Commons Chamber

Tuesday 3rd February 2026

(began 3 hours, 7 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
11:34
11:35
11:36
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:38
11:38
11:39
11:40
11:40
11:41
11:42
11:42
11:43
11:43
11:43
11:44
None Portrait Q3. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of his proposed changes to jury trials on the criminal justice system. (907626)
-

Sir. >> Justice Secretary. >> Well, with permission, Mr. Speaker, I'll answer questions three, 13 and 19 together. Our focus, as I've said, is on victims being left to wait three, four,
11:44
11:45
11:45
11:46
11:46
11:47
11:47
11:48
11:49
11:49
11:49
11:50
11:51
11:52
11:52
11:53
11:54
11:55
11:55
11:56
11:56
11:57
11:58
11:59
11:59
12:00
12:00
12:00
12:00
12:01
12:02
12:02
12:03
12:03
12:04
12:04
12:05
12:06
12:06
12:07
12:07
12:08
12:08
12:09
12:09
12:09
12:10
12:11
12:11
12:12
12:12
12:12
12:13
12:13
12:14
12:14
12:15
12:15
12:16
12:16
12:17
12:17
12:17
12:18
12:19
12:20
12:21
12:21
12:22
12:22
12:22
12:23
12:23
12:24
12:24
12:25
12:26
12:26
12:27
12:27
12:28
12:28
12:28
12:29
12:29
12:30
12:30
12:31
12:31
12:32
12:32
12:32
12:33
12:33
12:34
12:34
12:34
12:35
12:35
12:36
12:36
12:37
12:37
12:38
12:38
12:38
12:39
12:39
12:39
12:40
12:40
12:40
12:41
12:41
12:41
12:42
12:42
12:43
12:43
12:43
12:44
12:44
Hamish Falconer Portrait Mr Hamish Falconer MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Lincoln, Labour)
-
-
become clearer. Reports suggest many thousands of people across Iran have been killed and many more Iran have been killed and many more arrested in what has been a brutal and bloody repression against those and bloody repression against those exercising their right to public protest. There have been a range of estimates for casualties and estimates for casualties and detentions. However, the internet blackout imposed by the authorities, which we've also condemned and which we've also condemned and which has only recently started to relax, makes it impossible at the moment to reach a reliable figure.

As one young Iranian woman chillingly told the BBC we all know someone who has been killed. What is clear from the reports is the scale of the killing, the brutality of the crackdown and the bravery of the protesters. As the foreign Secretary said, the Iranian people have shown extreme courage in the face of brutality and repression. We condemn these horrific attacks on those exercising the right to peaceful protests in the strongest possible terms. The government committed to this House that we would hold the Iranian authorities accountable, and that is exactly what we are doing.

Yesterday, we announced a sweeping package of sanctions against the Iranian authorities for a number of serious human rights violations. This included designations of the Minister of the interior, police chiefs, and prolific IRGC members for their role in recent brutality against protesters. We continue to work with our international partners to tackle the threat posed by Iran and to hold the Iranian regime to account via a range of means. Most recently, we led the call for a special session of the Human Rights Council on the 23rd of January.

We are pleased that the Council has voted to extend the independent fact finding mission to collect the evidence of the authorities human rights violations, and we will continue to support those efforts. We continue to monitor developments closely and will not cease in our demands to Iran to protect fundamental fundamental freedoms, including access to information and communications. We are also continuing to take robust action to protect UK interests from Iranian state threats. Those threats are unacceptable. They must and will be defended against at every turn.

We will continue to work with our allies and partners to improve regional stability and prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Mr. speaker, the UK will continue to challenge the actions of the Iranian regime and we stand proudly on the side of freedom and human rights.
12:47
Priti Patel Portrait Rt Hon Priti Patel MP (Witham, Conservative)
-
-
Then Priti Patel. >> The brutal. >> Crackdown on brave Iranians fighting for their basic rights and fighting for their basic rights and freedom continues. The reports are shocking. Mr. speaker, we have now seen that tens of thousands have been killed, hundreds of thousands have been injured. Some are even saying 30,000 people have died. These are war like casualty rates. Yet the condemnation and response is weak. And I ask the Minister, what is the British government doing with our allies to neutralise the regime's tools of repression? The government has announced new sanctions.

The Minister has spoken about that. But what is being done to crack down on sanctions evasion, which is fuelling the Iranian regime's repression, including oil sales and cryptocurrency usage. What steps are being taken to weaken the regime's terrorist proxies? Is the government tracking the regime's illegal funding sources to ensure that UK financial systems and institutions are not facilitating or hosting funds used to target Iranian citizens in Britain with hostile attacks on the IRGC? The EU has chosen to prescribe them.

