transfer or apply as senior adjudicators, for example, should they wish to? How many of them do the Government expect to apply and employ? The Law Society points out that the impact assessment says the implementation plans are “not yet fully developed”, which I think the Minister reflected earlier. Will a full costing of the transfer be published before any scheme is made?
Anna Turley
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his response, his questions and his challenges. Amendment 93 proposes that the authority should be able to transfer cases back to the first-tier tribunal only for a maximum of three years after clause 1 comes into force. If the amendment were to be accepted, it would reduce the flexibility within the overall appeals system to reduce the appeals backlog while simultaneously determining new appeals. I am afraid we are not able to set an arbitrary target of that kind, although I am sure that, given that we are bringing this Bill forward, the hon. Gentleman will understand our sense of urgency behind this transition. He need be in no doubt about the urgency with which we want to make this transition.
The length of time that the FTT IAC—even more acronyms—and the authority will need to run concurrently to ensure optimal efficiency in the overall appeals system will depend on a number of operational matters when the authority is established as a new statutory body corporate. Therefore, legislating for an arbitrary cut-off point of three years is unhelpful, and may result in appeals taking longer than necessary to be determined. We need to be flexible and responsive, which the current drafting of the Bill allows us to do.
Government amendment 43 provides the Lord Chancellor with limited and backstop powers to make amendments to the tribunal procedure rules in connection with regulations made to transfer cases between the Independent Immigration Appeals Authority and the existing first-tier tribunal. The hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire challenged me as to why that cannot be done by the Secretary of State. It is not appropriate for the Home Secretary to lead on that; the Lord Chancellor doing so is obviously more appropriate.
Tribunal procedure rules will continue to be made by the independent Tribunal Procedure Committee in the usual way in all other circumstances, and in connection with the transition to new appeals structure where time allows. However, during the transition there may be exceptional circumstances requiring urgent practice and procedural changes to be followed in the first-tier and upper tribunals that cannot be accommodated through the normal rule-making process. This amendment provides an important safeguard to ensure that tribunal procedure adequately supports the transfer of cases and that proceedings are not delayed should such circumstances arise.
More importantly, the power is tightly constrained and can be exercised only in connection with regulations made under clause 15, which provides that regulations can be made to transfer cases from the authority back to the first-tier tribunal, and clause 52, which provides for commencement regulations. The power is intended to be used only where urgent rule changes that cannot be taken forward in the usual process are required.
Given that the power to make rules is otherwise exercised by the Tribunal Procedure Committee, the Lord Chancellor must consult the Senior President of Tribunals before exercising it. The power is appropriately constrained and subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Regulations that amend, repeal or revoke primary legislation, as defined, must be approved by both Houses through the affirmative procedure. Other regulations made under the clause will be subject to the negative procedure.
In response to the question of the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire about which cases will transfer, clause 52 makes provision for the commencement regulations, including setting out which cases will transition and when. On his questions about cost and implementation, as I have said, detailed plans for the authority, including the costs, are being developed, and work is continuing across the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice and His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service to refine the authority costs and establish comparable, current costs for the first-tier tribunal immigration and asylum chamber. There are not yet agreed or publishable figures for either comparison, as programme costs, affordability and benefits will be developed through the business case.
The hon. Gentleman also asked when the authority will start to make decisions, and when it will take all new appeals. The authority will be introduced through a phased transition, with the FTT IAC continuing to hear existing appeals in parallel while the new authority begins taking specified cohorts of new cases. We know that the current system is taking too long to deliver decisions, so the Bill creates a more scalable appeals system with greater capacity and faster processes, while retaining independent scrutiny and fairness.
Blake Stephenson
The Minister did not respond to my question about the projection that by the time the appeals authority gets up and running, approximately 200,000 people could be waiting for an appeal. Does that projection resonate with the Minister? Is that situation a possibility?
Blake Stephenson
The figure is taken from the evidence the Committee received from Refugee and Migrant Justice.
Anna Turley
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. I do not recognise that figure, but of course, the Government want to make sure that we are fully aware of the figures. As was detailed at the start of the Committee’s consideration, the Government know that there are a huge number of appeals in the backlog. As the authority is developed and starts to come into force, the transition will be made. I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any projections, as I would not want to mislead the Committee with any numbers or predictions we could make at this stage.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15
Power to specify cases to be heard by First-tier Tribunal instead of IIAA
Amendment made: 43, in clause 15, page 13, line 2, at end insert—
“(4) The Lord Chancellor may by rules made by statutory instrument make amendments to Tribunal Procedural Rules in connection with regulations made by the Secretary of State under this section.
(5) Before making rules under subsection (4), the Lord Chancellor must consult the Senior President of Tribunals.
(6) A statutory instrument containing rules under subsection (4) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”—(Anna Turley.)
This amendment would give the Lord Chancellor the power to amend Tribunal Procedure Rules in connection with regulations under clause 15 transferring cases back to the First-Tier Tribunal from the IIAA. (See also amendment 46.)
Clause 15, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Jade Botterill.)
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
UK Coach Industry
(1 day, 21 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab) [R]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of the UK coach industry.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. A couple of years ago, I was invited to speak at the conference of the Coach Operators Association. Being a reasonably diligent MP, I checked how many mentions of “coach” there had been in that parliamentary Session. There were rather more than I expected. Delving deeper, I found many references to cricket coaches, football coaches, basketball coaches and various issues that hon. Members wished to drive a horse and coach through.
Parliament has been talking about coaches for almost as long as they have existed. In the 1790s, Parliament debated people who leapt on to stagecoaches and, just as they reached the tollgate, jumped off and got on again at the other side, in what seems the short ticketing of the past. In 1839, there was a mention of Dunstable and coaches. A coach proprietor, Mr Johnstone of Dunstable, was worried about taxation on stagecoaches and competition from newfangled railways. I have to report that, unfortunately, the Chancellor was not sympathetic to the plight of stagecoaches. I hope the Minister today will be more so to the modern coach industry.
Coaches have been described to me by many in the industry as a social glue. They are certainly not niche; we see them all around us. They offer flexible, affordable and sustainable transport for millions of people. They take 600,000 children to school every day. One million people take coach trips and tours in the UK each year.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Given the importance of the coach industry, I wonder whether my hon. Friend agrees that parking arrangements for coaches have never been given proper consideration. In a city like Cambridge, a tourist hotspot, it is a long-running problem.
Alex Mayer
My hon. Friend makes a fantastic point. Cambridge, along the Backs, is often full of coaches. It is important to get across to residents that one big coach stops a lot of small cars. Although we need more coach parking spaces, it is important to think about the environmental benefits that a coach brings.
Coaches also take people to concerts and football matches—Wembley is home to Europe’s largest coach park—and they provide rail replacement services. Importantly, they bring passengers to the door. A railway station might be a little away, but a coach will take passengers to the door of Alton Towers or a National Trust property.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Coaches do even more than the hon. Lady mentions. They take my Orange lodge in Northern Ireland, my Royal Black Preceptory and the Apprentice Boys to the 12 July parade. For Northern Ireland, coaches are the glue that keeps the community and our Orange lodges going.
Alex Mayer
Coaches can be booked to get people anywhere they want to go. They are also important for growth, a defining mission for Governments of all stripes. The coach industry brings £17 billion to the UK economy. When I pitched this debate to the Backbench Business Committee, I compared coaches to the fishing industry, which brings about £1 billion, saying that coaches should feature in as many debates as fish in this place.
Coaches are easy to deploy. There is no need to spend years building railway tracks, for example. Despite all that, coaches remain under-appreciated. Why is that? Surveys show that about a third of respondents think coaches are uncomfortable, outdated and infrequent. That is an outdated view; today’s coaches are comfortable and modern, and often take passengers precisely where they want to go. I think one of the reasons for that view is that they are family businesses and do not necessarily employ public relations folk to talk to us here and get the messages across that they need to. I also think it is down to us. MPs and journalists do not often use coaches in the way that we use trains. There is a good statistic that says that 97% of people have never heard a politician talk about coaches. I hope they are all tuning in today so that we can right that wrong.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
I am going to talk about coaches. The hon. Lady mentions local businesses, which include Eastbourne Coaches and Lynns Travel Eastbourne. Does she agree that there is a role for those businesses, and also for big business such as National Express to bring their coaches to Eastbourne, especially in the light of the terrible railways we are experiencing in our patch?
Alex Mayer
Coaches have the potential to bring people to all kinds of tourist destinations and to fantastic seaside areas. We should appreciate them for that.
Within the Department for Transport, there are specific teams for bus and for rail, but not a specific coach team. Might the Minister be willing to comment on that? On that theme, one issue facing the coach sector is that it gets lumped together with other sectors, most noticeably bus, but also HGV.
Having waxed lyrical about coaches, I come to my next question: what is a coach? That might seem a bit odd at this stage, because I think we all instinctively and intuitively know what a coach is: the passengers climb up into it, there is a space for luggage underneath, they sit—there are probably seatbelts—and the coach takes them a reasonable distance. However, in law it is a bit more of a muddle. When granting an operator’s licence for a coach, the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency mixes coaches and buses together, so coaches cannot be specifically counted. When it comes to accessibility rules, the Department for Transport says a coach is something that passengers sit down in and there are no standing passengers. A coach can even become a bus as it is driving along—it can start being regulated as a coach, but if it picks up and drops off passengers with a 15-mile gap between them, it becomes a bus for that bit of the route, before magically turning into a coach again. When I have asked parliamentary questions on this subject, Ministers cannot reliably tell me how many coaches there are. I do not think it should be down to enthusiasts to be counting them.
As well as not being able to count coaches, we cannot count coach drivers. It is the same issue: the standard occupational classification data used by the Office for National Statistics puts bus and coach drivers together. When I was looking at that dataset, I did the same thing as I did with Hansard and did a keyword search to find out where coach drivers appeared. They were indeed in with bus drivers. Then I looked again at sports coaches, which have their own subcategories of cricket coaches, football coaches, and the like. Why can we not do the same for coach drivers? If we had better data, we would ultimately be making better policy.
While we are on the subject of drivers, we need more of them. There are 5,000 to 10,000 vacancies in the sector at the moment and about a quarter of coach drivers are over the age of 60, so it is a challenge that is likely to get worse. What we need is a plan to get young drivers straight from school into the driver’s seat. Back in 2024, there was a consultation on one of the issues for young drivers. The mileage that young drivers do is limited by law at the moment. For example, if a young driver started off from 10 Downing Street and drove north to No. 10 North, they would only get as far as about Milton Keynes before they had to stop. The Minister has said before that he is looking at the results of that consultation and assessing proposals. Might he be able to give us a timeline for when we might hear more about that? While the Minister is at it, could he also talk to his colleagues in the Department for Education? Yesterday, I received a letter from a Minister about skills bootcamps, but although HGV drivers can use the good funding available in skills bootcamps, coach drivers cannot.
Lumping things together also happens on the path to net zero. Coaches are lumped in with HGVs, rather than buses, although the requirements can be quite different. If an HGV driver stops at a motorway service station, they park, plug in, and away they go, but a coach driver has 50-odd passengers to deal with, all of whom need to be got safely off the coach and into the motorway service station to buy some overpriced sandwiches, so the requirements are very different. A zero emission HGV and coach infrastructure strategy is due soon. Can the Minister assure me that adequate attention will be given to the specific challenges for coaches?
In a recent pilot programme to install charging infrastructure, which was shared between trucks, HGVs and coaches, it turned out that less than 3% of the funding went to the coach sector. Coaches have also been excluded from the van and truck zero emission grants because they are not vans or trucks, and from ZEBRA—the zero emission bus regional areas scheme—because they are not buses.
In dealing with issues around net zero, we need more support for the industry, which is hard to decarbonise, because coaches by their nature go to lots of places and do not necessarily have predictable routes. At the moment, 75% of operators say that they do not plan to buy net zero vehicles. Will the Minister commit to a long-term road map so that the coach industry knows where it is going? Has the low-carbon fuel strategy, which was consulted on back in 2022—some in the industry are still awaiting the outcomes—been lost in the mists of time? Should we be waiting for something else, or will we get some results from it?
Fuel costs are one of the issues that many in the industry are talking about. Because of Trump’s ill-thought-out war in Iran, diesel prices have absolutely rocketed—they are up 46% since February—and that is having a real impact on operators up and down the country. I am sure we will hear some examples of that after I have finished speaking. I know the Minister cannot comment on what is likely to be in the Budget, but would he be willing to talk to some of his Treasury colleagues ahead of the announcement to make the case for the coach industry?
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on her fantastic speech and on emphasising the importance of coach operators across the country. Does she agree that, in making the case to the Treasury, the Minister should point out that in many rural areas local coach operators serve as the backbone of the school transport system? Quite frankly, the school transport system would collapse without them.
Alex Mayer
Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman makes the point well. Coach operators normally sell tickets in advance, whether for tours around the country—the brochures are printed perhaps a year in advance, they go through letterboxes, and half the places are filled up by Christmas—or for school transport, for which they bid for a contract from the local authority at a time when they thought the fuel price would be different. Coach UK warns that, without help, some schoolchildren could be left stranded, so I hope the Minister will look into that.
This debate is about the future of the coach industry, which I think is bright. We have a brand-new trade body, Coach UK. Coaches were mentioned in the Government’s “Better Connected” strategy, which many people in the industry were enthused and excited about. Pursuing a closer relationship with our European partners and neighbours might sort out some of the issues that coach drivers face at the border during international travel.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I apologise for missing the beginning of the hon. Lady’s speech. She is making a bold case and a welcome one, and I congratulate her on bringing this matter to the House. She mentioned the issue of recruitment; she will know that two of the barriers to recruitment relate to the restrictions on young people driving. First, Gary and Michele Salter from Long Sutton in my constituency, who run GDS Travel, tell me that young drivers cannot start their off-road and theory training until they have a provisional licence. That seems to be a nonsense. Secondly, young drivers are restricted as to where and how far they can drive. Changing those two things would attract more young people into the industry and deal with some of the issues the hon. Lady has raised.
Alex Mayer
The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and I am keen to hear from the Minister when we might hear back from the Government about the consultation that was undertaken.
To make sure the coach industry succeeds as much as possible, we need to make sure that the industry is visible and that the Government really focus on it. That could involve big things like a net zero strategy, and also little things to make coach operators’ lives a bit easier. I cannot understand why, a quarter of the way into the 21st century, coaches still have to display a paper disc on their windscreen showing their operator’s licence when we got rid of all that kind of thing for cars years ago. We might be able to sort out those kind of little bureaucratic things.
I have been bothering the noble Lord Hendy about the new Great British Railways app. Trainline—other apps are available—allows users to toggle between train and coach. The new GBR app ought to be able to do the same thing if we believe in an integrated transport system and in giving people choice. Choosing to travel by coach is often much more affordable.
Coaches are unique and vital. We should celebrate them for what they are, not for what they share with other forms of transport. I am convinced that they will continue to adapt as we move into the future. On that note, I wish everybody a happy National Coach Week.
Several hon. Members rose—
Karl Turner (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to speak in the debate. As there is a lot of interest and lots of people want to speak, I am going to impose an informal time limit of four minutes. I call Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you very much, Mr Turner. It is always a pleasure to be called, and to be called first is almost unique. In the Chamber I am usually last, but the last shall be first and the first shall be last, so in this case I am well ahead. I thank the hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) for raising the issue of the coach sector. I will speak about two significant coach companies in my constituency, what they do and what it means to the community.
Across the United Kingdom, some 2,500 coach operators have faced a 46% increase in diesel prices since February this year. For many industries, the question is no longer how to turn a profit but how to stay afloat. Some 38% of coach companies say they are likely to withdraw from home-to-school transport contracts due to the rising operating costs, which have not been matched by the rates they receive.
I am aware that colleagues on the Opposition Benches have some comments, and I look forward to hearing them, but the companies that I talk to tell me they are under pressure to try to deliver a contract that has been agreed, while diesel prices go through the roof. The pressures today are immense, and the consequences will be deeply felt by families and parents who face additional stress and the expense of finding alternative arrangements. In the rural community where I live, the buses and particularly the coaches are under incredible pressure because of some of the contracts. The challenges facing coach services will extend beyond the industry itself, as the hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard said.
Of course, fuel costs are not the only challenge. The proportion of unfilled coach driver positions stands at 12.4%—again, the hon. Lady referred to that. A community group in my constituency has done some excellent work in introducing men to the opportunity—very rarely is it a woman who takes on the job, at least in my constituency. It is mostly men, but the opportunity is there and people are encouraged.
We must look again at scrapping the outdated restrictions on younger coach drivers. For instance, qualified 18 and 19-year-olds can drive HGVs without the same distance restrictions that apply to younger coach drivers. It is difficult to justify maintaining such restrictions when coach operators face a national recruitment shortage. Combined with an ageing workforce, the restrictions make the shortage even worse.
We must support the economic contribution of the coach sector, which supports some 81,000 jobs and generates £6.4 billion in economic value. Allowing our coach services to fail would put people out of work and undermine local economies.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that there needs to be greater recognition of excellent companies such as Hutchison Engineering and Wrightbus in Northern Ireland, which frequently hold fantastic exhibitions to demonstrate their expertise? We need more recognition of and support for coach builders.
Jim Shannon
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it is brilliant to see that locally.
I will mention two companies in particular. Coach Connections in Portaferry is doing so well from its hub in my constituency. Adrian and the team do a fantastic job keeping community members, schoolchildren and sports teams moving safely and reliably right across the country. Managing a top-class fleet alongside a dedicated team of more than 15 local staff is no small feat. They have a brilliant line-up of vehicles, from highly accessible 19 to 33-seater mini-coaches, which are perfect for community groups, right up to the flagship 53-seater Mercedes-Benz Tourismo luxury tri-axle coaches. Now, if that is not a good encouragement for a business in my constituency, I do not know what is.
Seeing the expansion of Coach Connections this year, alongside its taking on the excellent Volvo and Plaxton touring vehicles from McAvoys, which it brought over, is a massive testament to the hard work and dedication of its staff. We are incredibly lucky to have such a brilliant and dependable service operating right on our doorstep.
Of course, the strength of our local transport network does not stop there. We also have a fantastic team at Giles Tours. Since 1981, Neil and Patricia’s award-winning family business has been a household name for quality travel. Their wonderful drivers, including Josh, Dave and Andrew, constantly go the extra mile to look after passengers with unmatched hospitality. Whether it is on an executive private hire or on the company’s famous luxury coach holidays across the United Kingdom, Ireland and Europe, Giles Tours provides a first-class service that makes the entire constituency of Strangford proud. I am very proud to be the MP for Strangford and to have such companies locally. It is is encouraging. Our local travel needs are in the safest possible hands.
The Translink bus group is under considerable financial pressure, saying that it faces a £46.6 million loss in the upcoming year. Translink has some 160 coaches in Northern Ireland. [Interruption.] I am going to conclude—
Karl Turner (in the Chair)
Order. We need to stick to the time limit to allow Members to get in, if we don’t mind.
Jim Shannon
Okay. I urge the Government to consider short-term support for coach operators to help them to keep services on the road.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
Good morning, Mr Turner. It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair, as always. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) for securing the debate. I wish to concentrate on the industrial and procurement elements in respect of buses and coaches. I refer right hon. and hon. Members to my membership of Unite the union.
At the end of March, Alexander Dennis announced that there would be 115 job losses and an end to Scottish bus manufacturing in Falkirk. In my constituency, the Larbert site has been converted to chassis manufacturing. The week before Alexander Dennis made that announcement, the Scottish Government declared the results of the £45 million Scottish zero emission bus challenge fund, or ScotZEB 3. In total, 334 zero emission vehicles were to be built. Alexander Dennis was awarded 123 buses, which is just 36% of the total, whereas just under half of all orders—for 166 buses—were awarded to a Chinese company Yutong.
Make no mistake: the SNP Scottish Government were fully aware that ScotZEB was essential for the sustainability of the Alexander Dennis sites in Scotland. The SNP also knew that Alexander Dennis workers needed the Scottish Government to back them, but the SNP backed China instead.
Of course, as with all industrial issues, there is a ripple or knock-on effect. For every job in bus manufacturing, there is a multiplier of three to four jobs in the wider supply chain and support services. The 115 job losses on the site really translates into hundreds more job losses—maybe even as high as four figures—in the supply chain across the Forth valley and the rest of Scotland.
What is happening at Alexander Dennis is another example in a catalogue of industrial closures impacting Scotland. I say respectfully to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) that he is welcome to challenge me and intervene on anything that I am about to say. The truth is that the SNP solution was a furlough scheme, introduced with the aim of providing a stopgap solution, so that NFI—the Canadian-based owners of Alexander Dennis—could come up with a rescue plan, but no rescue plan was forthcoming. The SNP strategy was, “Let’s give NFI a pot of money and hope that the problem will go away.” Instead of doing anything meaningful that would actually save the jobs, all the SNP had to offer was a stalling tactic: delay the news of the inevitable SNP Scottish Government’s failure to help and save Scottish bus manufacturing until after the Holyrood election. The SNP put its own party’s success at the ballot box well ahead of workers and industry in Scotland.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
Does the hon. Member agree that it might be more reasonable for him to focus on issues reserved to Westminster, rather than speaking about issues reserved to Holyrood, given that he is not an elected Member there but is an elected Member here?
Brian Leishman
I say to the hon. Member from the Scottish National party that constituents are constituents. When constituents from Alloa and Grangemouth, in the corresponding Scottish Parliament area, come to me because they have had dreadful service from an SNP MSP, does he expect me to turn my back on them? No, I will do something different: I will give them the service that they elected me to provide.
Instead of subsidising Chinese competition, the Scottish Government should simply back Scottish workers. A possible solution, as Scottish Labour suggested, was for the Scottish Government to move to direct state procurement, allowing contracting authorities to use the Procurement Act 2023 to legally disregard bids from non-treaty state suppliers such as China and instead embed domestic social value for Scottish workers, Scottish communities and Scottish business. The Scottish Government should get rid of the failed ScotZEB model and put in place a state-backed purchasing and leasing scheme.
I find it laughable that the SNP wants more powers to go to Holyrood. How about using the powers that it actually has for public good and saving Scottish bus manufacturing? Of course, that would not fit in with the “Westminster bad” narrative, which is oh so easy. After 20 years of SNP government, the party still refuses to take responsibility, and the Alexander Dennis workers and the wider Scottish working class are paying the cost for it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Karl Turner (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that the subject of the debate is the future of the UK coach industry.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) for securing this important and timely debate.
Coaches are often primarily viewed as being used only for holidays and leisure, but that is just a small part of the important services that operators provide. In fact, coaches account for 450 million passenger journeys a year in Great Britain and support 81,000 jobs, generating £6.4 billion of economic value for the economy. Coach passengers are estimated to spend £8.3 billion annually in local economies—and perhaps service stations, to which the hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard alluded—through tourism, retail and leisure. Coach companies such as Edward Thomas & Son, which operates in my constituency, provide essential services. They transport children safely to and from school every day, support educational trips and are available for private hire and transport for local groups, organisations and communities.
Coach journeys present an important and often more affordable alternative for travel across the UK, particularly with the current high rail and fuel prices. Without a healthy network of independent coach operators, services will become more expensive to provide and more difficult to access. The coach industry is struggling and we must do more to support it. High fuel prices are a massive concern. Coaches are high-mileage vehicles, and fuel represents one of their largest operating costs, so any significant increase or volatility in diesel prices immediately impacts operators, particularly where fuel contracts have been agreed well in advance at a fixed price. It is really difficult for coach operators to absorb substantial cost increases of this nature without ultimately affecting the costs or availability of their services.
But it is not just about fuel: the general costs of operating a coach company have increased significantly, whether that is the price of coaches, insurance, maintenance, parts, tyres, wages or regulatory compliance. Modern coaches are a huge capital investment and can cost upwards of £250,000—that is massive. To make those investments, coach operators need certainty and support to justify continued investment in their fleets. The Government’s anti-business tax regime, with increased business rates and employer national insurance contributions, has hugely impacted the industry’s bottom line. That is threatening the future commercial viability of the coach industry.
The availability of drivers is also a major challenge, as has been alluded to. The current driver vacancy rate is 14%. Recruiting and retaining suitable professional passenger-carrying vehicle drivers continues to be difficult. Coach driving is a skilled and responsible occupation, but the industry has an ageing workforce, with around 25% of drivers aged 60 or above. Attracting enough new drivers remains challenging, not least because of the Government-led barriers to training new and young drivers, with regulatory restrictions on drivers aged 18 to 20 limiting the journeys they can take. That makes coach driving an unattractive early-career option, which compounds recruitment difficulties as the workforce ages out. It restricts the amount of work operators are physically able to undertake, even when high customer demand is there.
The coach industry continues to be overlooked in Government planning and infrastructure. That has caused the sector to suffer, like so many other industries, from the pressures that the last decade has placed on businesses. It has been left to deal with blows from uncontrollable shocks such as the pandemic, Brexit red tape and the push for net zero, with limited support.
If a coach operator wants to commit to zero-emission coaches, it needs to secure, at high cost, vehicles with sufficient range, and ensure that there is reliable charging infrastructure across its routes. Coaches travel longer-than-average journeys, and there are currently limited charging provisions on motorways and A roads. Operators need greater certainty before committing to the significant investment required to reach net zero. However, unlike cars and vans, coaches are not currently covered by the zero-emission vehicle mandate, and no equivalent statutory trajectory or long-term road map exists for the sector.
We must do more to support the coach industry. We must engage meaningfully with the sector to fix those fundamental issues. If we fail to do so, we will lose this industry and the vital services it supports. I therefore urge the Minister to reflect on all the contributions and calls made by me and other colleagues today.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) for bringing us here.
I want to speak about Stanley Travel, a coach business based in my North Durham constituency. Established in 1961, Stanley Travel remains a family-owned and operated business. It operates more than 50 vehicles and employs 95 staff. From serving schools and colleges in my constituency to allowing tourists on a budget to get around the country, it provides constituents with a great deal of value, like other coach companies we have heard about today. Unfortunately, Stanley Travel and other coach businesses face severe pressures on their operations, so I want to raise four questions with the Minister.
Rising fuel prices have substantially increased costs. Diesel prices have risen from £1.08 per litre in March to £1.59 per litre last week. That represents an additional £9,690 each week across Stanley Travel’s operation. Where transport contracts have already been agreed at fixed prices in advance, it is local family businesses that are forced to absorb that cost. Those challenges will only be compounded by future increases in fuel duty. We ought to recognise coaches as essential users of fuel, delivering education and community transport and lower-carbon group travel. Therefore, my first question is, will the Minister support an essential user fuel rebate for coach operators and urge the Treasury to cancel the proposed fuel duty increases?
Driver and technician shortages make it harder for operators to maintain and expand services. Recruiting and training new staff requires lots of investment, while restrictions affecting younger coach drivers make it difficult, as we have heard, to recruit directly from schools and colleges. Stanley Travel tells me that it needs a clearer pathway into coach driving and engineering, supported by accessible training and apprenticeships. Will the Government support funded category D licence training, review driver apprenticeships and remove unnecessary barriers to younger people entering the sector?
Too often, coaches are overlooked in transport and destination planning. Inadequate parking, unsuitable pick-up points and insufficient space for wheelchair boarding create practical difficulties for drivers and passengers. What steps will the Government take to ensure that councils and visitor destinations provide adequate coach parking, accessible boarding facilities and suitable driver rest areas?
Finally, coaches already offer an efficient way of moving groups while reducing individual car journeys, but operators also want to invest in cleaner technology. However, vehicle costs, range and charging infrastructure must reflect the demands of long-distance and touring work. A clear, coach-specific road map to cleaner technology would give businesses greater confidence to plan investment, supported by practical infrastructure and appropriate financial assistance. Will the Government develop that road map with operators and provide funding support that recognises the coach sector’s needs?
