House of Commons

Tuesday 13th October 2026 Commons Chamber

Tuesday 13 October 2026

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock

Prayers

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Tuesday 13th October 2026 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

1. What recent progress she has made in decoupling the price of gas and electricity.

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[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)]

2. What steps she is taking to support households by helping reduce energy bills.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

7. What steps she is taking to support households by helping reduce energy bills.

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[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)]

3. Whether she has made an assessment of the potential merits of adopting cooling measures into the warm homes scheme.

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[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)]

4. What recent progress she has made on improving the UK’s resilience to the impacts of climate change.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

10. What recent progress she has made on improving the UK’s resilience to the impacts of climate change.

[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)]

5. What discussions she has had with the Scottish Borders council on the cross-border connection.

[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)]

6. What steps she is taking with the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade to help reduce energy costs for businesses.

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[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)]

8. What recent progress she has made on the implementation of the warm homes plan.

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[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)]

9. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of approval of the Rosebank oil and gas field on the UK’s ability to meet its climate change targets.

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[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)]

11. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of constructing energy infrastructure on peatland on the climate.

[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)]

12. Whether her Department is taking steps to implement a cold homes plan.

[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)]

13. What recent progress she has made on reforming electricity grid connections.

[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)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[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)]

T2. The Wat Tyler is a historic 15th-century pub in Dartford town centre. Jemal Akkus, the owner, recently contacted me because he wants to get his energy bills down and increase the energy efficiency of the building. Can the Minister help me to help him, by outlining what support might be available to Jemal and the Wat Tyler to do just that?

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[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)]

T4. St Ann’s school, Grove House nursery and North primary school in Ealing Southall are all getting new solar panels because of this Government’s investment in Great British Energy. Does the Minister agree that the work he is doing to bring down energy bills for schools will allow more money to be spent where it matters—on teaching and learning?

[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)]

T3. Families on the Isle of Wight were interested to hear the Prime Minister wanting to do his bit to help by telling us where we could buy cheaper fuel at the forecourt via the fuel finder app. Our interest waned somewhat when we discovered that the cheaper fuel was available in Portsmouth, which involves a two-hour round trip on a ferry. Does the Minister accept that this is a city-focused Prime Minister leading a city-focused Government who do not understand the realities of life in rural and coastal communities, including high energy costs?

[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)]

T5. This summer saw the first hosepipe ban imposed by Essex and Suffolk Water on my constituency since 1997. However, some Opposition Members would deny that what we are seeing is a result of climate change. Does the Minister agree that the weather we saw this summer is evidence enough that the work towards net zero must continue as a priority for this Government?

[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)]

T6. The Government entered office with a target to decarbonise the grid by 2030. The Public Accounts Committee looked at the previous Government’s plans to do so by 2035, which were over-optimistic. I welcome the new Secretary of State to her position. Will she reassure us that she will get into the detail of that project, and when will she announce to the House what the real date will be?

[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)]

T7. My constituent Chris Harris has developed EnviroShip, a battery-based solution for transporting excess renewable energy via repurposed liquefied natural gas ship to areas of high usage around the UK. Will the Minister meet him to discuss the role that this solution could play in meeting our energy demand and net zero goals?

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

Final question.

[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

Tuesday 13th October 2026 Commons Chamber

12:45

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Justice Secretary.

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Justice Select Committee.

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[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

Tuesday 13th October 2026 Commons Chamber

13:19

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[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

Tuesday 13th October 2026 Commons Chamber

13:49

[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.

13:56

[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.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[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.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Llinos Medi.

[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

Tuesday 13th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.

14:43

[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.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

14:53

[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.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call Sarah Pochin—you look like you are in pain.

[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?

[Uma Kumaran]

The direct answer to the hon. Lady’s question is yes.

[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

Tuesday 13th October 2026 Commons Chamber

15:20

[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

1st reading
Tuesday 13th October 2026 Commons Chamber

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

15:21

[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

Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 13th October 2026 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee

[Relevant documents: First Report of the Justice Committee, Courts and Tribunals Bill, HC 192, and the Government response, reported to the House on 12 October; Oral evidence taken before the Justice Committee, on the Courts and Tribunals Bill, 20 March, Session 2024-26, HC 1754.]