What is the government's response? We know that the Jonathan Hall review concluded nearly nine months ago. So when will emergency and essential measures to take action against the IRGC come to parliament? We cannot wait. And this side of the House will support emergency legislation. Mr. speaker, the US build up of naval and Air Force assets in the Middle East is well documented and reported, and has prompted some reported contacts between the US and Iran. So will the Minister say what discussions have been held with the US government about their intentions? And is the UK involved in any contacts between the US and Iran? What plans the Minister making for British assets and the protection of personnel and British nationals in the region should the US decide to strike? Is there a scenario in which the UK might be involved in potential action? How will Ministers ensure that they are at the table, and what planning and cooperation is underway to assess any commercial disruption within the region should action materialise? This is not the time to be silent and Britain must stand up for the Iranian people and confront this vile, despotic regime with strength and resolve.
12:49
Hamish Falconer Portrait Mr Hamish Falconer MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Lincoln, Labour)
-
-
Yeah, Minister. >> Mr. speaker, I'm grateful to the right hon. Lady for the questions going through them in turn. We have taken a series of steps in order to taken a series of steps in order to ensure that anyone wishing to support the Iranian government in this country must meet a much higher threshold to do so. We have done that through introducing 550 sanctions. Some of those introduced by the last government, some of which we have built on. And I'll come to the sanctions that we announced yesterday in due course in relation to the Firs scheme, where we have now put Iran at the very top of the measures.

That implies additional reporting requirements on those who would seek to act here. That provides new options to our services and our police force. Should those seeking to act for Iran attempt to do so in the UK? This House has heard from me, and I know she knows from her time as Home Secretary about the extent of threat Iran poses to the UK. I want to reassure the House that we continue to treat that with the utmost seriousness that it requires, and we believe that the legislative steps that we have taken already in relation to fors, we we believe the increase in sanctions, and we believe implementing the Hall review will all further increase our defences against such action.

She asks about discussions. In recent days we have been in regular discussions with all of our regional partners. She will be aware, I'm sure, of commentary over the last few days about further conversations between the Iranians and the United States. I don't wish to get ahead of the direct participants from the Dispatch Box, but as you would expect, we are in regular discussions with all those with an interest we want to see. As I said in my response to her, we want to see Iran having no prospect of achieving a nuclear weapon.

A diplomatic process to that effect is necessary, and we support all efforts by both the United States and our other partners to seek to ensure that she asks for plans on assets and what scenarios may entail. She'll appreciate why I won't be drawn into speculation in any great detail, but these are clearly very, very delicate moments for Iran. There has been, as she rightly says, very widespread loss of life on the streets of Iran. I will take this opportunity also to say, Mr.

Speaker, I know that for many British Iranians, there is great anguish about the lack of contact they have been able to have with their families in Iran. I feel that most acutely for British people still detained by the Iranian regime, but it is obviously a experience felt quite widely across the country. The British Iranian community make an important contribution to this country and understand the anguish they feel over these recent days.
12:52
12:53
12:54
12:55
12:55
12:56
12:56
12:57
12:57
12:58
Hamish Falconer Portrait Mr Hamish Falconer MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Lincoln, Labour)
-
-
As the Foreign Secretary has >> As the Foreign Secretary has already said, these are incredibly courageous protesters. One can hardly bear to hear the accounts hardly bear to hear the accounts from within Iran, such as those that have been able to circumvent the internet ban. And our thoughts are with them and the actions that we are taking, including those we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

announced yesterday, are a demonstration of Britain's continued commitment to them. Sir John Whittingdale, thank you,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sir John Whittingdale, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members of the Foreign Affairs Committee were told by the Iranian ambassador that 80% of the deaths were the responsible responsibility of ISIS style terrorists. Will the continue to terrorists. Will the continue to give every support to journalists, human rights activists and all those seeking to uncover the evidence, to demonstrate those who are truly responsible in the Iranian regime and to refer them, potentially for prosecution to the International Criminal Court.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. It's one of the reasons why it was so important to us to ensure that the independent us to ensure that the independent fact finding mission is voted through by the United Nations to continue its work, and then we will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

continue its work, and then we will see who really was responsible for these deaths. James Frith. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank. The Minister for his work and his statement on this. I want to raise the testimony of constituent raise the testimony of constituent in Bury North, a British Iranian woman who fled Iran after being arrested three times for campaigning for women's and
12:59
13:00
Hamish Falconer Portrait Mr Hamish Falconer MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Lincoln, Labour)
-
-
of a range of reports along the lines that he describes. I've set out some of the steps that we will be taking in relation to the evidence collection that he described. We see the role of the independent fact finding mission is absolutely vital to provide a UN United Nations backed method by which the evidence can be preserved