Currently, trading conditions for coach businesses such as Stanley Travel are exceptionally difficult. Supporting coaches protects local jobs, affordable travel and essential services while helping communities to access experiences and opportunities across the country. I hope the Minister can set out what the Government will do to address each of the concerns I have raised and to support companies such as Stanley Travel, which has delivered so much for my constituents over the last 65 years.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner.
Coaches are an essential part of Britain’s transport infrastructure, and they deserve proper recognition in Government transport policy. Their role goes far beyond holidays: they take children to school, workers to their jobs and patients to appointments, and they provide transport for our armed forces and community groups. They keep communities connected. For older people without a car, coach services can be a lifeline, helping them stay independent and preventing isolation. Coaches also support local jobs and businesses, bringing visitors into our towns, and they help to reduce the number of cars on our roads.
But operators are under serious financial pressure. Rising diesel costs are particularly difficult for companies tied into school and other contracts agreed months ago. Those extra costs cannot simply be passed on. The Government must treat the industry fairly. Bus operators in England have received additional fuel support through the bus service operators grant—I think it is 15p a litre, although it may have gone up, but I am not 100% sure. Hauliers have been given a temporary vehicle tax break. Coaches deserve proper consideration too—they get nothing.
In my constituency of Runcorn and Helsby, local coach companies such as Anthony’s Travel, which I am delighted to welcome to the Public Gallery today, face an additional burden: bridge tolls. Charges on the Mersey Gateway and Silver Jubilee bridges add to the cost of journeys across the river. A large coach can face a charge of £19.20 for a return crossing, before discounts. For operators making repeated journeys, those charges quickly mount up. That bridge tax puts further pressure on already stretched businesses—valuable businesses that we do not want to lose and which, like Anthony’s Travel, contribute so much to the local community. At the moment, the cost must either be absorbed by the operator or reflected in what customers pay. I would like Ministers to consider meaningful toll relief for coaches providing essential services, alongside fair treatment in future transport funding and support.
National Coach Week is an opportunity to recognise the people who keep this industry moving: the drivers, staff and operators delivering services that our communities depend on. The message to Government is simple: recognise coaches, listen to operators and give them a fair deal.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank my colleague and neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer), for securing this important debate.
In Aylesbury and across the country, transport is not just about moving people from one place to another; it is central to our economy, future growth and the wellbeing and opportunities in our communities today. Coaches have a particularly important role to play, and I pay tribute to all the operators in my area, including Masons coaches, Motts Travel, Redline and Star Travel. They connect Aylesbury with the surrounding rural communities and vice versa; support schools and colleges, as we have heard; provide transport for community groups; and help residents access leisure, cultural, sporting and tourism opportunities. Alongside our rail and bus networks, these coaches are vital in so many ways.
Last week, I caught up with the brilliant Candice Mason from Masons coaches in my constituency to discuss the challenges facing the business and the sector. Sadly, the picture is not looking great. Masons is planning to reduce its fleet from 28 coaches to fewer than 20, because the costs on the business have skyrocketed. Workshop costs are up from £50,000 to £90,000 per year before covid to £330,000 now. Insurance has risen sharply, and the business is spending £8,000 per week on diesel. That is on top of rising energy costs and national insurance, minimum wage and business rates. Those pressures are felt not just by Masons but by small and medium-sized enterprises across Buckinghamshire, which are the backbone of our economy.
What does better engagement and support from Government for the coach industry look like? I want to share three suggestions. The first point is about transport and planning policy, because that is where it all starts. Too often, local planning decisions overlook the practical needs of coaches. The result is poor parking, poor drop-off and pick-up facilities, a lack of suitable rest areas for drivers and so on. If we want coaches to support our local communities, planning guidance has to recognise them as a distinct mode of transport, while local authorities and visitor destinations have to be encouraged to provide appropriate facilities for coach operators and their passengers. That could help to tackle the increased congestion on our roads, but it could also have a beneficial impact on the environment, given that a single coach can remove dozens of cars from the road and significantly reduce emissions per passenger. Within transport planning, accessibility must also be front and centre. I know that the coach sector strongly supports making travel more accessible for disabled passengers and older people, but it must not just be about the coaches themselves; it must also be about the wider adaptations across the whole journey, including suitable boarding areas, kerbside spaces, level access points and so on.
The second issue is the skills shortage in the coach sector. Around 14% of posts remain vacant, and nearly a quarter of drivers are thought to be over the age of 60 and close to retirement. Masons has highlighted that it is hard to attract new drivers, particularly because of insurance restrictions that mean it can no longer teach and train newly qualified drivers, but also because of wider issues with the industry and struggles to attract women. I would like to know what the Minister thinks about that.
The third suggestion is about costs. So many of our coach operators are local, family-run SMEs. They play a vital role in employing and training up local people, purchasing from other businesses and paying taxes and national insurance, and yet they are having to absorb increasing costs. I ask the Minister what he can do to address that, whether through targeted support when SMEs experience fast-rising costs beyond their control or through grants or transitional funding when Government regulation—for example, on accessibility—requires new investment. As we have heard, the coach industry would particularly welcome support with fuel costs, through similar mechanisms to those available elsewhere in passenger transport.
Coaches are too often the forgotten part of our transport network, and yet they are vital. A thriving coach sector is not just a luxury but a necessity in Aylesbury, the villages and across the country, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) for securing this debate, and I commend her on her informative speech.
Earlier this year, I had the pleasure of visiting AE Gough & Sons coaches in Llandrindod Wells, where I heard at first hand some of the challenges facing the industry. I am also fortunate to have other excellent coach operators in my constituency, including Herdman Coaches and Williams Coaches. These family-run businesses are the hidden workhorses of our economy, but right now they are absorbing a lot of pain.
The coach industry is particularly important to the Welsh economy and plays a vital role in connecting rural communities and destinations that cannot always be reached by rail. That is particularly important in my constituency, which contains major attractions and sites such as the Brecon Beacons, Hay-on-Wye and Waterfall Country. However, the coach industry faces significant challenges, particularly when it comes to rising operating costs and recruiting the next generation of drivers.
On fuel costs, the Government must continue the freeze on fuel duty to protect operators and passengers from further inflationary pressures. The Liberal Democrats believe that a lot more must be done to help. Donald Trump’s reckless war with Iran, cheered on originally by the Conservatives and Reform, has pushed up prices at the pump, while the Treasury stands to receive an additional £2 billion in tax revenues as a result of soaring prices. The Liberal Democrats believe that money should be returned to motorists and businesses through a 10p cut in fuel duty that would reduce pump prices by around 12p per litre. For the coach operators that we have been talking about, who rely on fuel every single day, that would provide some much-needed relief.
We must also see work being done to address the industry’s growing workforce crisis. That point has been made several times, which makes it apparent how pressing that really is. The bus and coach sector faces an estimated shortage of between 5,000 and 10,000 drivers, with almost a quarter of existing drivers thought to be over 60. At a time when so many young people are struggling to find employment, particularly in areas such as rural Wales, it is extraordinary that an industry that is crying out for skilled workers is facing such significant barriers to recruitment. That is why we need to see funded category D licence training and reform of the driver apprenticeship system. That was one of the issues raised with me by AE Gough & Sons, which highlighted the difficulties that operators face by taking on apprentices directly, rather than having to rely on college-led arrangements.
Ultimately, if we want a thriving tourism economy, better rural connectivity and more opportunities for young people, we must give our coach industry the support that it needs. I hope the Minister will take those concerns seriously and work with the industry to secure its long-term future.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) for securing this debate, and I declare an interest as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for British buses and draw hon. Members’ attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
At the start of the debate, my hon. Friend rightly asked about the distinction between what a bus is and what a coach is. It is one that very few people think about, and I acknowledge that I did not give that much thought before becoming a Member of Parliament. Luckily, I believe that that distinction is understood by the Minister and by No. 10, if not in Bute House or, as my hon. Friend described more alarmingly, in UK law.
While many companies still call themselves coachbuilders, there is no longer any full coach manufacturing taking place exclusively in the UK. However, the latent capacity is still there at Alexander Dennis and Wrightbus of Northern Ireland, with the latter having secured a deal to build the revived line of contour coaches last year. But primary coachbuilding ended last year in the United Kingdom and that should cause us alarm.
However, we are part of a wider European automotive supply chain that contains countless companies that build engines, brakes, HVAC—heating, ventilation and air conditioning—and thermal systems, wheelchair lifts, destination displays, screens and battery packs. As the industry transitions to zero emission coaches, that means that Government support such as developing electrification infrastructure, funding through programmes such as DRIVE35 and subsidies for transitioning fleets becomes more important, especially as there has been less access for decarbonisation funding for the coach sector than there has been for buses.
Before the Minister, off the back of the spending review, heads off to develop such a scheme for coaches—there has been one for buses—I again make the case that when we spend taxpayers’ money to help this sector, and the broader transport sector, we must ensure that operators relying on Government intervention benefit, not bash, our domestic manufacturing industry. Too often, quick decisions and poorly designed schemes have seen money sent to Chinese manufacturers, with a subsequent loss of domestic jobs and undercutting of the UK industrial capacity that could help us to bring coachbuilding back.
In the coming years, we need a sustainable pipeline to deliver a successful transition to an electrified coach and bus fleet, with a focus on incentivising our manufacturers to restart coachbuilding here in the United Kingdom. There has not been access to previous dedicated decarbonisation funding for the coach sector. As my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) pointed out, the Scottish Government spectacularly failed to do that. The primary beneficiary of their ScotZEB3 scheme was the coachbuilder Ember, who run a fantastic, comparatively affordable and fully decarbonised coach service in Scotland. However, as they have run exclusively electric buses since they started their operations in 2020, and as the largest beneficiary of that scheme as an operator, they ended up using taxpayer-funded decarbonisation schemes to scale their fleet, not to decarbonise.
When the Government design any future support for the sector, rather than totally lacking a strategy like the SNP, they should found it on two principles: whether it will take more carbon out of the air than would have otherwise been there, and whether it will put more money into the pockets of British manufacturing workers or more money into the pockets of those in boardrooms in Beijing.
ScotZEB3 is a cautionary tale for any future Government support. Currently, mayors are required to provide only 10% consideration of social value for new content orders when they are building up their fleets, which is simply inadequate in practice to materially change contracting authority behaviour when we are subject to the scale of Chinese dumping that we are seeing.
The loss of jobs in bus manufacturing makes bringing back British-built coaches less likely. I will admit that the deal struck by the DFT last year is an improvement to the situation, but it does sit awkwardly when the Government are rightly mandating 20% social value for central major procurement decisions. I believe that the agreement the Department struck last year must be reopened in consideration of that.
I also noticed that the DRIVE35 scheme sets no rules on ownership, on keeping intellectual property in the UK or on national security screening. Considering the outstanding DFT and National Cyber Security Centre investigation into Chinese buses, that is worth consideration. The only rule requires benefiting companies to be registered in the UK. If we seek to onshore jobs, bring coachbuilding back and incentivise manufacturers to grasp the opportunity, that would be worth updating.
The ZEB mandate outlined—there is no separate mechanism for the coach sector—that we should be equally pragmatic with the coach and bus manufacturing sector as we consult and provide a pipeline that does not seek to undercut our manufacturing sector. Although having a clear focus on developing our own industrial supply chain with the existing funding would go a long way to supporting the UK’s industries, we could go further with measures that are coming up. As tariffs on Chinese EVs are being considered, I ask that the Minister makes representations to his colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade to make sure that any measures are inclusive of Chinese coaches and buses that would otherwise undercut our domestic market or the prospect of building one.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Turner; I thank you for keeping the best wine to the end. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) on her excellent speech. Would I be right in saying that Toddington services is in her constituency? If not, it is very close. It is a place I am very familiar with, as I will explain in a moment.
Maynes Coaches in my constituency represents one of the many hundreds of family-owned and run coach companies up and down these islands. I must declare a non-financial interest because my mother and father founded a coach company more than 50 years ago. Along with my brothers Liam, Sean and Enda and my sister Una, I was part of a ready-made, non-unionised labour force that my parents ruthlessly exploited, but that is all part of history now.
Coaches connect our rural communities, transport pupils to school, provide resilience when rail services fail and ensure that major cultural and sporting events run smoothly and can take place successfully. Additionally, coaches play a very important role in the tourism sector. For those who do not drive or for those who take coach tours, for example, coaches can be the only transport option to many world-class tourism facilities. In fact, they are the bees that pollinate all those places. For example, research has highlighted that one coach calling at the same location every day each year can introduce at least £1 million to the local economy.
Although much responsibility for transport is devolved to the Scottish Parliament, I want to focus on issues that are in the remit of the UK Government, as opposed to some colleagues who wasted valuable time in their speeches speaking about matters that are devolved to Holyrood.
Seamus Logan
No, I will not, because we have heard quite enough from those on the hon. Gentleman’s side of the House on these matters.
I want to focus on two points. The European Union entry/exit system poses a significant challenge to international coach operators, with the 90 and 180-day rule already causing havoc for operators trying to comply with EU regulations with a limited supply of drivers who are compliant. The EES will increase the logistical challenges of the channel tunnel and ports, driving up costs and causing delays. That will result in unfair advantages for less green forms of international travel, such as air travel. The UK Government, as part of their ongoing discussions with the EU, should simplify border controls and explore pre-registration for coaches and ways to make international travel easier for the coach sector. I look forward to the Minister’s response to that point.
My second point concerns the cost of fuel, which has already been mentioned. This is a crucial issue. Fuel prices are increasing significantly due to the war in the middle east and the Government should outline what action they are taking to mitigate that increase as much as possible. To many households, coaches offer a lifeline of affordable travel. Support is therefore more vital than ever. We look to the Budget in the next two weeks to tell the coach industry what help it can expect in that area.
If Scotland seeks to grow its visitor economy, improve connectivity, support rural communities and meet ambitious environmental targets, coaches must be part of the solution.
Seamus Logan
No, I will not.
I make this penultimate point: I recognise that the hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard said that sometimes it is a coach and sometimes it is a bus, but I can assure her that a coach, and a coach driver, is a very different thing. Finally, I urge Ministers to work closely with operators and industry bodies to address the issues with coach travel. I seek their assurance that further action will be taken on fuel costs in the forthcoming Budget.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this debate and thank the hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) for securing it. She brought to the Chamber her customary passion and championing of the coach industry, of which she always makes us conscious in the Transport Committee. She articulated the distinctive requirements of the coach industry and made me aware of National Coach Week, which I confess I had not previously known was a “week”, but there are weeks on a great many topics these days.
We have heard important themes raised during the debate. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) highlighted the critical rural role that the coach sector can play in getting people and to and from schools. The hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) and the hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) outlined the critical role of manufacturing for our country’s bus and coach sector, and the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) talked about his own family heritage in the coach sector. Those three hon. Members gave us an amuse-bouche of the passions that dominate Holyrood, which was very interesting for those of us who do not get there often.
My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) talked about the critical role that the coach plays in providing affordable travel. Many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) and the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin), talked about the local coach companies that they have in their constituency. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith) talked about the need for support and encouragement of the coach sector as a whole.
In my constituency, I have several coach companies that provide a critical service, such as Pearces coaches, now owned by the Go-Ahead Group at Thames Travel’s Didcot depot; JD Travel in Culham, which provides private hire; and Ridgeways Coaches in Wantage. Weavaway Travel is based in the next-door constituency, in Newbury, but took over the once-legendary Tappins Coaches brand, which was based in my constituency.
The economic benefits of the coach industry are hard to overstate and yet, as the hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard said, we tend not to reflect on them as much as we should. Around 450 million passenger journeys are made by coach in Britain each year. Coach passengers are estimated to spend £8.3 billion annually in local economies through tourism, retail and leisure, with inbound international visitors travelling by coach contributing a further £610 million a year.
The industry estimates that a single additional coach visiting a destination each day can generate around £1 million a year for the local economy. With rail prices still generally higher than many would like, private coach operators often present an important, more affordable alternative for long-distance travel. Indeed, for inter-city rail operators, coach operators provide a vital function in the all-too-common rail replacement road service. I was on holiday in Switzerland recently and—believe it or not, fellow hon. Members—I had to go on a rail replacement bus even there, so it is not an issue unique to us. As has been said, coach travel can also be essential to providing some school transport.
There are key regulatory and economic challenges facing the coach industry. It has suffered, like so many industries, from the pressure that the last decade has placed on businesses, with uncontrollable shocks such as the pandemic, and completely self-imposed ones such as the Conservatives’ botched Brexit deals, excessive red tape and the huge delays we now see at borders for international coach travel as a result of the EU entry and exit system.
Some of the Government’s anti-business policies have further increased pressure, with raised business rates and employer national insurance contributions further threatening the coach industry’s bottom lines. Coach companies do not receive any of the fuel duty relief measures that other modes of passenger transport do. Operators want UK Government engagement with the EU on pre-registration and digital documentation for coach parties, a specific exemption for professional coach drivers from the 90/180 Schengen rule, and continued investment in port and border infrastructure to prevent repeats of the severe queuing seen in past peak periods.
As many hon. Members have mentioned, the coach sector faces severe workforce issues. The industry reports that driver shortfall stands at an estimated 5,000 to 10,000, with around 14% of driver roles currently vacant and about a quarter of the existing driver workforce aged over 60. I hope the Minister will specifically address the issue of coach drivers not being allowed to start at the age of 18. That seems particularly anomalous given recent Government announcements about the train driving age being lowered to 18. It is quite hard to see the logic and consistency, so I hope the Minister will be able to shed some light on that.
On the planning system, coaches have historically been an afterthought in both local and national transport planning, regulated in practice as an afterthought to bus policy despite being a fundamentally different and deregulated commercial method of transport. That has produced a chronic shortage of coach parking, drop-off space and driver rest facilities, directly affecting operators’ ability to comply with statutory drivers’ hours rules, and has left coaches significantly absent from local transport and spatial plans. Industry bodies are calling for coaches to be recognised as a distinct mode in planning guidance, for motorway service areas to be required to prioritise coach parking and driver facilities, and for more standardised local authority procurement to reduce the administrative burden on operators bidding for home-to-school and other contracted work.
Coaches are also an important consideration in improving integrated transport policy. Whether coach operators are given access to major urban bus stations is highly inconsistent, with local authorities and owners and operators of those bus terminals making very different decisions on whether to grant access to national coach operators.
Accessibility remains a challenge. The Public Service Vehicles Accessibility Regulations 2000 require coaches in scope to be fully wheelchair accessible, but in practice that depends on kerbside infrastructure just as much as the capability of the coaches. Level ground of up to 4 metres is needed, which does not exist at many locations coaches serve. That means vehicles can be technically compliant while still failing to deliver a reliably accessible journey. The accessibility equipment required also adds weight and takes up capacity that could otherwise carry passengers, so the sector’s ask is for a shift from a vehicle-focused compliance regime towards a whole journey accessibility framework covering booking, boarding infrastructure and arrival, developed jointly with local authorities, operators and disability groups.
As the hon. Member for Falkirk said, decarbonisation is a challenge for this sector. Unlike cars and vans, coaches are not currently covered by the zero emission vehicle mandate, and no equivalent statutory trajectory or long-term support and road map exists for the sector. Zero emission coaches face a much harder technical challenge than buses or cars, with longer average journeys increasing the importance of range and refuelling infrastructure, with charging and hydrogen infrastructure suitable for coaches largely non-existent on the motorway and major A-road networks. Industry data suggests that roughly three quarters of coach operators currently have no plan to introduce zero emission vehicles, citing high up-front costs and insufficient range as the main barriers. The sector is asking Government to publish a long-delayed low-carbon fuel strategy, to extend infrastructure trials such as a zero emission and hydrogen infrastructure demonstrator to coaches on a similar footing to heavy goods vehicles, and to consider an interim fuel duty incentive for low-carbon fuels to bridge the gap until zero emission coaches are commercially viable at scale.
We have heard today of the vital role that coaches play, whether as a long-distance public transport offer, helping children to get to school or enabling groups of people old and young to access tourism, hospitality, culture and so on. Coaches have not been supported or given enough attention. The hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard is moving us on the journey and I hope the Minister will say what more can be done to recognise and support this critical sector.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, as always, Mr Turner. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) on securing the debate, and I agree with her that coaches are unique and vital.
The debate has shown that not much divides the House on this topic. The challenge, as ever, is what the Government do with the asks from Members on both sides of the Chamber and how they support the UK coach sector and secure its future.
As we have heard, coaches play a critical role in getting people to school, supporting tourism and helping businesses transport people around the country and internationally. The sector has said that just one additional coach every day can deliver £1 million in economic value annually to a destination. On the face of it, that may sound like a rather surprising amount, but when we consider the capacity of a coach and the number of people it can transport, it immediately becomes less surprising.
Although the precise number is unclear, we know that there are about 2,500 coach operators in the United Kingdom. It is estimated that 88% are family owned or individually owned, and they employ tens of thousands of people across the country. To give just one example of their contribution, they transport 600,000 children—including one of my own—to school every day. On that note, with the indulgence of the House, I want to briefly thank a wonderful man called Rob, who drove coaches on multiple home-to-school transport routes in Buckinghamshire until the end of last academic year, when he moved on to a local taxi firm. His bright outlook gave real joy to the children he transported each and every day. He would hand-write each of them a Christmas card, and he became famous for the songs that he put on between the bus stops, the pick-up points and school. The children very much miss him as their home-to-school coach driver. We thank him for what he did, and hopefully one day he might return to those routes in Buckinghamshire.
As with much of the transport sector, we would be foolish not to recognise the challenges facing the industry, particularly for operators that have not received Government support. With diesel hitting all-time highs, the challenges facing the coach industry are more pronounced than ever. A recent survey by the newly established Coach UK warned that 41% of operators would withdraw from home-to-school contracts and 18% would consider closing down altogether if high prices persist beyond December.
Although hope may be a suitable remedy for the Labour party, it does not help with the financial reality faced by businesses across the county. Given the particular challenges for the industry, there is a need to take steps to reduce costs for business, but what message would operators have taken from what the Government said at Labour party conference? The Transport Secretary did not mention the word “fuel” once in her speech, but operators face an increase in fuel duty scheduled to take effect at the start of next year, and another hike in March. The deadline is fast approaching, which is why the Conservatives have called for the Government to provide clarity immediately and freeze fuel duty further.
Although Labour Members may think that everything is going right simply because they have a new leader, the reality for coach drivers and operators is different. Given these circumstances, I recognise the coach industry’s call for targeted financial relief this year. I can clearly understand why operators are asking for it, and it should serve as a reminder that the Government’s focus should not be on extracting ever-greater revenues to fund its profligate spending. I recognise the challenge in committing to specific financial support, but ultimately we need to ensure that fuel prices remain affordable and that businesses can continue to operate sustainably. That involves ensuring that fuel duty does not increase and doing what we can as a country to increase the supply of fuel—fossil fuel, advanced sustainable fuels and, in the future, synthetic fuels.
Additionally, we must acknowledge the broader energy-related issues that are relevant to this discussion. The consultation outcome on ending the sale of new non-zero emission buses and on the decarbonisation of coaches and minibuses showed that respondents emphasised that coaches have significantly different operating cycles from those of buses used in regular services. For example, coaches may not return to their depots as often as service buses. They may also need to find refuelling locations wherever they operate, and the vehicles may need a range of hundreds of miles. If such measures were introduced, they would place obvious strains on efforts to procure vehicles that meet the standards the Government will ultimately require. The practicalities of operating the vehicles underline the importance of technological neutrality, allowing businesses to buy the vehicles that will enable them to provide the services they know how to deliver effectively.
Returning to the example of transporting children to school, we have heard from a variety of operators about the increasing costs resulting from the Government’s increase in national insurance contributions, originally estimated at £800 per driver per year. Those costs create challenges for the provision of transport for disabled people, who may require more bespoke arrangements. Overall, when considering the financial pressures facing the sector, it appears to be another example of treating those on the roads as a means of simply extracting revenue.
Although costs such as fuel remain an important consideration, we must also consider the regulations in place. One issue raised by operators in the coach sector, as well as the wider transport industry, is the difficulty of recruiting and training staff, which has come through in this debate. Such skill shortages can rapidly affect the industry if left unchecked, as in the HGV sector a few years ago. That means that we need to ensure that the regulations in place enable people—particularly young people entering the workforce—to develop the skills they need.
Providing young people with opportunities to learn and develop at an earlier age would be advantageous. For example, one element that Conservatives have sought to address in our recently released skills package is the removal of the 50-kilometre restriction for fully qualified bus and coach drivers aged 18 to 20. Finding ways to make regulations work better for business while creating opportunities for young people is essential. Furthermore, Conservative plans for a reduction in national insurance contributions for employers of 21 to 24-year-olds could provide opportunities for SMEs to invest in skills and encourage more young people to join the sector at the start of their careers. We do not mind if the Government pick up and run with those proposals.
I appreciate that that alone would not be sufficient to solve all the issues facing the industry, but it should inform the approach. The Government have said they acknowledge the role of the coach industry and are committed to supporting it. They could go further, however, by adopting the right approach and asking a simple question: what can Government do to enable those small businesses to operate and grow? Ultimately, the coach industry needs to be able to operate despite the significant costs it faces. It is an industry that typically receives no public funding, relying heavily on small operators working exceptionally hard to run their businesses.
We must not forget the people behind those businesses. Any steps that can be taken to make it easier for them to run their businesses should be welcomed. Ideas have been put from all sides of the House this morning. The challenge I put to the Minister is to take them back to the Department and make them a reality.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
It is a pleasure, Mr Turner, to serve under your chairship. I join colleagues in thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) for securing this critically important debate, for her continued interest in the area and for holding the feet of Ministers in the Department for Transport to the fire on an important issue. I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond and participate on behalf of the Government. I wish everyone a happy National Coach Week.
I will turn later to some of the topics raised by my hon. Friend, particularly decarbonisation and the recruitment and retention of younger drivers. First, I want to touch on the point she raised about coach data, which is critical. She is right to say that the coach sector is relatively unevidenced compared with other major modes of transport. However, the available coach industry evidence suggests that there are about 2,500 coach operators in the United Kingdom, most of them small and family-owned, although she is right to say that no definitive national estimate currently exists. We must work tirelessly within the Department for Transport to remedy that.
I hope that hon. Members will be reassured about the Government’s commitment to supporting the UK coach sector, as well as the coach manufacturing sector, which has been raised by Members, in every part of the United Kingdom, including Scotland.
Euan Stainbank
I thank the Minister for talking about the importance of coach and bus manufacturing. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) described it as a waste of time for Members to raise that today; ludicrously, his old boss, Stephen Flynn and the Member of the Scottish Parliament for Falkirk West blame this place for the challenges that ADL has faced. Why does the Minister think SNP Members duck this debate depending on which Parliament they happen to be sitting in at a particular moment?
Keir Mather
I thank my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) for their remarks. Manufacturing and sovereign capability in our bus and coach sector is critical irrespective of where someone lives in the United Kingdom: it is a matter for both the UK Government and the Government in Holyrood. Irrespective of who is holding the pen, the Prime Minister has been clear that he wants to facilitate reindustrialisation and growth in every postcode of the United Kingdom. We want colleagues in the SNP and across the United Kingdom to help us in that work and to work collaboratively with us to ensure that UK domestic manufacturers have the support needed to carry out their vital work.
Coaches are an essential, if sometimes under-recognised, part of our transport system. They connect people with education, employment, family, leisure and major events. They support rail passengers during disruption and give communities an affordable way to reach destinations across the country. They are a very democratic form of transport.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
A number of years ago, there was a great initiative in my constituency to run coach tours of local heritage assets linked to Mary, Queen of Scots and John Clare, the famous poet. Does the Minister recognise the value that the sector brings to supporting local heritage and tourism?