New Clause 23

Independent review

“(1) The Lord Chancellor must appoint one or more persons to review, and report to the Lord Chancellor on, the following matters—

(a) whether any of the relevant criminal justice provisions has created or exacerbated any differences in treatment or in outcomes as between—

(i) defendants of different racial groups (within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010), or

(ii) defendants of different socio-economic status;

(b) any other matter specified in the appointment that relates to the effect of the relevant criminal justice provisions (or any of them).

(2) The “relevant criminal justice provisions” are—

(a) sections 1 and 2;

(b) Part 6A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (as inserted by section 4);

(c) any regulations that are made by virtue of section 6(1) and provide for the general limit in a magistrates’ court to be greater than 12 months;

(d) sections 108(2A) and 108A to 108R of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 (as inserted by Schedule 2);

(e) paragraphs 5, 10, 13 and 15 of Schedule 2.

(3) The Lord Chancellor—

(a) must appoint the reviewer or reviewers before the end of the period of six months beginning with the relevant day (see subsection (10));

(b) may appoint different persons to review, and report on, different matters relating to the effect of the relevant criminal justice provisions (or any of them).

(4) A person appointed to be a reviewer must be a person appearing to the Lord Chancellor to be independent of the Lord Chancellor.

(5) The Lord Chancellor must arrange for every reviewer to provide the Lord Chancellor with—

(a) an interim report, and

(b) a final report.

(6) The interim report must be provided before the end of the period of two years beginning with the relevant day.

(7) The final report must be provided before the end of the period of five years beginning with the relevant day (but may not be provided before the end of the period mentioned in subsection (6)).

(8) A report under this section may include such recommendations (if any) as the person making the report considers appropriate.

(9) The Lord Chancellor must—

(a) publish every report provided under this section, and

(b) lay a copy of it before Parliament.

(10) In this section—

“defendant” means a person charged with, or convicted of, an offence in England and Wales;

“the relevant day” means the earliest day on which any of the relevant criminal justice provisions comes into force for any purpose (ignoring the effect of section 26(1)(b));

“reviewer” means a person appointed under subsection (1).”—(Sarah Sackman.)

This new clause would require the Lord Chancellor to appoint one or more persons to carry out an independent review of the effect of the changes to the criminal justice system made by clauses 1 to 7 of the Bill.

Brought up, and read the First time.

15:29

[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.

15:44

There remains a strong case for judge-alone trials in the small number of cases that pertain to complex and lengthy fraud and financial matters. I can confirm to the House that we will proceed with this measure, which has had strong support from those responsible for investigating and prosecuting serious economic crime. Our primary objective here is to minimise the burden on ordinary people, who sit as jurors on such trials. We know that these trials can be lengthy, often lasting months at a time, which can mean long periods away from work and family responsibilities, lost income and real pressure on family life.

We are clear that reform must bring down delays and improve victims’ experience. It must also command public confidence and protect the principles that have made our courts respected the world over. The destination has not changed—it has never wavered. We will provide swifter justice for victims and continue to pull every lever to bring down the backlog, so that people no longer have to wait years for their day in court.

As I said, the Bill is also about making our justice system work better for victims and survivors, and I know that this part of the Bill commands a good degree of consensus across the House. Based on Law Commission research, it introduces vital reforms on giving evidence to challenge harmful myths about rape and sexual violence, such as preconceptions about how a victim should behave or respond. We are also making special measures easier to access and simpler for practitioners to navigate, so that victims feel safer, better supported and able to give their best evidence.

The Government remain committed to repealing the presumption of parental involvement in the Children Act 1989. Alongside a national roll-out of child-focused courts, this measure strengthens our approach to protecting children from the harm posed by abusive parents. Today we are joined in the Gallery by Claire Throssell, whom I have had the pleasure of meeting and who has campaigned so bravely and tirelessly for this change, following the tragic murder of her sons Jack and Paul. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) for her tireless work on that campaign.