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and accountability can be seen. Looks forward. Mr Speaker in response. To the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To the. Unilateral US action in. Venezuela, the government merely said that it was waiting to establish all the facts. This while President Trump said that he doesn't need international law, and that he's only constrained by his that he's only constrained by his own morality or his own conscience in advance of any US unilateral in advance of any US unilateral action against Iran. Can the Minister reassure the House that this time the government will speak up for the use of force when it is in compliance with international law?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. speaker, as the House knows, this government is a strong supporter of international law. supporter of international law. Everything we do is consistent with that principle, but for the reasons set out to the shadow Foreign Secretary, I won't be commenting on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Secretary, I won't be commenting on hypothetical scenarios. Please, sir. Thank you. Mr. Speaker. Can I welcome. The sanctions that have been
13:01
13:02
13:02
13:02
13:03
13:04
13:04
13:05
13:06
13:06
13:07
13:08
13:08
13:09
13:09
13:10
13:11
13:11
13:12
13:12
13:13
13:14
13:14
13:15
13:15
13:16
13:17
13:17
13:18
13:18
13:19
13:19
13:20
13:20
13:20
13:21
13:21
13:22
13:23
13:23
13:24
13:25
David Lammy Portrait Rt Hon David Lammy MP, The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Tottenham, Labour)
-
-
review of separation centres and the government's response to it. On the 12th of April, 2025, convicted terrorists Hashem Abedi brutally attacked three prison officers in the separation centre at HMP Frankland. I've seen the CCTV Frankland. I've seen the CCTV footage of what happened, Mr. Speaker, and it's truly horrifying Speaker, and it's truly horrifying and I want to pay tribute to the officers who I know will continue to be deeply affected by the appalling attack that they suffered simply for doing their jobs and keeping all of us safe.

As the House will know, separation centres are specialist, high secure units within prisons containing the most pernicious, extremist and terrorist offenders determined to spread hate and inspire violence and extremism in the prison estate takes, of course, many forms, but to date these units have only been used to contain Islamic extremists and they protect other prisoners, staff and the public. Before responding to Jonathan Hall's review, I visited HMP Franklin Separation Centre. I met the brave officers who served there, dedicated professionals doing an incredible and essential job, a public service carried out far from the public view.

And as the attack made devastatingly clear, extremism and violence in our prisons are real and present threats, and they must be dealt with decisively for the safety of the British public. And that is why the government appointed Jonathan Hall KC to lead an independent review into separation centres, to learn lessons, strengthen our defences and reduce the risk of such an attack happening again. Madam Deputy Speaker, following this incident, the government acted immediately to strengthen protections for front line staff. One of my first acts as Deputy Prime Minister was to invest £15 million in prison security, increasing the number of stab proof vests available for frontline officers from 7.5 to 10,000, with 5000 specifically for officers working in long term and high security prisons, as well as providing training for up to 500 staff in the use of tasers.

I believe the members opposite welcome these moves, but couldn't explain why they had never done so themselves when they were in government. Staff also have access to a range of protective equipment, helmets, arm and leg protection, gloves, batons and shields, as well as body worn cameras and Pava pepper spray, all to help them keep safe. Mr. speaker, Mr. Madam Deputy Speaker, the government is grateful for Mr. Hall for his forensic and thorough work. His findings are clear. The core principle behind separation centres remains sound.

Small specialist units are crucial for managing the most dangerous and influential offenders, not just because of the violent nature of the offending, but also the risk of radicalisation they pose to other prisoners. They must be kept away from the general prison population, but the system must improve. The report makes 13 recommendations to strengthen safety, sharpen accountability and modernise how separation centres operate. The government accepts all 13 in full and in some areas will go further. Full details are in today's government's response, but I will now set out the key themes.

The first focuses on managing risk when it comes to staff safety. Mr. Hall finds that the most dangerous offenders actively seek out weaknesses to exploit and the underlying risk posed by certain terrorist prisoners can never be entirely removed. The government is clear that prison staff must be properly equipped to spot those risks and tackle them. Alongside our immediate protective measures, we will continue to invest in tools, training. The support staff need to manage terrorist risks safely and confidently, and including a comprehensive, expert led review of the training for Separation Centre staff, ensuring it's tailored to the uniquely dangerous environments in which they work.

Madam Deputy Speaker, the second theme addresses how separation centres work in practice and how they are led. Mr. Hall identifies a clear need to transform the way separation centres are governed and operated. That is why we will explore all available options to overhaul the system, including at the next spending review. The creation of new, tougher supermax style units for the most violent, disruptive prisoners. This will be a tiered system with movement between tiers only permitted following rigorous new risk assessments, and we will begin designing this system immediately.