Keir Mather
I thank my hon. Friend for shining a spotlight on the impact that the coach sector has in his constituency, putting greater focus on our incredible British heritage sites; the point is incredibly well made. However, there is also a macro point here: the sector itself estimates that coaches provide around 450 million passenger journeys each year. It directly employs around 54,000 people and supports a further 27,000 jobs through its supply chain. It contributes an estimated £6.4 billion to the economy. As has been said, coach passengers are also estimated to spend £8.3 billion each year in local economies.
Sir John Hayes
The sort of people who travel on coaches are typically not the most advantaged—pensioners, for example, or children getting to school. Some people can afford coach travel but cannot afford other forms of travel. For the constituents I have mentioned already, as well as Fowler’s in Holbeach Drove, Cropley in Fosdyke and other local coach operators, will the Minister agree to the rebate on fuel that they have suggested? The industry has suggested a small short-term rebate to help it get over the hump of escalating fuel prices and therefore provide the service to the vulnerable people and many others whom I have mentioned.
Keir Mather
The right hon. Gentleman points to an important fact: the coach sector is used by those who may not otherwise be able to book public transport to get where they need to. Although those people can also benefit from the package of measures brought forward by this Government to give them much needed breathing space, including the £2 bus cap, he is right to encourage me to always go further to improve on that. Unfortunately, he will be momentarily disappointed as I cannot provide him with advance notice of what may or may not be in the Budget. However, his general point—that support is important—is well made. That is why the fuel duty freeze is currently in place.
The figures that I raised underline the sector’s importance to tourism, high streets and destinations throughout Great Britain. However, the industry is also rooted in local communities. Many of those operators are small and family-run businesses that have served their areas for generations, as the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) pointed out from his own personal experience. We want those businesses to grow, invest and continue providing the flexible services on which passengers, schools and businesses depend.
I turn first to driver recruitment. We must continue to have an open dialogue with the coach sector about its challenges to doing business and what the Government can do to help. Driver recruitment is central. I recognise the sector’s concerns about recruiting and retaining drivers, in particular about the restrictions affecting younger drivers, which multiple hon. Members have raised today.
At present, 18 and 19-year-olds may drive buses and coaches only on regular services of up to 50 km. That can severely limit the work available in a sector where journeys are often of longer distance or not part of regular services. My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) and the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) also raised the issue of when young drivers can begin their qualifications and theory tests. I will certainly take that away and raise it within the Department.
The Department has been engaging with the bus and coach industry, alongside road safety groups, to understand the potential impacts of amending the restrictions that apply to young drivers. However, I want hon. Members to be assured that we are working hard and at pace to get the next generation of drivers into the coach sector. We are considering the evidence carefully and will set out our next steps in due course. However, I will ask the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), the Minister with direct responsibility for this matter, to set out more detail on the timings in writing to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard.
I turn now to cost pressures, which have been a consistent theme of this debate; they were particularly raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham. I recognise that operators face pressures at the pump. That is why the Government have extended the 5p fuel duty cut until the end of the year, which provides important support to businesses, including coach operators. We will continue to work closely with the sector, listening to its concerns and ensuring that the challenges facing coach operators are understood across Government.
There is also a continued role for international advocacy, which sits within my role at the Department for Transport: working with colleagues both across Government and with the UK delegations at the International Energy Agency, to ensure that we continue to maintain a robust supply of diesel into the United Kingdom.
Greg Smith
I want to raise an issue that I appreciate sits more with the Treasury than with the Department for Transport. Since fuel costs increased earlier this year, the Government have taken in over £1 billion in extra unexpected income to the Treasury from VAT on those higher fuel prices. The money is there to support the coach sector, the logistics sector and other sectors that so desperately need it, is it not?
Keir Mather
Later in my speech, I will reflect more on the steps that we are taking to support the coach sector, especially in building the longer-term resilience that we believe can be achieved through the benefits that can be accrued from decarbonisation. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue of rising fuel prices, which concerns the Government and on which we work on in close collaboration with the sector. He will, of course, understand that ahead of the Budget I cannot say much more about the exact issue that he raised.
I turn next to the issue of transport connectivity and the indispensable role of coaches as part of an integrated transport network. Earlier this year, the Department published “Better Connected”, the Government’s strategy for integrated transport in England. It sets out a clear national vision for all partners across the transport system to create integrated networks that work well for people and are safe, reliable, affordable and accessible, so that people can make their journeys easily. Its principles of putting people first, creating well-connected places and working in partnership apply across all forms of transport, but perhaps no more than in relation to coaches, which have a critical role to play as part of an integrated picture, particularly in connecting people to education and visitor destinations, but also in connecting rural communities and supporting elderly residents, as was raised by the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover). Better information, well-designed interchanges and closer co-ordination with rail, bus and local transport can make journeys easier, and we will continue working with local leaders to ensure that coach travel is properly considered in local transport plans.
I will also just touch briefly on an important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith) about working more closely with local authorities to break through planning challenges. Currently, there are obligations for local authorities to have regard to land use and land need for myriad factors that do not pertain to driver welfare stops as they relate to critical national infrastructure on the strategic road network. There is more work for the Department of Transport to do in order to work more closely with local authorities to make them more aware of just how critical it is to have proper freight and coach connectivity to every part of the United Kingdom.
I turn next to zero emission coaches. Coaches already provide an efficient form of mass transport, but we recognise the need to support the sector to go further in a way that makes good business sense. The transition to zero emission coaches presents particular challenges that I am very cognisant of: journeys can be long and variable, vehicles may spend extended periods away from their depot and operators need confidence that suitable charging will be available. The Government’s £170 million multi-year depot charging scheme supports zero emission HGVs, vans and coaches by part-funding charging infrastructure at fleet depots. Its first 2026 funding window offered support for up to 70% of eligible charge points and civil engineering costs of up to £1 million per organisation.
Jim Shannon
The Minister is right to underline the issue of energy efficiency, but when it comes to ensuring that companies across the United Kingdom—Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and here in the mainland—could work together, does he agree that the Government need to push energy efficiency through all the companies so that they can all gain?
Keir Mather
The hon. Member raises a really important point about ensuring that where the Government are encouraging decarbonisation and the resilience benefits that that can bring for the long term, it has to be done in a sustainable way, recognising the particular challenges faced by the coach sector in meeting that challenge. That applies in every part of the United Kingdom, but especially in Northern Ireland and the sort of area that he represents, where the tourist economy is so essential. Coach connectivity is critical to ensuring that his local economy continues to thrive, so that is an important point well made.
Depot charging will meet many operating needs, but as Members have raised today, longer-distance journeys will also require appropriate charging facilities at destinations and strategic locations. The Government’s forthcoming zero emission HGV and coach infrastructure strategy will provide clearer national direction—a road map, some might say—for how that infrastructure will develop, and we will continue engaging coach operators, charge point providers and motorway service area operators as the network expands. We understand that ultimately the transition must be practical, commercially viable and shaped by real operating patterns.
To touch briefly on accessibility, coaches provide vital connectivity for many people with disabilities. It is essential that they are able to travel safely, confidently and with dignity. That is just as important when they travel on leisure, rail replacement and home-to-school services as it is when they make long-distance journeys. Accessibility should be considered at all stages of the passenger journey, from finding information and planning trips though accessing coach stations and stops, and boarding, alighting and travelling on the vehicle. Accessible information is vital for giving disabled passengers the confidence to use services, and from 1 October, all coaches operating services that are subject to the accessible information regulations, which are largely rail replacement, must be compliant unless they are covered by an exemption. That is part of the broader work we are doing to ensure a more accessible transport network.
I will draw my remarks to a close by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard again for securing this critically important debate, and all the Members who have contributed and shared their personal and constituency-level experiences of the phenomenal contribution that the coach sector makes to our economy. I hope I have demonstrated that the Government recognise coaches as a vital part of the transport system—not just something that is lumped in with HGVs and other modes, but that deserves cognisance of the challenges coaches face and the enormous opportunities and benefits that they bring to communities across the United Kingdom in supporting growth, widening opportunity, strengthening tourism and connecting communities. We will continue working with the sector to support its progress and tackle some of those barriers together, including on growth and integration with the wider transport network, strengthening the workforce, increasing investment and progressing towards decarbonisation. Our aim is clear: we want a thriving, inclusive and sustainable coach industry that passengers can rely on for years to come, and I think that hon. Members from across the House have pushed us further in that direction today.
Alex Mayer
A wide range of issues have been raised today: accessibility, driver recruitment, planning, international travel and, perhaps most of all, fuel. What struck me about today’s debate was the wide range of local coach companies that were mentioned and how this is really all around the country, in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We have had a magical mystery tour all around the UK, and I think the coach sector should perhaps adopt the slogan, “Everything you need, satisfaction guaranteed”.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the future of the UK coach industry.
Wildfires: UK-Welsh Government Co-operation
(1 day, 21 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered UK-Welsh Government co-operation on tackling wildfires.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Turner. This debate follows what has been an incredibly difficult summer for many people in my constituency. The wildfire began on the evening of 19 July, and it reignited on 10 August when it jumped a firebreak and travelled into a forestry, which put houses at risk. On 11 August, the South Wales fire and rescue service declared a major incident due to significant pressure on resources. On 13 August, a military aid to the civil authorities request was submitted by the South Wales fire and rescue service, and I commend the Secretary of State for Wales for agreeing to that request very swiftly. From 18 August, the fire was contained with tactical burns, firebreaks and the use of a helicopter, but the ground continued to smoulder until there was significant rainfall at the end of August.
Frankly, the impact has been devastating. Data from the Copernicus fire emissions watch analysed by Save the Children revealed that Torfaen had the fourth highest intensity of carbon emissions per square kilometre in the world in July 2026. The smoke travelled as far as Cardiff in one direction and Gloucestershire in the other. It affected between 220 and 270 hectares of common land. Pasture, vegetation and peat were burned, with some areas likely to be damaged for years to come.
I spoke to farmers who had livestock losses, disrupted water supplies, fencing damage, grazing management issues and loss of earnings. Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water said that damage to apparently remote land can affect drinking water, wildlife and communities beyond the immediate fire area. Twenty-one locations have been identified as needing immediate drainage improvements, and that needs to be done before ground stability work can be completed.
On 14 August, South Wales fire and rescue service said that selected appliances recorded 296 mobilisations and well over 10,000 cumulative incident hours, and officers recorded 99 mobilisations and over 500 incident hours. At its height, the South Wales fire and rescue service was responding to 14 concurrent wildfires. Between 11 August and 1 September, it publicly reported 961 grass fires, including 115 wildfires and 26 category 3 wildfires, which shows the pressure on the fire service.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
We have had similar wildfires in my constituency and on the Mournes. There has been co-operation between all, but does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we need a UK-wide framework to ensure that resources, joint strategies and best practices are shared fluidly between the UK Government and all the regional Administrations, so that we can do it better together and learn from each other?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about learning from best practice across the United Kingdom.
I pay tribute to the firefighters of the South Wales fire and rescue service and the 22 other fire services around the country who came to Blaenavon’s aid in the summer. I also thank Torfaen county borough council, Natural Resources Wales, Gwent police and the 110 military personnel who helped to combat the wildfires. I also recognise those from the Blorenge Commoners Association, local farmers, businesses and constituents who rallied together over the summer to tackle this devastating event. I also thank the Wales Office Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin), for visiting Torfaen recently and listening to the concerns of local people. I say first and foremost, as I thank all those on the frontline, that we have to learn the lessons of this summer. I am afraid such fires will become more frequent, and putting in place a proper, structured response for next summer will be crucial. “Fire and Rescue National Framework for Wales 2026” identifies climate change as likely to increase the incidence and severity of weather-related events, and it highlights the possibility of wildfire risk shifting or extending.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The right hon. Member is very kind in giving way.
Military assistance to the civil authorities was not available for the wildfires on the Rhinogydd, which burned for two weeks and were so substantial that they could be seen from space. Does the right hon. Member agree that it is welcome that the Prime Minister has indicated an interest in commissioning a UK-wide aerial firefighting capability, which would be accessible to devolved Governments? Would that be a good result from today’s debate?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am certainly keen to have very substantial results from both this debate and the summit. The right hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight the importance of that support and its availability across the United Kingdom.
In putting my speech together, I was assisted by local people. If I may, I will briefly quote some of them, because I think this is important. Anthony Watkins says:
“Unlike in the North of England and Scotland, the Fire and Rescue Services in Wales have less experience of tackling wildfires in large areas of peatland. Coordinating training with experienced firefighters in England and Scotland would provide invaluable expertise to the Welsh Services”.
Sara Warman argues for a new approach to land management. She asks the Welsh Government in particular to
“work alongside land managers to develop a dedicated Welsh Wildfire Strategy, provide meaningful post-fire recovery support, review fuel-load management policies, strengthen emergency response capability, and formally recognise commoners and graziers as operational partners in both wildfire prevention and emergency response”.
Indeed, co-operation—that word is in the motion—between the UK Government and the Welsh Government to equalise access to substantial recovery funding and resources is very important. At the moment, there are indeed disparities. To give an example, the permitted burning season in Wales is two weeks shorter than in England. Of course there will be distinctions, but the point, which has been made a couple of times now, about learning from best practice across the UK is absolutely crucial.
In advance of today’s debate, I also spoke to the South Wales fire and rescue service, which said that
“we need a sustainable approach to specialist capability and surge funding, together with stronger land-management and cross-government planning.”
The case I want to make today is about restoration, renewal and resilience. That extra support is needed very badly by my local community. I thank, first of all, Torfaen county borough council, which has already provided £50,000. We now need others to step up as well, and I will give one example. The North York Moors national park authority was awarded up to £3.2 million to recover from the devastating peat fires of 2025, through the nature for climate peatland grant scheme. The equivalent scheme in Wales is a lot smaller at the moment. It can award only about £10,000 to £250,000, so I urge the Welsh Government, in the first instance, to provide specific additional funding for the situation in Torfaen. Ministers in Cardiff Bay should look at how the money for the North York Moors national park authority was calculated, and provide fair funding for the peat fires that we have suffered in Torfaen.
I know that the UK Government are holding a wildfire summit to look at all the issues and, as the Minister would expect, I will be pressing the UK Government to provide appropriate support as well. When the Minister winds up the debate, I hope she can commit to co-ordinating on a regular basis with the Welsh Government, to MPs with affected constituencies being able to attend the summit, and to making sure that those on the frontline who have been affected have their voices heard.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Of course, I am not from Wales, but my constituency suffered from terrible wildfires over the summer, with 19 homes completely destroyed and 22 more severely damaged. Some people are still displaced because of that.
I was pleased to be invited to the wildfire summit by the Prime Minister. My right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) is absolutely right that affected MPs should be able to attend the summit to take forward their constituents’ experiences and to ensure that we are not still talking about this issue in six months’ time.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I could not agree with her more.
On the voice of local people being heard, this is again Sara Warman from my constituency:
“Wales needs a new approach. One that combines science with practical experience. One that recognises that every common is different. One that treats local land managers as partners, not obstacles. Unless these policies change, we risk creating greater fuel loads, more frequent wildfires, and escalating environmental and economic damage across the Welsh uplands.”
We need to build that resilience, and action is needed to help prepare the common and other areas across Wales for the sad reality that this may happen again. That could be in the form of managing the land with wildfire prevention in mind; community training; the purchasing of wildfire-specific resources; aerial support to predict and prevent wildfires; or, frankly, up-to-date personal protective equipment for our firefighters, which is absolutely crucial.
Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for securing this important debate. The nature of firefighters’ work is changing all the time. Does he agree that, as it changes, it is essential that firefighters have access to modern, fit-for-purpose training facilities? Does he share my concern that training facilities in north Wales have not been substantially modernised since the 1990s?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Wildfire prevention requirements and broader environmental policy need to be aligned, but this is what the South Wales fire and rescue service said to me:
“The scale, concurrency and duration of the response provide a strong evidence base for reviewing specialist wildfire assets, command capacity, logistics, communications, fire control and resilience and the mutual-aid arrangements.”
We were very lucky to have help from fire services across the country, but we have to make it systematic. We need to have a plan in place for that. All those aspects need to be considered, and the views of people and the agencies involved should be central.
In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles), the time allotted at the summit for listening to local people is going to be hugely important. It is great that the Welsh wildfire summit is being held on 22 October, but the point has been put to me that, at the moment, we have only one representative from Blaenavon who can attend. They put a simple question to me: is it expected that two hours is a sufficient amount of time to solve the accumulation of failings for the people of Torfaen? I wonder whether, in putting together the programme for that day, the Welsh Government might be able to ensure that people’s voices are given sufficient time to be properly heard and considered.
I want to give the Minister plenty of time to respond, but today has to be the start of a wider conversation that has to happen pretty urgently. The lessons that we need to learn from this summer have to be learned so that our plan is in place before next summer. I am sad to say that, given climate change, we are likely to see more of these wildfires, as we have seen in continental Europe and other areas. We need to look first at prevention, as we want to do all we can to stop these things happening in the first place. We then need to look at management.
While people in my constituency did a remarkable job, doing their best throughout the summer, it was obvious that there was not the original plan in place that is needed to deal with the multiplicity of agencies that are involved. I know the Minister well, and I know she is very committed to the conversation that we need to have. I look forward to contributing to the debate in the weeks and months ahead, but let us make absolutely sure that it is a conversation with an end point and a set of conclusions that we then implement so that we are in a position to have a systematic approach next summer, with the Governments across the UK working together.
The Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith (Florence Eshalomi)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I start by thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) for securing this important debate.
Wildfires have had a profound impact on communities in Wales and across the UK this year. The scale of the challenge this summer was stark. More than 1,300 wildfires have been recorded across England, and I know that Wales was similarly impacted, resulting in the deployment of around 200 military personnel to south Wales to support the committed frontline crews protecting their communities. At the height of the activity, 11 major incidents were declared in a day across the UK, and some incidents lasted for more than 30 days. That put immense strain on frontline services that were also dealing with other emergencies. We owe immense gratitude to the firefighters, military personnel, local responders, land managers, volunteers and others who worked in difficult and dangerous conditions to protect people, homes, businesses and the natural environment.
Becky Gittins (Clwyd East) (Lab)
In my north-east Wales constituency, we saw the absolute best of community spirit in Halkyn and Windmill, where the community came out to do a post-wildfire litter pick to clear up the area. As the Minister has recognised, their efforts, along with those of firefighters and military personnel, were crucial. My right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) has put forward many ways to improve wildfire responses; does the Minister agree that the response this time also showed the importance of cross-border collaboration in tackling wildfires?
Florence Eshalomi
My hon. Friend raises an important point that demonstrates that wildfires cannot be responded to by emergency services alone: it takes the community, the people, voluntary organisations and a number of charities working together to respond. It is important that we have in place an action plan that includes cross-border and cross-Government work on responses.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The Minister is absolutely right. If we look at the wildfire management in Torfaen, the military personnel were deployed by the UK Government and the Secretary of State for Wales. Obviously, areas such as land management are devolved to the Welsh Government. The Minister is absolutely right about the number of agencies, but does she agree that we need a cross-Government plan to make sure we get that co-ordination right?
Florence Eshalomi
I will come on to that point, but I agree with my right hon. Friend. One of the reasons that the Prime Minister is calling the summit is to address that issue and to consider the national capability to respond. We want to make sure that we do not have a situation where we have more wildfires.
Liz Saville Roberts
My understanding is that North Wales fire and rescue service commissioned the provision of military aid to the civil authorities, and the Welsh Government backed it up. We need clarity, but the fundamental point is that it appears that across the United Kingdom, we have a real shortage of trained pilots and the equipment they need to bring water to fire situations in remote places. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response to that point.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the right hon. Lady for raising that important point; those are key areas. It is about making sure we have the right people across the table when the summit is held. The summit cannot just be dictated by Whitehall; we must work on the ground with the devolved nations to make sure that the key people are around the table so that we can get the best solutions going forward.
Although fire and rescue policy is devolved, so each devolved Government is responsible for arrangements in their nation, the impacts and challenges of wildfires remain constant. We work in tandem as we face shared challenges. Tackling wildfires is a good example of where practical co-operation, drawing on mutual aid and specialist capability, sharing learning and co-operating on planning for complex incidents, can make a real difference. We saw the value of such co-ordination in Wales in the development of the national wildfire capability pilot earlier this year. The pilot established six specialist teams, with vehicles, equipment and expert training, that are ready to be deployed in response to significant incidents. Not only do the two teams from south Wales form part of this programme, but their expertise has been instrumental in increasing resilience across the UK.
Despite the advances, the severity of this year’s incidents exposes areas where arrangements must and can improve, including cross-border co-ordination, consistent data, forecasting public warnings, and the way that operational learning is shared. Aerial firefighting is another area that we need to re-examine, including how we most effectively utilise capability across the four nations. This is vital in ensuring that firefighters on the ground get the best possible support when the terrain, scale or accessibility makes their jobs especially difficult. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen and other Members have mentioned, the Government will hold a wildfire summit this autumn in response to these challenges, bringing together fire chiefs, the National Fire Chiefs Council, the Fire Brigades Union, and other key organisations, to turn the lessons from 2026 wildfires into action. It is vital to ensure that key organisations, local constituents and Members of Parliament are involved in that summit.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee will soon be publishing a report. When it comes to who will be in the room come that wildfire summit, will the hon. Member give me an undertaking that it will not only be the organisations, but the private individuals, the gamekeepers, land managers, farmers and shepherds, who are very often the first line of response? Can she ensure that their voices will be heard at the same time as all the organisations?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the right hon. Member for that point. He may be aware that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs have established joint governance to develop a wildfire action plan. They will be working to look at the attendees. I am sure that the hon. Member will make his representations, and I will pass those on to colleagues.
The Government are determined to support those on the frontline by ensuring that they have the capability, support and partnership they need to meet future challenges. We must act to reduce the risk of wildfire, improve readiness, strengthen frontline response and support communities to become more resilient. I know that Welsh colleagues will be holding their own summit later this month and we will continue to work and share insight with the Welsh Government, working together to enhance future readiness. The plan for the national wildfire summit is to look at the full risk cycle: prevention, readiness, response, recovery and adaptation. Work is already under way to improve forecasting and risk mapping, develop specialist capability and learn from this summer, ahead of future periods of heightened risk.
Better emergency response is only one part of the answer; wildfire resilience also depends on what happens before a fire starts. That means better forecasting and public information, responsible behaviour, proportionate land management and strong local readiness. Land managers, fire and rescue services, local authorities and local resilience forums all have an important role to play. By working together, they can understand local risk, protect vulnerable places and plan for the recovery as well as the response. By acting on the lessons learned from this year, we can improve readiness, strengthen specialist support, and make sure that Governments and responders share learning that has practical value.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) for securing this debate, and to the Minister for giving way. I visited Ely fire station in my constituency and congratulated the firefighters there for their hard work. They asked me whether the summit will look at deterrents as well as prevention—they were in attendance at a fire, but arsonists then restarted the fire, so the firefighters do not feel that the sentencing laws are strong enough. Will the Minister look at that as part of the summit? Prevention is very important, but deterrents for arsonists are also important.
Florence Eshalomi
Just to reassure my hon. Friend and others, the agenda and themes for the summit have not been decided, but I am sure we will want to ensure that hon. and right hon. Members are able to feed in. As I mentioned, MHCLG and DEFRA are working on the joint summit, and there will be many opportunities for Members to feed in and ensure that we get the right people at the summit, and work on the right areas, so that we can get the best outcome.
I also want to take this opportunity to highlight the work of so many people on the ground. I thank the soldiers from the Queen’s Own Gurkha Logistic Regiment, the South Wales fire and rescue service and firefighters up and down the country for their help getting the relentless wildfire at Blaenavon under control. At the height of the summer, an emergency alert reached 55 million phones across England and Wales, demonstrating the shared nature of the risk and the importance of ensuring that we work across Governments to make sure out nations are safe.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Talking about people on the frontline, I am sure the Minister shares my horror that our firefighters did not have the personal protective equipment that they needed. I hope she will pass on to the relevant Minister as a matter of urgency that that is one practical thing that we really need to deal with.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my right hon. Friend for highlighting that; he will know that the National Fire Chiefs Council, the Fire Brigades Union and firefighters, alongside other organisations and groups, will be at the seminar. I am sure they will make their voices and representations heard loud and clear.
I also want to highlight the two constituents mentioned by my right hon. Friend, Anthony Watkins and Sara Warman, for their work and effort in making sure we continue to work in co-operation with UK Governments including the Welsh Government, looking at shared learning, resilience and ensuring that the right funding is brought forward to address these key areas.
By acting on the lessons learned this year, we can improve readiness. My Department is committed to continuing to work with the Welsh Government and the Governments of Scotland and Northern Ireland, as well as fire and rescue partners and communities across the UK. In conclusion, I once again thank my right hon. Friend for securing this debate and bringing the issue to the House.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I have one final point. As I said in my speech, there is also an issue around how the UK Government calculated how much money went to the North York Moors National Park Authority for recovery from a peat fire, which is also the situation in Torfaen. Will the Minister undertake to speak to ministerial colleagues about this? I have written to ask how exactly that was calculated. I am sure that is something I could look at putting to the Welsh Government, so will the Minister undertake to secure a response for me?
Florence Eshalomi
I will take that away and write back to my right hon. Friend with further details. He will be aware that MHCLG also announced a £97 million upgrade to the national resilience assets, including equipment and national wildfire response capability pilots, with specialist firefighters, equipment and training positioned right across the UK, but I will come back to him in writing on that specific point.
I pay tribute to everyone who has responded across the UK and in Wales this summer, as well as the communities impacted on the frontline. Their experience must shape what we do next, and our focus must now be on applying those lessons before the next wildfire season.
Question put and agreed to.
Police Funding: North-east England
(1 day, 21 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Pete Wishart (in the Chair)
My apologies for my tardiness. I call Luke Akehurst to move the motion.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered police funding in the North East.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, MrI know that I will not be the only Member in the room who was deeply disturbed to see the scenes emerging out of Cleveland earlier this year. I pay tribute to PC Matthew Blades and PC Tom Clough.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I, too, would like to send my thoughts to the families of PC Matthew Blades and PC Tom Clough. Matthew was a coach at my son’s football club. His loss and the loss of Tom have been felt very deeply across our region, but their tragic deaths did not come out of the blue. They were a result of systematic underfunding. Does my hon. Friend agree that the funding formula has become so perverse, so warped, so broken, that funding is now inverse to the levels of crime we are seeing in our communities, and that the north-east and Cleveland are losing out as a result?
Luke Akehurst
My hon. Friend has anticipated the general thrust of my remarks. I join him in paying tribute to PCs Matthew Blades and Tom Clough, who lost their lives trying to protect the public.
While the Labour Government were right to provide an additional £2 million for Cleveland police in response, it struck me that the challenges facing Cleveland are not unique in the north-east region. They are faced across the Durham, Cleveland and Northumbria police forces areas. Police numbers were cut in the years after 2010. Public safety has therefore deteriorated, and our constituents are paying the price. It terrifies me to think that communities like those I represent could ever face a breakdown in law and order of the kind that occurred temporarily in Cleveland. It drew me to ask the question: why was our region left so under-resourced that it became vulnerable to such pressures?