In the time I have left, let me turn to the rest of the Government amendments and new clauses. Fairness must be the foundation of any justice system. Whoever they are and wherever they come from, people must be able to trust that they will be treated equally before the law. Before introducing this Bill, we carried out a full equality impact assessment. Although that assessment found no evidence of discrimination arising from our reforms, we are aware that long-standing disparities remain in the criminal justice system. People from black and minority ethnic backgrounds are more likely to be victims of crime, while defendants from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds are also more likely to be remanded into custody before trial. When we talk about tackling delays, it is not simply a question of efficiency; it also becomes a question of fairness.

We know that gaps in the data make such disparities harder to understand and therefore tackle; the limitations were highlighted nearly a decade ago by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) in the Lammy review. That is why we are bringing forward new clause 23 and consequential amendments 35 to 37, which give the new clause effect. It requires an independent review of the court reforms in the Bill, to consider whether the differences in treatment or outcomes experienced by defendants from different racial and socioeconomic backgrounds are exacerbated as a result. The Lord Chancellor will appoint an independent reviewer within six months of the first reforms taking effect, and there will be an initial report within 12 months and a full report within five years, which Parliament will have the opportunity to consider and to which the Government will formally respond.

I now turn to some technical Government amendments. Amendment 38 to schedule 2 clarifies that new audio recording requirements in magistrates courts appeals will not apply to single justice procedure cases. These cases are generally dealt with on a computer without an oral hearing to record. Government amendments 39 to 41 to schedule 2 make further changes arising from the new permission stage for appeals, ensuring magistrates courts have the necessary powers over bail and costs, including to return an appellant to custody where appropriate.

Government amendments 29 to 31 to clause 8 clarify where the court can exclude sexual behaviour evidence that would require significant satellite litigation to be relied on. This essentially follows the Law Commission’s recommendation that the extent to which the evidence will distract the factfinder from the main issues in the case is relevant to the evidence’s admissibility. Government amendment 32 to clause 10 makes it clear that a victim’s failure to report a previous allegation of a sexual offence cannot by itself provide a basis for suggesting in court that the allegation was false; there must be additional evidence capable of supporting such an assertion.

Finally, Government amendments 42 to 44 to schedule 3 replace three mentions of the “Chancellor of the High Court” with a new terminology, “President of the Business and Property Division”. Clause 18 and schedule 3 make a range of changes to the current provisions for senior judicial leadership of the tribunals to unify tribunals and courts in England and Wales under the leadership of the Lady Chief Justice and reform the role of the Senior President of Tribunals.

Turning briefly to amendments tabled by other Members, I know that the hon. Members for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) and for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) will speak to their new clauses 25 and 15 to insert a sunset clause to repeal the measures if they are found to be ineffective. As I have said, these measures are principled and pragmatic. They are not simply a short-term emergency fix; they recognise that fundamental changes in crime, evidence and the nature of technology require that we put our courts on a sustainable footing for the 21st century. We believe in these reforms, and we think they are here for the long term. Our ambition therefore extends beyond simply reducing court delays to delivering lasting improvements in how the justice system operates, including a better balance between the interests of victims and defendants.

I close by returning to the central purpose of this Bill. We inherited a criminal justice system under severe pressure, with victims, witnesses and defendants facing unacceptable delays, and some victims dropping out of the process altogether. As I have said, I think of Morwenna Loughman. This Bill is a serious and practical response to the challenges we face. Rather than bury our head in the sand, it confronts the problems on every single front with investment, modernisation and reform. It will ensure that we rebuild a justice system that is fit for the pressures of the modern age, while remaining grounded in the fundamental principles of fairness and the rule of law that English and Welsh law has always stood for. Our task is not simply to reduce the delays that exist today, but to build a sustainable justice system for the future. I look forward to hearing contributions from across the Chamber and responding to the points raised in what I hope will be a thoughtful and constructive debate.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[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.

16:00

[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.

16:15

I am concerned about clause 4, which is on judge-only trials. The Government are in listening mode and I am grateful to them, but I am worried. Jonathan Fisher KC, who was the independent reviewer, has reviewed that clause and said it makes no difference. It is true to say that there has been a very complex and lengthy fraud trial in the Crown court, but we should not necessarily jump to the conclusion that the jury members did not understand; I am sure they understood very well. The question might instead be whether the judge properly understood, because it was the judge who dismissed the jury and decided to call it a day and start over.