We will also improve the quality of referrals into separation centres through a single specialist team with expertise to produce high quality, defensible referrals. The third theme focuses on reform of current policy and law. Mr. Hall finds that outdated procedures and legally complex complexity constrain operational flexibility. They undermine prison officers professional judgement, and they expose the system to unnecessary litigation. Members opposite should pause to consider that they did nothing to fix this mess, to support frontline staff to do their job with certainty.

And this government is clear that process and policy must support effective risk management, not obstruct it. We have already improved the defensibility of our Separation Centre policy framework, and we will go further to ensure its robust and grounded in operational reality. Madam Deputy Speaker, the government remains committed to the European Convention of Human Rights, but commitment does not mean complacency. We recognise the challenges of article eight composed for separation centre decision making, as highlighted by Mr. Hall, and the impact that litigation has on the ability to manage terrorists and other dangerous offenders.

Again, unlike the party opposite, we think that this is wholly unacceptable and that is why we are strengthening internal processes so that they are clear and resilient. Resilient to challenge, allowing staff to focus on managing risk and protecting the public. We will also consider whether new legislation is needed to protect decisions taken by experienced staff in separation centres from litigation on article eight grounds, exploring the full range of options. To deliver this. While being clear we will remain compliant with our obligations under the.

The fourth theme focuses on intelligence. Mr. Hall finds the current intelligence practices are too bureaucratic and insufficiently focussed. The government has already improved how intelligence is used across the prison estate. The new counter-terrorism training package, launched last year, supports staff to identify and act on terrorist risk behaviour. It's another example of how this government supports frontline workers in the way that they were not supported previously, and we will go further improving collection practices so that higher quality and more relevant intelligence is gathered.

And this will be supported by further training specialist staff working with the Security service, of course, to ensure that the most serious risks are managed using the full range of available tools and high quality intelligence directly informs operational decisions. To conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker, the attack on HMP Frankland was a stark reminder of the dangerous prison staff face every day. Our response will be decisive and determined. We will strengthen security, better protect staff, reinforce the resilience of our counter-terrorism infrastructure.

We cannot accept the situation we inherited with frontline staff dealing with the most dangerous offenders having to second guess their actions. This government will always stand behind those who stand between the public and danger. We will not shy away from reform in this area. We will never lose sight of our first duty and that is to keep the British public safe. I commend this statement to the House.
13:33
13:33
Nick Timothy Portrait Nick Timothy MP (West Suffolk, Conservative)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank the Justice Secretary for advance sight of his statement. And I welcome the publication of And I welcome the publication of this important review. The government commissioned Jonathan Hall to produce his report following the very violent attack on three prisoners, prison officers by Hashem Abedi, who was the man behind the Manchester Arena atrocity last April. And I want to pay tribute to the vital work done by the brave men and women of the Prison Service.

We should be frank about why separation centres are needed. They house the most dangerous and radicalised terrorist offenders in the country. As Charlie Taylor wrote in 2022 after inspecting these centres, they were designed to be used for prisoners from any political or religious viewpoint, but so far they've only been used for Muslim men. That should not be a surprise, because Islamist extremism is by far the greatest threat we face, and attempts to pretend otherwise are not only cowardly, but enormously counterproductive.

MI5 says 75% of its counter-terrorism work is focussed on Islamists, 61% of terrorist prisoners are Islamists, yet the figures show only 10% of prevent referrals are Islamists. Even today. And I know the justice secretary was clear about the Islamist threat. Even then, he had to caveat his comments by saying extremism in the prison estate takes many forms. Of course it does. But time after time we hear people in positions of authority refer to acts of terrorism, anti-Semitic violence and the poison of intolerance and hatred without the bravery or honesty to name the ideology behind it all.

Its name is Islamism and it has no place in our country. But if we're afraid to be honest about it, we will never defeat it in prisons. Mr. Hall has previously said that the impact of Islamist groups has been underappreciated for too long by the authorities. He's reported that Islamist gangs in prisons are too often viewed through the lens of good order and discipline, with governors believing they can sometimes provide a degree of calm and stability. He's revealed that prison officers sometimes appeal to the Wing Emir for their assistance in maintaining good order.

So when will prison inspectors be directed to investigate Islamist extremism? Will the justice Secretary ensure known problems like gang enforced Sharia courts in prisons are investigated and reported upon? Will he publish information on the number of religiously and ideologically motivated incidents in prison? The problems for prisons caused by our human rights laws are well documented, and the justice Secretary said he would, quote, consider if new laws are needed to limit litigation based on article eight of the European Convention, making full use of the Sir Humphrey lexicon, he said he was exploring the full range of options, but promised nothing concrete and is obligatory in this government of human rights.