Sadly, I can only conclude that the answer lies in an ideological choice by the Conservative party during the 14 years in which it was in government that places such as North Durham were not deserving of the necessary police resources, despite the severe social and economic challenges that our communities have faced following decades of deindustrialisation. Frankly, that decision should be regarded as nothing short of a national scandal. As I hope to demonstrate today, it has reduced safety, security and opportunity for the people of our region. The numbers paint a damning picture of how badly the last Conservative Government failed the north-east of England. Our three police forces all sit in the top four across England and Wales in terms of percentage reduction in police numbers between 2010 and 2024.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. I wanted to come along to support him in his demands, along with his colleagues from the north-east. Unfortunately, I am sorry to say that police underfunding does not just happen in the north-east; it happens to us in Northern Ireland as well. Our police numbers are down and our funding is scarce. At the same time, in the last year, the Police Service of Northern Ireland has been able to detain and seize £0.5 million-worth of drugs. I am a great believer in community policing, and I know the hon. Gentleman has the same belief. Does he agree that it will suffer? It is the frontline and the face of the police. Does he feel that the Minister’s response must place a real emphasis on community policing as a priority?
Luke Akehurst
Obviously, I do not share the hon. Gentleman’s knowledge and expertise of the unique policing challenges in Northern Ireland, but I appreciate his support for north-east England in this debate and his points about community policing.
I do not believe it is a coincidence that, over the same period, Durham, Cleveland and Northumbria recorded the three largest increases in crime, excluding fraud, of any police force areas in England and Wales. Today, County Durham still has 120 fewer police officers than in 2010, equating to 102 full-time roles and a decrease of 6.7%. Across the whole north-east, 578 officers have been lost since 2010, a fall of 7.8%.
In stark contrast, the areas that saw the greatest increase in police numbers were Surrey, Cambridgeshire, Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire, Norfolk and Thames Valley. If one were being cynical, one might point out that those are all areas that, on the whole, had Conservative MPs when the Conservative party was in government, and generally greater levels of prosperity and lower levels of policing demand than many of the communities represented in this room.
Although officer numbers across the country sit 1.5% higher than in 2010, the regional disparity in which communities benefited from increased police numbers is clear and has grown. That prompts the question: why did successive Tory Governments deem those places to be most deserving of frontline police presence? Why did politicians in Westminster at that time decide that working-class families in North Durham were less deserving of police protection than people living in more prosperous areas with lower crime levels, where police officer numbers were increased?
To compare the demand that different police forces face, we can look at the measure of police recorded crime per officer. In County Durham, there were 42 recorded crimes per officer in 2025-26, which is much higher than the national average of 36. If our county received the same funding per recorded crime as the national average, it would be £29 million a year better funded. Not only are policing numbers on the ground lower than 2010, but our area faces more incidents requiring police time.
During July 2026, Durham Constabulary received more than 10,000 emergency 999 calls, an increase of 11% compared with the same month the previous year. Demand remained high throughout the summer, with crime-related incidents more than 14% above normal levels in August. Antisocial behaviour related to off-road bikes, e-bikes and scooters poses another challenge in policing in County Durham.
My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy), who cannot be here, has been campaigning on this issue over the past year, as have many others in the room. I commend her for highlighting the support that police officers in our area need to tackle this issue blighting our communities. Just last week, she observed 70 illegal bikes and scooters being crushed after being confiscated by Durham Constabulary.
Police chiefs in our area tell me that there were more than 1,000 more incidents each month over the summer than for the same period in 2025, representing two full days of additional demand each month. In particular, high levels of deprivation in our county translate into higher police demand related to mental health crises, drug or alcohol abuse and cases of missing children.
In the Durham and Northumbria police force areas, officers face the especially challenging combination of high levels of deprivation and extremely rural areas. It takes more money to police rural areas, due to additional travel costs and the need to maintain smaller, less efficient police buildings. I hope the Minister will set out what consideration has been given to the additional needs of police forces in rural areas that also have high levels of deprivation, and how the Government are supporting them with the unique challenges that that combination poses.
Although the Durham force has managed to maintain performance in responding to public requests for help, despite severe challenges, in other areas demand is affecting performance. According to the latest inspection, Durham had the highest rate of repeat domestic abuse incidents per thousand of the population of anywhere in England and Wales. Of 188 priority domestic abuse incidents, 118 did not meet the attendance target. That is shocking evidence of the scale of demand facing our police force and why it needs the resources to do more to protect vulnerable people and prevent abuse. Can the Minister please set out what assessment the Government have made of this particular problem and say how they will ensure that those experiencing domestic abuse in my constituency and across the region receive the same level of support as domestic abuse victims anywhere else in the country?
My message to my North Durham constituents is this: I will not allow our area to be denied the support that it needs and deserves from the state. A Labour Government will always stand up for our area and I look forward to hearing the Minister set out how we are doing that later on in the debate.
Having told Members what the numbers show, let me tell them what the impact is on typical constituents in North Durham. For a family in Stanley, it means worrying about their children being the victims of antisocial behaviour on their walk home from school. For a small business on Chester-le-Street Front Street, it means accepting that shoplifting is an inevitable cost of doing business. For a farmer near Lanchester, it means having no support to fend off perpetrators of agricultural crime who damage or steal their expensive machinery. For residents of Craghead, it means worrying that stretched police resources might prevent the prompt response and support they deserve when a crime occurs.
The consequences of stretched policing resources were hammered home to me in Parliament just last month when I hosted a group of women and girls from the Just for Women Centre in Stanley and St Bede’s school in Lanchester. In our discussion, the group highlighted their public safety concerns, recalling that they no longer feel safe walking home at night. They were clear that rather than simply catching perpetrators when awful crimes happen, our priority should be to prevent harm in the first place. I firmly believe that visible neighbourhood policing has an important part to play in preventing violence against women and girls, and in helping women to feel safe in their communities. I would be grateful if the Minister could specifically reflect on the safety of women and girls in the north-east of England and update the House on efforts in our region to tackle the scourge of VAWG and on any assessment that the Government have made of the gendered impact of the previous policing cuts in our area.
Of course, policing is not just about officers patrolling the streets in our neighbourhood; when the worst happens, it is also important to have enough officers in the response team to deal with the fallout. Too often, police shortages have meant that when major incidents occur, officers are pulled out of neighbourhood policing to respond, leaving our communities with a reduced police presence. In County Durham, such support for response teams from neighbourhood policing was provided on 129 occasions in August and 233 occasions in September. Will the Minister set out the Government’s thinking on the balance between neighbourhood policing and response teams, in particular explaining how she will ensure that when incidents occur, the towns and villages in my constituency and across our region are not stripped of their neighbourhood policing?
I now come to the rallying cry of this debate. As MPs from across the north-east of England, we are here today to call for more resources from central Government to deal with the challenges that our communities face. What we need is recognition that, because of decisions by previous Tory Governments, we are starting from a lower baseline of officer numbers than we should be. That is why I am calling for Ministers to deliver additional police numbers to the north-east on top of what is already promised through the neighbourhood policing guarantee, to reverse the cuts to policing in our area that have compromised our safety since 2010.
I welcome the Labour Government allowing Durham exceptional flexibility over our policing precept in order to prevent further avoidable cuts to our policing presence. I commend our police and crime commissioner, Joy Allen, for her consistent advocacy for policing across County Durham and Darlington, and for taking the difficult decision to propose a modest precept increase to ensure that residents are protected from crime and ASB. However, she has rightly pointed out that because our area has a low council tax base, the amount of money that we can raise locally to invest in policing is very limited. About 70% of County Durham properties are in council tax bands A and B, and I note that I am standing next to a proponent of council tax reform for those reasons, my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash). Although a 1% council tax increase generates £1.9 million in Surrey, the same change in County Durham would raise only £500,000. The safety of my constituents should not depend on the value of property in their postcode. In fact, it is areas such as ours that need investment most desperately.
I know that the Police Federation, which represents 145,000 serving officers, has highlighted that reliance on council tax precepts risks a postcode lottery of funding. The Police Federation has called for a long-term funding settlement that takes that into account. Does the Minister think it is fair that local areas are expected to raise money for policing themselves when the areas that have the least ability to raise money are the same that, because of their levels of deprivation, need a police presence most?
In making this case, I am optimistic about our Labour Government, who have already shown that they care about these issues and want to deliver a fairer settlement for the north-east. Nationally, the Labour Government have been robust in making the case for a visible police presence on our streets to improve public safety, backed by a neighbourhood policing guarantee to deliver a named police officer for every community. Police funding is increasing, and after the unrest in Middlesbrough the Government acted swiftly and firmly to deliver more funding for Cleveland’s police force. The Home Secretary is also committed to a wider review of the police funding formula to ensure fairness. Will the Minister confirm when that review will happen, whether it will consider incidents of crime and ASB and whether we will see a real cash increase in funding for our north-east police forces during this Parliament?
As the Minister responds, I urge her not to lose sight of the fact that the north-east is still dealing with the consequences of years of disproportionate policing cuts. I hope she can outline what role that context plays in the Government’s thinking on the fairness of the current formulas, and how she is ensuring that this review properly takes into account the policing demand and lack of funding so clearly presented by our region.
Our constituents are not asking for special treatment; they demand that they are afforded the same level of protection as people elsewhere in the country. The safety of a family in Stanley, Chester-le-Street, Annfield Plain, Sacriston, Pelton, South Moor or Craghead should matter to politicians just as much as that of a family anywhere else in the country. That is why the Government must ensure a fair funding settlement that accounts for the challenges facing our communities to ensure policing that the public can have confidence in. Today, we are sending a clear message: the Government must do more to ensure that policing in the north-east of England is adequately funded to deliver for our constituents.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) for securing this very important debate and setting out so clearly, as he did, the issues that have brought so many north-east colleagues to this debate. I also thank those who serve in our north-east police forces for all they do to keep us safe every day.
Everyone has a right to feel safe and secure in their communities, especially in local areas such as our high streets, parks and town centres, as well as in their homes. However, time and again constituents tell me how antisocial behaviour such as theft and off-road bikes have caused chaos in our local communities, leaving my constituents feeling intimidated and unsafe. I know the issue of illegal off-road and e-bikes is of particular concern to my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham. I was very glad to attend a roundtable that he organised in his constituency just last month, held in the beautiful Beamish museum with partners from policing, local government and the community, where we discussed these very issues.
The previous Government considered many acts of criminality as low-level behaviour and failed to act. However, I know how even small acts of antisocial behaviour can compound to severely damage how a community views itself. Many feel as if respect for law and order has simply disappeared, with bobbies on the beat becoming a rarer sight. I therefore support this Labour Government’s Crime and Policing Act 2026, which is about taking back our streets, restoring respect for law and order, giving police the powers they need to tackle crime and providing support for victims of antisocial behaviour. The Act takes stronger action against antisocial behaviour through the new respect orders, longer dispersal powers and tougher penalties for breaches of public spaces protection orders.
The Government have also promised to rebuild neighbourhood policing through additional investment in officers and PCSOs, ensuring that every community has named, contactable officers focused on tackling local crime and antisocial behaviour. That is all good. I pay tribute to the Northumbria police and crime commissioner Susan Dungworth and her predecessor, the now Mayor of the North East, Kim McGuinness, who have been excellent at tackling crime as well as identifying the root causes of crime—notwithstanding, as I said, the legacy of the previous Government.
Despite our region including communities with some of the highest levels of deprivation and demand in England and Wales, police numbers in the north-east, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham in his opening speech, have fallen by a shocking 8% since 2010, when the Conservatives and Lib Dems embarked on their damaging programme of austerity. That translates to 578 fewer police officers in the north-east, including a loss of 255 in Northumbria police, who serve my constituency.
Forces in wealthier areas can raise substantially more, as we have heard, through the police precept. However, north-east forces cannot, due to lower property values and a far weaker tax base. That creates a greater reliance on central Government. Northumbria police in particular has the lowest police precept in England and Wales. That means that residents already contribute less through local taxation than in any other area, with Government grants making up 79% of the budget. Even where police and crime commissioners increase the precept by the maximum permitted amount, the financial yield generated is significantly lower than in forces with larger and more affluent tax bases.
That contributes to Northumbria police force having a budget that spends below average per head in England and Wales. In 2026-27, Northumbria police spent £50 less per head than Merseyside police, and £147 per head less than the Metropolitan police in London. While I do not want to oversimplify the matter, and I understand that both of those other areas face their own unique challenges, how will our region ever gain economic parity without parity of security?
Fundamentally, it is an issue of fairness. Communities should not receive less effective policing simply because they live in areas with lower property values. Future funding reforms should explicitly recognise deprivation, demand and limited local revenue raising capacity so as not to risk penalising the very areas with the greatest policing needs.
Like many colleagues in this debate, I campaigned heavily at the last election on issues of antisocial behaviour, and I genuinely believe that the Government have shown that they are willing to act. I commend them for that, but we must make sure that no one region of the country is left behind, and I sincerely hope that the Minister will consider the funding issues raised today.
Several hon. Members rose—
Pete Wishart (in the Chair)
Order. If we all try to take about six minutes, everybody will get in sufficiently. I will not put a time limit on just now, but we will see how we get on.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) for securing this really important debate.
First of all, I pay tribute to PC Matthew Blades, PC Tom Clough and PC Jess Turnbull, three police officers who lost their lives in the line of duty. Jess Turnbull, who was killed only two or three miles from where I live, was 18 years of age when she lost her life. She had her life ahead of her. She joined the police force because she wanted to change the world and help people and she died at the age of 18 on 8 June. We should always remember the dangers that individual police officers and members of the police force put themselves in in the normal course of their duty.
Previous speakers have set out in detail the scale of the cuts faced by police forces across the north-east, so I do not intend to repeat those precise and excellent facts and figures. But it is fair to say that the years of Conservative austerity had a devastating impact on policing in our region—absolutely devastating.
It should not be forgotten that it went far beyond cuts to police budgets. Austerity reached into every corner of public life. The Crown Prosecution Service, prisons, the Probation Service, mental health services, education and countless other services were cut to the very bone. As those services weakened, police officers were increasingly left to pick up the pieces, facing growing demand with ever-dwindling resources.
At the same time, crime itself has evolved. The digital revolution has brought enormous opportunities, but the criminals have adapted just as well too. Police forces have been expected to tackle sophisticated online crime, combat the spread of misinformation, and manage an ever-growing burden of statutory checks and administrative tasks, all without the resources required to meet those challenges. It is all about resources and financing.
Again, I want to place on record my sincere thanks to the police officers serving my Blyth and Ashington constituency. Just for the record, my constituency is based in Northumberland, which, for those who are not aware, is cradled between the Scottish border and North Tyneside. It is the political no man’s land. I think Ministers generally forget where we are and have not really adapted the financing required for the police service that we desperately need. I feel sorry for some of these police officers, who go to work day in, day out, facing the problems they have in Ashington, Blyth, Bedlington, Newbiggin and Choppington, because of the lack of financial resource, with resources in general facing an uphill battle. I want to mention Inspector Dawn Sykes and Inspector Wayne Daniels, who serve our communities with great professionalism and dedication in the most unbelievable circumstances. I thank Northumbria’s police and crime commissioner, Susan Dungworth, who has worked tirelessly to ensure that the priorities of local people remain at the heart of policing.
I want to focus the rest of my remarks on what budget constraints have meant for the communities I represent. South-east Northumberland contains three of the county’s four largest towns, yet two of them have no police station at all, so members of the public cannot simply walk into one and speak to an officer. That is a direct consequence of funding pressures. Two of the largest towns in Northumberland have no manned police stations—the police stations are still there, but there is nobody in them.
The situation gets worse. The police station change has an immense impact on the people of south-east Northumberland. I will give a simple example. A constituent noticed that his neighbour’s porch light had been on continuously for several days. Concerned for their welfare, he phoned 101 to request a welfare check. After waiting almost an hour for his call to be answered, he gave up and went to Ashington police station, in the centre of the town, in person. When he arrived, he found a sign stating that the station was closed to the public, with an arrow directing him to a telephone on the wall so he could ring 101 again. That is unreal, but it is something that has happened right throughout the country, by the way: the closure of major police stations in major towns, right across the UK. We rightly pride ourselves on a system of policing by consent, but we also rely on the good will and public spirit of people such as my constituent. After an experience like that, I suspect he might think again about taking similar action.
Earlier this year, the custody suite in Bedlington closed, with the police citing funding constraints. That was another blow to local policing. Officers who make arrests in my patch must now transport detainees to Newcastle for processing, taking valuable police time and resources off the streets at critical times. We see that in my patch all too often. An already stretched police force is routinely called upon to respond to threats, the likes of—
Pete Wishart (in the Chair)
Order. I hope the hon. Gentleman will be concluding his remarks so that his regional colleagues get a chance to say a few words.
Ian Lavery
Thank you very much, Mr Wishart. We see lots of things occurring due to lack of resourcing in my patch. We have masked motorbike riders, shoplifting, antisocial behaviour, county line drug dealing—it goes on and on. The police need the resources required to tackle not just those types of crimes but basic crimes as well.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) on securing this debate on a critical issue for our region. I join him and colleagues in paying tribute to our two brave police officers in Cleveland, Tom Clough and Matthew Blades, who tragically lost their lives recently. I also pay tribute to their colleagues and friends in our force, particularly Chief Constable Victoria Fuller, who has conducted herself with incredible professionalism in this difficult time. Thank you to all of the police officers who deal with my office every day and who report and tackle crime, including Inspector Neil Deluce and Inspector Ian Mitchell, who are the pinnacle of professionalism, despite these challenging circumstances.
I also take a moment to thank everyone, including in the community, who has supported our police force amid everything they have been going through in recent weeks. The chief constable said to me recently that every single police station has been filled with gifts, cakes and cards for our officers—there has been a huge outpouring of support from the public. As she cannot speak in these kinds of debates, I take a moment to recognise my constituency neighbour, the right hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley), given that this incident took place in her constituency and she has been engaged in all the same conversations as I have been.
Cleveland has a relatively small police force, but it suffers from some of the greatest demands in the country. We have among the highest recorded crime rates in England and Wales, alongside severe deprivation, serious violence, organised crime and immense pressure on public services, yet our funding has failed to keep pace for well over a decade. I heard from my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham how the percentage change since 2010 in full-time equivalent police officer numbers shows that there are serious issues, not only in Cleveland, but across the north-east. We are not allowed to use props in these kinds of debates, but if I were to get out a graph, it would show Cleveland, Durham and Northumbria suffering the worst cuts in the country.
The chief constable said that an estimated 500 additional officers would be required in Cleveland to bring workload closer to the national average. That is just to catch up to the average, not to deal with the additional demands in our region. Those pressures are being felt by frontline officers every day and Cleveland Police Federation has warned about unmanageable workloads, with officers responding to traumatic incidents involving domestic abuse, serious violence and vulnerable people. In my constituency, that means officers dealing with antisocial behaviour in places such as Hemlington and Park End, illegal off-road bikes, as has been mentioned, in places such as Easterside, and the very different challenges of policing our rural villages in East Cleveland. In Guisborough, our town has suffered from shoplifting on the high street, and I want to recognise the work that Councillor Bill Suthers has done to convene residents, police and the council to discuss what more can be done, and to get results from that discussion.
At the same time, Cleveland has made real progress. The force has come out of special measures and has been recognised for its improvement. Our officers are delivering results, despite the pressures they face. This is nothing short of a miracle. So, too, our councils are delivering programmes to support their work tackling antisocial behaviour and crime. I welcome the decision taken just this week by Mayor Chris Cooke to introduce new public space protection orders in places such as Hemlington Lake to help address some of these issues. However, the reality is stark, and the PCC and chief constable have called for at least £20 million in additional funding each year, to keep pace with demand. It is a clear and practical request, backed by cross-party leaders across Cleveland.
When the Government take forward their police funding reform, they must ensure that deprivation, crime rates and demand are properly recognised, so that Cleveland finally receives the funding that reflects the challenges our officers face every day.
I also mention the similar challenges facing our fire brigade—the fire service funding formula also needs to change. It has also lost a third of its full-time firefighter posts since 2010 and now faces a £1.2 million funding gap. This is the legacy of austerity writ large in a region that desperately needs an urgent injection of funding for its police and fire brigade. We need a particular focus on our region as police reforms progress, and special consideration must be given to accelerating those reforms in the north-east, perhaps through a pilot programme, given the challenges across the whole region.
We also need clarity about what will happen with PCC funding beyond 2028. My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham spoke about domestic abuse in our region. We have some fantastic organisations on Teesside, including ARCH Teesside, My Sister’s Place, EVA Women’s Aid, the Halo Project and many others. Many get their funding from police and crime commissioners, and they do not have clarity about what will happen after PCCs are abolished, so I would welcome some clarity on that from the Minister.
The message today from me and colleagues is that residents need safer streets and proper neighbourhood community policing again, which means that our Government must back our police force with the resources it desperately needs.
Several hon. Members rose—
Pete Wishart (in the Chair)
Order. There are four speakers left and we have 20 minutes, so if Members stick to a strict five minutes, we will get everybody in.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) for securing this debate.
Let me start with a simple proposition. Cleveland police cannot be expected to tackle the highest levels of recorded crime in the country with the lowest levels of police resource. It is not fair on our officers or our communities; it is not good enough. The figures are stark: Cleveland has about 123 recorded crimes per 1,000 people—the highest rate of any police force in England and Wales—and Middlesbrough has the highest recorded crime of any local authority area.
What has happened to police numbers? Since 2010, we have suffered the worst percentage reduction in full-time equivalent officers of any force. It is down 15%, from 1,652 to just 1,405, or 247 fewer officers at a time of extraordinary demand. That is the disgraceful legacy of the Conservative party. Yet against that backdrop, Cleveland police is still one of the most improved forces in the land, and I commend Chief Constable Victoria Fuller for that achievement. It is now dealing with significant increases in recalls to prison, which have rocketed in recent times.
Our officers are being asked to do more with less. They are confronting serious crime, antisocial behaviour and major incidents with a depleted workforce. The appalling A66 collision in August brought the pressures into sharp focus. Seven lives were lost, including two magnificent and brave Cleveland police officers, PC Matthew Blades and PC Tom Clough. I pay tribute to them and their families, and to their colleagues, who have continued to serve our communities in the most difficult of circumstances. The incident also exposed the demands placed on a small force, which has required mutual aid from other constabularies and continues to be ravaged by the ongoing evil of organised crime.
The A66 collision rightly brought Cleveland’s resources and funding under renewed scrutiny. We must learn the lessons, but we must not pretend that this terrible incident created the problems. The underlying pressures have been building for years. I welcome the Government’s £2 million of additional support. It is right that Cleveland receives help, given the exceptional demands, but let us be honest: a one-off £2 million payment is not a permanent solution to a structural funding deficit. The scale of the challenge is substantial. In any event, given that the mutual aid bill is already way north of £4 million, Matt Storey, our wonderful police and crime commissioner, said that the £2 million “won’t touch the sides.”
With the mutual aid, Cleveland has delivered 100% of 999 calls answered within the prescribed period and has made massive inroads into clearing arrest warrants, but it will end soon. As my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) said, realistic and conservative estimates put the additional annual funding required at north of £24 million per annum recurring. I welcome the Government’s commitment to review the police funding formula, but the published timetable concerns the review of police structures, and we have no firm date for a new funding formula to be implemented.
My colleagues, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley), and I have said repeatedly that Cleveland cannot be told to wait while Whitehall works through another lengthy process. The Government have acknowledged that interim measures can be considered to better align funding with policing priorities, so I ask the Minister directly: why not start with Cleveland? I urge the Government to consider piloting a revised needs-based allocation for Cleveland for 2027-28, taking proper account of its exceptional crime rate, deprivation and depleted officer numbers, followed by a decision on additional recurring funding. That would not pre-empt national reform; it would demonstrate that the Government understand the difference between a long-term plan and an immediate responsibility to keep people safe. We cannot rebuild policing on the cheap, and we cannot ask our communities to wait indefinitely for change. That funding must deliver something people can see and feel in their daily lives: effective neighbourhood policing and the eradication of organised crime groups. People want to feel safe walking home and raising their children.
I beg the Minister to hear the pleas of the bereaved families, who have let it be known that they want the legacy of PCs Tom Clough and Matthew Blades to be fairer funding and an equitable policing settlement for Cleveland. Minister, do not let their deaths be in vain. Their tragic loss has further galvanised and unified our community. That is why restoring police capacity matters. It is not simply about figures on a spreadsheet or allocations made in Whitehall; it is about having enough officers to prevent crime, respond when things go wrong and build lasting relationships with the communities they serve.
This Labour Government was elected to change things. In Cleveland that means correcting an indefensible funding imbalance, rebuilding police capacity and putting officers back into our communities. The test is not what we announce in Westminster: it is what people see in the streets. I ask the Minister to come to Cleveland with a clear commitment, an urgent assessment of its needs, serious consideration of additional recurring funding and a needs-based pilot in 2027-28. The people of Cleveland have waited long enough. This Government must deliver visible change on the ground for our communities in Cleveland and across the north-east.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart. I congratulate my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), on securing this debate. The consequences that we see today in our areas in the north-east, which we have heard about already, come as no surprise. Generational de-industrialisation causing regional economic disparity combined with austerity, deep cuts to public services and growing pressure on councils and community services have all taken their toll. We are now seeing those consequences—higher levels of social need, antisocial behaviour, neighbourhood insecurity and addiction.
Our officers can often be left dealing with the symptoms of the challenges that begin long before criminality occurs. The reality is that Durham constabulary has had to manage a rising and increasingly complex demand while operating with over 100 fewer police officers than it had in 2010, despite officer numbers increasing nationally overall. It has had a real impact on our communities. Only last week, I received an anonymous letter from a serving police officer outlining their concerns about neighbourhood policing. They told me that despite neighbourhood teams seeming to be adequately staffed on paper, the reality on the ground is that these officers are routinely assigned to cover other duties, leaving PCSOs to cover the majority of neighbourhood work.
Alongside that, the nature of policing has changed dramatically. Officers today are not only dealing with traditional crime, they are responding to incidents involving online offending, child exploitation, safeguarding concerns, domestic abuse and mental health crises. Those issues require significant time and resources, but are now a routine part of modern policing. The result is that officers are dealing with huge workloads. In Durham, recorded crime per officer remains above the national average. This has implications not only for the service provided to the public, but also for the wellbeing of officers and staff who continue to serve our communities with professionalism and dedication. Durham Police Federation has highlighted the pressures experienced by frontline officers. It has spoken of officers working hard to meet demand, often at the expense of their own wellbeing and family life, while dealing with uncertainty created by short-term funding settlements.
We have already heard about the unfairness of forces with lower council tax bases, so I will not repeat those facts. However, as discussions continue about the future structure and funding of policing, it is important that the experiences of north-east police forces are fully understood. Any assessment of need must reflect not only population but deprivation, rurality and vulnerability. County Durham contains both urban and rural communities, each with their own challenges, and those realities should be reflected in future considerations. We must listen to the views of our constituents, whose concerns often go unanswered for lengthy periods because there are not enough officers to respond to incidents.
I met Belmont Guides recently, and heard how deeply antisocial behaviour and low-level crime impacts their local community. Whether that is balaclava-clad youths riding e-bikes, vandals damaging park equipment and green spaces, acts of animal cruelty or intimidating behaviour as the evenings draw in, many of our communities are increasingly having to contend with these issues. These young girls deserve to feel safe in their communities, but they see a distinct lack of police officers on the streets. They want to know why that is. Minister, how do I reassure these young people in Durham that our county will receive the additional police officers we so desperately need and deserve, so that children feel safe enough to enjoy being out in the fresh air with their friends, instead of being attached to electronic devices?
It is not just young people. I regularly hear from elderly residents who are afraid to go out alone after dark, from women who have escaped abusive relationships only to find themselves being pursued again, from public transport users dealing with antisocial behaviour and violence at bus stations, and from shop workers and market traders who have repeatedly suffered thefts while seeing little police presence on our streets. This is a real picture that I am painting, and we ignore it at our peril.