This is the thin end of the wedge for me. The problem is that the powers are available to the Government to keep pushing forward with more “complex” cases.

[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?”

[Jess Phillips]

A longer sentence is the 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!

16:30

[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?

[Jess Phillips]

There’s loads around here!

[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.

16:45

Currently, magistrates send cases to the Crown court on only two narrow grounds: that the sentencing will be more than they have the power to impose, or that the case is too complex. The Justice Committee warned that that was not enough and is too inflexible. Let me give just three examples of what might lead magistrates to consider it just to send cases to the Crown court: cases where the defendant is of good character, with no previous convictions; where their conviction would potentially pose exceptional hardship to others, such as a single parent, as custody would force their children into care; or where victims have justifiable reasons for wanting a jury trial. In cases such as those, limited and rigid rules fall short. That is why I have tabled amendment 69, which would grant the magistrates court a more flexible discretion to send a case to the Crown court whenever the interests of justice demand it. We should trust our magistrates with that judgment.

We are seeing far too many defendants representing themselves in the magistrates court because they earn too much to qualify for legal aid. Our legal aid report found that as many as 48% of defendants appeared in 2023 without representation for imprisonable, summary-only offences. We also found that today, an adult working full time at the national minimum wage may earn too much to qualify for legal aid in the magistrates court. We have low-paid workers walking into courtrooms without a lawyer to advise and guide them. They do not understand the rules, and the consequences if they lose could mean that they lose everything—their job, their home and their family. This may be an inherited crisis, but making it worse is a choice.

Legal aid means tests are tougher in the magistrates court than the Crown court, and the Government’s equality assessment acknowledged that the Bill could mean that defendants who currently get legal aid in the Crown court would not get it in the magistrates court. Baron Leveson and the Justice Committee have called for the threshold in the magistrates court to be increased to stop that happening, but, as we have heard, the Government’s response published yesterday rejected that recommendation. They have said that they will look at thresholds only once the changes in the Bill have been implemented.

I have therefore tabled amendment 70, which is based on a recommendation by the Committee that would require the Government to increase the legal aid thresholds in the magistrates court before the removal of the right to elect can be implemented. I urge the Minister to consider giving us that commitment today. Otherwise, the House is being asked to double the sentencing powers of magistrates and remove the right to elect without any reassurances that defendants who cannot afford to pay privately will be legally represented.

[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.

[Jess Phillips]

rose—

[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.

17:00

[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—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I call Sir Andrew Mitchell.

[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.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order.

[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.

17:16

At the heart of Jack and Paul’s law is a simple principle: a child’s safety must always come first. As the Minister for victims, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), has said, if we remove the presumption of parental involvement, the courts will approach every case on the basis of what is best for the child. Where a parent poses a risk, courts will continue to be able to restrict their involvement. Children have a right to live free from harm. Claire’s loss was the ultimate loss for any parent, but the violence that ended with Jack and Paul being murdered by her ex-husband started with his violence against her. Other measures in the Bill will cumulatively act as a shield and a sword for victims like Claire.

Two years ago, in my Westminster Hall debate on presumption, I implored the Courts Minister to let us not just imagine a world where the voices of children were put at the heart of our family court system, but legislate for it, so that children like Jack and Paul are listened to, and not ignored; and to legislate for a world where childhood is free from fear and oppression, and where children live the lives that they deserve to live. That Minister listened. Today, we have the opportunity to vote for a clause and Bill that do that, so we no longer need to imagine that world, but can make it a reality.

[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.

17:30

[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.

17:44

[Jess Phillips]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[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.

11:30

Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, 10 March).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

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.”—(Dr Mullan.)

Brought up.

Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.

18:00

Division 76

Question accordingly negatived.

Ayes: 189

Noes: 306

Clause 1

Removal of right to elect trial on indictment

Amendment proposed: 1, page 1, line 4, leave out clause 1.—(Dr Mullan.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

18:15

Division 77

Question accordingly negatived.

Ayes: 196

Noes: 304

Clause 3

Trial on indictment without a jury: general rule for allocation

Amendment made: 3, page 5, line 12, leave out clause 3. —(Sarah Sackman.)