Lawyers pledged frailty to the European Convention, but consider the recent case of Shoaib Abu, an ISIS terrorist serving a life sentence who plans to shoot up a crowd. In his words, of civilians. He was held in a separation centre and made subject to greater restrictions following the Abedi attack. He used article three of the convention not mentioned by the justice secretary to argue successfully that his prison, Woodhill, didn't take into account his mental health. So can the Justice Secretary tell us how many prisoners are in the process of suing the government under the prison rules and the European Convention to escape separation centres and close supervision centres? What is he doing to prevent them being awarded compensation? When will he decide if he needs to legislate? To try to limit the application of article eight? And what is he going to do about article three? Claims like the one made by Abu? And shouldn't the Justice Secretary be open about the reality of his commitment repeated today to the ECHR? It means rights for criminals and terrorists like so of Abu and Hashem Abedi, but danger for prison officers and the wider public.

The justice Secretary can say what he likes about perhaps, after careful consideration in the fullness of time, legislating on article eight. But the simple truth is, as long as we remain in the, he can't guarantee a thing. And that is why we must leave Frank McNally.
13:38
David Lammy Portrait Rt Hon David Lammy MP, The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Tottenham, Labour)
-
-
Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, I agree with the Shadow Justice Secretary on the dangerous, radicalised offenders that we are talking about. And I sensed some cross-party agreement on that and the importance of the work that is being done here. He rightly talks about Islamic extremism in our prisons being the main context here, and I would agree with him. 254 prisoners in custody for terrorism and terrorism offences in England and Wales. Looking at the latest figures, 60% of those held have an Islamic ideology, 30% held have an extreme right wing ideology and 10% were categorised as as holding other ideologies.

And he's right that in these separation sentences I conveyed, we are dealing with Islamic extremism. And it's pernicious and it's challenging. He talks about gangs. Most prisons show no evidence of extremism based on gang activity where it does exist. We have got a zero tolerance and encourage staff to clamp down on it swiftly with any threatening behaviour. Jonathan Hall talks about the important training that is necessary in this area, and that is why we will be investing in training counter-terrorism specialists and intelligence officers to identify and disrupt gang activity, particularly, and our internal assessment, because he talks also of the previous work that was done in this area.

Our internal assessment is that 208 out of 230 recommendations have been completed. When we look at the entirety of other reviews that have looked at counter-terrorism in prison, and some of them he will have commissioned in his time in the home or home office, only seven of those recommendations rejected, 15 remain open. All of the open recommendations are for for more recent reviews and are being actively worked on. Some of them require legislative changes. Look, we recognise, of course, the use of article eight and article three in relation to this group of prisoners.

But we are absolutely clear that talk about leaving the European Convention of Human Rights in the end, a convention that was championed by Winston Churchill would leave children, the elderly and vulnerable victims like those of John Selby, the 97 killed in the Hillsborough disaster. British troops who died in Iraq in the most vulnerable of positions. So we cannot and must not do that. So first, we're looking closely at the guidance, as I indicated. And two, we will explore legislative obligations.

That's a sensitive and detailed work that we must do, because we do it within our existing obligations to the. Thank you, Madam Chair.
13:41
Jess Brown-Fuller Portrait Jess Brown-Fuller MP (Chichester, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Jess Brown-Fuller. I want to begin by paying tribute to those officers who suffered an appalling assault simply for doing their job. They and their loved their job. They and their loved ones will continue to feel the effects of that day for years to come. They deserve not only our thanks, but the assurance that everything possible is being done to prevent anything like this from ever happening again. And that attack exposed serious weaknesses in how separation centres are run and made clear the need for urgent change.

The Liberal Democrats therefore welcome the independent review conducted by Jonathan Hall KC, and the work he has done to examine how these centres operate and what steps are needed to strengthen safety and security so that something like this never happens again. Getting separation centres right is crucial for the integrity of our prison system and for the staff, who should never have to put their health or lives at risk simply to do their job. These facilities must be fit for purpose and capable of securely managing the most dangerous extremists and terrorists.

The Ministry of Justice has been left firefighting crisis after crisis, and if we are serious about restoring confidence in the justice system, we cannot afford complacency, especially when dealing with the most dangerous offenders. It is right that the government is taking action, and I would ask the Secretary of State today to set out a clear timeline for the implementation of those 13 recommendations and when the House will receive an update on the progress. And will he commit to a follow up report to assess whether these changes have genuinely improved safety and effectiveness? And a recent Chief Inspectorate of Prisons report on separation centres found that staff support and mandatory training were applied inconsistently across the prison estate.