Recent tragic events in the wider north-east region have served as a reminder of the risks that officers face in protecting the public, and our thoughts remain with those families. My constituents in Durham rightly expect an effective, visible and responsive police service. As future decisions are made about police structure and funding, I sincerely hope that the experiences of forces and residents across the north-east will be at the forefront of discussions, because it is time that the Government listened to them. I hope that it will be this Labour Government.
Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) for securing this crucial debate. Building on the powerful speeches by other hon. Members, I want to set out three reasons as a County Durham MP why this review of police funding is so important.
First, we must recognise the additional costs of policing areas that are both semi-rural and post-industrial, such as my constituency. Communities like the ones I am proud to represent have a strong industrial heritage of coal mining and other industry, but it is often forgotten across the public sector that they are, at the same time, largely rural. Of the population in County Durham, 43% lives in rural areas, and my constituency is entirely villages and small towns. They are often not farming communities, but former pit villages that still experience the serious, scarring effects of major losses in employment and social infrastructure in the ‘70s and ‘80s, while at the same time experiencing significant geographical isolation.
Those issues have caused a growth in county lines, organised crime and other very serious issues. Durham constabulary is dealing with complex problems across a sprawling county, which creates obvious policing challenges. Will the Minister consider how police funding can better take into account the challenge of increasingly serious criminal issues that one might expect in an urban area, but in rural settings that are much more expensive to police, and where effective neighbourhood policing, which can be important in preventing crime, is more difficult?
Secondly, there are ongoing challenges of deprivation in County Durham, without enough wider public sector support. We need to see it better reflected in funding. Durham constabulary works in communities with families affected by higher levels of complex need, intergenerational unemployment and poverty. For example, parts of Ferryhill, in my constituency, are in the top 1% of the most deprived communities in the country. Half of children are on free school meals. That brings significant challenges—social challenges and lack of opportunity—and with that comes greater crime, criminal justice issues and other problems.
As my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham rightly pointed out, that creates a dual challenge for the police in my area, with more difficult issues to tackle while a higher number of households in the very lowest council tax bands reduce the funding available. The complexity of some of the families that Durham officers are working with can mean that officers are not just dealing with criminal justice matters but have increasingly had to step in to fill gaps left by cuts to social services, mental health support and addiction and homelessness services caused by the deep austerity cuts of the last Conservative Government. Our police officers in Durham are to be congratulated for the myriad ways that they step up every day to support residents. But the message should be clear: the police cannot be expected to do everything.
I would be grateful if the Minister could set out how the Home Office can work with other Departments across Government to support more investment in family intervention projects, schemes to reduce youth reoffending and other measures outside of policing that could reduce and prevent crime.
My final point is about the growth in poorly regulated private landlords who too often allow crime and antisocial behaviour by their tenants to go unchecked. This is again creating more complex policing problems. I particularly urge Ministers across Government to put more pressure on authorities such as Reform-led Durham county council that are simply failing to act in many cases where irresponsible landlords are allowing their properties to become magnets for crime and disorder, often in previously quiet streets that had very low levels of crime. This is coming up again and again in my constituency. We know that council enforcement teams have got powers to tackle landlords who are refusing to take ASB seriously, but too often this simply is not happening.
I am pleased to report to the Minister that residents facing these serious incidents who I have met recently have been incredibly complimentary about the police force for responding quickly, but it is clear that the force is bearing significant costs, which the wider public sector could be helping with more effectively.
To finish, I support the calls for a review of funding. I would also like to echo the thanks given by colleagues to all serving police officers, but let us see what more we can do to make sure that our brave men and women in uniform have the proper resources they need.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) on securing this important debate.
We have heard from colleagues representing constituencies covered by the Northumbria, Durham and Cleveland forces about what a huge issue this is for the north-east. That is because our forces, collectively and individually, have been asked to do more with less for longer than anywhere else in the country. There is a clear case for the north-east to be prioritised in responding to this challenge, for example, in the same way that Mission North East has prioritised schools in the north-east.
For my own force, Northumbria, between 2010 and 2019, central Government funding fell by more than 31% in real terms. No force was hit harder. It lost a quarter of its officers and we know that when budgets are cut, it is unfortunately the neighbourhood teams that often go first. Today, Northumbria has 255 fewer officers than in 2010. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham said, that was a political choice by the previous Government which skewed funding formulas and completely ignored deprivation and the need for places like the north-east to be policed appropriately.
We know that demand is higher than elsewhere. In the Office for National Statistics’ figures, the north-east records 98 crimes per 1,000 against 85 per 1,000 nationally—the highest of any region. In Sunderland we saw 27,000 recorded crimes last year, which is down 3%, but still above the national rate. However, recorded crime only tells us a small amount. Recorded crime is not all crime; it only shows what is reported. The ONS survey suggests that about a third of crimes people experience are reported to the police. The gap between what people live with and what they report itself tells us about the confidence in policing. Of course, police deal with much more than crime. Mental health incidents in Northumbria have risen by 152% since 2017—demand that never shows up in any crime figures.
As other hon. Members have already done, I want to also express my thanks to our officers. The range of what we ask them to do is extraordinary. I was three weeks into being elected when officers placed themselves in harm’s way in Sunderland city centre as thugs threw bricks and stones at them. They stood protecting our community and places of worship. Just two weeks ago, we had a terrible tragedy on the River Wear in Sunderland. Again it was police officers along with other emergency services responding and not just doing the search and rescue and the investigation of the incident, but liaising in the most difficult circumstances with the bereaved families. Every day, officers are on our streets, with people in crisis, tackling crime.
Our constituents tell us that police visibility is crucial, and it is probably what constituents raise with me more than anything else. When I am out on walkabouts with officers in Hendon, Pallion and the city centre, I see the response of the public to visible policing. I can sense that residents and shop workers feel safer, and that potential troublemakers are thinking twice. People stop to talk and share intelligence with the police about what is going on.
Too often, of course, residents do not see the police. When they do not see an officer and when they wait too long for a response to a call or an online report, they stop reporting and their trust and sense of security reduce. We need to boost visibility as a way of boosting confidence and reporting. Nowhere is that clearer than with antisocial behaviour, which is absolutely not low level. It is drunken, intoxicated behaviour; e-bikes and off-road bikes around estates or parks; yobbish behaviour. It wears down our communities night after night, and it is not good enough.
Visible policing matters. That is why I welcome the Government’s decision to replace the previous headcount target with a neighbourhood policing target, because Northumbria could hit the previous Government’s headcount target and still not have on-the-ground policing in Fulwell in my constituency. Northumbria is adding 54 neighbourhood posts by next March, which is a good first step, but those posts must be protected. We must have more and they must reach the estates and villages, not just city centres.
The Government have talked about structural reform of the police alongside funding formula reform. I will not speak for colleagues, but I am open to regional reorganisation. We already have a north-east regional organised crime unit, which does effective work across our forces. Where there are capabilities such as firearms, or potentially drones, we have seen a significant amount of mutual aid, particularly in recent months following events in Cleveland.
There is a reasonable case that moving to a north-east-wide regional force, if that is what the Hogan-Howe review recommends, would strengthen resilience and potentially produce some efficiencies in those areas, but people will only accept a bigger force with two guarantees. The first is to ensure that local policing areas are strong and protected, and that local officers still know Sunderland and have a local commander who we can hold to account. The second, crucially, is funding reform. Merging three underfunded forces would give us one large, underfunded force. We have to move on both together.
I will finish by asking the Minister a couple of questions. As she considers police force reorganisation, and if a north-east force is proposed, can we move faster than others? Others have also mentioned the funding formula, and there could be transformation funding as part of a move to a regional force, if that is helpful to the Home Office and considered necessary. There is clearly a case for the north-east to be treated differently—
Pete Wishart (in the Chair)
Order. We have to move on to the Front-Bench spokespeople. I call the Lib Dem spokesperson, Max Wilkinson.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. I commend the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) for securing this debate. I begin by putting on the record my party’s thanks and admiration for our police services up and down the country, and for the vital role that officers play in keeping our communities safe.
The tragic A66 collision that claimed the lives of two police officers, Matthew Blades and Tom Clough, horrified us all. The disorder that followed in the days after that tragedy disturbed people far beyond the north-east, and we must hope it has brought renewed focus on the area’s safety. I commend all the MPs from the region who have spoken so powerfully with one voice in this debate today.
This summer’s disorder underlines the importance of having a police service that is properly resourced, that is visible and that is trusted by the communities it serves. We have long called for a return to genuine community policing, focused on preventing crime through policing that builds relationships with local communities.
Just a few days ago, I was in the north-east, in Peterlee, to appear on a televised political panel debate. It was clear that crime is a real concern for residents in that area. Indeed, it was raised by the audience member who asked the first question. The audience spoke about the impact on their communities and the underlying causes, including the fact that many communities have been hollowed out economically over the last few decades. What came across was a deep frustration and, very sadly, a sense of helplessness from those in the room.
Police presence must be part of the focus to address the concerns of residents across the north-east. Under the Conservatives, Cleveland police lost hundreds of officers—I think around 400—and after the disorder this summer, 200 officers had to be drafted in to deal with what unfolded. This is not an acceptable state of affairs. The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s pledge to recruit 13,000 additional police officers, but police numbers have sadly not matched the Government’s ambition. If the Government are serious about restoring neighbourhood policing, they must get more officers back on to our streets, and they will need to recruit many more. We cannot expect overstretched officers to do more with less, as other Members have said, and too many crimes go unsolved.
We hear about these issues regularly in relation to the north-east and elsewhere; they are common to so many places across the country. The Government will tell us that they have increased national police funding, but with reference to the north-east, Cleveland’s funding increase is the lowest in the country, worth £1.65 million a year less than if it had received the 4.5% average increase. On top of that, Cleveland police is being asked to find £3.88 million of savings to balance its budget. Regardless of the regional issue, it is clear that policing must refocus on finding more resources and making the best of the resources it has.
There is also the issue that a huge amount of police time is taken up by online crime, principally fraud but also including child sexual exploitation and violence against women and girls. Unfortunately, the companies that facilitate this behaviour have not acted strongly enough to prevent it from happening. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for a new police agency to tackle serious online crime, funded by a levy on big tech and AI companies. Will the Minister commit to taking steps to ensure that the companies that facilitate online crime are called to account and asked to pay for some of the problems that they create, on a “polluter pays” basis? That would help to redirect police resourcing to the frontline, to build and maintain the physical policing presence that our communities rightly expect. It would help to restore a police counter in every community, giving people accessible, convenient places to share information and engage with the police within their communities.
The Government talk about their neighbourhood policing guarantee, but we now need to see change in our communities. We believe that our proposals can help. One other concern lies in police force reorganisation. If merging forces means that officers become more distant from the communities they serve or are less able to respond to local crime—or, indeed, if three underfunded forces become one massive underfunded force—the reforms will have failed. Will the Minister ensure that police reform does not lead to resources being directed away from smaller communities, which are often in rural areas, to larger urban centres? That is particularly important for the rural communities we have heard about today, where crime has become increasingly organised, serious and persistent. We are calling for a countryside copper guarantee, with properly resourced, dedicated rural crime teams or specialists in every police force. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that forces serving rural areas have the resources they need?
Finally, transferring police and crime commissioners’ powers to mayors without sufficient democratic scrutiny risks replacing one flawed model with another. Local crime and police boards made up of local residents and representatives of the community can provide meaningful local accountability and oversight of policing. Is that being considered by Ministers in their police reforms? That is vital, because only by empowering communities to work with local police will we reduce crime across the country, including in the north-east.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) on securing this important debate. I reiterate my condolences to the family and friends of PC Matthew Blades and PC Tom Clough. Their deaths have been a tragedy for the local force, and their loss serves as a constant reminder of the risks our police officers face every day. Alongside other Members, I was privileged to attend their funerals. It was clear from everyone there how deeply they were loved by their families, respected by their colleagues and valued by the communities they served. The incidents that occurred after their deaths were a sad reflection of the problems that we face in the north-east.
Funding for our police forces is not an issue that should be taken lightly, as it clearly has a huge impact on their ability to operate effectively. As an MP from the region, representing an area served by a local force facing acute funding challenges, I share the concerns raised passionately by so many Members today.
As the Minister will be aware, following the incident in Middlesbrough, I raised the issue of police funding in the north-east, particularly in my own area of Cleveland. I have raised the issue on many occasions, under this Government and the last. While I appreciate the targeted funding announced in September, it is nowhere near enough to make a difference or solve the underlying problem. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) rightly points out that the funding has been more than consumed by the costs following the incident.
To give one example from the north-east, Cleveland serves some of the most deprived communities in the country and faces exceptional levels of demand. In the year ending March 2025, Cleveland had the highest recorded crime rate per head of population of any police force in England and Wales—122.1 crimes per 1,000 people compared with the national average of 87.2. While anecdotes can tell only part of the story, we unfortunately see brazen criminal activity—from off-road bikes to knife crime—taking place without effective intervention.
Andy McDonald
I am listening intently to what the shadow Minister has to say. Does the picture he is painting cause him to reflect on the savage cuts to Cleveland police under his party’s stewardship, which saw the force lose 500 officers? Will he apologise for that error?
Matt Vickers
I always think these things are better done—and have been better done—when there is one voice fighting for more resources for our areas. I was elected in 2019. In Home Office workforce data shared in September 2019, there were 1,226 police officers in Cleveland. In March 2024, there were 1,514. That is an increase of 288. In the year to March 2026, the number of full-time equivalent police officers in Cleveland fell by 17.
Matt Vickers
I am going to carry on; Stockton is going to have its say, as well as Middlesbrough. This week, police have had to impose section 60 and dispersal orders in Thornaby, in my constituency and the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, after a series of targeted incidents in which vehicles were driven into houses and two men were seriously assaulted with a knife. Yet the funding formula does not adequately recognise those pressures.
To be clear, although I speak as a shadow Minister, this is simply not a party political point. The Labour police and crime commissioner, Matt Storey, has warned of a £2.4 million funding shortfall—the equivalent of about 40 police officers. His argument, which the Minister has heard many times, is that a system based too heavily on population fails to take sufficient account of deprivation, crime and demand. The situation has been made worse by the Government’s decision to inflict the cost of national insurance increases on police forces while providing a woefully inadequate funding settlement. The consequences of that decision are clear.
While I recognise that areas such as Northumbria have seen an increase in officer numbers, the number of full-time equivalent officers in Cleveland fell by 17 between March 2025 and March 2026. The latest Home Office data shows that there are now fewer officers in place than in March 2024, under the previous Government. Ministers will point to the neighbourhood policing guarantee and, of course, we all want more visible local policing. However, if overall officer numbers are falling while more are badged as neighbourhood officers, they are being moved from somewhere else, often from response teams. That means fewer officers available when someone dials 999, longer waits for victims and less capacity to deal with the exact kind of serious incidents that we have seen in Thornaby this week. Given the scale of the challenges that the force is facing, which have been so clearly demonstrated, it seems preposterous that it is losing officers rather than gaining them.
I appreciate that the funding formula is not easily resolved. Hard-working MPs from across the House who represent areas disadvantaged under the existing rules have long pushed for change, including under the previous Government. However, I hope the Minister will accept that this issue requires action now. The most recent arrests under Operation Artemis, which include individuals connected to the events following the tragic incident on the A66, demonstrate the deep-rooted challenges the area faces.
What could we do immediately? The Minister will reject this proposal, but the Conservative party’s costed £800 million plan to recruit 10,000 additional officers across the country would at least go some way in tackling the issue. Although recruiting more officers is not a complete solution, our proposal would help Cleveland police by providing nearly 100 additional officers. The need is clear.
Despite all that, the message from people living in our area is that they want to see this as a turning point. Their resilience shows that change is possible, but only if we give our communities the support they need alongside robust enforcement. That means increasing police numbers, as I have said, but also ensuring that repeat offenders face consequences for their crimes, including prison where appropriate. The early release scheme, which is proving to be an unmitigated failure, undermines that. Offences that should see people behind bars are simply not. Because of the pressures on the criminal justice system, those offenders are not spending the time in prison that they should be. Although that may not fall directly within the Minister’s portfolio, I hope she is pressing her colleagues every day for an end to the early release scheme and for more police capacity.
Without effective enforcement, the funding allocated to police forces will not be used as effectively as it should be. Hon. Members in this debate know how easily the north-east’s problems can be overlooked. As we approach the forthcoming police funding announcements, I hope that the Government will reflect on the events of a few months ago, the words of north-east MPs and the need for meaningful improvement to police forces in our region. Our brave frontline police officers deserve the resources they need to do their job, and our law-abiding residents deserve safe streets to go about their lives without fear.
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) on securing this debate. I will start as he did by paying tribute to our police officers and police staff, who work tirelessly in what can be incredibly difficult circumstances, and who sometimes have to pay the ultimate price. I think all hon. Members have paid tribute to PC Blades, PC Clough and PC Turnbull, all of whom died this year. Their deaths have all been an incredible loss to their families, but also to the policing community and their wider communities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) talked about Jess and how young she was. I have met her father a couple of times now. He was a police officer and had just retired when Jess became one. That whole community has been devastated. At all three of those funerals I saw an entire community coming out to support policing, which was incredibly powerful to see. I know that there has been a struggle in terms of people’s confidence in policing. There are challenges that we are dealing with, but in those communities I saw a community supporting their police officers and giving them the respect they deserve.
I probably have the best job in Government. Working with policing is an unbelievable privilege and a joy, but standing here and listening to hon. Members talk about the struggles they are facing in their communities is very humbling and difficult. I hear the message they are telling me loud and clear. Since the A66 crash and the awful incidents that followed, I have met the police and crime commissioner or the chief constable five or six times, and hon. Members as well. I have heard loud and clear, not least from my colleague in the Home Office, the Minister for Border Security and Asylum, my right hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley), about the challenges that are being faced in people’s communities. I want hon. Members to know that I hear those challenges; that is important to say.
I will touch on a couple of topics. The first one is the funding formula, which everybody has leant into in this debate. The funding formula used to be based on many of the measures that Members have mentioned: deprivation rates, crime rates, rurality and ethnicity. A whole raft of indicators went into the police funding formula and previous calculations. When the Conservatives began austerity, they took the decision to cut all forces by the same proportion. That was the point at which the relationship between funding and all the different factors that go into the funding formula was cut. It was still there, in that the proportions were increased—or decreased, in that case—equally, but over time, what was originally the funding formula has lost its meaning, and it has lost its connection to the factors that need to go into determining funding. We are reviewing that. I am spending a lot of time thinking about that process. It is complicated, and we have to get it right. There are lots of different parts to it.
I ask Members to imagine a graph of a certain crime type—let us say violence against women and girls—plotted against an indicator of crime. We map all parts of the country and see what the line tells us. For example, it is clear from the graphs that there is a link between violent crime and educational attainment, so educational attainment has to be an indicator that is part of how funding formulas are worked out.
A lot of work has to go into that. The police put a lot of work into solving crime, as well as their other work. Police spend more than 50% of their time dealing with things other than crime, such as missing people and people with mental health problems. They are working on things that are not what people might perceive as crime. We have to think about that work.
Hon. Members mentioned fairness in relation to council tax and the precept. We have seen our colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government go through that process, to the advantage of some and to the disadvantage of others. There are always winners and losers in a funding formula review. It is a complicated process.
Andy McDonald
The Minister says that it is a complicated process, but the graph that I am sure she has seen showing the changes in full-time equivalents between 2010 and 2025 is stark, and there is political bias built into that. We on the Labour Benches are saying that that urgently needs to be corrected. It is an inequitable, unfair formula that visits badly on the constituencies in the north-east of England, and it is that that needs attention. We cannot wait months for the formula to be recalibrated to come up with a better answer. The need is now.
There is one point on which I agree with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers): if we carry on as we are, we will be losing more officers in Cleveland, so the need is urgent. It is not a matter for months; we have to do this in days. If the Minister needs any further information from Victoria Fuller, the chief constable of Cleveland police, I am sure it can be provided, but we need that progress immediately.
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend and I have had several conversations on this matter in recent times. Of course, I have talked to Victoria, I am well aware of all the statistics and I understand what my hon. Friend is saying. What I am saying is that we are reviewing the funding formula, and it will be fair.
The funding for the year ahead will be allocated and it will not be under the new funding formula. At the moment, we are going through a process to which the chief constable, Matt Storey and all the police chiefs and PCCs from across England and Wales are party. They can come to us while we allocate funding for next year and tell us their exceptional financial situation or exceptional circumstances. Of course, we are having those conversations with colleagues across the north-east, as all Members present would expect.
Although the funding formula will come with the reforms, we are looking right now at what we will do about the exceptional funding requests that people are making across the country. That is the second thing I wanted to say: there is a process, and we are looking at the funding for the next funding year, as well as reforming the funding formula, which will come later.
Luke Myer
I welcome the commitment to changing the funding formula. That is genuinely a seismic change. The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) is making is that we cannot wait. This Government have already been in for two years, and it will be another two years until PCCs are abolished. We are encountering these incidents every single day. Last year, Norfolk had 20,000 fewer crimes than Cleveland but received £50 million more in funding. That cannot be justified. It is unfair and it is un-Labour. I urge the Minister to look at what can be done in-year and to look at the proposal to accelerate reforms in the north-east in particular.
Sarah Jones
That is exactly the point about looking at the funding for the coming year. We are doing that. We are looking at the exceptional circumstances for police forces across the country right now, and what we need to do about that.
I want to touch briefly on police reform, which some people have mentioned. The point of police reform is to do two things. The first is to make sure our police are equipped to tackle the epidemic of everyday crime that we see in our communities, and the second is to make sure we are equipped to tackle the changing nature of crime. Most crimes have a digital footprint. Serious organised crime does not pay any attention to boundaries and is much more complex than it used to be. Members have mentioned online sexual abuse, for example. We need to be able to tackle complex crimes. That is the point of police reform. We do not have the time now for me to set out how we will achieve the changes that we will achieve, but we will legislate on the police reform programme in this Session. We will introduce changes to the structure of police forces, and the way in which the funding formula works will have to fit with those structural changes.
Importantly, we are also putting more police in our neighbourhoods. I want to make one final point, which is hard to make in a short space of time. We have had lots of conversations on police numbers, which I understand and appreciate and do not disagree with, but we cannot judge a police force on just numbers. It does not work. When the Tories were in, they cut police numbers by 20,000. They then rushed to recruit another 20,000, and arrest rates have actually gone down because we have 12,000 officers sat behind desks, not out in our communities fighting crime.
We have had no investment in technology over the Tory years, which means that everybody has to spend hours filling in forms and doing the bureaucracy—I am sure that hon. Members find the same whenever they go out with the police. If we can cut that, people will have more time to be more productive. If we can get police out from behind desks and into our communities, they can be more productive. I am not denying the point that hon. Members make about police numbers, but if we measure just police numbers, that does not actually reflect what the police do and how they do it.
Sarah Jones
I will not, because I have only a couple of moments left.
We are tilting our resources into neighbourhood policing. We have got just shy of 4,000 extra police into our communities.
I will end by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham. He asked me a series of questions and I have a list of answers. He asked how we are tackling violence against women and girls in the north-east. Other hon. Members asked questions about antisocial behaviour, online harms and the early release scheme. I am happy to meet and talk to other Members because we do not have the time here.
I assure hon. Members that the Government and I hear their case on the north-east. We are with them in their desire to reform policing and to make sure we have the people we need to fight crime so that their communities can feel safe, which is the very least that a Labour Government ought to be able to deliver.
Luke Akehurst
I am grateful to the Minister for her remarks and for getting to the crux of the matter, which is that the funding formula was ripped up under previous Governments. I am grateful to the shadow Ministers, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) and the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), for at least understanding that the problem is low levels of funding in the north-east, but I regret that they were not able to bring themselves to explain that Conservative Governments, and a coalition Government including the Lib Dems, ripped up the funding formula.
I am grateful to my hon. Friends on the Government Benches for the eloquent way in which they have expressed the extreme pressures that policing is under in the communities that they represent, and some of the tragic events that have happened partly due to that pressure. With that, I am conscious of the need to sit down before the turn of the hour.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered police funding in the North East.
Bromsgrove Route Enhancement Programme
(1 day, 21 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Pete Wishart (in the Chair)
Bradley Thomas will move the motion and I will call the Minster to respond. I remind hon. Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission of the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Bromsgrove Route Enhancement Programme.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart. The Bromsgrove Route Enhancement Programme—BREP—is a niche topic for Westminster Hall. I am here because Bromsgrove is suffering under the chaos of BREP and the mismanagement of its delivery.
To provide some background, Bromsgrove is a busy commuter town in the West Midlands with two motorways, the M42 and the M5, running through it. That is crucial for context because, when the M5 is congested and snarled up, the A38 running through Bromsgrove—the route affected by BREP—becomes a pressure release valve. As a result, Bromsgrove suffers additional congestion once all that traffic is displaced from the motorway and running around the town.
I would argue that the A38 running through Bromsgrove is a part of our key national infrastructure, given the role that it plays in alleviating pressure on the M5. Bromsgrove is currently seeing investment to the tune of tens of millions of pounds into BREP, but the reality is the delivery of acute disruption to the local economy, businesses, schools and residents.
Any road project will inevitably bring some degree of disruption. The folk of Bromsgrove are reasonable and expect disruption when investment takes place, but the scale is beyond anything envisaged by those living and working in the town. Crucially, it is beyond anything that Worcestershire county council appears to acknowledge in its engagement with me or local residents.
Accepting that work has to take place does not mean accepting endless delays, lack of accountability, poor communication and date slipping, which are characteristics of the BREP work. The impact is profound, including safety concerns. Losses for businesses are particularly profound. I routinely meet and speak with businesses that quote BREP and the compounded effect of roadworks in Bromsgrove as one reason why their businesses are suffering. I note that when the BBC, ITV or other media outlets speak to local businesses, the congestion caused by BREP and other roadworks is routinely quoted. The result is severe reputational impact for Bromsgrove, which should have a vibrant economy, given its location, relative affluence of the hinterland and the connectivity the town previously enjoyed.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman, who is right to bring this forward. When millions of pounds of public money are committed to corridor schemes such as the Bromsgrove Route Enhancement Programme, we need stricter oversight to prevent administrative paralysis. The same thing happened in Northern Ireland. The Court of Appeal had to step in to greenlight the £1.7 billion A5 upgrade, a vital project that was trapped for 20 years in a web of legal and bureaucratic challenges. Is it not time that the Government ensure that when infrastructure funding is approved, red tape does not stand in the way of safety, economic growth and local commuters?
Bradley Thomas
I feel that the presence of the hon. Member vindicates this debate, not because of the worthiness of the point being discussed but because he is attending a debate about something happening in Bromsgrove. He is correct and I will touch on that point shortly.
The impact of the BREP works in Bromsgrove is profound. There are safety concerns, the losses for businesses that I have already spoken about, endless delays for people on routine trips, and the reputational damage to the town that I mentioned. Let us think about it—who is going about their lives in any town? There are parents wanting to take their children to school, workers driving to work, businesses reliant on deliveries and on trade, carers, and other people going about their lives, such as those needing to get to appointments, GPs or hospitals. I read a statistic that the average UK driver spends 62 hours a year stuck in traffic. Well, I can guarantee anyone who wants to listen that the figure will be a hell of a lot higher in Bromsgrove because of the BREP roadworks.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for securing this incredibly important debate. When he talks about the problems in Bromsgrove, he is speaking about a wider problem for the whole of Worcestershire and, indeed, the West Midlands. He will be well aware that in Stourport, in my constituency, we have huge problems with people who do not want to be in the town trying to get through it. The Government need to step up with some major road improvements, including a Stourport relief road and a new bridge over the River Severn.
Bradley Thomas
I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for his intervention. He is absolutely right that all our constituencies deserve investment. However, the crux of the story, which I hope will become apparent as I go through my remarks, is that when infrastructure is delivered, that must be done in a consultative way with local people and local businesses. We cannot allow the fragmentation of the state to paralyse the delivery of infrastructure projects that are so essential to our prosperity.