This amendment would remove clause 3 (trial on indictment without a jury: general rule for allocation) from the Bill.

Clause 4

Trial on indictment without a jury: complex or lengthy cases

Amendments made: 24, page 11, leave out lines 7 to 9 and insert—

“(8) For further provision about trials conducted without a jury by virtue of this section, see section 42D.”

This amendment is consequential on amendment 25.

Amendment 25, page 13, line 22, at end insert—

“42D Further provision about trials without a jury

(1) This section applies where, by virtue of section 42A, a trial is conducted without a jury.

(2) The court is to have all the powers, authorities and jurisdiction which the court would have had if the trial had been conducted with a jury (including power to determine any question and to make any finding which would be required to be determined or made by a jury).

(3) Except where the context otherwise requires, any reference in an enactment, or an instrument made under an enactment, to a jury, the verdict of a jury or the finding of a jury is to be read, in relation to a trial conducted without a jury, as a reference to the court, the verdict of the court or the finding of the court.

(4) Where the court convicts or (as the case may be) acquits a defendant, the court must give a judgment which states the reasons for the conviction or acquittal.

(5) The judgment must be given at, or as soon as reasonably practicable after, the time of the conviction or acquittal.

(6) Where the court convicts the defendant, the reference in section 18(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (notice of appeal or of application for leave to appeal to be given within 28 days from date of conviction etc) to the date of the conviction is to be read as a reference to the date of the judgment given for the purposes of subsection (4).”—(Sarah Sackman.)

This amendment is consequential on amendment 3. It replicates the provision currently made by clause 5(4) of the Bill, which as a result of the omission of clause 3 would apply only in relation to trials conducted without a jury in accordance with the new Part 6A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to be inserted by clause 4 (complex or lengthy cases).

Clause 5

Consequential amendments relating to sections 3 and 4

Amendments made: 26, page 14, line 11, leave out from first “of” to end of line.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 3.

Amendment 27, page 14, line 15, leave out subsections (2) to (4).

This amendment is consequential on amendment 3.

Amendment 28, page 15, line 17, leave out subsection (7). —(Sarah Sackman.)

This amendment is consequential on amendment 3.

Clause 6

Increase in maximum custodial sentence in magistrates’ court

Amendment proposed: 18, 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.”—(Jess Brown-Fuller.)

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.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

18:28

Division 78

Question accordingly negatived.

Ayes: 89

Noes: 312

Clause 8

Restriction on evidence or questions about complainant’s sexual history

Amendments made: 29, in clause 8, page 18, line 10, after “evidence” insert “(see subsection (2B))”.

This amendment is a minor drafting change which would add, after the reference to “important explanatory evidence” in new subsection (2)(b) of section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, a signpost to new subsection (2B) of that section (which defines that term).

Amendment 30, in clause 8, page 18, leave out lines 32 to 35.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 31.

Amendment 31, in clause 8, page 18, line 39, at end insert—

“(2AA) The court may refuse leave by virtue of subsection (2)(a) in relation to any evidence or question if it appears to the court that—

(a) the probative value of the evidence which the accused proposes to adduce, or which the question is intended to elicit (“the proposed evidence”), relies on a matter which is disputed by another party but which is not itself of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole, and

(b) the extent of the additional evidence necessary to enable the court or jury properly to make a finding in respect of that matter would be disproportionate to the probative value of the proposed evidence.”—(Sarah Sackman.)

This amendment is intended to clarify that a court may refuse to admit evidence about a complainant’s sexual history under new section 41(2)(a) of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 if it considers that doing so would entail disproportionate consideration of collateral issues (commonly referred to as “satellite litigation”).

Clause 10

Evidence about previous false complaints relating to sexual offences

Amendment made: 32, in clause 10, page 23, line 1, leave out from “offence” to first “as” in line 2 and insert

“—

(i) was not reported to the police or another investigating authority, or

(ii) was not so reported”.—(Sarah Sackman.)

This amendment is intended to clarify that in new s.100A(6)(a) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (matters on the basis of which jury may not properly find complaint was false), the reference to a previously alleged sexual offence not having been reported as soon as reasonably practicable includes its not having been reported at all.