At one site, almost half of officers said insufficient attention had been paid to their mental health and at both centres, more than a third said they needed additional training to feel confident in their role. So will the Secretary of State update the House on whether conditions have improved since that report, and if not, what concrete steps is he taking to address those gaps in training?
13:43
David Lammy Portrait Rt Hon David Lammy MP, The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Tottenham, Labour)
-
-
Well, I'm very grateful to the hon. Lady and we continue, of hon. Lady and we continue, of course, to place individuals in separation centres. We'll do that. And Mr. Hall's review confirmed that they do remain a vital part of our strategy to manage the most significant terrorist risks in our prisons. And I'm pleased that there is cross-party support in relation to that. She asked if I would update the House on the progress as we move to implement Jonathan Hall's review, and I will seek to find ways to update the house as we move through that.

But I have indicated that some of those recommendations will have some bearing on the next spending review and indeed on legislative time frames. So I suspect they will go beyond this particular Parliament. She's also quite, quite rightly mentioned the mental health of the officers involved and what, you know, to be attacked in the way that we saw does involve tremendous trauma for those officers, officers who are putting their lives at risk on a day to day basis, not just the officers, but their families, but those who remain to deal with the aftermath of those attacks, the other officers in the building.

So the training is vital, which is why she's right. It can't be inconsistent, and it's why it's the underpinning of the government response today that we also ensure that the intelligence agencies and counter-terrorism are working hand in hand with our experts in prisons to get this right, and that we approach this with a we approach these offenders with a degree of cynicism and scepticism as to their ability to refrain from the ideological conviction that clearly persists.
13:45
13:46
13:47
13:48
13:49
13:50
13:51
13:52
13:52
13:53
13:53
13:54
13:54
Adam Jogee Portrait Adam Jogee MP (Newcastle-under-Lyme, Labour)
-
-
increase the use of British made bricks in construction projects in the United Kingdom, including specific measures relating to the building of new homes and for building of new homes and for connected purposes. This bill is a big deal for my community back home in Newcastle-under-Lyme. Our people are smart and skilled. For generations, they empowered our nation. They made, they designed, and they thrived. My bill is about and they thrived. My bill is about ensuring that communities and our industrial heartlands are not forgotten, Madam Deputy Speaker or left behind and are given the opportunity once again to show what they're made of.

We all know that there's a housing crisis in our country, and so I welcome the commitment to build 1.5 million new homes by the end of this Parliament. That means we build in the right places with respect for our green spaces and our natural world, and doing it with our people, not to them. And as we do that, we must remain resolutely focussed on building good quality homes and building communities too. That's how we end overcrowding. That's how we stop the struggle facing families across the United Kingdom to find affordable, long term and secure housing.

And importantly, that's how we give young people and first time buyers a place to call their own. I have only ever owned one home, Madam Speaker, and it's the Newcastle-under-Lyme. I want all families to have the security that their own home can and will provide. But it isn't just about homes, it's about new schools. It's about the community centres that bring people together. It's about the new hospitals. It's about the restoration of this place. It's about buying British building with British, and it's about backing British workers.

When the manufacturing base for bricks here in the United Kingdom is ready to meet the demand for our building needs of all types. With that readiness, you should and would expect to see a thriving building material industry in our country. But we don't. Instead, we see manufacturers up and down the country on the brink. Thanks. Thanks to a lack of domestic demand, our United Kingdom can produce around 2 billion bucks a year. Yet most manufacturers are currently operating at around a 70% utilisation.

That's because in recent years, this country has started to rely on second rate imports, often of a lower quality than the bricks made to the highest of British standards. We must start paying the British brick industry the backing it deserves and will do that with this bill. The British back brick industry started to climb when brick kilns were shut across the country following the economic crash of the late noughties, and brick imports to the United Kingdom began to make up for this decrease in domestic production.

Around 20% of the brick market is now made up of imported bricks. That impacts our workers. It hurts British manufacturing and it needs to change. Imported bricks are being shipped over longer distances, including from far across the seas, with each brick used resulting in a greater carbon release. British made bricks from Newcastle-under-Lyme and across the country will typically travel shorter distances to building sites, helping lower transport related emissions and keeping their value in our local communities. It's bonkers Madam Deputy Speaker that we are relying on imports.

When British made bricks are of the highest quality and build resilient, long lasting homes and buildings. This is important too, in the context of building safety reforms required after the disgraceful Grenfell disaster, the cost of energy and of course, how we preserve our planet and protect our environment. Madam Speaker, a typical clay brick building has a lifespan of around 150 years and at the end of that life can be refurbished, recycled and reused. They are strong and they are weather and fire resistant.