We have businesses in Bromsgrove that are struggling in the current economic climate, regardless of BREP and the compounded effects of the roadworks. The situation is particularly acute in Bromsgrove. Having spoken to so many residents and businesspeople, I know that there is a general sentiment that those responsible for delivering the scheme—it is important to note that Worcestershire county council is the body responsible for delivering it, even though it is backed by tens of millions of pounds of central Government funding—do not care or are not listening to the voices of those who are affected by it. I fear that a long period of time will elapse before the reputation of Bromsgrove recovers, even after these works are eventually complete.
Nationally, 83% of businesses claim that congestion is a problem; I can guarantee that in Bromsgrove 100% of businesses will make that claim. Nationally, 41% of businesses claim that their profitability is affected by congestion. Again, I can guarantee that practically every business in Bromsgrove will cite BREP and the compounded effect of roadworks as one of the reasons why they are struggling in an already difficult economic climate.
It should not be an abstract concept for any of us to believe that it is the responsibility of the state in all its forms—including central Government, local authorities, Government agencies—to do everything possible to ease the burden of the effect of roadworks on our communities. However, I am afraid that where Worcestershire county council is concerned, I am bewildered. I have had a reasonable amount of engagement with the county council over this project but it has felt incredibly tokenistic. I have had meetings with the council to discuss different parts and different phases of the project that are being delivered. At times, I have had meetings with the council and residents to discuss specific concerns about particular parts of the project, but I am afraid that the responses are only ever tokenistic. We get responses such as “We have consulted” or “We have engaged.”
Part of my conclusion can only be that the lives of some of those responsible for delivering the scheme, whether that is contractors or officers of the council, are not as affected by the scheme—perhaps because they do not live in Bromsgrove or they may not travel through the town. I fear that those taking decisions, whether on this or other aspects of investment, are far too often removed from the consequences of what they are delivering. That means that there is a real loss of the voice of the community affected in this process.
To the point that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made about the fragmentation of the state, whether we are talking about BREP or the delivery of all manner of different public goods, we too often see the delivery of projects with far too many stakeholders involved. As a consequence, there appears to be a significant lack of accountability in the process. Here we have a scheme that is largely funded by central Government. Bromsgrove would be incredibly grateful for those funds if there was a genuine sentiment that this was being delivered for the betterment of the town, but I am afraid that the patience and the good will of the public has worn thin. There is probably not much patience left to squeeze out of the very patient and dutiful residents of Bromsgrove. There is a lack of accountability, and a perception that things fall through the cracks and that if it is the responsibility of people from one body, they will tokenistically engage, but they will get on with their lives and not necessarily have to live with the consequences, while, in this case, I am afraid that the residents of Bromsgrove do. It is advertised that BREP is an enhancement, but the reality is that it has made things worse.
We will wait and see at the end of the delivery of the scheme what things actually look like. However, this £40 million investment is due to improve a typical journey along the A38 by just two minutes. That is without taking into effect the 85% increase in the housing target being imposed on my constituency by the Government. That is based on infrastructure and an idea of our society that is arguably already out of date. The compounded effect of growth in future will see this BREP scheme effectively become a white elephant—a complete waste of money. That is the fear of many of my constituents, and I am afraid it is a fear and suspicion that I now share.
It is a bizarre contradiction that we have this multimillion-pound investment—£40 million is not a small sum of money—and if it was spent on something that I believed was truly for the betterment of the town, I would be rejoicing at this. That £40 million could buy a lot and tangibly improve a community in so many different ways. But the question everyone is asking is, “Should it be spent for that two minutes, and will those two minutes even materialise?” I am afraid that from start to finish this entire project has been a catalogue of mismanagement and communication failures. Most of all, there has been a severe failing of all involved to really consult those who will be most affected.
As is probably understood by now, my constituents are fed up. I have appealed to Worcestershire county council to halt all unnecessary roadworks that are over and above the BREP scheme. I believe that BREP should have been delivered in phases rather than there being one large scheme from start to finish. We are seeing hauliers and traffic on the M5 displaced through the town so we have additional heavy and unsafe vehicles and a larger load of traffic. That is in an already relatively crowded area of population.
I have had parents get in touch with me because they are worried about the journeys that their children take, particularly if they are crossing the A38. There has been a complete mess and a confusing mix of signage and road blockages. One constituent got in touch yesterday to say that, because of an unmarked kerb, he had split his tyre, and he showed me a photograph of that. This is having a profound effect. I want to stress that I do not bring a debate of this kind to Westminster Hall or the House of Commons lightly. It is because my constituents and I really are at the end of our tether with this.
I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to an 83-year-old cyclist who tragically lost his life a few weeks ago on New Road in Bromsgrove. I would like to stress I am not linking the two events, but it is unquestionable that traffic and congestion in Bromsgrove have got worse and I would like to pay tribute to him. My thoughts are very much with his family and I support the investigation of the authorities as they ascertain the facts behind what happened.
Since I was elected at the general election two years ago, I have been pretty relentless in holding Worcestershire county council to account over BREP. There needs to be a much more co-ordinated approach to reduce emissions, congestion and disruption, and to minimise community impact. Instead there has been this nonsensical approach.
Let me cite one example in particular that has affected many residents. We have a housing development known locally as the Oakalls and the entrance to that, Regents Park Road, is used by thousands of cars every single day. A large stretch of the road has been narrowed. I have been there multiple times and seen cars flooring it, to be frank—putting their foot down to get through the narrow junction before another vehicle appears. That has undoubtedly increased the safety concerns about that junction. As for Worcestershire county council— well, I have invited the cabinet member to come down and meet with me and residents, but I am afraid I have not had a response in the affirmative. I can only conclude that on that front that Worcestershire county council is not interested in engaging on a junction that it has changed and that is unquestionably more dangerous than it was before.
My constituents are sensible people—they are prepared to put up with reasonable disruption and they expect unknown hurdles to present challenges—but their sensibleness and patience depend on mutual respect and that has been lacking, seemingly throughout the process. I just cited the lack of collaboration at Oakalls. We have recent ministerial communications, which I am grateful for, that say that the programme is now scheduled to end in early 2027, but it is important to put on the record that this BREP scheme, if it is completed by then, will have been delayed effectively twice from its original scheduled completion date.
There are some things that need to be done. On 11 August I sent a letter to the Secretary of State to plead on behalf on my constituents for serious consideration to be given to asking National Highways to intervene in the scheme given the role of the A38 as a key part of our national strategic infrastructure and that pressure release valve that I described. I believe it is pretty apparent that Worcestershire county council lacks the expertise, for whatever reason: this could be a project that is just far too big for it to handle or it may have bitten off more than it can chew. There might be council officers or contractors who are not as invested in delivering a successful scheme for the town because their lives are based in other places. I suspect that that is a factor, even though that is a bold statement to make.
I am grateful to the Minister for coming here today, and I reiterate my plea to him to consider engaging with National Highways on this to take the scheme under its control, and get it completed using its skills and expertise. If the Minister will not do that, I sincerely hope he will support me in gaining answers to a litany of questions—34 in fact—that I recently sent to the Secretary of State on a range of topics around how the scheme is being delivered. This is about who shoulders the burden of additional cost. My constituents want to know how far behind schedule the project is compared with the original tender. It is right that my constituents, who are also taxpayers, and the businesses that are funding the project, not just in Bromsgrove but across the country, should not shoulder burdens that have been brought about by poor contractual timekeeping.
There are so many unanswered questions. I do not want to go through them all now, because I am conscious of time and want to allow the Minister to respond in what I hope will be a positive spirit. I emphasise to him that I do not come here lightly; I come here because my constituents deserve answers. I am prepared to meet him in the search for those answers and to engage with National Highways, if that would help to reach a swift, successful and efficient conclusion for the taxpayer and to get this scheme delivered once and for all.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Justin Madders)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Wishart. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing the debate and for the determined way in which he has represented the interests of his constituents. I join him in saying how very sad it was to hear about the recent tragic road collision on the A38 that led to the death of a cyclist and my thoughts and sympathies go out to his family and friends.
I welcome the opportunity to respond to the concerns that the hon. Member has raised regarding the A38 Bromsgrove route enhancement programme and its impact on residents, businesses and road users. He was right to acknowledge that such schemes will inevitably lead to some disruption, but it is clear from what he has said today that both he and his constituents have run out of patience.
As the hon. Member said, the A38 acts as a key strategic link, providing access to the strategic road network as well as serving regional and local traffic. I recognise and sympathise with his comments about the road being a key pressure valve when there is disruption on the M5. My constituency is close to the motorway network and we also see the impacts when there are delays and disruptions there.
As the hon. Member quite rightly pointed out, the programme has been developed and is being delivered by Worcestershire county council. It is the biggest upgrade to Bromsgrove’s local road networks in a generation. Its aims are to reduce congestion and increase journey reliability, support the delivery of housing and employment growth, and improve connectivity for pedestrians and cyclists. It is a critical investment in the town’s infrastructure and has been assessed as providing high value for money for taxpayers.
The hon. Member described the scheme as excellent when it was first announced back in 2023, although from his comments I take it that he is now a little less supportive of the scheme. Whether that is entirely down to the delays or whether the benefits are not as clear to him as they were we will no doubt explore in due course. As he rightly pointed out, since the scheme was approved it has experienced a number of delays. Of course, I understand the frustrations that his constituents have experienced.
The principal cause of delay on the programme has been the discovery of numerous previously uncharted utility assets along the A38 corridor, including complex gas infrastructure. The scale and complexity of these assets have required significant additional investigations and changes to designs and construction plans. As much of that work has involved third-party utility providers, it has not been wholly within the control of the county council or its contractor. As is often the case with major urban highway projects, other factors have also led to delays. Bad weather and the challenges associated with delivering work safely within a live highway environment have also constrained progress.
Worcestershire county council has kept the Department updated regularly. As the hon. Member has confirmed, most elements of the programme are expected to be completed in early 2027. The Oakalls roundabout will be the final section to complete construction and the contractor’s latest plans indicate that the work there will finish in June 2027. However, the council is exploring opportunities to accelerate delivery and it is hopeful that completion of the roundabout could be brought forward to the spring.
The hon. Member has raised a number of detailed concerns through correspondence, in meetings and now through this debate. Of course, I understand why he has pursued those questions on behalf of his constituents, but it is important to be clear that the responsibility for delivering the A38 programme rests with Worcestershire county council as the local highway authority. The council is therefore accountable for project governance, procurement, contractor management and delivery.
The vast majority of issues raised by the hon. Member concern the day-to-day management by Worcestershire county council of the relationship with its contractor. Detailed decisions on the construction programme and the management of delays are matters for the council as the client authority and for the contractor delivering the works. The Department for Transport has provided funding and maintains appropriate oversight to ensure value for the taxpayer and that public money is spent properly. However, I need to be clear that oversight is not the same thing as management: the Department scrutinises business cases, monitoring information and assurance arrangements, but it does not manage contractors, direct operational decisions on site or act as the project manager for locally delivered schemes.
The hon. Member argued that the Department or National Highways should intervene directly and assume responsibility for the project, but neither option is appropriate or, indeed, possible. National Highways is responsible for England’s strategic road network; this programme is a local authority scheme on the local road network and therefore falls outside its remit. Equally, there is no mechanism through which the Department for Transport could take over delivery of the project from Worcestershire county council.
Bradley Thomas
I appreciate the Minister coming to the Chamber and responding to my points, but does he accept that this is an example of the fragmentation of the state? The public, including my constituents, are sick and tired of the idea that, “It’s not us, it’s them”. I understand and accept that Worcestershire county council is responsible for delivering the scheme and that it is funded by central Government, but is it not just another example of passing the buck to say that it is nothing to do with National Highways because it is simply a local road when I demonstrated that a key piece of national infrastructure, the M5, is affected by what is going on on this road? It is that fragmentation of the state; we have to do better.
Justin Madders
It is not about fragmentation of the state but about letting local areas determine their own priorities and manage their own schemes. That is how local roads have always been run. I listened to what the hon. Member said about the interactions he has had with the local authority, and it seems to me that there need to be some discussions with his elected councillors about where the accountability lies, because from where we are standing, that is clearly where the question should be directed.
We have looked at some of the criticisms and concerns that he raised, and an independent review of the programme was undertaken in 2025, which concluded that appropriate industry standard de-risking activities had been undertaken before construction commenced. It found that many of the delays encountered were “unavoidable” and
“could not have been fully predicted in advance”.
Most importantly, it concluded that the programme remains deliverable. The review also recognised that public confidence has been affected by the length of disruption and recommended improvements to communications. I understand that the council has taken on board those recommendations. The hon. Member mentioned the impact on local business, and I have raised this issue with the council directly; its representatives mentioned recent examples of work on the opening of the new Sainsbury’s and working with Avoncroft Museum to ensure that adequate signage and diversion routes are in place, so it seems that there is some progress in that direction. The council will continue to work with contractors and utility providers to address the remaining challenges.
I will conclude by saying that although this is not the Department’s day-to-day responsibility, I understand the frustrations experienced by the hon. Member and his constituency’s residents, businesses and road users. The Government clearly expect Worcestershire county council, as the delivery authority, to maintain its focus on completing the remaining works, minimising disruption where possible and keeping local communities informed. The Department will continue to monitor whether the council delivers on that. It is important that we do not lose sight of the long-term benefits this investment will deliver: reduced congestion, more reliable journey times and improved connections for pedestrians and cyclists. I am happy to work with the hon. Member and the local authority to see that those benefits are delivered as soon as possible with the minimum level of disruption to his constituents. To be clear, that is not the same as the Department taking on day-to-day management of the project, and I hope that the hon. Member will understand, from what I have said, why that cannot be the case.
Question put and agreed to.
Youth Suicide Prevention and Mental Health Support
(1 day, 21 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab) [R]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for youth suicide prevention charities and mental health support for young people.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Wishart. I am grateful to have secured this debate on a subject that touches every single constituency represented in this House. Last month, I introduced a debate for World Suicide Prevention Day; many of the same hon. Members were present, and there was a strong focus on recognising that we all need to do more. Sadly, in the same week, Papyrus Prevention of Young Suicide, a charity that supported young people and their families for nearly 30 years, went into administration. We are just over one month on from that day, and following the news of this debate, many charities and third-sector organisations have been in touch to ask if they can contribute, not because they want recognition but because they all feel the strain of funding and fear what will happen if no one listens to their pleas.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
On Saturday, I attended a service of hope and remembrance for World Mental Health Day at St Peter’s collegiate church in my constituency. It brought together a range of organisations dealing with suicide—bereavement, debt advice, drug and alcohol support, mental health services and wider community assistance, all working together to prevent suicide. Does my hon. Friend agree that that kind of joined up, community-based approach is vital for early intervention and preventing deaths through suicide?
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate. The Coroners Service for Northern Ireland reported 290 suicides in Northern Ireland in 2024; eight in 10 of those were male and 28% were from the most deprived communities, underlining the urgent need to reach people across our UK. Does the hon. Member agree that we need sustained Government funding targeted at community outreach, prompt counselling and specialist care?
Liz Twist
I most certainly agree that we need to do all we can to support young people—in fact, all people—facing ideas of suicidality. I will touch on the issue of funding.
As I was saying, we are just over a month on from that day, and so many organisations have been in touch wanting to contribute. I apologise to those who I cannot mention and whose specific points I cannot refer to. I know that they provide a lifeline to so many people, and I will do my best to do them justice. Papyrus had a national focus and offered hope to thousands of young people across the UK. It offered specialist support for young people, which I am sure the Minister will know was a vital support given that the biggest killer of young people is suicide.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for the excellent work she does in this area. I met Papyrus through my constituent Emma Webb, who my hon. Friend knows and who campaigns on suicide awareness among young people after sadly losing her daughter. The fact that rising demand is cited as one of the main reasons for Papyrus’ closure should tell us absolutely everything we need to know. I join my hon. Friend in calling on the Minister to do everything we can to fill the gap left by HopeLine 24/7.
Pete Wishart (in the Chair)
Order. I remind hon. Members that we have only an hour and there will be a strict time limit. Interventions will have to be limited and hon. Members will have to be patient.
Liz Twist
I most certainly agree with the points my hon. Friend made, and I thank her constituent for the work she does in raising awareness. With its sudden closure, we lost one of the most vital services that Papyrus provided: HopeLine 24/7, our nation’s only round-the-clock help line staffed by advisers trained to support young people experiencing suicidal thoughts. Over the years that that service existed, it helped save the lives of so many young people, and the staff provided an important service unlike any other. I want to take a moment now to thank all those 120 members of staff who worked for Papyrus, on the helpline and in its other suicide prevention services.
For three decades, Papyrus saved lives. When a young person called HopeLine 24/7, they spoke with advisers who understood the pressures facing under-35s. Schools, colleges, universities and GPs relied on its work. Child and adolescent mental health services—CAMHS, as we usually call it—and emergency departments routinely signposted young people in distress to Papyrus, knowing that they would receive safe, compassionate care. My own office and many places of work across the country displayed posters signposting people to the service, with its contact details clearly listed so that any young person or parent struggling with the subject knew exactly where to find immediate help.
When Papyrus went into administration, callers were redirected to Samaritans or to the Shout text helpline—both excellent services, but not a dedicated helpline for young people. We all know that, just because the HopeLine 24/7 service no longer exists, the need to support young people does not disappear. Many young people are worried that there is nowhere to turn, as the option to talk to someone who understands them has gone.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)
The Children’s Commissioner has reported that more than 1 million children have active referrals to mental health services, so does my hon. Friend agree that help and support need to be provided not only to young people but to parents, voluntary organisations and charities, who do good work in this area, to prevent suicide?
Liz Twist
I certainly agree with the Children’s Commissioner and with my hon. Friend on the issues he has raised.
The young people who would have reached out to HopeLine 24/7 are still struggling with severe emotional distress. Without that helpline, the pressure falls directly on to overstretched emergency services, NHS 111 handlers, GP surgeries and partner charities such as the Samaritans, Shout and Chasing the Stigma, which are already running at full capacity.
I recently met with the administrators of Papyrus, and they tell me that there is real hope that another charity or service could recreate a helpline dedicated to young people so that they can still access specialist support. They are keen to speak with Government officials about what help can be given to ensure that the helpline, and maybe some other parts of Papyrus’ work, can continue. Will the Minister ask her officials to make that contact and be a part of a working solution for young people? As we have heard, the service is still vital.
The 3 Dads Walking—Andy, Mike and Tim—have spoken forcefully about the loss of HopeLine 24/7. Having each suffered the unbearable loss of a daughter to suicide—Sophie, Beth and Emily—they have walked hundreds of miles across the country and raised more than £1.5 million for Papyrus. They told me that they will get behind whatever organisation is able to pick up Papyrus’s work. Following the closure, the 3 Dads asked why a national service relied upon by NHS trusts and CAMHS was left financially dependent on voluntary donations and charity work. That is a fair question that we in Parliament must answer.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful and important speech on something she has campaigned very hard on. Does she agree that we ought to learn from countries such as the Netherlands, where they have a much more integrated system to help young people with their mental health, physical health and employment opportunities, all of which contribute to the overall mental health picture?
Liz Twist
Certainly, we need to learn from best practice wherever it occurs to make sure that we can look after our young people and keep them safe.
We need to urgently take steps to close the gap in support for young people. There are organisations that are willing to provide a helpline and that have the skills and ability to support young people. The administrators are working with those organisations, but they are keen to speak to the Government about what help might be available to make those plans a reality. The Government have an opportunity to come to the table, create dependable support for people under 35 and set a precedent of care for those who need this vital service.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
On 27 September, it was five years since my constituent Jess’s son Mason died by suicide. His death was one of several examined in a local safeguarding review, but it took three years of Jess chasing and pressure from my office just to see its recommendations. She has still not seen the full report. Does the hon. Member agree that we should install a national oversight mechanism so that families can see whether lessons are acted on without feeling that they have to fight the system that is supposed to support them?
Liz Twist
The hon. Member makes an important point that could certainly be developed further in another debate.
The closure of Papyrus has highlighted the wider financial pressures among suicide prevention and mental health charities across the voluntary sector. That is not new, but Papyrus is an example that has hit hard. Across the country, non-profit organisations are supporting statutory health services without the predictable long-term funding required to keep their doors open.
Over recent years, major Government grant programmes for suicide prevention have reached the end of their funding period. The £10 million suicide prevention grant fund for voluntary, community and social enterprise organisations, which supported 79 charities across England, ended in March 2025. It was a one-off fund and the official evaluation of the scheme showed that, while short-term grants funded helpful community projects, the lack of ongoing funding left charities facing sudden financial cliff edges once the grants ended.
In addition, the £57 million allocated to local areas through NHS England for suicide prevention came to an end in April 2024. The London-based charity Body and Soul surveyed its young service users. It told me that the short funding cycles threatened specialist staffing, the stable referral routes that they have on offer, and the continuity needed to build trust. Short-term funding incentivises short projects and countable contacts over creating the sustained capacity needed by young people whose difficulties do not resolve to a grant timetable.
The north-east based charity If U Care Share, which Members will have heard me speak about before, has raised the precarious nature that short-term funding means for charities trying to create long-term programmes for their communities. I have certainly helped them try to achieve funding in the past.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
On the impact of short-term funding, there is a very human cost. More often than not it is the young people involved who pay the price. I have had casework about people losing probably their only outlet for therapy when funding for their point of contact—someone they had built up a relationship with—has gone, and that has thrown them back into a crisis. Does the hon. Member agree that short-term funding has real-world impacts on young people?
Liz Twist
I agree with the hon. Member because we hear that from charities time and again, particularly in this area of work.
I mentioned two charities, but the story is repeated right across the country. It is vital that we tackle the funding issues facing charities that provide preventative work. To prevent suicide among young people we must address the pressures they face. Suicide remains the leading cause of death for individuals under 35 in the UK and the Samaritans report that about 200 school-aged children take their own lives every year. There are so many statistics we could quote about why young people consider suicide, but we already know them too well.
Statutory services, such as the mental health support teams in schools, CAMHS and other NHS statutory services, play an important part in supporting the most vulnerable in our system. The Government must be congratulated on focusing on those areas. However, we must not forget that it is third sector organisations that are able to be adaptable and present in young people’s everyday lives. They can offer a safe, external space where young people can go to feel supported, and they open the doors that young people need to build the foundations of a better life.
The Government have taken positive steps, including the announcement of £343 million in capital funding for new community mental health hubs and emergency centres. That capital investment is welcome, but without people—both NHS staff and, crucially, the voluntary sector—it will not be effective. Hope Haven in Whitehaven, where the NHS and the voluntary sector work together to maximise the quality of care and support for the community, is a good example of where that happens. It is essential that our various strategies work together.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. The Education Committee and the Health and Social Care Committee worked together on this subject and found that the NHS and local commissioners are not taking advantage of the expertise in those third sector organisations. Does she agree that the Government should take note of their report and act on its recommendations?
Pete Wishart (in the Chair)
Order. We have about 20 hon. Members waiting to speak with about 10 to 15 minutes available. Is the hon. Lady about to conclude her remarks?
Liz Twist
Yes. I am going to skip some things, important though they are, because I know other hon. Members want to come in. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) for his comment, and I agree that we need to take note of that report.
As we develop the mental health strategy, we must take account of young people’s needs and make sure they do not fall through the gaps between strategies, such as the men’s health strategy. I will go straight to my asks of the Government. Right now, there is growing demand due to the closure of Papyrus’s HopeLine 24/7. That can be remedied at pace, with other charities seeking to fill the gap, but they need support from the Minister. Will she work with the administrators to ensure that can happen as quickly as possible, to prevent a gap in that vital service?
Will the Minister ask her officials to contact the administrators of Papyrus and their specialist adviser to discuss what financial and other support can be offered, to make sure that a properly skilled and specialist young persons’ helpline can be retrieved from the collapse of Papyrus? In the longer term, will she consider the funding needed for our third sector organisations in suicide prevention and mental health to continue to provide open-access support that must be the bedrock of work in mental health? Finally, will she confirm that youth suicide prevention and children’s mental health will explicitly form part of the forthcoming mental health strategy?
Every statistic we discuss represents a young person whose life was cut short, leaving behind a family and a community reshaped by grief. The closure of Papyrus must not be seen as a single charity going under; all our third sector partners are struggling. It is impossible to build a strong mental health system, in which third sector organisations play a crucial part, if we allow the charities keeping our young people alive to close due to financial strain. Suicide is preventable. By supporting our voluntary sector, funding frontline services and acting early when a young person reaches out, we can save lives and give every person in distress a reason to stay.
Several hon. Members rose—
Pete Wishart (in the Chair)
As we can see, there is exceptional demand for this short debate. We will have to confine ourselves to a one-minute time limit because the Front-Bench speeches have to start at 5.08 pm. We would have started with Tim Farron, but he has just left. We will start with Dr Neil Hudson.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart. I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) on securing this debate, and I thank her for all the hard work she does to highlight this crucial area. I have been privileged to work with her on the all-party parliamentary group on suicide and self-harm prevention.
I could not make this speech without paying tribute to Andy Airey, Mike Palmer and Tim Owen, better known to all of us as 3 Dads Walking. It has been a humbling privilege to work alongside Andy, Mike and Tim, who tragically lost their precious daughters, Sophie, Beth and Emily, to suicide. United by shared grief, they did something so simple yet so powerful: they walked, they talked and, together, they changed the national conversation on suicide prevention, all while raising over £1.5 million for Papyrus. It was therefore devastating that, in the very week of World Suicide Prevention Day, we heard that Papyrus had gone into administration.
Papyrus provided a vital lifeline to young people. There are three excellent charities providing support in this area: Samaritans; Shout, with its crisis text service; and Chasing the Stigma, which provides the Hub of Hope mental health support directory. But with the loss of Papyrus, we have a huge gap. The three dads showed us that prevention and signposting are a critical layer that helps us to address mental health and suicide. I remind the Minister that there is so much work to do across society, and prevention and signposting have to be at the forefront alongside treatment and intervention when crisis occurs. That will help save lives. I urge the Government to act.
Several hon. Members rose—
Pete Wishart (in the Chair)
Given that not everyone who was down to speak bobbed, we are back to two minutes. I remind Dr Hudson that he did get his two minutes.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) for securing this debate. She is right to highlight the vital work of youth suicide prevention charities and the need for sustainable funding. I pay tribute to Hector’s House, a brilliant charity in my constituency that supports young people at risk of suicide in Hector’s memory.
In Aylesbury, I run a programme for young people on politics, government and leadership called “Your Voice, Your Future”. The young people share their campaign ideas with me, and they often focus on mental health. One group made it their focus project—“Be You, Not Blue” was the name of their campaign. Their point was that, while awareness of mental health matters and is improving, awareness is not the same as understanding, and understanding does not yet translate into the support that young people need nationally or in their communities.
Therefore, while it is so important that we get the support right for people in crisis, and the mental health strategy presents a real opportunity to do that, I reflect the point that young people make to me, which is that we should not be waiting until people are at crisis point to offer support. It is vital that support kicks in early, that mental health is woven through everything that schools do, that brilliant youth mental health charities such as Aylesbury Youth Action and Action4Youth in my constituency are known and accessible to people, and that mental health support is mainstreamed through the Government’s youth services.
Today’s debate presents a real opportunity to get youth mental health support right more broadly. I know the Minister is working hard on that to make sure that we provide support early, as well as for those who get to that crisis point.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart. I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) on securing this debate and on all of her excellent work in this field.