Clause 25

Extent

Amendments made: 33, in clause 25, page 35, line 8, leave out “Parts 1 and 2” and insert “the following provisions”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 35.

Amendment 34, in clause 25, page 35, line 9, at end insert

“—

( ) Parts 1 and 2;”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 35.

Amendment 35, in clause 25, page 35, line 9, at end insert—

“( ) section (Independent review).”

This amendment would provide for NC23 to extend to England and Wales.

Amendment 36, in clause 25, page 35, line 14, leave out “this Part.” and insert—

“sections 21 to 24, this section, and sections 26 and 27.”—(Sarah Sackman.)

This amendment is consequential on amendment 35.

Clause 26

Commencement

Amendment made: 37, in clause 26, page 35, line 31, at end insert—

“( ) section (Independent review) (independent review).” —(Sarah Sackman.)

This amendment would provide for NC23 to come into force two months after Royal Assent.

Schedule 2

Appeals from Magistrates’ Courts

Amendments made: 38, page 52, line 7, at end insert—

“(3A) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a)(i), a summary trial begins when the court begins to hear evidence from the prosecution at the trial.

(3B) Subsection (1)(a) does not apply in relation to any proceedings conducted in accordance with section 16A (trial by single justice on the papers).”

Section 108S of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, inserted by Schedule 2, provides that rules of court must provide for the audio recording of trials and sentencing hearings in magistrates’ courts. The amendment would clarify what constitutes a trial for these purposes, and exclude proceedings conducted under the single justice procedure (which take place in the absence of the parties and without hearing oral evidence).

Amendment 39, page 54, line 19, at end insert—

4A “(1) Section 109 (abandonment of appeal) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)—

(a) in the words before paragraph (a), after “appeal” insert “, or an application for permission to appeal, against a decision”;

(b) in paragraph (a), for “against whose decision the appeal was brought” substitute “by which that decision was given”;

(c) in paragraph (b), after “appeal”, in both places it occurs, insert “or application”.

(3) In subsection (2), after “abandon an appeal” insert “, or an application for permission to appeal,”.”

This amendment would have the effect that, where a person abandons an application for permission to appeal against a decision of a magistrates’ court, the court is able to take steps to enforce its decision, and may order the person to pay any costs incurred by the other party to the application.

Amendment 40, page 54, line 19, at end insert—

“4B After section 109 insert—

“109A Refusal of permission to appeal

(1) This section applies where the Crown Court refuses a person’s application for permission to appeal against a decision of a magistrates’ court.

(2) The magistrates’ court may issue process for enforcing that decision, subject to anything already suffered or done under it by the person.

(3) Subsection (2) is without prejudice to any power of the Crown Court to enforce the decision.”

This amendment would have the effect that, where the Crown Court refuses a person’s application for permission to appeal against a decision of a magistrates’ court, the magistrates’ court may take steps to enforce that decision.

Amendment 41, in schedule 2, page 54, line 19, at end insert—

4C “(1) Section 113 (bail on appeal or case stated) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), after “notice of appeal” insert “, or notice of an application for permission to appeal,”.

(3) In subsection (2)(a), for the words from “notice of appeal” to the end substitute “notice as mentioned in subsection (1), such time and place as the Crown Court may require”.”—(Sarah Sackman.)

Section 113(2) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 provides that, where a person is granted bail by a magistrates’ court pending an appeal to the Crown Court, the person must surrender to the Crown Court at the appeal hearing. As there may not be a hearing if permission to appeal is refused, this amendment would enable the Crown Court to determine when and where the person must surrender: for example, the Crown Court could require the person to surrender to the magistrates’ court.

Schedule 3

Leadership of Tribunals

Amendments made: 42, page 96, line 35, leave out

“Chancellor of the High Court”

and insert—

“President of the Business and Property Division”.

This amendment, amendment 43 and amendment 44 are consequential on the renaming of the Chancery Division, and the resultant renaming of the head of that division as “President of the Business and Property Division”, by the Senior Courts (Transfer, Amendment and Consequential Provision) Order 2026 (S.I. 2026/723).