They provide longevity, durability and adaptability, and they sit a cut above the rest. The lack of domestic demand for British made bricks hits our economy, and it damages local businesses. Newcastle-under-Lyme Madam Speaker. The centre, as I've said before of our collective universe, is home to one of 15 Ibstock factories. Ibstock is a leading British brick maker with a proud history of supplying bricks to British businesses, builders and the wider construction industry for more than 200 years. At their factory in Chesterton, Newcastle, they employ local people, they boost our local economy and they rightly make the case for what we must do, whatever we can to reduce the risks of undermining the competitiveness of British made bricks.

And I agree with them. North Staffordshire is the ceramic centre, not just of our country, but our world, and the industry is hurting my constituency neighbours, a couple I see here today over the A500 and colleagues on this side of the House will continue signing up for the ceramics industry and keep pushing government to go further and do more in standing up for and protecting the industry in our communities and this country. This bill is part of doing just that. Madam Deputy Speaker, despite being best known for producing tableware, the ceramics industry plays a crucial role in our ability to build anything.

In Britain. You can't manufacture steel, glass or as my bill, draw attention to bricks. Without it, the sector and its supply chain is concentrated in our part of the world. But over the last few years the industry has suffered huge losses due to rising energy costs, trade disruptions and the ongoing impact of the illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine. The ceramics industry is hard to decarbonise. Let's get real about it, Madam Speaker. But let's also not forget that our businesses are willing to engage and make their contribution to that effort.

Progress can and is being made. Recent initiatives, such as pilot hydrogen fired kilns demonstrate that the industry is committed to modernising, modernising itself with low carbon manufacturing, hydrogen production is vital to manufacturers having the confidence to move away from natural gas kilns to modern electric and hydrogen fired manufacturing processes that will future proof the industry. The ceramics industry cannot deliver this transition without sustained support, and my bill is one part of the jigsaw. Another key part of the jigsaw, Madam Speaker, is skills.

And I'm so proud that Newcastle College, based on not Alone in Newcastle-under-Lyme, offer a full time level one diploma in brickwork. We're upskilling our people in Newcastle online, but you don't and we can't without the sustained and future British industry ensure that those young people have something to do with their smarts, their skills and their qualifications. The cost to the livelihoods of people in my community, to the strength of our local economy and our businesses are too great for us not to get this right.

My bill that will see a local first approach will help support our ceramics industry, and I look forward to working with His Majesty's Government to do more in the weeks and months ahead. Madam Speaker, as I move my bill today, I think of the many men and women over generations who worked in the ceramics industry in Newcastle and North Staffordshire. I think of the potential untapped opportunities yet to be taken and the future that we can build together. And I'm grateful to colleagues from all four nations of our United Kingdom and from both sides of the House for putting their names to my bill.

The government must invest in further support so we can safeguard jobs in communities like mine in our industrial heartlands, support our local economies, and ensure that the British brick industry is fighting fit. My bill is simple. Madam Deputy Speaker, it is common sense and it's time is now. Our workers deserve it. Our economy needs it. My bill will help shape and build the future of our United

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Kingdom. So let's get on with it. Yes. The question is that the hon. Member have leave to bring in the Member have leave to bring in the bill. As many as I say, I Of the contrary, no. The ayes have it. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contrary, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Who will prepare and bring in the bill? Henry Tufnell. Elaine Stewart.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Henry Tufnell. Elaine Stewart. Doctor. Allison Gardner. Gareth Snell. Jacob Collier. Leigh Ingham. Samantha Niblett. Amanda Hack. Samantha Niblett. Amanda Hack. Martin Vickers Rachel Gilmour Robin Swann. And myself. Madam Deputy Speaker. Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Adam Jogee. Keep it straight now. British-Made Bricks (Proposals) Bill Second Reading. What? Day by day?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Day by day? The 27th. Of February.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friday, the 27th of February. I'll give the the front benches a I'll give the the front benches a I'll give the the front benches a few moments to shuffle over. If colleagues are settled, we can continue with business. The clerk will now proceed to be the orders

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of the day. Universal Credit removal of Two-child limit Bill. Second Reading.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No. The reasoned amendment on the Order Paper has not been selected.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order Paper has not been selected. Minister to move the Second Reading and Secretary of State. Thank you, Madam.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker, and I beg to move that the bill be now read a move that the bill be now read a second time, Madam Deputy Speaker. Core to our belief is that no one, no matter what our background, should be trapped by their circumstances. People should have the chance to make the best life they possibly can. Poverty is a
14:03
14:03
Pat McFadden Portrait Rt Hon Pat McFadden MP (Wolverhampton South East, Labour)
-
-
Yes. of dividing lines, dividing lines between so-called shirkers and strivers, between the old distinction of the deserving and undeserving poor. Politics first and policy second. Every time I'm

**** Possible New Speaker ****

very happy to give. Well, the Bracknell gentleman has provoked me into responding, has provoked me into responding, because I served under that last government and was involved in all of those decisions. And there was a clear principle. There was a principle behind this, which is principle behind this, which is will people take responsibility for their own actions, because there are thousands, millions of people are thousands, millions of people who choose not to have more children because they want to take responsibility for their lives, and they don't want the state to take responsibility.