The closure of Papyrus last month was a devastating loss. Its HopeLine 24/7 helped countless people at the toughest point of their lives for nearly 30 years. I pay tribute to its staff, who will have experienced incredibly tough times while handling very delicate but vitally important calls. While HopeLine 24/7 has been disbanded, the demand for help has not gone away; it will simply move to other already stressed helpline services. Papyrus helped to alleviate the demand on other charities and health services, and the NHS even signposted Papyrus to people looking for support.
I add my words to what the hon. Member for Blaydon and Consett has already said about 3 Dads Walking and the incredible work they have done to raise money for Papyrus. It is obviously a great sadness to all of us that the service has come to an end. As the demand for suicide prevention hotlines is growing, I would be grateful if the Minister would consider working with Papyrus’s administrators to restore HopeLine 24/7.
The independent review of mental health conditions, ADHD and autism found that mental distress has increased significantly, especially for young people. Investment in services has not kept pace with that demand, meaning that people wait longer for support, which often exacerbates existing mental health conditions. One of the many recommendations is to close the treatment gap and strengthen specialist services for people with the most complex needs.
My constituency is home to Cassel hospital, a tier 4 therapeutic community for adults with complex multiple diagnosis presentations. Patients tell me that the treatment they receive there is lifesaving and life changing, and although the hospital has proven that its work saves the NHS millions of pounds by reducing hospitalisations and the need for emergency services, tier 4 services are under review by NHS England. Withdrawing funding from a hospital that serves people suffering from the most complex mental health conditions would be a travesty, and I would be grateful if the Minister could arrange time to speak with me regarding this matter.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) for securing this sad but very necessary debate.
In the UK, we are fortunate to have a number of charities that are dedicated to the prevention of suicide among our young people, and I am deeply proud of this Government’s work to tackle the issue head-on. But regardless of that work, the unacceptable reality is that suicide remains the leading cause of death among the under-35s.
Last month’s announcement that the Papyrus Prevention of Young Suicide charity will cease operations was devastating. I was motivated to speak in this debate not only by the recent closure of Papyrus but by the story of Lesley Harris, a constituent who lost her 13-year-old granddaughter Ella to suicide in 2023. Despite presenting at A&E with suicidal thoughts, Ella was ultimately discharged after speaking to healthcare professionals. She did not receive a full suicide risk assessment and subsequently took her own life.
Since their devastating loss, Ella’s friends and family have launched a petition calling for suicide risk assessments to be legally mandatory whenever a young person in hospital expresses an intention to harm themselves. I am pleased to say that, thanks to their hard work, the petition has now achieved 20,000 signatures and will receive a Government response. I fundamentally support their efforts and have written to both the Prime Minister and the Department of Health and Social Care to that effect. I look forward to receiving their responses.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr, Mr Wishart. I commend the hon. Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) for securing this important debate.
I start by expressing my deepest sympathies to all the families, friends and communities affected by suicide. Today, I will focus on two charities that serve my constituency and beyond. The DPJ Foundation was set up in July 2016, following the death of Daniel Picton-Jones. His widow, Emma, established the foundation to support the mental health of those in the farming sector. Ten years on, the foundation continues to provide invaluable support for farming communities across Wales by providing specialist support tailored specifically to those in agriculture, which means that our young farmers receive support in our rural communities. Papyrus has already been mentioned.
The other charity that I will focus on today is 3 Dads Walking. I am privileged that one of the three dads, Mike, is my constituent, and I was able to join them last June in their walk around my constituency of Ynys Môn. On that walk, I had those conversations with family members and friends who have been deeply affected by suicide about the importance of prevention, the importance of having a support network and the importance of 24-hour support. That is why 3 Dads Walking raised so much money for HopeLine 24/7.
The closure of HopeLine 24/7 in September came despite it having just had its two busiest months in nearly 30 years, which shows that the service is needed more than ever. The decision to close HopeLine 24/7 will mean the loss of lives, so I urge the Government to do all they can to support the valuable work of charities such as Papyrus and the DPJ Foundation so that young people continue to have access to essential support in their communities, wherever they live.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart.
Any death by suicide is devastating, but the death by suicide of a child is unimaginable. Although suicide rates are highest among the middle-aged, there has been a concerning increase among children and young people in recent years.
One worrying trend linked to the health problems and suicide rate in Portsmouth is the troubling rise in the use of ketamine. In February 2026, Sarah lost her daughter Honor to suicide following a battle with ketamine addiction. Honor was bright and loved, but she was let down by a system that did not recognise the danger until it was too late. She was 23.
Ketamine addiction among young people is a growing crisis hiding in plain sight. Unlike with alcohol or vaping, most parents do not see the signs of it. Most schools do not teach it, and most GPs do not even screen for it. Search engines and information online do not highlight the dangers and the damage it does to a person’s body and mind. Drugs like ketamine are frequently marketed on mainstream social media. The widespread availability and low cost of this substance make it particularly accessible to teenagers, and the class B classification it carries does not deter people from selling or buying it. That is why Sarah set up the H23 Foundation to fight ketamine addiction and prevent more lives like Honor’s from being lost. The foundation aims to reach as many students and young people as possible, to provide support for families and to create a lasting legacy through systemic change.
Efforts by our Government since 2024 to address ketamine addiction have been a welcome start. However, there is more to do. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline any other efforts the Government are making to address the specific challenges rising ketamine use and wider drug addiction pose to young people’s mental health and risk of suicide, and how we can ensure that the truth about the damage this drug does to people is available. Stories like Honor’s show just how devastating the consequences can be if left unaddressed.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. A big thank you to the hon. Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) for setting the scene so incredibly well. This profound and heartbreaking crisis touches almost every community, school and street across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
When we talk about the mental health of our young people, we are talking about our future. The world our young people have inherited is one of intense and inescapable pressure: social media follows them everywhere, there is no place to hide from cyber-bullying, and the continuous distortion of self-worth is pulling our youth into dark, isolated corners. In Northern Ireland, one in 10 have engaged in self-harm, and we have lost 290 to suicide in a single year. Every one of them represents an empty chair at a family table, a shattered home and a life of potential cut tragically short.
Regional figures from Ards and North Down council indicate that the number of suicides in Ards and North Down increased by a shocking 40% over the last four years. Our local youth services and schools are overwhelmed. Grassroots groups are doing an angelic job, but they are fighting an uphill battle against rising demand and unstable funding.
Our young people in Comber and Newtownards, and right down the Ards peninsula, which I represent and where I live, deserve better than a system in which they have to wait months on end just to speak to a mental health professional. That is not satisfactory. Early intervention is not a luxury; it is a life-saving necessity.
Pete Wishart (in the Chair)
Order. I am going to have to reduce the time limit to a minute and a half to try to get everybody in.
Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) for bringing forward this debate. Seeing how many colleagues have attended is a real reminder that no constituency or community is safe from the devastating impact of suicide, or from the very particular kind of grief that comes with the death of a young person.
In Suffolk, we lost 65 people to suicide in 2024, 10 of whom lived in Ipswich. To each of their families, I want to say sorry: sorry that the help they needed was not there, sorry that the signs were not spotted sooner and sorry that they were so badly let down. However, I also want to highlight and thank the local charities that are doing incredible work in protecting our young people. Suffolk Mind, for example, offers a wide range of courses for children and young people, to empower them with the tools they need to look after their own mental health and to help them become more resilient, emotionally aware and well-resourced adults. I am really pleased that the Government’s Pride in Place funding is going towards helping it open a new centre in Ipswich town centre.
We are also very lucky to have a local Samaritans branch—I am sure many colleagues here will attest to that—which has supported our community for over half a century. In a typical year, its team of more than 100 volunteers listens to 20,000 phone calls and spends 4,000 hours on the phone with people who need that support.
However, I want to be clear that charities cannot and should not be expected to carry this burden alone. At the moment, someone experiencing a mental health crisis locally may have to go through a busy A&E department and then wait for specialist support to become available. I am therefore pleased that the Woodlands unit at Ipswich hospital is getting dedicated emergency mental health provision as part of a national roll-out backed by £350 million. We owe it to every young person in Ipswich, in Suffolk and across the country to give them the support they need, when they need it.
Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) for securing this important debate.
Mental health for children and young people is one of the defining health challenges of our time, because one in five young people has a confirmed or suspected mental health condition. In Broxtowe, I see the scale, the need and the value of community-based support. The Middle Street Resource Centre in Beeston provides mental health support services to young people and adults in my community. I am enormously grateful to the staff and volunteers for everything they do. New referrals to its services have doubled in the last year, yet its staff numbers do not reflect that, even more so now that some of the larger funders have temporarily withdrawn funding opportunities, meaning that the demand for small funders is significantly oversubscribed. Core costs, including staff costs, are the hardest to fund.
Without sufficient funding, these specialist organisations will not be able to help young people who struggle to engage with more formal or centralised services. Young people need services to help them recover, build resilience and, even more importantly, no longer need ongoing care when they are adults. I ask the Government to provide additional funding.
Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist).
In my local authority of North Lanarkshire, we have suicide rates above the Scottish national average, and we know that young people face particular challenges. During 2024, 735 young people registered with the online mental health charity Kooth in North Lanarkshire alone, with 68% of logins outside normal working hours, demonstrating the importance of ensuring that support is available when young people actually need it.
I commend the tremendous work undertaken in North Lanarkshire to confront that challenge. The community partners there have made suicide prevention a priority and are working to ensure early intervention. Just last week, 150 young people at Ravenscraig regional sports centre took part in a netball and football tournament to raise awareness of suicide prevention.
These types of community partnerships can genuinely save lives, but local authorities and voluntary organisations cannot tackle this challenge alone, and often face difficult financial settlements. I encourage the Government and the Scottish Government to provide additional support to local authorities and third-sector organisations to ensure they have long-term certainty and can deliver the support needed as early as possible—long before young people reach that desperate stage.
Pete Wishart (in the Chair)
We can get two more speakers in if they take a minute each.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Meur ras, Mr Wishart. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) for securing this important debate.
Improving mental health services for our young people is deeply personal for me, and one of the reasons I became an MP. Too often, the first support someone receives comes only once they have reached crisis point, either at a busy A&E department or on a charity hotline, so I was extremely concerned to hear that Papyrus had gone into administration. One constituent, Anne, lost her son Toby to suicide in 2011. She told me how Papyrus had given her and others hope for the future. She raised thousands to keep its HopeLine going, including by trekking 50 km across the Sahara in Toby’s memory. She speaks for many when she asks how such a vital service could be allowed to disappear.
I welcome the Government’s investment in new community mental health centres and crisis centres, including in my constituency. They are the right investments—
Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart.
I put on record my heartfelt thoughts and wishes for all those affected by suicide. Because of the constraints of time, I will focus on the number of children presenting at A&E in a mental health crisis and experiencing a complexity of mental health issues. and ask the Minister two questions. First, what action are the Government taking to reduce the number of children reaching crisis point and presenting at A&E, including by improving access to community-based support and CAMHS? Secondly, will the Government consider a children’s health investment standard to ensure that children’s mental health receives a fair share of NHS funding, and ensure that every school can access appropriately trained mental health professionals?
Pete Wishart (in the Chair)
Apologies to those colleagues who could not speak in the debate. We shall move to the Lib Dem spokesperson, Danny Chambers.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) for giving such an eloquent speech at the beginning of this difficult debate.
When I became an MP two years ago, there were half a million children on waiting lists for mental health services—about two months ago, that number has risen to a million. That is a million children needing help and a million families who are probably stressed beyond belief, worrying about the impacts of being on a long-term waiting list. The Darzi report showed that mental health accounts for 20% of the NHS caseload, yet at the time, in 2024, it was receiving only 10% of funding. We are really disappointed that the Government removed the mental health investment standard, which ensured that the proportion of money spent on mental health increased in line with the money spent on physical health. As a result of the standard being broken, NHS mental health services now receive 8% of funding. The proportion is dropping while we have record waiting lists.
The cuts to mental health services are not limited to NHS services. Last year, the Government cut the VCSE grant—a vital fund that contributes to many charities and organisations, such as Samaritans, men’s sheds, young farmers’ groups and youth groups. One such organisation was Papyrus, which many Members have spoken about. It offered support for children and young people experiencing suicidal thoughts, and its loss is devastating. Organisations like Papyrus and the amazing Winchester Youth Counselling in my constituency are vital because they give children support before they need clinical NHS services. That support is early, targeted and often self-referred. They offer counselling and talking therapies, which not only helps children to maintain their mental health but saves the NHS money, because young people are less likely to end up in extreme cases that lead them to A&E, which is probably the worst place for them.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
The recent demise of Papyrus was sad. It did amazing work not just in running the HopeLine but in pioneering suicide safety planning for young people and supporting parents. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government urgently need to replace those services somewhere in the mental health ecosystem?
Dr Chambers
I totally agree with the hon. Lady. Those organisations are so important.
Some politicians from some parties have been using mental health and children’s mental health as a bit of a political football, such as by calling young people struggling with mental health “snowflakes”. That is absolutely shameful, and those comments affect families who have lost children, and children who have lost brothers and sisters. When there is one less child in the school football team, when there is one empty chair at the dining table and when there is one fewer pair of shoes at the front door, the loss affects families for the rest of their lives—forever.
I pay tribute my constituent Martyn Pond in Alresford, who lost his son Archie at only 19 years old. Martyn got a bench put in, made by an amazing organisation called Legends on the Bench. The bench is solar-powered and has a light on at night time. There is a QR code, through which people can read a memorial to Archie. There is also support and signposting to organisations such as Samaritans, so that anyone who comes across the bench at a time of crisis, feeling alone, can get support. It is an amazing tribute to an amazing young man.
I want to finish by urging the Government to restore the mental health investment standard. Politicians overuse the word “crisis”, but it is really hard to think of another word to describe the state of children’s mental health and mental health services at the moment.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart. I thank the hon. Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) for securing this debate and for the courage and dignity with which she, and indeed all hon. Members, have spoken.
We know that record numbers of young people in England are asking for help, and too many of them are waiting months, if not years, to receive it. In March, nearly a million under-18s had an active referral. We need to do better. Like so many hon. Members, I pay tribute to the families who have turned their grief into action. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) mentioned 3 Dads Walking and the £1.5 million they raised after losing their daughters. I also think of organisations such as Samaritans and YoungMinds, and many other national and local charities. I pay tribute to bereaved families in my constituency, some of whom I have worked closely with.
That brings me to Papyrus. Last month, it entered into administration, its HopeLine 24/7 went silent and 120 jobs were lost. A young person in crisis tonight cannot call the line that was built for them. The administrators cited rising demand, higher costs and falling reliable funding, and the Samaritans and Shout have warned of further pressure on charities working in an “extremely challenging financial environment”. The suicide prevention grant fund, which was launched under the previous Government, gave £10 million to 79 organisations between 2023 and 2025. Papyrus was shortlisted for £625,000 from that, and in the previous round it received over £150,000 for HopeLine 24/7.
The Government chose not to renew that fund, and said they had no plans for another—I know of no replacement of comparable scale. I suspect that the Minister may point to money for suicide prevention pathfinders in the men’s health strategy, but that is much less than the fund provided, and it is not a helpline. Then there are the costs: since April 2025, charities have faced additional burdens, including increases through employer national insurance contributions. The Government cannot withdraw funds and raise costs, and then express surprise when charities struggle. Colleagues from across the House have previously asked whether the Government would consider if their own evaluation of the fund found that it had worked. I ask the Minister: did that evaluation take place, and what was its outcome?
The previous Conservative Government had a record to be proud of: the first Suicide Prevention Minister, the first cross-Government plan in 2019, the five-year strategy, the national suicide surveillance system in 2023 and the Online Safety Act 2023, which requires companies to remove illegal content that encourages suicide and made encouraging self-harm a criminal offence. On 8 September, Ministers reaffirmed the Government’s commitment to a strategy. The call for evidence on the wider mental health strategy closed in July, but we are waiting for an outcome from the Government.
Given the time, I will close closer to home. Following the death of a man in Farnham in 2022, my constituent, Mr Clarke Senior, who served in Bosnia, Northern Ireland, the Gulf and Kosovo and lives with disabilities sustained in the line of duty, got involved with the veterans’ charity Legend on the Bench. In December, I will be attending the unveiling of three suicide prevention benches across Farnham, sponsored by the University for the Creative Arts and the Waverley borough and Farnham town councils, with more to follow in Bordon and Haslemere.
I say to the Minister that the good will of a community and a bench cannot replace a trained and manned help line, so I have four questions for her. First, will the Government restore a dedicated, 24-hour youth suicide helpline? Secondly, will they review their decision to close the suicide prevention grant fund, publish their evaluation and move from 12-month to multi-year funding? Thirdly, what assessment has been made of the impact of higher national insurance contributions on the sustainability of youth suicide prevention charities? Fourthly, what progress have the Government made on the suicide prevention strategy, will they renew it when it expires in 2028, and will the Minister give firm dates for the mental health strategy?
I know that many people watching this debate will be affected by this, and if anyone needs more help, the Samaritans are still available on 116 123. A young person in crisis tonight needs a line to call, and that is what Papyrus gave them. We on this side of the House will continue to support any efforts to improve support and to challenge policies where they fall short.
The Minister for Social Care and Mental Health (Alison McGovern)
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. I would like to thank Members from across the House who participated in such an important debate, and especially my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) for securing this debate. She does a very important job in chairing the all-party parliamentary group on suicide and self-harm prevention, and she will have heard today just how much her colleagues from across the House of Commons support her in that work.
Officials have very kindly drafted me quite a long speech. I am going to try to answer Members’ questions, but given that you diligently tried to get so many people in, Mr Wishart, Members may have things to say that were missed. I think it would be better if they intervened on my speech, if that is acceptable to you, Mr Wishart, but that may mean that I miss paragraphs that officials have diligently written.
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
Papyrus was actually based in my constituency. Last month, alongside almost 60 cross-party MPs and peers, I wrote a letter to the Secretary of State calling for urgent action to protect these vital services. I have also spoken to the administrators, and they are incredibly keen to find a solution. Will the Minister set out what action is being taken in response to the concerns raised in the letter, and will she agree to meet me to discuss them?
Alison McGovern
Through my hon. Friend, I thank Papyrus and all those in her constituency for all their hard work.
I will update colleagues in just a moment on the steps we will take from this point, but by way of context, people have mentioned the suicide prevention strategy for England, which shows that while suicide rates among children and young people are relatively low compared with older age groups, the longer-term trend is really concerning. Right across the House, we share that worry about the increase we have seen in suicide among the young. The strategy requires tailored and targeted support, early intervention and collaboration right across the public sector, which we all want to see.
Before I turn to Papyrus and respond to the questions that my hon. Friends and others have put to me, I want to draw Members’ attention to the publication last week of the Fonagy review, which gave the wider context of rising mental distress, particularly for young people and especially for young women. If Members have not read the report, I strongly recommend it to them, because that is the context against which we will move forward before Christmas to publish the mental health strategy, which will pick up many of the issues that Members have mentioned.
Turning to Papyrus, I hope that all those who have worked for Papyrus, been involved in it and raised funds, including 3 Dads Walking and so many others, will have heard the support for its work today. I want to add the Government’s gratitude. Officials are in touch with administrators to try to work with them in the way that colleagues have suggested. My recommendation would be that Members who are interested meet officials in the Department as soon as possible to be updated on that work, if that is acceptable to colleagues.
Youth suicide prevention and mental health will be a part of the mental health strategy going forward. We need to take immediate steps to make sure that the process through the administration happens. Colleagues will understand that I cannot give more details at the Dispatch Box just now, but as I said, I suggest we have a meeting for colleagues with officials very soon so that they can understand the detail. Then we will need to make sure that the mental health strategy, which the Prime Minister has committed to before Christmas, takes into account all the issues that colleagues have raised today.
Perran Moon
On that point, does the Minister agree that, as an absolute base principle of success, no young person should have to wait until the point of criticality at an A&E department or a charity helpline before they get the support that they deserve?
Alison McGovern
I wholeheartedly agree with that point. We need to move to a system where children and young people are able to get support quickly, in an open, non-stigmatising way, so that we do not see them reach crisis point. That is the direction of travel that the Fonagy review suggested last week, and we will take it forward through the mental health strategy.
I am conscious that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford), asked me some direct questions, including about funding. I want to respond to his point and the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards). There has been a real problem with short-term funding. Again, we need to think about what principles we should put in place to try to resolve that. We know that the best care and support from a mental health point of view often comes from the community and voluntary sector, and Members have described quite accurately what the funding environment has been like—too short term. I ask colleagues to work with me as we try to get to a better, more long-term arrangement.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
Earlier this month, Linking Hope hosted an upstream suicide prevention training event in Derby South. It does fantastic work with voluntary groups, charities and members of the public. Does my hon. Friend agree that the stronger those links are, the better we are all equipped to help young people in this area?
Alison McGovern
I agree that connectivity between organisations is really important. One of the things that the suicide prevention strategy has said is that preventing suicide is everybody’s business. We all need to have that in our minds and work together across organisations to support people.
My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) asked me about ketamine use. The suicide prevention strategy identified substance misuse as an issue for suicide prevention, and I will be working very closely with colleagues across Government to try to support their work on substance misuse. The shadow Minister asked about evaluation, and I will write to him with the details on that. He is quite right to point out that it is extremely important that we understand the efficacy of what has been done before, so that we can bring that into the mental health strategy to come.
The hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) asked about the mental health investment standard. I will write to him with the details of how we are taking that forward. Spending forecasts show that we should reach £16.1 billion on mental health in 2026-27, which is a good thing. I have concerns about outcomes, because it is very important that while spending increases, recovery also increases. We want to make sure that we see continuous improvement in outcomes from those spending increases, particularly for some of the conditions that are most stigmatised—schizophrenia, bipolar and other conditions where we have not seen the better outcomes that we have for conditions that people find easier to talk about.
A number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), asked whether I would meet them to discuss this topic, matters in their constituency or organisations that they have supported. My time for meeting MPs is Wednesday after Prime Minister’s questions, and if a Member of Parliament asks me to meet, I will meet. Please get in touch via the Department, and I will be happy to meet all hon. Members who wish me to. Members have also mentioned Samaritans and its number, 116 123, which is there to support those who need it. The NHS 111 service with the mental health option can also be used when people need that support. I wholeheartedly encourage us all to keep helping people to know where they can reach that support if they need it.
Of course, we do not want children and young people to get to a crisis point. I hear from schools and teachers again and again about how they need support to make sure that they are addressing challenges where they come up for young people. That is why I am pleased with the progress being made through our mental health support teams in schools and colleges. The latest data shows that nearly 6 million pupils and learners are now covered by a mental health support team—about 60% of pupils and learners in England. We obviously have more to do, because we want coverage to be complete by 2029, but we are making progress. We are also investing in early support hubs, which a number of hon. Members have mentioned. They will provide that community-based, destigmatising support. Again, we have more progress to make on that.
I want to finish by saying that it has been good and important to hear about hon. Members’ experiences with their constituents on this issue. We all want to work together to make sure that we can find any possible solution to what has happened with Papyrus. I suggest that we meet again shortly to discuss that, but my final message is really for any young person out there: you are not by yourself. You are not alone; reach out for help and you will be able to move forward, so please do reach out.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Government support for youth suicide prevention charities and mental health support for young people.
Written Statements
(1 day, 21 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Plan to Make Work Pay: Implementation
(1 day, 21 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)
Employment laws have not kept pace with modern working patterns. Too many workers lack the protections they need at work, while responsible businesses face unfair competition from those willing to exploit gaps in outdated employment laws. Our plan to make work pay is modernising employment rights to respond to a changing labour market and create a fairer, more secure economy for workers and businesses. The Employment Rights Act 2025 is extending employment protections already offered by many of Britain’s best employers to millions more workers, helping to raise living standards and support fair competition between businesses.
Many of these reforms are already making a real difference for workers, including the 1.3 million more workers now eligible for statutory sick pay, who previously earned too little to qualify, and the 32,000 fathers and partners who are now entitled to paternity leave from day one in a new job.
In August, electronic and workplace balloting for statutory trade union ballots came into effect. This allows statutory trade union ballots to be conducted electronically and in the workplace, rather than relying solely on postal voting.
Today, the UK Government are outlining further progress in the implementation of the Employment Rights Act 2025, as part of the plan to make work pay, updating Parliament on the publication of Government responses to consultations on bereavement leave, flexible working, and the employer duty to inform workers of their right to join a trade union. This written ministerial statement also provides an overview of the recently launched whistleblowing consultations, and the tipping consultation that was launched during the parliamentary recess. Further detail on each is provided in this statement.
Consultation 1: Whistleblowing
The whistleblowing framework in the Employment Rights Act 1996, which applies in England, Wales and Scotland, protects workers who make disclosures about wrongdoing in the public interest from dismissal or other detriment by their employer.
Many stakeholders have argued that the framework, which has remained largely unchanged since it came into force in 1999, may require reform. They have suggested that protections for workers are insufficient, that employers are not required to have whistleblowing procedures in place, and that the framework can be difficult to navigate for both workers and employers.
The UK Government have therefore launched a consultation to seek evidence and views on a range of potential reforms. The consultation also seeks views on the design of a proposed Serious Fraud Office scheme to provide financial rewards to individuals who report economic crime to the agency, and on associated criminal offences. This is in response to recommendations by Jonathan Fisher KC in part 2 of the independent review of disclosure and fraud offences, published by the Home Office in July 2026.
The consultation launched on 12 October and will run until 8 January 2027.
Consultation 2: Tipping
Too often, workers do not get a say in how tips and service charges are distributed in the workplace. This can make a big difference to what employees take home each month and wider workplace cohesion. This is particularly an issue in the hospitality sector, which makes up one of Britain’s largest workforces. We are changing that by introducing a new requirement for employers to consult with workers at their place of business when developing or revising their written tipping policies.
On 19 August, the UK Government launched a public consultation on tipping, which ran until 29 September. This consultation sought views on the revised statutory code of practice on fair and transparent distribution of tips. The new draft code takes into account: these new requirements on worker consultation and tipping policies; the views expressed during our previous public consultation, which was held between February and April 2026; and other developments in tipping industries since the current regime came into effect in October 2024.
We will carefully consider all representations before bringing into effect a final version before Parliament later this year, thereby enabling workers and employers to effectively exercise these new rights.
Government Response 1: Bereavement Leave
There is currently no statutory right for employees to take bereavement leave following a death or pregnancy loss, except for parents who lose a child aged under 18, or stillborn from 24 weeks. The Employment Rights Act 2025 introduces a power to create a new day one right to bereavement leave for the loss of other loved ones, including pregnancy loss before 24 weeks, guaranteeing employees the right to take time off to grieve and the security of knowing they have the legal right to do so.
The consultation for this entitlement ran for 12 weeks, concluding on 15 January 2026. The consultation sought views on details of the entitlement, such as eligibility criteria, the total duration of leave, the maximum window of time in which the leave must be taken, and the types of pregnancy loss in scope.
The Government response was published on 22 September 2026. It sets out the final details of the bereavement leave entitlement, and the next steps for its implementation. These details will be laid out in secondary legislation and are planned to come into force in April 2027. Measures set out in the response include:
The eligibility criteria, both for pregnancy loss and the loss of other loved ones.
When and how the leave can be taken, including leave length, notice periods and evidence requirements.
Government Response 2: Flexible Working
Despite recent reforms and wider cultural changes, flexible working requests are still handled inconsistently. While in some workplaces, managers and employees are working together to think about where flexibility might be possible, in others, these opportunities are missed.
Through the Employment Rights Act 2025, the UK Government are making changes to strengthen the flexible working framework. The Act introduces a new requirement that employers must only reject requests where it is reasonable to do so and provides powers to set out a statutory process employers must follow before rejecting a request. These changes are intended to improve transparency and accountability by ensuring that employees receive a clear explanation of decisions while supporting more meaningful discussion about whether flexibility can be accommodated.