Amendment 43, in schedule 3, page 96, line 36, leave out

“Chancellor of the High Court”

and insert—

“President of the Business and Property Division”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 42.

Amendment 44, in schedule 3, page 97, line 8, leave out

“Chancellor of the High Court”

and insert—

“President of the Business and Property Division”.—(Sarah Sackman.)

See the explanatory statement for amendment 42.

Third Reading

18:40

[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.

18:48

[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.

18:54

Division 79

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ayes: 301

Noes: 193

Bill read the Third time and passed.

Deferred Divisions

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 41A(3)),

That, at this day’s sitting, Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the Motion in the name of Secretary Chris Bryant relating to Northern Ireland Troubles Bill: Carry-over extension.—(Rachel Hopkins.)

Question agreed to.

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over Extension)

Carry-over motion
Tuesday 13th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Relevant document: Third Report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Legislative Scrutiny: Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, HC 162.]

[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.

19:08

[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.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[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.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

rose—

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

rose—

[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.

[Jim Allister]

rose—

[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.

19:34

[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.

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

rose—

[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.

[Colum Eastwood]

Will the shadow Secretary of State give way?

[Alex Burghart]

The judge said:

“A 53 year old statement cannot be cross examined”—

[Colum Eastwood]

I bet he will not give way.

[Alex Burghart]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, but I will finish my sentence.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

Why did you not say that?

[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.]

[Alex Burghart]

I was not patronising the Under-Secretary of State—

[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.

19:48

[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.

19:52

[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.

[Chris Bryant]

I did.

[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.

[Mr Kohler]

I point out, with respect, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Secretary of State told the House much about his amendments in his speech.

[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.

20:02

[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.

20:08

[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.

20:17

[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.

20:21

[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.

20:24

[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.

20:29

[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.

20:29

[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.

20:31

[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.

20:35

[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.

20:35

[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—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order.

20:38

One and a half hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the motion, the Deputy Speaker put the Question (Standing Order No. 80A(14)).

20:38

Division 80

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ayes: 304

Noes: 179

Ordered,

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.

[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

Tuesday 13th October 2026 Commons Chamber

The Speaker’s Absence

Ordered,

That the Speaker have leave of absence on Thursday 15 October to attend the European Conference of Presidents of Parliament in Rome.—(Sir Alan Campbell.)

Adjournment (November, Christmas and February)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 25),

That this House, at its rising on Wednesday 4 November 2026, do adjourn until Tuesday 10 November 2026; at its rising on Thursday 17 December 2026, do adjourn until Tuesday 5 January 2027; and at its rising on Thursday 11 February 2027, do adjourn until Monday 22 February 2027.—(Sir Alan Campbell.)

Question agreed to.

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Human Rights

That the draft Human Rights Act 1998 (Remedial) Order 2026, which was laid before this House on 18 May, be approved.—(Claire Hughes.)

Question agreed to.

Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

That the draft ACAS Code of Practice on Time Off for Trade Union Duties and Activities, which was laid before this House on 6 July, be approved.—(Claire Hughes.)

The Deputy Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until tomorrow (Standing Order No. 41A).

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

That the draft Code of Practice on the Right of Trade Unions to Access Workplaces, which was laid before this House on 6 July, be approved.—(Claire Hughes.)

The Deputy Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until tomorrow (Standing Order No. 41A).

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Trade Unions

That the draft Trade Unions (Right to Access Workplaces) Regulations 2026, which were laid before this House on 6 July, be approved.—(Claire Hughes.)

The Deputy Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until tomorrow (Standing Order No. 41A).

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Iron and Steel

That the Modification of the Law (British Steel Limited Property Transfer) Regulations 2026 (SI, 2026, No. 833), dated 15 July 2026, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16 July, be approved.—(Claire Hughes.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism

That the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (Calculation of CBAM Rate and Determination of Carbon Price Relief) Regulations 2026 (SI, 2026, No. 809), dated 13 July 2026, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14 July, be approved.—(Claire Hughes.)

The Deputy Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until tomorrow (Standing Order No. 41A).

Bone and Joint Health

Tuesday 13th October 2026 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Claire Hughes.)

20:54

[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.

21:08

[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.

21:17

House adjourned.