And yet now, with this change, the government is saying to those people, not only will the state take responsibility, you as the individual will have to pay for it through higher taxes. This is the principle at stake here, and the government is reversing a clear principle position. The last

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government took the. State before the Secretary of State. Response. There are many colleagues in the chamber and I can colleagues in the chamber and I can understand how passionate this debate is, but let's try and keep the noise down. When colleagues are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the noise down. When colleagues are contributing. Secretary of State. Well, the right hon. Gentleman has set out the justification, and has set out the justification, and I'm about to come on as to why that did not stack up at the time. And it certainly doesn't stack up after it certainly doesn't stack up after the experience of the policy. And we should think we should begin by considering why none of our neighbouring countries has this two-child limit. And given that it was always primarily about politics, it is no surprise that it did not achieve the policy objectives that the right hon.

Friend just tried to set out. The Tories claimed that this would lead to people making different choices about the number of children they would have, but that did not happen, and the family size premise was itself based on the fundamental misconception that there is a static group of people who are always on universal credit. But this is not a static group, not at the moment. People circumstances change, marriages break up, spouses die, jobs can be lost. In fact, around half of the families who will benefit from the lifting of the two child limit were not on Universal Credit when they had any of their children.

This is not a static group of people. We strive directly to the heart of the argument that the right hon. Gentleman tried to make. I am happy to give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To the Minister for giving way. 12 months ago, not only did this government support the Two-child cap, but it was busy suspending Labour backbenchers who voted Labour backbenchers who voted against it. Could he tell the House? What was it about the Prime Minister's weak position that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

caused him to change his mind? Child poverty. Unlike you? Well, I am going to come on to the timing of this and exactly why the timing of this and exactly why the timing of this is right in the way that we took the decision. So, as I said, as I said, not at the moment, as I said. Around half the families who will benefit were not on Universal Credit when they had any of their children. These are people who found themselves in need of help long after any decisions about family size had been taken, and when it came to costs, no account was taken of the costs further down the line.

Lower educational attainment, worse mental health, lower earnings, perhaps for the whole of people's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

working lives. I am happy to give. that. Whether the two-child cap on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Whether the two-child cap on benefits causes harm is open to debate. I don't regret anything I've

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I don't regret anything I've ever said on this debate. So no, I do not regret that. But all along do not regret that. But all along in this debate, there's been an attempt to divide workers from attempt to divide workers from non-workers. But around 60% of families affected. If she shows a little patience, around 60% of families affected by the current policy are in work. And of those who are not working, a significant number are affected by serious health conditions or caring responsibilities.

Circumstances in which any of us could find ourselves. But as I have said, this was never really about work or decisions about family size or saving money. It was political through and through, and it was children who paid the price with 300,000 more of them going into poverty as a result. Now, the hon. Members very keen, so I'm going to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give way to them. Thousand were in poverty a year ago and he's allowed it to persist ago and he's allowed it to persist till now. What has changed is not the fiscal situation. It's not any the fiscal situation. It's not any room in the Budget. This is about. This is the labour equivalent of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This is the labour equivalent of Project Save Big Dog, isn't it? Madam Deputy Speaker, timing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker, timing does matter. And if he shows a little patience, I'll tell him exactly why we've done this in the timing that we have. So all the policy did was force more children into poverty and indeed, alongside their other key welfare measure, trapping the sick out of work. Now, even some voices on the right recognise the damage that this policy did. Former Tory welfare Minister Lord Freud described it as vicious, said it had been forced on the DWP by the Treasury at the time and the new recruit for reform, the former conservative home Secretary, said let's abolish the two child limit and eradicate child poverty for good.

I do not know if that is still her position. We will find out in the vote, but it seems that the new party she has joined wants to restore the two child limit. They are not just importing failed Tory politicians, they are importing failed Tory policies to between 2010, when the Conservatives came into office, and the summer of 2024 when they left it, child poverty had risen by some 900,000. And that is something to ponder as they have their debate on the benches opposite about whether Britain is broken or not, and if it is who was responsible, who designed the welfare system that they tell us is broken on a daily basis.

They did. Who broke the prison system that we've had to rescue? They did. Who shook international confidence in our economy and its key institutions? They did. And this is the inescapable problem that they have with their current position, an
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page