Earlier this year the UK Government consulted on proposals to improve access to flexible working to shape how these reforms will be implemented in practice. The consultation ran from 5 February until 30 April 2026 and sought views on a new process that employers would be required to follow when considering the rejection of a statutory flexible working request, alongside wider questions about the operation of the flexible working framework and the guidance and support needed to make it work effectively in practice.
The Government response was published on 15 September and sets out feedback on the proposed process we took on board, and confirms plans to bring reforms into effect through secondary legislation. The reforms do not remove employers’ ability to refuse requests where it is reasonable to do so and where the relevant business reasons apply. Instead, they are intended to support better decision making and to encourage meaningful consideration of requests.
Having considered the consultation responses and wider evidence, the Government will now proceed with reforms enabled through the Employment Rights Act 2025.
To achieve this, the Government will:
Introduce secondary legislation setting out a process that employers must follow when considering the rejection of a statutory flexible working request.
Bring the reasonableness test introduced through the Employment Rights Act 2025 into force.
It is our intention that these changes will take effect in autumn 2027. The Government will also consider what other information and guidance may be needed to support implementation of these reforms.
Government Response 3: Employer Duty to Inform Workers of their Right to Join a Trade Union
Workers cannot exercise rights they do not know they have. Too many workers are unaware that they have a legal right to join a trade union. Without clear information, workers may not be in a position to make informed choices about whether trade union membership is right for them.
The Employment Rights Act 2025 addresses this long-standing gap in the legislation by introducing a new duty on employers to provide workers with a written statement about their right to join a trade union. This new duty will help to ensure that workers receive clear and consistent information about their right to join a trade union and are able to make an informed choice about union membership.
A consultation on this duty ran from 23 October to 18 December 2025 and sought views on the practical detail of how the duty should operate to ensure it is clear, proportionate and workable for both employers and workers.
The Government response, which was published on 25 September, confirms the final policy approach, which provides for a standardised statement drafted by Government that employers will be required to give to workers. The statement will include a brief overview of the functions of a trade union, information about recognised trade unions and trade unions with statutory access agreements where applicable, information on the certification officer’s list of trade unions, and a summary of statutory rights in relation to union membership. When implemented, employers must provide the statement to new workers directly, while employers have flexibility in how they provide the statement to existing workers either through direct or indirect delivery.
The duty is planned to come into force on 1 January 2027, with employers required to give the statement to new workers from its introduction and to existing workers by 6 April 2027.
Next Steps for Consultation
The UK Government have committed to delivering their employment rights reforms in partnership with businesses, trade unions, public sector employers, and civil society. That is why we are undertaking full and comprehensive consultation with these groups on key changes. By delivering these reforms together, we are backing businesses that do the right thing and giving hard-working people the job security and opportunities they deserve. The Government will continue to keep Parliament updated on the implementation of the Employment Rights Act and the plan to make work pay.
[HCWS372]
CMA Heating Oil Market Study: Government Response
(1 day, 21 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Science, Innovation and Investment (Chris McDonald)
Today I am publishing the Government’s response to the consultation on standard essential patents.
Standards allow products and services to connect, communicate and operate across borders—enabling the technologies that people rely on every day, from smartphones and wi-fi to connected vehicles, medical technology, advanced manufacturing and smart consumer products. Standard essential patents protect the innovations that make this possible. A well-functioning SEP licensing environment is fundamental to the UK’s growth mission. It must give businesses fair and affordable access to the technologies they need, while ensuring innovators secure a proper return on their investment in research and development.
The consultation examined whether the SEP licensing ecosystem functions efficiently for UK businesses, and whether targeted reforms could improve transparency, encourage earlier conclusion of licensing negotiations, and support more efficient dispute resolution.
We received 93 responses from businesses, representative organisations, legal and academic experts, and others with direct experience of SEP licensing, along with substantial supporting evidence, and analysis. I am grateful to everyone who contributed. The consultation showed broad support for the Government’s underlying objectives: helping businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, to navigate SEP licensing; improving transparency around pricing and essentiality; and enabling faster, more efficient dispute resolution.
However, there was no consensus on the scale of the problem, the right solutions, or how far Government should intervene. Views were especially divided on the case for new regulatory mechanisms and on the role of injunctions in licensing negotiations. Although concerns were raised by some implementers, the evidence identified few instances of injunctions disrupting market access.
Having carefully weighed this evidence, the Government have concluded that targeted and proportionate action is appropriate, rather than wide-ranging regulatory reform. The evidence did not support introducing a stand-alone rate determination track or establishing a new Intellectual Property Office-run essentiality checking service at this stage. It did, however, identify clear opportunities to improve transparency, strengthen existing dispute resolution routes, and support better-informed negotiations.
The Government will:
undertake a Call for Evidence on the feasibility and design of an IPO-led fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory opinion service, which could provide an independent, non-binding opinion on whether proposed licensing terms fall within a FRAND range;
improve access to SEP information by exploring how businesses can more easily identify relevant SEPs through the voluntary provision of standard-related patent information to the IPO;
work with the judiciary to explore a court-anchored process for earlier resolution of FRAND disputes;
develop practical guidance on licensing negotiations and good faith conduct, particularly to support businesses with limited experience of SEP licensing; and
strengthen the broader, non-regulatory approach by improving take-up of existing alternative dispute resolution options, enhancing transparency and the quality of essentiality information, expanding the IPO’s SEP resource hub, and continuing the UK’s global collaboration to help businesses navigate SEP licensing across international markets.
Work on the feasibility and design will now begin on these proposals. No final decision has been made to establish an IPO-led FRAND opinion service or a court-anchored process; final decisions will follow once that work is complete. The Government will continue to engage businesses, rights holders, professional advisers, the judiciary and other interested parties as these proposals are developed.
Our objective is to ensure the UK’s SEP framework supports innovation and investment and helps businesses of all sizes access the standardised technologies they need to compete and grow, reinforcing the UK’s position as a leading global forum for the fair and efficient resolution of intellectual property disputes.
I am placing a copy of the Government response in the Libraries of both Houses and will make it available on www.gov.uk.
[HCWS365]
Service Complaints Ombudsman's 2025 Annual Report: MOD Response
(1 day, 21 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Veterans and People (Mr Calvin Bailey)
I am pleased to place in the Library of the House today the Ministry of Defence’s formal response to the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces annual report for 2025 on the fairness, effectiveness and efficiency of the service complaints system.
The ombudsman’s report assessed the service complaints system and the work of the SCOAF’s office in 2025. The response sets out the MOD’s comments to the report and views on the one new recommendation that was made.
The MOD values the strong independent oversight that the now Armed Forces Commissioner brings to the service complaints system and remains committed to having a system in which our personnel can have confidence.
Attachments can be viewed online at:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2026-10-13/HCWS368/
[HCWS368]
CMA Heating Oil Market Study: Government Response
(1 day, 21 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ms Polly Billington)
Today I am publishing the Government’s response to the Competition and Markets Authority’s market study into the heating oil sector.
For the first time, families who rely on heating oil will benefit from stronger protections under Labour Government plans to regulate the sector for the first time. This Government are committed to protecting households from volatile global fossil fuel markets. Home-grown power that we control is the only way to lasting energy security and lower bills. While the Government cannot prevent global price shocks, including those driven by the middle east crisis, consumers must be treated fairly and supported when markets come under pressure. This includes the 1.5 million households across the UK that rely on heating oil to heat their homes, many of them in rural and off-grid communities, who currently lack many of the protections available to other energy users.
We are grateful for the CMA’s swift action to investigate and the publication of its report in July. While the CMA found that recent increases in heating oil prices were largely driven by higher wholesale costs rather than a lack of competition or excessive profits, it identified clear gaps in consumer protections, compared with those available to gas and electricity users. These include weaker rights when things go wrong, limited access to redress and dispute resolution, less price transparency and less support for vulnerable households. Today I can confirm that this Government are taking forward proposals to regulate the heating oil sector for the first time. We will strengthen consumer rights and ensure a fairer deal for off-grid households.
We will take forward a programme of reform to establish a stronger consumer protection framework for households. Working with Ofgem, the devolved Governments, and industry and consumer representatives, we will develop options for proportionate regulation that puts consumer rights at its core, while supporting competition, investment and security of supply. This will be underpinned by a robust evidence base, extensive engagement and the appropriate legislative framework.
In practice, this means consumers can expect stronger rights, clearer standards, better support for vulnerable households and easier access to redress when things go wrong. These actions build on the issues faced by thousands at the start of the middle east crisis when their heating oil orders were cancelled, forcing them to re-order and pay more.
Getting this approach right will take time, to ensure the best outcomes for consumers. In the meantime, we will take practical steps to strengthen consumer protections without delay. Working across Government, with Ofgem, and with industry and consumer groups, we will seek improvements to existing codes of practice, promote access to existing appropriate dispute resolution mechanisms, and increase consumer awareness of available support.
We will also examine areas where consumers may face barriers, to help with affordability and transparency issues. This will include considering minimum order volumes, access to smaller deliveries and payment plans, as well as whether further action is required to improve price transparency. Intervention will be considered where there is a clear case to improve consumer outcomes, while avoiding unnecessary burdens where markets are functioning effectively.
Today’s announcement is the next major step in our commitment to improve the heating oil market. It builds on the swift action that this Government have already taken—over £50 million of financial support to help with the cost of heating oil, and we are helping thousands of households on heating oil switch to clean heat with grants worth £9,000.
Our aim is simple: a fairer, more resilient and trusted heating oil market that prioritises consumer protections, while preserving competition and security of supply. Our response combines practical action now with a clear path towards stronger, proportionate protections for the future.
[HCWS366]
Flood Action Week
(1 day, 21 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
As we enter Flood Action Week 2026 (12 to 18 October 2026), I am updating the House on the steps this Government are taking to strengthen resilience to flooding and drought, improve public preparedness, and protect communities across England from the impacts of a changing climate.
This year an especially strong El Niño weather pattern is expected, bringing with it an increased likelihood of wetter and stormier conditions across the UK. Flood Action Week is an important moment to assess our resilience and ensure our communities, and those who work to support them, are prepared for the winter. Today I want to set out how we continue to strengthen that preparedness, improve public awareness, and increase resilience across the country.
Flood and Drought Resilience Taskforce
Flooding and drought are interconnected challenges that require a more integrated approach to water management. The winter of 2025-26 was the eighth wettest in England since records began in 1836. However, by August 2026, 71% of England had entered drought status. Currently, Wimbleball reservoir and Ardingly reservoir are still key areas of concern. This rapid transition between extremes underlines the need to strengthen resilience to both flood and drought risks.
To support this, I am announcing that the existing Flood Resilience Taskforce will be expanded and renamed the Flood And Drought Resilience Taskforce. Building on the success of the current taskforce in improving flood preparedness, the new body will bring together national, regional and local government, the Environment Agency, water companies, Ofwat, representatives of the farming sector and community groups to support a more integrated approach to managing the lifecycle of water in the environment.
A key priority of the new taskforce will be to champion the voice of communities by ensuring that the experiences of those affected by flooding and water shortages inform policy development and resilience planning through better engagement and communication.
The first meeting of the Flood and Drought Resilience Taskforce will take place tomorrow, 14 October 2026. The agenda will focus on assessing the nation’s preparedness for potential flooding this winter. Through the work of the taskforce, the nation is better prepared than last year, and its members have already improved their response. The first meeting of the new taskforce will discuss emerging learnings from the ongoing drought, and if improvements could be made to aid the nation’s resilience to both flooding and drought.
Flood information website
We have heard that people often struggle to know where to find clear, practical and trusted advice to inform them of the potential risk of flooding to their homes and businesses. As a response to this, during flood action week, the Environment Agency is launching a new Flood Action Online website. This will play a vital role in giving power to communities by helping people understand their flood risk.
Flood Action Online will serve as a one-stop shop. The website will connect people to existing services and flood information on www.gov.uk and other trusted Government services and advice. It will help them to navigate information in a more accessible, user-friendly way.
The website will promote practical actions that increase preparedness and resilience for people to protect their homes and businesses. Equally, it will encourage measures that can reduce the impacts of flooding on people, places and communities. I strongly encourage members of this House to promote this new resource to their constituents.
Flood Re and flood performance certificates
To be resilient, individuals and businesses must understand and reduce their own flood risks. We are working with Flood Re and insurers on the development of voluntary flood performance certificates, one of the recommendations of the FloodReady review that we continue to implement. These certificates will give people the option of better understanding their flood risk and the steps that they can take to make their properties more resilient.
Flood Re is launching the BeFloodReady platform, the property flood resilience hub, which will become the UK’s authoritative hub for property flood resilience information, guidance and support. It is designed to serve householders, businesses, academics, and policymakers. Recognising that flood risk is a long-term issue, this site will drive innovation and share best practice far into the future.
Three-year flood and coastal erosion investment targets
Earlier this year, I announced the Government’s new 10-year flood and coastal erosion investment programme, backed by record levels of funding. I can now set out the three-year targets for what this investment will achieve. Between April 2026 and March 2029, the Government will invest £4.2 billion in flood resilience, maintaining existing assets while delivering new flood schemes across every region of England.
Through this investment, we expect to:
better protect 200,000 properties;
increase the proportion of flood risk management assets at or above their required condition to 93.5%;
generate more than £27 billion of avoided economic damage, delivering almost £7 of benefit for every £1 invested;
create or enhance 2,500 hectares of habitat and improve 750 kilometres of river.
Flooding remains one of the most significant climate risks facing the country. Through record investment, stronger co-ordination, and a more joined-up approach to water resilience, the Government are taking practical action to protect people, property and infrastructure across England. Equally, through better, more accessible public information, we are empowering communities to mitigate their flood risk and protect their homes and businesses.
[HCWS370]
Contingent Liability Notification: African Development Bank
(1 day, 21 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for International Development (Kirsty McNeill)
It is normal practice, when a Government Department proposes to undertake a contingent liability in excess of £300,000 for which there is no specific statutory authority, for the Minister concerned to present a departmental minute to Parliament giving particulars of the liability created and explaining the circumstances, and to refrain from incurring the liability until 14 parliamentary sitting days after the issue of the statement, except in cases of special urgency.
The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office proposes to increase the United Kingdom’s callable capital commitment to the African Development Bank as part of the general callable capital increase agreed by shareholders in 2024. This will result in an additional contingent liability of approximately £1.6 billion, reflecting the UK’s 1.87% share of the total increase. This is in addition to the UK’s existing callable capital commitment to the bank, which is currently around £1.7 billion, bringing the UK’s total callable capital commitment to approximately £3.3 billion.
The African Development Bank is a multilateral development bank supporting economic growth, poverty reduction, and sustainable development across Africa. The UK’s participation in this callable capital increase will support the strengthening of the bank’s financial resilience, helping to safeguard its capability to continue delivering effectively on core priorities aligned with UK priorities, including climate action, job creation and support for fragile states.
Callable capital is a contingent liability and |would be called only in the highly unlikely event that the bank faces severe financial distress. No immediate expenditure will arise from this commitment. If the liability is called, provision for any payment will be sought through the normal supply procedure.
HM Treasury has approved the proposal in principle. If, during the period of 14 parliamentary sitting days beginning on the date on which this minute was laid before Parliament, a Member signifies an objection by giving notice of a parliamentary question or by otherwise raising the matter in Parliament, final approval to proceed with incurring the liability will be withheld pending an examination of the objection.
[HCWS373]
Historical Stillbirth Burials and Cremations
(1 day, 21 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Yvette Cooper)
Working with my ministerial colleagues, the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) and the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), I am making this statement on behalf of the Government.
Until the mid-1980s, some stillborn babies across the United Kingdom were buried or cremated without their parents’ involvement, leaving families without clear information about where their baby or relative was laid to rest. The Government recognise the lasting pain, uncertainty and grief this has caused. I pay tribute to the families who have shared deeply personal experiences and to the campaigners whose courage and persistence have brought them to national attention and called for greater recognition, transparency and support.
On behalf of the Government, I am deeply sorry for the distress caused by these historical practices, and for the additional pain caused where parents and relatives have been unable to find clear information about what happened to their baby.
Practices and standards have changed significantly since these cases occurred. Parents should be involved in decisions following the death of a baby. Since 2019, the Government have funded the costs of burial or cremation for stillborn babies and children below the age of 18 in England, with similar schemes in the devolved nations. We will also consider the Law Commission’s recent recommendations for the future legal framework for burial and cremation and respond in due course.
We are now taking further practical action to support families who are seeking answers. Within four weeks, all trusts must ensure a dedicated point of contact within their patient advice and liaison service, or an equivalent named service, to support families seeking answers. We are also disseminating guidance produced by Sands to all trusts on where records may be held, which organisations families can approach, and what support is available. The guidance is transparent about where records may be incomplete or unavailable, while supporting families to explore every reasonable avenue. We recognise how painful it may be when a precise resting place cannot be identified, and any surviving personal information must be handled with sensitivity and care.
Funeral sector representative organisations may also be able to offer specialist support to families seeking historic records.
We are also encouraging compassionate local action. Liverpool, Oldham and Wirral local councils already help families search available records and consider appropriate memorials. I thank them for this important work and encourage other councils and local organisations to consider what records and support they can make available, so that each family is treated with compassion and every inquiry is handled with sensitivity.
Our focus is on practical action that helps families: clear guidance, encouraging sensitive local support and remembrance, and considering whether further legal change is needed. We will continue to listen carefully to families and campaigners as this work progresses and communicate any next steps openly.
Above all, we recognise the babies who mattered deeply, and the families who continue to carry their loss. I offer a sincere apology on behalf of the Government to those families for the distress caused by historical practices, and for the pain that has followed where answers have not been available.
[HCWS374]
Contingencies Fund Advance: Independent Immigration Appeals Authority
(1 day, 21 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Anna Turley)
I would like to notify the House that the Home Office has obtained approval for an advance from the Contingencies Fund of £4,000,000. The Independent Immigration Appeals Authority is being set up in parallel to the passage of the Immigration and Asylum Bill to help ensure that the authority is delivered as quickly as possible once the IIAA is established in law. We have identified the need for targeted spend on delivery activity prior to Royal Assent of the Bill.
Parliamentary approval for additional resource of £4,000,000 for this new service will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the Home Office. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £4,000,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.
[HCWS367]
Independent Expert’s Report on Paramilitary Group Transition to Disbandment
(1 day, 21 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chris Bryant)
Everybody in Northern Ireland has a right to live free from fear and intimidation. The continuing existence of paramilitary groups poses a direct threat to that right. While these groups may pose as protectors of their communities, they are largely engaged in criminality, including drug dealing, extortion and intimidation, blighting the very communities they perversely claim to protect. Their continued influence is a stain on our collective conscience and in direct opposition to our shared aim of a peaceful, stable and prosperous Northern Ireland for everyone.
This is why I am pleased to lay the independent expert Fleur Ravensbergen’s “Independent Report on Paramilitary Group Transition to Disbandment”, which identifies possible routes to end paramilitarism in Northern Ireland. The report was jointly commissioned with the Irish Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration under the legislative framework of the Independent Reporting Commission. The independent expert was asked to carry out a short scoping exercise to assess whether there is merit in, and support for, a formal process of engagement to bring about paramilitary group transition to disbandment.
As provided for in the “Fresh Start” agreement, the UK Government are committed to ending paramilitarism once and for all. It was in this context that we appointed the independent expert. It is particularly relevant, given the two notable anniversaries this year: the 2006 St Andrews agreement and the establishment of the Police Service for Northern Ireland in 2001. The anniversaries exemplify how far Northern Ireland has come, but the persistence of armed groups in communities clearly shows that there is more that needs to be done. No one should live in fear or suffer harm at the hands of these groups.
I would like to thank Ms Ravensbergen for her extensive engagement and consideration of the issues as she carried out this exercise.
The report contains a number of recommendations, which I will take time to carefully consider and discuss with the Irish Government, the Northern Ireland Executive, community and policing partners. The main recommendation, detailing a possible mechanism for transition of paramilitary groups, is clear that any process must be complementary to existing efforts and accompanied by a robust criminal justice response. It is evident from the report that the implementation of any process will face challenges and will need support from across the political community in Northern Ireland.
Ending paramilitarism once and for all is essential to improving the lives of people in communities across Northern Ireland where these groups still hold influence. The UK Government remain resolute that there is never any justification for violence or criminality. Together with a strong criminal justice response, those communities who are held back by the harms perpetrated by paramilitary groups must be prioritised, and we will continue to support the Northern Ireland Executive in their efforts in this space.
[HCWS371]
Chiltern Railways: Transfer into Public Ownership
(1 day, 21 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
I am confirming to the House that on Sunday 20 September 2026, Chiltern Railways services transferred into public ownership under the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024. Operations are now run by a new public sector operator, Chiltern Rail Ltd, a subsidiary of public corporation DfT Operator Ltd, or DFTO.
As we make progress towards the establishment of Great British Railways, 10 of the 14 train operators delivering passenger services under contract with the Department for Transport are now in public ownership. With Chiltern, DFTO now runs over 12,000 passenger rail services a day and delivers over 1 billion passenger rail journeys across its networks every year.
Chiltern will press ahead with delivering a range of measures to improve passengers’ experience, including more modern trains, more services and more comfortable journeys across the network. Public ownership also provides a fresh opportunity to deliver East West Rail and its benefits to passengers.
Great Western Railway’s services will be the next to transfer into public ownership on 13 December 2026, followed by Avanti West Coast’s services on 7 March 2027, and the rail public ownership programme remains on track to be completed by the end of 2027.
Public ownership means Britain’s railways are owned by the public, for the public, putting passengers and customers back at the heart of the railway. The Railways Bill, which is currently making its way through Parliament, will lead to the establishment of Great British Railways, a new publicly owned body and a new passenger watchdog.
GBR will maintain and improve the railways and be accountable to passengers, freight customers and taxpayers. By unifying track and train under GBR, we will deliver a reliable rail network that people can be proud of and that will create growth, jobs and homes.
[HCWS369]
House of Lords
Introduction: Lord Leunig
Introduction: Baroness Ussher
Fracture Liaison Services
(1 day, 21 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Black of Brentwood
To ask His Majesty’s Government what is the net number of new Fracture Liaison Services that have opened in England since July 2024.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, the latest analysis of 2025 data from the fracture liaison service database shows that the number of fracture liaison services in England has increased from 73 to 78 since 2024. The database does not provide monthly data on the number of fracture liaison services, so we are unable to provide information on how many new services have opened since July 2024.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, at the general election, 73 fracture liaison services covered half the country. The incoming Government pledged to deliver national rollout to every part of England by 2030—in other words, doubling that number to more than 130— and we all cheered. But today, nearly midway through the Parliament, that figure, as the noble Baroness said, stands at just 78: a woeful increase of just five. Given the anaemic rate of progress, can the noble Baroness tell us in very simple terms what concrete action the Government will take to deliver the remaining 50-plus new FLS by 2030, how that will be funded, and when we will get the implementation plan we have been promised?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The commitment remains the same, as the noble Lord will have seen most recently outlined in the women’s health strategy. We are taking a whole-pathway approach of fracture prevention, improving access to diagnosis, adopting effective treatments and encouraging local systems to develop services to identify those at the highest rate of fracture. The noble Lord knows that I cannot offer an implementation plan exactly as he would like—I thank him for his strength of feeling on this—but I hope this shows the progress we will continue to make.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, if fracture liaison services can prevent further fractures and help people remain independent, what assessment have the Government made of whether rollout could be accelerated, and what would need to happen to achieve full coverage before 2030?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The 10-year health plan also highlights community-based models of fracture prevention services, which will be very much at the core of neighbourhood health services; that is one of the key changes we are making. It is important to emphasise, as I have done before at this Dispatch Box, that decisions are rightly made at a local level, that that is how local populations are best served and that that will continue.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My noble friend knows that leaving it to local services is simply not providing—
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
It is the turn of the Cross Benches. We will then hear from the Labour Benches.
Baroness Murphy (CB)
My Lords, fractures of the hip are killers for people in old age. Up to 25,000 older people die every year after a hip fracture, usually several years before their allotted time. Does it not seem to the Minister that we should give more energy to getting these fracture liaison services, which are incredibly cheap, up and running in every district? Scotland has done it. Northern Ireland has done it. I do not understand why England and Wales cannot do it, too.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
We are extending services. The noble Baroness’s observation on the implication of not dealing with this issue is quite right, which is why I talked about the whole pathway of fracture prevention. For example, on prevention, we have invested £2.6 million in 20 new, state-of-the-art DEXA scanners across the country. That builds on the first wave of investment, with £1.9 million invested in 13 of them last year, which massively increases capacity. I share noble Lords’ wish to see us do as much as we can, which is why we are taking a whole approach to this matter in terms of prevention, diagnosis and treatment.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister knows that we simply will not reach the target without a push from government: leaving it to local services simply will not do it. When my noble friend has finished with Second Reading of the Health Bill today, I will table an amendment to make sure that there is a plan to reach the implementation day. I hope she will then engage with us, at the point of the amendment, so that we really can make progress on this issue.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for allowing me to complete Second Reading today—I look forward to doing so—but I do not share her feeling that we will not be providing services. As I have said, the commitment is there. I should say that the department is working with NHS England to ensure that secondary fracture prevention remains a priority. We are doing this in several ways, including by ensuring that guidance is regularly reviewed and that we can improve data. I will be very pleased to share further details in due course.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, on prevention, as women get to the perimenopausal stage in life, our bones become a lot thinner. Would it not be helpful and useful, while the Government are rolling out other things, to do some public awareness on where women can get support and help in the meantime. That would of course be national and would not have to be rolled out.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a good point, and we are now including menopause in the NHS health check for those over 40. That will be a very good place to do that, because it will identify where women should speak up. One in three women are likely to have osteoporosis, compared with one in five men.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, fractures caused by osteoporosis cost businesses about £160 million a year, yet progress on fracture prevention services has stalled, with patients, NHS and employers losing out through this delay. Can the Minister, who I know cares deeply about this issue, give the House a date for the rollout plan to reassure everyone that the Government intend to get delivery back on track for the 2030 universal coverage deadline?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I do not accept the analysis on rolling back—we are going forward compared with where we started. I understand the frustration, which we all share; however, my officials are progressing policy options, including the upcoming frailty and dementia modern service framework, through which we can set local targets for ICBs, for example. We will be led by evidence on that, because we want to improve health and care for what is, as the noble Baroness says, a very important cohort.
Baroness Nargund (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for including support for women with osteoporosis in the Renewed Women’s Health Strategy for England. What plans are in place to ensure that the ICBs will give women equal access to fracture liaison services, so that we can prevent further fractures?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
While many areas have made good progress, there is still variation in service provision and issues with patient access. That is why we are improving identification, assessment and treatment of people at risk of fragility fractures. On the point about women, in the last four years two new drugs have been recommended by NICE for the treatment of osteoporosis; they will help to strengthen the bones and prevent bone loss. This, NICE publishing, updated guidance and the other measures we are taking will improve fracture liaison services, including prevention.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Black and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for their persistence on this issue. It is welcome that the Government have made a commitment to roll out universal fracture liaison services by 2030, but who will be responsible for setting implementation milestones, interim target dates and reporting on the 2030 target?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
In line with all the other things we do, we have a range of measures. I have just spoken about the modern service framework, which is a new way of holding to account and it allows us to set targets for ICBs. It is important to say that NHS England and the department work to ensure that we make progress, but at the end of it all, in order to meet the needs of local communities, local services are best provided by those who are the local service providers. That does not change.
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
Industrial Electricity Prices: British Manufacturing
Motorway Service Stations: Petrol and Diesel Prices
Armed Forces Bill
Health Bill
Tuesday 13th October 2026
(1 day, 21 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Health Bill 2026-27 View all Health Bill 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 8 September 2026 - (8 Sep 2026)